mcgraham

Minor Swing? Django Reinhardt? It's more of a gypsy jazz piece... well... that's exactly what it is... but it's cool nonetheless.

By the way, I'm thinking Minor Swing as the next one? Does anyone have a preference towards this or another? I'll probably do one on Friday or Saturday.

Good shout on the Bongo. They have a fantastic sound to them. They are one of the few 'production' basses I can name that made me stop dead in my tracks cos the tone was so good.

Here's mine: [url="http://soundcloud.com/mcgrahamhk"]http://soundcloud.com/mcgrahamhk[/url] Only 3 jazz tracks up there at the moment, but now I'm on a roll I hope to add some more stuff.

Ultimately, yes, it's how we bring what we bring that matters. But we are called to do things with excellence too, so if it's something we're serving in, there is an expectation to develop in that capacity.

Yes, I think comparing your fast Bossa solo to your slow Bossa solo is a great example. I think that space is something I've only learned to appreciate as such a valuable component in playing good music because I used to undervalue it for years. Space can say just as much as the notes you play if one let's it... which I'm sure you know, it's just something that comes out in my playing because I 'get' and 'feel' that need to leave space when playing now in the same way I get/feel that a piece needs certain notes.

Oh I'd also disagree the issue is pacing. If that were the case all that would matter is the rhythms that you used... which (IMO) simply is not the case. I think that the use of space, and by that I mean rests or no notes or sound coming from your instrument has a foot in many camps - tying tempo, phrasing, shifting weight from one phrase to another, and all manner of other things.

Don't get me wrong Rob, my comment wasn't meant to be offensive. I did say it 'seemed' relentless, and I didn't say 'without rests', I just said that to me there could've been more breathing room. My apologies in any case if I caused offence. As you say, there's other ways to break it up... I'm personally of the opinion that space is better at doing that the other alternatives you mention. I'd rather not play every other bar, than play something without rests albeit in triplets in those alternate bars.

The worst I've ever forgotten is a tuner. A friend used to turn up regularly to practice without a tuner, music sheets, cable, STRAP, OR SOFTCASE!!! Oh he didn't forget it! He just couldn't be arsed to find or procure any of them.

Don't worry OS, I for one certainly wasn't offended. It's a difficult topic for those who've experienced it. It feels like you're talking to a brick wall with a smiley face painted on it sometimes.

[quote name='oldslapper' timestamp='1318846922' post='1406696']Music is a high priority within services, but musicianship isn't.[/quote] I agree with much of the rest of your post, yet I most strongly agree with this. Taking a step back though, is the rest of the world any better? Sure there are pockets of players in the jazz or instrumental rock or classical regime who work incredibly hard for their craft (I count myself as one of them as that is the type of music I tend towards). They work hard because their art form is so incredibly demanding that they have to put in far more hours than those in other genres of music even to be able to handle the most basic of songs. In contrast, what is the minimum level of skill required to play most other genres (mainstream secular, worship, or otherwise)? Relatively low. What happens when you get even slightly above the bare minimum level? You start to get noticed and praised... even though you still have a long way to go, you will be repeatedly rewarded (whether by verbal praise from others or financial gain or even just the opportunity to perform regularly) for being just slightly above the bare minimum. Thereby bypassing any perceived need to get better and thereby mitigating any likelihood of improvement. It's the path of least resistance, because you don't get much more praise (if any!) for being substantially better in any of these contexts. To be controversial, what we need are more people (in and out of churches) who are willing to say 'you suck'. Because otherwise, if all we say is 'well done, you did a great job' regardless of how good they actually are, people won't be motivated to improve... and our musical standard will continue to fall away and devolve. [/soapbox]

What I find amusing is how 'THE chord progression' is still being used even by those who insist they are being 'fresh' with the music. G D Em C was used by hundreds of songs worldwide for decades (still is)... then a fresh new batch came out Em C G D (e.g. Beechings' Awesome God).... which is the EXACT same progression but starting on the third chord... then a fresh new batch C G Em D (e.g. Hillsong's Mighty to Save verse and most of the chorus) ... which is the same but starting on the final chord of the first progression... and now there's a new batch... D Em C G (e.g. Tim Hughes's Jesus Saves) ... which is the same but starting on the second chord. Loads of songs borrow from each of these sequences and you may note that each progression becomes quite popular around a certain time. Fortunately there are no more 'shifted' permutations left so there'll have to be some variation now.

Cheers bud

I'll be honest, I was surprised that you and Mike didn't use them more when I listened to your renditions. Mike's GS and your first fast BB rendition just seemed relentless with next to no space or breathing room for the piece as a whole... which is fine for basslines but not for solos (IMO). As I'm sure you'll agree, playing relentlessly without rests is akin to people who talk lots but truly say so very little. Rests let the piece breathe and lets whatever else you've played find somewhere to rest in the listener's mind... in the same way if you were doing a talk you would have pauses to let the point you've just made sink in.

Thanks Rob! I can say the same for you. That slow one (despite the initial cheesiness when it first starts) really seemed to bring out your melodic side - your playing seemed to indicate you were really comfortable with that sort of speed, like you just [i]knew[/i] exactly what you could bring to it and how to explore different nuances of the piece without running out of ideas... and you did play the whole thing without eschewing nonsense (I thought)! My gosh I loved your use of space in there. You were totally unafraid to leave these huge rests, and the way you placed them said as much as the stuff either side of them. There was a really nice rhythmic evolution throughout as well, tied up with simple melodic variation. What you did with it reminded me of how Barber, in his 3rd excursion, plays about 6 or 7 variations on a theme with different time signatures in each, and modifies it throughout each such that it changes shape but never becomes unforgettable as where it came from. Nice work! I think we might each be getting somewhere already. Good work!

