rslaing

[url="http://www.warrguitars.com/phalanx_series/"]Just get one of these [/url]

[quote name='Thunderthumbs' post='484390' date='May 10 2009, 05:11 PM']Bloody hell [/quote] Exactly. And it just goes to prove that there are/were some brilliant players around that aren't in the hero worshipped arena - and no doubt there will be in the future too. Keep your eyes and ears (and your mind) open!!

[quote name='Kongo' post='484282' date='May 10 2009, 01:04 PM']I went off Wooten after seeing one of his clinics. Obviously people only came to learn...well he's very standoffish on his techneque now. He got people to come up and "Groove" and then went on to spout saying: "Bassists should only groove and play as less notes as need be." And completely contradicted himself. The people that came up were obviously not playing what they normally would as you could tell it was improv. I don't hear many metal bassists play a walking arpeggio line for instance. It's like he was saying "I do this but you shoudln't, I don't want any competition". I learned 2 songs from him: Classical Thump and The Vision and I do enjoy his music but why is he acting like this now? Nah, I went off him to go to my more true, down to earth inspirations. And I also thought he was very Zen till I saw em. For solo stuff Stuart Hamm speaks to me most. Billy Sheehan's solo stuff is solo song writing in a band situation, not instrumental so I cannot put him in the same place but he too is a bigger inspiration than Wooten now. Maybe if I was a Jazz-Funk bassists...But as I'm not I cannot relate to Wooten anymore.[/quote] Victor Wooten is a genius. All of the players mentioned in this thread are fantastic musicians and great innovators. Whether Wooten is losing his hair, whether he lost his ZEN, or is acting like a twat has nothing to do with what he does as a musician - he is probably the best at what he does in his genre. As are Hamm, Sheehan, Steve Bailey etc etc in theirs. Having read all the posts, it seems the vast majority of criticisms are based on the personal listening preferences of the writer. Why not just appreciate everything they all have to offer? Unless of course, there is anyone in here who is a "better" player than any of the above? Then there might be some substance to the criticism. In the meantime, why don't you just extract some of the skills they show and practice until you are good enough to objectively make a fair point. If we are talking about bass skill/technique/ability/knowledge/application then there is no one better than the guy in the video below. He played a double bass, died young, (recently unfortunately), recorded most genres except what people in here seem to have at the top of their list. In the video link below, he plays his double bass with speed and skill to match the chap he is appearing with, a great guitarist. Watch this mans skill and dexterity - the best bits are towards the end so if the beginning does your head in, fast forward to his solo at 2.33 and playing of the melody at the end. He makes Jaco's skills on the rendition of this tune seem very average................ (Put's tin hat on) [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm8HUqRSfHY"]Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen on bass and Joe Pass[/url]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='482914' date='May 8 2009, 01:42 PM']So that' it. The value of jazz in 21st Century is a bowl full of p***. Good job this is only a bass players forum and not for musicians [/quote] +1.5

Isn't it just easier to learn to read music?

