Bashir Al Asad is an man who will pay for his crimes to his own people, like Saddam it will happen. It will take time I don't think it will be in the next year. Something will happen his card of mortality is marked and the days are being struck off.
In a statement by US Secretary of State John Kerry, France is described as it's oldest ally. As though to give a back hand bitch slap to the UK. There was no reference to how the UK went into Iraq and it was France who held off and opposed action with Germany. Together these nations were obstinate not to join in. In the UK the public believes the war in Iraq was wrong and the UK followed America like a little loyal lapdog. Even with the mentally challenged President Bush. You'd of though Blair would of been sane enough not to follow Bush anywhere. Shame on you America, who would of thought you were a fair weather friend.
In the meantime Cameron stands and hears the news he has lost the crucial vote for the UK to be a participant in taking military action. His response is with the emotional intelligence of a child, when he admits the UK will not move and he has listened. He says it with the tonal quality of someone who will get you back. There is no dignity in his reply because he is a child and should not be a Prime Minister, he so wanted his name stamped on a war so he could be famous.and it wasn't going to happen. However he is now famous for something quiet different. The first Prime Minister in well over a hundred years to be defeated on a decision of war. He blames Milliband, his arch rival who he has so petulantly bitch slapped in nearly every PMQs there has been and now it comes back on him.
So why might the American's not get why this vote happened and how it happened? We don't like to be running around like an American lapdog, the special relationship appears to have been too much of a one way thing from the UK's point of view. The aftermath of both Iraq and Afghanistan has been prolonged and expensive, in terms of life and money. America did not have a get out plan and did not appear to respect the native populations of both these countries. There is a love for being gun totting, shooting, asking questions but only what rifle lubricant they should use to make their bullets go faster. They have also shown incredibly bad judgement, Bush for one, Vietnam another. We are in a recession and fed up with all wars. There is a continuing deficit and we are bankrupt. Lastly, this decision is not the be all and end all, things can change and it can be revised. Waiting for the rest of Europe to join in is a wise decision, it is then with consensus and legal. It is also cheaper. Also dare I say it, there may be some possibility of political dialogue, talking with the Devil Asad.Although it sounds mad may not be, there may be some real motivation and purpose to do so. Oh yes, and just to say it again, we're not a lapdog, so get over it.
Friday, 30 August 2013
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Too much of a Royal Baby
My normal radio choice has been put in disarray for contrary to belief there is too much of a good thing. It's a fault of the media going crazy over the birth of a baby, a royal baby, too royalty. Personally I don't give a damn about royalty so why should I have to endure vast amounts of news time on this non event. It certainly isn't because the entire British public want to hear about a royal baby. For the statistics of those who feel royalty has a place in the UK are worth looking at. In the Guardian 24th May 2012, of respondents to a survey on royalty, a total of 22 per cent said of English people said we'd be better off without them, whereas 69 per cent said we'd be worse off. These statistics also showed royal popularity had been at it's highest for the last 15 years. I've tried to pull up historical statistics on the royal popularity contest, but it is difficult. There are just too many web sites. However, 2012 was special, it was a jubilee year so the whole nation was under an obligation to be part of it. On jubilee day, I refused to watch the news or any TV, again that was another bad news day.
I find the figure of just 22 per cent holding an anti royalty feeling as overwhelmingly low. Also these surveys can be inconclusive. For example why did the 69 per cent think the UK would be better keeping the royal family? The biggest factor is because they feel it is worth world press coverage and advertising. It makes the rest of the world come to the UK with the misguided perception of kings and queens being wonderful traditional things. There's a romantic ethereal quality to them. They don't consider their inbreeding, and historically tyrannical behaviour towards their own subjects. However, it wasn't long ago when there was a national crisis with the public and with the royal family. Had it been done at the time of Princess Diana's death in 1997, popularity dropped like a stone. The queen knows this herself and the public got to a precipice of resentment turning to loathing and complete contempt. There was suggestions of Dianna about to announce her engagement and marriage to Dodi Fayed. Nobody knows for sure, but such an act would in itself of caused a lot of issues. He being of Islamic faith some conspiracy theorists suggest had a part to play. To have a Muslim vein to the royal family could of been just stretching the political correctness vein just a little far.
