Bass Guitar Mag Janek Gwidzala

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='7string' post='154249' date='Mar 9 2008, 10:34 PM']There was nothing wrong with this original post at all. You called it as you saw it...[/quote]
Can't agree with you on that. Saying "yeah right" indicates a lack of belief in what is in print, and in any language is denigrating to the author and or publisher.
my verdict: bad choice of language as I don't think the OP intended that level of offence.

[7string]

I don't think he meant to cause offence at all either. I thought the "yeah, right" was just conversational and that he didn't believe what was being claimed.

Many musicians practice for 8 hours a day and indeed, I have done so for long periods of time first as a classical musician and then when I was cramming for 4 hour gigs I was being asked to play and I only had 3 days to learn the songs !!

Maybe this claim within a magazine was meant so that the reader would respect the author?

Edited March 9, 2008 by 7string

[birdy]

[quote name='bigd1' post='154239' date='Mar 9 2008, 10:25 PM']My original post was in no way a "slagging off" of anybody, it was and still is a request for an explanation of an article in a magazine that I found hard to believe.
I didn't make any comments about anybodies playing, style, musical taste, ability or any other personal comments.
I thought posting a observation I had made would make an interesting topic.
Maybe a discussion of this type is to much to ask, although I didn't think it to be that hard.

BIGd[/quote]

I hope you can see that the original few pages of this thread were perceived by myself and others as 'slagging off' for want of a better phrase. The trouble with the written word is that we have to form opinions based on purely what we read without knowing the full intentions which you have now clarified. It's good to know that you didn't intend the post to be malicious and I apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Getting back on topic and maybe drawing this to a closure you state that 'it was and still is' a request for an explanation of the article and your questions relating to it.

I may be wrong but I see it that

1) You questioned Janeks practice regime of 10 hours on a particular thing. He has been on here and told us that it it true so that should be that one done and dusted
2) You queried why anyone would want to play at 200 or 400BPM. Again, I think this has been explained as more a means to an end. By learning to play to the absolute top of your game it would allow you to play whatever you wanted without limitation. This maybe not enough explanation for you as its just my view.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick with my interpretation above?

EDIT: another good example of how we can get things wrong. Where I have 1) and 2) above I started with a) and b ) and the b ) without the space turned into which could be deemed condescending.

Steve

Edited March 9, 2008 by birdy

[BigBeefChief]

I practiced for 10 hours today.

"Another one bites the dust" is coming along really well.

[7string]

The 10 hour a day practice headline is guaranteed to produce a reaction, either good or bad. Isn't it true that any publicity is good publicity?

[b]BBC[/b], keep up the practice routine. Don't forget to go into your shed and film your playing for YouTube

[LukeFRC]

Just read this whole mess of a topic and it was quite entertaining untill the end.
I think BBC and others were asking some insightful questions about how we (collectively) approach music.
And big up on Janek for bothering to respond. Even if i think the dental problems clouded his mood.

I just graduated art college. At that point I wanted to be good at art. So i put in the hours. 'Practiced', read, thought learned. And got my aim- a degree and a bunch of art i am very pleased with (www.lfletcher.co.uk)
If i took it any further i would have to put a load of time in. Hours and hours and give up lots of other stuff. But I would be good enough and worked hard enough to make money to support my art.
In the same way C. Ronaldo puts in loads of time on the practice pitch- to be the best. Or Hamilton spends ages in the gym.
Whether you like my art, or ronaldo or hamilton is irrelivent. It is about the artist doing what it takes to make it happen.

I took up bass, and taught myself, cos it was a break from art. something i could be crap at. Something that was fun to not have to try and learn. So I have fun and pick up stuff as I go. Currently Jamerson's playing is amazing to me. I dont understand it. But ill listen and have fun and work it out eventually.

I guess a lot of us are like me (and I guess BBC and a load of the others) that we play music cos its fun.
Janek plays for different reasons, its his livelyhood. We can learn from him but his newyorkjazz world is possibly diffent to our playingthelocalthenworkat8thenextmorning worlds.
remeber to translate between to two.

