P-T-P

[quote name='bennifer' post='228075' date='Jun 27 2008, 02:58 PM']Yeah, if you get a Motu, you should be able to use the TonePort on the side as a basic USB interface without too many problems, at least enough to do some live recording. Depending on what Motu you get, if it has optical SPDif inputs on the back you can add another 2 channels. With my firepod I have a Focusrite Platinum Penta preamp with digital card plugged in that gives me another input, so if you had a Pod with Spdif output you would gain an extra channel there.[/quote] Well, having asked the question, I went back and read the spec on the 828 mkii and if I've understood correctly it has 8 line level inputs on the back plus 2 mic/instrument inputs on the front which are all discreet so that's 10 analogue inputs which would cover it. There is one pair of S/PDIF stereo I/O and ADAT I/O too. [quote name='ped' post='228128' date='Jun 27 2008, 04:03 PM']Could you not just hook them up via XLR to desk?[/quote] Not sure what you're suggesting there ped. Do you mean everything or just mixing a couple signals so that they can be fed to one of the lines in?

Thanks for the answers guys. I'm planning on getting a Motu 828. So that gives me 8 inputs. To record "as live" I need 10 ideally. 6 for the drums, 2 x guitars, 1 x bass, 1 x vox. I'ev already got a Toneport, so I suppose I could use that alongside the 828, was just wondering whether the POD idea was possible 'cause they're so cheap to buy really.

Anyone know if it's possible to hook up multiple POD (XT, XT Pro, XT Live or the new X3s) to an iMac via USB in order to record simultaneously? Assuming it is possible, are there any pitfalls or reasons not to do so? How will they work with a hub (okay presumably as they are individually powered)? I currently have a toneport UX2 which is nice enough, but I kinda miss having knobs to twiddle (ooo-errr missus), and could see an advantage to having seperate bass and guitar pods to record with. I'm hoping to add something like the Motu 828 mkii interface and figure that between it and a couple of PODs I'd have sufficient inputs to record a live take of my band. Anyone spot obvious (or not so obvious) flaws in my plan?

[quote name='Fraktal' post='225031' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:06 PM']Hello P-T-P, I was eager to see your comments, Thank you very much! You seem to confirm what I suspect, though I wasnt expecting the 12incher to have better lowend than the 10incher... Very useful info.[/quote] Hmmm now that you've put it that way... It's not so much the 121P having more low end than the 102P. The 102P has more of everything else compared to the 121P which kinda makes the 121P seem deeper sounding. I guess what I'm saying is the 102P doesn't lack bottom end, it's just that bottom end is not the over-riding characteristic of the tone.

I've had the CMD121P and currently have the CMD102P. Also had a brief daliance with a CMD121H while the 121P was getting checked over. CMD121P - very light combo and extremely poratble but surprisingly gutsy. Quite happily gigged it for about 18 months or so but felt that in the larger rooms (200+) we've been playing more of lately, it didn't quite throw enough bottom end to all corners. Always coped admirably with drummers though. If you've got PA support when it's neede this could well be the way to go for you depending on how you like your tone. I personally quite liked it's low-end-centric sound. Was a deep, clean and clear tone which fit well with the wide variety of covers my band plays. I didn't play with the controls that much so could well have been capable of a lot more, CMD102P - Quite a departure from the 121P. Certainly louder and a much more in your face, punchy tone. It doesn't lack bottom end, but it's not as deep and rounded as the 121P. It ads a bit more authority to the tone and certainly throws the bass into the room more. Obviously bigger than the 121P but still a one handed carry. The tilt back option is nice too. Played in a marquee with it on Firday night, no stage and just on a matted floor. Had to crank it quite a bit to get the air moving and the bottom end was a bit lacking. Did the same gig a year ago with the 121P and don't recall having the same problem with the bottom end. On the whole though, love this combo. Actually feel like a different player as the additional cut makes much more of what I play come to the forefront which makes trying something interesting more rewarding. CMD121H - Only used it for a couple of gigs. Didn't really like it much. Was quite a middy-tone which didn't work for me. No volume issues. I reckon it would come into it's own for fretless or double bass playing. Probably would sit nicely in a jazz environment. With all of these combos (and indeed the Traveller 1x15" plus LMK head I used prior to going for the combo), I never found a lack of volume in relation to my bandmates to be an issue. There's the odd occasion where the room size and/or acoustics expose their limitations, but never to a level where it became a big issue and certainly something that can be dealt with via a little PA support. I've thought about changing to a MarkBass head and different cabs and also thought about adding an additional cab to the combo (may still do that at some point) but the reality is that the CMD102P is fine for nearly every gig I'm likely to do playing clubs/pubs/functions and so on.

