Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Giant Tiny Bass Amp Shootout

I have not posted in this blog in forever and ever, but I'm reviving it to talk about bass amps.  Specifically, tiny bass amps that are "stage-worthy", meaning you could do a rock show in a club with them even though they are not much bigger than so-called "practice amps."

TL;DR - (Spoiler!)  The Eden EGRW264 rig is the best one, but the Ibanez Promethean 3110 is probably good enough for most bassists, and way cheaper.

Okay, that out of the way, on with the story.  Lower frequencies take more energy to produce, so bass guitarists, especially those who play in rock and country bands, need LOTS OF POWER to vibrate LOTS OF AIR.  Anything under 100W usually can't even hang with guitarists playing through cheap practice amps, let alone with a drummer.  This has always meant bassists had to roll these brutally heavy amps and ridiculously large 8x10" speaker cabinets in and out of the places they want to play.  But digital technology has made the amps smaller.  And even the speaker cabinets can be smaller thanks to advances in materials science and design improvements thanks good ol' fashioned engineering.

I love little amps, and have two of them.  Today I took them to my favorite locally-owned music store, Groth Music in Bloomington, to compare them to a new amp that I was kind of excited about.

The contenders, from left to right:

EGRW264 micro-stack by Eden Bass Amplification
BG300 Super Flightcase by PJB
Promethean 3110 by Ibanez

Ain't they adorable???


I'm going to go through these in a different order.  Because reasons.

PJB Super Flightcase (BG300) - Street Price: about $1200

This was the amp I came in to the store to try out.  PJB ("Phil Jones Bass") is a line of bass amps build around the innovative idea of using a crapload of tiny speakers instead of bigger ones.  They are known for two types of amps:  Super-heavy steamer trucks with what seems like thousands of 5" speakers all over them, and super-light combos that you would not at all mind taking with you on busses and trains.

The Super Flightcase is their newest one, and kind of fits in between their big beasts and their cute little pocket rigs.  It's a combo with a 250W amp and six 5" speakers, four on the front and two pointed up.  The sound quality was really great, and it had a lot of little controls for tweaking it to your taste.  Having the upward-pointed speakers was really nice for hearing clearly-defined treble (which is surprisingly more important than you would think if you're not a bassist.)  All around it was great, and certainly loud enough.  Plus it looked super-sexy.  It did tend to flab on the notes of the low B string of my 5-string Steinberger, but not badly.  Down to the low E it was completely musical.  All-around, a remarkably well-designed amplifier who anyone would be proud to use on stage.  But oof, that price tag.

Ibanez Promethean 3110 - Street Price: about $350.  

No, seriously.  $350

I'm still shocked that this little amp exists.  A 300W combo with a 1x10" woofer and a little 1" tweeter that performs as well as this thing is remarkable, but they also priced it very affordably.  It weighs, to use scientific jargon, "practically nothing", and sounds very nice with a standard 4-string bass.

However, it is quieter than the PJB.  A lot quieter.  So much so that the salesman and I briefly suspected that they fudged their "300W" rating and it was actually way less than that.  After thinking about it, I'm convinced that it's actually a 150W rig when played as-is, but goes up to 300W when you add an 8-ohm extension speaker cab to it.  When it came along on tour with The Drug Budget, we paired it with a GK Ultra-light 2x10" extension cab and Lorin (our bassist) never once complained of it not being loud enough amidst our roaring 12-piece band.

Another small bummer: The tweeter is mounted in this bizarre way right in front of the center dome of the woofer, with the two wire leads coming through the woofer's cone.  Every once in a while, one of those rigid-but-not-rigid-enough wires rests against something and creates the most horrible noise, akin to that of a blown speaker, until you reach in with tweezers and straighten it out.  That was the case during our shootout, and was a bit of a buzzkill.  An unusual engineering mistake on an otherwise remarkably well-designed little amp.

The other bad news is that it simply can't cut the mustard when it comes to 5-string basses.  It just barely farts out those extended low notes.  But for how small and light it is, you can only expect so much, right?

Right???

Well, not so fast...

