scalpy

[quote name='Bilbo' post='919374' date='Aug 9 2010, 10:48 AM']I guess the question is what is the purpose of a bass solo. Regrettably, it is seldom a musical decision and usually come from a bad space (showboating, routine space filling etc). A lot of Jazz is based on soloing but, in truth, I can count the really musically valid bass solos I have come across on the fingers of one hand. Mind you, the same could be said of every other instrument.[/quote] Bang on. A lot of these solos suggested are relying on the drummer. Somebody else has to cover what the bass should be doing. One thing I would add to the accurate list above is insecurity. The bass player has to prove he's just a valid musician as the rest of the band and therefore must have a solo. Of course there is the odd occasion where a solo is necessary and the Don't mean a Thing on here which I've mentioned on here before is one example. Bilbo is correct in that soloing isn't always valid but some instruments lend themselves to them more than the bass. Too many of the examples mentioned IMO are out to out guitar guitar solos. Dare I suggest on the whole they do it better...

Working my way through these slowly. Some of them I see as more of a focus on the rhythm section especially the older ones. Funnily I've always liked double bass solos so really enjoyed the Don't Mean a Thing. Anything that remotely smells of trade show puts me right off! Went to see the Lee Jones Band in Ludlow on Saturday and there was a bass solo in every number. Luckily they were a great, great band and the bass solos were kept short! When I've found out the name of the guy I'll put it up.

ITV used a couple of songs by my old band in their coverage of the 2004 European and French Grand Prixes in the opening montages of the programme. The Chain. Pah!

[quote name='M-Bass-M' post='916671' date='Aug 6 2010, 08:43 AM']Ha, a worthy goal, but not necessarily practical! Maybe if Lady Luck pays special attention to my lottery numbers this week... Thanks for the info. It seems that while the G&L offers a lot more tonal variety, this comes at the expense of the raw Ray sound. It is as you say: if you want a "true" P/J/Ray tone, then get an original. If you want something that could do all three albeit not quite, then a G&L can certainly provide that versatility. It's clear that I'll need to invest in a Ray at some point, if just to get it out of my system! They have a few at my local guitar shop, so if I've got some time to kill I'll go give them a try. Cheers Mark[/quote] Oooh steady now, some of us G&L fans don't take to the P/Jazz/Stingray not quite business! Part of G&L's problem has been that obviously the fenders came first and were great, the stingray came along and consolidated the success of active basses around at the time, and bass players haven't seen G&L as an evolution of those 3, but as a summary. Well, I don't think I'm alone in preferring the former attitude, the G&L sound is a development of what came before, and if you can get over what your ears have become used to when using or listening to the ancestors, can offer a great deal in terms of tone and different character. Leo said they were the best instruments he ever made!

Personally, I feel that one of the main issues in terms of standards in British musicians (of all genres) is their unwillingness to challange medicority in their peers. If a musician is not up to it, they should be told and asked to make a choice; practice/improve or get off the bandstand. No aggression, no bull, just a straight 'are you up to the job? Yes/No? Stay/Go. Competence is a requirement. If you haven't got it, give the gig to someone who has. Dam straight! My missus has been depping (singing) with a decent soul band but the alto sax player's instrument is old enough for a bus pass and won't stay in tune. When they asked what I thought I mentioned this and it was like they weren't expecting any criticism at all! Why do we side step around the issues all the time? Tell your guy hit it or be hit!

Another secondary school music teacher here! He sounds great and whilst he is a little quiet (you have to really spell out for the examiners) the part is challenging and fluently played. This means his mark will be subjected to a higher multiplier resulting in a better grade, hopefully. He has to be assessed on interpretation so I hope the internal moderator appreciated his nice articulation and ghost notes. It's just not as obvious as a trumpet player being loud/quiet, staccato/legato etc. I'd would have marked him up! The only problem I can see is that he hasn't stuck to a specific part. Most boards require you submit the exact score or recording or both as one component is accuracy. If he has side stepped the trickier bits of Jamerson's lines, and if memory serves he has in places, that's something the examiners will pick up on, and in my experience they don't take to it too kindly at all. If you get to do GCSE/ A level recording again, make sure that the candidate plays exactly what the examiner sees and hears on the exemplar. Best of luck for the end of August and I wish I had the skills to submit such a good recording for my pupils.

