jakenewmanbass

[quote name='Mikey D' post='156041' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:58 PM']So in the older days, E# and F weren't the same.[/quote] Absolutely, and if you talk to string players they (and I) can tell the difference between flats and sharps in relation to the key. Eg the C# in A major has a different brighter quality to the more dark and sombre Db of B flat minor tiny differences and more about tonal qualities of keys than anything else. Thats why Ellington/Strayhorn tunes have their own qualities, lots of Db, rich, thick and luscious sounds for ballads.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155985' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:07 PM']That's not true! It's just you wouldn't know that you've broken them.[/quote] then you wouldn't be breaking boundaries IMO you would in a musical sense be breaking wind IMO Tom, I like your discourse in many areas as I've said to you before. I think on this issue you want to call yourself 'any good' without accepting the normal checks and balances of what [i]is[/i] 'any good' I am not going to go to a surgeon because of his vibe, I will go to him cos he's 'any good' with a scalpel sadly in music sh*t musicians get jobs because of their haircuts (or some other nonsense) and then the people that like their haircuts spend huge amounts of energy constructing arguments as to why they want to justifiably call them 'the best' when they should just settle for liking them, which is fine. Wheras in the world of the professional musician, guys get the gig because thay can produce the goods, well most of the time. But then there are surgeons who have cut off the wrong limb. Ain't life great

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155977' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:02 PM']You don't come across as angry! I'm not "making a stand on this" just discussing it. Hundreds of years of developement in music education have created the conventions we see in music today. While knowing the conventions inside out does not neccessarily restrict you to them, it may make you on average more conventional than a musician who is not aware of these conventions. I would like to be unconventional in my playing, so I try to ignore everything I know and just listen to what sounds i'm making/make the sounds I hear in my head. This seems to have at least a shred of logic to it?[/quote] you need to know what the boundaries are before you have a chance of breaking them

[quote name='dlloyd' post='155956' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:35 PM']Edit: And, of course, I took so long in typing that that Paul C already said it![/quote] thats always my problem

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155898' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:12 PM']I think that's a bit lame. I have no idea what points I have missed and i'm very interested![/quote] Ok seeing as how you are interested I'll try to explain. Its not what points you have missed, its that on a number of occasions I said one thing, then when you answered, you told me because I said one thing, I also meant another eg. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155898' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:12 PM']You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing.[/quote] It's not what [i]I[/i] said, it's what [i]you[/i] said. It's not what [i]I[/i] think it's what you [i]said[/i] I think. and since you don't reside in my conscious I don't really think you're in a position to posit my thoughts, even if you think thats what I meant. Those are the things I feel its pointless to try and address, and its tiring and impossible not to sound pompous when being required to examine the conduct within a conversation.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing.[/quote] No my ability as a musical person with taste will be at the forefront , and the first thing I consider is the song. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']I'm not saying that this is a limitation, but it does mean that you're less likely to write something unusual or "original".[/quote] I hold less store by originality than some as I think very little is truly original. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']Just because my playing can be analysed and described by music theory, doesn't mean that music theory influences my playing. I can ignore music theory and play, whether or not there is someone listening and analysing it.[/quote] you missed the point there. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']I honestly reckon that Jimmy Johnson would still sound as good playing with James Taylor, whether or not he had "the chops" to impress at his solo/jazz/improv/whatever gigs. If he had never practiced enough to get amazingly fast, he would still be able to groove IMHO.[/quote] again, I feel you've missed my point, of course its not necessary to have technical brilliance, and i have never said so. I can hear the difference. I also love Jerry Jemmott but he doesn't have the same finesse, Doesn't make him any less of a player. I think when you reach the point in a conversation where you have to explain what you [i]haven't said[/i] due to the assertions of the other participant it gets a little tiring so I'm going to stop there. I have enjoyed it though. Thanks

1.Nathan Watts (Stevie Wonder) 2.Willie Weeks (Donny Hathaway) 3.Jerry Jemmott (Aretha Franklin) 4.Chuck Rainey (Steely Dan) 5.Lee Sklar (James Taylor) They all played with others and did sessions too

