BottomE

Generally, if you are doing covers and you have the ability to switch tones during a gig you just choose a tone similar to the original tune for each song?

[quote name='doomed' timestamp='1458232757' post='3005855'] There's a big multi storey right behind it, Frogmore street I think it is.Correction Trenchard Street. [/quote] ^ this

My initial reaction is to be a little outraged but i aint trying to make a living booking bands so have trouble seeing the venue perspective. However, dates don't clash, different room, free entry - i dunno it seems a bit harsh. Similarly, we had a venue stop booking us ~(and some other bands) because we played at another venue in the same area. We took it as a compliment. Funny enough we get a call from them last week after not playing there for over a year - "can we book you again?". Yeah sure. Turns out their quest for exclusivity has ended up with them booking bands who don't have many gigs in the area - and there is a reason they don't have many gigs. Punters voted with their feet and stopped going to the venue so it all backfired for them. Moral of the story - sh*te happens, be polite if it does as you never know what will happen further down the road.

Yeah, gotta agree its a nasty song. When my band does an awful song i just go into auto-pilot and think about other things - shopping, football whatever. Good thing about pop tunes is they are normally over after 3 minutes or so.

He probably didn't get enough cuddles when he was little

What works for me it to take a look at the chord structure which gives a good idea about scales/intervals. Then I just play the thing until it is (almost) note perfect. Then i take a break and before i go to sleep imagine myself playing it. Couple of times like this and its pretty much imprinted on the memory. Sometimes if its a song we aint played for ages there is a moment where the brain seems to stop but as soon as i'm due to play it just happens. The time taken to learn a song will depend on the complexity. Anything by Jamerson or Nate Watts, for example, tends to take a little while longer than more repetitive lines within the material we do. Writing stuff down seems to make me rely on the paper copy all the time. It never sticks if i have to read it all the time. Never take cue from the singer cos she screws up sometimes or we might be working with a different vocalist. Really don't want to rely on someone else cos it means a double screw up if the other person gets it wrong.

Only time we do a proper soundcheck is when using a full PA, which isn't often. Otherwise the pre-gig ritual is as follows: Normally the vocals, keys, horns - anything thats being put into the PA gets checked that its coming out the speakers. Monitor check. Impatiently the drummer hits his kit randomly whilst this is happening. Guitartist plays licks while "testing" that his pedals work. More random drum noises. Guitarist checks guitar 2. Horns get another tuning. Bit more drums. Keys checks on-stage sound. The first time the bass makes a noise is on the first song.

[quote name='ians' timestamp='1458072217' post='3004471'] Dont sppose this'll ever get read its right at the end..anyhow, My take on Bernard?...it really was all in his amazing fingers and nothing else. I have yet to hear a bassist who can create that dry clicky thwack on Everybody Dance..listen carefully, the speed and timing are very natural and not forced at all, its just amazing what he does...and I bet nothing to do with strings or particular instrument. Fabulous bassist. [/quote] I read it You are right. I bet if he played a £50 bass it would still sound amazing and you would know it was him. The most difficult thing to do with an instrument is have your own style - he had it in spades.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1457281786' post='2997009'] +1 Being in two halves makes it easier to transport as well. [/quote] +1 all that. Sometimes i leave one of them in the car if its a small gig but its there if i need it. That said, never had a speaker go during a gig (cue the next post on the "last nights gig" thread.

Yeah its frustrating as hell. I lost it on an earlier thread and realised that we all have a different view on what is "good enough" whatever that means. Sometimes you just have to accept that some things you can't change.

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1456778055' post='2992244'] We have to adjust quite a lot, because there are only 3 of us, so if the group had more to start with then it tends to feel a bit empty, so we fill it up a bit more (where that is needed). If I am doing a cover, I learn exactly how the thing goes, then we go and practice it, and we move it around a bit until it becomes our interpretation of it. If we can do anything with it, it stays, if not it goes. Some of the songs are close to the original, some are quite a way away. If anyone wants exact, there is a generally a juke box in the corner. [/quote] You've nailed it.

Yeah, you are right it is only Rock N Roll. I've got more picky and sensitive about it with age and its my problem. No-one else ever worries about it. And sure as eggs is eggs, a song might develop with the band and morph into a recognisable hybrid of the original, it still goes down well and everyones a winner. The thing that gets my grumpy goat on is not learning it properly in the first place.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1456769868' post='2992092'] Depends what you call "Stopped dead" I suppose and who the audience was that he tailored his comment for. Growing up in the 70s I can remember him being on TOTP a few times and "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do" and "Laughter In The Rain" being two of his 70s hits. That's just from memory. [/quote] You are right. Neil Sedaka is a survivor.. Like most artists with longevity he reinvented himself a number of times. "Breaking up" 70s version was a slowed down cover of his original 60s tune. What was striking though was how clean cut he was (and Boone and Connie Friancis) and then look at the Beatles who were pretty rough looking/sounding in comparison - the US seemed to love this.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1456769214' post='2992077'] Learn the chord structure, the melody and the form. Most songs are pretty simple, going into minutiae about what the exact original notes are seems OCD.. [/quote] We'll have to disagree. If you can't be bothered to learn the correct notes which notes are you learning? Imaginary ones? Do you miss the ones that take too much effort?