See! Already I know too much about the British royal family than I want. This anally retentive information has been forced on me through the media. I'd rather there were news programs about economic theory, or exposes of the real cost of politics in the UK. Royalty has no place in my life and were I able to expunge it from my memory by taking a royal memory erasing pill I would. They have no real function, all they do is sap money away from tax payers and live the golden life style. I am not a subject of them, I owe them nothing, they have done nothing for me other than peer out from the face of coins and notes. In short if I never hear, see or read another article about the royal family it will be too soon in my life.
I find the figure of just 22 per cent holding an anti royalty feeling as overwhelmingly low. Also these surveys can be inconclusive. For example why did the 69 per cent think the UK would be better keeping the royal family? The biggest factor is because they feel it is worth world press coverage and advertising. It makes the rest of the world come to the UK with the misguided perception of kings and queens being wonderful traditional things. There's a romantic ethereal quality to them. They don't consider their inbreeding, and historically tyrannical behaviour towards their own subjects. However, it wasn't long ago when there was a national crisis with the public and with the royal family. Had it been done at the time of Princess Diana's death in 1997, popularity dropped like a stone. The queen knows this herself and the public got to a precipice of resentment turning to loathing and complete contempt. There was suggestions of Dianna about to announce her engagement and marriage to Dodi Fayed. Nobody knows for sure, but such an act would in itself of caused a lot of issues. He being of Islamic faith some conspiracy theorists suggest had a part to play. To have a Muslim vein to the royal family could of been just stretching the political correctness vein just a little far.
See! Already I know too much about the British royal family than I want. This anally retentive information has been forced on me through the media. I'd rather there were news programs about economic theory, or exposes of the real cost of politics in the UK. Royalty has no place in my life and were I able to expunge it from my memory by taking a royal memory erasing pill I would. They have no real function, all they do is sap money away from tax payers and live the golden life style. I am not a subject of them, I owe them nothing, they have done nothing for me other than peer out from the face of coins and notes. In short if I never hear, see or read another article about the royal family it will be too soon in my life.
Friday, 12 July 2013
MPs lose the plot as they ready for a pay rise
There is a caricature sketch in today's Times newspaper. It is of Cameron and a thought bubble pops up about MPs pay, he thinks it would be bad to give them a pay rise, but his next thought is to delegate it to a body separate from MPs. Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) then were passed the buck. However, the body who overlooked MPs allowances then proposed the biggest pay increase for MPs in the history of British politics at nearly 11 per cent. Now Cameron looks as much an individual lining his pockets as do the rest of our MPs at a time they all advocate austerity is the best policy. The IPSA findings have been put out to public consultation and so the public is given a chance to have their say. I for one intend to fully take up this opportunity. Another salient point of this fact is not a single MP has proposed a motion to vote this down. Every single one of those MPs look as though they are rubbing their hands together in greed. The very thought of this rise makes them drool saliva as they think of how they are going to spend the money. Privately they want to take the money, publicly though they will intimate it is disgraceful, but not too loudly of course.
The UK has a budget deficit. Although economists and politicians define the deficit as not growing, in real terms the actual debt is growing year on year. The deficit is the rate of borrowing per year, whereas the debt is the accumulated borrowing over the years. There is a debt and a deficit because not enough money is being taken in tax receipts in relation to the amount of money which is spent. Spending goes on pensioners, welfare benefits, the NHS , education and defence to name a few. Politicians are afraid to tackle the growing pension bill or pensioner benefits because pensioners are the most likely people to vote. The grey vote is about the biggest say anyone in retirement can get. It's their chance to moan at the polls. Saying this however, I'd bet there must be a few pensioners out there who feel the ill wind of recession because they will take it on themselves to financially help support their families when they can. After all they do not want to see their loved ones in poverty either. Put it another way, they are not untouched by the recession although being partly protected.
Those hardest hit by the continuing entrenched recession are those on welfare benefits and those who are on low incomes but having to claim supporting welfare benefits. Sometimes the two are treated in the same way. Indeed it has recently been remarked Universal Credits will not give working families more incentive to work as the pay-off taper against earnings and UC is barely noticeable. Those who receive just welfare benefits are now demonised by politicians as though it is their own fault. There may well be some case of long term unemployment where individuals have been institutionalised into receiving benefit and not attempting to work, but this demonising is good old scape goating and nothing more. For it is a delicate two way process pulling a nation out of recession and it's not just the job of government as a duty of care, it is also it's job to help raise the country's economic growth. Something severely missing at this time. In reality, what MPs have imposed on the country is zero performance growth and ever greater welfare bills. The only people who can be at fault are the politicians. In the same instances some political parties believe government should be more privatised. Yet if privatisation and its success is based on performance, because it is simple capitalism then every MP in the current government would be sacked or their employer taking capability action against them. So a pay rise should only be awarded where there has been shown a respective improvement in performance. The UK is still in debt and the debt crisis is growing for future generations therefore the notion of performance related pay does not equate and neither an MPs pay.
