Pete Academy

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1016756' date='Nov 8 2010, 07:09 PM']Sorry Pete, I never read that bit (or 4 other pages ). I still don't understand why anyone wouldn't be interested in theory tho? Knowledge is a good thing (when it comes to music, that is).[/quote] It's OK, mate. I think most people respond to my threads because of the avatar.

[quote name='Soliloquy' post='1016755' date='Nov 8 2010, 07:09 PM']Crap, grooving in time don't mean a thing if you're playing the wrong notes. Especially in a live situation where you can't 'drop in' or cut and paste.[/quote] Why would someone be playing the wrong notes? He wouldn't get past the audition stage.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1016730' date='Nov 8 2010, 06:57 PM']I think that is what Marcus Miller nailed, there was a quote about it by him, something about plenty of people can play the music right off the page, but I can play it like I'm not playing it off the page.[/quote] If ever there's an argument for both sides being as important, Marcus is the ideal candidate.

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1016740' date='Nov 8 2010, 07:01 PM']I've not read all this post (there's a surprise G, just jump in with your daft ideas), but Groove vs Theory? Really??? I would have thought every bassist would want both? I know I do. Wanting groove but not theory is a bit like being able to speak English, but not being interested in learning how to read or write it or even what the words mean. Vice versa, wanting to learn theory but not groove is like being able to write words but not managing to make a decent sentence (I think I actually fall under this category when it comes to speaking . ). What's next, strings vs leads? [/quote] I've already admitted the 'versus' was probably innappropriate.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1016566' date='Nov 8 2010, 04:53 PM']Its overrated I do think people are advocating for ignorance, albeit unconsciously. We al do it all the time - its how we get out of doing the laundry. In order to feel good about the ways in which we behave, we need to convince ourselves that our choices are valid. If we choose not to read, we need to feel that that choice is legitimate and not simply a case of us not havign invested in what is necessary to be a fully developed musician. So we fill our heads with little lies and haf-truths that make this an ok choice: so & so can't read and he is great ergo I can't read and I too can be great. Additionally, if I can convince everyone else that this is so, I will be affirmed in my belief and can ignore that nagging doubt that I have in the back of my mind that I am missing out on something. Something wonderful. We you can't and you are.[/quote] I didn't 'choose' not to read. It just never crossed my mind, as I was too busy gigging and enjoying myself from when I started. I just loved the audience reaction when the band was tight.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1016296' date='Nov 8 2010, 01:11 PM']I'm not ridiculing your question mate, I'm trying to undermine it's validity, because I really do regard it as invalid. There is no 'best' because there are great musicians of all sorts who have a variety of skills. including reading and a knowledge of theory and great ears and scarily there are guys who have it all in spades. One observation I will make is that not being a reader you will not have come across as many good readers as reading bass players will have, so your pool to draw from as example is limited. It's irrelevant, I trade on feel Pete, I'm not known as a good reader I just do it because there is work in it. When I played with H gang I learned the entire set, not one chart. Most of my working week does not require heavy reading skills but I think it's critical to have them to a greater or lesser degree. That implies that a reader would not be playing from the heart... this is also not demonstrable to any meaningful degree. Remember that all reading is about a quick way to absorb the music and not have to store tons of it in your head, once the first few rehearsals are over it is simply an aide memoir for real players to do what they do best, make great music. Of course you have come across readers with a poor feel... the opposite is also true in many, many cases. There is no 'best way' only good music... how it's arrived at is irrelevant.[/quote] That's a good reply, Jake. Fair points...and duly taken.

[quote name='silddx' post='1016271' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:47 PM']I think, Pete, that maybe people like me and you, who have a good few years playing in various situations under our belts, who don't really know much theory and have very poor reading skills - take our aural and technical skills for granted. A lot of people don't have those natural abilities and may need to learn more formally. My first music lesson as a teenager were all about learning theory and reading. But it wasn't really explained to me in a way I understood, and it really put me off, for a very long time. My heroes were people with great ears and some formal training though, Randy Rhoads, Michael Schenker, Edward Van Halen, Steve Hillage. Having, or developing, a great ear so you can recognise intervallic and rhythmic relationships is vital if your are to express yourself, as only then can you hear the music a split second before you play it. Whether you can put a name to them is a different matter and depends on what you want to achieve. The real question is probably MUSIC - LOVE versus MONEY? Or BOTH?[/quote] I would agree, but many won't.

