Bass Guitar Mag Janek Gwidzala

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='155721' date='Mar 12 2008, 07:41 AM']I would perhaps submit that classical musicians, whilst immensely knowledgeable about a great deal more than just theory, do not endeavour to improve their ability to improvise or create pieces by application of this knowledge, as it really isn't a needed skill (outside of those who are classical composers)
Mark[/quote]
Exactly, and what they don't use in skill terms for improvisation they more than make up for in their ability to produce the goods to a very high standard with every performance.
Incidentally more classical musicians are involved in jazz now than ever before and have both skill sets. Even the conservatoires have jazz ensembles and there are options for jazz in the various curricular, so the above is changing.

Edited March 12, 2008 by jakesbass

[cheddatom]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155798' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:05 AM']What I didn't say is that a lack of technique will prevent you expressing yourself, and neither do I think that, so to me your question answers itself.
There is a huge difference between copying someone elses solos and having global harmonic awareness to be able to construct your own on the spot.
Whether you listen to modern jazz will make not a jot of difference to anything, Bach and many of the composers of and around his time were improvisors. Last night I did a gig with an eight piece band doing original material, we spent the previous week rehearsing to create our parts as the songwriter gave us frames of the songs. Last Saturday I did a hotel gig in Manchester playing songs from the 20s and 30s playing largely two feels but all improvised to some extent.
And thats just the last week. None of it modern jazz. I've spent nearly 20 years doing this, a tiny proportion of the time in modern jazz groups. And as I said before I enjoy, indeed [i]love[/i] it all.[/quote]


What i'm saying is that some of these extremely fast, extremely difficult, and extremely impressive improvisations don't sound like something some would have inside their head and want to get out. I don't listen to enough jazz to know that for a fact, and so i'm asking.

How many times did you play impressively fast during all of your gigs? I fail to see what's technically brilliant about being able to play basslines to songs, because that's what you're describing to me. I know you're not proffessing yourself as a technically brilliant player, but you are arguing that practicing technique to such a degree that the music you're making is almost unlistenable, will make you a better player, or a more able to improvise player. What i'm saying is that I have never practiced in such a way, and yet I find improvising no problem. I have played with a few different groups where i've had to learn an hour's set in 3 hours or so, but I always just remember the chord changes and play along. If I wanted to play walking bass I would have to practice it, but not until I could do it at 400bpm.

Scales and Keys are sets of notes on your fret board. They're useful for putting different parts of music together, but you can basically hear what's right or wrong. Many a time, what's wrong from the technical viewpoint will be right to your ears. If you've just been practicing scales all your life, you might not be aware of a note that would sound great. If you ignore all of this theory, you have the entire fret board to play with, and you can play anything you like, and judge it with your ears and your brain. This is what works for me!

This is might a bit arrogant, but only because i'm relating it to myself. I'm sure there are thousands of other musicians out there who play in the same way.

[mcgraham]

[quote]Incidentally more classical musicians are involved in jazz now than ever before and have both skill sets. Even the conservatoires have jazz ensembles and there are options for jazz in the various curricular, so the above is changing[/quote]

Indeed! It's wonderful that more and more classical musicians are discovering the joy of improvisation, and that they have killer technique and reading skills that put most self declared musicians to shame. My same friend said there is nothing like classical exercises to develop your technique.

Incidentally, I went to see Janek and his band play in Epsom last Easter and Gwilym Simcock was on keys. I didn't realise it was him at the time as I missed his name being called out, but I'd heard of him before. Apparently he's a classically trained pianist, acclaimed virtuoso dare I say?

Anyway, whilst I didn't really dig [i]what[/i] he was playing, I really dug [i]how[/i] he went about his soloes. It was extremely educational. You/I often hear about how to construct soloes in a qualitative sense; you know, how to build up, change gears, use of recurring phrases and motifs, changing rhythms etc, to actually tell a 'story' with it, have some ebb and flow to it. Whilst I didn't really dig what he was playing (wasn't bad at all, just not my cup of tea), you could really really hear it in his playing, it was astounding to hear. Really carefully constructed yet (presumably) improvsed, intricate yet musical, advanced at points but always lyrical.

