Jools Holland being live and Estelle's bassist with mad skillz

[KennysFord]

you got it,i have a tendency to do that.
im always getting into trouble hehe

[alexclaber]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='170899' date='Apr 6 2008, 07:46 PM']...consider Letterman, American Idol...[/quote]

And the singers on American Idol tend to be in another league to the halfwits on UK talent(less) shows!

Alex

[bass_ferret]

Just watched it on iPlayer and it sounds like I am talking bollocks. It sounded different on HD with a 5.1 mix through my Arcam/Naim system but I guess i'll just STFU.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='170976' date='Apr 6 2008, 09:14 PM']Just watched it on iPlayer and it sounds like I am talking bollocks. It sounded different on HD with a 5.1 mix through my Arcam/Naim system but I guess i'll just STFU.[/quote]
It takes strength to reconsider ones position, and even more to say so.
Cheers

Edited April 6, 2008 by jakesbass

[paul, the]

[quote post='170729' date='Apr 6 2008, 03:09 PM']Now I don't have the discerning ear that some of you guys have, but I do think some of you are analysing and criticising way beyond the pallette of most listeners ears (mostly non-musicians)... There's nothing wrong with striving for technical excellence, particularly with the rhythm section, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of peoples enjoyment of music.[/quote]

In film, separate parts such as; score, cinematography, direction will all use varying techniques to evoke a certain mood. The audience is usually unaware of this, but it will make a substantial difference to the enjoyment and reception of the film. Likewise, as musicians, I feel it should be our duty to be able to recognise each musician's contribution to the overall sound, style and corresponding effect that it has on the listener.

As I said, though, judging by the second track, the first was just opening act nerves.

[OldGit]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='171037' date='Apr 6 2008, 10:37 PM']It takes strength to reconsider ones position, and even more to say so.
Cheers[/quote]

+1

[lowdown]

Blimey....
6 pages of carnage...
And now we are off down the Road of back slapping

Garry

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='lowdown' post='171068' date='Apr 6 2008, 11:23 PM']Blimey....
6 pages of carnage...
And now we are off down the Road of back slapping

Garry[/quote]
Cheers Garry, bit of rigour never harmed anyone.
Jake

[lowdown]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='171189' date='Apr 7 2008, 10:09 AM']Cheers Garry, bit of rigour never harmed anyone.
Jake[/quote]



See what happens on JHL this week....
I am sure there will be another 'Lions Vs The Christians' on the cards...

Garry

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='lowdown' post='171203' date='Apr 7 2008, 10:25 AM']

See what happens on JHL this week....
I am sure there will be another 'Lions Vs The Christians' on the cards...

Garry[/quote]


more like church mouse versus pussies.... no?

[Cantdosleepy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='170899' date='Apr 6 2008, 07:46 PM']We have a long way to go to catch up with our American cousins when it comes to live performance.
If you consider Letterman, American Idol, Jay Leno and just about any live studio performances you find on American TV they are leaps and bounds ahead of what we accept over here. Hence James Taylor putting in a good performance, BTW if anybody here has not heard the live JT Album from the early nineties then they should, to my ears one of the best live albums around.
Some of our TV bands are pretty good eg Laurie Holloway but those American bands kick ass, groove, time, feel, play anything, read anything, attitude, badass muthas.[/quote]

You see personally I'd sort of (dis)agree with you on this point.

I agree that American musicianship is as a general rule tighter and more technically proficient than UK equivalent. I spent a few years in Japan and the situation is similar there - every band I saw out there (even indie rock) were as tight and as technical as the best band I've seen in the UK. Even third on the bill in a small town. My band were a shambolic bunch of ex-pats and we were often higher on the bill than we ought to be because of the novelty 'gaijin' factor.

Interestingly the British spirit of throwing stuff together and not worrying if it's a bit shambolic is beginning to taker hold in America. Black Kids, for example, were an American band and they were by far the most musically shabby on Jools. There's a rash of new American bands who are doing that sort of thing.

Where I disagree is the notion that this blanket quality musicianship is a good thing. There are a thousand different good reasons to make music, and a thousand different good reasons to listen to it. The reason I love a show like Jools is that you'll see a super-tight session player one minute, and then the next there'll be a group of chancers from wherever who've just recorded their first EP and don't know their way around the fretboard yet. Pro musicians on this board really like to watch the technical stuff, and that's great, but there are seventeen-year-olds out there who saw a band having fun and fluffing notes and thought 'I can do that!' who'll run down to Cash Converters and grab a guitar and just make whatever noise is in their head.

It's the same reason I'm happy to see Pete Wentz playing stadium shows with a Squier (regardless of whether the insides are turbocharged). Kids in the audience can have that exact instrument (again, if his is upgraded, they'll only think this, but they'll be thinking it nonetheless) for a couple of hundred dollars. That's ace.

General question to the assembled: Do you think the show would be better if everybody on it was a consummate musician with X years of session work on their back? I'd be interested to hear your responses.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Cantdosleepy' post='171221' date='Apr 7 2008, 10:42 AM']I agree that American musicianship is as a general rule tighter and more technically proficient than UK equivalent.[/quote]

I wouldn't know about that - I doubt it. The American bands we see on TV are a tiny percentage of the actual number of American bands. It's a much bigger country. Proportionally, there are probably just as many tight bands in America as in Britain.


