mcgraham

I personally wouldn't go so far as to say Matt's tone is thin, it is a generally more 'open' sound, with a defined crisp attack, and much more treble than the average typical bass sound, almost like the way classical/acoustic guitars sound. Very crisp, clean, full sounding on each note. Regarding lack of buzz, good construction plays a part i.e. if the fret job is good, and the neck, body and coupling is rigid (ideally does not move at all) then buzzing should be minimal. We've touched on the topic of having a unique voice/sound. As an aside, I hate pretentiousness; therefore I have to be honest about the whole 'unique voice' thing. Whilst I do not deny that certain musicians are easily identifiable on any instrument, and that they have developed their own distinct sound (encompassing note choices, feel, phrasing, specific tonal attributes, etc), I do not agree that other people cannot ever sound [i]like[/i] them. I will acknowledge that sounding exactly like someone may require a great amount of work (and that to sound EXACTLY like them may be impossible; see note below), but these people are only human, and so are we. As such, if we've heard something, we [i]can[/i] learn to replicate/approximate it to a good degree. I truly believe that if you have even an iota of talent, and the discipline to put in hard work and time on your instrument, you can accomplish and approximate virtually anything you set your mind to. Again, just my opinion Mark NOTE: As the average listener cannot accurately discern the difference between two completely different musicians (Dave Grohl and Joe Satriani being a quotable example), then sounding 'exactly' like someone is too subjective purely from the perspective of human ears. I therefore propose that to sound 'exactly' like someone means that if the waveform of a recording of an imitated piece is inverted, and played over the recording of the original then the signals totally cancel each other out. Whilst having a machine effectively decide how close an imitation sounds to an original may appear to be completely absurd, it at least provides for an objective comparison of an imitated piece.

[quote]Check out the DVD, it's really worth seeing. He's got an excellent live CD/DVD out as well, it's only available from his website and features Jojo Mayer on drums. I can think of several other players with a worse bass tone than Matts, Marcus Millers for instance, I was listening to his live album earlier, now he really could do with a bass player.[/quote] It does look amazing... I [i]do[/i] need some more music DVD's. I have an addiction to watching live concerts of great musicians. I have the Live CD/DVD, ordered it shortly after it came out. He was kind enough to autograph it with a short message too. I didn't request it so I imagine he does/did it for most orders, but it's still awesome to have a signed copy. Re: Marcus Miller, I (personally) disagree with you there. Whilst I would [i]completely[/i] agree that his sound does not fulfil the typical bass role, I am constantly amazed by how muscular and thick his sound is, even with the trademark slap-a-rama he fills his songs with. Whilst I'm not too keen on how every song appears to be filled with that particular sound, I am amazed how he manages to still fill the bass role (to a reasonable extent) even with his trademark sound. Mark

I agree about the future2future clips. I've only seen bits on Youtube, but his sound even on those not-so-great quality vids is great. Although saying that I agree with XB to a certain extent, as a bass player his sound on certain albums and certain songs lacks, and really doesn't do it's job. I don't want/intend to belittle bass as an expressive instrument, but it's called a 'bass' for a reason. That doesn't mean you have to stick to root notes, avoid chords, use two fingers, only play down low, and only eq to have low mids and bass, but it's important to have the bass function fulfilled in a group. Whilst that role doesn't necessarily need to be filled by the bass player, it does make quite a bit of sense to do it that way round. Just my opinion Mark

6stringbassist - I think I read the same article as you about MG's action being as low as can be achieved without buzzing. I also recall this same article (or forum post?) saying that the bass would likely buzz and rattle all over the place if it wasn't for the ramp keeping things under control. However, Enrico at Wood&Tronics happens to be a good friend of Matt Garrison (my understanding is that they were in the States together/same time). He and Mark @ BassDirect have both mentioned that the/one of the keys to great tone is a slightly higher action than 'super low', and that artists such as Matt Garrison know and use this; same with guitarists. I can verify this to some extent. In short, my action qualified as super low, ~1-1.5mm @ 12th fret without any notes fretted. I then backed it off to about 1.5-2.5mm (still very low but not as low as it was) The lowest action trained me to play with a light touch, but the fractionally higher action afforded me better tone, and a wider range of accessible dynamics. It also feels better. Try it yourself, you may be pleasantly surprised by the sound and the feel. Mark

