The Jaywalker

[quote name='keefbaker' timestamp='1456909222' post='2993344'] This. [/quote] Totally incorrect. Many, many scales in existence do not have any modal origin whatsoever. The term "mode" applies in 2 situations only: When discussing, if applicable, the origin of a scale. For example, C Lydian Dominant scale (fits C7#11) happens to be mode 4 of G melodic minor. When the music being played is modal, that is, has no defined chord progression other than the sound of the specified mode. For example, So What or Impressions (Dorian). As I've said before, forget about modes altogether as a concept. There's way too much confusion and downright incorrect instruction about it out there. Chords - chord tones - relevant scales

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1456163640' post='2986124'] Giving everything a thorough clean and seeing how I get on does seem like a reasonable thing to try first. I'll probably budget for a new set some time later in the year though. It might be interesting to give the S42 Mittel a try next time too - my current set are the 3885 Mittel. [/quote] S42 mittels work out at a lower tension on a 3/4 bass, as they're designed for 4/4's. I think it's middling between weich and mittel, which is quite pleasant ;-)

As you know, Mr Beer, I like my sound to be bright, sustaining and singing. I reckon about 5 years of constant use for spiros and they've about given up their characteristic sound. I use a solution made from milton tablets to clean my strings regularly. Every once and a while, I do a "mega-clean" : clean G-string; detune; clean again (more gunk off); leave for at least 30-45 mins; retune and clean again. Repeat for all 4 strings. Like Bassace said, they regain a lot of life after being detuned - and I suspect the bass gets some detensioned time to relax a bit too and this is part of it. My bass always feels much better after I do this. Also, make sure you reallyclean the fingerboard as well. Get the gunk off the fb and it seems like the sound brightens/growls a bit more. I dunno, maybe there's a bit more room for the growl-enhancing vibration between LH fingers and the fb to take place? Give this a go, see what happens. Defo cheaper than new strings....

Personally never had a problem with James Jamerson or Chuck Rainey and their respective rhythmic abilities. However, I agree, as a technique it can sound scrappy as hell with some folk. Tried it and couldn't get into it.

According to a drummer friend of mine, who hails from Barbados, St Thomas was originally a folk song from that area his grandmother used to sing to him. Looks like Sonny heard it at some point and the rest is history ;-)

There's two main issues as far as I see it. What are your aspirations as a soloist? What's your technical level? Learning chord tones; chord scales; Harmony; upper structure triads; using chromatic approach notes etc etc - all that's a given. You need that stuff. Decide what kind of soloing approach you are into; and more importantly, what kind of approach feels right when you play it. You can be head over heels with Eddie Gomez's solos but your own aesthetic voice wants to play simple Paul Chambers influenced stuff because it "feels" right to you. Now, look at your technique - is it up to playing what you want to play? For a lot of guys that's a no; because they practise walking time and little else, even when shedding scales. If you're going to solo effectively, imho you need headroom with your technique. Get those scales, arpeggios and shifts faster and smoother, in a classical fashion. All this stuff is obvious I guess; but the main question is what you're thinking of when soloing. That's more difficult. If you're on an uninspiring gig, it's difficult to find something to say. If it's a great gig with loads to bounce off from the other musicians, I find ideas come more easily. In the words of Arild Andersen - 'Don't think: concentrate!'

Yeah, there's no option but to come to rest on the string below to some degree or other; that's simply correct technique. One possible contributing factor could be how effective your right hand technique is. If you use BG technique, IE all finger strength then the sound will be clacky etc. Are you using arm weight to produce notes and control the attack or is this maybe something to work on?