Oh and the band were amazing. I highly recommend catching them. Every one of them is a phenomenon in their own right. I can't say which musician stunned me the most (Elliot Mason, Gary Husband, Gwilym and Janek).... actually if anyone I'd say Gary Husband by a hair, but only because he demonstrated how drums could be so much more than we often perceive them to be.

Again, I want to go home and practice.

Mark

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']What i'm saying is that some of these extremely fast, extremely difficult, and extremely impressive improvisations don't sound like something some would have inside their head and want to get out. I don't listen to enough jazz to know that for a fact, and so i'm asking.[/quote]
yes there are people who hear and can reproduce that stuff really fast. Speed is not something that impresses me though.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']How many times did you play impressively fast during all of your gigs?[/quote]
I didn't really, speed is not something I really aspire to in a performance, however having those skills makes all my improvised choices come easily and dare I say it make me sound good, which I don't really want to espouse but the situation warrants it. I get asked to do lots of gigs. So I must be doing something right.
[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']I fail to see what's technically brilliant about being able to play basslines to songs, because that's what you're describing to me. I know you're not professing yourself as a technically brilliant player, but you are arguing that practicing technique to such a degree that the music you're making is almost unlistenable.[/quote]

None of the great musicians I know (and I know some phenomenal ones) would suggest that you cram all your practise regime excercises into a given song, really fast. there are those that do, and I'm as bored by their playing as I'm guessing you would be. So to put it straight. I am not suggesting we make music unlistenable, quite the opposite actually

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']Scales and Keys are sets of notes on your fret board. They're useful for putting different parts of music together, but you can basically hear what's right or wrong. Many a time, what's wrong from the technical viewpoint will be right to your ears. If you've just been practicing scales all your life, you might not be aware of a note that would sound great.[/quote]

Sorry but thats ill thought out, why do you assume that people who have an awareness of all the details of their instruments stop using their ears? I listen hard all the time and knowing theory does not prevent me from doing so. Quite the opposite, by having a large awareness of chords and their relevent scales I have many possibilities of what "works" and I rely as much on my musical taste as my technical facility.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']If you ignore all of this theory, you have the entire fret board to play with, and you can play anything you like, and judge it with your ears and your brain. This is what works for me![/quote]
Don't kid yourself, you are not ignoring theory. If you play something. it can be described, that is 'the theory' and the whole point of that is so that we as musicians can share that information.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155819' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:24 AM']This is might a bit arrogant, but only because i'm relating it to myself. I'm sure there are thousands of other musicians out there who play in the same way.[/quote]

I don't think its arrogant particularly, a little naive in places but I'm naive about other stuff (and sometimes this subject too) which is one of the reasons I come here because I know I'll find someone who knows more than I do Whos willing to share.
Works well doesn't it?


One of my favourite bass players is a guy called Jimmy Johnson, He plays bass with lots of people of world reknown, he plays bass for James Taylor and has done since the early nineties. This guy is a master of his instrument and can play anything it seems, fast, accurate, unusual harmony, odd time signatures and really ripping it up and exciting whilst doing it. He reserves all that for the appropriate gig eg allan Holdsworth (with whom he also plays)
Listen to him with James Taylor. He is the ultimate in appropriate and tasteful playing, using his ears, never over playing always keeping the groove.
He's just one of lots of really great musicians who can really play, but always do so with taste and finesse keeping the importance of the music, and therefore, the audience at the forefront.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155840' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:55 AM']yes there are people who hear and can reproduce that stuff really fast. Speed is not something that impresses me though.[/quote]

That's really weird to me, but I suppose if you listen to lots of very complex music you will eventually be making it "in your head" and will want to express that.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155840' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:55 AM']I didn't really, speed is not something I really aspire to in a performance, however having those skills makes all my improvised choices come easily and dare I say it make me sound good, which I don't really want to espouse but the situation warrants it. I get asked to do lots of gigs. So I must be doing something right.[/quote]

Is that really the case? You're saying if I were to sit down and play for 10 hours every night, studying all the techniques that are recommended etc, when I got back to playing my nice simple basslines I'd be playing them better? I can see the logic in that, but I just don't think it would happen in practice. I practice my nice simple basslines so that I can play them to the best of their potential, meaning that whatever techniques I may learn, I couldn't improve the way i'm playing them.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155840' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:55 AM']None of the great musicians I know (and I know some phenomenal ones) would suggest that you cram all your practise regime excercises into a given song, really fast. there are those that do, and I'm as bored by their playing as I'm guessing you would be. So to put it straight. I am not suggesting we make music unlistenable, quite the opposite actually[/quote]

I was reffering to an "unlistenable" practice regime, not performance.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155840' date='Mar 12 2008, 10:55 AM']Sorry but thats ill thought out, why do you assume that people who have an awareness of all the details of their instruments stop using their ears? I listen hard all the time and knowing theory does not prevent me from doing so. Quite the opposite, by having a large awareness of chords and their relevent scales I have many possibilities of what "works" and I rely as much on my musical taste as my technical facility.


