OliverBlackman

[quote name='jonthebass' timestamp='1333030657' post='1596461'] Well I can report back that The Voice UK 'battle' stage was blinkin long loud days and no fun to work on whatsoever I hope they paid you well Faithless [/quote] well if you want to pull a sickie at any point i will be more than happy to fill in

just got a book in excellent condition!

just saw Janek Gwizdala, Bob Reynolds, Gary Husband and Louie Palmer in Farncombe. The venue had 35-45 people and yet the band were so killing. They had so much drive and charisma and it really shone through in what they were playing. I'm going to be blasting out bob reynolds for days i think. Also got Janek's new album which i obviously havnt properly listened to yet but judging by the way the band were playing tonight I'm sure it'l be awesome.

apparently he's pretty nearly deaf

hi sam, can i just ask where you are based? i would love to set up a meeting as i was interested in doing a similar for my dissertation. PM me if you could. Cheers Ollie.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332538662' post='1589906'] I don't think that the secret ingredient is money. Or at least that's not the whole story. Sure you can throw loads of money into marketing an act, but at some point the money coming back has to be greater than the money going in. That's elementary business sense. And while using money to put an act in the public eye will help them sell more CDs/downloads/concert tickets, you can't maintain success at a sustainable level simply by payola if enough people don't like the music. However this has nothing to do with authenticity or lack of it. I'm still to be convinced that authenticity is at all important to the average person who spends money on music. [/quote] 1. I read last year that there was a study which found that over 90% of the bands signed to labels make a loss. Labels are making losses but they aren't as bad as they would be without their big acts who are making a profit. These are bands such as Coldplay and Foo Fighters, both have had unrivalled publicity. [u][b]Most[/b][/u] bands artists signed to a label don't have anything released and are dropped or they make 1 or 2 albums and then are dropped. The public don't hear about this but it's happening all the time to hundreds of artists/bands. 2. The average joe? probably nothing. But those who are making music? Well it can effect the way we write music.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332532681' post='1589808'] Why is this important? It's not. If I knew the secret ingredient that could persuade people to like my band I would be using it and so would everyone else. [/quote] You said "all that matters is if you like it or not." Im saying thats not the case. The secret ingredient is money for marketing, thats how bands get interest and lots of people are paying companies thousands of pounds just to get in magazines. This in turn creates more fans. Hopefully these fans will pay to see you play and buy your EP. The thing is most bands that do this won't admit it because they're embarrassed they had to buy success. Also gig a lot and increase your chances of getting lucky enough to find a manager, promoter, publisher or record label that has an interest in what your doing.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1332529247' post='1589739'] You have a choice as to what music you listen to, just like you have a choice to buy what car you want as well. The only difference is that a lot of people will be marketed to and will choose to buy a Vauxhall over a Kia or a Hyundai because Vauxhall's marketing arm reaches further and influences more people. However, I would actually argue that people that buy into what is popular music to the extreme are one of two types of people: 1. lazy, or 2. people nowhere near as interested in taking an active pursuit in listening to the music. Let's face it, most of here are passionate about music, which is why subjects like these ones are so hotly debated. But the vast majority of people aren't nearly as interested. If what comes on Radio 1 or Radio 2 is remotely palatable then it will be listened to. Inherently lazy in itself, but then maybe I'm just as lazy for buying ready meals from Tesco instead of cooking for myself like a real chef would. Nothing's right or wrong, but it is telling about the way in which we consume things, up to and including new music. [/quote] advertising of music is a lot stronger than the advertising of cars though. An example that springs to mind is an ex girlfriend. She was very much into JLS, why because she had followed them on x factor and they were always on the music channels which was her access to music. I'm sure she is not alone and it would say a lot about why One Direction are doing so well. Theres a video of them live in NY which is very good proof that they cannot sing. What am i trying to say? Whether a tune is authentic in popular music or not, it doesn't make a difference as to whether people will buy it.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332524472' post='1589661'] In the end the only people who care about "authenticity" in popular music are music journalists, music course lecturers and people who's opinions can be found reproduced in "Pseuds Corner" in Private Eye. All that matters with music is do you like it or not. [/quote] people are conned into what they like through image and media exposure such as TV or Radio. So it's not quite as simple as you suggest. For example with katy Perry and Lady Gaga the music is written to be in keeping with the image of the artist. Not very authentic and those who say they like it probably wouldn't have done without the brand association.