[quote name='ikay' timestamp='1454703414' post='2972322'] I'm experiencing problems with excessive noise/thump from my plucking finger coming to rest on the string below with an amplified DB. It's not too noticeable at low amplified volumes but at rehearsal this week I had to crank it a bit to keep up with the drums and the thump was very noticeable. Sounded very clunky and messy. I have an acoustic DB fitted with a bridge wing piezo (KK BassMax) and a Yamaha SLB-200 with an under bridge piezo. I get the same problem with both basses. At higher amplified volumes everything in the playing area (strings/fingerboard/bridge) is very sensitive to the slightest knock or bump. I've played around with EQ on the amp (eg. cutting highs which helps a little bit) but the noise is a combination of clack and thump. Trying to EQ it out at both ends takes away definition and body and just leaves it sounding thin and anaemic. Is this a common problem with amplified DBs? Do you have to somehow adjust plucking technique to avoid coming to rest on the string below (awkward)? Would appreciate any advice or guidance on how to minimise this issue. Thanks [/quote] As someone else suggested, a preamp to ensure good impedance matching etc can usually help with the thin highs which accentuate finger noise. How do you eq your DB? That can have an impact on unwanted noise. Also, you mentioned the sound as being thin and lacking body when you try and eq the noise out - where are you standing in relation to your amp when you perceive this?

Wow! Thanks for that :-) Never heard that one before. Miles was a bad cat indeed! I'd just looked at the melodic minor harmony and key changes and figured it was definitely in Bill's ballpark, especially as he liked to play it. I wonder if Chuck Wayne's estate have ever raised any claim about it. Shame if they haven't.

[quote name='JuliusGroove' timestamp='1454508890' post='2970338'] Hi guys, Currently studying a lot of jazz and as part of it have been doing harmonic analysis' of standards. I'm currently breaking apart 'Solar' a really nice Miles Davis tune, if you haven't heard it i'll leave a link below. I've gone through the tune and worked out it's based on a major blues, which uses parallel minors to incorporate descending ii-v-i's like in 'How High The Moon'. Then in the final bar, the switch from Dbmaj7 to Dmin7b5 is smooth as it's effectively just moving the root up a semitone, followed by a G7b9 to resolve back to the beginning of the progression. Here in lies my question.. I've seen a couple of charts (including my real book) which puts the first chord as a standard C-. However in IrealPro and many articles online about the piece, the first chord is a CminMaj7. Is it just left as C- in the realbook with no 7th suggested so that the maj7 is an option for chordal instruments/walking lines? There is a B natural in the melody line in that bar which would obviously clash if there were a flattened 7th in the chord. Because of the G7b9 in the last bar, it gives option to Harmonic Minor use for solos, so that would explain the choice of a minor ii-V to finish the progression on. I realise I may have slightly rambled and possibly answered my own question. Was just wondering if anybody had clearer information to give on this matter, and whether there is a reason for the MinMaj7 chord, other than to accommodate for the natural 7 in the melody line. I hope somebody has answers or if you haven't looked at the tune, hopefully I've given you some interesting points to look at! Thanks guys Jack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QarhWvPQ610 [/quote] Ok, forget about Solar being a major blues with parallel minors or modal interchange. That's way off the mark. It's a MINOR blues spiced up with some key changes. Much simpler than you think. The first chord is unequivocally Cminmaj7 - look at the melody notes; there's a b natural and an a natural in there - C Melodic Minor. Also, as we're going to be moving away from "Blues" harmony, the minmaj7 is a tonic minor chord. What we have is: Iminmaj7 //// IIm7 V7 Imaj7 //// IIm7 V7 Imaj7 IIm7 V7 Imaj7 IIm7b5 V7 So, we start in Cmin and journey through Fmaj, Ebmaj and Dbmaj, before returning to Cmin. Where you're going wrong in your analysis is that you are misunderstanding the harmonic motion by relating the minor 7th chords to their preceding major chord; rather than them being the related IImin7 of the dominant chord. Remember, in Functional Harmony it's dominant chords that provide harmonic motion. So, to illustrate; you were thinking that the Dbma7 is moving to Dm7b5 and then there's a V7 back to Cmin. Yeah, the Dbma7 voice leads beautifully to the Dmin7b5 - but the harmonic motion is a II-V-I in Cmin. It's there because that's how Harmony works - not to give the option of using mixolydianb9b13 in solos. In any case, we're dealing with Melodic Minor harmony; so mixolydianb13 may prove a more obvious option. In fact, the melody over this last bar includes an e natural, meaning the melodic analysis would indicate the use of locrian nat2, which also derives from Mel minor. Hope this helps. It's easy to get tied up in knots with this stuff and end up confused. As a footnote, this is almost definitely a Bill Evans tune. Miles was famed for nicking compositions from his band members. As a rule of thumb, it seems that any "Miles" tune Bill recorded in his own right was actually written by him eg, Blue in Green, Nardis.