There are now many people in the UK who use food banks. The number of children in poverty has grown. Educational ignorance is strife because of the fear University students have carrying a debt around their necks for the rest of their lives. A debt which would have to be considered if they were going to purchase a property. The tendency now is towards an ever growing rental market because built housing is at it's lowest, the population is every increasing and immigration (another scape goat) could be an added cause. The UK will at some point go through a righting process and an even larger part of the population will descend into poverty, especially once interest rates begin to rise again. Yet amongst all this politicians think their friendly independent IPSA support group can surrender up to them a greater rate of pay for the work they do. The disparity is mind boggling. Their pay is nearly two and a half times the average pay as it is, how they think it then means they are representatives of the British people would seem to suggest there could be a mental illness.
The financial righting in the UK could result in civil unrest because the full impact of bankrupt Britannia has still not been felt. Looking around the world and viewing the current civil unrest it is not inconceivable this may be bloody and violent. At least comfortable MPs can afford to purchase their own protective clothing, it's a little different for the rest of us though.
The UK has a budget deficit. Although economists and politicians define the deficit as not growing, in real terms the actual debt is growing year on year. The deficit is the rate of borrowing per year, whereas the debt is the accumulated borrowing over the years. There is a debt and a deficit because not enough money is being taken in tax receipts in relation to the amount of money which is spent. Spending goes on pensioners, welfare benefits, the NHS , education and defence to name a few. Politicians are afraid to tackle the growing pension bill or pensioner benefits because pensioners are the most likely people to vote. The grey vote is about the biggest say anyone in retirement can get. It's their chance to moan at the polls. Saying this however, I'd bet there must be a few pensioners out there who feel the ill wind of recession because they will take it on themselves to financially help support their families when they can. After all they do not want to see their loved ones in poverty either. Put it another way, they are not untouched by the recession although being partly protected.
Those hardest hit by the continuing entrenched recession are those on welfare benefits and those who are on low incomes but having to claim supporting welfare benefits. Sometimes the two are treated in the same way. Indeed it has recently been remarked Universal Credits will not give working families more incentive to work as the pay-off taper against earnings and UC is barely noticeable. Those who receive just welfare benefits are now demonised by politicians as though it is their own fault. There may well be some case of long term unemployment where individuals have been institutionalised into receiving benefit and not attempting to work, but this demonising is good old scape goating and nothing more. For it is a delicate two way process pulling a nation out of recession and it's not just the job of government as a duty of care, it is also it's job to help raise the country's economic growth. Something severely missing at this time. In reality, what MPs have imposed on the country is zero performance growth and ever greater welfare bills. The only people who can be at fault are the politicians. In the same instances some political parties believe government should be more privatised. Yet if privatisation and its success is based on performance, because it is simple capitalism then every MP in the current government would be sacked or their employer taking capability action against them. So a pay rise should only be awarded where there has been shown a respective improvement in performance. The UK is still in debt and the debt crisis is growing for future generations therefore the notion of performance related pay does not equate and neither an MPs pay.
There are now many people in the UK who use food banks. The number of children in poverty has grown. Educational ignorance is strife because of the fear University students have carrying a debt around their necks for the rest of their lives. A debt which would have to be considered if they were going to purchase a property. The tendency now is towards an ever growing rental market because built housing is at it's lowest, the population is every increasing and immigration (another scape goat) could be an added cause. The UK will at some point go through a righting process and an even larger part of the population will descend into poverty, especially once interest rates begin to rise again. Yet amongst all this politicians think their friendly independent IPSA support group can surrender up to them a greater rate of pay for the work they do. The disparity is mind boggling. Their pay is nearly two and a half times the average pay as it is, how they think it then means they are representatives of the British people would seem to suggest there could be a mental illness.
