paul_c2

I know! And I agree that "standard notation" and/or "music theory" as it is today, is not perfect and is by no means universally applicable - people who are fans of it should be aware of its limitations or assumptions, and be prepared to think for themselves "outside the box". However that inertia of the status quo is undeniably present.

I admire your determination in sticking with the idea, and on analysis some of the points have some validity. I'd take issue with the "which would be much easier for all..." statement though. I simply don't think you have the breadth of experience across musical instruments other than bass guitar, or other musical genres to say that it would be much easier. I don't think its up to me to prove this, I think its up to you to demonstrate how it would be easier for eg violinists, french horn players, musical directors, session musicians etc who regularly use, and are happy with, standard notation as-is. I can only use my own personal experience of musical genres and playing other instruments to say "yeah but no thanks" to the concept. Also - and probably a bigger issue you would pragmatically face - there is a huge catalogue of music, stretching back a number of centuries, which is already written in "standard notation" (in its various forms/variations, as it has evolved over the years), which would inevitibly need converting to a different system at some point. And it would not be enough merely to take everything that is today published, and convert it, monumental that would be on its own. There are millions of people and organisations which have amassed a library or collection of written music in some form or another. For example, an orchestra I know has a library of its own, of ~300 pieces. For each of these, there are approx 30 parts + conductor's full score; and for each of those parts, there will be a number of copies (for example, there might be 12x 1st violin parts); and for each of these, the piece might be over 2, 3, 4 or more pages. Each 'piece' struggles to fit into a document folder, and the library of 300 fills 2x filing cabinets where they rehearse and a significant amount stored offsite in an archive. And that's one orchestra/group. There's thousands of them up and down the UK, and there's probably millions worldwide with a similar amount of printed music. And I've not even mentioned how much written music an individual might personally own, be it in books, studies, pieces they've bought etc etc If ever such a revolutionary change to how music is written were to be adopted, it would need the pragmatic willingness of all the above to "convert", and inevitably it would need to occur over a period of time (during which both styles of notation would probably need to be kept). And in the interim period (which would pragmatically span an average person's lifetime) people would need to be familiar with both systems - ie they'd need to learn two, not one, which would be more difficult, not easier! That's not to say that standard notation is fossilised in time, for ever. It evolves - as any living language does, since its a musical equivalent - and has done so in the past. This evolution has been widely documented and understood and continues to this day, but as a widespread/universal system, it would need the widespread support of those who create music, publish it, read it and use it to adopt such evolutionary changes - otherwise it would just be a cul-de-sac of an idea which would inevitibly fade away over time. At the end of the day, standard notation isn't really a bunch of rules; rather its a de facto standard which is governed by those who create, purchase, use, read it.

Ok no worries. Do you want your system to be a universal standard (notation) across many musical instruments, or just something specific for (bass) guitar?

Simple answer: yes

Just for clarity, can you define what you think "diatonic" means?

In answer to the original question, its probably worth practising (sight) reading in all 15/30 keys, even though 3/6 of them are enharmonically equivalent. I used to practice sight reading, but in a condensed version of the aforementioned, only in keys with 5, 6 or 7 sharps or flats.

Most music is diatonic though. For diatonic scales, having 7 letters A-G makes a LOT of sense.

Simple answer: you can't know, from the key signature alone, if a piece of music is in the major key or its relative minor. You'd need to see some notes, at least, to be able to deduce the actual key of the piece. And that's before you start getting into complexities like 1) pieces ending on a chord/note which isn't the same as the key of the previous music 2) picardy third 3) modulations/key changes, possibly at odd times (for example within the first few bars!) 4) atonal music, or music where there is a very loosely defined tone centre etc etc etc

I read the title of the thread and immediately thought of Tina Weymouth, was going to suggest "Genius of Love" (by Tom Tom Club) as an example but there's a number of others too.

Also its worth mentioning that the C7b5 chord is a VERY unusual chord! On first appearance, it seems to have a major 3rd and a b5, thus, the 4th of a (7 note) scale must be the pitch in between (if we're sticking with 12TET, of course) thus there's 3 notes in the accompanying scale all next to each other, a semitone apart. There's a couple of different ways to resolve this 'anomoly' - either fit it to a scale without worrying if the notes of the chord form the root, 3rd, 5th and 7th of that scale (ie depart from the idea that chords are built on 3rds). Or, even though its not written, imply that the 3rd is in fact a minor 3rd, not a major 3rd, and interpret C7b5 as a (fairly normal) half-diminished 7th chord.

I know you're looking at the chord in isolation, and the above applies all the more, let me paraphrase it: 1. If you're looking at one chord in isolation, there is not a 1:1 relationship to the scales which can apply to that chord - many scales (pragmatically, about 3 or 4 non-weird ones) could equally apply. If you nominate one scale over the others, its simply a "best fit" and doesn't render the other choices wrong. 2. If you're looking at a chord and are able to provide more context, eg by considering the musical situation it applies in, then the context gives much more information and could suggest a (as in, one, not 3 or 4) scale.

The wholetone scale has 6 notes, so fitting a "naming system" consisting of 7 notes is always going to be a struggle. I'd take the labels such as b5 and #5 with a pinch of salt.