There's loads of string choices available. Some strings sound great on one bass and awful on another. Over the years I've tried spirocore in weich, medium and solo tuned eadg; laBella 7710 and 7720; Pirastro Obligato; gut; Velvet Garbo, Anima and Blue. Had experience playing on Silver Slaps; Super-Sensitive; Pirastro Jazzer; Superflexibles and probably others. Now I'm back on Spiro Weich with a Mittel S42 g. Tried that setup on another bass and it felt great - my bass likes it too. But...thing to bear in mind despite all these options: Ray Brown, Marc Johnson, Arild Andersen. Guys who are very different in terms of sound and tone - and all use(d) the same strings. My advice would be to put on a set of spirocores and get playing. They're great, versatile strings and are the reference point by which others are judged and compared.

I've used the stat-b for years now. It's an incredibly good pickup - but needs to be properly fitted or the sound is badly affected. Also, I've never had any issues with feedback at all. One of the bass mags ran a feature some years back where they scientifically tested pickups for the amount of fundamental vs overtone reproduction and the stat-b came out joint top if I recall, alongside the Barbara transducer bridge. Wilson K4 was close behind. I can't recommend the stat-b highly enough. What preamp comes with the one you're looking at?

[quote name='Nicko' timestamp='1453834830' post='2963290'] Damn, I'm more confused now than I was before. My simpleton take on modes has always been "it ain't the notes you play, its the notes you resolve to." Yes, the chords change, yes, the theory is is a bit confusing but ultimately use your ears. When someone mildly interested in music theory asks me about modes I tell then to check out something like Knights of Cydonia by Muse. It has a feel that you cant replicate with traditional majpr/minor harmony. For those that know a bit of theory they should all understand the difference between Am and C major. These are simply two modes of the same scale and share the same notes. [/quote] Yeah, target notes to resolve to, absolutely. These usually turn out to be chord tones. Don't know Muse's music; but a quick glance at the chords online reveals pretty obvious and explainable Harmony. I'll give it a listen when I've got time and see if the guys are just playing a straight Aeolian/Natural minor over all the chords, which should work fine on a rock vibe.

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1452590837' post='2951332'] From [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_(music)"]Wikipedia[/url] "[color=#252525][font=sans-serif]In [/font][/color][url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory"]music theory[/url][color=#252525][font=sans-serif], the dominant [/font][/color][url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(music)"]triad[/url][color=#252525][font=sans-serif] (3-note chord) is a major triad, symbolized by the [/font][/color][url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis"]Roman numeral[/url][color=#252525][font=sans-serif] V, if it is within the major diatonic scale (for example G-B-D in C major). It is, however, a minor triad, denoted v, [i]if it is within the minor diatonic scale (for example G-B[/i][/font][/color][i][color=#252525]♭[/color][/i][color=#252525][font=sans-serif][i]-D in C minor)[/i]. [/font][/color][color=#252525][font=sans-serif]"[/font][/color] [color=#252525][font=sans-serif]Admittedly modes are a bit a grey area.[/font][/color] [/quote] Yeah, sure; I probably didn't put that well. Obviously there's minor key harmony as well. To be honest, I'm not that interested in a lot of classical theory in terms of pointless nomenclature of scale degrees and varying names for the same interval etc. It just causes confusion; like the "dominant" related stuff. Best description of music theory I heard was from a Berklee professor: "Theory exists to explain what we hear."