[quote name='Bassnut62' post='912298' date='Aug 1 2010, 10:12 PM']tobacco burst sounds smokin' I have to say I am only really thinking of these fine instruments as classics in terms of quality and class, not ugly pounds. anyway scalps, sounds like you've got a great instrument there.[/quote] Absolutely! And whilst it's nice knowing the sterling of an instrument, you're right, the quality and class are more important. If only it play rhythm stick by itself.

Mine's not signed. Still tobacco sunburst looks great! It doesn't sound dark, either, it's the weight about the tone I like whilst still having a definite pitch. I've been working with a guy using an alembic and it sounds huge, but sometimes it's just that, a sound not a note. However, it will be worth a fortune just because those things always are, aren't they?

A few years ago there was a primary school teacher in London I think it was who managed to "prove"that we're all born with perfect pitch, ie the ability to identify a note without using an instrument as reference. Her argument is that as everyone starts happy birthday or lullabies etc in a different key or even in between keys sometimes and we gradually unlearn this ability. I think this is the same with being born funky as well. We all are, but the ability is unlearnt as we are influenced by our musical surroundings and one of the most destructive things anyone can do to their natural musical ability, learn an instrument. At this point technique becomes an obstacle to making music and the emphasis shifts to musical olympics, faster+complicated= impressive. I see this in my job on a daily basis, but have also been in the fortunate position of seeing skilled educators maintain a learner's musicality, or even better in my view hear a learner develop their own potential by themselves. Curiously these learners are normally vocalists or drummers in my experience! Compare the way our culture learns music to stereotypically funky ones and it becomes obvious how we damage our innate musicianship. As bass players we can be our own worst enemies in this respect as typically an audience does not require a virtuoso performance, just that fat musical anchor that controls the rhythm, harmony and dynamic of a song. We want to prove that there is more to it than one string at a time and can take our eyes off the prize and over complicate things and in learning this habit lose the "funk". Therefore our feel is slowly eroded and we lose base with why we were probably attracted to the instrument in the first place. The key is to keep referencing the greats and to listen for what a punter wants, and our own hips and feet want, not our heads, that throbbing, sweaty, dirty pulse we all know and love.

[quote name='nig' post='911284' date='Jul 31 2010, 03:00 PM']Ssssshhhhhh !!!! its true. [/quote] Aaah, yes. Terrible instruments, Fender and Musicman deserve all the plaudits.

How do I find out if Leo signed mine under the varnish?! I found out recently my ASAT is an early-ish one (at least pre'98, I know they went back much further) but you can only find out the exact date by taking the neck off to read the full serial number. I don't think they'll ever hit the heights of early Fenders and Stingrays due to the lack of high profile players. This always leaves me in two minds, on one hand it's staggering that these things aren't more popular, they look great, play great and sound miles better than 95% of basses. But I also love the fact so few people know about them or won't take the plunge if they do. The "hit record" pedigree of these things will always limit their resale value. In the meantime I'll keep picking up work for the good sound I get and hope the bubble doesn't burst!

Indifference is a great way of describing how I feel about these things. However, the middle ground is spotted on the horizon mentioning Call Me Al, although I view that as more of a break than a solo. The Willie Weeks thing is good and right up my street in terms of genre but I find myself more drawn to the excellent drumming going on underneath! I enjoyed the rancid thing but again without the drums he'd struggle to keep that crowd boiling. Wooten Sheenhan and co don't cut it though, I like music not finger gymnastics!

After getting distracted by the career and learning logic and having to play guitar... I've been trying to catch up on everything I've missed in bass world. Thanks to the arrival of youtube this has included getting round to listening to all the players I was too tight to fork out good Cd money on. A lot of these play something called bass solos. In short, I've got a major question mark over this practice as an art form. The forum's thoughts please.

U Can't Touch This

Fair enough. All music for a very particular intellect and breed of ears, and no call either way on my behalf. As promised I'm not going to look for angles to "put you right" as it were. Thanks for the post back.

