EssentialTension

It was mid-1980s and I had hardly played for about two years. I got talking to a saxophonist. I said 'I used to be a musician.' He said 'Do you still have your instrument?' I said 'Yes.' He said 'Man, you're still a musician, you just ain't getting any better.'

2006 American Deluxe Precision - sold to Bass Chatter Bottlebassman:

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='1076135' date='Jan 3 2011, 11:14 AM']Tony Franklin (one of two I've owned): [/quote] Ah, very nice Michael, and now in my possession - or is that the other one you owned?

[quote name='lemmywinks' post='1092026' date='Jan 16 2011, 11:57 PM']I don't like the mini types that don't grip the neck, no good for heavy basses or ones that are have assymetrical bottoms.[/quote] I'd agree that a Jazz bass sits less securely than does a Precision bass on the Hercules 402B.

[quote name='ikay' post='1092705' date='Jan 17 2011, 04:32 PM']This lutherie article explains what's going on: Human Perception of String Tension and Compliance in Stringed Musical Instruments - [url="http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm"]http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm[/url][/quote] That's an excellent article as is [url="http://liutaiomottola.com/formulae/tension.htm"]http://liutaiomottola.com/formulae/tension.htm[/url] There are several threads on this and related topics already, for example: [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=81825&hl"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=81825&hl[/url] [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=64841&hl"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=64841&hl[/url] [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=30385&hl"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=30385&hl[/url]

[quote name='rOB' post='1091319' date='Jan 16 2011, 01:12 PM']I use one of [url="http://www.herculesstands.com/guitars/GS402B.html"]these[/url] Do the job, fold down nice and small.[/quote] I've got a couple of those and always found they work fine.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='1091134' date='Jan 16 2011, 10:06 AM']It sounds like you're holding the bass wrong. The "fix" you've employed is only going to cause additional problems down the line. Strap your bass on, and sit down with it sitting on your right leg. The headstock should be at shoulder level. Stand up... the bass should not move. The headstock should still be at shoulder level.[/quote] +1 on that method.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bass-Builders-Reggae-Ed-Friedland/dp/0793579945/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295172581&sr=8-1"]Ed Friedland [i]Reggae Bass[/i] (Bass Builders)[/url] ... ... and listen to loads and loads.

I've got a pre-Ernie Ball Music Man leather strap that I've had since 1981 and it's still going strong.

I'd agree that you need to sort out the length of your strap and the way the bass sits on your shoulder in order to improve your hand position. I think putting the strap button on the lower horn is going to make the position of the bass unstable and you're going to be holding it up.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1090212' date='Jan 15 2011, 10:32 AM']Nope - the Sutcliffe bass had the original Bakelite pickups. Here's mine: That one on eBay is from a year or so later, when they introduced the Toaster pickup. Close, but no cigar.[/quote] Very nice looker.

[quote name='Jean-Luc Pickguard' post='1089380' date='Jan 14 2011, 02:32 PM']obsessing over minute tonal variations which will be lost in the mix? No ta! I'd rather stick to a single split coil pickup and hold down the low end. But that's just me.[/quote] Yep, that's it.

I'd have preferred a single coil pickup and the original headstock myself, but at least they got the colour correct. Earlier thread on this [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=108675"]here[/url].

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' post='1089338' date='Jan 14 2011, 01:51 PM']Apologies for my ignorance, but who is Michael Henderson?[/quote] Wikipedia is your friend. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Henderson"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Henderson[/url]

Great film. Thanks. [url="http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaster-discussion-forum/255984-fender-factory-1959-a.html"]There's an interesting discussion of this film at the TDPRI.[/url] Some argument that the film must be earlier than 1959, possibly 1957, due to the appearance of a Jazzmaster prototype. And a claim that this: is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Tavares"]Freddie Tavares[/url] playing said Jazzmaster prototype.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='1088608' date='Jan 13 2011, 09:15 PM']Similar to my reaction, only mine was... messier. [/quote] It would go very nicely with the Tony Franklin.

Oh!

You're on a roll with these. Thanks very much.

[quote name='Skol303' post='1086861' date='Jan 12 2011, 04:15 PM']"Music is an art form whose medium is sound." ^ Wikipedia definition... so it must be true, right?? ;-)[/quote] That's it for John Cage's [i]4' 33"[/i] then. Or we could try 'Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence'.

[quote name='BassMunkee' post='1086714' date='Jan 12 2011, 02:02 PM']... You can bring out as many theories as you like but [b]it boils down to what you as an individual think and feel about it.[/b] ...[/quote] That seems to be merely another theory.

[quote name='Tech' post='1086340' date='Jan 12 2011, 05:00 AM']... I think the common factor for art is expression.[/quote] Expression of what? Does that lead to asking 'what is expression?' instead of 'what is art?'? Anyway, theory number 7: 7: [u]The Expressive Theory[/u]: art communicates something, usually feelings or emotions. Leo Tolstoy said: 'To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced and having evoked it once in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit this feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art.'

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086316' date='Jan 12 2011, 12:56 AM']Getting the sense of a very large iceberg here.....[/quote] That often happens when you dive below the surface.

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086285' date='Jan 12 2011, 12:17 AM']There must be a book on this topic out there somewhere ......[/quote] There are many many books on 'what is art?' and 'what is the value of art?'. Based on the the quality of his other introductory books [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Question-Nigel-Warburton/dp/0415174902/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_10"]Nigel Warburton [i]The Art Question[/i][/url] is likely to be a good starting point as is Cynthia Freeland [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Theory-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804634/ref=pd_sim_b_1"][i]Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction[/i][/url]. Anyway, here’s six standard theories of what art is, put very very briefly: 1: [u]The Imitative Theory[/u]: art is copying, imitating or representing - [i]mimesis[/i] is the technical term - and this includes symbolic representation. [Plato & Aristotle] 2: [u]The Significant Form Theory[/u]: genuine art produces an aesthetic response (an emotion) in the relevantly sensitised spectator, listener or reader; artworks can do this because they possess 'significant form' (whatever that is, but, it is claimed, the relatively sensitised spectator etc., can respond to 'significant form'). [Clive Bell] 3: [u]The Idealist Theory[/u]: art is an idea in the mind of the artist, and is not the artefact (or fabrication) produced as a response to the idea. [R.G. Collingwood] 4: [u]The Institutional Theory[/u]: art arises in a social context and is always located within relevant social practices which we can call the artworld such that x is art if and only if x is an artefact and if and only if someone, acting on behalf of an institution (i.e. the artworld), gives that artefact the status of being an object for artistic appreciation. In other words, art is such when someone with the social power and authority to call it art does so (e.g. an art dealer such Charles Saatchi). [Arthur Danto, George Dickie]. 5: [u]The Historical Theory[/u]: for something to be art, the intention of the maker (i.e. the artist) is the crucial factor. [I don't know, without looking it up, who developed this theory] 6: [u]The Family Resemblance Theory[/u]: what qualifies a thing as art it is that the thing resembles already known art-works in relevant ways. [Ludwig Wittgenstein] Aesthetics is not really my field but I believe those are roughly correct although heavily simplified representations of some standard positions on what constitutes art. Of course, they are all problematic and they don't deal with why or how we might value art. There is a Basschatter who teaches philosophy of art but I cannot recall his name. Perhaps he'll be popping along later.