jakenewmanbass

I will not play a note (but keep the changes going in my head) they will eventually look at you expectantly at which point I make a 'cut throat' sign (slice hand across throat) And I join the sequence at wherever they shut up. I like to solo unaccompanied apart from the most sensitive players. My time is like a train and the changes are always audible in what I do so they will be in no doubt as to where I am. With players I know well they all know what I want and the good ones can provide it. I've said this on here before but it's worth repeating: Billy Higgins famously said... "You're not supposed to rape the drums, you should make love to them, All the best horn players listen to the bass all the time so you're not supposed to drown it out". Now we have to compete with sax through PA and amplified keyboards too, I have, for lots of my working life, been told to turn up, I always say emphatically "NO, you turn down" Incidentally MM, I lived and worked as a pro in Manchester from '92 to '05 so there's a good chance I'll have been on the stand with the guys you're referring to. Jake

So very sad, tragically young. Sorely missed, a true thinker...

Yes mate they pick up very evenly across the strings, the reason, I would guess, is that what is being picked up is less the string sound, and more the sound emanating from the tables via the sound post, so inherently more woody and fuller bodied than string vibration interception which is what the Shadow and Underwood by their placement nature are. Jake

Hey Marti, no probs on it turning into a 'what pick up' thread... It's your thread after all. I did indeed buy Bassaces Realist, I like it very much although you might need to be able to roll substantial amounts of bass off, but that could be my Alembic pre, which Alex Claber tells me has a natural smile eq as the basic setting. I have an Accusound for sale which I have used on and off swapping for an Underwood. The Accusound is very natural sounding, for me (and more importantly my bass) the Realist has a low mid thump that I like. I will be using that set up (Realist/Fishman/Alembic pre/Power/Schroeder) for Jazz and function gigs, and for my regular gig, which is a 20s musical comedy I use Underwood/Fishman/P.A The second set up is a more honky sound, very punchy and can get very loud as we play to big audiences sometimes, and they want an almost sousaphone quality to the sound, I play lots of 2 feels in that and the Underwood seems to fare very well for that. I have to say about the Underwood though that without the extra layer of EQ and signal boost it is a bit weedy and very 'string' orientated in the sound so the trick is about completely manufacturing the amplified sound so that when the volume goes up, you're happy with the sound, there is nothing quite so dampening to your ideas train as a really bad tone coming back at you. Keep us posted as to your thinking on this as I'm sure between us we will have been through what ever situation you're entering. Jake

[quote name='wombatboter' post='527752' date='Jun 29 2009, 02:23 PM']When the clinic finished I went to say hello to Freddie and with a straight face I told him "Listen, I play bass too, if ever you can't make it to the Jackson gig and you need someone to replace you, call me !" (and I told him my name and address). He couldn't tell if I was joking or not (he has probably met a lot of freaks in his life) so he answered with a vague smile after which I repeated my name and address and insisted that he would call me. "Yeah, sure, I will" after which he quickly disappeared.[/quote] I don't quite get your point here, were you amused because you confused a great bass player or did you seriously think you could hold down that gig?

Great stuff mate *cracks whip* now get down to work. I'll be in touch Jake

Hope you don't mind me bumping this fellas, just that it is tonight, and for a good cause.

Hi all, I've just received a facebook message informing me that Jim has had an operation and has been advised not work for a month, so a benefit has been organised at the 606 and will feature a bunch of Londons fine Jazz musicians. I've played with Jim a few times and as well as being a dynamite guitarist he's also a lovely guy. If you find yourself at a loose end and could get to Chelsea tonight it would be a worthy visit. I'm going. Jake Its tonight 29th June, 90 Lots road SW10

[quote name='woodster' post='524867' date='Jun 26 2009, 02:19 PM'][b]You can buy padlocks that customs can open but civilians can't[/b]. Customs see a locked case like a red rag to a bull....[/quote] That's very interesting, and something that everone should be aware of...