Saw an interview with Neil Sedaka on BBC4. He said that the moment the Beatles (and the Stones) arrived his career and many others like him (Connie Francis, Pat Boone etc) just stopped! Dead. From earning huge amounts of money (in those days) he ended up touring northern working mens clubs in England which were not for the weak minded. His experience was that the Beatles impact was enormous in the US and changed everything for ever! And he should know cos hes a pretty smart fella.

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1456740732' post='2991787'] Haha, that sounds hugely more complicated than just listening to the recording and working out the part - I wouldn't know where to begin! [/quote] hehe you may have a point, though once used to working like this its a doddle. And of course who gives a sh*t anyway? Its only bass and its only a cover tune. I do get nervous of phrases like "artistic choice", "interpretation" cos based on passed experience this has been code for couldn't be arsed to learn it properly.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1456670295' post='2991201'] It's also quite possible that, having listened to, appreciated and learned the 'right' parts, some retouching is required to get it to fit with the 'real' band setting in which it is to be played, rather than the more ideal 'studio' setting that the original was created in. [/quote] This is it. Getting the part right in the first place. This should be done way before you get into the rehearsal space with your band.

And another thing that happens due to this amateur approach is that the tune gets gigged and the band say "hmm not sure that really works". Leaves you thinking, actually the tune does work its just you lazy fecker(s) have screwed it up cos you didn't do the work. When you have 2 or 3 in the band with that attitude then it becomes a problem. Of course, mine is a minority view, most others are happy with an "interpretation" and i just have to deal with it. The irony is that it has never been easier to be able to learn songs with DAWs and YouTube etc. Back in the old days of listening to tapes or records it was a lot harder. Today you can go on YouTube, convert to MP3, import into some software, LISTEN TO THE ORIGINAL PART WITHOUT NOODLING. Just use your ears and a bit of patience. Then EQ the original bass part out and play along to get the nuances. Sorry guys, you've touched a nerve...

[quote name='mrtcat' timestamp='1456438712' post='2989150'] Playing exactly the same as the original song only really works if the rest of the band are doing the same. I play the same songs differently with different bandmates if it works better that way. [/quote] Spot on and it frustrates the hell out of me when others don't learn the song as the original. When peeps say "Interpretation" it is often an excuse for not being bothered. The offender has had a quick listen in the car on the way to rehearsal. Its a problem i have to deal with as the majority of players seem to approach learning tunes in a slaphappy way.

[quote name='The Hat' timestamp='1456583364' post='2990478'] Is the bass line hard to play ? [/quote] Not really though you need a bit of stamina if you are a noob. Octaves will hurt when you are a relatively new player but get easier over time. The little solo bit is pretty much running up the scale and down again. Chorus is fun as plenty of scope for fun. Hand position on the chorus - you can play the root note of the 4 chords from the 5th fret so if you choose to play it like that not a lot of hand movement needed. Like Bobthedog said - its relative though. Worst case scenario is that you have to keep watching the vid with the foxy bass playing lady...

True the software is limited but not sure if it is impossible to have additional search filters as are already in place. Twincam has a point. I'd never buy a bass from a non UK source or from someone who has no "history" on BC. On the other side of the coin it is fun to look at basses that wouldn't normally be in my field of vision...

[quote name='The Hat' timestamp='1456521652' post='2990092'] Superb, are there any other female bass players like her, coz I rather like her ! [/quote] She is lovely and got a great sound from her bass. We still do the Boogie Oogie tune and it always goes a storm. There is a vid of her playing this in the 70s and another in the early 00s and she looks equally foxy in both.

[quote name='Jazzneck' timestamp='1456323087' post='2987823'] I've been following the basses for sale thread for the last week or so as I'm looking for yet another bass. One thing has hit me hard. The majority of basses offered for sale in that time are 5 Stringers. Wot's happnin'? Are 5 Stringers going out of favour? [/quote] I noticed this too. Having to wade through all those ads to get to real basses is a right pain

[quote name='geofio' timestamp='1456094753' post='2985403'] Would not use a pc for recording , Mac is the only way to go for serious recording, there are always issues with pc been there done that. no matter the power of the pc/lapotop they just don't hack it for multitrack recording don.t waste your money on a pc is my 20 years recording music advice!!!! [/quote] Respect your opinion but your advice sounds 20 years old. True, in the early days it was really the best option to get a Mac for decent home studio recording. These days, however, there is much more bang for buck on the Windows platform and all the early problems of latency, bad memory management and annoyingly timed crashes is a thing of the past. Someone else suggesting using whatever you are comfortable with and its good advice. There are some DAW packages that manage resources well and others more demanding. The real question is how many audio tracks and effects the OP wants to use simultaneously. If its loads then get as high a spec as possible. If like me, maximum 2 audio tracks at the same time, most £400 laptops will do this with a decent Audio Interface.

These days even entry level Laptops will do fine as long as you are using an external audio interface and not running loads of background apps. My Toshiba Satellite is 5 years old and was at the lower end of the market when purchased, however, Its handled Cubase for years with no noticeable latency. One thing that may influence your decision is the amount of live audio that you want to record concurrently. If you want to record, say, 5 live audio tracks at once then you may need a more powerful machine. If, like me, you are going to use it as a tool to record one live audio track at a time then i wouldn't worry too much about the spec. As a rough guide anything over £400 should be fine. My spec is an Intel Celeron T3100, 3 Gb Ram and 320 Gb Hard drive which in todays world is puny but it always works fine.