mcgraham

[quote]Great post, as always, Mark.[/quote] Thanks bud much appreciated Mark

Is that pup routing just one of an eventual two? Or are you opting for a single pickup at the end of the fretboard? Mark

Hi there Nottingham based bassist available in and around the area. Have been involved and/or organised numerous bands/groups in various different genres (rock, motown, gospel (choir), funk, jazz, celtic & folk, ceilidh, contemporary and traditional worship, dabbled in a number of others). - Reading skills are decent, can brush up further if needed. - Able to transcribe and/or arrange instrument and voice parts if needed. - Can sing, backing vocals or lead. - Can also provide lessons in order to achieve specific long and short term goals, particularly in technique, theory and general musicianship. I am primarily a bassist (fretted or fretless) but my secondary instrument is guitar, electric or acoustic, rhythm or lead, I'm happy with both. I have my own gear too but primarily walk or use trains to get places, so I'm willing to travel for practices, but would not take my rig with me for practices. I would love to get involved in a group or band in the area that gig or perform functions regularly (or wish to). Function bands interest me greatly, jazz groups or experimental groups do too. Above all would like to play with some likeminded musicians so feel free to drop me a line if you're interested, even if you don't fit into the above categories. If you could do with someone to fulfill any of the above roles, even if you just want to have a jam, please feel free to PM me or email me at [[email protected]][email protected][/email] Thanks for looking, Mark

[quote]I think someone brought up with that (concentrated) will always do a better job. I think session players (and again, I use the term clumsily) are a realistic practicality. The hard work should be respected, but I rarely see the beauty in it.[/quote] I see your argument but don't quite agree with everything. Genres of music are not isolated points in space and a given genre will share similarities with some others. I concede that some are worlds apart but there is not a single genre of music that doesn't have at least one that shares some important aspects of it with another. Consequently it follows that a hard working musician (I use this to cover session players et al) who works on even a small number of genres that are exceedingly different (i.e. 'polar' opposites in the n-dimensional spectrum that you could consider music genres to lie on) would be able to cover a vast number of styles in between to a fairly good approximation. I myself have witnessed only a few of these musicians as, lets face it, we in the West have a pretty narrow view of what diverse musical variation means. Furthermore, I agree that someone brought up in a culture with a very unique genre/genres of music (hungarian folk, whatever the music is that they do for capoeira, the stuff that hellborg and mclaughlin are into from north and south india) will have a distinct advantage and natural instinct to play that music.... [i]provided[/i] that they put in the work. i.e. you'd be looking for the equivalent of a low level session musician from the actual area, in order to justify not getting in a high level session musician who can cover that style to a good degree of approximation. If the recording is intended for sale in the west and it is a truly different genre to what we're used to, I don't think it's going to matter one way or the other if it's pretty close as we are unlikely to frown any more or less as we are not familiar with such music. Additionally, concerning us as bassists, we are [i]only[/i] bassists. I agree we have an important role, but we are not the dominant instrument in every style. If you were using this to discuss why violinists/fiddle players from eastern Europe would be better at their folk music than a violinist/fiddle player from the session scene in New York, then I'd probably be inclined to agree with you, as it's a good example of a pretty defining and dominant instrument in a particular style. Not sure if that came out making a lot of sense, but hey-ho! Let me know if anything doesn't make sense. Mark

[quote]Mistakes don't faze them, they just embrace them and get on with making great music.[/quote] That's the important thing to remember, to have fun with making music. I practice hard so that when the real fun comes I can just let loose and go with it, and not worry about anything. And on top of that, I really enjoy practice! Mark

[quote]What I take from that is that he's internalised all the theory and doesn't have to think about what he's doing... I certainly don't think his playing sounds like random nonsense![/quote] Mmm, not exactly. There was a specific question about a lick he did on a youtube video (which, as you may imagine, he did not remember), and he then recounted a story of someone who asked him about a long lick he played (live I presume?) and they said that they'd transcribed it or at least learned it, but couldn't figure out why he'd used certain notes here and there. And he said that they a lot of the time, he has notes in his improv that are/were just wrong notes between phrases, and he said so with a bit of a shrug. Which tied into the whole 'no big deal' attitude towards improv. Saying that, he does advocated moving towards the 'home' note as he calls it. Of course I'm probably colouring this memory due to the fact this was last year. [quote]But still, perhaps not the best way to express that to guitarists who don't have his discipline[/quote] Agreed. Such a fine balance to strike. There are music nazis who demand that every note, recorded, improvised, composed, arranged etc, be perfectly placed 'vhy vas zat note zhere!?' and then there are the 'nyaaaah, forget about it, doesn't matter' types who just widdle or noodle mindlessly, with or without technical prowess or speed. Mark

