mcgraham

+1 to all of the above I had a great time, was wonderful to put so many faces to all the names. Thanks also to all those who kindly and willingly handed over their basses for general 'consumption' over the course of the day, twas a real privilege to play some of those instruments. Also helped me to lay some long running hankerings to rest; there are quite a few basses I now know are not for me. My favourite basses of the day were: Alex Claber's RIM custom, that had a beautiful woody, earthy, growly tone whilst also being able to cut through the *ahem* noise surrounding us; and Nick's (dr.bass?) status with natural finished wooden wings, that had killer slap tone [i]and[/i] killer fingerstyle tone without [i]any[/i] changes to the eq, [i]despite[/i] the strings being 'too thin'. What a bass What basses did you guys favour? Mark

[quote]Oh no, everyone leave your wallets at home, or they'll be a good deal lighter when you return home[/quote] +1. Fortunately/unfortunately due to a cock up my wallet is now just under a grand lighter. I was expecting to have to spend that amount, just not in one fell swoop. Means that purchases need to be careful and prudent over the next few months. So I am most definitely safe for now. Mark

[quote]I think it's a question of experimentation with different string types on your particular instrument. I've tried loads of different makes, and I totally agree that with some the C just doesn't sound right. Elixirs are good, as are all of the DR strings, the C string on these sounds like it belongs.[/quote] Good point! I agree that if you really like the added range then you'll be willing to put the effort in to make it work. I know for me it just doesn't work. I love the options open to me, but in a group setting a 5 string strung with a C gets used like a 4 string with an extra bit of width to the fingerboard. So, I like the options that come with a 5, but not the C... that implies I'd be better with a low B, a 4, or perhaps an intermediate tuning to gain some advantages of both. We'll see... Mark

Oh, and in response to the original post, I for one found learning the modes extremely helpful. I'm not sure how much theory you know (I've learnt not to take it for granted that everyone knows this stuff) but the modes (collectively) contain all the possible intervals that you can play. It may seem quite an abstract concept to grasp but I played each mode and really 'got inside' the sound of each, identifying what notes make it sound the way it does. Once you've started doing that, and started to internalise it, suddenly improvisation and getting around the neck is not so daunting. I hope this helps set some goals that I achieved whilst doing the above. 1. Learn each mode, even in just one position to start (learn the pattern AND the intervals/notes in each) 2. Try and learn what they sound like (e.g. maybe assign an identifiable quality to each Major, happy; Dorian, bluesy; Phrygian, spanish, etc) 3. Break them down into notes and fragments, construct short phrases and find out what they contribute to the overall sound/feel of each scale/mode. 4. Try and construct your own scales/phrases using fragments from each mode, identifying the sound each bit you use. That way you are learning something, learning what it does, breaking it down and learning why, and then learning how to use it and manipulate it to your advantage. Does that make sense? Mark

It seems that this discussion has touched on a similar area as the lengthy thread over in general discussion. [quote]My advice, Miss Penguin, don't bother , some of the best players don't read or know any theory whatsoever.[/quote] I know some players who are good musicians who learned only a little bit of theory and did well for themselves. In fact I'd say they know more about making good music than many musicians who have learned their theory. HOWEVER, they are (firstly) good [u][i]in spite[/i][/u] of their lack of knowledge, not because of it (an important distinction to make); (secondly), they have been rehashing stuff in the same genre with the same feel with the same (or near the same) level of technical ability for the entire time I've known them, because they have no new 'tools' to work with. I want you to know that I am purposefully refraining from typing anything derogatory or potentially offensive here, however, I am sick to death of people making out that they will be better musicians for not learning any theory at all, or learning just a bit and stopping. This is exactly what you are advocating. That is an ignorant, and in fact arrogant, stance to take on learning. (IMO) If you or anyone else can explain to me, DEFINITIVELY, why not learning theory will make you a better player or why learning theory will make you a worse player, then I will not be so aggressive on this point. To this day, the only arguments I have heard involve lots of maybes, maybe-nots, and vast amounts of conjecture. Please note, none of this is intended to wound, I simply wish to convey my feelings on the matter. These thoughts are not directed at you, nor intended to be about you, rather the mindset you appear to have. Ok, semi-restrained rant over. Mark

I played a 6 almost exclusively for a few years, 4 for a few (and still do), and a 5 (with a C) for a part of a year. They are wonderful instruments but I'm with Jake, I just cannot get used to the sound of the C string. As soon as you jump onto that string on it's own the bottom drops out, and it often doesn't cut through (IME). However I enjoyed having the extra range and extra string for options. So the next bass I get will most definitely be a 5 and almost certainly strung with a low B. In short I'd rather have more frets on the G to gain the range than an extra string so as to keep a better tone. After saying that though, Janek Gwizdala plays with a high C on his bass; when he was playing with his band the bottom did not drop out at all and it sounded like a very natural extension of the instrument. Full and thick, or at least not so radically different from the G. I would hazard a guess to say that could be to do with the Fender TBP-1 preamp he has, which thickens up a bass tone wonderfully. Though I am not 100% confident he had it with him. Mark