The financial righting in the UK could result in civil unrest because the full impact of bankrupt Britannia has still not been felt. Looking around the world and viewing the current civil unrest it is not inconceivable this may be bloody and violent. At least comfortable MPs can afford to purchase their own protective clothing, it's a little different for the rest of us though.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Ignorance
What pisses me off is ignorance. When someone is expected to do a part of their job and they don't, because they were the wrong person employed, or they haven't been trained and the the buck gets passed when it could of been dealt with at an earlier point. Ignorance is what makes customer services departments the most dangerous part of any organization. They simply are not up to doing the job. They end up being people on the end of phones who answer callers but don't actually give any answers, they may follow a script but not listen. They are impotent and they in turn make the organizations they work for look uncaring, incapable and likely to lose custom. Just in the same way pushy phone sell ling pops up every now and again. The sales rep on the end of the phone who just wants to keep pushing and pushing, the rep who thinks they know everything. They pressurise people they call into purchasing goods and if the phone is put down on them, they just ring again at another time. This is not only ignorance it is harassment and should be criminal. Just as ignorance should be criminal. There are a lot of defences which are put up but they end up with no solution to the problem. Customer service reps and sales reps are prime examples of stupid.
It has been said, stupid things happen to stupid people, such is the karma of this world.
It has been said, stupid things happen to stupid people, such is the karma of this world.
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Bieber is Booed, what a delight
And with these words the presenter said
"The first ever milestone award for ..(being the world's biggest twat)...goes to Justine Bieber." Justine (Arsehole) Beiber, known by his friends as JAB then went on stage to receive his milestone award, which is a misnomer as the real name is tombstone award. The crowd did not welcome him with ecstatic delight. To the JAB's horror and confusion the booed. What a wonderful sight it was to view. Certainly on American TV broadcast nationally, to see this upstart little snobby nosed shite get recognised by his own fan base as being a complete twat. I could of told all those fans a few years ago they were nuts. It seems however, even nuts can get to see the light. JAB has acted like an idiot, he has treated his fans and the public to the petulant, arrogant side. The look on JAB's face was a picture which could be hung in the gallery of the stunned. It was almost a realisation not everybody actually loves or likes JAB. His response sounded like he was trying to win back the audience, they were not doing as he had expected them to do. He is so full of himself he thought it would be a matter of taking the microphone and talking about his number one fan (himself) and his inspirations. The time he stood there aghast; open mouthed like a fish desperately hoping a flake of food will suddenly be sucked into the vacuum of it's mouth, went on and on. Half of the time which may have been allocated to his speech was spent listening to the boos. Oh dear JAB, was it an insult to your ego? JAB thank those people in his life who had helped him and in a desperate plead to get cheers the thanked Jesus Christ, however I never actually thought JC did much in the way of music production, well certainly not in the last 2000 years anyway.
There is a truth which often takes time to dawn on the general public, and certainly fans of any famous personality. It is to do with the impression they give. For example, an actor will play a part, the regurgitate words they have learnt or read of a cue card. The part they play may be a hero, someone cool, someone who you would give respect. In reality this is just a fictional character. What the audience doesn't know is what the actor is really like as a person. It takes time for this side of an individual to come out and spill into the public arena. Some are aware of this and are exceedingly careful. Others may be careful but then they are caught unawares. Their veil of fictional serenity is lifted. We then get to see what they are like as real people. At this point if they are not nice. If they are utterly contemptuous, then the public who made them feels they have been cheated. That actor then begins to lose their value, because although they can act, when you know what they are like as a person you just don't want to see them again. It is a brave studio who will employ them knowing of this publicity. In a manner the same goes with JAB. If his audience feels like this about him the likelihood is his songs will not be as popular as he once thought they were. At this point JAB is taken down by his own hubris.
With luck in a few months time the world could like have fewer songs sold by one once known artist, as they descend into musical oblivion. Perhaps at this point someone else will come along who has a little more substance.
"The first ever milestone award for ..(being the world's biggest twat)...goes to Justine Bieber." Justine (Arsehole) Beiber, known by his friends as JAB then went on stage to receive his milestone award, which is a misnomer as the real name is tombstone award. The crowd did not welcome him with ecstatic delight. To the JAB's horror and confusion the booed. What a wonderful sight it was to view. Certainly on American TV broadcast nationally, to see this upstart little snobby nosed shite get recognised by his own fan base as being a complete twat. I could of told all those fans a few years ago they were nuts. It seems however, even nuts can get to see the light. JAB has acted like an idiot, he has treated his fans and the public to the petulant, arrogant side. The look on JAB's face was a picture which could be hung in the gallery of the stunned. It was almost a realisation not everybody actually loves or likes JAB. His response sounded like he was trying to win back the audience, they were not doing as he had expected them to do. He is so full of himself he thought it would be a matter of taking the microphone and talking about his number one fan (himself) and his inspirations. The time he stood there aghast; open mouthed like a fish desperately hoping a flake of food will suddenly be sucked into the vacuum of it's mouth, went on and on. Half of the time which may have been allocated to his speech was spent listening to the boos. Oh dear JAB, was it an insult to your ego? JAB thank those people in his life who had helped him and in a desperate plead to get cheers the thanked Jesus Christ, however I never actually thought JC did much in the way of music production, well certainly not in the last 2000 years anyway.