David Eden EGRW264 - Street Price: about $650

The sales guy who was helping me practically ran around the store with excitement after hearing this little wonder-amp of mine, telling all the other guitar desk staff about how amazed he was with it.  Like the Ibanez, it's a tiny digital amp driving a 4" speaker, but unlike the Ibanez, it's WAY MORE POWERFUL than either of the amps I was auditioning.   Even on the lowest notes of my B string, it was clean as a grand piano while loud enough to rattle the fillings out of your head.  Maybe a tiny roll-off at the very bottom, but not significant, and downright uncanny when you look at the box all this sound is coming out of.  By every single measure, it's not only still better than every single "small" amp I've tried, but it's better than most of the big cases I've played through over the years.

When Fuzzy Machete recorded our first EP over at The Puppet House, Russ (our producer) described the Eden as "satanic."  That may be the best word for it, because it clearly places itself above God and nature by recklessly defying the laws of physics.

To find an amp anywhere close to as loud and rich-sounding as the Eden, you need to move up to the higher-end 1x12" rigs, like the ubiquitous MarkBass Mini CMD 112p, or something even bigger, and even then you'll be making compromises compared to this setup.  It's really that good.

The only strike against it is that it's nearly impossible to find anyone selling it.  David Eden is a small company based here in Minnesota, and music stores need to push Fender & Gibson product hard to keep their main distributors happy.  I got mine when Best Buy was making their ill-fated venture into selling legitimate music gear.  I have no idea who around town carries them at this point.  Good luck.

Summary:  

The new PJB did not, as I was expecting, overtake the place in my heart for my trusty little Eden, nor was it even enough of a step up to justify replacing my cute little Ibanez.  I walked out of the store purchasing nothing, though the sales guy didn't mind because he kind of enjoyed the shootout as well.

If you are an electric bassist with the money to spend and want to downsize your amp rig, the Eden is the amp to buy.

The PJB is loud enough for a rock band but like its smaller siblings it's honestly better suited to stand-up bassists in jazz combos, who will find it's precise sound and response well worth the steep price tag.

However if you are young and poor (as many rock musicians are), you can't go wrong with the Ibanez Promethean at a mere $350 new.  It can totally hang with most drummers, and really opens up if you plug it into any 8-ohm speaker cab that's lying around.  I highly recommend it.  Just watch out for that fussy exposed wiring leading to the tweeter.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Rewatchable

Some movies are just part of your lifestyle.  Here in no particular order is a list of 10 films (actually 12) that I have seen more than 10 times each, and will probably watch again.  There are a few more, but I stopped myself from going on any farther.  If there are any on this list you have not seen at all, SEE THEM.  (Preferably by coming over and watching them with me, because I love watching them with new people.)  Actually, even if you have seen them, come by and watch them with me some time.

1. The Blues Brothers



2. Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi




3. Jeremiah Johnson

4. The

4. Outlaw Josey Wales



5. Monty Python and the Holy Grail



6. Pink Floyd - The Wall



7. Cool Hand Luke



8. The Music Man



9. Excalibur



10. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Monday, March 25, 2013

Gender. I'm Gonna Talk About It.

(Note:  I spat this out in a single draft, so please forgive any massive errors in grammar.  Also, while I've spent a lot of time reading about this stuff, I'm still, at best, a layman when it comes to the academic topics of gender and human sexuality, so please forgive anything I say which is wildly outdated or simply false information.  I tried to present facts and commentary as truthfully and plainly as I could, and I feel like I got most of it mostly right, though I'm open to correction from those who have studied any of these issues more comprehensively than I have.)

Okay, so I don't usually bring up gender issues on this blog, but a friend of a friend (who seems like a very nice person... let's call her Chris) is in a situation where the guy she's dating (who we'll call Pat) has informed her that he feels like he might be a transgender woman.

Now I'm going to stop here before going any further and talk about pronouns, just so we are clear.  The English language kind of forces you to assign gender to people when talking about them in the third-person.  It makes life kind of rough on all the transgendered, non-gendered, multi-gendered and otherwise-not-binary-gendered people in the world, and it makes things almost as rough on somebody who wants to be a supportive ally and suddenly finds words they've used with confidence their entire life to be a minefield of potential faux pas.

