BassTractor

Ah! Whilst you posted that, I was writing a PM to Bassman7755. So synchronicity was true after all. Yup, one can always depend on Jung. Thanks, Rik. (I was aware of the new function, but forgot to use it in this thread. Hard to teach a dead dog a new trick.)

Strictly speaking this is Off Topic, but I put it here because it's a response to a thread within General Discussion. In the thread about the most musically talented musician of all time, I wrote a post that I now believe must have been way more hard hitting than I imagined when I wrote it, and Bassman7755 especially was (or seemed) its target. I have read and re-read the offending post, and now believe that it was an ugly thing to write. I therefore apologise to Bassman7755, and of course all others who may have felt they were its target, for that post's general tone and the aspects of it that put down other people. What I should've said was that the most talented person likely is not a person we tend to know. What I said instead was that people who mention McCartney have no clue about this stuff. I'm very sorry, and wish Bassman7755 and others all the best. Bert

Thanks for the eye popping stuff! Yes, I know, and your description is so creepily true that it resembles science: a Bongo, any Bongo, and a fretless Ray in any colour is all one needs - though I myself choose a Dargie Delight Bongo and a black fretless Ray with rosewood board. I often wonder what Jaco, talented as he was, could've achieved had he had a real Bongo in his hands! Unimportant but as BTW for the uninitiated: Robert Altman made a film that was much better than its renommé, with a creepily correct description of how wealthy ladies in Dallas, TX function:

Great post, Dr. T-without-the-women-but-with-a-Ray. I was trying to write a post building on yours, but saw in time I was only repeating what you'd already said. Hehe. I don't see how I could top what I've already done before.

I do! I have a fraction of his vision or of his ability or of his skill!

Nice post, and I agree - except with the quoted part: I think they had several great songs in the beginning (as in: on their first album).

