uncle psychosis

Hey folks Tried to adjust the relief on my BB414 and couldn't. The rod seems stuck...any tips? Is there something you need to do other than "insert allen key" and turn?

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1382247998' post='2249632'] Try spraying WD40 down the TR opening. That worked for me. [/quote] Interesting. I guess something like methanol may work too but I'll give the WD40 a shot.

Have it a go tonight. Unfortunately I think my truss rod is buggered, I couldn't get the damn thing to move. Any tips for loosening them off or am I just going to have to raise the saddles and deal with high action? :-(

Hey folks Just changed to a new type of strings on my BB414 and I clearly need to adjust the setup a bit. I'm getting a bit of unwanted fret buzz and some odd clanking here and there. How do I work out whether it's the truss rod or saddles or both that I should tweak?

They're pretty good but I find it hard to take them seriously when they're dressed like that. I think it makes them look like a novelty act, when they're actually a pretty decent band. Of course, the image they project has probably helped them this far, so they should probably just keep doing what they're doing...

If it were somewhere nice that I was happy to entertain myself in for a bit then I would just ask for expenses on the days that you weren't working---accomodation, food, incidentals. It would be like a working holiday. If its somewhere that you'd really rather not be or you can't afford to have days where you aren't being paid then you'll want to be charging that plus a bit more.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1381841494' post='2244382'] The problem with insurance [s]for courier services [/s] of all kinds, is that you can never tell how good it's going to be until you have to use it, and if it turns out to be crap, it's then too late... [/quote]

[quote name='AntLockyer' timestamp='1381926427' post='2245536'] I meant on the bass, I'm awesome at song writing [/quote] The single best thing you can do for your bass playing is join a band. You don't even have to gig. Just get some like minded individuals in a practice room together and make a nice racket

As well as playing bass I play the flute and have done ever since I was in high school. Yamaha, Buffet, and Boosey and Hawkes are by far the most popular clarinets that I've encountered. I'd personally go with Yamaha---it will be a decent instrument and will hold its resale value fairly well should she/you decide to upgrade her to something else. My experience as a learner was that woodwind shops would be quite flexible about things. You may find that the shop will let you rent one for a few months, but then deduct the rental price from the cost of buying an instrument from them. If you ask really nicely they could probably rent you a yamaha for a few weeks, then a Buffet, then a B&H, just pay one rental fee and then buy a new version of the one you like. Once you get onto really expensive wind instruments they are all sold on approval anyway! Also, bear in mind that with woodwind instruments you can quite often turn an OK instrument into a great one by upgrading the mouthpiece. I suppose its the wind equivalent of putting a good preamp in a cheap bass.

As a completely different alternative... Do you actually need an amp? If you have a decent PA and monitors then you can DI the bass and get very pleasant results using some kind of DI preamp. I do this and can fit my entire gig rig in my bass gig bag!

I've seen the Gator one in a few places, also EHX make a pedal bag: [url="http://www.ehx.com/products/eh-pedal-bag"]http://www.ehx.com/products/eh-pedal-bag[/url]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ6Xo1mYSJg[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_4fiMIxO2E[/media]

A "jazzy" cover: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNpidAAMQSo[/media] Some "jazz" covers: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9hOSZGMXlI[/media]

Don't have time to post links just now but you should check out The Bad Plus. Off-the-wall jazz trio covers of Nirvana, Aphex Twin, ABBA, film themes, all sorts. They're fantastic. Brad Mehldau also does an incredible version of Exit Music From A Film.

[quote name='Ghost Rider' timestamp='1381675958' post='2242121'] I went to interparcel to get some quotes. My roscoe beck will be going to Sardinia Italy once payment has cleared, it's being sent with parcelforce euro priority with £1000 worth of cover for £66. It should take around 5 days to get there but that will depend on how long their customs decide to hang onto it. I find that it's best to discuss with the buyer how they would like it sent so that if it does get lost or damaged, the buyer has had the chance to pay for a more expensive courier & the seller is not responsible once it has left their hands. [/quote] Check and triple check the terms and conditions in that. My dad lives in Italy and although it is an astoundingly beautiful country full of lovely people their postal service and courier services are utterly dreadful.

