LawrenceH

Something largely overlooked is slap being unusual in that it's more straightforward to play something in that style that sounds 'complete' on its own. A lot of bass lines need rhymthic and/or melodic context to appreciate them, whereas slap incorporates more of the role of the drums and you often get a kind of counterpoint between low and high within a single part. So a solo video makes more sense. Mind you, the best slap parts are IMO those where rhythmic context in relation to the rest of the band is everything, which is why I can't see the point in slap with metal.

I feel uneasy playing for free in commercial venues, unless it's a jam night where the organisers get a cut. It feels like I'm stealing someone's job, I wouldn't like it if a load of volunteers came into my lab and took over my projects! It just becomes something that only a wealthy elite can afford to do, like many internships. I'm not convinced that pub chains constitute the most worthy charities...

[shameless plug] I'm selling a J-Retro 01 that I got in a trade and never got round to fitting if anyone's interested [/shameless plug] I must say I've never tried them myself, but I love the tone of other people's basses fitted with DiMarzios! When funds allow my 75RI is getting Model Js.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1241063' date='May 23 2011, 12:46 AM']Hate to even think about being so 'pro gaga' but Madonna doesn't stand a chance in the talent contest. Have you seen Gaga play piano and sing in different styles?! It's quite amazing for a popular artist to A) look so normal as in girl next door and B )be able to write, sing so well and play instruments with that much talent. I didn't think much of her until I started to hear about her past and her musicianship.[/quote] Honestly?! Her voice to me is incredibly average, and I can't tell the difference between her songs and a load of 90s europop that we used to laugh at for the cheesy production values. I don't know about musical talent, perhaps she has it in bucketloads, but I can't say it's evident in her hits. Excellent at marketing though and evidently she's got something right with those songs, I just don't see why it works for her but those 90s euro gay club divas failed to crossover in the same way. Oh, back on topic, the Roots is a great call!

Doddy's line up is very hard to beat for sheer musical awesomeness. Especially Hiromi on piano, she's a phenomenon! But for a more soul/funk line-up I'd go for: Drums - Akira Jimbo, the man is hilarious and brilliant. (Rhythm) Guitar - Prince. Horns - gotta be Maceo, Fred and (I guess for lack of anyone else springing to mind) Randy Brecker Clavinet, Synth, Vox - Stevie Wonder Rhodes, Vox - D'Angelo All fronted by Sharon Jones My only concern is age as ideally I'd like it all to be choreographed by whoever did MJ's best stuff. And I want a Bill and Ted-style 16 months of intensive bass and dance training so I don't end up looking like a total embarrassment.

[quote name='Sparky' post='1244976' date='May 25 2011, 11:14 PM']I've got a MIJ '62RI from 1996. I love it. Apart from a good setup, the one thing i'd like to get sorted on it is the E tuner... there's movement between turning the peg and it ratcheting. Make sense? Means whenever i tune the E string I have to tune to below the note to tune back up - to make sure it doesn't slip. Do you know where to go for an exact replacement? I don't want to have to drill any new holes and I've no idea where to start. What do you reckon Bubinga? Cheers, Sparky.[/quote] Sparky, have you tried just tightening up the tuner with a screwdriver when it's not under tension? Normally sorts this problem out. Bubinga5 that is a sweet bass, I have a battered old MIJ 62RI from the 80s and it is just lovely in every way despite the gouges(!). My 90s 75RI though, the pickups are definitely a bit of a weak spot and replacing them gave the bass new life.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1243515' date='May 24 2011, 09:39 PM']I and others have said many times, reading and understanding theory are not hard and can be enormously empowering. Noone is being elitist about it. Anyone near me wants a hand with either aspect of their craft, get in touch and I'll get you going in the right direction.[/quote] That's a great offer. But I wouldn't say music theory as an academic discipline isn't hard. I guess it depends how far you take it, if we're talking the basics of formal harmony that's fine but look at the myriad alternative analyses of something like Giant Steps - at that level it turns into a philosophical debate about harmonic perception and it's not easy going at all! Out of interest, how do dyslexics cope with reading music generally? My wife, who is dyslexic, really struggled with it despite not being in the least bit work-shy. If it's the same as the written word she would never be able to do it to a level where she could sight-read fluently. I know I must seem way out on a tangent in this debate, but I think if we're generalising it's an important one and an interesting one too. In my family we are very uneven, some of us very highly academic and others with various degrees of learning difficulties. It's fascinating to me just how differently we approach understanding something like music, and I have an obvious interest in understanding the science of learning itself. It frustrates me then when people make general pronouncements about these kind of things without a full appreciation of the process of learning in different individuals. An expert teacher is not the same thing as an expert practitioner. Maybe I'm the only person here who finds the neurological/conceptual questions of how we learn music, the common elements and the specific differences between individuals, interesting. In which case I'd better shut up I guess!