JTUK I'm very interested to know what music you're into. Not so that people can go (adopt anorak voice) "I think you'll find that in 1968 Bootsy Collins and Larry Graham spent an evening transcribing Ob blah di (sp)....) but to understand your viewpoint. 'Cos I must admit I'm finding it really difficult to appreciate, although I know that's my viewpoint and we're entitled to differ etc etc. But it's McCartney for the love of Pete!

[quote name='JTUK' post='908067' date='Jul 28 2010, 12:11 PM']What do you mean about defining commercial bass playing in many ways.. how has he done this..? That he played on records that sold millions..?[/quote] In one way yes. I know that a lot of the time he just pounded away on the root and fifth, and other lines are walking ones. Some are riff based obviously as well. The point is that he isn't a virtuoso therefore it becomes much more likely that an upcoming player can emulate him. I've been playing for 20 years and I still can't nail a Jamerson line the way I want but I can feel I've got closer to a McCartney line, although the exact feel and phrasing escapes me. When I've written bass lines I wish I could say as much with as little as he does. Being bit of a geek I've come across so many interviews with his peers who see him as the benchmark. Either that or they are aiming to avoid what he would do, which in as many ways is as important/ impressive. The famous quote about the Velvet Underground is that they didn't sell many records but everyone who bought one started a band. The Beatles/Wings/Macca solo may not have as much take up as that but it doesn't take much imagination to think of the numbers of musicians (people playing bass in this instance) inspired by him, including those around him as already established artists. In this day and age it's easy to forget what a seismic shift in culture the Beatles were, the archetype still for "a band". Aside from slapping and tapping etc, it's difficult to think of compositional tricks that are used today for the bass that he didn't touch upon at one time or another. I've got a feeling that's the subject of another post or thread entirely!

[quote name='Marvin' post='907495' date='Jul 27 2010, 07:41 PM']I was going to write a post but I think you've pretty much covered it for me, a cracking post. McCartney was a big influence on me when I first picked up the bass, not so much now but you can't deny his influence.[/quote] Thank you.

Perhaps this should be approached the other way. Who else has been in the business for 50 years, developed song writing, song production, recording techniques and instrumental styles to the same extent as he has? On a cynical level as a frustrated employee, who can afford to take any musical avenue he fancies without worrying about paying the rent? To dismiss his achievements as utter Shi+e is deluded, hangover or no! There are musicians and bands and songs that have me in blue fits that other musicians rate really highly and I'm trying to be more open minded about them. If a sportsman was able to have a career that was half a century long, would every game be a classic? Impossible. A novelist knock out a flawless tome every single time, highly unlikely. A musician that can turn up in any country in the world, play a song he's written and have a person in the room recognise it? A colossal mind blowing accomplishment. Every song of his a jewel, I can't argue that, but I can't think of a band or artist where I get off on every single note.

Chris_b has a really valid point. I can't stand Weather Report and Jaco, notes for notes sake and technique as sport. But I've had to give way a little bit twice recently. Apparently Jaco has been quoted "Everything I do I learned off Jerry Jermott", one of my favourite bass players and nag dammit on further listening you can hear it. Then I find out one of my all time top basslines, "Rhythm Stick" was written hours after seeing Jaco in concert. And you can hardly say Weather Report will be troubling the all time radio broadcasts, album sales etc etc lists. Imagine how much McCartney's work has filtered into the system, I don't see how you can argue against it. With regards to his tone, especially in the early days, just remember what technology they had available. Who in the 60s had a quality bass tone that would be remotely passable today? Wyman used a short scale bass into an old wardrobe. Jamerson pokes and woofles. (I love his music, honest) Jet Harris totally indistinct. Kaye see Jamerson (or is it the other way round) Duck Dunn- my all time hero but you've got to admit flat sounding. Don't even get me started on Jack Bruce Redding- rattles around with no weight John Paul Jones- the only rival to Paul. These people would all feature in my top 20 bass players. Of course many many people would disagree with the above but just go back and compare back to back any Beatles record with acts of the same time, those records still sound clearer, more open and lively and bigger than their peers. In fact on those dismal days I end having to listen to radio 2 on car journeys all day (I've broken it...) when a Beatles record comes on it sounds better than most. Of course Martin and Emerick have a lot to do with that but you can't polish a turd. Having thought of all that I'm very aware that I'm wandering into sharing my viewpoints and therefore that makes me a music nazi...