So I'm going to make this fairly simple:  Whether they are transgendered or cisgendered, if somebody is unambiguously presenting themselves as one or the other, you can usually be confident that it's the gender they wish to be addressed by.  Somebody with a full beard, probably goes by "him."  Somebody in a flower-patterened dress, probably goes by "her."  If you are unsure of whether to address somebody as "he" or "she", politely ask them, and then respect their wishes.  See, that wasn't really difficult at all, was it?

Anyway, in the case of Chris's boyfriend, he has told her that he feels he may be a transgendered woman, but at the moment is still going by male pronouns (so far) and so that's what I'm using here.

Pat's revelation was quite a pill for Chris to swallow, as she (I believe) identifies herself as a heterosexual woman, but is now discovering that the love of her life may in fact be female.  To further complicate matters, after a disastrous experience of coming out to his mom, Pat has decided to forgo (or at least delay) any ambition of transitioning and instead of publicly identifying as female wants to present himself as androgynous.

If that's what he really wants, it's a totally valid choice.  Even if it's not what he really wants, but the way he feels he needs to go (if only for now) in order to function within his family and within society, that's also a totally valid choice, and his to make.  The truth is that, even as far as we've come, there are no "good" choices available to the young transsexual, only choices that are "less bad" than others.  It's a pretty goddamn tough row to hoe.

To the vast majority of people reading this, gender isn't really something you have to think about that much, beyond what sex-specific outside social pressures you may have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.  You were probably born with reproductive organs which match your chromosome pair, and those organs probably developed your body with secondary sexual characteristics which match them, and you probably have a general sense of identity which at least mostly conforms to your body, probably present yourself to at least a certain extent as that gender to the outside world, and are probably mostly treated as a member of that gender by other people.  Oh, and you most likely have a sexual preference mainly for members of the opposite gender.

Note that paragraph was filled with "generally" and "probably."  Not only are there exceptions to everything I just said, but NOBODY conforms 100% to absolutely all of that stuff on the same side of the ledger.  Biology is messy, and when you try to draw solid dividing lines anywhere things get very complicated, very quickly.

To talk about gender in a way that even allows me to begin to explain transsexualism, I need to define some multi-word terms.  The English language (or probably just about any language) does not deal with deviations from the binary model very well at all.  And why should it when most people do, after all, mostly fit close to one end or the other of that binary spectrum in most ways?  For the vast majority of people, the definitions of "male" and "female" you were given when you were a toddler are good enough for getting by in the world nearly all the time.  So let's get into the complex and messy world of how gender looks to those who don't fit the simplified model very well.  There are actually (at least) 6 ways one can look at gender & sexuality, and any one of them can potentially be "mismatched" from any other one:

1. Sex-Selective Chromosome Pairing
2. Assigned Sex
3. Gender Presentation
4. Gender Role
5. Sexual Preference(s)
6. Gender Identity

1. Chromosomes

You were probably told in Junior High biology about the "XX" vs. "XY" chromosome pair.  That the mother's ovum always provides an "X" chromosome, and the father's sperm provides another that pairs with it.  If the chromosome from the father is another "X", you get a girl baby, and if it's a "Y", you get a boy baby.

But what you probably were not told is that it doesn't always work out that way.

One of the most common exceptions is a condition called Androgyne Insensitivity Syndrome.  Sometimes an XY fetus's body does not respond, or only partially responds, to the programming of male hormones.  In cases of complete AIS, what you end up with is a very feminine-featured woman, complete with functional ovaries and womb.  In partial cases of AIS, the woman might be infertile or very tall or have an unusually high sex drive.  In addition to physical development sometimes not matching the mandate of the chromosome pair, a recent emerging hypothesis (though there is a lot of science to be done) proposes that sometimes neurological development, and as a result gender identity, might also mismatch as a result of hormonal signals not being received as expected.

So while the chromosomes usually indicate a person's sex, they don't always.  I told you biology was messy, right?

2. Assigned Sex

Most of the time when a baby is born, the doctor or midwife looks at the genitals and says "it's a boy" or 'it's a girl" and fills out the paperwork accordingly.  And nearly all the time that conclusion is correct.  Exceptions are incredibly rare.  But there are exceptions.  In addition to those who will turn out to be transgendered (which I'm getting to, I promise), there are those who are born with both sets of sex organs, or ambiguous organs, etc.  It used to be that doctors were under incredible pressure to "make the call" so that the child could live a "normal" life as whichever gender the doctor chose, including surgical removal of the genitalia which looked less likely to develop.  These days, opinion is shifting with regards to how best handle such situations.  In a world where people are less hung-up on gender, perhaps a kid can grow up "normally" in modern society without determining right away (if ever) whether that child is male or female.

