Bilbo

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1017285' date='Nov 9 2010, 10:35 AM']Larry Graham...a perfect example of a 'groove-orientated thumper'. [/quote] Absolutely. Great at what he does and usually holds my attention for at least half a tune

[quote name='silddx' post='1017267' date='Nov 9 2010, 10:16 AM']I doubt I would be able to impress upon most jazz musicians the importance of such things, as they seem to be of little importance to the jazz musician,[/quote] It is an issue that jazzers are dealing with more and more although there are barriers - the budgets for international touring jazz musicians are probably less than that of Cetera's 'Dressed To Kill' package so light shows etc are usually pretty basic. There are many jazz musicians who are great at engaging the audience but it is true that when you are playing your butt off on a complex set of compositions, the concept of 'putting on a show' in the sense you mean it is a secondary consideration. [quote name='silddx' post='1017267' date='Nov 9 2010, 10:16 AM']just as high levels of theoretical knowledge and ability to read notation are not as important to musicians like me and Pete, even though we play a lot more complex music than "groove oriented thumpers".[/quote] Dan compositions are undoubtedly exceptional in terms of being a cut above but most of them are, fundamentally, quite simple. I played Black Friday at a recording session last week and, frankly, its a thumper Some of the more complex Dan tunes may take a little more work but they are not actually that difficult to pull off. To play them like the Dan do is another matter and I am in awe of their performances but a lot of that is down to the calibre of the (mostly jazz) musicians they employ and the massive amounts of rehearsal time they put in not the innate qualities of their compositions.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1016622' date='Nov 8 2010, 05:38 PM']I bet Bilbo can play in 24/13. I must have missed that chapter![/quote] You write it out, I'll play it. I think one of the aspects if the argument that has not been mentioned relates to the complexity of the music being performed. Most rock/pop music etc is pretty basic and being able to groove by ear is a credible prospect as the core of the music to be performed is very simple and idiomatically familiar. Some forms are, however, more complex and require a considerable amount of detail the learning of which is problemtaic. A sax player playing a solo over a 12-bar jazz blues may be possible with no knowledge of theory but playing over Lush Life, Chelsea Bridge, Upper Manhattan Medical Group or Giant Steps 'by ear' is a different prospect altogether. Is it credible to expect orchestral musicians to learn Stravinsky's Rite of Spring 'by ear'. Or a trumpet player to learn a full big band so they can play it live without charts (to create that illusion that someone mentioned )? So, if all you ever play is low brow groove orientated thumpers, as most do, then you can get away with it, especially as a bass player. If you want more (and I certainly do), your going to struggle without some form of knowledge of notation. I find that the number and type of gigs I do militate against the kinds of familiarity you get from playing regularly with just one band. I am rarely playing anything often enough to learn it by rote. The dots help me to play more and more music and to stay fresh and interested. Another aspect is improvisation. Improvising over simple forms is possible by ear but more complex structures will require more academic knowledge in order to avoid boring yourself and the audience with cliches.

All this 'groove is king' stuff is missing the fact that grooving is as theoretical a concept as advanced harmony. Making a good performance great is about a wholistic approach to the music. A great groove with a few bum notes is a flawed a result as all the correct notes and no feel. Groove is theory. And maths is art.

[quote name='silddx' post='1016533' date='Nov 8 2010, 04:27 PM']So much for the oral tradition,[/quote] Its overrated I do think people are advocating for ignorance, albeit unconsciously. We al do it all the time - its how we get out of doing the laundry. In order to feel good about the ways in which we behave, we need to convince ourselves that our choices are valid. If we choose not to read, we need to feel that that choice is legitimate and not simply a case of us not havign invested in what is necessary to be a fully developed musician. So we fill our heads with little lies and haf-truths that make this an ok choice: so & so can't read and he is great ergo I can't read and I too can be great. Additionally, if I can convince everyone else that this is so, I will be affirmed in my belief and can ignore that nagging doubt that I have in the back of my mind that I am missing out on something. Something wonderful. We you can't and you are.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1016480' date='Nov 8 2010, 03:46 PM']Reading has been a pretty irrelevant skill for most people for most of human history. Western musical theory has been irrelevant to most people for most of human history, and still is to a large part of the world![/quote] And how many wonderful stories are lost forever? I read somewhere that there is a relationship between literacy and progress and that this relates to the ability of a literate society to record its ideas and replicate concepts easily (like how to manufacture things etc). My point is simple. If Fred, in Australia can read music, and Bert in the UK can write it, they can communiate ideas. More to the point, if Fred is in France and can write it, he can communicate ideas to Ivan in Russia, who speaks neither French or English.. More to the point, if Fred can write music in 1926 and Bert can read it is 2010, the idea lives on. If Fred can write it down but Bert can't, then the idea dies with Fred. Its a more efficient and effective way of communicating, if all parties are able. If reading is not a requirement, a reader can still play and groove. If reading is a requirement, a non-reader won't know what groove to play until it is too late. When I do a reading rehearsal, we can get through 20+ tunes a session. If we learn by rote, we get three down if we are lucky (depending on the complexity of the music). I can turn up at a recording session (like I did last week) with players I barely know and record 5 tunes in 3 hours without any rehearsal. Why anyone would not want to be able do that is beyond me. I believe that people who, albeit by unconscious implication, advocate for ignorance in others in order to allow themselves to feel ok about their own are not doing themselves or anyone else any favours. If you can't read, its nothing to be ashamed of. But it is certainly nothing to be proud of either. Read the signature