[quote name='Earbrass' post='1016229' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:14 PM']If you didn't have a teeny-weeny chip on the shoulder about it, you wouldn't need to keep banging on about how much it doesn't matter, would you? [/quote] Nope, not even a micro-chip. The tone of your response was totally unnecessary.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1016232' date='Nov 8 2010, 12:16 PM']Ok Pete some questions for you. Why does one have to be better? What does it prove? What does it establish? What point is there to deciding that, without fail, one is better than the other?[/quote] OK Jake, I admit my OP was open to ridicule, especially with the 'versus/for and against/which one is better' tone. I just think that being able to play in time and groove is fundamentally more important. I'm sure as a 'complete' player (and I don't mean this facetiously), you can play me under the table. I simply prefer to hear playing 'from the heart', so to speak.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1015810' date='Nov 7 2010, 10:11 PM']I think the OP needs to think about what they are actually seeking in the answer to this question. I guess its some form of affirmation that you can be a good player by relying on the ones ability to groove without having to do the hard bit (the theory). The good news is of course you can. So now you can go and play Call of Duty for five hours with a clear conscience and leave us nerds to the analytical world of grooveless mathematics...... Enjoy [/quote] Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you're insinuating that I feel guilty about not understanding theory, and so need reassurance that it's OK. I can assure you I don't need that. I said in a previous thread that I'd missed out on gigs and work through not being able to read, but I'm happy enough with the gigs I have done for the last 35 years. I know of good readers that fail in the groove department, and this goes for any instrument.

[quote name='JTUK' post='1016165' date='Nov 8 2010, 11:14 AM']Not sure Fagen is that much the stickler with SD being readers only gig. I think the way they put togther recording bands was legendary and they picked from the same session scene tree, so most probably were, but touring and the early days, not so much, I'd guess. The best solution would be the one that worked and they rotated bands in the studio to that end often cutting the same track with a different section.. and by the way some tracks came together would have been the result of a studio jam.. thinking about the drum track solo part in Aja here, for example.. They are very clever guys, but even Becker said he was seriously outclassed when playing up against the calibre of players they had to call on.. but hey, it was their band and they paid the wages, so certain rules might not apply to them anyway. Who wrote most of the early chord charts..?? not Becker or Fagen..but Carlton, and the reason they used him was as a sort of conduit MD in the studio..to progress the song in musical terms. Great player as well, of course.[/quote] If you read Chuck Rainey interviews, he often vents his frustration at Fagen taking credit for his bass parts.

I listen to the song a fair few times first, to let the melody, changes, format etc sink in. Then I learn the basic chord changes and put in the twiddly bits afterwards. Works for me.

I don't really understand the mud-slinging responses on this thread, especially by using the term VERSUS. I was simply stating a fact that I believe in - and that is that playing with good groove and time is more important than knowing theory in a basic band situation. And I'd still maintain that belief even if I understood theory, which I admit I don't. King Kong versus Godzilla...that was a good one.

I have witnessed musicians that are geniuses of theory that can't play in time or improvise.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can theory help you with groove, timing and discipline?

[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. You have to at least understand SOME of the theory (even subconciously) behind how a bass works/how your fingers produce the sound in order to groove, so your argument is fundamentally flawed. This thread might as well be called "Trolling versus Sh**stirring, which one is best?"[/quote] Sorry, but I disagree. How can it be impossible to groove without theory? Play one note, in time, with a groove, and you have the audience hooked.

Lock in with the drummer, and make sure the groove is there. The audience will love you.

[quote name='JMT3781' post='1015598' date='Nov 7 2010, 07:39 PM']Today i spent the day preparing an exercise for a student.. he wants to learn the Modes... i set up a drum loop and electirc piano parts, then did a track for each mode. In each track i started by recording the scale, then recording a groove using notes from the mode, then recording a solo using that mode. I must say, when i had to concentrate on grooving modally, my "feel" and general grooviness absolutely sucked. Maybe because its just because i don't do it often, but for me, grooving is all about being natural[/quote] Exactly.

Following on from Silddx's thread, what do you think is more important? I think it's great to have theory knowledge, but I also think being able to play in time with a great groove is the most important aspect of bass playing, especially in a live situation. Don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing...

it's great having the theory knowledge, but having a good sense of time, groove and discipline will always get you the gig.

Just a little bump up in case anyone's interested.

Nearly Dan play The Met in Bury on Saturday 13 November.

If you get stuck, pretend your lead is dodgy and stop playing...never fails.

Regardless of the piss taking and bad press Janek has received on this forum, I have to say that in person he's a absolutely genuine guy who believes in hard work to achieve a goal in life. Why knock that?