01. Silverfoxnik 02. WalMan 03. Merton 04. Johngh 05. OBBM 06. G-77 07. Rich (hopefully) 08. Alexclaber 09. Tauzero plus the future Mrs Zero 10. Steantval 11. Doctor of bass 12. Birdy 13. ped 14. Machines 15. tonyf 16 MacDaddy 17 Owen 18 Bassace 19. Moody 20. McGraham

That's why you need to be careful over in Germany, the Ritter Raptors hunt in packs Mark

I second that motion. I would also like to append to this decree that we must always keep our drinks and other beverage related products in our cabinets. Mark

Maybe you could try to compose one? More of a realistic way to demonstrate technical ability and creativity than just to regurgitate (however well!) a well established bass solo. If you don't fancy composing one, or time doesn't permit, perhaps one of Paganini's Caprices? No. 5 in A minor comes to mind as a good one. Mark

Ped, or anyone else for that matter, there's a music store in York that has a fretless Vigier in. Costs 1649 I think it was? Also available on the interest free payments. I have played a fretted Vigier, it was a beautifully put together guitar, had a tone I liked too. I was tempted by the fretless but if I'm honest, even with the fretless fingerboard, it was nothing special (IMO). Certainly not worth [i]that [/i]amount of cash. Mark

I'm really stoked about this weekend. Alas I won't have my main bass with me due to repair work but I'm looking forward to putting names to faces and meeting a lot of you guys (and gals?) this weekend. Mark

There are so many things you [i]could[/i] do, but it's ultimately up to you. If you're looking to accentuate the change from major to minor, then look at what [i]makes[/i] a given chord have a given feel (not just restricted to major or minor). The most important difference is the change from a major 3rd (G# in E) to a minor third (G in Em). So to accentuate the change, accentuate the thirds. I'll tell you how I'd approach it (just my own approach, coming from a gospel background). If the chord progression was |E ` ` ` | Em ` ` ` | B ` ` ` | Bm ` ` ` | I would (at the simplest level) play E for the first bar, G for the second (thinking of it more as the relative major to Em than anything else), B for the third bar, and D for the fourth (same approach as above). That way you'd accentuate the major to minor changes, you wouldn't stay just on the root, and you'd most importantly have a great resolution from the fourth bar back into the beginning of the progression. It's very difficult to explain what to do as there's insane numbers of possibilities open to you once you break out of a key. It's best to try and pick up some theory, particularly surrounding majors and minors, and concoct something that you like based on what ideas that opens up to you. Mark P.S. Hey if you wanted, why not let us know the sort of feel it is or record a loop of it for us and we could perhaps throw some ideas together for you to have a listen to.

The number of players with poor muting is truly shocking. I've actually been quite disturbed or even disgusted by some phenomenal players with awful muting. Kind of makes you wonder eh?. As dlloyd said there's less opportunity on a 4 for ringing than a 5. Even if you anchor your thumb really heavily and you play the highest string you likely touching at least the A and the D wth your thumb. I highly recommend the floating thumb method. If you start with it you're unlikely to ever go back as it allows you to hop around the strings with no restrictions, and the muting method (sliding your thumb perpendicular to the string length but parallel to the string spread) is highly efficiency, meaning that there's no awkwardness in changing the strings that you mute that any anchor requires you to do. Other options that anchor (i.e. that require you to change what you are muting when you change what strings you are playing) are what Patitucci and Janek use (as far as I'm aware), is to insert your remaining fingers (3rd and 4th) into the other strings. I think they anchor on the B or E then the next highest they use their pinky and the next one they use their ring (where appropriate and if necessary). Another muting idea I thought of is to relax your 3rd and 4th fingers and tuck them right under (like only they are in a relaxed fist) and, similar to the muting thumb but with the backs of those fingers) use them as a sliding mute. That would allow anyone to keep their *precious* anchor and still afford them the benefit of a sliding mute. Mark

[quote]However I'd imagine the ability to shim the neck on a [s]set neck[/s] [i]singlecut[/i][/quote] My bad! Will edit my post in the interest of clarity. Mark