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1243336' date='May 24 2011, 07:42 PM']if most of us here played a note not included within the correct key at the dog and duck the audience will pull funny faces at us. To me thats a 'duff' note or call it 'wrong'[/quote] Oh yeah, I agree with this as it's exactly the same point as I made earlier And most of those punters probably don't have any musical theory. That's why it's important to separate off 'ear training', which teaches us the language of music directly, from 'theory', which [b]abstracts[/b] the language to formally define relationships and, perhaps, lets us ask 'why'?

Pete, sure and I agree that talking about whether you can play a B over a C7 is irrelevant - you can, and what's music theory allows for that no problem. Doddy's not talking about those occasions and is well aware of them. That's why I haven't bothered entering into that argument, he was making a perfectly valid point about defining boundaries which are useful so you know when you're crossing them (is C E G actually a C chord, or is it Em#5 2nd inversion?! Who cares?) But, the example definition given of what theory actually is, is wrong. It may seem like an obscure philosophical point but there are several levels of discussion going on simultaneously here. What I'm trying to say is that learning as a process is a topic of study in itself, and if you're trying to understand whether something like music theory is a universally useful learning tool, then you'd be best both looking at the history of music theory and how it relates to practice, and how learning itself works. The reason I think it's important in the real world is that a didactic approach to teaching is successful only for the individuals that the given approach suits - you risk putting off as many people as you help, and what's more you actually slow the progress of some of them because you'll overload them with information in a format that they can't unlock. That's a real shame. [edited for typos!]

Doddy, I'm not trying to knock you here because you have a lot to say about music that's really useful and I respect it. But because of that, I find it frustrating that when taking a very strong stance on the issue of theory, your arguments are semantically confused which is misleading given your general authority on the topic. [quote name='Doddy' post='1243249' date='May 24 2011, 06:43 PM']No I haven't confused theory with memory,and no you don't need formal training,I never said you did.In fact the vast majority of stuff that I learned was by playing something on a gig then wanting to know either why it worked(or didn't) so that I could do it again (or not).[/quote] I'm sure you're not confused yourself but you said 'take away the guess work and play the right note straight away', in context implying that without theory people are guessing, which isn't the case and so is a disingenuous point. [quote name='Doddy' post='1243249' date='May 24 2011, 06:43 PM']You mentioned that it may hinder some people to learn theory and I said only if you let it. Why is that strange? If someone is used to using their ear and then learns theory they don't shut off their ears,they will use their new found information to enhance what they were already doing. Learning theory alone won't hinder you,in the same way that someone who knows a lot of theory won't become hindered by learning ear training.[/quote] It's strange because it ignores the fact that it's inefficient and overwhelming for people whose academic analytical skills are weak but who can reach exactly the same end result through an alternative process more suited to their strengths. That's why teachers who are good at teaching a diverse pupil base vary their methods depending on the student. It's not all down to willingness on the part of the student, that's like saying all dyslexics are lazy. [quote name='Doddy' post='1243249' date='May 24 2011, 06:43 PM']Once again I'm not misunderstanding anything. My point is that a lot of people refer to theory as 'rules',when it really isn't. The theory behind the music is pretty static with regards to what notes make up what chords and scales or whatever,if you change a note,you get something else. You can break the 'rules' as much as you want,but you can't break the fact that a C chord is made up of the notes C,E,G.[/quote] To say that 'fact' is 'theory' as you did above IS a misunderstanding. It just is. The two terms refer to different things. Facts are observable or defined phenomena. Theories are, broadly, causal explanations of observed phenomena. If you argue a poitn about theory and then use a fact as the basis of your argument, your argument has no validity regardlses of whether your conclusion is actually right or not. Incidentally, a chord name is a defined rather than observed phenomenon, as it's a name we ascribe to a particular sub-group of notes. You don't have to know the name to understand the phenomenon, although I'd agree entirely it is very useful - and all of it is essential if you're doing sideman work as you describe, but that's not the be-all and end-all for a lot of people. Sorry if this is an egg-sucking-type post, you may well be perfectly clear on all these things but it's not what your posts per se have been saying and I think most of the disagreement is really due to semantics/miscommunication.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243185' date='May 24 2011, 05:36 PM']Theory isn't about rules...it's about facts.[/quote] Fact: a 'fact' is not a 'theory'. They are two completely different things. I think this is why you're misunderstanding the issue (sorry if that sounds condescending!)