[quote name='Cantdosleepy' post='218338' date='Jun 13 2008, 02:20 PM']Theatre is very similar to music in that regard. As is spoken poetry. And ballet. There is a difference between cultural artifacts that are a process and cultural artifacts that are a product. And there is some blurring of that line - a DVD or a CD is a product, but one that must be played to be enjoyed (ie transformed into a process). Not to derail the thread entirely (or rather, to obviously derail the thread) I'd actually say that experiencing The Mona Lisa is just as much a process as enjoying a gig. Once you are out of the room the picture is gone and all you have left is a memory. The principle difference between process-process and product-process is that you can return to the picture and in theory it's the same artifact. But it will always be a different experience, because you'll be bringing a different mood, mindset and memories to it. But I definitely agree with your post, just having a bit of a think. Good work![/quote] In respect of theatre etc. the difference I see is that you can't really mess around with them as much as you can with pop music. Sure you can give the soldiers guns but it would still be Macbeth pretty much as Shakespeare intended it to be whereas you could perform a song and it can be substantially different to the original while still being the same song, you can change it on the fly, repeat a chorus 'cause that's what feels right in the moment and so on. Someone viewing the Mona Lisa on different occasions doesn't change the art itself though, whereas a covers band from one night to the next, and indeed one covers band compared to another, do effect change to the art every time, irrespective of the audience. Unless we're considering the possibility that art has to be experienced in order to have value, which is an interesting idea and one which obviously puts the jazzers and anyone using a bass with more than 6 strings in trouble* *just teasing folks, a cheap shot is a terrible thing wasted.

Also, on the new music front, there's thousands (millions) born every year for whom old music is new music. It could be the case that at your next gig, you might play Mustang Sally and someone there will be hearing it for the very first time.

Straying slightly from the integrity discussion and onto something which has cropped up in it... Isn't there more new music now, available to more people now than ever before? And isn't the problem partly that the best of that music is simply harder to find because of the sheer volume there is to sift through and partly that we're all guided by our taste too? On a different tack again, isn't popular music (be that folk, jazz, country, soul etc.) separated from the other arts by the fact that a song, unlike a painting, novel etc. doesn't necessaily become an untouchable piece of art once the songwriting is complete, or with it's first performance or even it's recorded release. While in many cases, the original version will always stand as the benchmark, it's not completely uncommon for a cover to become the definitive version. Songs are living, breathing art because they need to be performed in order to exist. The Mona Lisa will still be there once you've left the room. But once the last note has disappeared, the song has gone and it was only those that heard it there and then who experienced the artistry involved in bringing it to life. Each time it's brought to life, it will be slightly different - the musicians, the equipment, the room, the audience, the dancing and so many other factors all go into creating that little shared artistic moment. Even if you've seen a song performed live by it's creator(s) countless times, it's only a collection of artistic moments you've been witness too, you'll never be able to get that exact same experience again, you'll never be able to own it the way you can a book or a painting. It's why covers bands exist. People want more than a memory, or to experience more moments. Even if some will be better than others, they still want them, even if they aren't fully aware of the artisic element of it all and express their enjoyment in less high-brow ways such as "I enjoy a sing-song." or "I love a good dance." Every performacne is a little piece of art so we all have artistic integrity.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216789' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:41 PM']But surely the effort required to create something of artistic merit is worth more than that required to simply recreate something someone else has already done. Can you imagine what would have happened at your jazz festivals if you had played, say 'Body & Soul' and in doing so had repeated Coleman Hawkin's tenor solo from his 1939 recording. Or if you played Giant Steps and simply repeated Coltrane's solo. You may just avoid being laughed off the stage by your peers but you would never be take seriously as a player.[/quote] For diferent people, the effort required for either pursuit will be different though. In the extreme... someone who is relatively inexperienced and particularly prone to nerves etc. might be required to give a huge effort to perform whereas an old hand could poop out a different solo without thinking twice about it. What if the new creation is utterly inaccessible or just plain crap? And worth more what anyway? And to whon? Chances are, if it's a 6 minute long jaunt in 13/8 time exploring the interplay between mongolian nose flute and viola, it's going to be worth nothing to me in it's own right and even less compared to a well played cover of a pop/rock/soul tune. As a musician I can appreciate the effort, skill and so on which went into the former, but I'd still be disinclined to place any extra value on it because it's enhanced my life not one little bit. I can totally see how the opposite would be true for someone else, and that's fine so long as they don't insist their way is the only way.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='215983' date='Jun 10 2008, 10:46 AM']I take it that the consensus definition of "artistic integrity" is being devoted to your art and not selling it short to pursue other goals? You've agreed that craftsmanship isn't the same as art, but I think it's also important to recognise that craftsmanship is completely necessary in order to express your art - if you can't play bass, how can you create music on it? 1. Some of us, when we don't feel like playing, still force ourselves to practise, in order that we don't let our craftsmanship slip and so let down our art 2. And some of the time, we also need to play something we don't like, such as some exercises or learning scales... and what if your main income is from a function band - assuming you NEED the money to live, do you rob a bank, sell your basses or get up there and play Lady in Red? You might not enjoy doing the latter, but you have to make a sacrifice for your art, and if you place your personal tastes before the need to carry on making music, I don't think you have any integrity 3. I just don't agree with that at all... I don't like Mark Ronson, but I think he's still an artist! 4. If your primary reason for playing is to make money or to be popular or whatever, you don't have artistic integrity, no... if you accept these as useful asides, great! 5. We are humans, and we work together - we also rely on a lot of other outside factors, such as our equipment and also the context in which our art is perceived... personally, I think that for the purpose of creating art, the whole world is an extension of the artist and everything has its input 6. Back to the point about making sacrifices for art, you're not doing your art any favours if you spend your whole life developing a unique musical instrument (no strings, coz basses already have them, no material construction, coz basses are already made of matter...) to play it on - as my previous point said, there are loads of outside factors which influence art, such as music theory and the invention of the basses that I use[/quote] Remember, what I'm talking about is artistic integrity in it's purest form because I think it's only if someone has such an unsullied level of integrity that they can justifiably point to the rest of us and say we have no artistic integrity. 1. Practice is different to playing, in the context of artistic integrity. I probably should have used "performing" and/or "creating" instead of "playing." Thought there's an argument to be made that by practising you run the risk of getting in the way of being truly creative with your self-expression; for example by playing something just because you can, rather than because it's what you feel. 2. I don't disagree with this at all. This is what many of us here do to some degree or other. However my original point was addressed to those whose self-importance leads them to look down on those who do the function band thing. 3. Loads of respect due to Mark Ronson, but in the context of true artistic integrity, he's a covers act. 4. Yup, but as soon as there's any hint that you are performing/creating as a response to anything which might could be construed as a request to do so, that pure artistic integrity is gone. 5. In the broadest sense yes, art is self-expression and as such is bound to be affected by the artist's place in the world and what they see/hear/feel/taste etc. However, what I was referring to was ensemble playing. True self-expression, in an artistic sense, can only be diluted by the direct involvement of others in its creation. 6. The more you can free yourself from convention though, the more your art gets closer to the idyll of genuine self-expression. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to be a true artist. Nothing wrong with wishing you didn't have to play certain tunes. Nothing wrong with having personal values you stick to in relation to your playing. There's everything wrong with applying your personal playing values to others. Everything wrong with being a snob about tunes you don't like and ascribing greater value or importance to ones that you do, whatever your reasoning. One man's art is another man's corned beef hash, is one woman's chapstick and another woman's swan.