[quote name='The Funk' post='482019' date='May 7 2009, 02:27 PM']Through basschat I've arranged to start jamming with a jazz drummer and guitarist which I thought would be a great intro to playing, as opposed to listening, to jazz. I asked them for 2 or 3 tunes for me to work on in advance of the first session. They've come back with [i]Scrapple From The Apple[/i], [i]Confirmation[/i] and [i]Lady Bird[/i]. 200bpm, chord change every bar, sometimes twice per bar. I thought I knew my areggios - but at that tempo, with so many changes, it turns out I don't [i]know them[/i] know them. How the hell do you boppers do it? I've managed to find a good site, [url="http://www.realbook.us"]www.realbook.us[/url], which has charts you can change the key for at the click of a button and which also play a basic MIDI piano accompaniment you can change the tempo of. I've got a week to absorb as much as possible from my [i]Patterns For Jazz[/i] book, practice my various arpeggios and practice the hell out of those changes. Any advice for a rhythm n' blues player taking his first steps in jazz?[/quote] Just keep on practicing.......... When you start, try to use a metronome or drum machine with the appropriate rhythm and set it at no more than 120 bpm, or slower if that feels uncomfortable. Play the roots of the chords only, no more than two to the bar until you get the changes in your head. Sing them while you play them if you can. It helps to internalise the changes. Then start playing 4 to the bar at the slow tempo, gradually increasing until you get up to the required speed. At the slower tempo's it is a great opportunity to also play "indefinite" scales. In other words, start on the lowest note of your instrument that you can with a note that "fits" the first chord and play in a scalar manner upwards, changing notes to suit each chord as they change and maybe if it is slow enough, instead of playing 4 to the bar play quavers (8 to the bar.) Then do the same coming down for the highest note on your instrument. A good method to learn your instrument inside out and be able to play all the chordal and passing notes with ease. You will find that if you can learn 10 standard numbers, you can just about play anything in the bebop library. It also means you will definitely be able to play any commercial stuff more easily. I strongly recommend "The Method" by Claude Werner, IMO it is about the best you can get. Hope this helps.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481905' date='May 7 2009, 01:10 PM']rslaing, it's no comment on you as a person, but a comment on you as a musical educator. You're refusal to see value in music which doesn't meet you criteria of "proper" makes me question what kind of musical education you will give to others. In relation to this topic, it reinforces by belief that there is a form of elitism that exists within Jazz music, and I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this off putting. What future does Jazz have if the vocal fans of the genre shout down every form of popular music? I think this is killing jazz more than the fretboard w***ery.[/quote] I'll get this out of the way, even though it really is not strictly in topic, and then we can all get back to the topic hopefully. OK. I don't teach much anymore. When I do, I teach music theory and how to play the instrument. Music theory is no different whether it is applied to jazz, classical, pop / whatever. If a student wants to go off and play jazz, thats up to them, as is their choice to go off and play classical (with a specialised tutor of course) pop, or commercial music. I don't teach anyone what type music they should prefer. That is their personal choice. Although I do encourage them to improvise with backing tracks and the like because it helps to develop their ear. I give pupils jazz play alongs (for learning purposes only) because they are more challenging and in most cases, are better for development and application of certain aspects of theory, like, how to make sure you know which notes can be played over which modes/key centres/chord structures etc. and then once stuff like that is internalised, they can chuck away the theory books and cd's if they and apply it to the music of their choice. I'm out of this thread now. Every time I express my opinion (and thanks for the pm's and posts etc from the folks that agree with some of them) I start to get the feeling of a wounded animal being circled by vultures. I really can't be arsed................... Cheers

[quote name='Johngh' post='481898' date='May 7 2009, 01:04 PM']Can we please leave comments about the Reading Thread out of this thread. That thread was closed, and I won't allow it to get carried over onto this thread. Also please stop the personal slanging match, and play fair or I will close the thread, although I don't see why mods should keep having to close topics because of a few individuals. Can we have the thread back on topic now please.[/quote] Thank you for that...................

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481871' date='May 7 2009, 12:49 PM']That's absolute rubbish, mate. What was your view on my university degree, again?[/quote] My view on having a music degree, without having the ability to read or write music, is that it has the merits of a degree in knitting (or something like that) It is a bit like having a degree in English without being able to read or write - in my opinion. Or maths, without being able to add 2 + 2. But it was relevant to the topic. I did not slag you off personally, it is my comment on the Music Degree. You have decided to assume I directed it to you as a person. Wrong. You may be a great bloke with lots of talent, and the finest musician in the UK, but I would always question a certificate for something where the basics aren't included in the merit at the end of the course. Don't take it personally, the thread was closed, and I am sure because of that, they do not want it to continue in here, as IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC. Thanks

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481860' date='May 7 2009, 12:43 PM']But any time someone disagrees with your opinions rslaing, you accuse them of getting personal! It's a bit of a cop out to be honest.[/quote] I have no problem with anyone expressing their own opinion ABOUT THE TOPIC, that is surely what this place is for? I will challenge any point I disagree with, but I would not get personal - big difference. It appears that some people don't know the diference. But stalking and baiting, and changing posts then re-publishing them as a quote to try to take the piss is out of order. The difference between commenting on the topic and getting personal is easy. You make your opinion about the subject, you don't say things like "it concerns me that you actually used to teach people" See the difference? Thanks

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481823' date='May 7 2009, 12:16 PM']I've rephrased it for you. It's much clearer now. The music I think is good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and I hope that everything I don't like will just fade away never to heard again. The main reason being that I am unable to relate to its substance and my ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote] Please retract your post, you are out of order. Make as many opinions as you like about my opinions, but don't get personal (again) or amend my posts in a cheap attemp to denigrate my views. Are you stalking my posts or something? Baiting does not work with me I'm afraid. Thank you

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481820' date='May 7 2009, 12:15 PM']Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?[/quote] See my post at 12.20p.m.