3. Gender Presentation

This is one you might be tempted to call a social construct, except there are people who, to the very core of their being, need to present as the opposite gender, or at least not completely as the same gender, as their assigned sex.  While this commonly falls under the umbrella term "transgender", it does not (necessarily) mean that the person is a transsexual.  You all know a woman (probably more than one) who HATED to wear dresses as a little girl, keeps her hair short, and perhaps even has masculine manners of speech, posture and movement.  Men with a drive towards feminine presentation (including mannerisms) are less likely to display it to the broad public due to fear of ostracism and abuse, but it does work both ways.

I could have my friend Esme, who is a professional drag queen as well as a human sexuality prof, write an entire novel on the stuff I'm touching on here.  In fact, she probably already has done so.  At the very least, some very detailed academic papers.

Not all (or even most) people who refuse to apply common gender presentation norms to themselves are transsexuals, however most transsexuals frequently go through a phase of experimentation with gender presentation while they figure out who they are.

4. Gender Role

Now this IS a social construct.  Some of it may have a little to do with evolutionary biology & psychology, but for the most part ideas about divisions of labor or dominance vs. servitude between the genders is largely the result of outside social pressure.  In modern society, a great deal of this pressure has relaxed.  However, oddly enough, there IS a great deal of social pressure on transsexuals to go along with gender-normative roles in order to establish that they are a "real" member of their target gender.  A transsexual woman might feel pressured to conceal her interest in sports, for example, or a transsexual male might be uncomfortable showing nurturing behavior towards children.

5. Sexual Preference(s)

Human sexuality is a complicated subject (again... biology - messy), but there are a few things sexologists have worked out that we can be fairly confident are true.  Among them three important points as it relates to this discussion of transsexuality.

- Sexuality is not a choice.  "The heart wants what it wants", as the saying goes.
- Sexuality is not entirely determined by biology nor environment, but by a nebulous matrix of these factors and more, including body chemistry, early erotic experiences, etc.
- Pretty much everybody is a little bit bi.

Most transsexuals I've met, unsurprisingly, fall closer to the middle of the hetero-bi-homo spectrum than most people do.  There are a number of reasons for this, though not all of these are in play for all transsexuals.  Among them:

- Social pressure to explore "opposite" sex relationships both before and after transition
- Hormone therapy changing body chemistry, which may affect pheromone reactions
- Only some people find transsexuals to be suitable sexual partners, and which people do so will change as they go through transition, so sometimes the desire to be desired from among a limited pool of options may override physical sexual preferences, especially if those preferences were not all that strongly felt to begin with

So if you ask a transsexual person if they are "gay" or "straight", don't expect a clear and simple answer.  There are some with very rigid sexual preferences, but in many cases you'll just get a resigned shrug to indicate, "that's far too complicated to get into right now."

Or in my own case, when somebody asks me if I'm gay or straight, I often respond by asking if that's a proposition.  :)

6. Gender Identity

Okay, here's the biggie.  The thing that puts the "trans" in "transsexual", and often the hardest thing for cisgendered people to wrap their heads around.  But I'm going to try to 'splain it if you're willing to work with me a little bit here.

Human beings, from childhood, are prone to perceiving an extra-corporeal self.  Religious people might call it their "soul" or "spirit", and even many non-religious people (like me) regard "soul" as a useful metaphor for this abstraction of the self which our busy brains are hard at work constructing.  Each of us are capable, through personal reflection, of noticing a lot of things about our souls.  We have dispositions, preferences, attitudes, temperaments and beliefs.  Many of these traits of our personalities we now know to come partly from brain chemistry and even from parasitic infections, but we've only begun to understand the smallest amount about what makes one person altruistic yet short-tempered, while another might be selfish yet gregarious and fun-loving.

