uncle psychosis

[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.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381323815' post='2237562'] Yes , I'm joking . Radiohead couldn't really write another hit . [/quote] They don't need to. They've got to the point where they can self-finance a record and sell it directly to their fanbase. They sold something like 350,000 mp3 copies of King Of Limbs directly from their website. By cutting out the middleman they're in a much stronger financial position than they ever were.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381318770' post='2237428'] The truth is that no one has actually listened to any of his records since O.K Computer , so I think his artistic integrity is quite safe . Maybe his earnings are not quite as secure, but the answer is in his own hands , i.e make some hit records . [/quote] Are you joking?

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1381254112' post='2236554'] Although if you continue pronouncing blasphemous words (one pickup only looks wrong in a bass) I may change my mind [/quote] Nah, its only a single bridge pickup that looks wrong. P basses are fine

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1381248925' post='2236439'] Ha! Thanks, I would not really think of another wah if I could solve the bypass thing on mine. Yours would be similar, I suspect.[/quote] I was actually thinking you could gut the insides and BYOC... [quote]But I can try to help you set up your bass anyway, if you want.[/quote] That would be really cool. Don't think the frets need any work, just a bit of tweaking of the action and definitely the pickup heights. I'm rubbish at setting pickups so another set of ears would be useful. Need my strings to arrive from the US first...

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1381251255' post='2236494'] you don't like the single pickup version? [/quote] A single pickup at the bridge just looks wrong on a bass

I don't really like the single pickup version, but the twin pickup version looks amazing. Shame that they're from the American Deluxe range---well out of my reach for the immediate future.

Jose have you seen the Chi-Wah-Wah? Its not cheap but its tiny... [url="http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/bass/plutoneium-pu-236-chi-wah-wah-bass-530569"]http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/bass/plutoneium-pu-236-chi-wah-wah-bass-530569[/url] Has level, Q, gain, and switchless bypass. Or, as a much cheaper alternative, I have an old battered crybaby wah kicking around. If you wanted to try it out (I'm thinking it could be a good base to build your own one) you can have it in return for helping me set up a bass The treadle is a bit loose but it does work OK.

Red Dog Music in Edinburgh had a few TRBX models in the other week, give them a shout. They also had a second hand TRB1004, which might give you an idea as to what the TRB1005 models are like. There's no inherent reason a 34" will have a bad B, but if you're worried about it then try one first. For amps, have you checked out the Hartke LH range?

I think that any of the TRB models---whether that be a TRBX or a TRB1005 or a TRB-II or whatever the older ones are called---would be a great buy for you.

Try a felt plectrum?

[quote name='elom' timestamp='1380932210' post='2232666'] I really ought to experiment with some different picks rather than just the same one that has been sat in my case for donkey's! [/quote] On bass I love really, really thick picks. 3mm Dunlop Big Stubbies, in Nylon. They just seem to work better on bass than those tiny thin things. I've also recently ordered some felt picks, looking forward to trying them.

[quote name='Ghost_Bass' timestamp='1380722378' post='2229540'] But works the same with VVT config, can't you get a volume setting where you balance both pickups like you want to? How are you currently mixing them? Both full? [/quote] Most BBs don't have VVT ---they have master volume, master tone and a three way selector switch.

Status Hotwire flats are good [i]and[/i] cheap (about £20 for a four string set). Pressurewound strings are really hard to find for less than £25 in the UK---I ended up ordering direct from the states.

I often wonder if one of the reasons people rave about changing pickups is because as they install the new ones they actually have to think about the height to set them to... I really need to setup both my basses but I've always found getting the pickup heights right really hard for some reason. I find my ears get fatigued quite quickly and then it all goes to pot.

What I do for practising on my PC is use a mixer. I have the output from my PC going into one channel, my bass plugged into another channel (I have DI box for this), and then the mixer output goes into the line-in on my PC soundcard as well as into my hi-fi amp. I can then use headphones to play along to the PC, or I can play "out loud" by using my hifi amp. I can also record practise sessions this way.

I always preferred "In A Silent Way" myself. But BB is still a great record.

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1380640318' post='2228302'] Pavel single cut Jazz - lovely isn't it? [/quote] its incredible. I love everything about it.