Beedster

17 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

Agreed. This and the inevitable media hype and associated stock market frenzy. One of my biggest concerns about AI other than the potential job losses is entering the a Kafkaesque world of utter babble. Phone based support has declined after covid for a lot of organisations and replaced by email. This is for sales, IT support, customer service etc. Email responses from a human are slow and inefficient compared with a phone call but when the response comes via AI we’re going to end up in a world of pain. There are limitations with a lot of the current AI systems already even if they are implemented correctly. When they are simply shoehorned in as a knee jerk reaction the end user experience will be horrible. Technology should be able to do some of the heavy lifting to make organisations more efficient. What it shouldn’t do is cut down a workforce at the expense of the customer experience. Technology is literally driving the population mad. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

In my field it's the subtle errors AI makes that are concerning, because some of them are hard to spot for anyone but an expert. And those subtle errors will of course be amplified the more the machine uses the information in question. 

Businesses think they can do things cheaper by using AI, which they can, but in doing so they risk doing things less well. This might not matter in for example advertising or similar text/image generation, but can be critical in law, engineering, medicine and science, where it's increasingly being used. 

4 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

One of the biggest challenges is that heads of organisations get wind of whatever buzzwords are flavour of the month and start demanding IT departments introduce it into the company. They don’t really know anything about the technology or it’s variants nor what specific problems they are trying to solve but want AI or Cloud or feckkng RoboGubbinBiscuits and frequently bypass their internal IT teams seeing out “experts” (snake oil salesmen) to deliver the solution to the problem they haven’t yet identified.

Very true, in part because it has been aggressively marketed to those business leaders by Big Tech

7 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

Your focusing on the practical protection for doing this rather then the principle here.

 

Tech companies (billionaires) are using media and content that has been provided for free on the internet to train its models and effectively replace humans in the generation of creative endeavours. And charge us to do so.

 

It may not mean much to you, but for lots of people AI will be an existential threat. In my industry it already is.

 

This stuff is funny, but it normalises what is effectively theft. 
 

16,000 artists against it here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/21/we-need-to-come-together-british-artists-team-up-to-fight-ai-image-generating-software

 

1,000 here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyd3r62kp5o.amp

 

More here: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/10/24/artists-statement-opposing-artificial-intelligence-content-scraping

 

People against machines aren’t luddites looking to stop progress. AI (in its current forms) isn’t progress. It’s derivative rubbish.

 

21 minutes ago, binky_bass said:

It's not about legally wriggling out of it, it's about recognising what is right and wrong. Illegally using someone else's trademarked property is wrong, in fact it's theft. 

 

Think about the forward ramifications of accepting this now as 'just a bit of fun'... it will normalise that thought process and when AI expands to start impacting you personally, for instance you being made redundant and your job going to AI (or someone you know), then it will be your acceptance of this that paved the way for that. 

 

AI is devaluing humanity under the guise of it all being just a bit of fun. It's also hugely preventative in the growth of real art and skills like graphic design. I personally know at least 3 people that have had to take up second 'unskilled' jobs just to keep afloat due to the impact of this kind of AI on their industry.

 

Also, using an AI engine to justify the use of AI infringing on IP is, to say the least, ironic and I'd say very much confirms the above! 

These posts sum it up nicely, over the next few years AI is going to make many professionals, including musicians, redundant. It's also going to mean that many of us to have our work in the public domain see that work plagiarised, often inappropriately and out of context, by the machine. Members here will find a piece of their music, text, artwork, will suddenly appear, possibly widely, and they will have no control, comeback, or royalties (there might be someone somewhere pissed off about the muppets in this thread for that very reason). And over and above that the energy consumption is ridiculous, if you really want all those lovely green fields to become battery farms in the next few years, go ahead....

