leftybassman392

Quick update: I should also mention that for notes below the reference in Equal Temperament the power of 2 in the formula is negative. Example: To get the F# that is 3 semitones below the reference and 1 octave below F#4, the formula would be F#3 = 440 x 2(-3/12) = 370.0Hz For the Pythagorean sequence, simply divide the earlier result by 2 to show the dropped octave: 440 x 27/16 x 1/2 = 440 x 27/32 = 371.25Hz For (sort of) completeness, the ratios in the Pythagorean Major scale are: 9/8, 81/64, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 243/128 and 2/1. (I've left out the chromatic notes for reasons of simplicity and also because it means I don't have to get into Pythagorean commas and wolf fifths. Phew!) Should have put this into the earlier post. Sorry.

Indeed, with the caveat that Well Temperament is essentially a fine-tuning of the existing harmonic intervals, whereas Equal Temperament is a very precise mathematical process. Whilst the end result is similar (i.e. keeping good(ish) harmonic integrity while allowing modulation), the process is somewhat different.

No sooner said than done... Before I start, I should add that there's a series of articles I did that now resides at the dusty end of the 'Theory and Technique' shelf and which goes into this in a bit more depth. Equal Temperament: Ft - target frequency Fr - reference frequency (440Hz assumed but works for any reference frequency) n - number of semitones between the pitch of the target note and the pitch of the reference note Algorithm: Ft = Fr x 2(n/12). Example: F#5 (9 semitones above reference) = 440 x 2(9/12) = 740.0 Hz Pythagorian algorithm: Fr - as above Ft - successive applications of 3/2 multiplier until required pitch is achieved, doubling or halving as required to keep result within desired range Example: F#5 (maj 6th above A4) = 440 x 3/2 x 3/4{3/2 and halve} x 3/2 = 440 x 27/16 = 742.5 Hz [Procedural note: Pythagorean algorithm sequence gives A>E>B>F# . B value dropped an octave]

Regulars of this parish will know that I like to play around with numbers. I quite often run random number things around in my head as I'm waking up. (No, I don't think it's weird at all but thanks for asking. ) This morning I got to thinking about the relationship between concert pitch (A4, commonly standardised at 440Hz) and Middle C (C4, often thought of as being at 256Hz but historically it's a moveable feast, and in truth comes about for slightly different reasons). What follows is a bit of an exploration of the numbers involved and is a bit theoretical. When it comes to tuning actual instruments of course, things can get a bit fiddly (as any piano tuner will be happy to tell you). Most modern instruments are tuned using a fairly complicated mathematical system called Equal Temperament. If you use 440Hz as the standard (not everybody does - more in a mo) you can work out the frequency of every note in the audible spectrum. The great advantage of this system is that it allows you to do all sorts of clever stuff like modulation and transposition that are much more of a challenge in traditional tuning systems. The downside is that it's mostly a teensy bit off-pitch - not a lot mind, and in truth we're so used to using it that we generally don't notice anything wrong. Electronic tuners that show cents use this system. In past centuries, scales were assembled using a variety of systems based on the natural harmonic series (2:1, 3:1, 4:1,...). The earliest, commonest and most easily understood method was what most will know as cycle-of-fifths tuning. (Historically it's actually more accurate to call it Pythagorean tuning, but I digress). The upside is that the pitch relationships are absolutely bang on harmonically (which makes it popular with specialists in medieval and early renaissance music), but the downside is that if you try to play in a different key without retuning your instrument and/or adjusting your fingering it can sound catastrophically out-of-tune. I'll be happy to demonstrate these methods at work if anybody wants me to, but for now we'll keep things simple. So, Concert Pitch. The internationally accepted standard is A4 = 440Hz. Not everybody uses this though, and it is possible to find people using a standard anywhere from around 420Hz up to around 460Hz. (This isn't the same as detuning by the way. When you detune a guitar or bass, you're raising or (more commonly) lowering the pitch of your instrument in multiples of a semitone relative to whatever your standard pitch is.) Using 440Hz for A4 and using an Equal Temperament calculation gives middle C at around 262Hz. This is about as close as you can get to a standard for this note using Equal Temperament. There's been a bit of a thing recently about setting A4 at 432Hz. People who do this like to talk about the sound being slightly darker. Personally I'm not convinced - the only way you can tell the difference is by playing them directly back-to-back (which of course nobody in their right mind would do in a performance situation). At the risk of being slightly controversial, it strikes me as being a bit of trendy oneupmanship. What is more interesting is the Maths that sits behind it: If you set A4 at 432Hz, Equal Temperament gives middle C as a whisker over 256Hz. More interestingly still, if you work from middle C at 256 Hz and go in the other direction using an old-fashioned Pythagorean sequence (A4 is a major 6th above middle C4 with a ratio of 27/16) you get A4 at exactly 432Hz. Kind of suggests to me a bit of putting the Pythagorian cart before the Equal Temperament horse. Except of course that 256Hz is by no means universally accepted as the standard for middle C in the first place... As I said up front though, I'm just playing around with numbers.