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='525663' date='Jun 27 2009, 02:16 AM']Sorry I wasn't meaning to have a pop at you at all. FTR I wouldn't call myself a Warwick "fan" particularly and I don't get funny about brands like most sad blokes do.[/quote] I love this sentence because in grammatical terms you've included yourself in the 'sad blokes' category. Was that intentional? I have had a Warwick thumb five, beautiful instrument, but I could never get the tone and more importantly presence I required. I've got a '78 Jazz maple board which I love, but sounds quite a lot like Marcus Miller. They are both beaten by a mile by my Alembic MK5, great to play, amazing range of readily available tones and combined with my Schoeder cab (or through a PA) it WILL be heard, felt and, by most IME, loved. With your budget you're in the ballpark would have a dabble if I were you. Having said all that I once played a flamed maple bodied Streamer and that was a gorgeous bass

I suppose doing my utmost to be objective (which lets face it on this will be hard) I would give a similar answer as I did to your previous postulation (I find them both interesting btw) I'm not touched or drawn or entertained by the bass gymnastic society in the same way as I am by Joni Mitchell, Bach, or James taylor. Nor do I glean the throwaway fun given to me by Dancing queen or Sam Sparros black and gold... I am however wowed by some of the extent to which expression is developed by these guys and thats where my objectivity falls on it's face. Notwithstanding any of the above, yours, my or anybodies view of these guys and their output means nothing and should mean nothing to the people from whatever background (player or not) whom enjoy, attend and purchase what these players have to offer. I think it's also worth noting that many of the players who do the solo thing are also hugely experienced and have been in demand for their skills to provide very fundamental bass parts on big selling albums to a standard and with musicality and panache that you or I could only dream of (I'm thinking particularly of Victor and Marcus there) Do they advance the instrument? I think in some small way they do. Jake

[quote name='grahamlparker' post='525018' date='Jun 26 2009, 05:08 PM']Carol Kaye played with a pick whereas James Jameson plucked with just one finger. Who would you choose between these two early bass guitar pioneers?[/quote] You see, you just became spam to me.... *puts line through name in diary*

[quote name='BarnacleBob' post='523776' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:41 PM'] Wot happened there? Did everything just taste purple for a second?[/quote] Not sure!?!? I clicked on reply and it did nothing for ages. Next thing I know there were 4 posts there, Deleted now though

I'm seriously hoping I can make this one, I've had gigs every other time. I know Stevie very well and think he and the guys have done a great job in pulling this together into a seriously respected event. I would love to chew the fat with Nathan East.

I have 3 basses 2 in very regular use. I have 2 pick ups both in regular use. One is an Underwood, the other an Accusound. The basses are an 1880 blockless wonder, an early 1900 Stuttgart region flatback and a cheapo ply bass that lives in the band van. On the cheapo and the stuttgart both pick ups work fine, but on the 1880 there is a very persistent G (therfore prob earth) Hummmmmm, It's driving me mad, it's not that loud but enough to piss me off, has anyone got any ideas???

And now a second approach to absorbing scales and mode: look at each scale in the 7 modes and realise that they are all within two groups, Major and Minor sounding (not necassarily in theory, just how they sound). Major: Ionian, Lydian, Mixolydian Minor: Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian, Locrian. Using the Ionian mode (major scale) in a given key as a starting point look at each scale in the major sounding group and notice that the physical difference between eg Ionian and Lydian is one note, the fourth. In a Lydian scale you employ the same shape or pattern as a major scale but the fourth note of the scale is one fret higher, and no hand movement is required to play it. Similarly the difference between Ionian and Mixolydian is one note, the seventh, in a Mixolydian mode it is one fret lower and the same applies as above... Seeing as Rob has called this the weekly lesson, I would normally ask students to do a certain amout of investigation themselves once principles like the above had been demonstrated, so I will leave the Minor differences open to your investigation, but will happily field questions if anyone has difficulty grasping the concepts. A Reasoning... This method is about using small steps on from well established information (the major scale) to realise that what some consider to be mystical, is actually very close to what you already know... EDIT. As I typed Rob posted the very useful info above, which adds a little purpose to what I'm talking about. I'm showing first step methods of investigation, Rob is showing application possibilities (where to use it), the two complement one another well.

Ok TT, my first suggestion with modes and diatonic scales is to view them globally. By all means learn each one individually, but try to refer to them as part of a larger thing, the larger thing being the mother key. Each mode is played off the notes of a major scale so there is a continuum of sound that flows through the entire thing. The reasoning behind this is to have under ones control the range of sounds that are immediately available so that switching from one chord to another when playing through changes is effortless and right under your fingers as a degree of investigation should show you that the notes can be reached with very little hand movement. What is required of this is to know the sounds that are being produced not only from tonic to tonic in the traditional scale sense, but fom any point in the scale to any other point in the scale, or another scale. The result is easy access to a range of sounds in a more contained way than scale movement normally accomodates. Once fluency is achieved then a firm knowledge of the aural possibilites should be developed to make sure there is musical meaning and not typewriter style note playing. I'm cautious of this becoming too advanced too soon, hence my earlier comment about waiting for questions, so I'm going to leave it there for now. Ask away fellas...

