JTUK

Well done thread.

Are you sure the bass can do it, for a start. It is no use having a P bass thunp in your head and expecting your ultra modern bass to have that sound... etc etc . I think you need to try and desribe what you are looking for. Also... you seen to be describing the tone chacracter of the rigs, but not the actual sound you are after. Most amps and cabs should be able to get punchy and clear altho there are going to be some that just ...don't or can't. They should be the ones you eliminate quickly..

Biggest and best gigging weekend of the year so it is a no from me. The summer is pretty much out as well anyway.... Good luck with it.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1401273454' post='2461835'] I've left quite a number of bands because one (or more) of the members turned out to be lazy bastards. I'm not going to put effort into a team thing if one or other of the team aren't putting in at least the same (if not more) effort. Two rehearsals in fifteen months? That band only exists as a concept! I can understand infrequent rehearsals if you're gigging a lot, though? [/quote] Not much wrong with throw-together bands as long as they never sound anything like a throw-together band. Some people can busk really well, some read and all these are valid ways of getting the band to work but even though I think most of our tracks sound more than worthwhile straight off the bat, I get frustrated that you don't explore beyond the notes very much or easily if you don't put the time in. I just think you are missing quite a bit of potential.... sure the band sounds very good...but it could be even better.. Why wouldn't you do that for yourselves...??

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1401451352' post='2463765'] These days anyone with a spare £2-3k can get the instrument of their dreams made. The advantage of a "signature" model from a big name is being able to do some serious beta testing on various ideas before settling on the final spec rather than just hoping for the best from a single instrument. [/quote] Pretty much my thinking. But as for a signature model to be sold elsewhere..?? I doubt there is much in it... my basses fit me, why should I expect them to fit anyone else..? Having said that...most people who have picked up my basses have liked them, but I wouldn't seek out a project that sold/marketed the idea, or certainly not for egotistical purposes. But then again, no one has asked me, so I have never had to entertain or get used to the idea

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1401643531' post='2465487'] Single coils seem to have a naturally extended treble response which gives a sense of detail and nuance to the overall tone of the bass. However, on some designs of single coil introducing hum-cancelling features can reduce that sense of airiness and "presence" and compromise the overall tone. Also, quite a few single coil pickups are overwound nowadays to beef them up a bit and make them louder , but the more wire you put on a pickup the more you decrease the upper frequency response[b], [/b]so it is a compromise between output and bandwidth in that respect. . [/quote] Which is why I say you go for passive and single when you don't need to compromise on your power unit. A lot of people's rigs are chosen with other powerful factors to the fore..like weight in the carry, load-in, expense etc etc when ideally, they should be non-factors. We know they aren't for most of us, but from purely a sound POV, they should be. IMO.

Is that the one in the corner..??? I can't think why anyone would want to sit there, but tbf, Neil has quite a lot of regulars these days....

Not sure but my feeling and experience is that a sub is not just about taking lows and you can quite easiliy hear where the money goes. We tried some Mackie subs which were pretty crap sounding but then they were cheap. The argument tends to be that you need a heavy hitting 15 at least and preferably 18's but they will be big and heavy. We currently use RCF 905's and choose them over QSC subs but they are big units. One of the reasons we are thinking Yamaha is that the DSR12 is compact but not too light at around 73 lbs. We saw/heard the value of subs just by running an Elements system and they have light 12's... For sure, not a benchmark system but we liked the seperation even then. I'd be interested to hear if the Alto's cut it, but when running 'cheap' maybe match the subs with the tops...as that should give them the best chance of sounding ok and matched. We will default to 1 DSR12 sub and add another for a bigger gig but we have to be realistic to recognise where it will run out of steam and oomph. We certainly can't and don't expect to have a system that can do all our gigs so will still hire in when necessary.

Wrong Windmill

Well, a central calendar is work so they need to see the value of it. I find that professional type people who know the values of calendars and meetings buy into it without any question at all, but since being a playing musician is all about dates and availability, it isn't a thing that should get any resistance, IMO.. Most people who want to work will positively invite it and the only reason for not using one would be if that person wasn't able to have a i-net connection...otherwise I'd wonder about that person's commitment and organisational abilities that we were getting involved with.