[quote name='Doddy' post='1243034' date='May 24 2011, 03:21 PM']I think the thing is,as a listener you don't need to know anything other than if you like it,but as a musician I think that there are basics that you should know. Sure you could play a major 3rd over a minor,wince and correct it,or you could take away the guess work and play the right note straight away.Of course you still use your ears,but having the knowledge makes things easier. The only way that it will ever 'hinder more than it will help' is if you let it hinder you.[/quote] But I think you've confused 'music theory' with 'memory'! You don't need any formal background to remember what works and what doesn't. As a small child I learned perfectly well from playing around on the piano that a major third generally sounded a bit crap on top of a minor, and I'd avoid doing it, long before I learned minor/major or any formal theory. Music theory then gave me a handy way of labelling this phenomenon. Your comment about 'letting it hinder you' seems a bit strange. I don't see why you're so insistent that people don't and shouldn't conceptualise something in different ways, when education research and neuroscience have shown patently that that's not the case. Most people doing 'good' university music degrees are probably pretty good at abstract theorising and therefore find it useful, but that's a pretty selected bunch based as much on academic aptitude as actual performance. If theory was essential to practice then our most brilliant composers would also be our most brilliant mathematicians/whatever. I'm sure there's a correlation but it's nowhere near tight. To draw analogy, someone can be fluent in a language and even produce brilliant prose and poetry with no formal linguistic training. Why? Because the linguistic rules are all encapsulated, defined and communicated by the spoken language. Language skills and linguistic analytical skills are related but different things. I don't see the point in arguing about the usefulness of music theory as a learning aid if you don't first define clearly what theory actually is and second understand how learning happens at a fundamental level. There is a lot of science that has tested these ideas and would inform the debate.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1242777' date='May 24 2011, 11:44 AM']When I'm reading,I'm not thinking A,B,C# or whatever.If I see a D (middle line) written,I know I can play it in 3 different positions (on a 4 string) depending on which is easiest at the time.I'm not thinking 'that's a D,so I can play that here'-I'm just seeing the note and playing it. That's why you really have to know the fingerboard aswell.[/quote] This is an interesting conceptualisation, which for me encapsulates some of the inherent complexities in trying to self-analyse brain processes such as music 'theory'. At the synaptic level your brain has formed connections equating D written, with D the note with D on a fretboard. You don't consciously articulate those connections but they're there, as Bilbo's explanation sort of illustrates. I get frustrated by some of the back and forth over music theory because most of the argument stems from a purely semantic disagreement over what music theory is and isn't. A lot of classical musical theory was formally defined 'after the fact', the rules being arrived at by a gradual evolution led by the ear of composers/musicians, and enacted through composition and performance. Formal theory in that sense is completely and inherently non-essential, except for those genres where abstracted theory led musical development, eg the transition from late romantic to 20th century stuff like serialism and synthetic scales. Music that some would argue 'sounds' soulless and mechanical, but that's sort of incidental. Is music theory useful? Of course, it's a learning tool. Is it essential? Not with respect to formal theory based around abstraction of a sound, unless you prefer 'listening' to your music in written form. So why is there always this debate? Because some people equate formal music theory with ear training. Incorrectly, I'd say. Ear training is completely essential for understanding what you play and being able to compose/improvise in any style. Theory can help with ear training, a lot, but its definitely not absolutely necessary - there are plenty of 'non-musicians' who enjoy music, after all, and what's more can easily spot a particular genre and spot when something goes wrong/out of step with that genre. If any level of formal music theory was necessary for aural understanding then that wouldn't be possible. I'd go so far as to say that even when using musical theory to learn we're still led by the ears - music theory allows us to put convenient labels on what our ears [i]already know[/i] sounds right or wrong. Whether that's useful to you is probably down to how well you respond to different types of learning. Probably most people will find it useful, but there are a few who it'll definitely hinder more than it'll help. Reading itself is another issue and I think it's useful that silddx separated it from theory here.

