uncle psychosis

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1384180951' post='2273600'] Hang on a minute, Scottish people telling us that pubs aren't neccesarilly about getting drunk ? . That's like me telling Suzannah Reid that it's not about sex, I just think your an incredibly talented journalist and television presenter. Or like me telling Carole Vorderman that she is not just a great arse to gawp at on T.V but actually genuinely really clever , i.e not quite true. [/quote] Hilarious.

If you're going to be keeping expensive gear in there then get a professional in and do it properly. Insulation, heating, the works.

[url="http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/pubs-are-about-company-not-getting-drunk-1-3181729"]Pubs are about company, not getting drunk[/url] Good article in the Scotsman over the weekend.

Who was the band on here that did the awesome promo video with the blue tuxedos etc? They were great, and they travel if I remember rightly. Only issue might be that the truly outstanding bands are probably booked at this point Wedding season is mad like that.

[quote name='Colonel36' timestamp='1384012848' post='2271918'] That'll be "The Reflex" mix uncle p. Some of those "Reflex mixes" are class. [/quote] That's the one. Some of their mixes are killer, like you say.

The Jacksons had some great baselines in some great songs. I always loved ABC. Craig Charles has been playing an absolutely killer remix of that recently on his funk and soul show on 6music.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1383832290' post='2269720'] In a band context it depends on the band. From a personal PoV I won't even consider trying (let alone buying) a bass I consider to be ugly. There is such a wide range of basses available these days that there is very little reason to be playing an instrument that doesn't tick all the boxes for looks, playability and sound. [/quote] This is almost word for word exactly what I was going to post.

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383823697' post='2269529'] Because, in my professional sphere, I have repeatedly seen research carried out in order to generate news. Simple as that really. [/quote] I guess if you work in advertising its easy to assume that everyone is lying about everything all the time

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383821325' post='2269467'] I had read in quite a few places that this report was only news because the findings went against what was generally believed and I just took their word for it. Maybe I'm just jaundiced from working with too many huge businesses (particularly the global pharma brands) that conduct, incredibly well researched, scientific studies in order to gain publicity or add credence to a product claim. I've seen 10 year studies conducted to prove that one product has a particular benefit in order to validate it. Then another massive global concern publishes a report from a seemingly just as authoritative source saying something different. i guess my point was that a lot of research appears to be conducted with a view to publishing something new and, ideally, newsworthy in order to demonstrate the credentials of the researchers. If all a study does is to expand something people already know then it isn't news, it doesn't generate any sort of significant media coverage and the report disappears without trace. An example might be 'scientists prove water is wet' - no-one is going to publish this because it isn't newsworthy or interesting. Well, I guess maybe the Daily Mail might be able to put some spin on it by adding that English water is wetter, and therefore more desirable so the entire population of Bulgaria are planning to migrate to England, live on benefits and breed openly gay children in order to take advantage [/quote] I still don't understand why you think the "newsworthy"-ness of a piece of research is even remotely relevant. If the science was performed [i]properly[/i]---which this was---then whether or not journalists decide to write about it is by the by. Being newsworthy does not mean that the research is "cheap scientific hokum". You don't get into PNAS with puff pieces, you get in with good research. Did you really dismiss a piece of peer reviewed research in a distinguished journal as "cheap hokum" on the say-so of some dudes on internet guitar forums? Thats quite impressive. As for the pharma stuff---contrary to the belief of most laymen, science isn't exact. Its perfectly possible for two studies to be performed perfectly and come to different conclusions. The universe is strange like that. Thats why it takes lots of studies by lots of people before something will get accepted as "fact". Yes, big companies quite often want to do particular research in order to validate some product, but so long as they do their research honestly and submit it for full peer review there's nothing wrong with that. Self-published pieces should always be treated with suspicion, but peer reviewed research in respected journals has to be taken at face value.

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383816390' post='2269373'] I can see where you are coming from but I can't believe this story would have been published anywhere other than scientific journals if it had found that people could tell the difference. It simply wouldn't have been 'news'. I'm certainly not qualified to judge the validity of any piece of scientific research but, having spent nearly 35 years in marketing I am able to have a decent view on PR and journalism. [/quote] I don't see what the point you are trying to make is. The fact that journalists decided to print a story based on a study is completely irrelevant to the valid scientific findings of that study. Journalists running pieces about research doesn't somehow invalidate that research. There were lots of newspaper articles about the discovery of the Higgs Boson recently, I suppose thats just "cheap scientific hokum" too?