Don't kid yourself, you are not ignoring theory. If you play something. it can be described, that is 'the theory' and the whole point of that is so that we as musicians can share that information.[/quote]


I'm not saying people stop using their ears. You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing. I'm not saying that this is a limitation, but it does mean that you're less likely to write something unusual or "original".

Just because my playing can be analysed and described by music theory, doesn't mean that music theory influences my playing. I can ignore music theory and play, whether or not there is someone listening and analysing it.

I honestly reckon that Jimmy Johnson would still sound as good playing with James Taylor, whether or not he had "the chops" to impress at his solo/jazz/improv/whatever gigs. If he had never practiced enough to get amazingly fast, he would still be able to groove IMHO.

[cheddatom]

Ok - If learning theory is all about internalising knowledge to the effect that you can play without thinking surely this can be attainable without actually learning the theory in the first place. If theory teaches you where the right notes are, but you can hear where the right notes are anyway, couldn't you just use your ears to accomplish the same thing that theory teaches?

[Bilbo]

The difficulty in applying theory to improvised music rest in the head and not the hands.

The performance of jazz requires you to listen to what is happening around you as you play and using the information you hear and the things you know about the music to inform your own decisions about where you take the music. If the soloist goes up a scale, you may chose to go up with him or to go in the opposite direction. You may choose to play a pedal tone a fourth below the root of the key centre of the changes being used (eg the first eight bars of a bebop rhythm changes tune in Bb can be accompanied by a pedal F to great effect) or you may choose to hold a note and suspend the forward motion of your line as another tension creating device. You could change a funk tune into a jazz tune, or a rock tune into Latin. You may think, a Latin groove woudl sound nice now but, becasue you knwo your drummer can't play a Latin groove, you may abort the idea. The options are infinte and are only bounded by your imagination, your knowledge of what works and the circusmtances around you at a given moment. The use of youre favourite Nuno licks will not even begin to meet the demands of improvised music.

Classical musicians are trained very differently. They are capable of some very sophisticated and complex playing but they do it mostly by rote and not spontaneously. Also. their 'creative' choices, in terms of their performance, whilst potentially informed by the conducters 'interpretation' of the ensemble delivery, are not defined by it in the way that a jazz players is. More to the point, the ensembles note choices are predetermined and not informed by anything other than the 'script'/chart. I guess the difference between jazz and classical performance is like the difference between a debate and a speech. The skills sets are very different.

There are some classical musicians that can improvise but they are rare and generally not a the top of the game - Wynton Marsalis is respected in the jazz field but he is strictly B-list in the classical world. Nigel Kennedy's 'jazz' is excruciating! Whatever his strengths as a player, I suspect Gwilym Simcock is not a contender in the classical field (I have not yet heard him).

A knowledge of music theory will NEVER undermine your ability to perform creatively. What will, however, is the ability to apply that theory. If you have to process the information yoiu hear before you make choices about what you play, the concious application of theory to your given improvisation will inevitably delay your decision making and disable your creative choices completely. The secret is to learn the thoery, knowl how to apply it and then forget about it.

Can you imagine how difficult it would be to write if you had to think about every muscle movement, spelling, sentence contstruction, tense etc? Music theory is no different.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing.[/quote]
No my ability as a musical person with taste will be at the forefront , and the first thing I consider is the song.
[quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']I'm not saying that this is a limitation, but it does mean that you're less likely to write something unusual or "original".[/quote]
I hold less store by originality than some as I think very little is truly original.
[quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']Just because my playing can be analysed and described by music theory, doesn't mean that music theory influences my playing. I can ignore music theory and play, whether or not there is someone listening and analysing it.[/quote]
you missed the point there.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155848' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:12 AM']I honestly reckon that Jimmy Johnson would still sound as good playing with James Taylor, whether or not he had "the chops" to impress at his solo/jazz/improv/whatever gigs. If he had never practiced enough to get amazingly fast, he would still be able to groove IMHO.[/quote]
again, I feel you've missed my point, of course its not necessary to have technical brilliance, and i have never said so. I can hear the difference.
I also love Jerry Jemmott but he doesn't have the same finesse, Doesn't make him any less of a player.