[quote]Guthrie Govan wrote about a session where the producer had some fancy gear showing him he was 9/64's of a beat out. They edited the playing to be exactly on the beat and it sounded worse for it. More accurate, but less musical. What looks good on paper (or sequencer) doesn't always sound good.[/quote] Completely forgot about ol' Guthrie! I had the pleasure of seeing him perform and take questions (half way between a performance and clinic) at Nexus music college in Coventry (and Brett Garsed previously to that). Guthrie advocates having fun with the instrument, which is great to see in such a technically able and musical musician. However I was a bit 'uhh, mmmm' :S with his attitude towards improv. It's hard to put across in words. He spoke about times where he did licks, people would ask what he did, and he admitted to just madly widdling or not caring/thinking about the note or notes he was playing. To me, that is advocating mindless shredding or widdling. I know that's really putting words in his mouth and unfairly taking to an extreme what he was saying. But I don't think it's helpful to tell a room full of guitarists who already want to noodle around til the cows come home that it's great to do that live. Perhaps he did mean not to get too caught up in playing perfect notes that all have their intended place, as that would qualify as composition, not improvisation. Either way it was a great night Mark

[quote]To hear a mistake of mine on record is embarassing for me. So one hand I think "mistakes" add to the richness of a recording, but I myself don't like to make those mistakes. It is an interesting debate which I have only just realised I never dealt with.[/quote] If it's a studio recording there is no excuse for mistakes IMO. But I love to laugh at mistakes I have made on live recordings. Mark

[quote]Something that has started to happen of late is, because classical groups are now using Pro Tool and the like to record. They now will do as many takes as needed to get a perfect patched together performance. The problem is audiences of new classical listeners are then disappointed when they hear the work played live. It is now causing problems with ticket sales.[/quote] That's really interesting! I personally love listening to mixed recordings of live gigs. I feel you get a great compromise between the atmosphere and intensity of a live gig (plus variations in songs that artists often do live) but you get a mix that sounds a lot better than being there live. Not the real thing of course, but great to listen to IMO. [quote]Just to throw a fresh spanner in the works, should we be trying to get a perfect performance, is slight timing and intonation mistakes what make the music live or should it all be, note and timed to perfection.[/quote] I'm picky to the point of being anal when it comes to my own playing. I've learned not to expect the same level of precision of other musicians, nor demand it of them, as that is projecting my preference onto them. The way I approach it is this; practice is preparation for performance. So if you have practiced to the point that you can confidently say, in all honesty, that you know you are prepared for your performance or for performing (ultimately determined by your own expectations of your playing) then any mistakes you make whilst performing, don't matter. No-one likes making mistakes but they happen, but that's why we practice, to mitigate the number of mistakes we make. Mark P.S. On this topic, I read an interview once, a long time ago. The guy was saying that the beauty of playing live is that if you make a wrong note 'bam!' there it is, and there it goes; people might go 'oh, that was a wrong note' but it's quickly forgotten and both the audience and performer come away with a great memory of a great gig regardless. But when you're recording, thats you recorded 'forever', those bum notes aren't going anywhere. Oops! So make sure you get it right when you record.

[quote]I think it's by using your ear and trial and error that gives the best results[/quote] Despite all that has been said, that's ultimately what it's all about. This thread has been a really good reminder of how valuable theory is, but as a means to an end in creating music, and that above all the process of growing, learning and making music should be enjoyable. Now... what else can we chat about? Mark

Hi guys I'm quite interested to hear how those of you have had custom basses built, are getting them built or are planning on getting one built arrived at the specifications and builder you chose. Specifics on what you got and why would be good too, just to gain some insight into what other players value in a bass. So go on, share the background story of your custom and how it came, or will come, to fruition. Mark

I agree, theory isn't that hard to get to grips with. Definitely worth doing a little to give you some background into why notes work the way they do against other notes (and chords and scales etc). It can get a bit heavy later on though. As bizarre as it may sound, I've found that the more complex bits of music take a heck of a lot of theory to explain all the little details of what is going on in it, more so than the proportionate amount of theory needed to explain simple ideas. i.e. it gets a little bit more complex musically (what you're hearing) but it takes a LOT more theory to explain all of what is going on. I guess what I mean is once you get to a certain point it makes sense listening to it, but the theory requires a fair bit of diving into to explain what you're hearing. So what I tend to do is just to go with it, with what I'm hearing, and use a fair bit of internalised theory to work with what I hear. Mark