[quote name='JimBobTTD' post='1240244' date='May 22 2011, 12:35 PM']Me![/quote] Me too!

Great thread! But no way would it be Lady Gaga, the Madonna-lite material's sub-average. Prince, if only I had the chops... Beyonce, good musicians and, well, the view from the backline

You should be able to get a decent secondhand Jap precision for that kind of price, no bother. Or those Classic 50s Ps look pretty tasty, and the Classic series (at least the jazzes I've played) are a cut above the standard MIMs.

There's a biiig gap between 'sight-reading fluently' and 'reading a bit'! Likewise with the theory actually. I'm in that gap I'd guess, I read fine enough except syncopated rhythms do my head in written down, similarly I have a good working knowledge of (classical) formal harmony, but my jazz knowledge doesn't really get beyond the basics of tritone subs. I could sit down and analyse something like a Parker/Gillespie piece on the written page, but I'd really struggle to pick the changes by ear as those strings of II-V-Is with subs/key changes are just too much for me. Reading - rarely use it, almost never for bass. Theory - I find it very useful, though mainly as a tool for improving my ear by putting handy labels on types of sounds.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1240750' date='May 22 2011, 08:21 PM']The strap length,for me,makes a bigger difference than playing a random bass.[/quote] I concur - I've ended up sitting because of this, I hate a really low/badly balanced bass, it just destroys my wrist on the lower notes!

[quote name='SidVicious1978' post='1240687' date='May 22 2011, 07:17 PM']i got nitromors how would i layer up with some coats? Sid[/quote] Looks to me like it's been done without proper sealing and grain filling. You need to use a filler to plug the grain followed by sanding flat - you can't rely on the paint alone to flat out as it shrinks over time and would require an impossible thickness at some points.

I don't know...especially if you do go down the twin 2x10s route. Even 5kg can be worthwhile and I've seen a fair few cabs made of really heavy chipboard or even mdf. It wouldn't do any harm to take out a driver and weigh it, work out how much the cab is contributing.

[quote name='crez5150' post='1240094' date='May 22 2011, 10:25 AM']You can get very very similar sound to this with an Akai Deep Impact.... The you have to be quick on the string muting though to get the effect correctly[/quote] I disagree - but depends how close you mean, I guess You'll get a lot closer with something like a Microkorg (and for less dosh too).

Dual analogue oscillators, octave or two apart and sync-ed so that one is a slave? Plus slightly delayed attack phase of the filter envelope to give that slight swell, I think...been ages since I've played with synths so I could be talking out of my a**e but that'd be my starting point, with maybe a slow phaser effect or similar. Unless you've got a handy preset though, I think you'd need a 'proper' synth to get this. I don't know where bass synths are these days, but no way would my old deep impact get anywhere close! Good luck...