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383692121' post='2267894'] I wondered when this would appear. It always comes up whenever anyone tries to compare the sound of different instruments. I've generally seen it on guitar forums to 'prove' that something like an Epiphone Les Paul sounds just the same as a Gibson. I think the general response, just to maintain continuity, is that if someone wrote a story about a Strad sounding better than a modern violin it wouldn't really have been much of a story and would never have been published. Of course, I know nothing about violins so who am I to say whether it was cheap piece of 'scientific' hokum published to generate publicity [/quote] Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Its not a "story", its a piece of properly performed peer-reviewed science performed by a group of serious, honest scientists. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the worlds most prestigious scientific journals. Describing it as "scientific hokum" is so wide of the mark that it isn't even funny. I have a PhD in musical acoustics and had several long discussions with Claudia Fritz (the author of the study) several times during the course of my work. She's a very good scientist and her work is completely and utterly above board and without bias.If you think that the Dr Fritz wouldn't have published the results had they been the other way round then you are completely and utterly mistaken. That instrumentalists could blindly select old instruments would in itself be an important finding. Feel free to read more about it here: [url="http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html"]http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html[/url]

Jazz *isn't* widely disliked. Honestly, it isn't. The definition of jazz (if there can even be one) is so wide-ranging that I'd wager nearly everyone likes at least [i]some[/i] "jazz"---whether that be dixieland big bands, 40s swing, Sinatra ballads, cool-era Miles, fusion-rock era miles, funk-fusion Weather Report, etc etc etc. Saying that jazz is unpopular because lots of people don't like the extended solo stuff is like saying that rock music is unpopular because lots of people don't like death metal. A better question to ask would be "why is jazz the butt of all the musical jokes?".

Flats have hardly any finger noise, so it's definitely a real effect. How much difference there is between different roundwounds I don't know.

[quote name='Thebassman75' timestamp='1383484833' post='2264876'] I think it's true that you do pay a premium for US made instruments. I can't figure out why you would, except that if the product is much better, you should pay for quality regardless of where it's made. However, the issue here is that the Far East ARE catching up, and fast. [/quote] Bear in mind that the American market---which is huge---seems to believe that US made basses are automatically "better" than Asian made basses. I've lost count of the number of borderline racist (and many times, just out-and-out racist) comments I've seen on the internet from our American cousins with regards to basses made in China, Japan, etc.

[quote name='muttley' timestamp='1383649254' post='2266932'] It looks to me like the SRX530 the same shape as the other Soundgear models but with the addition of edge binding. I suppose the addition of the scratchplate is a bit of a nod to older designs like Fender. [/quote] yeah, its maybe not the body shape so much as the styling. Binding + sunburst + tort just screams "fender" to me. Bet it sounds good though, I'd like to see one in the flesh to see if I could live with the headstock.

[quote name='muttley' timestamp='1383648364' post='2266912'] It's a standard Ibanez Soundgear headstock. How can that be wrong? [/quote] It suits the standard soundgear body shape, but on a fender-ish style body it doesn't look right at all.

Can we PLEASE have "go to last page" and "go to first page" buttons added to the mobile site? Only being able to navigate one page at a time on the many massive threads is a right pain.

I now prefer to play a 5, not because I use the B string (I hardly ever play notes on it) but because I much prefer to have the B-string as a thumbrest in every position!!

[quote name='donkelley' timestamp='1383157522' post='2260984'] For me they're simply not very physically attractive. Come on, there has to be at least SOME sexiness in a bass for me to want to play her! The BB series is one of the most utilitarian looking things I've ever seen. The feel fine, nothing special imho but certainly sufficient if you're into their neck profile, and the sound very good in a classic fender bass kinda way. Very well built, also, with solid hardware. Body shape turns me off, so does the headstock, so do the LOOK of their pickups and general mounting area for everything. If I close my eyes I can really enjoy playing one though for a while. [/quote] I never used to be a fan but there's something about the white ones that I really like. I also think they look infinitely better in the flesh as compared to stock photos.

"Wow", thought I. And then I saw the headstock. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

"real men" don't give a toss about what other people think.

[quote name='Green Alsatian' timestamp='1382726788' post='2256068'] I should cocoa! [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/220671-nbd-yamaha-trbx305-pewter/"]http://basschat.co.u...trbx305-pewter/[/url] [/quote]

Good work that man. Enjoy.

I am going through a phase of obsessively worrying about strings. I keep changing my mind as to what I want. Its distracting me from just playing the damn thing.

I actually think they could do very well commercially. I could easily imagine that being played on R1.