cheddatom

I don't mean to make an issue, I just don't think that it's something people consider when they're buying a bass. I suppose to some people, a bass is an investment, and they may consider every investment they make a contribution to their "will".

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='249727' date='Jul 28 2008, 04:14 PM']I know that if anything should happen to me *crosses fingers* my family can sell my basses and get a few quid to help them out.[/quote] I think life insurance is a much better bet. This is not a great reason to buy a bass IMHO.

It depends what you want. Some people love the OC-2 because of the cool was it "glitches" in the lower registers. Some people hate this! I haven't tried enough to comment really.

[quote name='BassManKev' post='249710' date='Jul 28 2008, 04:06 PM']nah havnt, bit too expensive for me i think, i cant see why a mxr micro amp wouldnt do the same job[/quote] Good point. There has to be a reason that more than one successful/popular kind of booster pedal exists though.

I bought a bass to play in a band. Then I bought a 6 string because I wanted more strings. It was a cheap bass, but nice to play, and I was fine with that until I saw another 6 string that I HAD to have because I had played the same model in a shop previously, and this one was half the price. I don't think i'll buy another bass unless it's a fretless of some sort. EDIT: And I don't intend to sell them ever!

Ever tried a Zvex SHO into a pre-amp valve Kev? You should! To be fair, I never have, but the wah probe has a SHO built in apparently, so I tried the whammy with my foot always on it with the gain fully cranked, going into DHA bob the blender without the blend, and it sounds wrather bwrutal!

You can try using ASIO 4 ALL or whatever it's called - a decent ASIO driver that will work with most cards. If you want to record more inputs, just get a decent interface. If the guitarist played a few different parts to the click, and they were all in time, but he couldn't get one part in time, it's him not the computer. If EVERYTHING is out of time by the same amount, then it's latency. You can set cubase to play a click, create a new audio track and set the audio source in your PC as the "what u hear" thing, record the click track, and play it back with the midi click at the same time. If they're not in time, then you have a letency problem!

You haven't put any blue "neons" on it - that's not pimped.

Zvex SHO would be a good booster to overdrive the pre-amp!

You could try to overdrive the pre-amp using a booster pedal, or a EQ pedal turned up, or by getting louder pups.

You found a ton of them? Not that i've used one, but if you're giving away 100 i'll put my name down!

If you play so hard that the pre-amp is overdriven, then a compressor infront of the amp will help reduce the input gain and reduce any distortion. - I think that's what Mike meant?

I think aside from the issue of "ripping people off" Behringer have a reputation for producing unreliable gear. I don't own any, but I have used plenty, and seen enough of the stuff in pro studios to know it can't be that bad.

"Head Sty" by Martin Grech. I have never heard a riff as heavy as in this song. There's one section that brings tears to my eyes it's so heavy.

I still haven't listened to the clip sorry - I am interested to see how I would make the sound.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='247349' date='Jul 24 2008, 10:30 PM']I'll try dumb down, sorry, I'm very prone to elaborate conjecture Tom so bear with me, I bore myself sometimes . In the world of music there are thousands of examples of successful, trained musicians/composers throughout history. There are a smaller number of people who are successful and great without training. Using the smaller number as a reasoning for not being trained is a poor example and is a weightless argument for not knowing your sh*t IMO.[/quote] I don't think there is any research to support you in saying "In the world of music there are thousands of examples of successful, trained musicians/composers throughout history. There are a smaller number of people who are successful and great without training." ...but if you have a link to some research and/or a reason behind this statement? I'm guessing you're thinking about hundreds of years worth of classical composers for whom the ability to notate is an essential skill. If you think about early blues, or jazz, (i'm guessing) there would be an equal number on both sides.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='247275' date='Jul 24 2008, 09:06 PM']I said it was unhelpful, anomolies are always poor evidence. My examples of lots of well educated composers simply establishes that there is a validity to that route. This does not undermine the validity of other methods. It's just that citing examples does not establish the weight of accepted evidence based argument. In other words, take understanding from what I say, not from what I didn't say. That happens all the time. Just because someone does not state a certain view does not mean they don't hold it. So for the record I think there are some great untrained composers it seems you assumed I thought one camp is better, I don't.[/quote] Some of the wording here is very confusing, if not ambiguous. You are giving examples to give weight to your argument, so why is it "unhelpful" if I give examples for mine? What is "accepted evidence based argument"? You think that there are some great untrained composers - but apparently they're anomalies!? I think we hold the same viewpoint but that I can't understand your elaborate summary. Dumb it down man!