One of the traits of this "soul" is gender.  To demonstrate, let's do a little thought exercise together.  You've probably enjoyed a sci-fi story or two by now in which a person has their consciousness transferred into an android, or a computer, or an artificial body.  Imagine with me for a moment that mad scientists were to download your entire mind into a computer network.  You could communicate and interact with the outside world through terminals and networked robotic systems, but you would otherwise be a disembodied spirit; a literal "ghost in the machine."  Under these circumstances, even if you knew you could never return to your original body, would you still perceive yourself as being the same gender?

Now let's take things a step further.  Let's say the mad scientists who put you out on the net are getting tired of you wrecking havoc with traffic signals and watching people change through security-system cameras in locker rooms, so they offer to give you a new android body to inhabit.  The transfer is complete, and this new body turns out to strongly resemble the opposite sex from your original.  Maybe even perfectly resemble the opposite sex.  Would you not still perceive your "soul" as being a member of your original sex?  If you could afford the repairs, would you not want to modify your new android body to resemble the sex you see yourself as?

This is transsexuality in a nutshell.  The only difference is that a transsexual person does not have a physical memory of inhabiting the "right" sort of body.  Only a knowledge of the soul, which sometimes takes a very long time to come to terms with (trust me on this one), tells the transsexual that "hey, wait a minute.  This body doesn't match my true gender."

A transsexual is not somebody who has had surgery nor even somebody who necessarily will have surgery to reshape sexual organs.  A transsexual is a soul of one gender in a body which resembles the other.  Simple as that.

There is a strong tendency among those who don't understand how deep this goes to think that the best possible therapy is to teach the transsexual to "be happy" with living in this mis-matched body.  But go back a couple paragraphs to that thought exercise.  Would you consider that a particularly viable option?  For an entire lifetime?  Or would that feel like a sort of prison?

Correcting the body to resemble the gender of the soul is as simple as correcting any other physical birth defect.  For modern medicine, it's not even particularly difficult.  "Correcting" the soul to resemble the body... Well that's a kind of murder, isn't it?  You're destroying the person to build another in its place.

Now I could get into the specific neuroscience breakthroughs concerning how and why we think transsexuality comes about.  It's fascinating stuff.  But the fact is it doesn't matter.  Transsexuality can already be defined well enough as a state of the soul's existence.  Not sexuality, not roles, not appearances, not behavior, not sex organs, not chromosomes.  Identity.  The soul.  That part of the self which defines the self.  Or as YHWH supposedly said to Moses, "what I am is what I am, are you what you are or what?"

I'm paraphrasing, of course.

-T

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Not Really Theme Songs

A lot of times snippets of music are borrowed to serve as TV show themes or other "bumper" purposes.  Some of these songs are now vastly more familiar to people in their clipped-down form than their full glory, and that's kind of a shame.  Here are some of the best examples of awesome songs that you probably only know part of, and might not have even known were songs.

1. "Teardrops" by Massive Attack

You may know part of it as:  The opening theme from House


2. "My City Was Gone" by The Pretenders

You may know part of it as:  The opening theme to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

His bumper music uses the intro, edited to cut directly to the guitar solo.  Because of his controversial politics, he briefly lost permission to use it, but gained it back because one of Chrissie Hynde's relatives was a fan of the show.


3. "Sirius"/"Eye In The Sky" by The Alan Parsons Project

You may know part of it as:  The music the Chicago Bulls (and eventually most NBA teams) played in the background when the starting line-up was announced before each game.

"Sirius" is actually a two-minute instrumental introduction to the song "Eye In The Sky", which was a relatively successful single in its own right back in 1980.  They appear as two separate tracks on the CD (and there's a visible separate on the vinyl of the record), but they do bleed from one to the next as a single work.


4. "Heaven and Hell" by Vangelis

You may know part of it as:  The theme from COSMOS.

This is an ambitious album-length work for synthesizers with full orchestra and full chorus (as well as a star vocal appearance by Jon Anderson of Yes).  It's one of my all-time favorite albums.  The bombastic nature of some of the movements might take some getting used to if you're expecting the whole thing to sound like the part you're familiar with.  The section used for the COSMOS theme kicks in at about the 12:48 mark of side one.



5. "What You Don't Know" by Jonatha Brooke

You may know part of it as:  The theme from Dollhouse

The show just uses the "la la la la" stuff from the end of it, but the lyrics actually thematically fit the plot fairly well (which might be part of the reason why Joss Whedon chose it.)