I think when you reach the point in a conversation where you have to explain what you [i]haven't said[/i] due to the assertions of the other participant it gets a little tiring so I'm going to stop there.
I have enjoyed it though.
Thanks

[johnnylager]

Quick pint, anyone?

[Bilbo]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155854' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:17 AM']Ok - If learning theory is all about internalising knowledge to the effect that you can play without thinking surely this can be attainable without actually learning the theory in the first place. If theory teaches you where the right notes are, but you can hear where the right notes are anyway, couldn't you just use your ears to accomplish the same thing that theory teaches?[/quote]

Yes, of course yout can but its a much slower route and an uneducated musician is inevitable limted by his own internal constraints. The study of theory can help you to 'hear' things you might not otherwise have heard.

I have a simple rule - Knowledge is power. Ignorance is bliss. Your choice.

Edited March 12, 2008 by bilbo230763

[mcgraham]

[quote]Disagree strongly.

If it sounds good, it is correct. Theory is only a tool to describe why specific combinations of sounds sound good, it does not seek to constrain you to specific rules. A good knowledge of theory allows you to take the next step after that note that sounds good and come up with another note that sounds good with out having to guess.[/quote]

Agreed. I was trying to phrase it correctly earlier but you've done the hard work for me Theory is to explain, not to constrain. It's not a set of rules, it provides a constantly growing and evolving understanding of what works, what doesn't and why.

[quote]The secret is to learn the thoery, knowl how to apply it and then forget about it.[/quote]

Also in agreement. I'm sure you would agree that forgetting it completely isn't good, but you're right in that it'll impede your playing if it's a conscious effort to apply it all the time. Internalising it as Janek says

Mark

[cheddatom]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155860' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:25 AM']I think when you reach the point in a conversation where you have to explain what you [i]haven't said[/i] due to the assertions of the other participant it gets a little tiring so I'm going to stop there.
I have enjoyed it though.
Thanks[/quote]

I think that's a bit lame. I have no idea what points I have missed and i'm very interested!



It's all to do with different ways of educating the brain, and how this "knowledge" (collection of habits?) manifests it's self in a musician's playing.

I disagree with this: "uneducated musician is inevitable limted by his own internal constraints" (Bilbo)

Everyone is limited by their own internal constraints. It's not a proven fact that it would take longer to become as good a musician without education than with is it? It's entirely possible for someone's entire musical education to have come from listening to popular music, and for this person to be the best pop bassist/guitarist/whatever there is. I honestly believe you could say the same about jazz.

The hardest part of this is judging what "technical brilliance" "style" "originality" etc etc actually are. We all have our own perceptions of what makes a better bass player.


Also Bilbo - What is the distinction between nuno's improvised guitar playing and "improvised music"? I assume you're saying that a couple of solos memorised so that you can move the shapes about on the neck isn't exactly improvising. I would totally agree with that and have already stated how my guitarist tends to use nuno's shapes with annoying regularity. It doesn't sound like improvisation if you're constantly doing the same thing - obviously.

[mcgraham]

[quote]Ok - If learning theory is all about internalising knowledge to the effect that you can play without thinking surely this can be attainable without actually learning the theory in the first place. If theory teaches you where the right notes are, but you can hear where the right notes are anyway, couldn't you just use your ears to accomplish the same thing that theory teaches?[/quote]

There are some good musicians who have learned absolutely everything by ear, there are a few of them at my church back home. However, and I say this with the utmost respect for them and what they've achieved, they are impaired musicians because of it. I was actually discouraged from learning my modes because I was told I wouldn't ever need them. This was from the most technically and musically able one of the number.

Studying theory, in the same way as studying a subject, allows you to focus your efforts to achieve a measurable result rather than aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble across something. It gives you direction. How much you let it govern your progress is up to you...