[quote name='Romberg Bevel' timestamp='1452385512' post='2949578'] Can you cite any sources for this? I've never encountered this interpretation. Dominant always relates to the fifth degree. I understand that the term 'Dominant Seventh' has been borrowed to describe a chord of that type (and causes much confusion in the process), but is that now contracted to 'dominant' to mean the same thing? [/quote] At the risk of sounding flippant, my sources would be Western music since the time of Bach ;-) Primary Dominant resolution is V - I, but within a key there are also possible Secondary Dominants, Extended Dominants and Special Function Dominants (I7, IV7 and bVII7 which are often static or don't employ traditional dominant cyclic motion). Such is the strength of dominant harmonic motion. You're correct in that dominant 7th is usually contracted to dominant, yeah.

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1452334911' post='2948910'] Phrygian Dominant: Root, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, b7 Phrygian Arabic : Root, b2, 3, 4, 5, 6, b7 (some will know this as the 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor scale ) [/quote] It's actually Phrygian Dominant that's mode V Harmonic minor; also known as Phrygian Major (as it's Phrygian with a major 3rd) or Mixolydian b9b13. Phrygian Arabic is mode V of the Harmonic Major scale. There's also one called Spanish Phrygian (amongst other names), used extensively by Chick Corea. It's Phrygian with an added maj3rd: R, b2, b3,3, 4, 5, b6, b7. It's a belter!

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1452293989' post='2948732'] There obviously no disputing that[i] the dorian mode has a dominant 7th chord at the fourth [/i]but what you actually said was "[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]In the Dorian scale, [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]harmonic orthodoxy has the dominant chord at the fourth". Taken literally I contend that this statement is inaccurate and potentially confusing.[/font][/color] My understanding being ... [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][i]The dominant chord[/i] in a minor key (aolean mode) is the V chord while the [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]VII chord is merely[/font][/color][i] a dominant 7th chord - [/i]not quite the same thing. Similarly the IV in a dorian progression is [i]a dominant 7th chord[/i] but not [i]the dominant chord[/i]. And yes obviously were all trying to be helpful, even if my particular brand of "help" in this case is splitting semantic hairs [/quote] It's important to remember that the designation "Dominant" in reference to the 5th degree of the key only applies to the major key. It's strictly not transferable to other modes. In any case, Aeolian would not be the parent scale for a minor key. It doesn't contain a Tonic Minor chord. Harmonic Minor gives a min-maj7th chord, as does Melodic Minor which also gives a Minor 6th chord. In addition, Aeolian doesn't give a V chord which is dominant - the raised 7th enables this and gives Harmonic Minir it's name. When talking about harmony, the term dominant chord is used to describe any dominant 7th chord; regardless of position or function. iys easy to get hung up on chord V as being THE dominant because classical theory names the 5th degree of a major scale as "dominant" - but it's just known as chord V.

You misunderstand, Lefty. As a pro musician and teacher, I obviously understand about modes etc. What I'm urging people to shy away from is the rock/pop notion that music theory=modes; that they are where it's at and that because they are the same notes you can play Phrygian on a major chord and it's awesome. It's that musical junk that confuses people - and it's peddled by alleged experts in the field as well. As for shouting? I forgot that's what upper case implies on a forum - I'm kinda old-fashioned and intended it as emphasis. In practical terms, how many times have I used my knowledge of how modes work on a pop music gig/session/tune over the years? Probably none.