We should think a little more carefully before clicking a link these days  

9 minutes ago, GuyR said:

You certainly avoid a misdescription that way

Yep, i imagine it's for exactly that reason, it gives them deniability, which at their prices and with their reputation, they should not need. Poor form

'51s are the new black Andy. You watch, this time next year they'll all be playing them 👍

5 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

My God, I hate AI with a firey passion.

Likewise Michael, it’s undermining quality and creativity in so many professions at present, not just the arts, we should be pushing back at every opportunity 👍

3 minutes ago, Kev said:

Last time I checked, forever appreciated

 

Just on the topic of my little joke that I presume you didn't chuckle at, it does still open an interesting debate as to why it is OK to accept an individual deliberately copying another person's/company's work for a profit without license, but a computer doing it anonymously for free is somehow abhorrent?  (presumably it is free and people aren't paying to do this, I haven't tried making a muppet me, as indeed I am already too much of one as it is) 

Kev, thanks. Yes it does open up a debate, and one that could have happened here in this thread, because two well respected members highlighted IP and ecological factors, and I'd have hoped that the community response, as well as the moderating response, would have considered whether, as a online community, we should think more carefully about responsible use of the web. Absolutely we've probably all been on the wrong side of both debates at some point, but given we're currently sleepwalking into potentially catastrophic I/P and ecological crises - which effects us all as musicians and probably beyond (AI has already had a pretty disastrous impact on my field) - it would have been lovely to see support for those members who voiced concerns 👍   

On 29/04/2025 at 10:08, Kev said:

Sincerely hope none of the members crying IP Theft have ever bought a cheap bass copy before  

So @Kev, you're a moderator yes? Just checking

Yep, you're all muppets for sure 

8 minutes ago, Reggaebass said:

….and unless I’ve missed it there isn’t a description , is there 

1 hour ago, Beedster said:

 

I wish I had the length of time required to read The Gallery's extensive descriptions........ 🤔

 
Gallery appear to avoid descriptions 

7 minutes ago, Mrbigstuff said:

What’s everyone’s thoughts on this one? I’m not sure about either finish or P/G. I thought factory black would have come with a white/ mint guard and only sunburst or white would have tort…

https://thebassgallery.com/collections/bass-new-arrival/products/fender-p-63

 

too beaten up for my taste and the sticker residue/ mark would really annoy me.

I wish I had the length of time required to read The Gallery's extensive descriptions........ 🤔

Body number two sold 👍

1 minute ago, Grooverjr said:

Down with this sort of thing! I don't come on here for self-reflection! 😁 The buyer of the ebony neck, whoever that may be (ahem) might be in the same position. But it's just so lovely.....

We should form a forum of like-minded people? Oh, hang on.........  

An idea that seems all too obvious after someone else has had it  

But very interesting 👍

I've a fond spot for those threads which provide an answer to a question that wasn't asked, always entertaining 

3 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

My covers band has started every gig for the last 15 years with the same song. All three of us sing, so we take a verse each.

 

Three minutes into the gig, our sound engineer @Silvia Bluejay has heard all three vocal mics, guitar, bass and drums (usually with everything going through the PA as well as backline) and our sound is sorted for the rest of the set.

 

The audience (pub / club / festival / whatever) has no clue that they just heard our soundcheck.

That is the way to do it mate, I'm sure that's pretty much what the band I saw in New Orleans did also. 

I find that for most of the bands I've been in, the soundcheck has been at best an unnecessary ritual (I've always advocated for Jack's approach), at worst an ego trip for one or more of the band who want to show anyone in the room that they're of higher status (in their own minds) than the rest of the band; the singer (usually) or guitarist (if it's not the singer) who whinges incessantly about his levels, tone, FX etc while the soundperson plays with the DFA knob and nods agreeably..... 

47 minutes ago, Mickeyboro said:

Love the way they play and move on up the road.

