risingson

Yeh saw this guy playing a while ago... pretty damn good!

[quote name='ezbass' post='954869' date='Sep 13 2010, 03:05 PM']That's no defense as they're both TV programs that happen to have live music. Their primary audience are people in their lounges in front of the box so the sound should be tailored accordingly. The sound at the recent Jamie Cullum RAH proms gig was brilliantly mixed, proving that it can be done. As to hiring any old idiots, I've worked at both TV centre and Broadcasting house and the quality of some of the staff is staggering and not in a good way.[/quote] Yeh okay so I'd probably point the finger at whoever was in charge of broadcasting the live sound. I agree that the likes of Jools Holland's Later show is poorly done, but I know a few people for examle who were at Stevie Wonder's gig in Hyde park a month ago who said the sound was excellent live, then watching it back on TV later the sound was dire and in no way an accurate representation of sound quality on the day.

[quote name='ezbass' post='954592' date='Sep 13 2010, 12:15 PM']+1 Tonight With Jonathon Ross always had the crappiest mixes, Later is often another victim of a deaf sound guy.[/quote] In both these show's defense I do think the live sound isn't translated as well through television, which is probably the case most of the time. The BBC aren't just going to hire any old idiots to do live engineering after all.

Jerry Meehan is a great player, heard him on an Omar album a while back and he's damn funky. Used to be Chris Sharrock on kit who's a local guy, but he moved on to Oasis (Noel Gallagher apparently saw an opportunity to piss both his brother Liam off by hiring a Robbie Williams band member, and then piss Robbie off by stealing his drummer... hilarious move ). Yolanda Charles will always remain my favourite RW bassist though.

Yeh I'd get it if I had the money to keep it going. I love Fenders.

[quote name='Protium' post='953159' date='Sep 11 2010, 09:13 PM']Or just use the volume control on the bass...[/quote] I don't get the sort of tone I require from my two basses without maximum level both in a recording and live setting and the output of both basses varies greatly, so I don't reckon it's as straight forward as using the volume on the bass IMO.

It's a personal thing, but have a look at Nordstrand NJ5S's, the split coil will cancel the hum.

[quote name='chris_b' post='951882' date='Sep 10 2010, 02:55 PM']I only posted that because you seemed to be having a Melvin Bragg moment!![/quote] Ha, the old Manchester/Hacienda music scene is really interesting to me and often gets overlooked as important hence the answer. [quote]i dont think you need to be "up there" to be a good player...you just have to like it...[/quote] That was my point really. Noticed from other posts you're a big fan of a lot of funk and groove stuff so maybe it might not be up your street, but hey, worth listening anyway isn't it!

[quote name='chris_b' post='951873' date='Sep 10 2010, 02:43 PM']Does that mean no?[/quote] It means that it's up to you whether you like him or not, doesn't it. He's never going to be up there with the technical greats of his time but it shouldn't detract from the fact he was an important figure in Manchester back in the day.

[quote name='bubinga5' post='951861' date='Sep 10 2010, 02:35 PM']ive never heard Peter Hook play...is he any good??[/quote] He's a very different bass player who revels in playing in more of a baritone guitar range. Some people hate it, some love it. As far as I'm concerned he's an innovator of post-punk and dance music who was part of a very important time of popular music history.

[quote name='urb' post='951770' date='Sep 10 2010, 01:09 PM']Awesome bloke - awesome musician - end of.... The thing I like most about him is his willingness to fail in order to try new things out and really push himself all the time - it's the imperfections that make compelling art - even though I know he strives for ridiculously high standards in everything he does. And the other thing I like is that I don't like all of his music - meaning he remains challenging and not happy to be predictable in any way. I'll be getting the new album regardless...[/quote] +1. The guy has got some brilliant ideas, and happily he fits into the kind of music that I find very interesting to listen to.