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']What i'm saying is that some of these extremely fast, extremely difficult, and extremely impressive improvisations don't sound like something some would have inside their head and want to get out. I don't listen to enough jazz to know that for a fact, and so i'm asking.[/quote] yes there are people who hear and can reproduce that stuff really fast. Speed is not something that impresses me though. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']How many times did you play impressively fast during all of your gigs?[/quote] I didn't really, speed is not something I really aspire to in a performance, however having those skills makes all my improvised choices come easily and dare I say it make me sound good, which I don't really want to espouse but the situation warrants it. I get asked to do lots of gigs. So I must be doing something right. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']I fail to see what's technically brilliant about being able to play basslines to songs, because that's what you're describing to me. I know you're not professing yourself as a technically brilliant player, but you are arguing that practicing technique to such a degree that the music you're making is almost unlistenable.[/quote] None of the great musicians I know (and I know some phenomenal ones) would suggest that you cram all your practise regime excercises into a given song, really fast. there are those that do, and I'm as bored by their playing as I'm guessing you would be. So to put it straight. I am not suggesting we make music unlistenable, quite the opposite actually [quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']Scales and Keys are sets of notes on your fret board. They're useful for putting different parts of music together, but you can basically hear what's right or wrong. Many a time, what's wrong from the technical viewpoint will be right to your ears. If you've just been practicing scales all your life, you might not be aware of a note that would sound great.[/quote] Sorry but thats ill thought out, why do you assume that people who have an awareness of all the details of their instruments stop using their ears? I listen hard all the time and knowing theory does not prevent me from doing so. Quite the opposite, by having a large awareness of chords and their relevent scales I have many possibilities of what "works" and I rely as much on my musical taste as my technical facility. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']If you ignore all of this theory, you have the entire fret board to play with, and you can play anything you like, and judge it with your ears and your brain. This is what works for me![/quote] Don't kid yourself, you are not ignoring theory. If you play something. it can be described, that is 'the theory' and the whole point of that is so that we as musicians can share that information. [quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']This is might a bit arrogant, but only because i'm relating it to myself. I'm sure there are thousands of other musicians out there who play in the same way.[/quote] I don't think its arrogant particularly, a little naive in places but I'm naive about other stuff (and sometimes this subject too) which is one of the reasons I come here because I know I'll find someone who knows more than I do Whos willing to share. Works well doesn't it? One of my favourite bass players is a guy called Jimmy Johnson, He plays bass with lots of people of world reknown, he plays bass for James Taylor and has done since the early nineties. This guy is a master of his instrument and can play anything it seems, fast, accurate, unusual harmony, odd time signatures and really ripping it up and exciting whilst doing it. He reserves all that for the appropriate gig eg allan Holdsworth (with whom he also plays) Listen to him with James Taylor. He is the ultimate in appropriate and tasteful playing, using his ears, never over playing always keeping the groove. He's just one of lots of really great musicians who can really play, but always do so with taste and finesse keeping the importance of the music, and therefore, the audience at the forefront.

[quote name='chrkelly' post='155651' date='Mar 11 2008, 11:37 PM']Definitely depends on the playing situation. In jazz/rock etc a good player should be able to get a very similar sound out of different basses due to their technique (provided the bass is decently set up and can vibrate freely). I like playing plywood basses in very loud situations because they don't vibrate so much and feedback is much harder to get. Unless in the unlikely event that you find a Fendt in a junk shop for £50, the orchestral world is completely different and you will struggle to find a suitable bass with massive strong fundamental for less than 10 grand. You can of course still use a lesser bass but you won't blend into the section as well. When I'm gigging back in Ireland I usually borrow a massive old Italian flatback from one of the Ulster orchestra guys. It's worth a fortune and sounds incredible in the orchestra, but in an amplified situation, i'd imagine it would sound awful because it vibrates so freely and its acoustic sound is so huge and boomy.[/quote] Thats fascinating regarding ply not feeding. I have found that my good bass does get very lively when there's lots of onstage sound but it never occurred to me that laminates would suppress that. I don't do orchestral work so on jazz gigs and shows I can get by with a mike or a little lift from a pick up. Thanks for that, v informative Jake

