LukeFRC

So plywood japcrap... rubbish eh? Good enough for this fella to use on a product advertisment video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXrMPRtQ7Z4

[quote name='cytania' timestamp='1360486573' post='1970977'] Thanks LukeFRC you're absolutely right about the Fender sound, it's why I keep considering one even though there are some 'difficult' aspects to them. I should really take my own advice that 'every guitar has something to teach you' and the Fender style is on my list. Maybe this year... if I still have a day job in April... The other GAS driver has been the realisation that although my Spear S2 singlecut is a Korean maker trying to 'do boutique' it is actually well above spec compared to what they make now. There's an inch of walnut top and an inch of mahogany back, now they just put a 5mm walnut cap on. The electrics were 18v now they're 9v suggesting the 'is it Aguilar?' preamp is something else. Suddenly I realise that whatever it is I won't be able to get another one easily or cheaply. Must keep an eye on it at the pub gig next week [/quote] I thought wood didn't impact on tone?

I think the bass player you heard should have turned down a bit! I think it's easier to swap gear than think abotu waht would make you/your band better musically. GAS is a funny thing - I think partly it's us wanting different things, and partly it's knowing that we havn't found what we want quite yet and playing around with it. For me it's been a fun journey of trying everything I want to try (bar two basses*) playing lots, and ending up with basses and rig I'm happy with. I think it's ok to want to get to that sort of place - but for me that has been a process of finding out what I want, and working out how to get there on a fairly methodical journey, I'll be honest I don't understand the kinda GAS that seems to want something new and often utterly different every week. More specifically to your question - I think the beauty of a lot of high end gear is it lets you control what you do better. My fingers can do things on my warwick they could never have done on the Stagg bass I first started messing with - mainly because it's a much better instrument. Likewise a great cab gives you options on shaping your tone that a cheap box of woolyness maybe wouldn't. BUT if you've all the gear an no idea it doesn't matter what you play - you need to learn how to shape your tone to the music - I don't think great tone and fitting the music are mutually exclusive - if anything they are the same thing! anyway ramble over. *a warwick thumb and a ray if anyone was interested. I'll probably build a ray myself sometime.

I think there are three things here... one - they are constructed differently. I think your bass has through body stringing and a stiff neck, all that is going to affect the feel - imagine it like a mountain bike's shock absorber. Your bass is a hard spring with no dampening, and a fender is a slightly softer spring with dampening. Both good but will ride differently. This analogy in basses- they will sound different as the different construction will effect the character of the attack and sustain of the note. two they (usually are passive) - if your bass is active - I'm my experience, in my opinion etc - they sound slightly differently and react to your playing technique slightly differently. If you are used to one then the other will be odd to begin with. and lastly. A lot of Fenders are crap, dull sounding rubbish. I've only found one or two new fenders that I would even think of buying- (one mexican, one Highway 1 and one american vintage) the rest have been just flaccid. A flat sounding fender isn't fun. I am aware this may just be down to the set up in shops. So they are different... but you know that sound on that record you grew up listening too? That bass tone. That was a Fender bass tone, and yeah they are different - but what they can do - no other bass design can.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1360417066' post='1970015'] Spot on, cheers Luke! That's exactly what I'm going to do. Thanks also for the heads up about Aaron Armstrong p'ups, I'm going to check those out. And a massive thanks for the offer of trying the ACG on your Warwick!! (I love BC for this sort of thing ). 'Tis only a short hop from Mancunia to Leeds as you mention, so I may well take you up on that offer mate - I have relatives over your way so could make a round trip of it. I'll let you know. [/quote] coolio