Ok... I'd keep the 610, all things being equal. I think the 610 will have the better amount of controlled bass and the ability to be a bit snappier up top, which I would like and want... but then I would also want a horn. My current default BEST rig is a 212 with a 210 on top and that is the best of all worlds and I think the 610 has a better chance of emulating that sort of sound and attack than a 412. I think a 212 and therefore a 412 have potential to be great cabs in their own right but the 810 is still the ultimate and for my needs a 610 would probably win out...but I don't say that from a point of view of owning and hearing your cabs. Stick with sell which ever gets the interest, then..??

Cab looks great.

Singles have the better chance of character in the sound whilst the thicker humbuckers are fuller and louder which is not always what you want, IMO. It tends to be the same re active and passive. The extra oomph can often be required and appreciated but in an ideal world the best chance of the better tone lies with the thinner sound of singles and when you get to a gig where you need to make the very least amount of compromises you go passive and single for this reason. IMO.

Put them both up for sale, and see which one sells first

I am never a fan of getting amps into your ears etc etc ...as that doesn't help a self mix on the whole. Just because you can hear the bass as it is right by your ear doesn't mean anyone else in the audience will. It doesn't neccessarily work, IMO Far better to get the band mix good so you can all hear each other and then assume that spread will get into the venue... And to get a band mix right you will know in rehearsals and other gigs where the problem lies..and if not start from bass/drums and get that balance... add in other instruments one by one and see who blows it. Sometimes... read very often, a gtr will obliterate the bass on a doubling pattern of straight 8's so then the culprit is the gtr. Too much boom bass isn't helpful either.... you want to layer the sounds not present a wall of sound as then only the strongest/loudish/most peaky gets through... Then, make sure the vox are RIGHT over the top of the band.

Reviewing your set can be a good thing or bad thing. It is true there are too many classic rocks bands around here but maybe some of them are pretty popular and therein lies the catch 22... In some ways, I admire bands sticking to their guns...and I wish more would do that but maybe the best way around all this is to just make the band a band that pubs can't afford not to book. At the end of the day, a very good turnout is what most venues want, and then the genre becomes less important...the LL will work round that IF he knows the beers are being sold. But..taking the risk in the first place is their problem....so unless you can knock out one of the bands on his rosta, he will likely stick with what he knows.. I'd mirror band's venues that do the same sort of stuff..and if that isn't good enough for you, you might have to rethink your MO..

You are going to have to track down the bands that play the same sort of stuff and nick their gigs but also accept that there will some places you'll never get in. Some places will vary their rosta for a punt but they generally settle on what they know works and this is entirely understandable. Some will book a popular act that they really don't like and disappear for the evening but rake in the money and others will book the acts they like...but you can't make an audience turn up. There will be a couple of specialist bikers bars and you just need to find out who they are...or you can promise a a great turn-out or no fee type gig but established places only go for what they don't know when they get a bit desperate. After a few months of putting on musicmost places know what works for them and they stick with it. If you can't get the volume of gigs you want... then you might have to rethink what you play... The thing round here is that there are quite a few metal acts and they can't get into pubs and there is no way round that..... the venue doesn't think they will sell, even though the bands will protest they can get 30 or 40 ppl desperate to see them play...but an in-town venue aren't going to go for that, most likely, as they will not attract/keep the big passing trade.

Some pubs and Landlords just aren't going to fancy you because of the material you play. We have a few grundge bands round here and to me, some of them just play the good tunes but some LL's will take a chance and some just don't think their perception and/or experience matches their customers. You may have to either stand by your choice of material and not get to play certain venues or you may have to change. I would guess a certain perception excludes them from quite a few gigs they'd want to do.. If fact, we were talking about just this today...

