Doctor J

That's the JAN 1. The JAN 2 was dreadful, it had thin tabs at either end which broke if you even thought about them from many miles away. The JAN 3 is in the OP's pics and is like the Alembic adjustable nut but without the feature which allows you to lock it to the baseplate.

Ahhh here it is

I thought we had a thread which recorded all that before?
 

Andy won.

6 hours ago, AMV001 said:

No. But they are a great source of ideas.

Drugs don't give you ideas, otherwise every junkie would be a sleepy, staggering Bach. They just tend to relax the parts of your brain which shut down ideas. The ideas are already in you, or they are not in you, but drugs don't add anything. Learn to relax and let your creative voice speak up a bit. You don't need drugs to do that, just a bit of control of your own mind.

Drugs only make you better at being an a$shole.

15 minutes ago, 0175westwood29 said:

But she didn’t attend…….or harass, I’ll believe her over a bitter old man, also do you think Linkin park won’t have known and also obviously know this is complete trash…… 

She did attend. That's the point. She says it in her statement. The real purpose of why she was there, well, we'll each believe what we want to, I suppose, but I'd recommend doing some reading on intimidatory tactics used by Scientology, just so know fully understand what you're readily dismissing as "trash".

1 hour ago, 0175westwood29 said:

Thanks this explains everything pp are complaining about, she clearly isn’t a supporter is she 

It's one side of the story. The other, to save people googling

https://blabbermouth.net/news/linkin-parks-emily-armstrong-responds-to-danny-masterson-support-claims-i-misjudged-him

And for anyone wondering why she was asked to attend, attempts to intimidate witnesses, prosecutors and anyone else who conspires against them in cases against Scientologists are not rare.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-04/church-of-scientology-danny-masterson-prosecutor-harassment-allegations

Yes, that's right, it's a JAN 3. It's held on by the downward pressure of the strings.

The one where the new singer supported a celebrity rapist because he was a scientolobuddy? Yeah, that's a messy start.

Always found their self-pitying misery-porn lyrics unbearable and the new one is no exception.

First thing is realise you don't really need anything between the bass and the amp.

Make sure you fully understand the concept of what the compressor is doing. Where have you put it in your signal chain? Is it after the booster and you're you compressing an already boosted signal? Having had a quick look at that pedal, I think the way they have labelled the amount of compression being applied as "sustain" is going to trick a lot of people. What I would do is set Sustain to 0 and match the volume to your signal with the pedal in bypass. They call this make-up gain (another boost in your chain) but don't say whether this is total post-compression boost or the overall output of the pedal. Either way, try to match the volume of the pedal engaged and the pedal bypassed with the compression turned all the way down. Then gradually apply the sustain knob until you start to hear it having an effect. The more the sustain knob is turned up, the more your signal is being squashed, the lower your output will be. This is where the make-up gain should come in. See if you can match the volumes again engaged and bypassed. Repeat until you find a level of compression you like the sound of where you still can match the volume level bypassed and engaged. If you can't, don't feel sad. If you're using any kind of drive or clipping, you're already compressing the signal, to an extent and maybe you don't need the compressor pedal after all.

The electronics are the important bit, what are they putting in there?

It looks remarkably uncomfortable. Not for me.

Everything has its own tonal stamp, so I generally don't use amp EQ and I don't really use effect pedals. I like sound of the bass I'm playing without a load of crap in the way. I prefer using the onboard EQ as it allows the sound of different basses shine through without a preset change being applied by the amp too. On a two-band EQ, if I want more mid, I turn down the bass and treble and/or often change where my plucking hand is on the string to change tonal properties. Not sure if this is what you're looking for.

https://serialnumberlookup.fender.com/lookup/

Let's find out! 😀

I can't see them restricting dynamic pricing. They would have to do it across all industries. Unlikely. If it was the EU putting a cap on exploiting your commercial appeal, there would be outrage 🤣

Ticketmaster/LiveNation monopoly, yes, that needs to die in a fire.

The internet has afforded every band the facilities to do away with "the industry" to a large extent. It has also facilitated the realtive worthlessness of recorded music. Why would you want to put power back into the hands of the industry which served so many so poorly? Dynamic pricing affords bands and musicians the abillty to get the most out of their appeal with only tangental reliance on the old ways. There is a minimum ticket price, just like there is now but if some grown-ups are happy to pay more, why would you not take the money?