There is a truth which often takes time to dawn on the general public, and certainly fans of any famous personality. It is to do with the impression they give. For example, an actor will play a part, the regurgitate words they have learnt or read of a cue card. The part they play may be a hero, someone cool, someone who you would give respect. In reality this is just a fictional character. What the audience doesn't know is what the actor is really like as a person. It takes time for this side of an individual to come out and spill into the public arena. Some are aware of this and are exceedingly careful. Others may be careful but then they are caught unawares. Their veil of fictional serenity is lifted. We then get to see what they are like as real people. At this point if they are not nice. If they are utterly contemptuous, then the public who made them feels they have been cheated. That actor then begins to lose their value, because although they can act, when you know what they are like as a person you just don't want to see them again. It is a brave studio who will employ them knowing of this publicity. In a manner the same goes with JAB. If his audience feels like this about him the likelihood is his songs will not be as popular as he once thought they were. At this point JAB is taken down by his own hubris.
With luck in a few months time the world could like have fewer songs sold by one once known artist, as they descend into musical oblivion. Perhaps at this point someone else will come along who has a little more substance.
Sunday, 5 May 2013
The Idiot Award goes to Reese Witherspoon
As I began to watch a video of Reese Witherspoon being handcuffed and arrested for obstructing a police officer in his line of duty (work), I couldn't help think here was an example of another superstar who thinks they are above the law. As though being famous immediately excludes these persons from having do be respectful to law, order and justice. Of course to a certain extent this may well be true when considering the actor who got away with murdering his wife. The one to remain nameless, purely because I've forgotten his name, but enjoyed a high speed chase on TV prior to his arrest some years ago. Justice is in reality something which is more likely to favour the rich than the poor. Yet this is not justice, this is paid for get-out-of-jail cards, via expensive lawyers. While Reese was being handcuffed she asked the policeman if he knew who she was. He obviously doesn't watch much TV or as it was night time didn't recognise her. Maybe Reese looks a lot different since her last blockbuster movie came out. I mean looks do fade, and the vanity of a film star is more vigilant to these changes than any other normal human being.
In all fairness Reese didn't commit a great crime. She opened her mouth and questioned an authority figure. However, what she did was to talk over the arresting officer, she was angry and was out to give him a bit of her mind. She clearly wasn't thinking at all and in this instance requires the idiot award for the month. She just would not shut up. It is therefore sad to see someone who famous and well known around the world only be given a $100 fine. In consideration of her behaviour the fine should of been a hundred times higher. It then would of been proportionate to her fame. As I researched the internet about this incident more damning details emerged. The video actually last for a couple of hours, it's recording sound as Reese and her partner Jim Toth are sat in the back seat. Jim was originally arrested for being a drunk driver. He tells Reese she has made the whole incident national news by her behaviour, but she still doesn't understand her own belligerence, she just doesn't get it. In another part of the video Jim even tells the officer Reese is more drunk than he is. If she had kept her gob shut and let her partner be arrested she could of well driven the car back home. In doing so then she would of been drink driving. I've no doubt she would of done this. To an extent the arresting officer did both her and the American public a great favour in slipping on the hand cuffs.
In watching Reese explain her behaviour, in a much shorter interview on Good Morning America; it is noticeable how she shakes her head as if to say "no," in disagreement or negatively. While saying one thing and shakes her head negatively both body and mouth are unsynchronised. Taken together, her body language, denotes someone who does not believe what they are saying. Unless what they are saying is "no" and then it would be a congruent gesture. Reese thought she would get away with it. At the end of the interview she spoke about having played a lawyer in her movies. True this maybe, but she also says she is a not a lawyer. Another sign of discord in her body language arises as Reese is not shaking her head but rather nodding her head. To have been synchronised she should of been shaking her head. Int this part of the interview she is more relaxed, in any event, consciously or unconsciously Reese believes she is a lawyer and does know her rights. Reese has a high opinion of herself, she's positive she knows her rights and this is her hubris. My personal interpretation of both episodes is Reese comes across as a pretty stupid woman. I'd invite anyone to watch the Good Morning America interview a few times and see for themselves. It's there if you're vigilant enough to see it.