A great start Rob, I have only skimmed the content but am familiar with most of it. Anybody that wants any kind of explanation of what they don't understand in there and I will happily oblige. I think it's important to remember that the musician you are will dictate where you can go with this stuff, and therefore there is only benefit (as long as you keep taste and quality at the front of your thinking) coming from it. The most difficult thing about absorbing and regurgitating this is how to make it musical, so guidance and steeping yourself in the great practical exponents of these concepts is a critical counterpoint to the written stuff. I have a few ideas about how these things should be approached but I will wait to see what relevance they bear to the interested parties before I go spouting off.

[quote name='51m0n' post='521701' date='Jun 23 2009, 01:55 PM']So I can take it from that you aint too keen on his stuf then JB? [/quote] Am I giving something away here??

Oscar, in my time (8yrs) as bass tutor at Salford University I had to negotiate final year syllabi with my third and fourth year students and geared them very much towards the requirements of a pro player. I still have some of those documents on file so if you PM me your email address I could send a few over for your perusal (with names removed of course) I would very much suggest that you look at the core skill set of pro players and gear your own toward that. You should also directly ask the Pros on here, me, Lowdown, XB26354, Out to Play Jazz, Major Minor, Steve K and I'm sure a few others (no offence if I'm not aware of you guys) what their individual spin on the busines is as the variety will give you an insight into breadth of skills out there. Best of luck with it. Jake

Hey James, congrats on taking the plunge, given the short timescale you have I should suggest that you be expedient in what you try to achieve in the short time you have. The two most important factors for one in your position are, in my view, as follows: 1.Ensure that (with correct fingering ie 124) that you are being efficient in your left hand, use the natural weight in your arm to gently pull your fingers (which should be slightly curled into a sort of hook) against the fingerboard. This should allow you to avoid squeezing which is desperately inefficient and leads to tiredness. 2. you need to practise moving, retaining contact with the string (for intonation purposes) and learning to adjust your finger spread to account for the tiny reducing stop length as you go up the neck. This should become entirely unconcious over time. At this stage I can't stress enough how important it is that you take a few technical lessons, what I've described really should be shown and is very hard to put into text without some physical guidance to back it up. Having a knowledgeable teacher dance around you looking from every angle to see how your muscle movement can be minimised is really beneficial and can in the long run save some painful undoing of poor habits. GET A TEACHER NOW!!! DO IT...!

[quote name='Leowasright' post='521577' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:36 AM']James Jamerson never played complicated, and always stuck with the rhythm and the melody of the song he was playing on. Pop should not be complex. [/quote] Don't take this the wrong way but I feel you've slightly misunderstood JJ, his lines were on occasion fiercely complex and not only that, very hard to execute in emulation, but the one thing they all had was a 'rightness' which I believe is down to his musicality. He could make anything sound acceptable which to my mind is the hallmark of a true great. Listen to the way Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, or Ray Charles phrase... now try and notate it... some great complexity in there but entirely valid in fact they set the standard. Lines like 'I heard it through the grapevine' (Gladys Knight version),'Home cooking', 'I was made to love her', 'How long has that evening train been gone' and 'ninety day cycle people' are crammed with death defying rhythmic complexity that are extremely difficult to authentically emulate. And they contain oodles of real earthy feel. So in fact your "James Jamerson never played complicated" is entirely without evidence, he was a master of the instrument, and had a feel to stop the world turning.