[quote name='51m0n' post='951852' date='Sep 10 2010, 02:27 PM']I think we agree completely... Personally I dont think there is room in any song for cruft, and 7 minute long improvised or not solos on any instrument (unless on the bathtub, a most underrated musical intrument I am told) are likely to be cruft! Stick to the point, and keep it interesting. I love Nigel's more 'pointed' posts, they make you rethink what and why you do things. It would unfathomly boring around here if we all agreed![/quote] The premise of these arguments is why I enjoy this forum. Sure it's an argument that's been brought up before but who cares, it's interesting as musicians to talk about it! Not exactly going to have a spirited discussion with my Gran on the merits of improvisation on a bass guitar am I??

The world would probably implode.

[quote name='51m0n' post='951640' date='Sep 10 2010, 11:17 AM']I refer you back to the OP :- So in the original post it is clear that improvising is (for the sake of this discussion) anything beyond changing the odd note in a song. Doing this live is to cheat the audience. When I play I like to be in a position live (with any of thebands I've been in) that for the majority of songs I may have up to 5 or 6 directions or 'gears' I can take any part of any song, where it will work. This is preparing to improvise live IMO. It takes a lot of time to get there, both in personal practice and to a certain extent in reheasals.Then live I can go in any of those directions, mix and match them as I feel, add in new cool bits as the moment takes me. All the preparation makes any new bits far more likely to successful. What I dont do is play the song according to a rigorously defined bassline at all, but I still minimise the chance of really cocking up. Clearly if the song calls for a unison line then thats what will get played (although sometimes dropping out some or all of the bassline in a unison part can make the song better too), other than that I like the world to be my oyster. Its particularly helpful in the blues band, where although the songs are covers the interpretation is very much as the singer feels it. The structure of the songs is different every time, the dynamics are different, the interplay between the players is what makes the whole thing enjoyable, playing the same stock blues pattern would bore me, playing the songs different every time (at least to some extent) makes it far more interesting. No it doesnt always work, but we've never ever had a complaint! The upside of all this is that if anything does go wrong the band are all better at getting through it. Which is reason enough to work like that anyway. I should point out that I have been in bands where every single note was composed for every single song on every single instrument. It was some pretty complex stuff. The audience appreciated it significantly less than the stuff I have played with more room to improvise. Probably because the material was more challenging to listen to than to play (and it was damned hard to play!), where as the other stuff has been far easier to listen to.[/quote] Ahh to me it's just another one of those arguments, I do think the original question was too vague and too much is open to interpretation, so I probably jumped the gun a little. For what it's worth I actually agree with you on all points, the reason good players like session guys for example are hired to play someone else's music is always on their ability to add their subtleties to an existing bass line without overpowering the original record, and in that sense then yeh improvisation is integral to you being a good bass player. As far as improvisation in a soloing sense... sure it has it's place, but it's just not my thing, and as a result I'm inclined to agree that I'd prefer not to hear it. Still though, there's no detracting from someone like Victor Wooten for example, his musicality and ability to throw licks at you at breakneck speed without boring the audience to tears. As far as I'm concerned it's all about his delivery of ideas that is impressive, not how fast he can play. [quote]Naverending arguments on Basschat - Completely Pointless.[/quote] Disagree... why are we all here? To have a natter about crochet patterns and how the price of butter has gone up? If everyone agreed with everyone then the world would be a pretty dull place to live in don't ya think!

[quote name='chris_b' post='951674' date='Sep 10 2010, 11:38 AM']The guy's plainly overplaying. All those "extra" notes don't really add anything. Listen to Paul Turner playing this number on the Live at Abbey Road session. Much nicer, cleaner playing. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZVNrC0QYA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZVNrC0QYA[/url][/quote] Yeh you just can't fault Paul as a player, he hits the nail on the head consistently with his playing.

Agreed it's overplaying, the notes are all there and nothings particularly 'wrong' about it but I think he's missed the point quite a bit considering the original bass line Nick Fyffe put down was a lot more grounded.