No no. I've known about it for nearly 10 years, but have just been waiting for official confirmation: Sabbath? Cream? Mayall? The Dead? Yes? Removes any doubt I'd say.

Lefty player so I always used to set up stage right. I would think stage side opposite your handedness if you get the choice would be the norm. Not set in stone 'cos everybody's different, but in the absence of a good reason why would you do otherwise?

Yay!!

Well, it's official: Basschat is overwhelmingly overpopulated by an assorted assortment of crusty old conkers. I have a huge variety of stuff on my iPod (around 900 songs in all IIRC), which I try to make sure I listen to as much of as possible when opportunity knocks. Oldest would probably be Miles Davies, and newest would be, um, Guthrie Govan I would think. I like it all, and it's always on there mostly because I very rarely take anything off. The goodly and gentle @silverfoxnik summed it up pretty well; picking one or two from the collection is an impossible task.

Well you said it yourself - sterling silver inlays, gold leaf detailing, heavy duty bodywork carving... Frankly, I'll be very surprised if any of them ever see the business end of a stage.

Wouldn't have thought so. If I had to guess I'd say they're aimed at avid GoT fans with deep pockets. The ability to actually play them is likely to be optional. I'm not even going to ask if they do lefties.

Waddya know; they do lefties too!

Crikey! My last recollection of him was of this tiny , fresh-faced young bloke. We’re exactly the same age to within a couple of months, but suddenly I feel very old. Still as down-to-earth and easy going as I remember him though. Lovely bloke.

Horace was never part of Fun Boy Three. At the risk of name dropping, I used to know him slightly back in the day before they hit the big time (my next door neighbour went to school with him). Once the band took off we lost touch, and tbh I doubt he’d even recognise me these days.

When you do it for a living you have two advantages: 1. “It’s what I do for a living.” Covers most eventualities if you need it to (not that I ever have - see below). It helps that I always had a mantra of each instrument earning its keep, with no freeloaders in the collection. With one or two exceptions I stuck to it too. If I can sell it for a profit when the time comes then so much the better. 2. You get to (at least partially) offset the cost as a business expense over a period of years. It also helps if you have a supportive partner who likes what you do for a living and enjoys hearing you play. I’ve been very lucky over the years and honestly can’t remember the last time I had to sneak any gear into the house. I bought a new acoustic guitar around a year ago, and Mrs. LBM loves it even though I don’t play for a living any more.

I’d suggest you shop around a bit. Our current policy covers all my instruments (9 in all - some of them pretty valuable) for not much more than that. I’m not going to do the work for you, but there’s plenty of comparison sites available.

I suspect our posts crossed in the, er, post; but I won't tell anybody if you don't.

All of the above in defence of the OP is fine and good I have no doubt, but having checked said OP again I have confirmed that both of the situations described were in fact auditions. Unless something has changed since I stopped playing in public, the purpose of an audition is: 1. To enable the auditioners to audition the auditionee, and 2. From a slightly different dynamic, to enable the auditionee to audition the auditioners. If either party is sufficiently unhappy with the way the encounter has developed, the solution really is childishly simple. In particular, if the auditionee doesn't like the sound the auditioners are making then all he need do is thank the auditioners for their time and walk away. Opinions on this one clearly differ somewhat, but i would respectfully suggest that concluding an audition by telling the band all the things they're doing wrong is not a good way to go if you would like a future with them - which come to think of it kind of begs the question as to why anyone would bother doing so. At this stage in the process, being right doesn't really come into it.

This. Turning it round for a moment, if you were in a band that had been playing the same songs in the same way for some time and some new guy with (no offence intended) no obvious creds beyond being able to play rocked up and started criticising what you were doing, how would you feel? They may indeed have it wrong, but as has been said already there's ways of approaching these things. Or you could simply decide it isn't for you and look elsewhere. TL;DR: Hard to be sure from the info you've provided, but yes it is possible that you are coming over as opinionated.

Slightly off-piste from the OP, but just to back up the point about history and legacy that I made earlier in the thread, Hank Marvin (see above) is quoted by many of the world's great guitarists as a huge formative influence; but even he had somebody to look up to:

Unless I've missed something you're not required to like him. That wasn't the question.

Crikey! Is it that time of year already? Well blow me down if it isn't another '[insert bass legend's name here] is crap/meh/overrated' thread. I remember once reading on this very forum (well not 'this' very forum of course, 'cos it moved house a while ago; but you know what I mean) as someone seriously claimed to have seen The Beatles as 'just another '60s Pop band' or some such (conveniently forgetting that The Beatles were the reason '60s Pop bands sounded the way they did). Seriously, two words spring to mind here as needing further study in some quarters: 1. History 2. Legacy