[quote name='72deluxe' timestamp='1452164381' post='2947097'] Thanks for the answers. "scales generally work over particular chords because they contain the notes of those chords within them." And does that relate to the construction of the V7 chord? Is that because it is made up of the notes of the mixolydian mode, as the fifth degree of a C major scale is G, so you construct the chord from the mixolydian mode (G (first), B (third), D (fifth), F(seventh))? You mention that you could use different scales over a progression (eg you mention an E7 chord). If the only notes that fit over a chord are the ones that are in the mode related to the chord or the notes in the chord, how can you break away from that and say that you can use different scales? How do you know what do use? Is it just by ear and hoping it works through trial and error? I get from this that you learn chords first and then the modes that fit over them, yes? tinyd, that was the question I have. Your two reasons make sense, particularly the first so thanks. [/quote] A dominant 7th chord is a dominant 7th chord. It's basic makeup/formula is the same wherever it occurs. It's not made from the Mixolydian mode - strictly speaking Functional Harmony is a harmonised major scale. If we're talking chord V7 in a particular key, then I understand where you're getting that from - but there are other dominant 7ths which often crop up in a key (depending on the style of music). In the key of C, it's not uncommon to find C7, F7, Bb7, D7, E7, A7, B7, Eb7, Db7 etc cropping up in Jazz or often in Bach as well. Without getting into what the usual Harmonic function of these chords is; hopefully it's obvious that they can't all be made from G Mixolydian. Ok, there's always options. To clarify: if you're playing a chord progression in a particular key, that will suggest certain chord scale choices. If you're playing over a static chord (like a jam on one chord) things are naturally more open. Take E7 for example: It's the V7 chord in the key of Amajor. Mixolydian will be the most obvious and "safest", consonant-sounding choice. There's also the dreaded "modal" relationship. Maybe it's E7 in the key of C and it moves to an Amin chord... This would make it V7/VI in terms of Harmony; meaning it's functioning as a Dominant of chord VI. We call this a Secondary Dominant. Play Emin to Amin on piano or guitar; then play E7 to Amin - that 7th chord really wants to go somewhere! That's why it works. Back to the E7 in the key of C...it only introduces one note (G#) from outside the key (notes of Cmajor). If you played E Mixolydian you'd introduce F# and C# as well. Change those notes to F natural and C natural and you have a different scale. Also, adding the 9th, 11th and 13th to the E7 (using notes from the key of C) gives you the same scale. E Phrygian Major or Mixolydian b9b13. It also happens to be the 5th mode of A Harmonic Minor - and that E7 was travelling to an Aminor chord. A nice wee mathematical tie-up and the most basic and consonant scale choice in context. Sorry if that all seems complex; but I'm trying to get the point across that you can't really separate scales from chords and harmonic context. There are always options over and above the obvious and primary choices - there's absolutely nothing stopping you from using E Altered or E Half/Whole Diminished over both of the above examples, depending on context. Going for it on a Jazz tune or hip Metal shred, maybe. On a nice wee Pop song, perhaps not so much! If we're essentially jamming on an E7 then there are loads of options: Mixolydian ("straight" or with b13 and b9 variants) Altered Half/Whole Diminished Bebop Dominant Blues Scale Another Bluesy one whose name(s) escapes me, but starting on C would be C, D, Eb, Enat, G, A Bb, C. Etc etc... In an ideal world the pianist or guitarist might be hip to what you're playing and react accordingly. The single most important piece of advice I could give you, or anyone else reading this thread is: FORGET ABOUT MODES!! There's so much incoherent, incorrect and confusing information out there peddled by folk who don't really understand Harmony and Scale relationships: or function to any significant degree within music which requires them to have all this stuff internalised and used intuitively rather than existing as "Theory". With so much bad info out there, it's safer to ignore modes altogether. To reiterate: FORGET ABOUT MODES!! They're a junk concept that have virtually no bearing on how music functions and are of almost no practical application. (This isn't strictly true, but with the amount of confusion and crap educational material out there about them, I think it's the safest option) Learn about chords. Learn about scales. Forget that modes even exist. Have I said that already...?