I always get stuck when picking up a drum stick, how do you hold it. Then someone shows me something to play, and I can play that well and then try and vary it and it all falls to pieces. I guess I have awful rhythm which is odd for a bassist. It's odd, I lived with a pro musician for a bit, and we would muck around with basses and guitars and so on in the house- he pointed out that I picked a guitar my timing was spot on, I strum and it goes all over the place. Really odd, I never had to work on timing or rhythm much on the bass, I could just pick it up and make it do what I could hear in my head without thinking. Other instruments - man they are hard. Drumming is a skill though, I couldn't do it. Mind you it's also one of those instruments that unless you learn to keep time well you are better off staying at home.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1359549669' post='1956375'] ^ Nice one Charic! Great ideas there mate. I have a lot of Googling to do when I get home after work this evening... Will definitely be checking out Wizard p'ups and ACG pre-amps. Thanks for the suggestions. [/quote] I emailed Aaron Armstrong about pickups a while back- didn't go with him but I would have confidence to if I did again. My recomendations pickup wise is go and play as much stuff as you can and try them yourself. I love Nordy jazz pickups but they are the opposite to what you want. The ACG EQ01 with a Bartolini PJ set is pretty nice on my warwick - just a train ride away if you want to have a try of the preamp sometime.

If you are going to stick a preamp in look for a clone of one of the early stingray preamps;

I think for a lot of people there is a specfic 'sound' that sounds right to them. For me I keep going back to a P bass type sound and though in theory I like how a jazz sounds I don't like the sound when I'm playing it. So my vote is to go looking for a good stingray.

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360282018' post='1968195'] What happened was that he posted a video of himself and everybody was very polite about his playing but a few said that it wasn't their cup of Darjeeling. He responded to this furiously, revealing himself to be both arrogant and to have a vastly inflated opinion of his (admittedly quite good) abilities. [/quote] Funny thing was no one ever insulted him as a musician. He is a pretty skilled bloke with a bass.

good post Mcnach. this thread did make me miss the big beef chief just a little.

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1360257789' post='1967608'] "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When [i]I[/i] use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you [i]can[/i] make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master[s] [/s]that's all." [/quote] is that from art or entertainment?

wow you are on a roll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2cOVgaKBM

[quote name='Antiloco' timestamp='1360247162' post='1967310'] a) It works. It works perfectly. It may not work for you but that's another story. b ) Actually no. I don't need to tell where my ideas come from. Because I don't care in the same way an amateur bass player doesn't get better than he needs to get. The main difference here is that it's not me demanding to be respected in a philosophical forum... but here all amateurs and inmstrument collectors demand their views to be respected as if they were the ultimate truth. I'm very sorry but that's not going to happen. Not until you know more than me in my field. My apologies but that's the way it is and it has nothing to do with peoples value as human beings. It's all about knowing your place....You get that point don't you? It's your urge to know were my thinking comes from so its your job. You have the tools, not me. People use math all the time without knowing the theoretical part. Does it mean they can't use math?... Please. [/quote] So if it is all about knowing your place. I'm quite happy to listen to you play, if you stop pontificating half-thought-out weak ideas about what constitutes music and avant garde and kitsch that you have no inclination to understand what you yourself think? Except life doesn't work like that, the beauty of this forum is that I can talk to folk who like jazz and folk who like punk, folk who regularly play to thousands and folk who play in front of a webcam, old folk and teenagers. What brings us together, regardless of our skill or knowledge is a love of music and our ability to talk about it from whatever level we are at. I've never played jazz - but boy do I love hearing Bilbo get excited about what gets him going. I don't really like Big red x's music, but I love his views on making music and playing even when I don't agree with them all. Bilbo could communicate why jazz is important, or explain why the coltraine piece in the OP is expressive worth listening too to a bunch of 5 year olds. Making music accessible to other people, explaining why stuff is worth listening too, making it worth listening too (entertaining even) - that's amazing, that's what basschat is all about. that's what music is all about.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1360171698' post='1966118'] Probably a decent enough reference but no payback from them.. so too much effort for little return..?? [/quote] though he's prolific enough on talk bass still! His anaylsis of the new and old power sections in the Tecamp Puma was brilliant. Made me realise I didn't want to sell mine!