I should make a long post responding to everyone, but I dont really have the time so sorry if I seem blunt! Alex - I misread one of your posts and got the impression that you thought a composer who knew theory would be a better composer than the opposite. I think what you were actually saying is just how theory helps you compose. The Funk - I think you have it spot on. There are as many great composers who know theory as don't, and just as many crap composers. Jake - Sometimes I find an idea questionable, such as the idea that a musician fluent in music theory is a better musician than someone without much knowledge of theory. I think in some circumstances this would be the case - working as a session musician, or "dep" (still not sure what that stands for?) or working with a group of very technical/fluent in music theory people. On the other hand, if we were talking about creating music from "the soul" then music theory is irrelevant - each to his own. Anyway - if I find an idea questionable, I will try and find out the reasons behind it - if there are any. I don't think that I have been ignoring the content in these pages. I think you yourself have missed some of my points. Wasn't it you who said giving examples of "theory-less" composers was pointless, and then in another post used a list of "theory-expert" composers? Sorry if not. I admit I like to debate, and I admit to misinterpreting alex, but I don't think I have ignored any content. My general view on music theory is that it helped me as a guitarist to learn it, and as a consequence helped my musicality in general quite significantly. This was my view before beginning in the debate! Sorry if I pissed you guys off

[quote name='Merton' post='247046' date='Jul 24 2008, 05:08 PM']Even if one didn't know "classical" music theory, when composing he/she would know what sounds a two-frets-up, one-string-up position change would make. In its very basic form, that is utilising their level of music theory to construct a shift of a perfect 5th for their composition.[/quote] Yeh, we've had this point before. I think we're talking about academic study of music theory, rather than what you have gleaned from playing your instrument.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='247036' date='Jul 24 2008, 04:58 PM']My knowledge of music theory has just as often led me to try something that counters established practice as I've gone with the norm. Some great examples of writers doing this are Steely Dan and Frank Zappa, where all the composers have excellent knowledge of theory and use it to go to very strange places. Meanwhile lots of people without no knowledge write mundane three chord rock (no, not Status Quo or ZZ Top, they are masters of the three chords!) Sometimes it just seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing which is really annoying! This has happened on numerous threads where you seem to do everything in your power to not understand the alternate position. Alex[/quote] I think that your first point is a very fair one. I don't think any of these examples of composers are useful though - we could come up for as many composers learned and un-learned, good and bad. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am debating for the sake of reaching a reasoned conclusion - much like every other debate should be conducted. I hate this "Oh let's agree to disagree". No, if someone has a good question, let's find out the answer. My question is "what advatages do composers with extensive knowledge of music theory have over those with almost no knowledge of music theory?" So far the answers have not convinced me either way i.e at the moment it would seem a composer who is an "expert" would have no advantage over a composer who is an "idiot" when it comes to producing a finished product, other than being able to write it down and tell other people what it should be performed like. It would be easy to say "well I don't have to convince you" but if you read through the thread you'll realise there is no rational justification offered for saying that "a composer with more music theory knowledge is a better composer than one without the knowledge". And if you can't say that, then surely I have a point? 6 string bassist - Certainly, but what are words? A 10 word sentence says a lot more than a 10 note song, and it actually means something practical to someone. A note is not a word, neither is a chord, or a gap in sound. A word says more than any sound can say. Consider this - Modern art can be a tin of paint chucked at a canvas Modern "classical" music can be some violins set up at random, with random bows chucked at the strings Modern literature can not be ;uhrw.mgnpu;jNLmdnf,tjkwrny Q;EFUW;MNQWE;D [OIIDY;EWFN The art of language is entirely different to visual arts or the art of music. Language by it's nature must be organised. Art by it's nature can be ANYTHING!