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332350659' post='1587151'] I'd say Motown was authentic. You're making a mistake in categorising who the artist is. The artist is not the singers, that's just marketing; the artist in this case is the whole Motown setup: lyricists, composers, arrangers, musicians, singers, producer, etc. And it made money as well as these artists expressing themselves - those two not being mutually exclusive. [/quote] i get what your saying but documentaries on motown i have watched indicate that the songs were not written from feelings. There was a lot of depression in detroits black community and whoever started motown saw there was a need for music that would cheer people up. A BBC documentary on detroit described it as false happiness. I wouldn't call that authentic.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1332333886' post='1586740'] That's my view of this too. [/quote] holy cow!

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1332335874' post='1586813'] Is this therefore "inauthentic"? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pVM00eoohI[/media] If so, "authenticity" is a worthless concept. [/quote] Well yes, pretty much all of Motown with a few exceptions like Marvin Gayes whats going on. The artist's had virtually no choice in what they were singing. Its not worthless, there are many people who play music to please themselves but very few of them gain a big following.

all positives from me. Very happy with my purchase

in discussing the music. IMO the music is authentic when written by an artist/ band for the purpose of [i]expressing themselves[/i] rather than writing it to make money or having it restricted/adapted to fit in with an outsiders view of what a single should be. Unfortunately most pop music is manufactured and rarely written by the artist. This view is based on what i am taught and research, so could be inaccurate.

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1331573759' post='1575113'] FWIW I'll take Entwistle over MM a thousand times over. [/quote] outrageous

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1331572722' post='1575093'] I give up the bold part speaks volumes unfortunately about the snobbery that musicians can sometimes display. Utter madness. [/quote] you've taken out of context what i'm saying, as i did you. I'm saying that those who don't know what those such as anthony jackson are doing in a theoretical format, are less likely to realise how clever he is. How can they if they haven't been taught it first? You can't recognise a major scale unless you've been shown what a major scale looks or sounds like....

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1331571930' post='1575067'] But you misunderstand my point entirely. You'll find that both aforementioned bass players already get enough credit. As far as I'm concerned, Anthony Jackson is probably the best technician of the bass guitar that has ever lived and I'm get to hear anyone that lives up to his level of 'technical prowess' for lack of a better term. But using Flea as an example again, has he not worked hard to get where he wants to be today? He's been part of a band that has widely influenced other bands and has sold millions of albums worldwide, and if we're quite honest has influenced a million other bass players too. Which one deserves more credit? Who cares. They both have their place in music as it exists today. Comparing them is a totally fruitless endevour. [/quote] ah think i get you now. Your basically saying they deserve credit for influencing others? If thats right then i agree. However, it's when you get people who aren't as educated who claim the likes of flea or McCartney are in the top 50 or w/e bass players of all time. When clearly they are not. That is when they become over-rated. For me anyway. Again i'm not arguing their impact or influence on music, but great bass players they are not.

[quote name='arthurhenry' timestamp='1331570042' post='1575017'] I practice a lot more than the rest of my band, should I ask for more money? [/quote] should get a new band in [u]most[/u] cases those that practice more are better than those who don't.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1331563294' post='1574837'] Do Anthony Jackson and Richard Bona deserve more credit because they're the real technicians or the instrument? It's all very silly. [/quote] I don't really care about much else of this thread but this stuck out. Yes Anthony Jackson and Richard Bona deserve more credit because they're technically very good. They're very good because they've practised a lot more than most individuals. I think that deserves recognition when it pays off, which it clearly does with both of them.

theres a gap on the top right corner. If it sounds good it's not going to be an issue

[quote name='jackhammer' timestamp='1331515685' post='1574145'] i was thinking a jazz bass? any specific one to look out for? [/quote] in short. No. There are so many on the market and around your price bracket the quality control differs greatly between individual instruments. You can either try lots out in shops or take a risk buying without trying.

[quote name='jazseven' timestamp='1331504804' post='1573994'] The SUB (Sports Utility Bass) essentially looks like a stingray, sounds like a stingray(for the most part) and weighs about half as much as a stingray. Think they were made made in Indonesia rather than California though, can't remember.... but they're pretty much the closest you'll get to a real-deal Stingray with the exception of the Ray34/35 [/quote] they were made in california, because when i was looking at buying one i remember i was attracted to the sub and the highway 1 because they were american made. I'm pretty sure the only difference was the finishes on the body and neck. Also they just had the standard 2EQ in either passive or active