On another note i listend to some of janek's youtube stuff and the jazz band stuff I wasn't too fussed about but his wee practices were cool. the way he sings along. like he's learned how to make the tunes in his head come out of his guitar. Like macca could. I cant do that yet. When I can i will be happy.

shalome

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='birdy' post='154277' date='Mar 9 2008, 11:25 PM']1) You questioned Janeks practice regime of 10 hours on a particular thing. He has been on here and told us that it it true so that should be that one done and dusted[/quote]
Hmm... this suggests to me that he doesn't do that EVERY day...
[quote name='gwizmon' post='153823' date='Mar 9 2008, 10:10 AM']Sometimes the answers to these questions aren't particularly positive so I might just leave the bass hanging on the wall and go to the park, eat some sushi or whatever until I'm in a place where I think I can do good work. So trying not to force the issue plays a big part in progressing and developing as a player.[/quote]
So perhaps the original comment in the article was a little misleading, which was part of the point of the OP?

[Bilbo]

10 hours or not, Janek's commitment to his profession is a credit to him and I only wish I could dedicate as much time to it. I think I would have to sacrifice too much to do that at this point in my life. But that doesn't mean I can't recognise the investment he has and continues to make to his playing, his audience, the bass fraternity as a whole. He is a credit to his profession.

Talent isn't enough. We need the Janek's of this world to remind us of the benefits of deicated hard work.

Personally, I would love to look after his Wal 5-string while he was on tour with his Fodera

[BigBeefChief]

Yeah, I agree. Full credit to him for having the discipline to practice that hard. Doing anything (apart from boozing) for that amount of time would fast become a chore.

[Jase]

Practice is tough though, it can be real hard work when you have to take some of your playing apart because you realise you're not quite cutting it in a few areas, it's hard to try and apply the things you're learning in a way that's accessible to the listener.

[BigBeefChief]

I suppose we're all different. I'd quite happily play for 10 hours a day, but the second it was my livelihood, and I felt I HAD to pick up my bass, I think it would seem slightly less fun. Likewise, I'f I'm learning a song I can play for hours, but if I'm playing a slightly more academic excersice, I slip into playing Stone Roses lines after not to long.

I'm sure reaching the level of technical skill as Janek isn't all a walk in the park. It wouldn't be for me.

[Bilbo]

I always say that, if you haven't got that knot of frustration in your stomach, you probably aren't practising anything you need to practice.

Feel the fear but do it anyway!

[cheddatom]

I had guitar lessons, but i've never learned any bass techniques from anything other than myself, and watching some live bassists. I'm sure my technique is technically crap, but I only have a desire to improve it when i've written something that challenges me. It's my/my band's writing that improves my playing ability, because I know what I want to play, and sometimes I can't play it. This will drive me to practice for hours on end, but I can honestly say I could never spend 10 hours playing the bass. Guit*r maybe.......

I suppose these sorts of techniques and lessons etc are more for the type of person who wants to be as good as they possible can at playing their instrument, like classical musicians etc? I'm just happy being able to play what I feel I need to play.




I know it's a bit late in the day, but I've read through all of this thread and I can't believe some of the posts. The only person who has been personally insulted is BBC, which is just as well 'cos no-one else can take it. I thought Janek made quite a bit of sense with his posts, but kept saying that the OP was missing the point of his article - the OP was about one small specific bit of his article which is obviously not going to have much to do with the main point of the thing. Questioning the honesty of an article writer is always fair, and when Janek replied, he didn't seem so certain and specific about his 10 hour claim, not that it bothers me either way. I've never seen Janek around here before so I don't know how it's possible to miss him?!

[tauzero]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='154168' date='Mar 9 2008, 08:37 PM']I think we should ask ourselves what level of criticism should take place in this environment, and being relatively new to the online world I'm beginning to feel that caution is the better part of valour, or to put it another way, the thick skinned can handle anything (me included) but the thin skinned can't and perhaps we should all have consideration for the thinner skinned end of the forum, so as to maintain a friendly atmosphere.[/quote]
A thick skin is vital for anyone posting on any but the most heavily moderated forums, and always has been necessary in most newsgroups. There are [url="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/"]all sorts of flame warriors out there[/url]...