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481810' date='May 7 2009, 12:06 PM']With the greatest of respect, there is a lot of good music out there nowadays if you were to look hard enough. It's fine sticking to the argument that 'music isn't what it was back in the day' but it just simply isn't true. You need to let music evolve sometime, otherwise we're stuck in a cyclical situation where views such as that simply serves to inhibit new music to come. What I meant was that jazz (which as someone pointed out is far too much of an umbrella term anyway) doesn't serve as much of a huge sector of musical revenue nowadays because it seems to be viewed by most as an institution or an era, like classical. It may not be the most musically endearing news that practicing jazz musicians want to hear, but it's true.[/quote] Can someone please define "good music" for me? IMO, music has not evolved, is has deteriorated to probably the most primitive form since medieval times - although even then they used at least 3 chords in cadences and the monks sang in tune. Musical revenue has nothing to do with good music I'm afraid. Musical revenue has to do with with a hugely complicated process of the business world. Write a catchy tune with no substance, make sure the tune repeats itself endlessly so that it is easily remembered by Lambrini addled hoodies that can put it on their phones and walk up and down the street annoying everyone. Ensure the words appeal to young people with disposable income that are easily influenced by the sh*t they see on tv. Ensure that peer pressure plays it's part by marketing it on the most watched programmes or the ads in between the programme. Give a contract to someone who can't sing unless they use autotune but they look pretty. Hire some "proper" musicians that need to do these type of gigs for the dosh and pay them next to f*** all for the privilege. Bingo - big money for Simon Cowell, Pete Waterman and his pals (initially who started the (S) hit factory with the sole intent of doing the above. The type of music that survives the course has never been commercially successful, at least not to the degree of Girls Aloud and the like. But it has and will survive.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481795' date='May 7 2009, 11:52 AM']I mean in terms of popularity, exposure, accessability etc. You won't reach large audiences if you don't have an accessable image. The majority won't persevere with music created by the "un-cool". If Gary Glitter were to release his best album yet, no one is gonna buy it, great music or not.[/quote] You mean the commercial money making side of the business is about image. Like the sh*te that Simon Cowell manufactures and was started by Pete Waterman and his cronies. Who will remember any of the chart acts and their primitive crap in 50 years time? Who would want to? Good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and the rest of it will just fade away never to heard again. The main reason being that it has no substance and the ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481768' date='May 7 2009, 11:34 AM']I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is![/quote] Really? I thought it was about sound............

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='481423' date='May 6 2009, 09:25 PM']But what does everyone mean by the word "jazz"? It seems to be a pretty wide umbrella these days. The whole genre's pretty nebulous, which I think is greatly to its benefit. Take someone like Matthew Herbert. When he works with a big band, is he creating jazz purely by virtue of the ensemble's format? Is he a jazz composer when he's [i]not[/i] using his big band? If not, why not? And take one of the ECM or Rune Grammofon artists like Arve Henriksen or Christian Wallumrød. They use huge amounts of improvisation and "jazz" instrumentation, but they frame the music in more of a non-jazz way, to my ear. It's more like "classical" or "academic" composition. I'm just spouting off the top of my head here. Not really a fully formed thought. I've heard loads of jazz that did nothing for me at all, but then again I've heard loads of pop, rock, blues, folk, funk, punk, crunk, metal, indie, whatever that did nothing for me at all.[/quote] Great post. To answer your first question, this isn't a bad piece [url="http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802"]http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802[/url]