And now here's a tip for Jim, next time you go out with Reese and she's prone to a glass or two, take a cab, book into a hotel, or get a gag. All of which might prevent her from getting into trouble.
In all fairness Reese didn't commit a great crime. She opened her mouth and questioned an authority figure. However, what she did was to talk over the arresting officer, she was angry and was out to give him a bit of her mind. She clearly wasn't thinking at all and in this instance requires the idiot award for the month. She just would not shut up. It is therefore sad to see someone who famous and well known around the world only be given a $100 fine. In consideration of her behaviour the fine should of been a hundred times higher. It then would of been proportionate to her fame. As I researched the internet about this incident more damning details emerged. The video actually last for a couple of hours, it's recording sound as Reese and her partner Jim Toth are sat in the back seat. Jim was originally arrested for being a drunk driver. He tells Reese she has made the whole incident national news by her behaviour, but she still doesn't understand her own belligerence, she just doesn't get it. In another part of the video Jim even tells the officer Reese is more drunk than he is. If she had kept her gob shut and let her partner be arrested she could of well driven the car back home. In doing so then she would of been drink driving. I've no doubt she would of done this. To an extent the arresting officer did both her and the American public a great favour in slipping on the hand cuffs.
In watching Reese explain her behaviour, in a much shorter interview on Good Morning America; it is noticeable how she shakes her head as if to say "no," in disagreement or negatively. While saying one thing and shakes her head negatively both body and mouth are unsynchronised. Taken together, her body language, denotes someone who does not believe what they are saying. Unless what they are saying is "no" and then it would be a congruent gesture. Reese thought she would get away with it. At the end of the interview she spoke about having played a lawyer in her movies. True this maybe, but she also says she is a not a lawyer. Another sign of discord in her body language arises as Reese is not shaking her head but rather nodding her head. To have been synchronised she should of been shaking her head. Int this part of the interview she is more relaxed, in any event, consciously or unconsciously Reese believes she is a lawyer and does know her rights. Reese has a high opinion of herself, she's positive she knows her rights and this is her hubris. My personal interpretation of both episodes is Reese comes across as a pretty stupid woman. I'd invite anyone to watch the Good Morning America interview a few times and see for themselves. It's there if you're vigilant enough to see it.
And now here's a tip for Jim, next time you go out with Reese and she's prone to a glass or two, take a cab, book into a hotel, or get a gag. All of which might prevent her from getting into trouble.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
aNueNue U900 Soprano Review
I just got a new Ukulele, the excitement has been bubbling up since it was ordered a few days ago, it's the aNueNeu U900. On doing some research it seemed this Ukulele is big in Japan, there are hundreds of videos of people playing it, there are even two glove puppets which have been characterised in videos playing both the rabbit and the bear (pineapple) versions of the instrument. The advertising is catchy, it's young it's bright and it's fun. The thought which went through my head was how Japanese people go for a quality product and this product was probably Japanese as well. But the reality is I'm not entirely sure where this company is based, who owns it and how they work. Doing a search on the internet has so far proved to be inconclusive. It is a new company, their web site has the image of a Hawain type Island but then anyone can do a web site and make it appear to be any place in the world. It should not of been a surprise but it was, there stuck on the neck of the Uke was a little sticker which said "made in China." At this point I felt a little disappointed. Whoever aNueNue are they subcontract the building of their Ukes to factories or companies in China. I suppose my hope was they had been built by Japanese robots to Japanese specification in Japan. A little naive in reality.
