EssentialTension

[quote name='MacDaddy' post='400599' date='Feb 5 2009, 01:05 AM']Duff Mckagan - G n R , Velvet Wotsit. According to an interview with Steve Adler in Classic Rock Magazine, before G n R were signed, and when they were both addicts, they were rent boys who used to do things to business men for $50 a pop. So to speak.[/quote] Call me pedantic, but does providing a service actually count as being gay?

[quote name='OldGit' post='395527' date='Jan 30 2009, 04:30 PM']Steve Swallow (allegedly)[/quote] Vibraphonist Gary Burton, who has often worked with Swallow, is gay not allegedly but actually out. Not that that can necessarily tell us anything about Swallow.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='395519' date='Jan 30 2009, 04:20 PM']Would anyone care to name a notable gay bass player? I've been racking my brain but I can't think of any![/quote] [url="http://www.andyfraser.com/andy.html"]Andy Fraser[/url], formerly of Free. [url="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stefan+olsdal"]Stefan Olsdal[/url] of Placebo. [url="http://www.nypost.com/seven/05192007/gossip/pagesix/gay_and_furtive_rock_n_roller_pagesix_.htm"]Chuck Panozzo[/url] of Styx. And, I'm sure, lots more. Maybe even some on BC.

Same string, same note, but longer scale length will give higher tension than same string, same note, shorter scale length.

[quote name='Jean-Luc Pickguard' post='399608' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:29 AM']I wouldn't use 'em even if they were free.[/quote] +1

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='398771' date='Feb 3 2009, 12:09 PM']Ive got Chromes on my Fender 2008 P5. I already had them on my Duck Dunn so only needed to get the B string when i swapped them over to the Fender. I find the B sounds fine although its not a matched set as the other four are med/light while the B is .135. Still, enough tension for me and i find the lower notes sound just as tight as my old Lakland 55-01.[/quote] hmmm... maybe it's me.

[quote name='Clive Thorne' post='398662' date='Feb 3 2009, 10:21 AM']Anyone out there play a contrabass recorder? Big buggers aren't they. Don't worry I've a brilliant solution that overcomes the size problem. My contrabass recorder is tuned 3 octaves up and because of that will fit in my shirt pocket. Don't worry - its still a contrabass, just tuned up a bit.[/quote] [quote name='Clive Thorne' post='398662' date='Feb 3 2009, 10:21 AM']But seriously, I have no problem with what the bloke is playing. I have no problem with what anyone wants to play. It's just a case of whether it should be called bass or not. To me 'Bass' doesn't say anything about the size of the instrument, or the technique used to play it. It does say a lot about the pitch range you'd expect to it cover however.[/quote] +1

I have a 4-string Precision at the moment tuned BEAD with Chromes. I like the Chromes but I'm not crazy about the B. Actually I'm not sure I like any B string. It sounds fine but not as solid as the other strings. I tend to like lower tension flats like Chromes and TI Jazz Flats. I think if I was going to be seriously/regularly playing a B string I'd be looking for something with more tension in it. Or just buy a 35"/36" scale instrument. Or just play EADG - which is what I usually do. Sorry not to be more helpful.

[quote name='martthebass' post='396390' date='Jan 31 2009, 08:12 PM']Certainly is. I was selling my Ray4 last year and dipped out when the price got 'silly', luckily I learned to love it again. Still, managed to get a good deal on a Ray5 to partner it so no wories.[/quote] And how is the Ray5?

You could dispense with a strap altogether: And I'd say that's about as low as you can get a bass and still play it.

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' post='397712' date='Feb 2 2009, 11:47 AM']Too Gibson for me too[/quote] I quite liked it but not over $6000 of like.

Have you seen this custom shop Tele bass: The sale thread was [url="http://cgi.ebay.com/Fender-Masterbuilt-Telecaster-Bass-Guitar-NOS-Red-NEW_W0QQitemZ370125232716QQcmdZViewItemQQptZGuitar?hash=item370125232716&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50"]here[/url].