If nothing else, it shows their priorities. Of course, people have families and you don't want to get in a fight over that...as the band looses, but if someone says they are available, via the calendar, then that is that. Then, if they play the game fairly, you are more inclined to let the odd glitch go... We have keys who is run ragged by other things... we can't pressure him as the straw will break the camel but if he says he will be there as per calendar, we will move all sorts of mountains to keep him happy. He regards the band as a welcome release, and we'd hate to lose him, so you have to make allowances but he knows the value of the calendar and it all works. A committed working band can't be inflexible...you just need people who can be organised...and can play, of course. If you haven't got access to an online calendar, you need your guy to run his own dairy and you need regular updates on it and you can't use people who can't do the basics, IMO.

I don't agee about bands underselling themselves so much..just that they have a reasonable sense of their worth. Most pubs bands would struggle to do weddings at £600 because they aren't really set up for it, rather than not being able to step up. Plenty of wedding bands will think fancy outfits and such like justifies a certain fee when they can't hit the mark in pubs. By and large, you get the fees you get because you have prooved that market will pay you for it... For sure, you can get away with a couple of high fees but if you do that to a venue who supplies bands and they don't get the right feed-back, or you fail on the night, then you are shooting yourself in the foot. The point about getting a sense of the value of the event is good as well... if someone wants a £600 band on their day, then that may well be an indicator of the value of their event. They may pay a photographer over £1000 and the wedding will cost £12-15k but they want to cheap out on the band..??

Goggle calender with one band login. If it isn't marked in the calendar we book it and so it is upto everyone to keep it upto date. This may have a few initial problems but jeez, it isn't hard once everyone sees the value in it. And if people can't handle a calendar, then they aren't really going to be able to handle being in a working committed band, IMO

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1401313466' post='2462464'] Sounds very simple! I can't think of a wedding yet we've played where we could have been that specific in advance, to not be let down ultimately. The weddings I've played we've absolutely had to be fluid with regards to how their day works out. How can you not be? We're not about to start setting up behind the best man while he's in full flow because that's the time it says in the contract. If we did we'd look like idiots! And no-one yet has ever ensured the speeches don't run over because the band are waiting to set up! Surely this is why we charge more, no? Because we do have to be prepared to fit into their day, however it turns out? [/quote] Agree that a few things will not run to plan and you don't want to add to any stress on the day... but by nailing things down in advance, you can give the impression that you are totally sorted and you will be one less thing to have to wing on the day. We know what time to arrive... we meet a point of contact, and things like stage and power and everything have been pre-determined so you aren't going to be running round looking for someone to sort something. By the time our negotaitions have finished, we are expecting a deposit and everything is sorted. If you arrive with this sort of package, this is just another thing the couple have to deal with in the run up to the big day, and they can assume that you aren't going to be a hassle. Of course, no one is watching the clock and going to spoil the day, and every speech and sit-down meal will likely overun but we will hit our marks as agreed ... the one thing that isn't likely to over-run is the finish time. This kind of operation is not limited to weddings and applies to all gigs.. and that is waht they pay the money for. The smooth running of their evening and early arrival times. For example, guests arrive at 1900, so stage must be cleared of soundcheck by then...which is meaning an arrival time of 1700 latest. Then we need food served times etc etc ..

You ask for a deposit and you know what time the P.A has to go up and they know what time the P.A comes down. If they want an ipod through the P.A, it stops when we pack-up unless the guy carrying the P.A has been paid more. It is simple negotiation that you know what you are supposed to do and they know their end and that should all be upfront. The balance is paid before hand, food and drink is included and even things like power and stages sizes are pre-determined. If you want to put all that in the contract, then you should do.

Diane Warren... doesn't sing too well herself but what a bunch of hits she has written. Probably sold as many records as anyone..??

Must admit, my heart tends to sag a little when I hear wedding booking...and even more so if a mates as I expect it will be 'mates rates' as well. I tend to think other bands are set up better and enjoy them more so they are generally welcome to them. Not sure I'd agree with a mates bands idea of rather doing 4 pub dates than a wedding especially as their material could be regarded as ideal wedding fodder but it depends what you need to do gigs for.