a "doubler" is basically a chorus.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='247022' date='Jul 24 2008, 04:43 PM']I'm not daft enough to be drawn on 'facts' if you care to explore you will find lots of evidence from linguists making comparisons between music and language[/quote] I don't think it's a daft point, I think I have raised a valid point. Just because lots of people have compared music to language in the past doesn't make it right. Like I said, I have to have knowledge to speak a language, I do not need language to play music, I just need some motor functions (and ears help). [quote name='jakesbass' post='247022' date='Jul 24 2008, 04:43 PM']Then you are not looking hard enough mate, eg there are lots of examples in my last post, it strikes me that your frame of mind (I'm guessing at cheeky mass debator) is possibly obscuring your view of the evidence. It's all in my last post [/quote] All I found relevant to my question re' composing was: "Having the knowledge opens previously unknown possibilities" (please tell me if i've missed something) Which I think is irrelevant. Having an instrument and experimenting with it opens up previously unknown possibilities. Having music theory knowledge opens up previously KNOWN possibilities - by deffinition. Fair point - I like to debate, but that's what we're doing isn't it? Come on, address my points, and i'll address yours! It's fun.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='246987' date='Jul 24 2008, 04:17 PM']Sorry Tom I had missed that direct question. The answer to my mind is simple, A broad knowledge of the entire vocabulary of a language (music is a language) ................................................................ A quick and direct answer is: If you follow the path of received wisdom, you can familiarise yourself with what was previously mysterious to your ear and grow and develop into a skilled musician that has use of received wisdom. WINNER[/quote] "music is a language" - is that fact? Music to me is sounds. To speak a language, I must be familiar with every aspect. The more I learn of a language, the more I can speak. If I say "ugh ugh ugh ugh" it may well be considered language by some pedantic wrotters, but it's not really. However, if I get up on stage, start slapping my thigh to the rythm of my heartbeat, and then say over a microphone "ugh ugh ugh ugh", it constitutes music (no matter how bad), and I didn't need any knowledge of anything. I am in no way denying that there are benefits to knowing music theory (communication between musicians, creating commercial music etc) but I really do not see any benefit to composing that this knowledge can bring. Both examples given by the funk and alex are regarding transitions between chords. Like Alex said before, he can find the right chord by playing lots of different ones in context. I suggested this was a method of trial and error, but Alex thought this method was theory. I really don't understand that point of view. If I have been playing the guitar for a while, but not studying music theory, I will know chord shapes. If I play three chords in a row and think "with another chord this would be an amazing 4 chord sequence" then I can try different shapes in different positions all over the guitar, and find the right one. Now, i'm not suggesting this happens in all cases, but don't you think it would stand to reason that someone with loads of knowledge of music theory would pick the right chord from the few chords their theory knowledge suggests to them - as opposed to trying sh*t loads of random chords. In turn this could lead to a lot of "standardised" music, based on the knowledge of music theory, and we would never heard anything original. Originality is not necessarily something essential, but it's one of my top priorities when writing playing or listening to music.

[quote name='The Funk' post='246984' date='Jul 24 2008, 04:13 PM']Music theory can help lay out to you the way different chords resolve to each other - or build up tension. You can "hear" it for yourself too. And just because someone lays it all out for you, it doesn't mean you can then always immediately "hear" it. But an example of how theory could help you find the right chord quicker is if you are playing a V chord and are wondering which chord to resolve to as the last chord in a sequence (or the first chord of the repeated sequence). Well, Classical theory, Jazz theory and the Blues tell you that you'd get a very strong resolution to the I chord. I don't know what they call it in Classical theory (perfect cadence?) but I do know how it works. That's the most basic example I can think of to answer your question. My understanding of harmony is not that well developed.[/quote] I understand that, and I don't have a problem with it but.... I think this technique could lead to a "lazy" style of writing, where you rely on the tricks of former composers as learned from books/learned friends. If it works for you though...... I have been playing drums and the bassist from the premature ejaculators has been jamming along with me, and he knows f*ck all theory. He barely knows the names of the open string notes, and telling him to "go to the 5th fret" is slower than walking over and sticking my thumb on his fretboard. However, he comes up with some original bass lines that would never have come into my head, and would be considered unorthadox at least in terms of music theory - but it works! It works so well in fact that even when I can hear a great bassline in my head I have to keep it to myself - I don't want to spoil his creative mindset with functions of music theory or musical cliches (however funky they may be!).