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='397479' date='Feb 2 2009, 02:25 AM']I think you’ve got a non argument there – you’re effectively saying that if he had a 7/8/9/whatever string bass with the highest 4 strings tuned to his piccolo tuning and the rest tuned a lot lower, then that would be ok and he would be considered by you to be playing a “Bass” even if he didn’t use the lower strings but because the range potential is there it’s a “Bass”? Doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I see what you’re saying about the literal meaning of a “Bass” Guitar, but I don’t think you’re argument works. Maybe he’s invented the “Alto Bass Guitar”? or even the “Soprano Bass Guitar”? – I’m not sure what sort of range he’s covering.[/quote] Well I agree it is not an argument really, more just a description of what goes on in musical terminology. If you put enough strings on it - 7/8/9 or even 88 - and then instead of plucking them use keys to hit them with a hammer it's called a piano and it can do bass register and other registers across ... er... is it seven octaves? So if what you say about me is true, I must think piano is a 'bass' too. I don't think that but I do think the piano can play in the bass register. An extended range instrument may well be able to play across a wide range of registers. None of that stops 'bass' being a reference to the range of register covered by an instrument or voice. 'Guitar' like 'saxophone' refers to the style of instrument, e.g. 'bass guitar', 'baritone saxophone', etc. With 'ordinary guitar' we don't usually bother to name its register which at nearly four octaves is quite wide, like the piano. Sometimes one hears of sopranino guitar (octave + fifth higher?); soprano guitar (octave higher?); alto guitar (fifth higher?); I think that makes the ordinary guitar a tenor guitar (although that term is also used for a four string instrument tuned, I think, CGDA). I'd accept that the term piccolo bass is in common use use to describe a standard bass guitar (or double bass) tuned an octave (or at least a fifth) higher than usual - which I guess is what the guy in the OP is doing. And good luck to him. But like I said, people can and will call it what they like.

TI Jazz Flats on mine - no extra tension there. Sounds good to me but I only really use it for practicing, working things out, and noodling

[quote name='Born 2B Mild' post='395402' date='Jan 30 2009, 01:57 PM']I have found myself hunching over the neck to see the finger board better.[/quote] At times I have suffered from this. I try to avoid it by only looking at the dot markers on the top edge of the neck and not the fingerboard - but habit can be a terrible thing.

[quote name='andy.' post='397088' date='Feb 1 2009, 06:33 PM']I was in a guitar shop a few days ago and I got the chance to play a skyline version of the bass. It was really great im all ways and im thinking of buying it. I was wondering if anyone has played the US model? I have read what the differences are but im wondering if there is anything about the US model that makes it a lot batter than the skyline version. Has anyone got any thoughts?[/quote] I've never played a US model but for me - given the quality of the Skylines, especially now they are Plekked too - the US model would have to be a great deal better to warrant paying well over double the price. However, if you were picking up a US model second-hand, they are sometimes not far above the price of a new Skyline. Then it might be warranted, especially if it had some bonus characteristic like custom colour or pickup arrangement that appealed. So how much do you want to spend on one bass?

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='394838' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:26 PM']What are the chances of finding a 1983 one with the exact date?[/quote] Better than the chances of finding (and paying for) a 1952.

Bilbo, I think you just need to find a local college or school that is willing to take you as an external candidate and act as your examination centre - they don't have to do this but they can and (I think) may charge you. If you phone the relevant examination board, they should be able to tell you which centres near you would provide such a service. I work in a Sixth Form College and we regularly have the odd (in more ways than one) external candidate. The point really is that it must be an accredited examination centre. Good luck.