But I would say this (it warrants a separate line here)... arguing that you don't think it's worth spending time on theory or technique because it MAY hinder you is a very VERY weak excuse. Now I don't know you cheddatom, and I'm sorry for perhaps being a bit personal here or even cutting, but IMO and IME of people making such arguments (or excuses), that attitude stems from pride, and being too proud to just admit that you don't wish to learn it, can't be bothered to learn it etc. I could be wrong, but if that is the reason, just say so, no-one will think any less of you for saying so. But to try and argue that learning theory is pointless in any proportion is just ignorant.

Again, apologies and IMO

Mark

[cheddatom]

I'm not saying that learning theory is pointless at all. There are enough people here arguing how good it is to convince me of it's merits.

The kind of learning method i'm talking about will not leave you aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble accross anything. Sitting down and playing by ear over and over again will also develop a knowledge of the instrument comparable to that achievable using music theory.

[Buzz]

[quote name='johnnylager' post='155861' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:27 AM']Quick pint, anyone?[/quote]
Go on then, I fancy trying one of those Coors that have appeared in 'spoonies across the nation, I had one the other day, quite a nice light "lager" to go with lunch.

[Paul_C]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155913' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:32 PM']I'm not saying that learning theory is pointless at all. There are enough people here arguing how good it is to convince me of it's merits.

The kind of learning method i'm talking about will not leave you aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble accross anything. Sitting down and playing by ear over and over again will also develop a knowledge of the instrument comparable to that achievable using music theory.[/quote]

You might be developing a knowledge that's comparable, but what you're essentially doing is creating your own music theory, which you internalise such that you can access it without concious effort.

So you're arriving at the same point but with a set of skills which are harder to share than if you'd learned the established way of describing things.

Just because you know that a particular set of notes works with a particular chord doesn't mean you can't experiment with playing other notes, but you are more aware of where you can jump to next if it sounds startlingly bad

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Paul_C' post='155923' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:40 PM']You might be developing a knowledge that's comparable, but what you're essentially doing is creating your own music theory, which you internalise such that you can access it without concious effort.

So you're arriving at the same point but with a set of skills which are harder to share than if you'd learned the established way of describing things.

Just because you know that a particular set of notes works with a particular chord doesn't mean you can't experiment with playing other notes, but you are more aware of where you can jump to next if it sounds startlingly bad [/quote]

Yeh, I kind of just came to the same conclusion. A bit of a pointless argument then really! Sorry about that.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155898' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:12 PM']I think that's a bit lame. I have no idea what points I have missed and i'm very interested![/quote]

Ok seeing as how you are interested I'll try to explain.
Its not what points you have missed, its that on a number of occasions I said one thing, then when you answered, you told me because I said one thing, I also meant another eg.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155898' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:12 PM']You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing.[/quote]

It's not what [i]I[/i] said, it's what [i]you[/i] said. It's not what [i]I[/i] think it's what you [i]said[/i] I think. and since you don't reside in my conscious I don't really think you're in a position to posit my thoughts, even if you think thats what I meant.
Those are the things I feel its pointless to try and address, and its tiring and impossible not to sound pompous when being required to examine the conduct within a conversation.

Edited March 12, 2008 by jakesbass

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='155956' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:35 PM']Edit: And, of course, I took so long in typing that that Paul C already said it![/quote]

thats always my problem

[mcgraham]

[quote]The kind of learning method i'm talking about will not leave you aimlessly noodling and pretty much hoping to stumble accross anything. Sitting down and playing by ear over and over again will also develop a knowledge of the instrument comparable to that achievable using music theory.[/quote]

I was about to say I agree when I realised that this statement is incorrect. Playing things by ear over and over again is developing knowledge of the instrument yes, that I agree with. However you need to have some system in place to figure out what what you are listening to. Otherwise you will just keep making mistakes until you get it right, obviously mistakes are made even when you know 'x' amount of theory, but at least you have some targets to hit and road signs to point you in the right direction.

I do agree with a previous post that said even if you are doing it all yourself, by ear, you are internalising your own understanding of theory. However doing this [i]exclusively[/i] is utterly absurd. There are hundreds of years of development of music theory at our disposal thanks to the internet and forums such as these, knowledge has never been more accessible. To say 'ah well, I can achieve the same thing myself' is no doubt an achievable feat (to some extent) but is entirely illogical to choose to ignore beneficial information.

