risingson

[quote name='tedgilley' post='1021288' date='Nov 12 2010, 12:34 PM']Both Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper kicked off a new kind of awareness or appreciation of pop music while at the same time costing both groups many fans. Lots of people dropped the Beach Boys as faves once the surfing was over. It isn't just the quality of the music, or the skill, or what have you, that makes those albums great, it's the fact that, when they were made, the writers basically didn't give a sh*t what the public thought or wanted.[/quote] Err I'm not sure you could ever say that Brian Wilson or Lennon/McCartney 'didn't give a sh*t' about their audience, the people that take that attitude to music are usually the people you never hear about ever again. It can be said that Lennon outwardly appeared this way but really he was just very clued up on how to be controversial. Don't don't be deceived though, he definitely wasn't stupid. At the same time, George Martin knew how to haul in the reins if he had to. Their attitude to writing and producing music was revolutionary but the song writing credentials were always there, they did care about what people thought.

[quote name='GT40Graham' post='1020397' date='Nov 11 2010, 05:03 PM']I think you have to put the Sgt.Pepper into perspective, when you consider what went before it in terms of albums and recording techniques, it was and still is an iconic album. Remember that it was done with 4-track tape recorders and is a landmark recording. It's now 43 years old so it's not surprising that today, it's not considered quite as awe-inspiring as it was then, things have moved on, it doesn't have quite the impact with younger generations that it has with some of us oldies. It's not my favourite Beatles album, I prefer Abbey Road and George Martin has said on numerous occasions that issuing Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane as a single and not including them on Sgt. Pepper was one of his biggest regrets/mistakes.[/quote] Absolutely. To be honest that makes it all the more impressive, the album itself just stands up as one of the most seminal and historically significant music of all time in basically every respect: songwriting, arrangement, engineering and production. It's very easy to say you don't like the Beatles, and of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is no denying the cultural and historical significance of something like Sgt. Peppers because it's just so, so good. [quote]Yeah, those damned Beatles are one of the reasons SMiLE got cancelled apparently. Although most of it was Mike Love doing what he does best - being a c*nt.[/quote] I can't imagine Brian Wilson was doing himself too many favours either at the time either, what with the gargantuan amount of drugs he was taking.

[quote name='Wil' post='1020361' date='Nov 11 2010, 04:36 PM']I said overrated, not bad. Is it so strange that I think the Beatles made better albums? Clearly it was an important album, but looking at it objectively, I wouldnt pick it over Revolver or Rubber Soul. Some great tracks, some mediocre ones. And they left off Strawberry Fields - insane...[/quote] I love the Beatles but Sgt. Pepper's isn't the first album I'd pick either. I prefer to listen to Abbey Road or Revolver. It's still an unbelievable album though, Brian Wilson more or less had a nervous breakdown when he first heard it because it was so good.

Pino Palladino (not his fretless playing) Paul McCartney Anthony Jackson Always changing though!

If I don't know the song I'll just listen to it a few times and play along. It never takes me too long to get to grips with the progression or the bass line providing it's not too instensive. However, I've been getting to grips with some Anthony Jackson bass lines on some old Chaka Khan tunes lately and that just takes a bit more patience learning. I never usually go note for note unless it's required (like Billie Jean for example).

There used to be a bass in my Uni, it had 4 single coils, had an Italian type name? It sounded bloody terrible. EDIT - could have been a DiPinto but I don't think it was.

[quote name='lojo' post='1017910' date='Nov 9 2010, 06:15 PM']And someone with a natural talent for acting who could not read could listen to a tape of hamlet and then recite it much better than me[/quote] You're not talking bollocks, in fact you've highlighted the key issue for here which is that if you're a toss musician then don't expect being a reader is going to make you any better. That fact really should be been cleared up the best part of 11 pages ago.

Bernard Edwards's style isn't exactly easily copped. People might think they can play Good Times like the record, but so many people lack the feel because Bernard Edwards was a stupidly good bassist who isn't easy to copy, simples. If you want to be a funk player, you either had to grow up in 70's Philadelphia or New York, and if you didn't, then you need to emerge yourself in listening to The Meters and Slave records for years at a time.

I think most jazz funk is pretty awful, minus a lot of Herbie Hancock and maybe a few others. I love playing playing funk, but the term itself is a buzzword amongst musicians and particularly bass players, most likely because most funk tunes have a prominent bass line and drum part. Realistically I find the fusion of jazz and funk most of the time pretty annoying. Just my 2p though.