 

It was in New Orleans I realised the purpose of the bass solo in the penultimate song. It’s to let the guitarist pass round the bar with the tip jar😂

 

Now, back on topic…

People pay up to bring a quick end to the bass solo  

Went to a gig in a club in New Orleans. Sitting at the table at 7.55, band due on at 8.00. No sign of them. About 7.58, the band walks through the bar, onto the stage, gets out their instruments, plug in, and at 8.00 on the dot started their set. That's how to roll if you can 👍

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

 

And by the same token, having the knowledge of where they should be it is quite simple to recreate them in the right place, and as the art of doing so takes a £60 body to a £3000 body, quite an incentive to do so.

Specially with the raretly of pre-cbs fenders, I am sure by now we are down to only about 3 times what they made!

Yep, a good sense of smell is a useful trait when inspecting a pre-CBS, especially if it's in acase, I've yet to play one that didn't have something of the whiff of 60 years of sweat, alcohol, nicotine, and no doubt a few other molecules......  

35 minutes ago, SurroundedByManatees said:

Yes it's (probably) a set of '62 pickups,  some hardware and half a neck. Proudly listed as a 1962 Fender.

 

Totally ridiculous to list it like that imo.

 

 

The more I look at BD's description.....

1962 Fender Precision Bass for sale, this bass plays beautifully but is made up of a few different parts.

Replacement alder body, originally had a bridge pickup too (filled and refinished in Sherwood Green)

1962 Fender neck, had an ebony fretless fingerboard fitted at some point, but now wears a rosewood fingerboard, there is evidence of the fretless side dots on the neck now.

Non original pots, non original pickguard.

The more I wonder how they can possibly be asking £4.5k.

1. Replacement alder body, I assume if it was vintage Fender they'd say so, in which case we're talking a few hundred quid max

2. Had an ebony fretless fingerboard fitted is only relevant if some of that fingerboard is still in place underneath (I assume) the reosewood, that renders the neck value very low also. 

3. Nor original pots and pickguard, again a few quid. 

It's odd that they don't make any mention of PUP originality which would be a factor, as well as tuners. But even if everything other than 1-3 were original, am I being too harsh in suggesting that it's a £1500 instrument tops, and that's in part because it looks bloody lovely? 

4 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

I agree.

 

So many guitars also wood with some tenuous BS connection to a “star” as well.

 

It’s a very odd marketplace indeed. 

It's antiques, and if you think second hand car dealers have some dodgy practices, you should look into the antiques world, in which the seller is often able to capitalise on the buyer's strong emotional need for the item to be authentic, as well as the fact that - given antique purchases are as much about bragging rights as owning a piece of history - buyer's sometimes don't care about authenticity if they are able to pass it off as authentic.....

And if you think the antiques market is bad, wait until you get into the religious artefacts market, how many fingers can one saint have had, perhaps their saintly powers allowed them to keep growing new ones.....?

Just now, Steve Browning said:

Possibly. There's a Lollar 5% overwound, Gotoh Res-O-Lite tuners waiting for it, and I will be in touch with a certain Mr K 10gon for one of his looms. This has the air of a keeper.

I can't disagree with any of that mate 👍

12 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Probably some idiot stupidly frittering away his rainy day fund on something he doesn't really need. Or her, of course. 

...but let's face it Steve, he could probably sell back at a later date to the original seller  

36 minutes ago, Mrbigstuff said:

It seems the seller and BD disagree on the originality of the body and as far as I know there’s no way to definitively date one, especially refinished? It wouldn’t surprise me if BD might be being vague on purpose to protect themselves.

....and which shows what a minefield this space can be, having experienced some very descriptions of vintage instruments when I was buying my '64 - all documented elsewhere on this site - it does make me wonder how many people out there have paid a lot of money for a now cherished vintage Fender that is simply not a vintage Fender, often because the (reputable) shop took the easy route and were less than rigorous in inspection and verification. In this case looks like bass Direct haven't taken the easy route. 

28 minutes ago, Mrbigstuff said:

It wouldn’t surprise me if BD might be being vague on purpose to protect themselves.

That's a good point 👍