This is such a stretch that it starts to resemble goalpost moving - deliberate or otherwise. I don't know whether joking is involved or whether this is to be taken seriously, and a any rate, I'm not gonna discuss this further. Sparked by this post, however, allow me to talk about some concepts. LONG POST WARNING: MOST PEOPLE SHOULD NOT NEED TO READ THIS. See, I already sense/understand that this post is gonna be way too long, and only part of that has to do with me struggling to be brief in a foreign language. My apologies. Also, I'm not writing anything that I do not assume is general knowledge. It's just that some posts in this thread make it seem necessary to remind some people of some things. Apologies, again. Anyway, Bassman7755, in his very own words, said: In other words: he is able to judge that I lack social calibration. He's possibly right, and me defending myself is not why I use his text here. The point however is: WHY can he judge this? Because he himself is socially calibrated on a higher level. In his choice of wording, one of the unspoken premises in the whole enthymeme-like construction is that people have social calibration on different levels. Bassman7755 happily is one of the people who can judge that people like me (or me only) operate on a lower level. Now, I'm fine with this. I'm just about resourceful enough to realise that I'm a far-from-perfect being, and my social calibration is mixed. I do not agree with his assessment entirely though, supported by my happy experiences in the area, but I do accept that at least I should've worded more carefully and empathetically. BTW, when I used McCartney as an example, I honestly was unaware that that name was even mentioned already, and mentioned even by Bassman7755 in the same post I quoted. I naively used the name in expectation of people mentioning McCartney later. I'm truly sorry about that aspect of my post that Bassman7755 reacted to, and would have worded more sensitively had I remembered that Bassman7755 has used the name. I only had noticed him mentioning Kate Bush. But at any rate, Bassman7755 himself seems to accept the very concept that is at play here: Some people are better equipped than others in different areas. Some are better equipped than others to judge aspects about others. My neighbour judged that I had no talent at football. He was right. But if I'd shown any talent, then we'd probably need someone else than my neighbour to judge exactly how far I could go in my football career. In most or all aspects of life there are certain statistical distributions, and a startling amount of those distributions roughly follow the Gauss curve (standard distribution). This would for example mean that only few people function on a bottom level and very few on a top level - the easiest example being that few people have an IQ below 50, and roughly equally few have one above 150. Most people are less than a standard deviation away from average. As to being musically talented, without going into theoretical debates about what it is and is not, but just going by the regular term as we tend to use it, those that are least talented musically, either just have no relationship to music, or they only like the least demanding forms of it, and more demanding forms of music are deemed to be noise or similar. That non-demanding music is still easy to judge by others who're higher up on the staircase. The rest gives itself. The more advanced the music, the fewer people are able to create it or appreciate it. Theoretically, only one person at the top is able to appreciate all existing music and to create that stuff. In real life of course it doesn't work exactly that way. Oh yes, I hear voices in my head, Bassman7755's voice amongst others, but bear with me: What music can become very popular, and what music can become popular classics that we hear on the radio decade after decade? By definition it's the music that large groups in society can appreciate (not too demanding) and at the same time: that will not bore them easily. That last part is essential as it is there some of the quality lies.The quality does not often lie in the three chord harmonic development. Are those popular classics written by highly talented people? Very often: yes. Sometimes: no. Burt Bacharach and The Beatles are certainly highly talented, but others exist as well who just are not. Are they written by the one, single most musically talented musician of all time? Not very likely. Why not? Because that person very likely showed talent at an early age, and got this talent developed. That person would experience popular music as demanding little, and also as giving little, and would turn his/her brain to other music - music that is not only food of love, but also food for brain. Mozart at an early age could write much more well-constructed, well-flowing and error-free music than most of us can ever dream of, and since he only developed upwards despite his life style and general lack of Bach-like driving forces. In all likeliness, the one single most musically talented person of all time, unlike the many highly talented people of more regular shape who write popular classics, is in the group of people who are somewhere in that ivory tower that many people hate, where new concepts are created, and the borders of what can be art are moved. Bach conservatively stayed within that old baroque music, but at the same time let it go on paths where no music had gone before. If you know your stuff, the gap between Bach and Vivaldi is enormous! (I may earlier have written about how Bach and Vivaldi react differently when a certain chord/voice sequence brings the music to steeper, narrower paths with higher danger level.) As an example of what I'm on about: In the eighties, I heard two interviews. One was with a highly respected Norwegian folk music player. The other was with B.B. King. Both in all essence said the very same thing: "People always ask me what music inspires me, and what rocks my boat. But at my level, what I love, and what inspires me, is not the same stuff that the people who love my music love, and when I answer, they always respond: "But that isn't even blues anymore" / "That isn't even folk music anymore!". But it is blues/folk music! It just is more demanding, and it's appreciated by the likes of me - not by the masses who love my music." There! B.B. King said it, so it must be true even though I said it too. I'm sure I wrote some unnecessary stuff and forgot some essential stuff, but I'm quitting now. Again, I apologise for the length and for the low speed in the thought development area. I know some people on BC could have said the same in one sentence. I can't. I've started and deleted an answer many times, and have also thought many times I'd delete the whole thing written above. But I didn't. I just hope it's of service to one or two people.

Simples. They're the most musically talented musicians of all time! Aw, c'mon! Someone had to say it!

Oh. Didn't notice that. In that case: Paul McCartney! Aye, but as long as it's just a giggle, I have a hard time understanding how it could be interesting. We'd basically name any of the well-known artists that clearly have one form of talent, and that's it. The moment we do try to answer the impossible question however, it becomes interesting right away. I don't have the answer or any answer, BTW; but I do have a story that proves it's not me: Through the years, I've been in discussion with several of my composition teachers, where the pattern was that they were negative towards popular music whilst I talked warmly about it. One day I used the argument over all arguments (or so I thought), when stating: "Listen, I've loved your music since I was a kid. I must be very musical, so give me some credit when I say that there's a lot of value in at least parts of popular music." He simply stated: "I'm more musical than you."

Hehe. Your language. Wiktionay taught me that regatta (the regular one with 1 'g' ) not only means boat races, but also striped cotton fabric. BTW, back then people did say the album title was a loose playing with the words "reggae by whites", but I've never seen any confirmation by a Police bandmember. I'd guess people just invented a likely interpretation in their heads, and spread it. As to Sting, I've always been impressed with his choice of notes and rhythms in the bass parts, as well as with the combination of his playing and his singing. Also, The Police to me are a prime example of what you can get out of a trio with just one guitar and one bass. Highly impressed - for four decades now.