[quote name='KevB' post='1016994' date='Nov 8 2010, 10:39 PM']I read somewhere that Harrison didn't like the bassline at all, too fussy, too many notes. I've always thought it a classic myself though.[/quote] They were never/rarely happy with each other's contributions, but hey... Harrison is definitely wrong, it's a great bass line.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1016935' date='Nov 8 2010, 09:22 PM']I met Pete exactly a week ago and I think his avatar has been photoshopped a little but its a reasonable representation! I still love the idea that if you can read you can play every style and tonal system from around the world live in front of thousands of people without making a mistake for the first time the dots are put in front of you. At what point do we class being able to read? Thats not me trying to stir it up I actually would like to know. If I could sit in with a large band and keep a tight root note performance from following the basic dots as it goes along it would sound OK does that count?[/quote] I think you'll know already before anyone has given you an answer that realistically you're never going to be stood up with a live rock band reading the dots off some crappy music stand. 1. it's not in fitting with a live band context and 2. the illusion of a degree of improvisation you would otherwise impart on an audience is lost. I don't think anyone is suggesting for one second that being able to read somehow gives you ability to keenly understand every last bit of music and if they are suggesting that then they're deluded. But let's be realistic: how well you read music is down to practice and experience in live, real life situations. There are a million and one musicians out there that get by on not reading music, and the list of credible ones is as big as the day is long. What I'm saying though is that if you want a thorough understanding of your role as a musician (not a bass player, a musician) then it is never a bad idea to have the ability to read and understand chords rhythms and dots. I don't think anyone's going to cry if you don't, it's your choice at the end of the day isn't it.

[quote name='skej21' post='1016896' date='Nov 8 2010, 08:43 PM']+1, this guy's timing is pretty poor actually.[/quote] +2 didn't watch the video on first glance. Not good.

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1016765' date='Nov 8 2010, 07:14 PM']... but I'm not sure about Sting being bigger than the Police.[/quote] If you're talking in assets then I think it's fair to say that that's definitely the case, also probably from a sales perspective too.

Also, I hate the word groove, it's bandied around too much to describe bass players and drummers often in a totally contrived way. But that's just me being massively cynical.

Unfortunately no one takes up guitar or bass with a view to learning the instrument like they would, say, a violin for example. Classical music dictates that you must learn to read from the word go. Conversely, most kids pick up a guitar at a young age because you want to play the rock music you love or look like Dave Grohl playing with the Foo Fighters or whatever so the ambition or 'seed' to learn theory is never planted in the head of that person. I did this exact thing, until I joined a big band when I was 16 or so and learnt to read and get by with chord charts. I then went on to study music at Uni, and am currently in a position where I play in my own band making my own music and have no read 'need' to put my reading skills to use. However, once you've learnt to read, those skills will be with you forever, it's like riding a bike. If I get the opportunity to take on a reading gig tomorrow for a bit of extra cash then I could take it. It's all about having as many strings to your bow as possible. The groove OR theory thing is stupid. I have an excellent ear and a good feel, and whilst this might a bit egotistical of me to say it's true, and I rely on most of the time to translate what I hear onto my bass. Theory is something I struggled with for a while but I've got a good grip of it nowadays and it compliments my good ear by allowing me to vocalise or write down what I hear in music, not just bass lines but melodies, rhythmic lines, alto, tenor parts, whatever if I wanted to. It never hurts to know more.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1015817' date='Nov 7 2010, 10:20 PM']Don't blame Pete Academy just because people have got their megaphones out.[/quote] I think the post was good natured but there's no way the question can be answered, it's not a case of one or the other. Put it this way Pete: you need both if ever you wanted to play professionally with Donald Fagan.

The term '7 string bass' sends a shiver up my spine but hey, maybe it's not for me to understand! Best of luck with the build.

[quote name='skej21' post='1015606' date='Nov 7 2010, 07:47 PM']Why is it theory VERSUS groove. Surely I'm not the only bassist on here that can do both, and at the same time? In fact, it's impossible to groove without theory and it's impossible to understand theory without being able to put it into practice.[/quote] Exactly. Some people seem to think it's an endless battle between the two. It's not.

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1015604' date='Nov 7 2010, 07:46 PM']Lock in with the drummer, and make sure the groove is there. The audience will love you.[/quote] Actually, most of the time the audience won't even notice you're doing anything different

If you don't have feel for music there is no point having theoretical knowledge as you'll never be an interesting musician to listen to.

