Bilbo

Its the Macdonaldsisation of music. Tribute bands are small franchises of the bands they copy. Loads of people like them but they are ultimately lacking in nutrition and probably rot your teeth.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1153103' date='Mar 7 2011, 10:17 PM']The thing about Classical music is you have to 'get it'. Even if you can't hear any planned, expressive differences, they're most certainly there. If nothing else, conductors spend an inordinate amount of developing original interpretations of pieces. Any score is simply the basis for a kaleidoscope of infinitely subtle possibilities. Of course, it all must seem rather strange and disciplined if one is accustomed to expressing oneself through the relatively unsubtle practise of playing wildly off into the horizon based on no more than a bit of theory, some 'instinct' and some 'soul'. The imposition of the dots - when it occurs - engenders a remarkable distillation of musicianship. The nice thing about classical is it [i]does [/i]allow soloists the opportunity to improvise or ornament certain parts of the performance. These passages are called Cadenzas.[/quote] Are you having a go?

[quote name='niceguyhomer' post='1153334' date='Mar 8 2011, 07:38 AM']Loving the band name [/quote] +1

Does that mean every conversation we ever have must contain new ideas and concepts? We're doomed

The drummer's an animal!!!

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1152832' date='Mar 7 2011, 07:22 PM']Cracking version of 'Black Friday' you posted recently, Bilbo. [/quote] Don't gloat, PA.....

I used to play 2 octaves of Major, minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor, diminished and augmented scales and all the modes of each. I then play them in broken thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths and sevenths and then arpeggiated scales. Took about an hour a day but all my technique comes from those exercises.

I've never got that 'interpretation' argument in classical music. If you play a piece and someone else plays through the same score, its going to be different and one will be better than the other but its still the same piece so the 'creativity' element is limited to your stab at the dots. I guess its a case of accepting the ethos of the genre. If you like classical, you accept its parameters. If you like covers bands, you make your decision re: whether you prefer 'like the original' or 'a creative re-arrangement'. If you like Tribute bands, you will know whether you prefer the one s who dress the part or the soundalikes. And so on...

[quote name='cd_david' post='1152405' date='Mar 7 2011, 12:49 PM']If the audiences for Jazz and classical gigs were not so heavily subsidised by arts funding in general (in comparison to rock and pop) then Im sure the "more entertaining" music would be self sustaining?[/quote] The amount of arts funding for jazz is derisory, despite it having the same size audience as Opera, which gets millions in funding. Jazz has to compete on the same turf as pop and rock which is why the numbers of musicians in the UK who play jazz for a living is pretty much nil. Most of them supplement their incomes in other ways but rarely through arts funding.

CHristain McBride's line off Rain Check from Joe Henderson's Lush Life cd.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I have a shred of integrity. My point is that it always feels like 'nearly but not quite'. I know that beacuse I [i]do[/i] it. My criticism of the 'covers/tributes' culture is a manifestation of my frustration at what opportunities are available to me both as a player and listener. I lack the courage and fortitude to say 'that's it, I'm never going to play another cover again as long as I live'. I do few enough gigs as it is. That would just be shooting myself in the foot. Maybe one day. I try to do stuff that is a little bit eclectic and stay away from the usual sh*te but, at the core, its just covers, same as everyone else. The only differnce is that I admit its shallow and superficial and want it to change. Others seem happy with the status quo (see what I did there? ).

Good luck. I grew up (musically) in a part of the world where it was mostly originals bands most of the time (S. Wales 1980-85). Most venues would put on originals bands, in some cases several times a week and there were fewer covers bands. But I think the market has changed as all of this is pre-XBox, SKY TV, computers etc so it wa a different environment entirely. Halcyon days.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1152301' date='Mar 7 2011, 10:39 AM']Now look what you've all done!![/quote]

I struggle to get past the idea that playing other people's stuff the way they played it is just pretending - one step up from a tennis racquet in front of the mirror. Tribute bands are just like taking the tennis racquet out in public -

Yup... sucks doesn't it?

I actually agree with the principle that jazz standards amount to covers but I have to point out that the difference between any two performances of a given jazz standard can be massive to the point where the standard is barely recognisable as the same tune whilst the differences between two performances of a classical piece are unlikley to be that radical. The purpose of a covers/tribute band or orchestral piece is to broadly reproduce the original for purposes of entertainment. The purpose of a jazz standard (done properly and not by some jazz b*stard like Buble or Cullem) is to compeletly reconfigure it to display the perforamce skills of the musicians involved albeit still for the purposes of entertainment. Whilst it is perfectly possible for a covers band to radically rearrange a well known tune, it is a lot less common in rock/pop than it is in jazz. That's primarily because Jazz is better But, I agree, jazz standards are a short cut/cop out just as covers are and I would argue that originals indicate a higher degree of creativity.

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1152205' date='Mar 7 2011, 09:26 AM']Funny how no-one ever denigrates symphony orchestras as being a mere 'cover bands'.[/quote] I do

Marcus Roberts Time and Circumstance I found this on YouTube. If anyone wants to understand Jazz, listen to this version of Happy Birthday and keep singing it all the way through and particularly alongside the soloists. Bit traddy for my tastes but great fun nevertheless.

And his wife, Rusty.

I am so impressed (not)

Its like anything. If you have £2k to spend, you will want kit that costs £3K and if you had £10K you woudl want kit that costs £15K. THere is a great book I have called Guerilla Home Recording by Karl Coryatt that has great ideas about maxmising the potential of low budget kit. I think it is worth it as it adds to the creative process etc. [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guerilla-Home-Recording-Studio-Leonard/dp/1423454464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299411182&sr=1-1"]Guerilla Home Recording[/url]

For me, this debate is not about what is or is not possible but about what is or is nnot advisable. For anyone who has recently started the bass, I would argue that the theory/reading route to be the one that wastes less time in the long run. Everyone who comes to realise this always says the same thhing: 'I wish I had done this earlier'. It is not an instead of playing the tunes you like, it is as well as. If you learn a tune based aroudna dorianm minor and know that is what it is, every other tune that is based on that scale is an open book. I also hold the view that, if you can't articulate what you know, you probably don't know it as well as you think. This is not about whether it is possible to learn without theory. Of course it is. The issue is, is it the best way. I think it isn't and my experience and connections with both theorists and the rest bears this out. Remember, groove playing, rhythm and feel are all part of the theory too and not set apart from it.

[quote name='spinynorman' post='1149510' date='Mar 4 2011, 02:48 PM']By that logic, does John Williams (classical guitarist) have a harder job than Yehudi Menuhin? Or is it a pitch issue - Rostropovich gets it easier than Menuhin?[/quote] Yup.

Is it just me? I think (know?) its harder to play guitar and easier to play the bass. Now obviously the hardest bass parts are harder than the easiest guitar parts but, overall, the bass is easier. Its fundamentally one note at a time not several. Got to be easier. I have four guitars and one electric bass and one double. I can play the basses, I can make a credible go of gutiar parts but, of the two, the bass is by far the easier instrument to play, not just because I have played the bass more but because it [i]is[/i] easier. And less strings (normally)

Mine comes primarily from the wrist.