Why would you do this? I understand the notion of wanting to do your own thing, this is not that; I understand wanting to figure 'it' (whatever it may be) out for yourself, but this is more than that; to dismiss the concept of standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before you for some ethereal reason (for I have yet to see a logical or worthwhile justification of this attitude) is absolutely ludicrous.

I am running out of words to convey my exasperation. I am not angry at you bud, really I'm not, and I apologise if I come across that way. I'm just really struggling to understand how you can make a stand on this.

Mark

[cheddatom]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='155953' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:29 PM']It's not what [i]I[/i] said, it's what [i]you[/i] said. It's not what [i]I[/i] think it's what you [i]said[/i] I think. and since you don't reside in my concious I don't really think you're in a position to posit my thoughts even, if you think thats what I meant.
Those are the things I feel its pointless to try and address, and its tiring and impossible not to sound pompous when being required to examine the conduct within a conversation.[/quote]

When I said "You have pointed out that you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing."

I didn't mean to state it as fact, it should have been

"You have pointed out that when you have learned a lot of theory, you have a large awareness of chords and scales, so when you sit down to write a bassline, wouldn't this awareness will be at the forefront of your writing?"

Sorry I was misunderstood.

You did say that I "missed the point there" and "again, I feel you've missed my point", which I why I said "I have no idea what points I have missed and i'm very interested!".




I did actually have guitar lessons for 8 years and learned a lot of theory through that, and subsequently forgot it all. I still know where to put my fingers if I play a bum note and need to act fast, and I know where to put my fingers to play whatever comes into my head. I assume this is a minor manifestation of the kind of "learn it then forget it all" attitude Bilbo was talking about. What interests me is whether the actual theory, i.e. all of the special words and phrases, all of the different scales and keys etc etc, need actually be learned in order to get to this standard. Several people have said that it makes the learning process quicker, but i'm not so sure.

[bassbloke]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155775' date='Mar 12 2008, 09:35 AM']I'm technically not very good, but I have no problem at all expressing myself on my bass. I can play anything I want. The only time I want to improve is when my guitarist comes up with something I can't play fast enough with my fingers, but don't want a pick sound for.[/quote]

It's one thing to contradict yourself across multiple posts in a thread, but to contradict yourself twice in the same thread just shows that, as with previous threads, you have nothing particularly constructive to contribute and are just being contrary for the sake of it.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='155966' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:49 PM']I am running out of words to convey my exasperation. I am not angry at you bud, really I'm not, and I apologise if I come across that way. I'm just really struggling to understand how you can make a stand on this.

Mark[/quote]

You don't come across as angry! I'm not "making a stand on this" just discussing it.

Hundreds of years of developement in music education have created the conventions we see in music today. While knowing the conventions inside out does not neccessarily restrict you to them, it may make you on average more conventional than a musician who is not aware of these conventions.

I would like to be unconventional in my playing, so I try to ignore everything I know and just listen to what sounds i'm making/make the sounds I hear in my head.

This seems to have at least a shred of logic to it?

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155977' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:02 PM']You don't come across as angry! I'm not "making a stand on this" just discussing it.

Hundreds of years of developement in music education have created the conventions we see in music today. While knowing the conventions inside out does not neccessarily restrict you to them, it may make you on average more conventional than a musician who is not aware of these conventions.

I would like to be unconventional in my playing, so I try to ignore everything I know and just listen to what sounds i'm making/make the sounds I hear in my head.

This seems to have at least a shred of logic to it?[/quote]
you need to know what the boundaries are before you have a chance of breaking them

[cheddatom]

[quote name='bassbloke' post='155974' date='Mar 12 2008, 01:58 PM']It's one thing to contradict yourself across multiple posts in a thread, but to contradict yourself twice in the same thread just shows that, as with previous threads, you have nothing particularly constructive to contribute and are just being contrary for the sake of it.[/quote]

Sorry, where have I contradicted myself? I assume you have a different opinion of what "technically very good" means. To me it means someone who can play lots of notes in very quick succession using a variety of techniques. I can't play very fast at all, I'm quite sloppy in that I hit muted strings all the time (but I like that), I don't know how to play any scales or modes, I wouldn't know what you meant if you said "ok, now key change to F#", i'd have to watch the guitarist etc etc.