Bilbo

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.

The introduction to Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book says 'A great jazz solo consists of 1% magic and 99% of stuff that is Explainable, Analyzable, Categorizable and Doable. This book is mostly about the 99% stuff'. I would (and do) argue that this apllies to all music, not just jazz solos, and that floundering around in the dark is not the fastest way to get from here to where you want to be. Theory is like a map that will save you time. If you make the same journey every day, you won't need it. If you got to lots of different places all of the time, you could still do without it but you would waste a lot of time up blind alleys, on inscruitable one way systems and looking for a car park For those whose careers are a sequence of covers gigs playing 'those' tunes, then leave the theory alone by all means. But if you are a player who wants to have a long and creative career with all the tools available to you, take a look at the stuff and see where it takes you. And learn to read music

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148307' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:12 PM']In the next breath he explained that when he solo'd he'd deliberately forget the theory and just play what he felt like playing.[/quote] That's how it works. We 'theorites' (have I invented a new word?) don't sit there thinking 'ooh, great, I can wack in that flattened fifth substitution there followed by an altered dominant'. We use our ears the same as anyone else but our ears are better informed because we spend hours running scales and arpeggios and chord sequences and subtitutions. Occasionally, I will solve a problem by intellectualising it in real time and I am almost always disappointed by the obviousness of the solution but, in the main, its your ear that guides you not your head. But the important lesson is that your ear is educated and informed not just intuitive. [quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1148307' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:12 PM']Having theory won't automatically make you capable of musical expression, although it can make you a very good form of biological playback device.[/quote] No but it will massively improve your chances. Massively. And not having theory won't automatically make you capable either. And why the 'biological playback device' comment? There is an implied assumption that 'theorites' play with their heads and 'luddites (see what I did there)' play with their hearts. In fact, theorites play with their hearts and minds whilst those without technical knowledge are only able to use their hearts and minds . The only difference is the amount of information available to the informed mind vs the uninformed. The availability of theory is no guarantee of anything but I woudl argue it improves your odds. I know which camp I would want to be in.

Do yourself and the world a favour and just don't play it.

I have no problem with people who don't know, just with players who celebrate the fact and use the ignorance of others to justify their own ('my favourite musician doesn't know any theory so I don't need to' kind of thing). Just a small point: I don't think it is reasonable to say that bebop was defined after lots of the music that exemplifies it was written/recorded. I think its developments were conscious and came from a position of earned knowledge built upon exisitng knowledge. Its developments were consciously intellectual.

[quote name='silddx' post='1147311' date='Mar 2 2011, 04:22 PM']Smile away my friend. [/quote] I am genuinely happy for you. I think that there is nothing nicer than playing an instrument that gives you that kind of return. I guess I am lucky in that I find that in my 'off the shelf' set up. I guess its like trying to find your glasses and then realising they were on your head all the time

Hondo II Precision copy. Black. Lived in a musical desert and had a piece of junk guitar but noone to show me how to play it. But I could hear the bass lines and played the basslines on the lower strings of this half-arsed guitar thing until I started work at 17. It was the day I started work that I ordered the Hondo bass and a Carlsboro Cobra bass combo from a catalogue of some kind, can't remember which. Then got an Aria SB700 and a Sound City amp when I first joined a band which I soon upgraded to a Frunt amp and a Wal (1986).