I love the look of Ritters, and the prestige that they carry is undeniable. BUT! ultimately it's about sound. Have a search on Talkbass, there's a few clips floating round. Personally, the sound reeeeally doesn't do it for me. Maybe you can dial an amazing tone or several amazing tones in... but for the price I'd expect [b][i]serious[/i][/b] plug n play action. Mark

[quote]My own studies of composition have revealed that one of my problems, one of the barriers to my producing anything of value, is my overwhelming desire to complicate things, to look for complex harmonies, melodies and rhythms; in short, to be 'clever'.[/quote] I used to suffer from the same thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing that in your practice times, but when it becomes an end in itself (particularly in performance) it starts to cloud over any good reason for performing. [quote]Your point is essentially about learning to walk before you try running. I think that applies equally to both craft and art. Good point well made.[/quote]Thanks. Although I think the analogy falls down *chortle* at the point of recognising more subtle/lesser spotted choices. Mark

Just wanted to share a little bit about how my creative juices got flowing to give my comments some context. My background in music started with playing at church, i.e. playing covers of contemporary worship songs. Nothing too difficult, 99% of the stuff stayed within one key and no odd chords. That was a really safe learning environment for developing creativity, particularly as a bass player. It was about creating a groove (or at least a feel or pulse) first, and then developing note choice. I was envious of guitarists (no shame!) so I eventually took up guitar and also developed my melodic side at home, by imitation of recorded parts I heard/knew/played. That was a more restrictive environment because the music had a fairly rigid structure, and the music was not an end in itself, it was (and is!) about serving the congregation. A few years later I got involved with a gospel choir. Almost complete musical freedom there with regard to improv, rhythm, groove, feel, pulse etc, whilst still retaining really groovy enjoyable music. I grew massively as a musician there. But I could not have made full use of it without starting in the more restrictive situation. Why? The more restrictive environment offered me but a few quite obvious choices on what I could change or contribute to. This was a good thing! The fewer choices you have, the easier the decision is to make. As a beginner in such things it is helpful to be directed towards good choices, and helpful to know when there's a bad one. BUT... in time, this also taught me to [i]see[/i] and to [i]realise[/i] that there are always many other, much more subtle choices that we often miss, or never even consider. It also made me realise that you always have options when playing, however subtle, and it's up to you to make use of the situation. In short, whatever the level of restriction in a musical environment, you [i]always[/i] have options and opportunities to be creative, it all comes down to whether you see it that way, and the choices [i]you[/i] make when playing. Mark

[quote]My sincere apologies MARK. Fcck f*** f*** I hate making mistakes like that[/quote] No worries bud, I like the name Mike! Mark

[quote]Ahhhh!! the soothing voice of reason. Thank you Mike.[/quote] *looks around for a Mike* I'll presume you mean me in which case, thank you! One tries one's best. Mark P.S. Sorry for the slight facetiousness, I couldn't help myself.

I think that [i]any[/i] group will sap your imagination and creativity if you let it, be it covers or originals. Beyond heavy improv based groups, can you think of any group that does not keep playing the same songs (written by them or others) over and over (to varying degrees) at gigs/events? You are responsible for being creative and imaginative. Yes, I acknowledge some environments are easier to be creative in than others, so doesn't that mean if you can thrive in a restrictive environment, then your creative ability will prosper in an unrestricted one. [i]Why[/i] can you not be imaginative and creative doing covers? Are you [i]really[/i] restricted to doing things [i]exactly[/i] as recorded? Are you telling me that you can't think of something else that could work with that song, or perhaps even improve upon it, either on your instrument or someone else's? Surely that is a great opportunity to be creative and imaginative right there... Mark

[quote]That is such an ugly thought I'd die of sadness[/quote] I know it's not a nice thought, but it's a bit of a predicament isn't it!