The Ukulele arrived, well packaged from the distributor, and I carefully opened it. There was a tag attached to the headstock indicating Aquilla strings had been used. The first thing I did was remove this. I could tell straight away this was a different instrument from the beautiful Bertha I normally play. Bertha though beautiful is a budget uke. However, she has given me 4 months of every day playing and experience. So I'm starting to know a thing or two about Ukes. The U900 is described as a laminate mahogany Uke. It is well constructed and reminds me a little of the old type of wood furniture which used to be typical of the 1970s. The U900 body appears slightly smaller than Bertha's, the action is excellent, so low and so much easier to finger the frets than Bertha. It is however important to realise playing technique should be taken into account when using any instrument. How it is held and how your left hand plays the frets can determine whether you are able to achieve the correct cord formations. So preventing any buzz. I gave it a few strums and then proceeded to spend the next two and a half hours strumming away, getting used to the feel. My left hand may not be holding the neck correctly as I'm finding there is too much pressure on the headstock, but the shape of the wood and feel of the headstock is harder on my index finger, it almost bites into it. In a short time I wasn't quite happy. It's to do with a buzzing noise generated from the C string. This is a new instrument and I can't believe this is actually happening. So considering my skills are amateurish I think I will get someone else's opinion. Someone I know who can play the Uke and as what they think. If it is the case of a buzzing C string then it's going to have to be returned back to the distributor.
At the moment I am at the not-quite-convinced stage. Was this a good purchase? Is this to do with the way I strum or pluck the C string? By the end of the week I'll know what I am going to do with it. Also I'm not sure if I will purchase another one not another one by this company or from this distributor. I need to be completely satisfied. It's a recession and every penny spent must be accounted for. I'll add an additional paragraph once I've had some further advice on the issue.
Update
I've now had this uke for three months. The C string did buzz so I sent it back to the shop. They in turn returned it or a new one, I can't tell which and took three weeks over it. I was disappointed with the distributor, but this happens when purchasing from the internet. I do like playing the instrument but at times am wary. I can hear an occasional buzz, partly down to my chord formations but possibly down to the instrument. Given a choice I would not recommend this instrument, but for now I'm stuck with it. I should of asked for a refund. So am still in a process of mentally accepting Harvey (uke name). There is not doubt though playing on a better quality instrument does enhance the appeal of learning the uke. Final say, if you do buy one, get it from a shop and if you don't but then find it's not up to scratch don't hesitate to ask for a refund. I know got an eye on my next uke in a years time. Probably a flea.
The Ukulele arrived, well packaged from the distributor, and I carefully opened it. There was a tag attached to the headstock indicating Aquilla strings had been used. The first thing I did was remove this. I could tell straight away this was a different instrument from the beautiful Bertha I normally play. Bertha though beautiful is a budget uke. However, she has given me 4 months of every day playing and experience. So I'm starting to know a thing or two about Ukes. The U900 is described as a laminate mahogany Uke. It is well constructed and reminds me a little of the old type of wood furniture which used to be typical of the 1970s. The U900 body appears slightly smaller than Bertha's, the action is excellent, so low and so much easier to finger the frets than Bertha. It is however important to realise playing technique should be taken into account when using any instrument. How it is held and how your left hand plays the frets can determine whether you are able to achieve the correct cord formations. So preventing any buzz. I gave it a few strums and then proceeded to spend the next two and a half hours strumming away, getting used to the feel. My left hand may not be holding the neck correctly as I'm finding there is too much pressure on the headstock, but the shape of the wood and feel of the headstock is harder on my index finger, it almost bites into it. In a short time I wasn't quite happy. It's to do with a buzzing noise generated from the C string. This is a new instrument and I can't believe this is actually happening. So considering my skills are amateurish I think I will get someone else's opinion. Someone I know who can play the Uke and as what they think. If it is the case of a buzzing C string then it's going to have to be returned back to the distributor.At the moment I am at the not-quite-convinced stage. Was this a good purchase? Is this to do with the way I strum or pluck the C string? By the end of the week I'll know what I am going to do with it. Also I'm not sure if I will purchase another one not another one by this company or from this distributor. I need to be completely satisfied. It's a recession and every penny spent must be accounted for. I'll add an additional paragraph once I've had some further advice on the issue.
Update
I've now had this uke for three months. The C string did buzz so I sent it back to the shop. They in turn returned it or a new one, I can't tell which and took three weeks over it. I was disappointed with the distributor, but this happens when purchasing from the internet. I do like playing the instrument but at times am wary. I can hear an occasional buzz, partly down to my chord formations but possibly down to the instrument. Given a choice I would not recommend this instrument, but for now I'm stuck with it. I should of asked for a refund. So am still in a process of mentally accepting Harvey (uke name). There is not doubt though playing on a better quality instrument does enhance the appeal of learning the uke. Final say, if you do buy one, get it from a shop and if you don't but then find it's not up to scratch don't hesitate to ask for a refund. I know got an eye on my next uke in a years time. Probably a flea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