Nonsense! It means a white cotton fabric with white stripes.

Aye, and I think everyone understands. I even think that the unspoken premise of the whole thread is that we know about reality. But the question in the thread title was "who would you most have enjoyed playing bass with", and then we answer that - each in our own way. People not mentioning they need to make money does not mean they're unaware. That said, and as an example: My own making money off music has been through teaching on all different levels, from total beginners to post graduates. Even before going to music college I started and ran a music school so as to see whether I could bear living as a music teacher. You see, I'd noticed a pattern: most musicians started at music college with an idea of being a world star, and most of them wound up as frustrated music teachers. I didn't want to be like them. My gig work has cost more than it brought in, and I've been rigid about choosing gigs with near total freedom. Most of my gigs in fact haven't even been paid gigs, but the experience of working with all kinds of musicians - literally from beginners to world famous people - has been most rewarding. Making very little money off teaching has just been part of the investment and lifestyle. For me, playing with artists of all calibers has indeed been all fun and games, so Zappa wouldn't even have to pay me (but please don't tell him or the family trust ).

It needs to be fun, varied and demanding/giving enough every single night, so for me personally this band would need a huge song base too. Living Colour for example must have bored themselves to near suicide whilst repeating the same few songs live for decades. Zappa would probably be it for me.

Chris Squier never warranted a signature bass! Sorry. Somebody had to, I gathered.

Actually, people who can write hit classics are ten-a-penny, and that's why there are millions of hit classics on this planet. People like Bach, Mozart and Penderecki are extremely rare. Me, I love thousands of hit classics, and my iPod is filled to the rim with stuff you might appreciate - ranging from death metal to Spice Girls to Beatles to Prince to the Dixie Dregs and other already mentioned artists. However, the hit classics seldomly have been written by the most talented musicians ever, which is what the thread was about. I still love them and appreciate these songs for what they are. I do not need to dream up myths about them in order for them to become valuable enough. For example, I love the Beatles and have every album from Rubber Soul and on - but one. Paul McCartney still ain't no Bach. BTW, there's this little quick-and-dirty litmus test: ask Penderecki and McCartney to analyse and critique each other's work... You'll soon find that Penderecki immediately sees the strenghts and weaknesses of Sir Paul's output, where Sir Paul will not be able to even start analysing Penderecki's work. Yes, I'm aware that that is not of value to you. Your story is somewhat more like this: if by a weird coincidence a newborn child cries loudly and it somehow becomes a hit classic, then this newborn child is mentioned by at least 5 of the random people you stop in the street, and this newborn child then logically is way more talented than Penderecki ever was... I call BS. Sorry about that. Actually, in any part of life, I am always open for any criticism. You and I have never met, and I do not expect you to believe me, but what counts to me is trying to find something that has some value and some truth, and I like to find this stuff in a (fighting if need) collaboration with other minds. If that truth reveals my weaknesses, then I've learnt something and have received a clue as to what I need to work on. Criticise me all you want, but I do prefer it when people who criticise me base their input on facts and reasonable analysis. My calling people clueless may have been misguided, but does not come from a vacuum. It stems in part from some form of truth (Paul McCartney is a talented person who has written many songs that the general public can love (me included) but not more than that, and in 300 years he'll not have the status that Bach and the like will still have), and it also stems from observing the loudmouths on this planet for six decades and seeing how badly they treat the talents on this planet - talents who often accept this maltreatment in silence because they understand how the talentless function. When I wrote my above post, I was a bit fed up, and also remembered another thread that I sadly couldn't find and link to. I was unsure whether I should post, but the being fed up won. Your remark about my social calibration is the typical use-of-hastily-found-stick that I'm not too enthusiastic about (not that it was a particularly heavy stick).

Thanks, Dad. I was gonna like that, but computer says no. ("Sorry, you cannot add any more reactions today." - an unexpected feature of the new feature.)