After watching the video of the one handed bass player a few years ago, I have often wondered what I would do (musically) if I lost one of my arms. And so I ask you, what would you do??? I decided it'd be worth working harder on my vocal ability, which I started doing since then (in order to not just be a bass playing musician. I also have a harmonica that I play intermittently that I'd throw myself into practicing if I was unable to continue playing bass as I do. So people, what about you? Mark

[quote]+1 - learn to play great with just two fingers and you'll be 99% of the way there[/quote] +1. There is nothing more impressive (IMO) than being able to play cleanly, flawlessly, creatively, and totally unimpeded with two fingers. Fingerstyle is the way! Mark

[quote]The Gary Willis technique OTPJ mentions is astonishing and it is hard to argue with its efficacy (his improvised lines are profoundly sophisticated and his technique impeccable)[/quote] It seems efficient by his logic, but I cannot bring myself to acknowledge it's overall efficiency over equivalent (or less!) hard work poured into standard two finger technique. The complications and endless permutations and technique switching his requires for the benefit of having a 3rd finger to ascend (and even then only on some phrases!) seems (to me) to be an awful lot of effort for very little reward. But that is just my opinion. [quote]I have to say that, despite loving some of the early Tribal Tech stuff (Spears particularly), I have grown to loath his fundamental sound (very processed and 'digital' ). What I don't really know is the relationship between his technique (using a soft touch as I recall) and his tone.[/quote] I've not listened intensely or intently to Tribal Tech (though I have warmed to Henderson's style in recent months; I/my ear used to be quite at odds with his playing), I have to agree that [i]sometimes[/i] his sounds is not on the same level as his playing. However he seems to have relaxed his stance on playing right up near the fretboard for a 'fat' tone and has developed some nice variations in tone. I will acknowledge that his light touch, his choice in bass and technique does lend itself to very even notes all told, which make each note fat, but ultimately somwhat unremarkable/uninteresting. Like you say, a little digital. Mark

[quote]Totally impracticle[/quote] I so disagree. I did have something else written out here, but I think there's a multitude of threads arguing this back and forth to no real resolution. Nice bass! After discovering their 'Featured Custom' section I spent about a year frequenting their section to check out any new additions. Did anyone else get hooked like that. Mark

Hmmm, well I've hit one or two major plateaus and a few more minor ones. However (IMO) plateaus are a sign of an underlying flaw in one's approach to the instrument/practice. The key (again IMO) is to: (1) - identify what you want to do - this is usually something qualitative; lets take an example, playing fast... that ain't exactly quantifiable or measurable; (2) - set a long term goal associated with that - going with the example, lets say 2 finger playing of 16ths @ 200bpm; (3) - then break that down into clear short term goals - following the same example; find several exercises that cover all aspects of 2 finger playing (e.g. string crossing, string skipping, starting on either finger, number groupings on different strings, arpeggios, double 'picking' etc), get them under your fingers and work up to first goal of 16ths @ 100bpm, then a second goal of 16ths @ 150bpm, a third of 16ths @ 180 etc. Following this method, you have identified your aim, set a long term goal that would help you to measure that goal, and set achievable short term goals to help measure your progress, and give you something realistic to shoot for each day. HOWEVER, make sure you do something musical every day, otherwise you run the risk of burning out and/or losing the desire and passion to play, i.e. split your time into some fraction of practice and [i]playing[/i]. Make sense? I hope that helps. Mark

I'm thinking of trying a new amp to go with my Schroeder 1210L. I've found that the bass eq on the Acoustic Image is voiced too low, and hence is a poor combination with my Schroeder, as their low end extension is not massive. At present I can only boost the mids to thicken things up. I'm looking for suggestions folks, something clean, transparent, tight/quick response, and physically small & light (i.e. Class D or close to Class D in those qualities). Markbass sounds like a good option, but I am unsure at present. There's a multitude of combinations of amps and cabs out there and I don't know where to start. Mark