[quote name='Shockwave' post='394829' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:17 PM']Hes a bass player alright. I mean if a guitarist were to play a 7 string and downtune alot, he would still be known as a guitarist. If a guitarist tuned up to play some slide or weird tuning, he would still be called a guitarist. So if a bass player decides he wants to tune up with some light gauge strings, Why is he not a bass player? John Enwhistle and Jack Bruce have played Fender VI's which are far more guitar like to look at then that mans Zon. Would you dream of calling them non bass players?[/quote] No Luddism here but I'd say Fender VI is a bass guitar because of the range of its tuning just like my Precision is a bass guitar because of its tuning. What makes something 'bass' is not what you play on it or how you play it or its scale length or how it looks but the range of its tuning. If your 7-string guitarist tunes down enough then he's bass guitar player. That's why tuning up to, say, A or B is then called baritone and not bass and why some people use contrabass for an instrument tuned right down to B or F# or even lower. Mind you, people can and will do whatever they want and call it what they want, I'm not bothered. However, if the advert asked for a bass player you may well not get the gig if you're not playing in the bass register. [quote name='Shockwave' post='394829' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:17 PM']Heres one thing i have learnt in listening to viewing clips of bass players. Never pigeonhole their playing style with clips you have seen online, Chances are they can play many other different styles, Traditional and progressive if you actually meet them in real life. But they choose to put what they want to put online. I have no doubt this guy can tear it up on a "normal" strung bass. Another example i have seen "Such and such bass player Suuuuuxxxxx" This was a comment made about Ian Hill of Judas priest. Just because he bangs on root notes alot does not make him a bad player, Hes playing to the song and to the genre he likes. However he is definitely not a bad technical bass player as showcased in Judas Preists early stuff. Plus he could probably outplay most of us in a solo setting without a band. I would NEVER ever judge a player by their released material. I would only judge a player if i have seen them in real life in a relaxed session to see what they can really do.[/quote] +1 on this bit. What the guy in the OP did sounded good and anyway tells you nothing about what else he can do.

Well done Bilbo. I'll be buying that .... if you ever manage to finish it. Best of luck with it.

