Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

LucSulla

Supporter
  • Content Count

    3,851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

LucSulla last won the day on August 8 2018

LucSulla had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,962 Excellent

1 Follower

About LucSulla

  • Rank
    Veteran HFCer
  • Birthday 11/01/1979

Previous Fields

  • guitars
    SuperPro, Korina Standard, Talladega, Cali Elite, LP Custom, LP Traditional, Firebird IV
  • amps
    Boogie Mark V and Mark III

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oxford, MS

Recent Profile Visitors

5,078 profile views
  1. They very much are a small business in my opinion. The stakes are generally much lower, so there is way more wiggle room for missteps for your average small band, especially if you're like mine where we're not trying to turn a huge profit, but it's still a small business.
  2. I agree with this and will go further. I think bands work best as benevolent dictatorships. That doesn't mean a whole lot can't be democratic - songs to play, and so on. Hell, my first band that looked like it was going somewhere even broke our copyrights up evenly regardless of who wrote the song because we made a conscious decision of wanting everyone to share equally in any success we (never actually) had. But at the end of the day, someone has to steer the ship, and usually every band has a person or two that emerges as the person to do that. The key is whether or not that person actually gives a shit about everyone's input and can be the decision maker while still making everyone thing their input was valued. In my experience, if everyone has an equal say, nothing ends up getting done because everyone is working on different things if at all. I'm in a group of six, and me and the singer tend to be the final say so. That isn't to say we don't discuss things and take everyone's input seriously. And some of us have deal breakers for completely personal reasons, myself included, that are respected. But when there is a decision to made where the band can't seem to come to some consensus, either me or the other guy usually just makes the call. There is enough respect there that the other guys are down to go with it. Maybe in a power trio, it could be more democratic, but with six people, I don't think we'd get half of what we get done actually done without there being one or two people who will just make a decision and get everyone else in line at the end of the day. We also do a lot of delegation to various skill sets within the band and don't second guess the person who does whatever it is. For instance, our drummer does graphic design and marketing for a living, and when it comes to shirts, the website, and so on, we just let him handle it. We do make suggestions initially, and he usually pitches a couple of ideas. But if there is a stalemate, he's the guy that does this for real, so we generally go with what he thinks is best. I guess to be a little less cynical sounding, I think what you really need is a band that is honest enough to play to the strengths other than music that each member brings to the band. Some people are naturally better at leading a group. Some people are better at the visual creative side. Maybe someone is better at marketing the band. Maybe someone else is good at organizing the setlist. For instance, in my band, I am way better at professional emails and so on than anyone else but am not the best at talking in person to bookers and so on. Zak, our singer, is awful at the professional communication stuff, but he's a monster people person. Due to that, I handle all of the written communication, and he does the face-to-face stuff 90% of the time, and we try to stay out of each other's way with that. If everyone respects everyone else, having one person who actually steers the ship when someone really needs to be at the wheel while everyone else gets a real voice in what they do well outside of playing, it seems to me that you end up with a more productive band on all fronts.
  3. I'm always happy to hear him rep Hee Haw. People forget what a damned monster Roy Clark was.
  4. The only reason I don't do that, especially for quick wipe downs after a show where I'm not being all that particular, is I don't want to dry the board out. I actually used to do that a lot at home until I noticed a little wood-safe oil of whatever type accomplished the same goal and was easier on the fretboard.
  5. Mostly, I just get distracted (which isn't hard anyway) with all the talking and packing, plus if we play a show with PA, guess who owns the PA and is pretty much the only one who knows how to work it? I take string cleaner with me, I just forget. Yep, and I fucking hate them, haha.
  6. Anyone else do this? I usually take three guitars to a show, especially if one is a single coil. I snap a string on a strat, and I can limp through on humbucker - can't say it works well the other way. I have pretty acidic sweat, so if I play a guitar at all without wiping it down, and the string corrode. And you guys know how the 2 a.m. loadout goes - you're just trying to get everything out, and stuff stays in the case for another two or three days before you can properly wipe it down. Since I don't want to go through three packs of strings every two weeks, I just sand them off - I guess polishing would be a better term. Strip the corrosion back off and then wipe them back down with lemon oil. Aside from the wear at the string saddles, they pretty much feel brand new. Because of wear at the string saddles, I usually don't gig more than twice on a set of strings on my main guitars, especially since I moved to 9s and 9.5s, as that's about as far as they go before I start snapping them. The one knock I hear is about pickups snagging the sandings, but for one, the corrosion is all over the board, not the pups. And two, I haven't noticed that particular blend of detritus being terribly magnetic, probably due to all the sweat, oil, and skin in it (70s funk band Sweat, Oil and Skin!). I read a lot about boiling strings and so on, and I'm not that damn cheap. But I rarely see anyone mention just polishing them back up with some sandpaper. Just curious if anyone else did it.