That's a nonsensical, illogical stance though. But I give you that if you stop 10 random people on the street, at least 5 will agree with you. In the real world however, the most talented musician most probably (almost but not wholly by definition) will be known by, and understood by, very few. The moment you people want to educate your kids, and think that newborn babies have little knowledge, is the moment your popular view has become a falsehood. Cue the Triangle of Knowledge. People who think that Paul McCartney is the most talented musician ever simply have no clue, and when they attack people like me for being condescending, they are in fact being arrogant themselves. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect at large.

I'd agree that Bach must have been at least one of the most musically talented musicians ever, but as to improvising fugues, that's actually an ability that he shared with thousands of others - not me, btw, but I do know a guy who, already as an organ student, could do it and make it all the way through the stretto at the end - the very place where most of us students would stumble and fail. That said, Bach was huge - almost otherworldly. Though I do not really know how much of that was talent and how much was hard work, I do feel that only a combination of both can lead to this enormous quality over such a long career.

In that case: NO! In other cases: YES! It really started when I heard "Dear Father" (IMS originally a non-album single B-side) on the radio and later rejected their first album because there was too much singing (!) on it, but it exploded when I listened to "Roundabout" in a record shop. This was before the album came out. THAT BASS PART! That sound! Those arrangements! That song altogether! Later that year I bough "Fragile" without even listening to it first (a rare occurrence). After all it had "Roundabout". Yes taught me there was good music outside classical music, and they changed me forever.

Jaco was a great player in every meaning of the word, and also released some stinky poo. Gentle Giant were a great band who also released some stinky poo. Zappa was a great musician who also released some stinky poo. Etc. etc. I think you get my drift. I believe the story that Jaco changed the bass world, and at any rate he turned me towards jazzrock and jazz. Thanks, Jaco!

Your OP does not mention whether you've already visited a site called basschat.co.uk where there actually is a forum section for gear, in which a forum called "Bass Guitars" contains dozens or even hundreds of treads were all the info on the 4H is readily available. Other than that, it's reported to sound closer to a StingRay, and the H pup is indeed positioned in the StingRay spot. Somehow, the back of my mind seems to tell me the 4H does not have the 4-band EQ, but I'm sure someone will correct me if that is wrong.

Calling Discreet! Calling Discreet! Can Discreet come to the backdoor please?

The Kronos would easily drive even a 600 Ohm version, (like they have for the DTX 880) and if your other units have similar headphone outputs (most oftenly with 6 mm jacks), then the 250 Ohm one would be best as to impedance matching. However, extensive tests I read about all Beyerdynamic models in this range (770, 880 and 990 in all of their impedance guises) indicated that the story doesn't end there, and the different impedance versions have different types of sound they thrive most with - sometimes making an impedance mismatch a reasonable option. These tests are on the web, but I couldn't find my link right now. Personally, and broadly speaking, I'd only go for a low impedance one if a battery operated unit like a mobile phone has to drive it. Normally, headphones like that would already come with small jack plugs as standard - normally 3.5 mm, but once I had one with a 2.5 mm jack plug. I'll update if I find the link.

Great song, innit. I love it too - still now, 42 years later. It's one of those poppy pop songs that are actually well-crafted, but sadly it's one of only two songs that I know by this band that I do like. Its original Dutch version, called "Dinge-dong" seems slightly better to me in a musical sense, but the pronunciation of its Dutch lyrics is more than slightly cringeworthy to me. I guess Brits cringe at the English lyrics version. My own nadir-of-musical-career must be the large amount of Shadows songs that I had to play in a band - right until we stopped our guitarist. BTW, co-incidentally, The Shadows became runners-up to Teach-In in the 1975 Eurovision Contest. Whodathought!

[quote name='bazztard' timestamp='1509762039' post='3401519'] the youth today have no sense of history, they know nothing about the past. They think Beiber invented music. [/quote] No, Biber invented the one-man submarine. Get your historical facts straight, man! Obligatory disclaimer: No Biber invented any submarine to my knowledge. The "Biber" submarine got its name after the german word for "beaver". I guess It's a reasonable name for a narrow tube shaped object with space inside for only one man.