Surely to lay claim to true artistic integrity, every time you play it should involve: 1. Only playing because you feel like playing 2. Only playing what you feel like playing 3. Only playing something entirely unique 4. Only playing as an outlet for whatever it is inside you that you feel the compulsion to express through art 5. Only playing solo 6. Only playing while abandoning all rules and conventions. Stray away from any of those and you're compromising your artistic integrity in some way, shape or form. 1 and 2 shouldn't need any explanation. 3. If you're playing something that already existed, no matter how new an angle you approach it from, you are merely an interpreter, not an artist. Even if you created the original, you're merely repeating what's already been done. You're your own greatest hits tribute band. 4. If you are playing for any other reason, then you are seeking to gain something or achieve something, be it money, kudos, applause. That is not art. 5. If you are playing with other musicians, unless you play utterly independent of what the others are playing, you are compromised as an artist. As soon as you lock into a groove with the drummer, link up with someone else's chord sequence or whatever, your work is dependent on the input of others. 6. In the purest sense, that means you're screwed as soon as you hit a note, but I'll take it as read that the medium itself, bass playing, is acceptable. What I mean is, as soon as you conciously start to use particular scales, arpeggios, keys etc. you're are effectively putting a boundary around your art. If it isn't utterly free expression, it isn't true art. In short, I'm with whoever it was mentioned craftsmanship. That's all any of us are really. Artistic integrity is an ideal. Anyone who claims to have it is really just trying to make themselves feel better about the fact that while their craftsmanship may be far superior to a lot of us, it doesn't stop lesser mortals from earning similar or more cash/praise by virtue of the fact that the big bad world, in large part, likes their art in bitesize, easy to comprehend, 3 minute chunks. If anything I've said is causing a little spring of bile to well up in you, you need to get over it. It's the way of the world, sometimes the most brilliantly thought out ideas are beaten out by the simplest. I'll always happily acknowledge and respect those with greater ability than me, but I'd like to think they would be humble enough not to require me to do so and even more that they wouldn't be so conceited as to need to attach a false claim such as artistic integrity to add greater importance to what they do.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='215334' date='Jun 9 2008, 11:58 AM']Is the voicing x02100? I would normally call that Amaj7 sus2 without any other context. If there is a C# anywhere in the harmonies it'll become an Amaj9.[/quote] Yup, that's the voicing and Ama7 sus2 is excatly what I wanted to call it, but seeing it referred to as Amaj9 had me doubting. Serves me right for believing the internet. I'm pretty sure there's no C# anywhere else as it sounded a bit odd with the C# played in the guitar chord and in the overall sequence of chords it makes sense (to me at least) that it be absent as it's disappearance and re-appearance lead nicely into the key change. [quote name='bilbo230763' post='215338' date='Jun 9 2008, 12:04 PM']dlloyd is right - or it could be a A maj 9 (no 3rd) - by leaving the third out, you can create an 'open' feel whose ambiguity creates a texture all of its own (its subtle but its there). Coltrane often played minor chords without thirds to create a similar effect.[/quote] That makes sense too, the ambiguity creates a certain drama and allows for the possibility of moving in a couple of directions. Thanks both.