One chord alone, in isolation, cannot define which scale underlies it. However it would eliminate many possibilities, leaving 3 or 4 reasonable possibilities, and out of these there are more popular/likely choices. C7b5 doesn't fit into any diatonic scale, nor the harmonic or melodic minor, so if you really want to "pin" a scale to it, then you're into wholetone or octatonic stuff, or other weird stuff. It would be better to evaluate the chord progression over a number of bars rather than just that one chord in isolation - do you have the other chords? It may well be that the C7b5 is a passing chord which uses notes outside of the underlying scale, and that the scale is much less 'exotic'.

We're not talking about needing to be a "good" musician here though, we're just talking about some fairly basic manners: communicating (within 3 days), practising, and turning up to rehearsals.

Which one of the conditions can't you cope with?

There is a reasonableness test in the law. Of course, different people have a different interpretation of what "reasonable" means, and ultimately a judge gets to decide.

As I understand it, the mum was kicking up a stink and all ready to sue Little Mix when they changed their minds and actually provided a signer/etc. However she is gripping onto the case by her fingernails and noticed that the supporting acts weren't signed, so is now suing based on these. To me, it sounds like she just wants attention/"her day in court", I can foresee her losing her court case - badly - and ending up with egg on her face.

Great thanks I'll check those out.

It is an inevitability of a discussion forum that someone will disagree with you. On this occasion, the disagreement was polite and informative; but you have reacted negatively. I think you should think it over a bit. Of course, you're welcome to post on a different forum if you want to though.

Firstly, I should mention I don't really like effects, and I don't like the complexity and wires associated with loads of pedals etc. Having said that, I regularly use a Bass EQ pedal and a tuner pedal; and because the tuner eats batteries like they're going out of fashion, I also power these with a mains adapter instead of batteries. Lately I've been tweaking the EQ, subtly but able to make a noticeable improvement. For subtle changes, the EQ pedal is used, but I'll also use the tone control on the bass guitar (its a Fender Jazz) and for a more marked change, the pickup blend (ok I know its 2 volumes, not a blend control...but you know what I mean). For example normally I'd go for both pickups fully on; but for certain situations, the neck pickup at about 1/3 while leaving the bridge pickup fully turned up, works. I can cope with making the changes on the bass for each song, quickly, with no issue. However I'd also like to explore being able to alter the EQ in a more general sense, ie using some kind of graphic EQ as a "sound shaping" tool (rather than just, for example, correcting a particular venue's acoustics, thus it would be set the same for the entire gig) however I really don't want to need to change the sliders to precise settings from song to song. Is there a device which is fairly simple, but could do this? I looked at multi FX, possibly a Boss ME-50B, I believe its possible to store 'patches' of particular effects parameters, including its parametric EQ, into memory then recalling them (3 on its own, or more with another footswitch attached). But I don't think it actually shows the settings it made, just records them in its internal memory leaving you to guess at what each setting was, before being able to tweak it. I guess the other effects could be useful too, but a few seem somewhat cheesy (for example I can't really see myself needing to use any overdrive or synth sounds, or reverb, etc) and I have a nagging doubt that on the cheaper end of multi-FX, the actual quality of the effects is poor such that its more of a bedroom gimmick than a tool which provides genuinely useful stuff. Are there any other suggestions which could achieve this? A friend suggested 2x EQ pedals - but obviously that limits you to 2 variations (3 if you combine them; and 4 if the original un-EQ'd sound is suitable anyway). So the flexibility to set the EQ for each song is limited to the number of pedals you'd add...and each pedal adds complexity in that its another patch lead, another 9V adapter lead to kick mid-gig, etc)

Its not a Fender........well not 100% or even 95% Fender, with a Squier neck (and logo) on it. TBH, there's so many complete, unmolested Fenders out there that a modified one, IMHO, is always devalued unless the mods are very sympathetic, worthwhile or subtle (such as a scratchplate change, but not a pickup change, and definitely not one where they've used the first screws they had lying around, and even then only fitting half of them). So a neck change, for me, stops it from claiming to be a "Fender". YMMV

It happens all the time, and I don't think there's a solution to it because its simply too common an issue for eBay to individually look at each advert and understand the subtlety of how it, basically, messes up a search for "Fender" stuff, and thus delete the ads. AND it relies on others reporting the adverts as such. Obviously if you were a genuine buyer and not a complete idiot you'd know, and notice, the difference if you really wanted a Fender. When I was looking for one, I had to wade through many Squiers which were misdescribed.

A fool and his cash are easily parted. Especially on eBay.

Why, what's wrong with the advert? People sell things "for parts or not working" all the time, for example search for any popular mobile phone and there will be a number of non-working phones which one might salvage for parts for another. Phones are a PITA to try and fix, they're so fiddly (but do-able), I am unsure if valves can be fixed without special tools (like, something to generate the vacuum if the insides were taken to bits) but I don't see the adverts as breaking any rules.

Worth also pointing out, there are very few situations where you have to sight read, and even then its normal to have an amount of time between being first shown the music and playing it. Even in a music exam situation, you're given 30 secs looking at it and can try bits out if you want, before doing the whole thing. In those 30 secs, its worth having a quick look at anything that looks complicated; and turning the page if its >1 page of music just in case there's anything interesting/difficult. But then.....that's for music in general, for bass guitar, AFAIK, none of the formal exams require sight reading off of standard notation anyway. Having said that, sight reading just develops naturally from practice, I don't think there's anything particularly special about it, you just get better and quicker at reading and better at playing a variety of stuff. It is true that "you are what you practice".