[quote]But if you learn in that way, you might develop weird new scales and shapes, which are combinations of what theory already describes but sound like a totally new style.[/quote] Too many mights. I'd rather stick with a certainty. I've worked with and 'made' numerous 'new' scales or rather permutations of fragments of theory. Knowledge of theory allowed me to do it, not living in ignorance of it. Mark

[quote]Having a name that other people understand helps you communicate your idea with other people.[/quote] Most definitely. I've had numerous occasions where the lack of theory and understanding of said theory in a band prevented them from partaking in something more interesting and restricted me to basic playing. Never fun. Also, when it comes to transcription and playing things by ear, you will always find new things you've not heard before. If you have internalised theory and sounds of various ideas, then you can transcribe things much quicker than if you hadn't. Mark

I agree with making practice as musical as possible, that way you're maximising your benefit. I greatly dislike angular sounding exercises that are angular purely for mechanical reasons. Make everything as musical as possible. There are plenty of ways to make something that is very difficult mechanically also be a musical exercise. Mark

[quote]Nice insight, logical thinking and grounded conclusions.[/quote] Who are you and what have you done with the real BigBeefChief? [quote]Maybe they have reached a (technical/academic) level that means pumping 8th notes is no longer satisfying to them?[/quote] I know I prefer to move about, I get bored of staying and playing diatonic notes, they bore me something awful. That's just what my ear has done to me though. However I LOVE sitting in the pocket, I could do that all day. Unfortunately that requires a band or group (particularly the drummer) with an ear to work together with you to form a beautiful synergistic whole. And I've experienced few drummers that really do that. SO frustrating when you're trying to achieve something and members of the group drag it down. Mark

[quote]There have been loads of really good posts in the discussion[/quote] Agreed! I've really really enjoyed (the latter half of ) this discussion. This is the sort of thing I really enjoy. Mark

[quote]Although when I am teaching I find one of the things people sometimes forget to do when playing is just that listen to what is happening around them[/quote] That is probably one of my biggest peeves when playing with others. Not so much the egotistical ones, but the ones who just don't listen. I know we can all be guilty of not listening for one reason or another at times, but it seems there's a larger and larger number of musicians (or maybe I'm just encountering more and more of them) that seem unable to hear the piece that's being played and decide what they need to do. Even fewer seem capable of leading a group and making a decision on what others in the group they are supposed to be leading need to do. Again, comes down to vision, and I guess (from my limited knowledge in this area) production skills, to know what you want something to sound like, to have a direction and a vision for each piece you (with or without a group) are performing. Classically trained musicians are PARTICULARY guilty of this. Though often they never have to be too wary about fitting in with others, if you're playing from an ensemble (?) piece, I can understand you'd take it for granted that everyone else is playing what they are supposed to be. Unfortunately that attitude doesn't carry over too well all the time in live work. Mark

[quote]I feel that there's more chance of me having a unique style of drumming if I steer clear of all of these conventions.[/quote] I think that you may be forgetting about vision. I have assimilated many very different styles of music, styles of playing, theory, different instruments etc (still not done yet, more more!) however what makes me sound completely different (in my own stuff and improv, my 'voice') is the desire and vision to be different. Not as a really conscious thing, I'm just looking to learn from others, not to [i]be[/i] others. I do get what you mean now, I see we may have got wires crossed at some point and I see what you mean. But I'd like to encourage you to not worry about being individual; if you're playing what you hear in your head and are not afraid to play something that sounds wrong in pursuit of what you think sounds right (or at least good ) then it will all come together and you will bear much fruit. That's my opinion bud. Mark