[Machines]

Haha great site tauzero, I think we can all be fitted into one of those..

[7string]

Personally, I think that speed is irrelevant.

How many bands would you have the opportunity to play anything that speed during a gig? Or even take a solo during a gig?

I don't think it would be that useful to most gigging bassists whether they be professionals or players enjoying a small gig in a club.

Imagine this, you've practiced a piece from the magazine and you have it down. First thing the leader of the band calls is "OK, Mustang Sally.....1,2,3"

In the classical field, practising 8-10 even 12 hours a day is not unheard of. A friend of mine from school who's a couple of years older then me, used to practice for at least 5-6 hours a day every weekday and for up to 12 hours at weekends. He's now a professional concert pianist and a teacher. I, myself, as a Grade 8 standard violinist used to practice at least 5-6 hours a day, play with an orchestra on Saturday mornings and then all afternoon and into Saturday evening.

I think that because the 10 hour practice statement comes into the public domain through a magazine, many people who have not experienced a classical background are amazed by it.

We'd all like to practice more but some here have families and jobs. Heck, even Janek was taking time out to go with his girlfriend to the beach!! As long as each of us enjoy playing bass that's all that matters and we shouldn't compare ourselves to anyone else, let alone those who write in magazines and play professionally.

Edited March 10, 2008 by 7string

[mcgraham]

It is very good to practice things you can't do, that's how you get better. [i]However[/i], if you only discover things you can't do when you're actually practicing with a band or in performance, it's too late by that point to get it down for that gig or practice.

The purpose in practicing difficult pieces and exercises above and beyond what you would be called to play on a daily basis is so that whatever you come across in band practice or performance, whether rehearsed or improvised, you don't need to go away and woodshed on it before you can do it.

That is one key purpose of personal practice, to prepare you for performance.

I appreciate that some of you may be happy with woodshedding something [i]after[/i] you find you couldn't do it in a practice or gig, but it is an inefficient way to go about practicing your instrument. If you're happy with going about your instrument in that way, fine; if you're like me, you won't be. However please don't try and explain away why it's detrimental to a musician to practice in such a manner, as it is ludicrous to try and do so (IMO).

Mark

[cheddatom]

I don't think anyone has suggested that practicing more will make you a worse player, or that complicated/fast techniques will detract from your abilities. That's obviously ludicrous. What is slightly more sensible, is to suggest that practicing the same things over and over so that you can do them at full speed can create a certain repetetiveness of style. For example, when I find something I want to play but can't quite do it, I will play that over and over again until I can play it. From then on, for the next week or so, I find this technique, or shape, or specific run or widdle creeps into my playing to such an extent that it gets a bit repetetive. My guitarist spent 6 months learning a nuno solo, and now that 1 shape/run tends to appear in a lot of his solos (obviously in different keys etc).

Has anyone else experienced this?

Also, I think that being highly conscious (which is different to having the knowledge) of music theory/standard practices etc, can mean that you often forget that you can play whatever you want - the notes you play don't have to conform to any scale or key or mode or whatever.

[7string]

That's a good point, Cheddatom. I remember guitarist, Paul Gilbert saying that after he went to GIT he totally forgot how to play blues!

My point was the practicing a technique and getting it up to speed of 400bpm (or whatever is suggested in this article) could be of little use to players who don't take solos in bands (in whatever genre).

It may help self-confidence, but the actual practicing of one lick for hours and hours which is not going to be played onstage seems, to me at least, a little pointless. There are a whole range of things to learn, rhythm, time, keeping with a drummer and so on.

Being able to play these techniques does not automatically make you a better bassist. It might make you sound cool in a music shop on a Saturday afternoon, but it has little to do with playing in a band and translating the feel of a song to an audience.