Chris_b has a really valid point. I can't stand Weather Report and Jaco, notes for notes sake and technique as sport. But I've had to give way a little bit twice recently. Apparently Jaco has been quoted "Everything I do I learned off Jerry Jermott", one of my favourite bass players and nag dammit on further listening you can hear it. Then I find out one of my all time top basslines, "Rhythm Stick" was written hours after seeing Jaco in concert. And you can hardly say Weather Report will be troubling the all time radio broadcasts, album sales etc etc lists. Imagine how much McCartney's work has filtered into the system, I don't see how you can argue against it. With regards to his tone, especially in the early days, just remember what technology they had available. Who in the 60s had a quality bass tone that would be remotely passable today? Wyman used a short scale bass into an old wardrobe. Jamerson pokes and woofles. (I love his music, honest) Jet Harris totally indistinct. Kaye see Jamerson (or is it the other way round) Duck Dunn- my all time hero but you've got to admit flat sounding. Don't even get me started on Jack Bruce Redding- rattles around with no weight John Paul Jones- the only rival to Paul. These people would all feature in my top 20 bass players. Of course many many people would disagree with the above but just go back and compare back to back any Beatles record with acts of the same time, those records still sound clearer, more open and lively and bigger than their peers. In fact on those dismal days I end having to listen to radio 2 on car journeys all day (I've broken it...) when a Beatles record comes on it sounds better than most. Of course Martin and Emerick have a lot to do with that but you can't polish a turd. Having thought of all that I'm very aware that I'm wandering into sharing my viewpoints and therefore that makes me a music nazi...

[quote name='Stingray5' post='906468' date='Jul 26 2010, 11:21 PM']+1 from me too, scalpy, though may I just add that I did actually allude to Macca's singing and playing abilities on page 2 of this thread. That aside, I'm just wondering if the video/song from Magical Mystery Tour you might be thinking of is 'Hello Goodbye'? Great number and a lovely bass line. [/quote] That's the one! Drew a total blank last night, thanks.

Under Pressure!

All these people saying Macca's a bell-end as if they have to work with him. Obviously I haven't either, but I know a man who has who can't praise him enough. He has endless tales of Paul rolling his sleeves up and getting involved, never ever mentioning his wealth and giving to charity on an epic scale. For somebody to live through what he has without any semblance of precedent would put any personality to the test, and you could argue that only George got close to being truly humble about it all. Musicians as a breed are proud of what we do or we wouldn't put ourselves in the position to communicate our ideas to an audience in the first place. Paul is quite rightly proud of his accomplishments and a lesser man would be even more boastful or whatever characteristic you wish to choose to describe him. If I had played bass in the Beatles I'd probably find it a little tricky not to mention it once in a while. Musically I believe the word to describe his playing is eloquent. Always the right turn of phrase at the right time. One of the few bass players the average punter will do "air bass" to when he drops a fill in- I'm thinking "With a little help from my friends". I can't believe there's 7 pages of this stuff and I don't believe anyone's mentioned him playing and singing at the same time. There's a video from the Magical Mystery Tour period where you can see him miming away admittedly but the bass line is bang on. I must remember the song. The earlier stuff maybe more simplistic but he rips through it. And as to all this business about Entwistle and Jamerson. McCartney was doing a very different job for those songs. Most of us have played in more than one band and know that you just can't always do your thing. It's back to the right thing at the right time. The Beatles were about the lyrics, the melodies and the textures. Paul did what he needed to and considering the variety of material demonstrated an imagination way beyond what most other musicians are capable of to suit. Entwistle was effectively the lead guitarist in his band and Jamerson developed a niche for another equally fantastic way of playing, again very specific for the audience. I'm staggered that so called musicians can't recognise what McCartney has achieved, especially as in many ways he has defined commercial bass playing.