I played St. George's hall recently in Liverpool which if you're not familiar with is more or less a massive cathedral inside. Very beautiful but our sound was entirely uncontrollable.

Gimme Shelter - Rolling Stones Optimistic - Radiohead Dayvan Cowboy - Boards of Canada Digital Love - Daft Punk King of Pain - The Police As - Stevie Wonder Rock With You - Michael Jackson Shell of Light - Burial Stay With You - Lemon Jelly Amo Bishop Roden - Boards of Canada

[quote name='JTUK' post='1014446' date='Nov 6 2010, 04:32 PM']I have to say....am pissing myself laughing here. same old, same old..[/quote] Tough. It's a forum, anything is up for discussion within reason. Don't like it then go and talk to someone else, I thought that would be obvious instead of making pointless remarks like the one above, greatest of respect intended. [quote]But you would be much better at math. You may not be the best but you can be much better. With enough study you could get to the point where the average person could not distinguish you from true genius. It would take someone with your new level of skill to make the distinction.[/quote] Not really. There are classical players I know that have played for the sake of playing, their upbringing and level of education requires them to learn an instrument to a high standard. One violinist I knew was technically very proficient from a young age, but the soul and passion in her playing wasn't evident, and that can't be dressed up in any level of expertise. You need to love what you do, not be coerced into it by a pushy parent or teacher. A robotic and stiff performance will most certainly be apparent in a live situation.

[quote name='silddx' post='1014248' date='Nov 6 2010, 01:33 PM']I think you're right for the most part. The fact is, if you have a crap ear, or can't THINK music, no amount of theory or reading is going to elevate you from being a machine operator. Just like knowing all that theory won't make you into a great songwriter. It's really all about whether you have an aptitude for making music, a kind of instinct and desire. The rest is all augmentation and helping make you the most EFFICIENT and PROFESSIONAL musician you can be. Therefore, knowing theory and being able to read notation can NEVER be a negative.[/quote] It's like maths. I'm sh*t at it, but should I read up on it, practice it daily and perfect the way I read and write it, would I be good at it? I'd know about it and be able to bore you to death talking about it and I'd probably have a good understanding of it, but I'll never be a mathematician. There is a school of thought that contests that we are all born with the same aural abilities; our development in infancy and how we choose to use our ears during the early stages of our lives dictates whether or not we can harbour the ability to be good musicians should we choose to be. I believe this to be true, there are people I know who will never be good at music no matter how much they enjoy it. I think that theory is only the result of the human ability to create music in the first place, of course that's true, but in the same way we consider in this day and age literacy to be of the utmost importance to the development of an educated individual, so it stands to reason that maybe the same applies to musicians. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all; in fact I would wager that most of my favourite bands do not have good theoretical knowledge. What I will say is that it can't hurt to know more.

[quote name='silddx' post='1014186' date='Nov 6 2010, 12:45 PM']Yes but come on guys! This is pretty basic stuff. I know what things sound like and can sometimes put names to them, it's not rocket salad is it, for someone who's played that long. Can you tell the sound of a minor scale from a major? Most musicians can. BUT, if Wakeman said "Chris! Would an A[i]b[/i] Diminished scale work over a D Minor chord sequence modulating into E Major?" would he be able to answer? That's the sort of thing I mean by THEORY. Not, knowing the sound of a whole tone scale, most of us could probably sing that couldn't we?[/quote] I think if you have to think that hard about music whether you're theoretically competent or not then you're going about music the wrong way. Nothing should have to be hard when you play your given instrument, the short and tall of it is that knowing your theory means that you're less likely to hit a wall in your playing where you're struggling to understand what to do next. This doesn't necessarily mean that you require 4 years of formal training and a doctorate in music, it really is just common sense. For example, knowing how harmony works and what makes up chords, knowing rhythm and knowing how to transcribe stuff by ear is going to further you as a musician whether you choose to use these skills or not (quite frankly it is inevitable that you will as a bass player). I don't know much about Chris Squire other than the fact he was (is?) Yes's bass player but he seems like a good musician. Would he be a better player if he knew his theory? Maybe. Would be be a more competent musician? Undoubtedly. All I know is that people some musicians writhe when they hear theory being discussed because they naturally assume it's all about sitting down in front of a page of dots... that's not what theory is about, it's about knowing what your doing in any given situation. If you choose to use theory minus any sort of dispassionate approach to music e.g. start reharmonising things that don't need reharmonising and messing with the head of the keyboard player and guitarist, then that's indicative of poor musicianship. Simple. Bottom line is it never hurts to know what you're doing.