Edited March 10, 2008 by 7string

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='154518' date='Mar 10 2008, 01:41 PM']I don't think anyone has suggested that practicing more will make you a worse player, or that complicated/fast techniques will detract from your abilities. That's obviously ludicrous.[/quote]
Not read the whole thread then?
[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='152534' date='Mar 6 2008, 05:38 PM']I actually think that technical ability may hinder creativity. The majority of my favourite musicians are self taught or have little in the way of classical education. Maybe there's a certain magic created by trying to do a lot with the little that you've got?

Maybe if you can't impress with technical ability, then you need to think of something else?[/quote]

[cheddatom]

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='154528' date='Mar 10 2008, 01:58 PM']Not read the whole thread then? [/quote]

I did read the whole thread. BBC was talking about creativity, so he was basically making the a similar point to the one i've just made:

"Also, I think that being highly conscious (which is different to having the knowledge) of music theory/standard practices etc, can mean that you often forget that you can play whatever you want - the notes you play don't have to conform to any scale or key or mode or whatever."

I can't speak for tBBC but I guess he's refferring to writing, gigging musicians whose songs and stage persona he loves, rather than saying "I actually think that technical ability may hinder bass playing" he said "I actually think that technical ability may hinder creativity", which makes a lot of sense to me, and doesn't contradict what i've said.

[BigBeefChief]

Just to clarify, I think practice is very important. However, I think being a great bass guitarist (technically) and being a great musician can be worlds apart.

Perhaps its a coincidence that I tend not to like the music of great technicians, or maybe having the ability to play flashy licks increases the temptation to use them when not appropriate? Maybe, as I said earlier, if you not tied down to conforming to theory, you can come up with ideas that more classicaly trained musicians perhaps wouldn't think of?

I remember seeing an interview with Suggs from Madness once. He was asked what gave Madness they distinctive and catchy sound. He said that it was their lack of technical ability at the time. I think he was unerplaying their talent, but if the members of Madness had all been virtuosos, would they have had the success that they went on to find?

Edited March 10, 2008 by BigBeefChief

[birdy]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='154530' date='Mar 10 2008, 02:05 PM']"I actually think that technical ability may hinder creativity"[/quote]

I have been thinking a lot about this since BBC raised the point. I have come to the conclusion (so far) that it shouldn't. Its a bit like saying that an artist who practices painting often would be less creative than one who never paints. Or a wood turner who creates interesting shapes would be less creative than one who doesnt ever turn wood really?

Surely the more bass you play and the better technically you become the more creative you can be? I am willing to be persuaded otherwise but can't see an argument against my stance at the moment.

EDIT: Maybe if Adam Clayton as an example had been technically better than he was at the time he would never have written the wonderful simplistic basslines that suit U2 so well? Note that for all I know Adam Clayton may be as technically proficient as Victor Wooten but lets assume just for this argument that he isn't. Would someone highly technical have had the restraint to keep it simple? I think they probably would. I think that if Adam Clayton hadn't been as creative as he would he would have been trying to add flash runs in even if he couldnt pull them off.

Steve

Edited March 10, 2008 by birdy

[Machines]

It may be down to an inclination to create more complex work if you have a higher level understanding of more complex music.

Simplicity is nearly always a winner in being 'catchy'.

[BigBeefChief]

I agree its a slightly far out idea, but I i find it difficult to explain by any other means why I never seem to like the work of more technically accomplished and classicaly trained musicians.

Goin back to the painting analogy, I agree that practice improves your bility to make marks on a canvas. You can practice painting in all styles and become very accomplished. You could also develop some pretty firm ideas as to how to paint in a certain style. What would happen if someone who had never painted before picked up a brush and started slapping paint around? It would not be as good technically, but it may be just as creative. It would certainly be different and less likely to conform to any known styles. Hell, it could even be more creative than the pro's picture!

For those who think I'm saying "practice is wrong" - I'm not at all. We all need to practice. Me more than most. But I think an overly academic approach can be stifling towards creativity. I found this myself. I used to get slightly hung up on theory. Then I started studying the bass lines of my hero's and guess what? A lot of the time, they through convention to the wind and just played what sounded good. Isn't that what its all about?