[quote name='mcgraham' post='155721' date='Mar 12 2008, 07:41 AM']I would perhaps submit that classical musicians, whilst immensely knowledgeable about a great deal more than just theory, do not endeavour to improve their ability to improvise or create pieces by application of this knowledge, as it really isn't a needed skill (outside of those who are classical composers) Mark[/quote] Exactly, and what they don't use in skill terms for improvisation they more than make up for in their ability to produce the goods to a very high standard with every performance. 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 name='cheddatom' post='155775' date='Mar 12 2008, 09:35 AM']I'm technically not very good, but I have no problem at all expressing myself on my bass. I can play anything I want. The only time I want to improve is when my guitarist comes up with something I can't play fast enough with my fingers, but don't want a pick sound for. Is playing these incredibly fast and complicated improvisations really an expression of the self? My guitarist spent a long time learning to play some nuno solos, and he uses that technique in his improvisation, but it's basically just to show off. I suppose I don't listen to enough modern jazz to really know the answer to my question, so sorry if that last comment seemed presumptive.[/quote] What I didn't say is that a lack of technique will prevent you expressing yourself, and neither do I think that, so to me your question answers itself. There is a huge difference between copying someone elses solos and having global harmonic awareness to be able to construct your own on the spot. Whether you listen to modern jazz will make not a jot of difference to anything, Bach and many of the composers of and around his time were improvisors. Last night I did a gig with an eight piece band doing original material, we spent the previous week rehearsing to create our parts as the songwriter gave us frames of the songs. Last Saturday I did a hotel gig in Manchester playing songs from the 20s and 30s playing largely two feels but all improvised to some extent. And thats just the last week. None of it modern jazz. I've spent nearly 20 years doing this, a tiny proportion of the time in modern jazz groups. And as I said before I enjoy, indeed [i]love[/i] it all.

[quote name='7string' post='155691' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:13 AM']I thought that it was jazz guys who spend a lifetime playing covers, oops, standards.[/quote] Thats unfair and a little childish, there is masses of new music in the genre, standards require personal interpretation and are a good training ground.

[quote name='7string' post='155686' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:04 AM']I would disagree with the classical/jazz comparison. In my experience, classical musicians take it for granted that they have the technique and theory to perform in the way that the conductor (who interprets the music) wants them to. In jazz, there seems to be an opinion that if you don't like jazz, you don't understand enough theory or don't have enough technique to play it.[/quote] I wasn't strictly making a comparison, more likening the two in terms of ability but with different purposes/outcomes. I do take the point about the perception of liking jazz/technical ability, which is an easy answer to people who do like jazz to explain why others don't, and even though I love and play jazz i do encounter a snobbishness amongst some (not all) of its players that they are somehow deserving of an awestruck audience. The real world usually bites if, as I am, you're making a living from playing, but I love an audience enjoying any style of music I might happen to be playing and I'm eternally grateful that I'm able to play my bass for money. As I always say, "beats working for a living".

[quote name='7string' post='155686' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:04 AM']It's just a different kind of creativity. I wouldn't say that one genre is more/less creative than another. DJ's mix records together, punk bands make 2 minute songs, it's all different kinds of creativty. I do accept the analogy about language, but even when you understand the language you still might not like the sound of what's being created.[/quote] Complete agreement. I suppose I was referring to the fact that lots of people will spend a lifetime playing covers. Which I also happen to think is entirely valid. just by definition less creative

[quote name='Stuart Clayton' post='155600' date='Mar 11 2008, 10:07 PM'](or most innovative equipment) etc. Thanks! Stu[/quote] The Yamaha DX7 for taking away the need to carry around Rhodes stage 88s!!

Marcus Miller should surely be considered to be an eighties man to start with. I do believe he was with Miles Davis from '81 although he had already racked up an impressive NY session CV. His work with Sanborn and Luther Vandross was mostly through the 80s

[quote name='7string' post='155680' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:43 AM']In my opinion, jazz is one genre that always seems to be portrayed as requiring more skill and knowledge than any other (even more than "classical") and so the nature of articles from jazz players, I find, tend either to be based on theory and/or technique rather than feel, emotion or creativity.[/quote] I understand that you see the genre as its portrayed and thats perfectly fair. However I think the one thing that has been consistently overlooked here is that the whole point of good technical facility is to free your playing so that emotion and creativity are [i]more[/i] accessible, it has been mentioned earlier but nobody seems to take it on board, in jazz creativity is paramount. If I play a walking line on a blues I will play some things the same, and there are lines I will repeat, but essentially no two times will be the same. Jazz requires a large musical vocabulary, and one of the reasons people find it objectionable at first is because its like hearing a language you don't understand, boring to begin with, then you start to make sense of it, and if you keep listening its not long before you're fluent. There is more creativity on a good jazz gig than many players will encounter in their entire playing lives. Edit: to respond to another of your observations, classical music is just as knowledge based as jazz, but the emphasis is on performance, and the ability to reproduce flawlessly, which good classical musicians can do to stunning degrees. I have met and played with all types of musicians and in my view each has their merits.