[quote name='72deluxe' timestamp='1452121032' post='2946814'] It is all coming together very slowly in my tiny brain, but you lost me there - what is my exercise here? I did dig out a PDF I downloaded ages ago ([url="http://gustavolopezsegura.com/Docs/Bass_Scales_And_Arpeggios.pdf"]http://gustavolopezs...d_Arpeggios.pdf[/url]) and this ties up with what Jay said above. On the D Dorian scale page (page 12), it shows Dm7 as the arpeggio, which could also be read as a chord, right? I get that the extended chord you mentioned has all of the same notes in it as the scale (but not necessarily in the same order). As an exercise I downloaded iReal Pro and put in a repeating C major chord and tried the modes over that (just D dorian and E phrygian so far) and they fit (obviously because they have the same notes) but putting a triad (or playing a chord constructed of the triads) of each mode over them still fits and sounds right. But I am a little stuck at understanding why Dm7 is used over D Dorian: is it because the triad of the (1st), 3rd and 5th notes from the D dorian scale have an extra 7th from the dorian scale added to make the full chord? You could get away with not playing the 7th too, correct? Also, IIm7 for Dorian (as listed at the top of the page in the PDF) and IIIm7 : what should I read that as in English? In my head I am breaking IIm7 down as "C major scale, but starting on the second note of the C major scale (the II bit) ..." but then get lost there. I hope these questions make sense! EDIT: I read up on Wikipedia's page on Harmony and see that a C7 chord is the first, third, fifth and flattened seventh, as it includes a Bb, which is the seventh note of the C major scale that has been flattened. If someone could explain the Dm7 above in relation to this, that'd help. If I play the Dm7 triad (F, A, C) it sounds major to me so I am not understanding the "m". [/quote] Ok, for starters, delete that PDF from your hard drive. It's misleading in the usual "modal confusion" kind of way and much of the information is just downright incorrect. It also shares a similar root to your own confusion with the issue - you' e got things back to front. You don't use a Dm7 chord over D Dorian: you can use D Dorian over a Dm7 chord. Chords/Harmony come first! Basic functional harmony from a harmonised major scale: Imaj7 IIm7 IIIm7 IVmaj7 V7 VIm7 VIIm7b5 (NOT DIMINISHED!!!!) The V7 chord is built on the 5th degree of the major scale. That's where the flattened 7th comes from. In Cmajor that would be G7. This kind of 7th chord is known as a dominant 7th - chord V7 moving to chord Imaj in a key is one of the most integral harmonic resolutions in Western music. It's really important to realise that chords and harmony come first and dictate or inform your choice of scale to fit them. I'm the above example of eg, G7 in the key of C, then that G7 would take the Mixolydian scale as a primary option (which is also the mode built from chord V's root)... HOWEVER....that doesn't mean for all dominant 7th chords we just play mixolydian - a common misnomer and one put forward by the PDF you shared. It depends on the harmonic context and function of the chord in question. That's a whole different topic. In essence, scales generally work over particular chords because they contain the notes of those chords within them. Sometimes they are also the 7th chord plus upper extensions (as detailed previously). If you're playing jazz etc, then the harmonic progression will guide your choices: if you're jamming over an E7 chord; different possible scale choices are really just ways of decorating the chord tones. In terms of the triad you were playing on the Dm7; you were playing F, A, C - an Fmajor triad. So yeah! Sounds major. Over the D root it spells out the rest of the chord so sounds fine in context.

The most important and fundamental issue when thinking about modes is to realise that they are ONLY modes in 2 specific situations: 1) when we're dealing with where a scale/mode comes from, eg D Dorian. It's a scale in its own right, but we could talk of it as being the 2nd mode of the major scale. This is useful for fingerboard knowledge or practising and learning scales - but it is VITAL to learn and regard each scale as a distinct entity rather than eg, C major starting on D. 2) when we're playing Modal music. So What would be a good example of this (and it's also Dorian). Modal music doesn't have a chord progression or harmonic structure as such; it's based around the characteristics of the mode in question. The real deal is to learn the individual scales in their own right and where to use them. This is where chords and harmony come in. In fact, the term "chord scales" is widely used - as a scale is simply an extended chord expressed differently. To explain, let's consider that mode V of harmonic minor (Deep Purple liked that one). We're in A minor, so chord V is E7 If we extend that chord by adding the 9th, 11th and 13th from within the key we get the b9 (F), 11th (A) and b13th (C). Notes of the full chord of E7b9b13 = EG#BDFAC Notes of scale = EFG#ABCD Going back to D Dorian: it's usually played over a minor7th chord - DFAC. 9th, 11th and 13th are EGC...put those notes together as a scale instead of stacked like a chord and we have D Dorian. So when it comes down to it - if the music you're playing doesn't have any maj7#11 chords in it; then the Lydian scale probably isn't really something to worry about. It's vital not to fall into the common (and widely promulgated) trap of thinking "it's all the same notes so I can play any of the major modes I want". It just sounds like disconnected noodling - although, to be fair, it's a logical conclusion to draw when you first start learning about this stuff. I certainly did. In conclusion, some of what I've said might be confusing or tricky to understand depending on your theory chops, which is fine. To put it simply - DON'T learn modes. Chances are it'll lead you up the garden path. Been there! Learn what scales work with what chords and go from there. Sure, some/many of these scales will turn out to be modes of a parent scale - but that has no bearing on how you actually play or apply them in most musical situations.

