TimR

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1356955770' post='1915492'] ... "We tried everyone else abut no ones diary fits" ... [/quote] Whenever I learn this, I make a mental note to charge more next time, assuming that the reason why no one was available doesn't become evident in the next few hours.

My friend appeared on Big Breakfast playing a Souzaphone. I think at the time he was the only Souzaphone player in the MU in London. He couldn't actually read music, or play it, come to that. Join the MU as a Bass player and add loads of obscure instruments. You're bound to get some TV miming work.

[quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1356954285' post='1915466'] Fair play to you BUT........ if you have a spare bass at gigs , even if you have never used it and hope you'll never have to , it is NOT sitting there doing nothing. [/quote] I certainly don't think my spare bass is worth anything near £500 resale. It's probably worth around £1000 in terms of replacement value though. That's the main reason I've never sold it.

I have 3. An '87 Jackson Charvil that sits in the loft until gig time, then stays in the boot during the gig. A japanese Marlin Sidewinder that was £120 in '85 and impossible to play when I bought it, I pulled the frets out of it when I bought the Charvil. But it made little difference. A few years ago I realised it was the truss rod that needed adjustment. I reworked the electrics and now it's quite a nice bass. The only bass I use is an Ibanez SR400. One of the machineheads sheared off at the beginning of a gig and I had to play 3 strings with all the strings moved up one position for the rest of the gig. Hence the Charvil now comes along as a spare. That remains the only failure I've had in 25+ years.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1356738480' post='1913203'] ... However I`m no longer able to carry big speakers, so have a 1x12 combo & 1x12 ext speaker, which are great, and for my needs, plenty. [/quote] This gives you the big clue. 1x12 combo + ext speaker. Combos usually come with a power amp that can deliver more than enough power to the included (8ohm) speaker. When you turn them up too far you get distortion. However, this is usually the speaker distorting before the amp. BUT often you hear people saying they want to add an extension speaker to their combo to get the full power (at 4ohms) out of their amp. This is really a misnomer. What actually happens is adding an extra speaker allows you to get more volume out of the set up purely due to more cone area and coupling of the cabs. Usually you still won't get the full power from the amp before the speakers start distorting again. It's worth learning the difference in sound between the "farting out" that you get from an over-driven speaker and the "grunt" that you get from a distorting power amp.

Yes. Amp power is how much electricity an amp will deliver. Speaker power is how much electricity the speaker can take before it catches fire. Sensitivity (SPL) is how many decibels the speaker can give out at a specific frequency and power. Amplifier power is cheap and will increase volume to a point but: If your speakers have low sensitivity they'll probably start distorting well before you reach any power limits. You'll certainly run out of volume before you run out of power. All that usually happens then as you add more power you get more noise (distortion). Change for more sensitive speakers or add more speakers. It's expensive but better than the false economy of more power.

Ok. But Stu is right, the argument just goes round in circles. Yet again the word majority has been used incorrectly with no hard evidence. Changing access would definitely have an impact on drug use. Whether that would be positive is a huge gamble. In my view easier acces to drugs would just mean it was easier for people to get addicted.

It wasn't an entirely serious post. Was it? I'd given up as everytime I'd given a good reason it was entirely ignored and I was asked for another one. Maybe it's true that drugs mess with your brain.

Power conditioners and surge protectors contain (or should) large inductors and capacitors. The idea is that the capacitors get hit by all the spikes and surges that would normally hit the capacitors and transformer in your amp's power supply. Without one, over time the capacitors in your amp's power supply give up. It's quicker when touring to swap out a conditioner than an amp's power supply. If you're playing three hours a night for several months your amp is going to be subject to thousands of spikes. a failure in front of several thousand people, requiring an amp swap would be embarrassing. If you're playing a few hours a week, in front of a few hundred people, you decide whether to take a spare conditioner or a spare 'one of everything else' in the unlikely event it fails. Large gigs are usually run from generators, not from a venue's power supply.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356716223' post='1912908'] ... Policing is an entirely unrelated argument. I think when laws are made it's expected that they will be enforced. Except perhaps the fox hunting ban. ... [/quote] No. Laws are only passed IF they are enforceable. Hence only drinking in public is affected. You can drink at any age at home. In fact you could probably grow and consume your own cannabis with impunity at home so long as the police had no reason to enter your premises. People creating a public nuisance and taking up police and ambulance resources is the main concern.