[quote name='owen' post='155285' date='Mar 11 2008, 01:38 PM']In a sensitive unamplified trio situation, or a solo recital you 100% could hear the difference. In an amplified situation with some noisy brass or guitars or somesuch - a £500 bass would not sound 100 times worse than a £50K bass - and the tone is as much to do with your pick-up and rig as your bass.[/quote] I quite often play acoustically so for me it is the case, re the 100 times worse thing, that's the law of diminishing returns. Whichever way you prefer is a matter for the individual. Tone is produced by the human and the instrument, amplification can only represent those elements. You can't create tonal elements that aren't there. For the record one of my bread and butter gigs is heavily amplified and in that gig I get by with a cheap bass and an average pick up. So I do know exactly what you're saying, and I agree. I don't mind carrying the conversation on as I think it's bringing out useful pointers for people wanting to try. Jake

[quote name='guyl' post='155212' date='Mar 11 2008, 12:05 PM']Hits the nail on the head. I reckon Ray Brown would've swung pretty good if he ever played on my cheap doghouse!![/quote] That much is certain.

[quote name='thedontcarebear' post='155190' date='Mar 11 2008, 11:27 AM']Valve poweramps need a load, not preamps, if that was the question.[/quote] even if it wasn't the question, thats good to know. Ta

For what its worth I've been playing Double for 27 years professionally for 17 and I've had similar experiences regarding buying and selling as you. As it happens, I agree with most of your post and in fact I think the pricing by dealers is bordering on criminal, is not based on demand as they have lots of them stockpiled and in many cases can't shift them, and it serves as a bar to young players getting started on something decent. The only point at which I think its worth having a high financial value on a bass is to make people look after them so they last a long time, we are after all, only temporary keepers, not owners. Cheaper basses [i]are[/i] getting better but they don't compare to hand carved instruments, (I've played basses from £250-£50,000) and I don't agree about people not being able to tell the difference. They may not really notice if your tone is average or below, but they [i]do[/i] notice if its enourmous and lovely sounding. While we agree on most things in this thread I think the single most impotant thing those of us who are more experienced should offer as advice to the uninitiated is, try lots of basses and find one that suits your playing, feels comfortable, and sounds like you want it to sound. If you can get all that for £500, great. Jake Edit: "Also not all instruments hold their value and certainly do not appreciate. The market is driven by age and condition NOT exclusively how well an instrument plays. You could have a great instrument that responds like no other. If you have a large repaired crack in it then it's value drops immediately. I am selling a 1880 (ish) 'cello at the moment. It sounds good and plays easily. It is valued by a reputable dealer at £4K. It has had a neck snap, well-repaired and rock solid for at least a quarter of a century.I cannot shift it for £2.5K. It depends on the market when you are selling. Not all expensive instruments are maintanence free. I used to have a nice old French bass that needed constant encouragement to hold together at the bottom. When I was looking to buy a new bass about 10 years ago I went round all the usual suspects in the London area. I was being offered a max of £2K on what I had and the price of anything that was SIGNIFICANTLY nicer was £8 or 9K. Dealers are out to make as much money as they can, like any other retailers, they are not doing it for the love" FWIW. yes yes and yes to this. I agree

I think its safer to have it hooked up although I don't think any harm would come to it if no signal were put into it. But I suppose better safe than sorry.

you might find some useful responses in this thread [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=10287"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=10287[/url]

[quote name='bigd1' post='155035' date='Mar 11 2008, 12:42 AM']4 quavers per beat @ 400 bpm = 1600 notes per min & 8 semi-quavers per beat @ 400 bpm = 3200 notes per min[/quote] there are 2 quavers per beat and 4 semi-quavers per beat. The only conceiveable exercises that would use minims as a beat might be latin grooves or bright show twos (although I've never seen an exercise based on either, only examples). otherwise a crotchet is the beat. it should be pointed out that one of your observations was based upon your misconception of what quavers and semi-quavers are. Having read back through some of the posts you've made since the original one you have used a fairly shirty tone in a couple in defence of your posts, particularly [i]telling[/i] people to read before they post, in light of that sound advice perhaps you should have quoted the article correctly in relation to BPM before you posted, a simple mistake I would easily forgive. However things have gone quite a long way here and some of it on your error. We really do need to be more careful.

In all seriousness though we should at least nod to the publication, the OP and Basschat, despite some bumpiness some really useful discussion and information has come out of this.