Gotcha I love the aesthetic of the single cut, but I prefer a bolt on for the complete adjustability of it (i.e. shimming it if necessary, replace the neck easily if something went wrong). The two kind of seem irreconcilable to me. But that looks great. The way I play means that even blocky heels ala Fender don't bother me, and I too cannot really tell the sonic difference between a bolt on and set neck and neck thru. So there are no pros for me having set neck or neck thru other than the look or perhaps the ability to achieve a thinner body. However I'd imagine the ability to shim the neck on a [s]set neck[/s] [u][i]singlecut[/i][/u] is somewhat impaired due to the length of the bolt on area... oh well, I'll speak to Jon about it next weekend. Unfortunately my neck won't be ready til after the Bash it seems. Rubbish. Mark

Wow! That's stunning Rich! I've often wondered about singlecut bolt ons, if it is any different, or whether it is even worth having a singlecut constructed like that. Whats your take on it? Mark

[quote]they also had a new Fodera in the shop for some obscene amount of money[/quote] When you mentioned that I instantly hopped on the website to look. Other than perhaps having one string too many, that is EXACTLY what I want in a bass. Maple board, buckeye top, single cut... Fodera Gorgeous but obscenely expensive. Mark

I cannot recommend the Pandora PX4D highly enough. I've used it for the last 4 years and despite having a great rig I still practice through it. It's a phenomenal practice tool, dirt cheap, effects galore and even gigworthy. Check it out on GAK. If you have a guitar you can even use it for that. Mark

[quote]My problem simply relates to string crossing at speed[/quote] Try using Hanon. If you browse the technique forum there's a thread that someone started that I posted in discussing Hanon. Will really help you nail string crossing at speed. And I didn't forget Mark

Good idea! Though this perhaps would be better suited to the technique part of the forum. [quote]I can't decide what feels most comfortable to me T123T123 ascending and 321T321T descending 12121212 ascending and 12121212 descending 12121212 ascending and raking when descending 13131313 ascending and raking when descending[/quote] I've used the T123 technique for a few years now, a few others have done likewise. Made quite popular by guys like Matt Garrison. I worked on it and used it exclusively for a year. The most important thing to do is to keep the same order of fingers, doesn't matter what you start on, but it's important to always go T123, or 123T, or 23T1 or 3T12, otherwise you negate the speed benefits and give yourself more undue work. My advice for that one is to 1) keep working on it, particularly by running scales 2) always 'alternate' i.e. never break the pattern when you practice. Additionally use free strokes (i.e. your finger comes up off the string towards your palm and not into the next lower string. Your next question seems to be regarding strict alternation vs. raking. In all honesty I think that if you work hard enough on either, the difficulties that each have will be overcome. I've used both, strict alternation gives your plucked notes great timing from the very beginning, but feels very unnatural when descending and can cause you trip up. Raking is the opposite, feels much more natural but can cause you to have poor timing. Personally I prefer raking over strict adherence to a pattern (the T123/Matt Garrison technique) felt 'too' rigid in its timing despite it's 'perfectness', whilst raking (I feel) is more natural, hard work means timing isn't an issue, and I feel I get a much better tone and general feel with it. Again, that is my opinion, you need to try both and make up your mind. The last one seems to relate to using fingers 1 & 2 or fingers 1 & 3. I honestly think that if several hundred years of technique have developed on guitar and bass (acoustic, upright etc) and they stuck with fingers 1 & 2, then it's probably worth learning from that. I agree that finger 3 is of a more similar length, but then you have this useless hunk of meat and bone sitting between your plucking fingers (i.e. your middle finger). Just my opinion though. In short, I think: 1) practice the matt garrison technique as above. get yourself a ramp, it'll help, think of it as a separate technique you can use. 2) try both strict alternation and raking and see what you think, bear in mind what I've mentioned above about pros and cons. 3) IMO you should stick with fingers 1 & 2 for the above reasons. Mark

Did you not notice my cunning ploy? He's a French musician and I don't speak French! I won't be able to understand him. Actually, (to my knowledge) he writes and speaks very good English. So I may be snookered there... Mark

Hadrien Feraud, very interesting player. With regards his technique and playing style I find him very inspiring, he's doing things that a lot of us have never even seen before. What I particularly like is his ability to traverse the fingerboard in quite angular and bizarre ways, yet with great ease (saying nothing about the musicality of that, just about the comfort level he has with the instrument). However I don't find many of his ideas particularly musical, and I really don't like his tone. I find it very... plastic-ky? sounding, if that makes any sense, particularly on the videos. His recorded tone on Industrial Zen (IMO) is somewhat unspecial, unmoving and unremarkable. Whatever bass he's playing he sounds that way too, although he sounded good/better on the ACG bass that is on a youtube vid. Please note that I have said this is just my opinion, and I am not condemning his playing in the slightest, it's just not my thing. Mark

Looking good! The sound instantly reminded me of Matthew Garrison's bass, not just because it's an exotic cut boutique single cut Congratulations bud, you must be thrilled! Mark