  7. I like my Budda SD 18 a lot. My main amp is a Friedman BE-50, but this one works great for smaller gigs and delivers about the same amount of balls at lower volumes. Friedman helped design the preamp circuit, so I guess it makes sense.
  8. After this week, I wish my band was a looper.
  9. While I don't like loopers all that much as far as replacing a band for an actual show, there are some factors that make me not blame people for using them. You don't have to worry about finding a band for one. Not only does that cut down on herding multiple people and scheduling, it also makes the pittance you can make as a musician at least all go in one pocket. Additionally, with fewer and fewer places out there who will tolerate the volume needed for a proper band, it opens up more venues. Finally, we're all musicians and aren't the demo. Most people just want to hear the hits played well enough that they are easy to sing along to. The difference between a somewhat lifeless but decent version of "Don't Stop Believin'" that the crowd can sing along to is going to satisfy about as many people as a "ripping" (I put in quotes as I hate that damned song in general, but people do love it) version. All in all, I think acoustic looper acts are as much a product of market forces as anything else. I will also admit that it isn't as easy as a lot of people act like it is, particularly when you watch someone build a percussion loop and a bass line with nothing more than an acoustic, a couple of pedals, and a looper. For me personally, the whole fun of playing is doing it with other people, so I don't think I'd get much out of it. However, I don't think I could set up and make it work as well as some local performers I've seen do it.
  10. Why the hell was this closing solo left off the original studio version? It rips! MegaDave, could I please get this mix with the original mastering, please?
  11. That's a pretty good tune, aside from talking about heading to the bar and grill, haha. Actually, upon a second listen, I don't know if it's just my mood today, but I upgrade it to a great tune. It's exactly what I needed to hear at the moment. Music is so cool in that way.
  12. Plus, some of those stories have been told a zillion times. Seriously, is there anyone without even a passing curiosity about the hijinks of 80s rock bands that hasn't heard that Ozzy story to the point of ad nauseum? Was there really nothing else they could have spent some time on at the expense of trimming that scene down. I cringed more at seeing they were actually going to rehash that whole yarn yet again than the scene itself. "Yes, we know Ozzy snorted ants. Yes, we know he drank Nikki's piss. Do we really have to hear/see this all over again?" To be honest, Nikki's explanation as to why they made sure to have Ozzy in the movie was more interesting than the scene with Ozzy in the movie. They basically felt they had to include him because he kept taking them out as openers, treating them well, and they felt that tour ultimately broke them into the mainstream. I didn't know he was quite THAT important to the band, and had I not watched some interviews about the movie, I'd still have not known it despite having seen the movie. That story has always been framed as Ozzy teaching them how to party when it seems the truth is the band feels they owe Ozzy their careers to a degree.
  13. Well, they were, lol. Which is why I liked them at the time and still do. Not because I wanted to be them exactly but because Appetite really broke down that whole L.A. scene in a way that wasn't hagiography or condemnation. I could just tell I was getting something that wasn't all the gussied up bullshit that Poison or even Motley Crue to a degree were peddling in 87/88 . GnR seemed almost Faustian in comparison. And until Eminem hit diamond, I don't think there was any 10 million seller that had lyrics like, "Your daddy works in porno now that mommy's not around. She used to love her heroin, but now she's underground." Plus, they were lyrics about real people. In fact, I don't know off the top of my head if Eminem ever got that dark. But then "My Michelle" is actually a positive song in its way. So yeah, they were scumbags, but at least on that album, if you read the lyrics, you couldn't come away without thinking that all of that hedonism, while sounding pretty damned fun, also carried a pretty hefty price that might leave a lot of permanent damage. At least at the time, that seemed quite a bit different from the celebration of excess that other rock bands were doing at the time. I've always like albums in this vein. I like N.W.A.'s album Straight Outta Compton and Amy Winehouse's Back to Black albums a lot for similar reasons. They just kinda lay it out there with no punches pulled.
×
×
  • Create New...