1 minute ago, peteb said:

 

I think that you might be missing the point. I have no objection at all to the tickets having a face value of £150 / £300 or whatever - people have the choice to decide whether it is worth that to them or not and if they can afford it. 

 

However, I do have a problem of people hanging on a website for several hours in order to buy a ticket at the advertised price only to find that they are now being asked to pay three times that amount or more. It is not as if they can invoice someone for the time that they have wasted trying to buy a ticket. The whole process is designed to put undue pressure on punters o pay more than they intended to. 

 

 

How much bands get paid is down to the demand for their services. The demand for this tour is down to a certain set of circumstances, a massively loved band that, for many people, were representative of their youth / a better period. This isn't the same scenario for lower profile pro musicians, who are gigging in venues struggling to break even. The only way that it will benefit smaller bands are if the enthusiasm for Oasis playing out again somehow creates an interest for punters to go out and watch bands again, rather than the packaged solo or R&B acts currently dominating the music industry. 

 

Tickets were advertised at "Prices from...", no? There's no deception there. It's like booking a flight or a hotel. It's not even new in music ticketing, I recall those Ozzy gigs they advertised in 2019 which never took place were also "Prices from". People will get used to it quickly enough and cut their cloth accordingly. As Paul says, personal responsibility and all that.

Widen your scope a bit, you say bands and venues are struggling to break even, so would you not say something needs to change? Perhaps this is it. Perhaps people who are priced out of the "major event" gigs like this see the value of smaller level gigs and might invest into lower profile music instead. Maybe it won't happen but is it healthy for things to stay as they are? Revenue streams have been cut-off for bands. If this is a potential way for bands to get money and not have resort to being vendors of branded tat, then I'm all for it.

Not the same thing at all and we both know it.

Perhaps the way to look at it is that it's allowing musicians to exploit the actual value of the service they provide and, if it does start to proliferate through the industry, fantastic, it might help smaller bands make an actual living out of music instead of squeezing tours into work holidays from the shitty jobs they're having to hold down. Maybe it'll help people become genuinely professional musicians and not live below the poverty line. Maybe it'll mean people aren't asked to play for exposure because musicians are respected and taken seriously for their art and maybe, just maybe, it'll eventually mean your band gets a decent payout for the travel, time and energy behind playing two sets down the Goat and Lobster?

I don't understand the thinking behind how musicians getting paid well could be a bad thing.

3 hours ago, MacDaddy said:

 

Because it sets a precedent and business model the rest of the industry will follow?

So what? If you don't like the price, don't go. Why shouldn't musicians fully realise their actual value? The music has been rendered pretty much worthless, we expect one revenue stream to be largely nullified and then point the finger of shame if musicians try to make money a different way?
 

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

 

Because even people who are totally devoid of taste don't always deserve to be ripped off.

If the experience is worth it to them, then they haven't been ripped off. It's not worth it to you, not worth it to me either but who's to say how others would value it in the context of their lives?

They're not really concerts, they're events and, as such, draw in vast quantities of people who wouldn't regularly attend music performances not in stadiums. They shouldn't be thought of in the same pricing category as regular concerts. Hence, super high demand and people prepared to pay a premium to be able to make duck-faced poses on their Insta with a band playing in the background, all living their best lives, singing the wrong words to Live Forever with their bezzies, you almost literally can't put a price on it.

Anyone truly interested in the songs would have gone to see Liam play them in much smaller venues a few weeks ago. This is for people to check an empty box in their lives which says "I have seen Oasis!" They don't actually care about seeing Oasis, really, they just want to be able to say they have had the experience. I don't begrudge any band/brand exploiting their market worth in these circumstances.

Besides, since almost everyone here says they can't stand Oasis, why the kerfuffle?

Bonehead is back and I hear Alan White is back too.

That's a fairly extreme EQ shape on the Ashdown, full on disco smile by the looks of it? Are you bypassing that or EQing on the bass and on the head?

There's a lot more to this than the recent offer and simply saying Marr is turning down money ignores a lot of the interaction between them since the breakup of The Smiths. They continually get offers and have been close to reuniting more than once, only for Morrissey to ghost Marr. The Joyce/Rourke lawsuit had them on opposing sides too and seemed to be the point where they really stopped getting along.
 

If you don't need the money and you certainly don't need the ballache, why would you chase the first when you know the second is part of the package?

Send the earths to the sleeve.