[quote]The kind of learning method i'm talking about will not leave you aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble accross anything. Sitting down and playing by ear over and over again will also develop a knowledge of the instrument comparable to that achievable using music theory.[/quote] I was about to say I agree when I realised that this statement is incorrect. Playing things by ear over and over again is developing knowledge of the instrument yes, that I agree with. However you need to have some system in place to figure out what what you are listening to. Otherwise you will just keep making mistakes until you get it right, obviously mistakes are made even when you know 'x' amount of theory, but at least you have some targets to hit and road signs to point you in the right direction. I do agree with a previous post that said even if you are doing it all yourself, by ear, you are internalising your own understanding of theory. However doing this [i]exclusively[/i] is utterly absurd. There are hundreds of years of development of music theory at our disposal thanks to the internet and forums such as these, knowledge has never been more accessible. To say 'ah well, I can achieve the same thing myself' is no doubt an achievable feat (to some extent) but is entirely illogical to choose to ignore beneficial information. Why would you do this? I understand the notion of wanting to do your own thing, this is not that; I understand wanting to figure 'it' (whatever it may be) out for yourself, but this is more than that; to dismiss the concept of standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before you for some ethereal reason (for I have yet to see a logical or worthwhile justification of this attitude) is absolutely ludicrous. I am running out of words to convey my exasperation. I am not angry at you bud, really I'm not, and I apologise if I come across that way. I'm just really struggling to understand how you can make a stand on this. Mark

[quote]Ok - If learning theory is all about internalising knowledge to the effect that you can play without thinking surely this can be attainable without actually learning the theory in the first place. If theory teaches you where the right notes are, but you can hear where the right notes are anyway, couldn't you just use your ears to accomplish the same thing that theory teaches?[/quote] There are some good musicians who have learned absolutely everything by ear, there are a few of them at my church back home. However, and I say this with the utmost respect for them and what they've achieved, they are impaired musicians because of it. I was actually discouraged from learning my modes because I was told I wouldn't ever need them. This was from the most technically and musically able one of the number. Studying theory, in the same way as studying a subject, allows you to focus your efforts to achieve a measurable result rather than aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble across something. It gives you direction. How much you let it govern your progress is up to you... But I would say this (it warrants a separate line here)... arguing that you don't think it's worth spending time on theory or technique because it MAY hinder you is a very VERY weak excuse. Now I don't know you cheddatom, and I'm sorry for perhaps being a bit personal here or even cutting, but IMO and IME of people making such arguments (or excuses), that attitude stems from pride, and being too proud to just admit that you don't wish to learn it, can't be bothered to learn it etc. I could be wrong, but if that is the reason, just say so, no-one will think any less of you for saying so. But to try and argue that learning theory is pointless in any proportion is just ignorant. Again, apologies and IMO Mark

[quote]Disagree strongly. If it sounds good, it is correct. Theory is only a tool to describe why specific combinations of sounds sound good, it does not seek to constrain you to specific rules. A good knowledge of theory allows you to take the next step after that note that sounds good and come up with another note that sounds good with out having to guess.[/quote] Agreed. I was trying to phrase it correctly earlier but you've done the hard work for me Theory is to explain, not to constrain. It's not a set of rules, it provides a constantly growing and evolving understanding of what works, what doesn't and why. [quote]The secret is to learn the thoery, knowl how to apply it and then forget about it.[/quote] Also in agreement. I'm sure you would agree that forgetting it completely isn't good, but you're right in that it'll impede your playing if it's a conscious effort to apply it all the time. Internalising it as Janek says Mark

[quote]Incidentally more classical musicians are involved in jazz now than ever before and have both skill sets. Even the conservatoires have jazz ensembles and there are options for jazz in the various curricular, so the above is changing[/quote] Indeed! It's wonderful that more and more classical musicians are discovering the joy of improvisation, and that they have killer technique and reading skills that put most self declared musicians to shame. My same friend said there is nothing like classical exercises to develop your technique. Incidentally, I went to see Janek and his band play in Epsom last Easter and Gwilym Simcock was on keys. I didn't realise it was him at the time as I missed his name being called out, but I'd heard of him before. Apparently he's a classically trained pianist, acclaimed virtuoso dare I say? Anyway, whilst I didn't really dig [i]what[/i] he was playing, I really dug [i]how[/i] he went about his soloes. It was extremely educational. You/I often hear about how to construct soloes in a qualitative sense; you know, how to build up, change gears, use of recurring phrases and motifs, changing rhythms etc, to actually tell a 'story' with it, have some ebb and flow to it. Whilst I didn't really dig what he was playing (wasn't bad at all, just not my cup of tea), you could really really hear it in his playing, it was astounding to hear. Really carefully constructed yet (presumably) improvsed, intricate yet musical, advanced at points but always lyrical. Oh and the band were amazing. I highly recommend catching them. Every one of them is a phenomenon in their own right. I can't say which musician stunned me the most (Elliot Mason, Gary Husband, Gwilym and Janek).... actually if anyone I'd say Gary Husband by a hair, but only because he demonstrated how drums could be so much more than we often perceive them to be. Again, I want to go home and practice. Mark