leftybassman392

They are good aren't they? They've been around a few years now. They're pretty big in the States and have done several world tours, but nobody seems to have heard of them over here. Personally I blame the lack of a bass player.

Actually it's Home Free. They're not barbershop (which is a very specific singing style that these guys don't really do, plus they have a beatboxer doing the 'percussion' and the 'harmonica'), but they are acapella. They do mostly covers, but in doing so cover a range of styles (you might want to check out their take on the Johnny Cash classic 'Ring of Fire' here ). In this case they're covering an old-time song best known for it's inclusion in a movie called 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou?' from around 2000, but which was originally written in 1913 IIRC. The reason I posted it has to do with the discussion about purity vs. modernism. This performance is a modernist take on an old-time tune.

Did somebody mention old-time?

Indeed. If I were still working today I'd probably look to do the same (well, perhaps not quite the same; see below). It'll slow things down though, especially if there's a lot of acts. Another approach (which would be my preferred choice) would be to have a stock of pop filters and change them between acts. Good, experienced singers often want their own mics. With one - or even two - acts It wouldn't be such a big deal, but with a lot of acts it's a lot of mic swaps (not forgetting the clips for the stands...). If you get the chance to do a proper sound check so the sound person can tweak things for you then that'll take even more time. That said, IME proper sound checks can be a bit of a luxury, especially for smaller events. Even then, most engineers would (pre-pandemic at least) prefer to tweak your sound using their own mics. I guess maybe we'll just have to get used to standing around more while gear gets swapped around. It's very similar to guitarists (and - let's be honest - bass players) wanting to use their own gear. Doable of course, but can make for a very crowded stage area - lots more mic-ups and DIs to organise. I've played festivals where the organisers have insisted on everyone using the (admittedly very nice) amps and DI connections. I've also run sound systems where there were umpteen amps onstage, and sod's law being what it is, some muppet invariably managed to get it wrong when it was their turn, and either put up with a shite sound or spend half an hour in front of an increasingly testy audience trying to untangle his gear and leads. TL;DR If it's a properly organised event with relatively few acts and plenty of stage monkeys to hump stuff and change mics on demand then fine. In the real world, however, it doesn't always go like that...

I can't speak for anybody else, but back in the day I used to do P.A. hire with myself as engineer. As luck would have it I never got asked, but I'm not sure I'd have wanted somebody putting their own mic into the signal chain, not to mention the time it would take to set it up and check. Then again I did a lot of P.A. gigs with multiple acts, many of whom didn't really have a clue how it all worked. Also, as has been said, there would almost certainly be some issues with levels and EQ to resolve. Depends on the circumstances I guess, but don't be surprised if you encounter resistance to the idea of using your own mic, unless it's been set up on its own stand with its own mixer channel (which in turn would mean it being done as part of the initial setup and routed through whatever outboard the engineer routinely uses for vocals). Having your own pop filter would make all these problems go away...

As with another thread not a million miles away, 'best' is subjective. I'd actually go further and say 'value for money' (which is what you appear to be asking about) is largely subjective too. I guess most people around here could spot a dud or a gem at need, but between those extremes there is a yawning chasm filled with gear that will suit somebody (and hence be good value from their perspective). That said (and to answer your question), I've had numerous amps from several makers (PJB, GB, TCE...) that have suited my needs at different times. I don't gig anymore so the little PJB BG110 currently sitting behind me is more than enough for my current needs. As for basses, I've owned a wide variety at different times (although, interestingly, not a Fender P bass - not an original anyway). Some of them have been pretty cheap (as in less than £200) and some of them have been rather expensive custom built jobbies (such as the Seibass Original 5er that is - and is likely to remain - my only current bass). They've almost all seen action on a stage or in a studio, so in that sense they all served their purpose at the time. I've tried never to be a headstock snob, and I don't think I've ever bought either an instrument or an amp that I genuinely couldn't work with - at least for a while. TL;DR Beyond obvious duds, if it works like it should and sounds good to you, use it.

Went to see him in the early '80s at the Odeon Birmingham with Horace Panter (yes, that Horace Panter) and a mutual friend. He had a very youthful Steve Vai in tow. One of the best gigs I ever saw. I still have several of his albums on vinyl (including the aforementioned Zoot Allures, and Sheik Yerbouti). As I've said in another thread, I have no truck with 'Best-in-the-world...' lists. That said, I've always found it curious that Zappa so rarely appears on them. Technically as good as pretty much anyone around at the time and creatively brilliant to boot; what's not to like?