[quote name='Antiloco' timestamp='1360241458' post='1967186'] Exactly. Its within your field to know that stuff. Its within my field to play and know the bass. Whatever I think about it in a philosophical way is an amateurs point of view and I would NEVER argue with an expert in the field of analysing schools of thought. So call it whatever you want, structuralist, platonic thats your job and I dont have the right to question it because my knowledge is limited. THAT would be arrogant...and I frankly dont care either. [/quote] your answer doesn't work. Everything you say or think about art and music and culture is predicated on a theoretical understanding of the world. Even from an amateurs point of view you are using these theories in what you are saying. "Art being Pure." "Art being more than Entertainment" "Clowns are less than art, or a lesser form of art" or even "clowns being the antithesis of an artist" and so on are statements of theoretical belief - sure I've read books than mean that I could pull these ideas apart - but it's you that is using them and at the very least need to understand that your definite assertions are based on these not-so-definite theoretical assertions. But it's you using them to make an argument - not me, so it's you that needs to at least explain where your ideas come from. I'll give an example. Two people are arguing about a topic. Lets for this example use Euthanasia. And they both have differing views on the subject. They talk for hours and hours getting more and more annoyed that even though they both seem to be taking each other's points onboard their opinions are not changing or being modified. Later they realise that one of them believes that life is a result of evolution and biology (though is no expert) and that that is where his views come from and the other was rasied in a religious household and believes that life comes from a God (though is no expert) their entire disagreement on euthanasia came down to a different theoretical/theological/philosophical idea of what life is. If you understand where someone is coming from you can start to understand them and why they think the way they do, it's the same as the way that you use the terms "art" and "entertainment" - you are using definite ideas of what you mean by them in ways that haven't been used in UK/US culture since the 1950's and then are surprised that people don't understand you?

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1360234466' post='1967023'] Another told me he 'invented' Mumford & Sons. Tried to make out he'd come up with the image, style of music, etc etc in some sort of Svengali like way. [/quote] interesting. I have some of the same friends as the lead singer. It's funny when he was writing the songs in his bedroom in Edinburgh I never heard anyone talk about major record companies turning up the whole time....

[quote name='Antiloco' timestamp='1360222270' post='1966794'] What you say sounds pretty fair except for the simple fact that the meaning of words is not subjective. "Entertainment is something that holds the attention and interest of an audience, or gives pleasure and delight. It can be an idea or a task, but is more likely to be one of the activities or events that have developed over thousands of years specifically for the purpose of keeping an audience's attention." -Wiki So you should ask yourself: How pure is something that's made with the sole purpose of satisfying an audience? Don't play the arrogance card on me, it's getting pretty old and tired by now. [/quote] So I can't claim to be anywhere near as accomplished as you as a musician, which based on some of the comments you've made would keep me from having valid points in the discussion but I do have degrees, undergraduate and postgraduate, in the field that this touches on. You are taking a strict structuralist view here on where language gains meaning - but even in that there is a certain subjectivity in how they are understood. A more up to date understanding of how language is formed would say that many of the meanings and understandings of language is utterly subjective and relative. It's important to note that while dictionaries codify language to an extent that they are written after the word has entered the language, and that the English language is constantly evolving- so to an extent the usage of words is utterly subjective. (I appreciate that this isn't easy for someone with English as a second language) The fact is most people here understand the argument you make based on your definition of the word "entertainment" - and the replies arn't as much disagreeing with you but "yes, but..." responses. May I politely suggest that you look to define further what you mean by "entertainment" by using different words- but here we run into another slight problem with your theoretical argument, which for the sake of this discussion I hope I will be permitted to point out. What do you mean by [b]art[/b]? Most the points you put forward people would agree with up to a point but the disagreement comes when you apply a much theoretically stronger idea of what art is than others are using. It's not wrong to do so but you need to at least talk about where this concept comes from (and be prepared for that concept to be critiqued as well) - so what concept of art do you use? Plato's? Ruskin's? Matthew Arnold's? Clement Greenberg's? or one of the many others? (if I were going to be aggressive in my argument here I would say that maybe my playing is so crap that you would not respect any points I might make about bass guitar, but unless you know all these people are and why I brought them up, please don't talk sh!t to me about art) For instance - "how pure is something that's made with the sole purpose of satisfying an audience?" my main problem here isn't your argument or what you are saying - but the use of the word "pure" without substantiation.