[quote name='phil.i.stein' post='1016307' date='Nov 8 2010, 01:17 PM']let's put this in non-musical terms. Q. do you need to be able to read to communicate with other people ? A. ..no[/quote] What did he say? I can't read..... Can you imagine how limited the internet would be for you if you didn't read? Now transfer that to music

Its really not that important. Do it and see what happens. If it sucks, you have increased kudos with your bandmates who may now listen if you say we are not ready. What I do know is you will learn more by doing it than not. Also, the nine month wait? It normally takes a couple of years before you start getting calls in a new area.

I guess writing jazz tunes is easier in that it doesn't often involve lyrics I think one thing that people forget to consider where songwriting/composing is concerned is the value of practising the skills and not simply doing it. Some of the things I have done to this end include: taking a short orchestral piece off a film soundtrack (say 1.12 long) and 'recreating' it, texturally, using different melodies/harmony. Taking a chord sequence off an existing song and putting it into Band In A Box and writing a new melody. Or adding a new melody to a Jamey Aebersold backing track. Writing lyrics to an instrumental jazz tune. Reharmonising/rearranging a well known theme - I recently tried putting 'To Be A Pilgrim' into a minor key, or playing Lullaby of Birdland in 5:4 (I ended up using the chords of the 5:4 version with a new melody to create a whole new piece). I am sure you get the idea. Not everything you write has to be the greatest song in the world. Sometimes you can learn a lot from writing a short piece with no beginning or end and no ultimate purpose other than as a learning exercise.

I think the OP needs to think about what they are actually seeking in the answer to this question. I guess its some form of affirmation that you can be a good player by relying on the ones ability to groove without having to do the hard bit (the theory). The good news is of course you can. So now you can go and play Call of Duty for five hours with a clear conscience and leave us nerds to the analytical world of grooveless mathematics...... Enjoy

Bit raw but I like the concept and can see huge potential in it. Good work and a work in progress.

It opens a lot of doors in terms of song forms and massive amounts of modern harmony is based on the cycle. It may have escaped your notice but the bass is tuned in a cycle of fourths/fifths (depending on the direction of travel). It makes a lot of bass activity very natural and easy to execute.

Story of my life. What's the worst thing that can happen? Its an Ornette Coleman gig!!

[quote name='daz' post='1013633' date='Nov 5 2010, 06:59 PM']A bass has 4 strings. What you've got there is a [b]sitar[/b][/quote] I thought it was an aircraft carrier?

[quote name='silddx' post='1012385' date='Nov 4 2010, 06:18 PM']My question is, would his bass lines have been any more interesting, thrilling, suitable for the songs, or more accomplished, if he had been able to read music and had a good grasp of music theory?[/quote] Yes, they would.

Don't do it and have never been aware of anyone 'stalking' my gear. I guess my 'basic' set up is just not very glamorous

[quote name='Zach' post='998934' date='Oct 24 2010, 02:39 PM']put simply, he's a wee bit mental. Quite want to find some of his 'normal' band work, see what he's like in a traditional role.[/quote] Manring played in a folk/fusion band called Montreux. Hsi playing was considerably more conventional. He also played on several Michael Hedges albums, again with more conventional techniques. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_(band)"]Montreux[/url]

Damn WHite SUpremacists. They get everywhere.... I really want that White Gibson ES335 that Wendy Melvoin plays in the Wendy and Lisa video of Waterfall (can't embed in work, sorry).

Even if you don't read the chart, do yourself a favour and listen to the track!! Mainstream rock will never work for you again!!

[quote name='Zach' post='1009913' date='Nov 2 2010, 06:55 PM']can i second the previous question. will it start sounding like a mess if i start subbing in chords on bass whilst the others are playing a standard progression?[/quote] Yes No Maybe - depends on the chord voicings, their note choices, your note choices etc. Recommend you try stuff out in the practice room. If their chord voicings are full of root notes you may clash but, if they are more 'open' voicings, your options are wide open. Learn to hear what's good and what's not.

Spider is a Canadian bass player who played with Tom Cochrane and Red Rider. He also played bass on Kim Mitchell's 'Itch' CD. THe guy is rock solid. This track grooves and sounds really fresh - I recommend you listen to it all of the way through as there are a few surprises! The horns are really special. The chart is dots only, no chords (couldn't be bothered), but its not hard to follow; loadsa pumping root notes. Enjoy. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnjbC14onvs"]Kim Mitchell - Lemon Wedge[/url]

I go there two or thre times a month with work and have missed all this!! Must try harder.........

One Eden Metro combo.

STEP AWAY FROM THE BASS.........