[quote name='7string' post='481390' date='May 6 2009, 08:43 PM']I've always found jazz to be a little out of reach. Not from the point of view of understanding it, but from the point of view of wanting to listen to it. I've listened to many kinds of music, but find jazz a bit 'vanilla' and not the proper vanilla either, the really bland stuff. As in the quote of take by the OP, jazz isn't fun nowadays it's serious. It seems to be in the realm of an enlightened elite instead of embracing a wider audience. [b]This is just my opinion.[/b][/quote] Yes, there is some really bland stuff around, but I think the type of jazz you are referring is not "real" jazz? We are not talking (for example) of George Benson using his original tremendous jazz talent and then trying to commercialize it. There really is a huge variation of musical styles that for some reason have been labelled with the title "Jazz". The type of jazz I listen too mainly is certainly not "vanilla". Or maybe it is ??

[quote name='peteb' post='481316' date='May 6 2009, 06:47 PM']Without wishing to resurrect the occasionally amusing but generally futile Playing by ear vs Reading thread on the Theory & Technique forum, the following is a quote from that thread by dlloyd on jazz: I think that he has pretty much hit the nail on the head there but obviously many people here still see jazz still as a viable proposition so what do they think?[/quote] A viable proposition for what? Making money out of it? Attracting an audience? Surviving the future? I think it depends what type of jazz. Herbie Hancock was on at The Sage in Newcastle/Gateshead recently and he has been the only artist who filled the place completely and sold out in next to no time. And it was all jazz but you couldn't really put a label on it - maybe post fusion with a hint of funk/hiphop and other more modern influences? I think interest in trad jazz has all but disappeared, but the newer stuff has a decent enough interest level. I haven't seen any Big Bands advertised in the North recently either. Conversely, the Northern Sinfonia did a concert at The Sage recently that I thought was amazing, but there were more in the orchestra than the audience. Perhaps the lack of interest in different art forms is down to the MTV factor in recent years. I don't know, I'm an old fart. In Italy and Asia particularly, Jazz is extremely popular, even amongst non musicians. [i]"But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz, lots of people found themselves out of work and it (the first real 'American' artform) got preserved as a university course. One that was largely taught by those who never got bebop in the first place."[/i] I understand the theory here but I don't agree. The main USA music colleges are packed to the rafters with people studying jazz, and Barry Harris continues to have the biggest attendances for his lectures in New York - and [url="http://barryharris.com/"]Barry Harris[/url] certainly "got be-bop"............. he is 80 odd years old now and still performing regularly in the main jazz haunts in New York to packed houses. His workshop dvd's are brilliant - he puts stuff over in a very simple, non-nerdy/geeky way so often seen from other educators that puts people off the Jazz artform - and if his popularity and pupil level at the workshops is a measure to go by, yes, Jazz has a future, but maybe not in the UK.

[quote name='Rich' post='481142' date='May 6 2009, 04:41 PM']Read [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=33949&view=findpost&p=480863"]my post[/url] again, and have a good look at the [b]bold[/b] bits. What I was suggesting is that there is a yawning gulf between something that is [i]of benefit[/i] and something that is [i]essential[/i]. And please, listen to what Max says. You may not think you are superior, but that really is how you're coming across at times.[/quote] Please just moderate - don't start getting personal. There is nothing in the "rules" that state anyone can't offer their own thoughts on a subject. And really, moderators shouldn't opinionate on a thread they are moderating, the words bias and influence comes to mind. There isn't a gulf between something being of benefit and something being essential. It is a benefit to any musician to be able to read music. It is essential for a musician who wants to at the top of his trade and in demand to be able to sight read. If you want to be critical of my posts, please stick to the topic and the content of my text. If you want to get personal (in other words levy criticism at me personally) - keep it to yourself. Thanks

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='480957' date='May 6 2009, 01:25 PM']ermm, I don't think so! What about all my fans on BassChat?[/quote] I don't know if they like your band or not. But I am certainly your number 1 fan for your contributions on here (when you are not trying be serious that is)

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='480951' date='May 6 2009, 01:22 PM']More importantly rslaing, did you like my band???[/quote] I did. But that is only more important to you.