[quote name='rslaing' post='521477' date='Jun 23 2009, 10:04 AM']OK. I'll have a think today and kick something off. How about Key/tonal centres and modes? Any other ideas?[/quote] I'd be up for contributing to this too, I have a method of trying to allow students to see major keys, their scale tones, resultant chords and likely alterations globally so that individual scales and chords end up with less defined beginnings and ends and therefore greater possibilty in expression, it has to be done carefully so as not to overface, but is very effective at allowing people to unlock the patterns they so often feel dog their playing.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='521376' date='Jun 23 2009, 02:22 AM']Right... I've been playing bass for 20 years now, with a pause of about 6 years where I wasn't in a band but I still regularly picked up the bass for jollies. And I've come to the conclusion that practicing playing bass beyond the first year or two is probably a waste of time. Yes I know there are some fringe forms of music that require virtuoso bassists but they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Let's ignore them, because nobody buys their records anyway. I was thinking about this earlier and I came to the conclusion that - as a bassist - the first thing you need to know is why James Jamerson played like he did, and once you figure that out there's really not much else worth learning. At that point you should divert your attention to learning about how music works full-time, or learning to sing or write songs or something with more mainstream value like that. I am playing devil's advocate somewhat here, but go on:[/quote] It's an interesting question. I feel for the purposes of debate, you can broadly divide the argument into two convenient portions: 1. Those who's goal it is to make music for reasons of entertainment of others and have fun and give a good time and have a good time. 2. Those who are interested in playing music for the sake of music itself, for art and for (IMO laudable) high achievement technically or otherwise. As far as I'm concerned both endeavours are legitimate. I try to exist in both camps, what some of my colleagues in the jazz world would consider cheesy I will play with relish because I see the value to the listener and feel my role is complete if they enjoy my contribution eg my trip to Germany on the weekend involved playing crossover classical to over 7000 very appreciative people. I loved it. I also play jazz and learn what some here would term elevator, or noodly music. I endeavour in that direction for aims of a personal nature , to be technically proficient, and to achieve difficult things. The reasoning, it is a personal challenge and to that end, I have very little concern about people disliking it, and unlike some jazz and contemporary players, I don't think of the public as useless, artlesss oiks who should (damn you) like my output. Interestingly you cite James Jamerson as an example of the standard to achieve... well in my view, no one since him yet has (although for me Jimmy Johnson is close). Interestingly he was, in the fifties, a Jazz double bassist and a huge amount of his musical language came from the jazz improvised school of playing that people are often so critical of today. If I could say I played as well as he at this point in life I, would be a deliriously happy man, but I can't and there is much much much much more to Jamerson than your words seem to imply (although I have a feeling you know that already) Another point worth considering on this is that there is a bit of a difference between our pop music scene and that of our US cousins which in some sepcific regards gives them the edge. I will give you some examples: Stevie wonder is a monster player/singer Alicia Keys is a monster player/singer Jimi Hendrix was (you get the picture) James Taylor James Brown Ray Charles Billy Joel Barbara Streisand Barry Manilow (brilliant musician career before soloist MD and arranger) Those are chosen at random some great US artists, it goes on... the musicians (most of them virtuoso) Steve Jordan played drums on 'Walking on Sunshine' Dave Weckl played drums on like a virgin Tony Levin played bass on Sledgehammer Steve Gadd has played on too many hits to mention as has Marcus miller or Will Lee or Greg Phillinganes or Richard Tee or Steve Lukather etc etc the list goes on and on and it is filled with musicians that are absolute monsters. And in many cases they make great music. I've tried to be wide in my brief to cover as many genres as possible so I doesn't necassarily cover my taste but it [i]does[/i] cover what I respect as a musician, and I hope ultimately that it adds a little weight to the legitimacy of being good at what you do. Something I have always tried to do.

I don't wish to be too condemning of the views here so far, but I feel they are almost all way too accomodating for what is simply wrong. Learning music is a highly specialised subject and while I feel that we can all offer a bit of help to beginners with the odd tip and pointer we should not undertake the full on teaching of an instrument without a 'first instrument' type facility. Ironically the violin teacher will be more cogniscent of double bass requirements than a guitar player teaching bass, the main reason being in my view that all the string family is predicated upon single note techniques, although cello and bass are much closer. The approach, and what becomes conditioned in young players from learning are critical to how students can progress in later years so poor posture, hand position, finger approach, right hand technique etc etc if taught incorrectly can be very difficult to undo and prove immensely disheartening when the major 'late teen/entrance to serious study at college' years are reached and the student finds that on top of the massive ramping up of the learning requirement to achieve professional standards that they have a load of work to undo bad habits. It's scandalous in my view. I had an experience with my own son where I took him to a music school in the area for drum lessons, they offered him a guitar teacher who, I reckon, knew little more than me about drums. Guitar players in many cases in my experience (apart from the very good ones I know) often can't even tell you what the bass is doing exactly... so from that perspective is it right to try to teach someone that perception? what will it amount to? nearly... not quite... Actually IMO in all but the most exceptional cases, AWFUL. You are faced with a difficult situation because it should not fall to you through knowing about the bass to take on an endemic problem in our national music teaching tendencies. I personally would tackle the matter head on and suggest that they employ a bass tutor and have a quiet word with the tutor explaining my reasoning. Ultimately he/she should have declined the offer in the first place. I have on a few occasions...