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1381492306' post='2239782'] I vaguely recall the download being available free with the option to pay what you thought it was worth. Or something like that. [/quote] [quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1381492641' post='2239794'] It was, for about a month, and then the CD came out and it was pay what it costs. [/quote] Wikipedia reckons it was available on "pay what you want" for two months between October and December 2007. When they released the physical edition of it on cd in 2008 it went to number 1 in the UK and the US and they [i]sold [/i]more than 3,000,000 copies of it in addition to all the free copies. Really impressive. Sayeth [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/radiohead-publishers-reveal-in-rainbows-numbers-20081015"]Rolling Stone Magazine[/url]: [left][color=#000000][i]In all, there have been three million purchases of In Rainbows (including CDs, vinyls, box sets and digital sales) since the band began selling the album officially on New Year's Day 2008. Warner Chappell didn't reveal how much the band actually made total in the "pay-what-you-want" facet, but admitted more people downloaded the album for free than paid for it. Still, the three million in total sales — 100,000 of which came from the $80 box sets — is a hugely-successful number considering the album was both given away for free and that it was actually downloaded [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/10/18/in-rainbows-quandary-downloaders-stealing-free-music/"]more times via Bit Torrent[/url] than free and legally through Radiohead's own site.[/i][/color][/left]

[quote name='Spaced' timestamp='1381455454' post='2239465'] Have you got any sources for that or have you just made it up? [/quote] http://bit.ly/183m7u4

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381412904' post='2238700'] You all are unable or unwilling to see what I am saying to you . I could( and probably will when I an so hung-over) wax lyrical to you about how and why Radiohead and their music are so dreadful , but that aside, the simple fact is that than un-commericial-sounding songs are, well, ... just not as commercial! They have lost their crossover, mainstream appeal and it that which gives massive sales, and massive sales means more money for everybody. The rest is hyperbole. [/quote] Radiohead aren't motivated by money. They're not motivated by selling as many records as possible. If they were, they'd have "done a coldplay". They're motivated by making the records that they want to make. I think its you that is unwilling to see what is being said.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381407624' post='2238588'] The point I am trying to make to you is that , although direct sales are usually proportionately more lucrative in terms of the percentage returned to the band, the trade-off is that ultuimately the band sell a smaller number of records . If Radiohead had been cajoled into making an album that sold in huge quantities over a prolonged period [i]a la[/i] Dark Side Of The Moon they would have made more even after the record company took their cut, as well as enjoyed all the periforal benefits of that mainstream success [/quote] They didn't want to make Dark Side Of The Moon. They wanted to make Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows, etc. Going down a path they didn't want to go down just so that they could sell 10,000,000 records instead of 2,000,000 would almost certainly have led to the band splitting up. They just don't want to be that band, and in plenty of interviews at the time they made it clear that they all felt they really needed to move on. [quote]Radiohead may have plenty of money but they could have made much more . They decided they wanted to make an artistic statement by being purposefully obtuse ,[/quote] Making the music you want to make is being "purposefully obtuse" is it? [quote] Without the conventional music industry they would never have established that audience , so in a certain sense it is inconsistant with the truth, to put it diplomatically, for them to be so dismissive of that industry. It is also more than a little disingenuous to portray themselves as taking a stance against exploitation when, if it suits their own ends, they are not averse to cynical exploitation both of their fans and the industry which has nurtured them .[/quote] Everyone knows the record industry treats artists badly. Why aren't Radiohead allowed to voice that opinion? Have you got any examples of Radiohead's "cynical exploitation" of their fans or have you just made that up? They sell records at a very reasonable price ("King Of Limbs" was £6, I think). They gave "In Rainbows" away. Thats about as far away from exploitation as you can get. [quote]Unless you are a hardcore Radiohead afficianado, all their records since O.K Computer are fairly impenetrable and unlikely to be familiar to you . Like so many bands, having a loyal fan base who are receptive to whatever they do has allowed them to get lost in a mire of self indulgence and still survive . [/quote] And now we come to the crux of it: you just don't like Radiohead. Thats cool, but don't pretend that just because you couldn't get into Kid A that Radiohead are---by any measure---a failure. I don't even listen to them all that often but there is absolutely no denying that they are one of the most successful stories of the last fifteen years.