QUOTE (rslaing @ May 5 2009, 07:39 PM) * Hopefully I won't start off another war here, but SIGHT reading is an essential skill too. QUOTE (rslaing @ May 5 2009, 08:03 PM) * it is a major benefit to any musician to be able to read music..period.[quote name='Rich' post='480863' date='May 6 2009, 12:21 PM']Surely there's a pretty big yawning gulf between the two..? I would never disagree for a second that reading is beneficial, but an essential skill? Essential in order to do what, exactly?[/quote] My answer (and to save one or two of the contributors having to accuse me of arrogance blah blah blah etc, it is only my opinion) :- Being able to read music is essential in order to become an "all round" musician, capable of meeting any opportunities that arise in the music profession. A musician will certainly gain more work if he has more skill. Why do you suggest there a yawning gulf between being able to read music and being able to sight read? The only difference is if you can sight read, you get the "job" done more quickly. Being able to sight read is only a matter of developing your reading skill to a higher level. I gave my daughter a music lesson this morning, and she was amazed that I could sing (I have an awful voice) the part she had in front of her at the piano without having to play it, or having heard it before. That example is about using both attributes - I can read music, and because I can relate to the dots and hear the intervals that I see, I can transmit that (quite well, but not always perfectly) to someone very quickly. That is a primitive example for sure, but this ability that has taken years to develop is surely better than having to dig out the original version of the tune, prod about on an instrument and then have to try and memorise it? Imagine even the personal benefits, if a musician could read music, of being able to look at a piece of music and actually hear the chords that are written down on paper? And understand how and why they sound like that without having an instrument in their hands? It has to be a major benefit to their musicianship. Can't remember who said it, but it went along the lines of the "the faintest ink is better than the best memory". Whenever I gig (which is getting less and less these days) I mostly don't use sheet music, but I always carry a decent library in case I get caught out with either a song I can't remember the changes for, or I have not played before. Thereby, hopefully doing a job that the non reader couldn't do? And for those that seem to think I am dissing the non readers, I also spend more time playing without reading, than having to sit in front of a sheet of music. I also spend more practice time developing aural ability than reading about 90% of the time. But this does not detract from my opinion regarding reading skills. A musician should learn to read as a priority when starting out, and develop aural skill alongside, they will soon find out that aural musical ability will take up much more of their time as they develop and become as, if not more, important. But not for the reasons I have seen given in some of the responses in this thread. But I still have the music reading ability if it is needed. It takes longer to perfect aural skill than it does learning to read music (although I don't think it is more difficult) so why don't non readers learn? I refer you back to my original theory that they can't be arsed (laziness) or they don't think there is a need. My previous pupils have actually ADMITTED these are the reasons so why should I change my mind? I will continue to follow this thread out of interest but I can't really spend any more time trying to justify my beliefs in writing. If anyone can convince me that it is not important to have both reading and aural skills, and tell me why aural skill is all that is needed, that would be great. But I really can't see it happening. And BTW maxrossell, regarding your post insinuating I think I am superior to anyone (and your other personal insults), I certainly know I am not, as do a number of other people on this forum that know me. I just happen to feel very strongly about people not just having instrumental skills etc, but the ability to have a greater understanding of music which can add to their talents. Being able to read music gives you that understanding/comprehension, and I'm sorry, but unless you can read music, I don't think you would know what I meant. Also, to answer your personal criticism "Which I guess actually puts him at a disadvantage, because whereas I'd happily learn to read music if I needed to, based on a lot of the stuff he says he probably wouldn't touch many of the skills I have with a bargepole because he thinks they're pointless and beneath him." I assure you that you will be "better" at a lot of things in life than I am. But with 40 years experience, the odds are that I could be right about the odd thing?

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='480516' date='May 5 2009, 11:17 PM']How about Pepe Shuckles, Milton Jones, Art Stilton, LeRoy Oxbow, The Catscan Trio, Lenny Bernstein.... The list goes on.[/quote] That was the sort of answer I expected, glad you didn't let me down...................

[quote name='dlloyd' post='480486' date='May 5 2009, 10:52 PM']We've ended up with a formulaic, paint by numbers approach to jazz that's pretty convenient to describe in magazines and on discussion forums, but which does indeed lead to worthless music.[/quote] Would you tell me which present day jazz artists have a "paint by numbers" approach leading to worthless music? Thanks