[quote name='Delberthot' post='395162' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:56 AM']ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[/quote] Hey ... wake up at the back.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Erm there just isn't. You agree that yourself, no?[/quote] Andy, I agree that there is no universally [i]accepted[/i] standard. I do not agree that it's necessarily clear that there [i]could not[/i] be an absolute standard which remains not universally accepted. However, what I think is most likely is that there are, in fact, several possible standards for what can be art. But I don't agree that one of those possible standards can be that something does become art or even can become art merely because any [i]one[/i] person says it is art - except in a particular sense and in a particular case: if a group of people, let's call them 'the artists/art critics/art galleries/art dealers/art buyers group', between themselves agree to institutionalise the production, critique, exhibiting, selling, buying, and collecting, etc., of works of art (which in fact they do) then, at least in practice, those works are art because the individuals involved have the social power to name what is to count as art in ways in which not everybody does. This is a kind of institutional theory of art. There could be at least several other [i]possible[/i] standards of what is to count as art, for example: imitation or represention; certain formal qualities; a family resemblance with objects already considered to be art; the expression of emotion or truth or beauty; etc. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Find a single piece of evidence which suggests there is [b]any[/b] sort of a standard for what *isn't* art and I will capitulate. (however, I have to add some kind of caveat here which suggests either "universally accepted", or at least "widely recognised" standard, or it will just come down to a single opinion, which just sidesteps the very point I was tying to make. See my "lights on" example later.)[/quote] Any standard for what is [i]not [/i]art must logically also be a standard for what is art by [i]inclusion of what is not art[/i] and [i]exclusion of what is art[/i]. Similarly, any standard for what is art must logically also be a standard for what is not art by [i]inclusion of what is art[/i] and [i]exclusion of what is not art[/i]. Such a standard, either way, must draw a line between what is and what is not art which is exactly what your claim that if 'someone says it's art then it is art', I think, fails to do. I would say this is a matter of the logic of setting up a standard and distinguishing between one thing and another. A standard must be able to distinguish between what is within the standard [i]and[/i] what is not within the standard. As such, it has nothing to do with any particular evidence. Nonetheless, as you asked, I will give an example of a 'sort of standard for what *isn't* art': anything the art institutions named above reject as not art (and also as art but as bad art) has been subjected to their standards of what is and isn't art etc. And I'd submit that this would count as a 'widely recognised' standard for what is and what isn't art. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']The line "you can't establish that there isn't, merely by saying that not everyone accepts it" just misrepresents the statement I was making. I'm saying that there isn't a "universally accepted standard". It's a single sentence which says there isn't a 'universal standard' for people to agree or disagree with. I think thats just being pedantic about the way I wrote the point rather than actually forwarding your argument.[/quote] Saying, on the one hand, that there isn't a 'universally accepted standard' and saying, on the other hand, that there isn't a 'universal standard for people to agree or disagree with' are not the same thing. I don't think it is pedantry, I think they really mean different things. However, originally I had no intention to get into a discussion on the philosophy of art but merely intended what I thought was a humorous but friendly jest at your first post - hence the line about being a t****r. So, as this is a bass players site and not a philosophy of art site I am going to get out of this thread very soon. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Hmmmm I can see why you think I'm confused, but I'm really not. I possibly see it differently to you, you see. The way I see it is: Individuals DO decide if something *IS* art. But individuals (and even majorities) CAN'T decide something *ISN'T* art. To help explain this ask everyone in the world that has a lightswitch "Is a light on?" the answer, unless EVERYONE has their lights off is "Yes" The people with off lights don't get to decide. And I see it the same for art: "Is this object art?" If most people disagree, but just a few say "yeah, I think it's art" then who are the others to disagree. The others simply don't like the thing which some people consider art, and their opinions cant really change it.[/quote] Well, I guess you do see it differently to me but, really, I'm not trying to say how I see it so much as to establish what actually is the logic of the situation. I'm not clear how the lights analogy works because there is an easily understood and probably universally accepted standard for whether a light is on or not. I still cannot grasp why you think an individual can decide something is art but no-one can decide that it isn't art. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']no I'm not. You just misrepresented my statement again. I have nothing to do with it. My light can be on or off. I'm just a lightswitch owner. I can make a thing art, as can you. A dictator would be someone who has the ability to turn his light off and everyone elses lights go off. And that's the reason I argue this point. I argue it for you, and I argue it for me. And even though no one else get it, and probably disagree with me, I STILL defend your right to use your switches as you wish, but DON'T SAY THE LIGHT IS OFF just because yours is off.[/quote] You said 'who reckons they're the king or nazi dictator, that has the right to decide what is art?' but your claim appears to be that if just one person says it is art then it is art whether I (or any other person) says it is not art; so that first person is now deciding what is to count as art for all the rest of us, dictating to us. Now, my complaint here is not that the dictation is taking place, as such, but that your position entails dictation but you don't see it. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Yes I realise this, which is why I wanted to head off the possibility of anyone still reading this, of suggesting daft examples, which my theory makes possible. I UNDERSTAND the unfortunate downside of my argument because it allows for silly examples of what can be called art, like pickled sharks and half cows... (except they ARE art) But please don't burn me alive for the "one person makes it art" standpoint. It's a theoretical minimum. 0 people = no light = not art. Anything above this leads to the "light on" response. And while it's hard to defend, I have to stand by it to be true to my argument. Call it a 'quantum defense of a statistically unlikely extreme'. erm I HOPE I answered this in an acceptible manner. Maybe you might even begrudgingly accept that I might have a point?[/quote] For me, gudge doesn't come into it, nor does winning or losing. I really like these kind of discussions and it's a sign of BC's maturity and tolerance that they can sometimes be had. But I am going to drop out of this and you can feel free to have the last word. I'm going to avoid the philosophy of art until the mods open up a special forum for it. (I have a feeling I may have said that before) By the way, the chainsaw bass which started this thread, I think there are many good reasons for calling it art, and I would call it art (comedy is an art isn't it?) but it's not as artful as either of my Fenders or my Lakland and I wouldn't have it in the house.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='394568' date='Jan 29 2009, 02:06 PM']I deliberately haven't listened to it, but I still think it's the devil's work.[/quote] You could start a petition. Obviously it would have to be pen and paper and not on-line - so that us Luddites could sign it.