[quote]Those records may have sold impressively for maverick independent releases , but they have failed to capitalise on the success Radiohead had in the mid to late 1990's when they were on the verge of becoming one of the most commercially successful bands in the World . In that context , subsequent sales have in fact been dissappointing . The exploits of bands like Coldplay in the interim period only goes to show the size of the potential market for navel gazing quasi -Indie bands with a knack for recycling tired old cliches. Radiohead failed to exploit the market when they had a chance , instead deciding to plough their own furrow, and have paid the price in terms comparatively modest sales. They still shift a lot of records by most standards , but they could have shifted a lot more had they not become so enamoured of their own genius and hell bent on avoiding becoming exploited by at the hands of a scurrilous. music industry that was conspiring to make them multi millionaires by encouraging them to serenade this World's dissaffected souls with their own distinctive brand of miserablist Indie power ballads .[/quote] "The majority of the sales were band-to-fan. Financially, it [The King Of Limbs] was probably the most successful record they've ever made, or pretty close. In a traditional deal, the record company takes the majority of the money."---Chris Hufford (Radiohead's manager). Why would Radiohead want to just recycle the same old cliches or "exploit the market"? They're a multi-million selling millionaire rock band who have complete and utter artistic control over their music. They do what they want and yet they still sell out huge tours, get great reviews, are regularly acclaimed as one of the best artists of all time, and make just as much money as they ever did. Stupid, stupid Radiohead.

[quote name='Protium' timestamp='1381340157' post='2237889'] When they recorded "In Rainbows", they realised they had to have a radical plan to distribute it for free because no one would actually buy it, it was that bad. [/quote] yep, so bad that it got almost universally good reviews and sold 1.75m cd copies despite being available for free on the Internet. If people want to slag off radiohead then fair enough, but you could at least come up with something that is actually true...

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1381328898' post='2237687'] Software engineers are very much in the same position as songwriters from the pre-Rock n Roll era when they were employed by publishing companies to write songs. They have traded the slim chance of a lot of money through ownership of what they write against a steady income as an employee. Each of them made that decision when they agreed to work for a company. These days most song writers don't even have the luxury of being able to be exploited in return for a monthly wage. [/quote] I agree with you. I was just explaining where I'd heard the argument from.

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1381327919' post='2237667'] I have never once heard this argument, Interesting. How have you formed this impression mate? [/quote] I've heard that argument before, quite often from people like software engineers who see writing software as not all that different to writing music. I see where they're coming from, but I don't agree with them.

[quote name='aende' timestamp='1381326864' post='2237647'] I would go so far as to say as far back as 'The Bends'.... [/quote] Millions of record sales say otherwise.

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1381325962' post='2237614'] I see artists point, but for most part I believe if someone is a fan of a tune or artist they'll usually pay more for a hard copy or at least a digital one. I know I do. [/quote] Thing is, people that have grown up handing over money in return for music are a dying breed (literally). Today's teenagers have never had to pay money to listen to what they want, when they want. If there's a perfectly legal service available that lets you listen to what you like for free then paying for it isn't particularly appealing. You also have to remember that this website is full of musicians and therefore our own attitudes to music are different to that of the general public. We're naturally biased towards supporting artists. Speaking for myself, though, I've bought a lot less music since spotify came out. I have a wife and child to house and feed and now instead of buying things on release day I can listen to them perfectly legally on spotify before picking them up months later when they're half the price (and thats if I even bother...) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381326042' post='2237618'] I suspect that public sentiment is against a musician being able to write one hit song and then getting rich on it for the rest of their lives. Yes, I know all the arguments about intellectual property and all that but I reckon that, when it boils right down, most people don't think it's fair that someone can do something once and live on it for the rest of their life. Joe Public can't do that with their jobs so why should musicians be any different. [/quote] Well the difference is that Joe Public gets paid "the going rate" for their work all at once. Most songwriters get "the going rate" in teeny, tiny increments each time someone uses it. Its the difference between a plumber charging £200 for installing a shower, or getting paid 0.0000019p each time someone uses said shower. I'm sure if someone writes the next "Yesterday" they'd probably quite happily take £20,000,000 up front rather than sign up for perpetual royalties.