If you legalised drugs in the UK. We would have all the associated problems that drugs tourism brings.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356715050' post='1912889'] ... Why should we be restricting alcohol? The vast majority of people manage to enjoy alcohol without causing any problems. ... [/quote] Tightening doesn't neccesarily mean restricting. We have alcohol laws that haven't been (but are beginning to be) enforced strongly. How are we going to ensure that the drugs laws would be?

It just amazes me that at a time when we should be tightening alcohol laws, some people are advocating loosening drug laws.

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1356713545' post='1912857'] These debates always end up in a childish "I am right and everyone else is wrong" type mode. Pointless. Maybe you are all correct. Maybe not. My take is that i don't really care what substances people stick in themselves. Its up to them (if they are adults). The law is an ass and hypocritical when it comes to laws relating to illegal drugs if you compare them side by side with alcohol. From a musical perspective whats the problem? I just want someone who can do the job. If they aren't pissing anyone off and can play then great. I've known many great people who take drugs. I've known a lot of tossers who take drugs. People need to be more mature around this conversation. [/quote] There are enough people stumbling around city centres off their heads on alcohol. Do we really want that complicated by adding drugs into the mix. This already affects me as Friday and Saturday nights make my town a no go area for most sensible people.

[quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1356712850' post='1912835'] So you would obey any law then? You are the very model citizen. ... [/quote] As JayBen pointed out earlier. Laws were made to reinforce social constructs already in place. The drug laws were introduced in the Victorian times along with Alcohol laws due to drug and alcohol misuse. The Alcohol laws have been gradually repealed over the last 40-50 years. Possibly at the detriment to our society, I for one wouldn't like to see drugs going the same way. I use alcohol sensibly, there are laws in effect like 24hour drinking that don't affect me in anyway. I don't need pubs to be open all the time or to be able to buy alcohol from absolutely anywhere. If I'm going for a drink, it's usually as a social occasion. For many heavy, problem and addicted users, It's not.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1356710518' post='1912785'] ... ...and I reject the "we" part of this. I am able to shoulder this responsability for myself, and behave as my principles and conscience allow me. You all have this same 'freedom', of course. These principles came from my observations of the world, my education and the example of my parents.(...or, to quote the poet... "I don't need no stinkin' laws."...). I don't do 'as I please', but rather 'as I should'. We don't need to bicker about this, I was only intending to state that 'Law' is an artificial concept, not an absolute. [/quote] No bickering. Just debate. I use 'we' as a society, not 'we' as individuals. A large minority of the country are not intelligent enough to self police themselves. They aren't as privileged as you and I to have had a decent parental upbringing. In an ideal world and society we wouldn't need any law enforcement.