Right. Felt crap this afternoon so came back to it this evening. Faster version of Blue Bossa for your listening pleasure, complete with some melodic motifs and even a bass breakdown! [url="http://soundcloud.com/mcgrahamhk/fast-blue-bossa-improv"]http://soundcloud.com/mcgrahamhk/fast-blue-bossa-improv[/url] Mike, I've tried to take your comments into account regarding getting a strong melody in from the start, then using that as a 'seed' on which to evolve the improv, then finishing strong as well. I like to think this is sounding more 'complete' as a piece than the other submissions. Let me know what you think. Mark P.S. I definitely think we should've done this sooner. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

Thanks Mike, I appreciate it. I was very much trying to play for the piece and maintaining the integrity of how chilled that was rather than make it into something it was not, which may well have resulted in a more subdued solo than the Giant Steps rendition. I like how burpy an growly your fretless tone is on the recording! I think some of it was the chorus and the reverb but it really brought out the character of the bass. One thing that did stand out to me was the 'blooming' of the notes, which sounds great on the longer note values, but this meant that a lot of the faster passages had a substantial volume drop and just seemed to drop out of earshot compared to held notes. I'm not sure whether a compressor at least on the final recording would help with that, but I would've liked to be able to pick out the phrasing in the faster passages a bit better. I've listened back a few more times before posting, and you know what... I'm really hearing Tom Kennedy in your playing! I don't know whether that's intentional, but the sound and the phrasing (particularly the flowing feeling between 1.35 and 1.55) reeeeally really reminds me of Kennedy's electric bass sound and style. It's got that fluidity and relaxed elements, but enough space and feel to lock in... for that, my hat is tipped to you! I can also hear the bold melodic phrasing you were talking about, particularly at the beginning, as that segues from the bassline to the solo nicely, and then you can hear how it builds (particularly towards that portion from 1.35-1.55) then segues back into more restrained playing, then back into the bassline... so overall a really pleasing progression with a discernable shape from beginning to middle to end. Though I wouldn't have said anything melodic struck me with a 'wow' factor, I do really like that as a piece of music. Well done! I've found a link to a few faster versions so I'll throw one together later. Mark

Sure. I'd say that the homogeneity was more to do with the rigid 8th note pattern that created that really stiff feel rather than the note choice per se. With some more variation and some added space even the notes that were there could've been shaped into something with greater highs and lows. Unrelenting 8ths is akin to all the 80s shredder who used to alternate pick 16th/32nd notes constantly over every bar for 40 bars at a time, only occasionally dropping one or two for a cliched bend or dive bomb. There's nothing wrong with the notes they chose per se, but the rise and fall of any melody that might have been in there was muted by the rigidity of the rhythm.

[url="http://www.jamtracks.ru/mpjam/Jazz/Bluebossa.mp3"]mp3[/url] There's a link to the slower Blue Bossa I used. If you want the abbreviated/edited version I used just let me know.

[size=1]Yikes! That guitar really is [i]butt-clenchingly[/i] out of tune. [/size] Really driving there Rob. I was going to use the word 'swinging' but that has other connotations that I don't mean. I really like the momentum you imparted to the overall piece. I also liked some of the subtle ways you departed from the straighter timing of the majority of your solo for rhythmic tension and release. I could also see/feel how the solo progressed and changed shape at points. My main comment is that it felt really stiff, rigid, and homogenous throughout. Don't get me wrong, I liked it... but when I got to the end and wanted to say which specific bits I liked, I realised there wasn't anything that stood out to me as a high or a low, or as a nice bit of melody or significant movement. This might be a preference thing when it comes to melody and shape, it just seemed to lack discernible or memorable features to the solo - no landmark moments or remarkable features to my ears. Rhythmically it had great feel, but as a whole it seemed so stiff and rigid all the way through that the straightness of it just became fatiguing on the ear towards the end. Even the slight departures from straight rhythmic note values were incredibly slight.

Yea it's great. One thing to bear in mind is that the 967 is a hypercardioid (possibly just 'supercardioid') mic which means it has a VERY tight sensitivity pattern. This means that as a singer you really need to be 'on' the mic, because even the slightest deviation from directly on-axis will result in a dramatic volume and/or tonality difference. This is bad for singers with poor mic control, but fantastic for loud stage environments because it will reject sounds from a source anywhere else except a source in a very tight area around the microphone. Which in turn allows you to get a much greater amount of gain on the mic before feedback in a live situation. Swings and roundabouts

Here's a link to Rob Lunte discussing microphones and preferences. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9PxYCu3sCU"]Microphones - The Vocalist Gig Bag - Tools & Technology For Singers - Recommendations[/url]

Some of the teachers who teach more extreme vocal techniques over in the US (Rob Lunte for example) recommend the Electrovoice N/D767. I use the EV N/D 967 (though I'm not a screamer) and its a similarly excellent sound. These are good alternatives. Very powerful, cutting tone.

Thanks for the honest feedback. If you guys want more polished takes then I'm happy to oblige. I look forward to hearing both of your takes in due course!

Cheers Rob. I appreciate the honest and direct feedback. Re: rhythm - the point that I can pick out as being wavering at the expense of the momentum (to an extent that I'm not so happy with it) is around 1m50s. Other than that, I'll bear your comments in mind for next time. TBH though, this [i]was[/i] totally off the cuff akin to doing it live and in one go... with that in mind I'm not complaining about that. Re: wrong notes - though there are a few in there where I definitely hit a dodgy one, there's a number of others that could be perceived as 'wrong' but that I did put in there because I like the sound of those notes, odd or not. I don't say that in a defensive manner, or as an excuse, as you're entitled to your preferences and I welcome the opinions, but I can tell you now that a lot of my improvised stuff will have some quite 'out-there' note choices if I have the free choice to do so.