[quote name='51m0n' post='951241' date='Sep 9 2010, 10:55 PM']Nah I disagree with you there, loads of funk live the bassists are definitely improvising, a lot, even in some rock (Living Colour's Muzz Skillings said he never played a line the same twice for instance). The thing is improvisation is not all about fret w@nkery at all, and yet people hear the term improvise and assume it must be. Any time you express yourself whilst playing in a way that chanegs any part of the groove at all, you are in fact improvising. I doubt there are more than a handful of people on this forum who really can play a song the same twice in a row, I mean record it twice, put the two versions up and really analyse it, there will be differences, if we are so good at playing in the groove and all that,they should at least timing wise be almost identical. They wont be, its not possible. If you could then getting to be like that would have removed all passion and soulfrom that piece of music, which would render it cr@p. Supportive yes, repetition to the point of drudgery no.[/quote] that's a different kind of improvisation, more altering something really and if that what the original post was about then yes, I'd struggle to find a bass player I enjoyed that didn't do that. As far as I was aware I thought the OP was referring to solo playing, which has it's time and place. I'm really not stupid enough to believe a good player never does the same thing twice unless it's a very specific bassline and even then it is subject to alteration, just never at the expense of the original tune.

[quote name='51m0n' post='950998' date='Sep 9 2010, 07:57 PM']I think that how noticeable the bass is/should be is actually entirely genre dependant. If you are playing country, blue, rock (including a lot of metal), or most pop or easy listening type stuff then I agree the bass is almost purely supportive, and can be said to be at its best when it isnt really notices, if you play drum and bass, dub, funk, reggae then I'd say its much more of a forefront instrument. Improvising or not.[/quote] Agreed although the genres you stated I would say are even more reliant on a supportive bassist, the only difference to my ears is that producers have a tendency to mix and master the bass up front due to the nature of the type of music, so I guess they're more prone to being picked out if they make a mistake. A massive amount of 'easy listening' you mentioned about for lack of a better term usually has some session player wailing on a fretless in the background. My point being 95% of music relies on a supportive bass line to propel everything else forward. Improvisation on the instrument is fine but at at very specific moments and in very specific tunes. It's the horses for courses argument again but I'd much rather listen to Pino on a P-Bass with flatwounds thumping away in the background with Erykah Badu or John Mayer than hear any particular bass solo.

[quote name='Mykesbass' post='951077' date='Sep 9 2010, 08:50 PM']As per your other posts - Mods, please delete Sorry Neil, but this guy sums up to me all that is bad about overblown blues/rock - he even makes Gary Moore sound subtle!![/quote] +1. Good player obviously but a bit cheesy and to my ears nothing new really.

I don't like improvisation on bass that much at all, although I'll occasionally hear someone playing that will catch my ear. [quote]I read an article in BP magazine some time ago, where the player said that the groove you play has an hypnotic effect on the audience. I think this is true. To me, it's all about the groove, and the groove is what keeps the audience's attention. If you lose that, you're not doing your job. The song is the most important thing, regardless of what you play, and how much you improvise. The song is king. You have to make the singer and the song sound as good as possible.[/quote] I think a bass player should count himself pretty lucky if people come up to him/her at the end of the night and compliment them on the job they did, usually if you're a good player the only people that will have noticed what you've done will be the token musos in the crowd and the rest of your band. Bass players should be the ones in the band that literally support everyone else, like the bridge between rhythm and harmony, it's not something you notice if it goes right but one mistake and you know a mistake has been made.

They had Liam Gallagher singing for them at one stage. Would be interested in hearing it, mostly out of pure morbid curiosity.

[quote name='Lozz196' post='950058' date='Sep 8 2010, 11:02 PM']Could never understand why The Who (and countless others) felt the need to smash some great instruments. Even when I was younger, I thought it rather stupid and very un-cool. To me, its not about the money, its almost sacreligeous (hope I spelt that right, tho prob not) to smash a musical instrument. Am not fussed if my basses get dings, thats character & road-wear, but I`d never deliberately damage them.[/quote] It's auto-destruction, it's an art form in a loose sense... literally an expression of raw emotion culminating in giving your respective instrument the beating of a lifetime. Hendrix bankrupted himself at some stage doing it. He went through so many wah pedals just from standing on them and rocking back and forth.