I regularly use a Milton solution to clean the strings thoroughly. After that, it gets used on the fingerboard. does a great job on the strings and it's amazing just how much gunk there is on the fingerboard even if you're (like me) pretty religious about wiping down with a cloth after gigs etc. I swear the sound is actually clearer after cleaning the 'board as well. The Milton does a similarly nice job of cleaning the neck too. AND... Makes the bass safe for a baby to chew on, I guess...

Few things to consider. Sounds like you could do with a new fingerboard to get your bass playing as it could. It happens with older instruments that have been planed over the years. It may focus the sound a bit more and add some sustain to the bass as well. In terms of hammering away with a heavy right hand and a beefy setup...that will make ANY bass clam up. Guys like Ray Brown and Rufus Reid have a lot to say on that topic. As I've said before; string height mostly affects volume. In terms of sounding "pickupy" , do you mean that the acoustic sound of the bass has more mwah/sustain so sounds a bit "electric" to some ears? There's no issue at all with a lower action not making the bass speak or vibrate correctly - you're way wide of the mark there - it's just a lower acoustic volume. In terms of more amp volume being needed to support the acoustic sound; that's only going to apply in a tiny room with a small acoustic ensemble. In most rooms/gig settings, if you're amplified; you're amplified. In most venues the idea that the bass on its own will cut through drums, sax, piano/gtr with little amp input to support is wishful thinking. I remember reading something by a US bass luthier who'd seen the Mingus sextet pre-pickup/amp days. He said Mingus sounded great on intros - but as soon as the band started he was as inaudible as any other bassist back then... Interestingly enough I hired out my bass to a visiting US bassist who moaned like hell about my action and insisted he couldn't play without raising it. I allowed him to mess with the setup. On the gig, he played with a really heavy right hand - every note as hard as he could. The end result of that "acoustic" approach? He still had to use an amp (piano, drums and sax in a medium room) AND had to vary the amp volume from tune to tune depending on the vibe because he had no control of his sound. My bass sounded like sh@t for about a week after that gig! My advice to anyone is to experiment. Get the string tension right for your preference and your bass and get the action as low as is comfortable for your playing style and sonic preference. The bass should be as user-friendly as possible. At the end of the day, we need to amplified in many/most situations and there's good quality pickups, mics and amps/speakers out there to facilitate that: worrying about the actual acoustic volume of the instrument is ultimately unhelpful unless you're going to commit to playing acoustically 100% of the time.

Yeah, great album! Such a tragedy about his health and retirement from playing :-( Colours of Chloe is a regular on my band's set list.

If your bass has a high action and corresponding higher tension, it can be difficult to play dynamically, as you may need a certain amount of pressure in the RH to make the bass speak. With a more manageable action, you can play with far less RH input and still make the bass speak fully. Also, it's possible to lighten your RH touch as the tempo increases to a far greater degree. My advice would be to lower your action and practice faster tempos with RH being your main focus. Don't go straight for a higher tempo, or else you'll likely play too hard and tire. Practice 300bpm by playing at 150, then doubling the tempo and focussing on lightening your touch. Going between the two helps cement the physical feeling of lightening your RH attack as the tempo increases. Hope this helps ;-)