Andres Segovia? Most people who know about him agree he was a supreme master of the instrument, but AFAICS he doesn't fit any of the numerous criteria offered so far in regard to greatness. Martin Simpson likewise (except that he's still around of course).. Ari Eisinger (I'd be surprised if anybody's even heard of him), one of the great folk Blues players around today. Likewise. So are we talking about the greatest guitarist of all time, or a really good guitarist (whatever that might mean) playing in one of a fairly limited range of (mostly Blues-based) styles? I mean, there's any number of Jazz guitarists (for example) who could blow most rock players off the stage (however you categorise greatness) without breaking sweat (I've already mentioned Pat Metheny and Guthrie Govan as examples, but there's plenty to choose from). I'm sure folk think I'm being pointlessly pedantic, but actually I'm trying to make the altogether more serious point that greatness is highly subjective - good for YouTube likes and forum arguments discussions but not much use anywhere else - and that there's an awful lot of fantastically good players out there that folks really ought at least listen to before passing judgement. Right now it's a mish-mash of 'my favourite guitarists'. That's absolutely fine of course, but just so I've said it... I guess I'm just having a bit of a rant about the 'greatest ever [insert activity here] in the history of the world...' culture that sochul meeja sites seem to be awash with. Thank you for reading. I feel much better having got that off my chest. As you were.

FTFY.

So, erm, have we reached a consesus as to what 'greatest' means yet? I mean, that is what the OP asked, isn't it? Asking for a friend...

Don't get me wrong: I have my own personal favourites just like everybody else, but that's all they are. They change from time to time too... Threads like this can be great fun as a vehicle for argument informed discussion and debate (and occasionally expose us to players we may not be aware of), but they shouldn't be taken too seriously (not least because - and here's the serious point as set out above - people are unlikely to even agree what might count as valid selection criteria, never mind who best fulfils them). However, in a spirit of 'just give us a name ffs!' (and using my own secret selection modelling), I've come up with a shortlist: If you ask me again tomorrow it'll probably be 5 different guitarists.

Anybody care to set out the assessment criteria? I mean, assuming there are any of course...

Another one from me. I'm not normally a fan of popular musicians covering classical material (or vice versa) but as always there's the exception that proves the rule... (Fun fact: the band won an Emmy for this performance):

Thought I'd just drop this here. No specific agenda so please don't anybody take offence; just moving the conversation along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloratura_soprano IMHO this kind of complicates the notion of oversinging, and at the same time questions whether it's automatically a bad thing. YMMV of course.

I had to give up on it after about 5 minutes (although I was tempted to pull the plug after 20 seconds). Technically interesting (hence the 'thanks' to the OP) and he's clearly an extremely skillful player, but musically completely soulless IMHO. The point has already been made about the varied tonalities that make up the orchestral version, and that's what this piece is so sorely missing. I don't have any issue with the production: nothing wrong in using common studio techniques IMHO (it undoubtedly offends some ears, just not mine is all). My main criticism is that it has the feel of something that's been done essentially because he can, and with music like this it's just not enough. Sorry.

Excellent piece. Thanks for posting.

@Woodinblack. Ok, so we now know that you don't like operatic singing. Got it, thanks. To identify it as a form of 'Histrionic oversinging' is stretching the meanings of both 'histrionic' and 'oversinging' to the point where they don't mean what they should anymore (not to mention demonstrating - with all due respect - a pretty limited understanding of what it is that classically trained singers do), but ok. You don't like so I guess any kind of random negative attribution will do. Duly noted.

So operatic singing is oversinging by definition? I have a feeling we're not going to agree on this one...

Well as I said, everybody's entitled to an opinion. Not exactly what you'd call oversinging though is it?

The people writing the good music would have been expecting it to be performed the way opera singers perform it. Just sayin'...

Opera singers are mostly following a score, so any perceived 'warbling' is what they've been instructed to do using the techniques they've been taught. Oversinging as I understand it is the act of adding (mostly unnecessary) emphasis and embellishment not written into the music, usually done with a kind of 'look at me' bravado. I can certainly understand why people don't like operatic singing (which is fine of course - each to their own), but TBH I'm not sure how the pejorative might apply in an operatic situation.

Very nice!

That bottom note in 'Blackbird' is an E1 at around 42 Hz. (I checked it with an online sinewave generator). WTH???

Couple more from me. First off, another much-covered song in a version most won't have heard: Second up, a Beatles clasic covered by a bass singer with an extraordinary vocal range. Bass singers rarely get the credit they deserve IMHO (much like bass players of course ), but here's what a good one can do when he steps into the spotlight: