paul_c2

You need to figure out the following: 1) How much rehearsal time will be taken up going through other stuff or songs? Include things like the 10-15 mins time setting up, break time, etc etc 2) How much rehearsal time do you have left? 3) If a song is changed, how long (in rehearsal time) does it take to prepare it sufficiently for gigging (obviously it depends on the extent of the changes made etc) The above is simple maths and will quantitatively determine how many, and the extent of, changes possible before this gig. If you or the singer or anyone else doesn't accept this, then something's going to 'give'. Having gone through that exercise, then you'll see that if a song isn't coming together, jettison it. Jettison it swiftly and decisively. Nothing worse than wasting weeks and weeks on a song which is heading south and isn't going to be played in public. It is a skill, you'll learn over time to do this quickly. Also (somewhat frustratingly) you'll also see that some songs need more work than others, and whilst in theory you could do the work and it might be a brilliant song, pragmatically it could be next gig not this gig where it debuts, or that it needs to be put on the back burner. Or you're accepting too many gigs where a little time without would benefit.

Hmmm.....2nd most embarrassing would be endlessly playing root and fifth for hundreds and hundreds of bars, while others are playing something really difficult, fast, awkward, melodic etc etc But the most embarrassing is making my audience endure a bass solo. Something in between please - interesting but still does the job of a bass line.

It still depends on the context. You've not really told us anything more except the music is in the key of C, then an F# or Gb randomly appears. Context means - what are the other notes (before, after and during)? What are the other instruments (including vocals) doing?

I'd start in the kitchen......specifically, at the kettle.

Possibly it can be solved with a more structured approach then. If you're not using a PA but relying on the backline for both the main sound output and the band hearing each other, then you need to all agree to the following: 1) the sound on stage might not necessarily be the same as the sound FOH. You can do tweaks, such as positioning amps, to make it as near to, but....it won't be the same. That's the laws of physics 2) you actually do a soundcheck, not skip it 3) someone goes out to the front and listens to it. Long lead, wireless, whatever.....its not beyond the technology available in 2019 to do this. 4) the person in (3) is able to tell others to play quieter/louder, or turn up/down and the correct response to that request is "yes", not a 30 minute debate on it. If punters come up moaning, refer them to (3). If the guitarist's dad moans, refer them to (3). See how being the guy who goes out to the front in (3), is a nice place to be?

Yeah doesn't sound too distant from "we've all had a meeting and......."

Its not complicated. If a chord is a dominant 7th, it will have a tritone in it. It will be a b5 because chords are (conventionally) stacked 3rds. That's the obvious example. And the other obvious example is if a chord is a #11, then it will have both a 5th (a normal one - a perfect 5th) and a #4 (expressed as #11 because its stacked thirds, and because its normally voiced with the #11 that distance from the root, not crunched right next to the 5th). And the obvious example of when its neither is a chromatic scale or even just when its a passing note between the 4th and 5th (or vice versa).

There's reasons why something is b5 and there's reasons why something is #4 (and there's reasons why its neither, or it doesn't really matter what its written as). I can't tell which one it is, unless you give the context.

Sorry, I'm getting muddled here. When you say "the amateurish reaction of the band"......you're part of the band, right? So do you get a say in the levels of the mix? In which case the simple answer to "can you turn the bass down" would be "no". and the complicated answer could be "no, we did a soundcheck, I'm sure the relative levels are okay". Or is it only part of the band, or one (other, not you) member of the band, or a separate sound engineer, which may or may not be part of the band. It seems like a "have control of the things you need to have control of" situation, rather than a "let someone else do some task which is better done by someone else" situation to me.

Another example of when you're trying to simplify things.....say you had a piece in C which had an Eb. Its probably serving as a b3 at some point (a very normal, bluesy thing to do....or a temporary change to minor, etc etc) but EVEN IF AN E NATURAL occured, you'd probably choose to notate it as Eb than D#. The reason being, for someone reading the music, it would be a fairly unusual thing to see a D#, while Eb would cause less surprise. Of course, D# is possible, but rarer. So SIMPLY TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ you'd choose to notate as Eb most times. It might be a #9 chord though, ie C E G Bb D#, in that case you'd notate as D# to avoid having two Es of different flavours in the written music. Even if that E natural occurred in a different part, eg a trumpet section of 4 parts.

No, it would depend on context. What context is your F#/Gb occurring in the music (in the key of C)? Another thing, there is no rigid "rule" about what note is called what. Yes you'd try to keep it so even when something modulates (to another key), there's still 7 letters for 7 notes, but its only really a guideline. The reason you'd do this is to simplify things for anyone who is reading the music (if you're just listening.....it doesn't really matter what the note is called, it could be called Zebedee for all you care!). And if you think about standard notation, the notehead is on a different line/space for each different note.

No I mean, be the one who controls the levels on the soundcheck.

It depends what key you're in. Normally you try to preserve having 7 notes called different things, than repeating letters. Simple example: say you're in the key of C C D E F G A B C but you introduce the note Bb, its Bb not A# because it makes more sense to then have: C D E F G A Bb C than C D E F G A A# C That's why you sometimes end up with double flats and double sharps, rather than another way of writing that note. Of course, its not always possible to preserve the "one letter per different note" pattern, eg if something is chromatic. Similarly, the names of the intervals derive from the distance in the alphabet between the letters, as above.

Just be the one who does the soundchecks.......

Was it originally built like that or is it a replacement bridge? It could be the bridge is narrower than the original, and instead of fitting it in the middle (which might have meant filling in all the screwholes etc) the screwholes on the G string side were used and the new ones drilled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakon_connector

The other will be a "speakon" connector, AKA Neutrik connector. Its physically more robust, can handle a larger cable and is lockable in position so it doesn't get pulled out (which could be damaging to some amps).

There are variations amongst amps, but normally: 1) send and return are instrument level. Line in and line out should be line level. 2) plugging something into send, should reroute 100% of the signal (so if nothing were plugged into the return, there would be no output from the amplifier). A line out should normally tap off the signal so that 100% still goes to the output of the amplifier. 3) a line in combines the signal with the instrument input. I am not sure what happens if you plug something into the return without anything plugged into the send but it certainly isn't blended with the instrument input. Obviously it depends on the amp, there's loads of variations and possibilities ie pre- or post- EQ, with/without effects loop, whether it mutes the amp's output if the line out is used (I don't think it should at all; but some amps do this). Also, line out is normally presented as a balanced signal, you'd hope male XLR but maybe 1/4" TRS.

In fairness though, couldn't that be said about ANY bass? That it won't appeal to everyone, only a proportion, or even a minority, of players? But you don't need to sell it to 2000 (or however many there are) members of this forum, you only need one person to buy it. PS I'm the kind of person who'd be happy with a Squier P-bass.

IMHO buying a Shure SM58 is like buying an IBM personal computer.....except they don't make PCs any more.

Simple answer: yes. More involved answer: I don't know if its the correct term, but there is a thing I call "rootless voicing/chord substitution". For example, I, with my guitarist hat on, sees Cmaj7 on the chord chart and play Em. If you heard the guitar in isolation, it would sound like the tonal centre is E. But if my friend on the bass plays a big fat C, then it sounds like the tonal centre is C and that the flavour of chord is major 7. That's one example - you can see how it extends to 9th and 11th (and beyond if you want) chords quite easily. After all they are stacked 3rds. The other one is 6th chords. If guitarist sees (for example) C6, he can play a 7th chord of whatever the 6th is. The 6th of C is A and the chord will be Am7 (because that contains the right notes, and the same notes as C6).

Indeed it is - I appreciate this aspect. Piano players cope okay. Because with 17 others playing at the same time, I don't want the guitarist to clash. One approach to this is to give very detailed information on all the non-functional harmony which is occurring. Another is to give precise details on the notes/rhythm to be played. There is no root either - the chord is D7 (no root or 5th) sliding up to Eb7 (no root or 5th). On a guitar, its actually quite easy/comfortable to play - your fingers play frets 5, 7, 8 on the G, B and E string respectively, then everything slides up one fret. (I know that some guitarists might prefer to play it 5 frets up too - I'm not bothered where they play it). I might look into writing out tab instead of/as well as standard notation for the guitar, and see if he's happier.

Perhaps its also worth saying I also play guitar; however its my 3rd instrument (bass is my 1st) including playing in a similar band. The quality of guitar sheet music is very variable so often I'm coming up with variations of what's written. And to record these, it makes sense to use standard notation since its a 'learn once, use many times' investment to learn, roughly, how to read (rather than for example going down the tab route).

I'm not sure they're fair points you've raised. For example, of course I've asked my guitarist, and I know how things work - but that's one guitarist, one band, one kind of music and one opinion. And of course it will vary with genre of music. In rock, you'd rarely see written out stuff, and the guitarist would get chords and be happy/expected to "fill in the gaps" - which is great, in a band with (say) 5 members but in a bigger band (excuse the pun) having more deliberation/precision of what everyone is playing at the same time becomes much more important. The suggestion to show the guitarist riffs etc is a good one however it obviously slows (slightly) the process. Imagine, showing everyone their parts one by one - there's 18 parts in a big band so that would consume vast quantities of time. And slow the rate of taking on new pieces. I think its fair to say that the more musicians involved, the more coordinated everything becomes. That's not to say there's isn't still scope, in an appropriate situation, for a musician to be able to put their own interpretation or bring useful/valid ideas to their part - not just solos but being able to invent something which fits in and does its job whilst still contributing and being artistic. So its really, just to get an overview of what others do in (vaguely) similar situations; and partly what, if any, 'standard' to aim at when preparing music for guitarists to play.

I love that sketch! I am sure you all know the joke: "How do you get a guitarist to stop playing? Put some sheet music in front of him."