6. "Yahoos and Triangles" by The Refreshments

You may know MOST of it as:  The theme from King of the Hill

The full version isn't really much longer than what the show used.  Just a little more guitar solo.


If you can think of more songs that remain obscure in spite of lots of people having heard part of them, feel free to drop them in the comments.  (Songs written specifically for soundtracks, like "I'll Be There For You" by the Rembrandts, or songs that are more famous than the thing they were used for like "How Soon Is Now" by The Smiths, do not count.)

Thursday, February 28, 2013

A Thought Exercise

I have a thought exercise for those of you who support either California's "Prop 8", or the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on the grounds that states have a "right" to use the popular vote to constitutionally restrict gays from getting married:

Imagine for a moment that there's a magic fairy who casts a spell tonight, and tomorrow morning we all wake up to find that 51% of all Americans are gay, and that it's evenly spread out so that each state is 51% gay people. Let's not even say the magic fairy turned any hetero people gay, but rather the population of America doubled overnight and all the new people were gay people.

In this new America with a narrow majority of gays, the states and eventually the federal government, by popular vote, decide to declare that marriage is ONLY the union between same-sex couples, and no heterosexual marriages would be legally recognized. Two-sex families would have to decide which parent is legally the "real" parent of each child, and nothing they own could be considered joint property anymore. Heterosexual couples could hire lawyers and draft "civil union" documents, but with no assurance that those documents would be recognized in family law courts on issues of hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, power of attorney disputes, etc.

Then let's say the law stays in place like this for 30 years, at which point politicians start referring to same-sex unions as "traditional marriage", and block any hope of reform on the grounds of not wishing to "weaken gay families."

Now imagine that you're a 20-something heterosexual in 2043, living in this magically-reversed America.

Would you consider this arrangement fair? Or would you object to it?

If you would object to it, why do you find it hard to understand that the current arrangement is unfair to gay couples?

I'm back!!!

Okay, so until I find a forum I would rather use, I think I'll resurrect this dusty old Google-hosted blog of mine. Pretty sure anyone with a gmail account can comment here. So, yeah. Hi again.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Zombie Site

So... Yeah. I haven't posted here since January. It seemed like a good idea at the time, since MySpace was melting down, to move my (very active) MySpace blog to a new site. As it turns out, almost none of my old MySpace people followed me from there to here so it quickly began to feel like I was just talking to myself.

It seems personal-journal blogs are pretty much over with. I started doing it as a writing exercise more than anything else, and it was fun while it lasted but I'm pretty much done. These days there's SO MUCH content on the Internet that the only blogs that get followed anymore are those with a specific purpose of some kind.

I'm a political junkie, but I have zero interest in maintaining a political blog. Those site usually end up turning into one of two things:

1. A place where people argue endlessly, usually radiating much more heat than light.

2. A useless echo chamber, in which dissenting opinions are shouted down until they are more-or-less absent.

Pass.

I might, however, start up a music blog. I love talking about music, especially pop. I could go on and on and on about music theory, history, favorite bands, gear, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, there's another force that is killing Blogs, and that's that they have all pretty much become unsuccessful "gated communities."

In order to keep the flood of inevitable SPAM attempts out of the comments, pretty much every blog site is locked down for registered members of their specific "community" only. If you want to comment on a friend's LiveJournal, you need either a LiveJournal account yourself, or at least an account with one of the sites they accept users from. Same here. Same on MySpace.

And other than Facebook (which lacks blogging. The closest they get is their "notes", which misses the mark a bit, and their typically-ignored "discussions" on group pages), and maybe Twitter, people don't want to sign up for a shitload of social networks.

So unless you're blogging for a major publication, or at least a local weekly newspaper, it's hard to build anything like the kind of following my old MySpace blog once had, which means it ends up being a place where you're only writing stuff for a handful of people who already know most of what you have to say anyhow.

Bottom line: I like writing enough that I'll probably find an outlet to do so, but I don't know if it will be a blog, and it seems unlikely it will be this one. Thanks for stopping by, whoever it is that may be looking at this. Go find me on Facebook, or look for my band (Fuzzy Machete) and say "Hi" to me there. I generally don't watch for comments here much anymore.