[quote name='Jayben' timestamp='1356709456' post='1912761'] ... Like someone has said before, the only reason the general populace don't burgle each other's houses is because it's been socially unacceptable to do so for hundreds of years. Interesting to think whether that's society dictating legislation, or legislation dictating society, a fabricated social contract, if you will. Similarly (and back on topic) with musicians, particularly ones about my age and younger, alcohol/nicotine/cannabis use and abuse is so prevalent (certainly in my area) that those who choose to follow legislated prescribed rules (not drinking under 18, not smoking under 16 etc.) are actively and publicly ridiculed - it's become socially unacceptable to abide by the law. ... [/quote] Well the reason I don't burgle peoples houses and park on yellow lines is because I wouldn't want other people doing it to me. The reason why we have a law is because, as you say, not everyone has a decent moral compass. I would still hope if someone finds a wallet full of money thy return it intact and don't just pocket the money and say they found it like that. The alcohol and cigarette laws are very strange beasts. The only firm law about alcohol is you cannot give it to children under the age of 5. Drinking alcohol under the age of 14 and smoking under the age of 16? (is that still right) is illegal in a public place. And being drunk in a public place no matter how old you are is illegal. Now, in my opinion (and probably the majority of people) those rules all need to be revised. I will admit to breaking the drinking alcohol under 18 in a pub law as we used to drink regularly at 15 when acompanied by a responsible(?) adult, before ID cards were introduced, but since then it had become massively abused as pubs are now only concerned with getting as much alcohol into people as possible.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356707353' post='1912722'] You're either being facetious or you are bad at thinking. [/quote] Nope. He is right. Everybody doesn't break the law willingly. I certainly don't bring up my children to break the law willingly. There is a difference between freedom and doing what ever you like whenever you like. If everybody just did whatever they liked, there would be anarchy. We set laws as an absolute standard that we expect people to behave to, not as guidelines. As Bilbo said, occasionally, the world moves on and some laws such as slavery, repressing women and homosexuals are seen as outdated. Usually we don't have to break laws to get our side of the argument across, usually lobbying your MP will do it. But in the end if the majority of people see laws as correct then they will stay as laws, regardless of how much 'civil disobedience' is employed.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356698192' post='1912518'] I am doing my best to read and comprehend your posts but it seems none of what you've posted so far contains any argument for the prolonged prohibition of recreational drugs. ... [/quote] You missed what I wrote about heavy drinkers and problem drinkers switching to more addictive substances? What about a government that then decides that it's not a problem for people to be addicted to legal substances. If you change attitudes to drugs then attitudes to drugs will change and probably not in the way you predict.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356694378' post='1912433'] would you rather criminalise them or rehabilitate them? Cocaine is not massively problematic at all. [/quote] Why would you need to rehabilitate someone taking a legal substance? If you're an alcoholic you're not forced to give it up. If you look at the Portugal example where apparently drugs have been 'legalised' (they haven't) they have very strong enforcement. If you are found with drugs then you have a choice, voluntary rehabillitation or prison (with enforced rehabilitation). I believe (have been told anecdotally) that in the UK the rehabilitation of drug users has improved massively in the last 10 years. I believe licencing drugs isn't the way to go, you'll just shift the alcohol problems into drug territory. As we've seen countless times before, theory is all well and good, but humans don't behave theoretically. If they did then the economy would be nice and stable.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356637616' post='1911950'] Well either way you have the same proportion of dysfunctional substance abusers, so legalisation wouldn't be detrimental to society in terms of health care or welfare. The main difference would be that the drugs currently being imported and sold by criminal gangs would be available through legal markets, so you'd have less money in the hands of organised crime and more in the treasury. ... [/quote] You're effectively saying that being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to cocaine are essentially the same thing.

It seems strange that anyone should need training in customer service. It really should be a case of treating people the same way that you would expect to be treated yourself. This is something we should all do as a matter of course. All bass players are in the service industry and should treat our clients well, or our bands won't get rebooked. I'm sure we've all been in bands where we've had to keep certain band members away from the client. Surely you employ someone in your business who already has these qualities or has the UK sunk so low that there's noone left. Seems mad to me.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356622066' post='1911722'] I think 'Just look at alcohol' is precisely what the pro-legalisation people have done. Yes it causes problems, and it's arguably more problematic than most of the recreational drugs that are prohibited, and the prohibition puts users of those drugs in harm's way. The argument for legalisation is that it will put a big hole in the income streams of organised crime, increase the general well-being of drug users, and generally be a much cheaper and more civilised way for society to cope with those who choose to use recreational drugs. It's difficult to see any benefits of prohibition. ... [/quote] I suspect that will be down to the numbers of users you know/knew. Practically every adult in the UK drinks. 4% are addicts, another large percentage are problem drinkers and even more are heavy drinkers. If you license drugs (alcohol is NOT legal, it's licenced) you send a clear message that it's ok. I suspect that instead of 4% addicted to alcohol, that 4% will just be divided up. Drugs use would increase but alcohol use may decrease at the same time. You would just have less alcohol problems but more drugs problems - whether that is good or bad is another question.

Interesting 'jam' night Boxing day. Played one song, with a drummer and guitarist I'd never met other than that the pub was rammed to bursting and the other people playing seemed to be established bands playing prearranged sets. Still a good 'music' night.

Addiction is a compulsion to do something above your normal everyday activities that interrupts them and interferres with your ability to carry them out. Basschat, FaceBook, exercise, music, alcohol, illegal drugs, sex, cigarettes, computer games, pizza. They're all addictive. Some people are strong characters who have highly regulated lives. To them it's easy to control the addictive nature of some of those things. Others, who don't live lives where they havevto be somewhere at a certain time and concentrate hard for a length of time on that task are at risk of distraction and addiction to anything. Regardless of whether the thing they are addicted to is considered harmless in small quantities. This is something the pro drugs people don't understand. Just because you do something and can control your use doesn't mean vast numbers of society in general can. Just look at alcohol.