Anyway, I know you're not necessarily saying this, but an important point is that being "tighter and more technically proficient" is not necessarily a good thing. Some people want sloppiness. Some of the best musicians will purposely play something "sloppily" to give it a different feel.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Cantdosleepy' post='171221' date='Apr 7 2008, 10:42 AM']You see personally I'd sort of (dis)agree with you on this point.[/quote]
Of course it's horses for courses.

[quote name='Cantdosleepy' post='171221' date='Apr 7 2008, 10:42 AM']General question to the assembled: Do you think the show would be better if everybody on it was a consummate musician with X years of session work on their back? I'd be interested to hear your responses.[/quote]

For me, it's less to do with this much vaunted notion of "session musicians" I do sessions but I'm not a "session musician" I'm just a musician. I think the same of the guys on the shows I mentioned, they make me sit up in my seat and say "fuuuuuuuck, listen to that!!!!" the only reason that the concept of session musicians exist is that there are a limited number of people who have the temperement, broad skill base, feel and technical facility to reliably carry out performance after performance in a studio costing the production team as little time as possible.
Most of the people who are considered "session musicians" are just mutha f***ers.

And its a funny world, I was working in a studio the other day, on some pop stuff that will be out on itunes this year, one of the tracks was on double bass, the producer got me in early one morning to play some arco (with bow) on another pop session he was producing. Now he didn't get me because I'm renowned for my superb arco (cos I'm not, and it isn't) he got me cos I was there.

The thing about recording is it's there forever and a lot (not all) of the shambolic stuff you mention just doesn't do it for me (probably because I'm a specialist I admit) although I'm not foolish enough to think that my opinion invalidates that type of music.
An interesting question, thanks.
Jake

Edited April 7, 2008 by jakesbass

[Cantdosleepy]

Cool response, cheers!

[OldGit]

'Cantdosleepy' said

It's the same reason I'm happy to see Pete Wentz playing stadium shows with a Squier (regardless of whether the insides are turbocharged). Kids in the audience can have that exact instrument (again, if his is upgraded, they'll only think this, but they'll be thinking it nonetheless) for a couple of hundred dollars. That's ace.

----------

Reminds me of an article I read recently when Francis Rossie of Status Quo mentioned that a few of his Marshall cabs were actually shells with AC30s in them I bet Jim Marshall loved reading that in a national newspaper...


----------------------------
Cantdosleepy also said:
General question to the assembled: Do you think the show would be better if everybody on it was a consummate musician with X years of session work on their back? I'd be interested to hear your responses.

----------------------------------------
No.

For my money James Taylor was the worst thing on there.
Let me explain. He has been a hero of mine since 1803 when Fire and Rain first moved me to tears, How Sweet It Is got my hips shaking and You've Got a Friend left me reassured. But the guy is now corperate America, 150 years old and is polished up beyond gleaming. I like the hairy troubled folkie he used to be. This slick media savvy guy is someone else. His management and publicist also have him all over the BBC like a rash right now - enough, already.

I don't go much for the tech bass playing, and interchangeability, of dance groove performers.

Jools is the last bastion of real live played music and I want to see some obvious passion, not choreographed dance moves more suited to kids' telly.

So, for me Adele won on a fairly poor show.
At least she looked like she meant it, was passionate about it, wasn't trooping out the old greatest hits for the thousandth time, the cloned product of some corporate money makers' idea of what the kids might buy or out to try to scratch a pension after a wasted decade when they finally realised they might not "die before they got old"

Edited April 7, 2008 by OldGit

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='OldGit' post='171260' date='Apr 7 2008, 11:23 AM']For my money James Taylor was the worst thing on there.
Let me explain. He has been a hero of mine since 1803 when Fire and Rain first moved me to tears, How Sweet It Is got my hips shaking and You've Got a Friend left me reassured. But the guy is now corperate America, 150 years old and is polished up beyond gleaming. I like the hairy troubled folkie he used to be. This slick media savvy guy is someone else. His management and publicist also have him all over the BBC like a rash right now - enough, already.[/quote]

I have to spring to James' defence a little there, you have a point about the shinyness, but I saw his one man band tour last year and he is everything but corporate IMO, he is just a guy who likes to play his music to people, again IMO.
When it comes to TV as publicity, we have to shake hands with the devil to a certain extent in this business, I have worked closely on the management side with some very large concerns in British TV and its as simple as (and this relates to some of your earlier posts on self promo) if you don't do it (promote) you won't pay the bills. It's exactly what you say to young bands but on a national or international scale.

Edited April 7, 2008 by jakesbass

[mcgraham]

[quote]I have to spring to James' defence a little there, you have a point about the shinyness, but I saw his one man band tour last year and he is everything but corporate IMO, he is just a guy who likes to play his music to people, again IMO[/quote]

I agree, he came across as quite a genuine guy.

I [i]thought[/i] (before watching it) that he would've been the best one on there, but alas, his voice is not what it used to be. Still wonderful stuff, but not quite as beautiful as it was even a few years ago.

Adele impressed me the most, very good performance and with a good singing voice. Although I wasn't too keen on the nasality/whininess that she placed on some of her notes; that's a personal preference though.

+1 on the black kids, that was offensive to my senses.

Mark

[OldGit]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='171266' date='Apr 7 2008, 11:33 AM']I have to spring to James' defence a little there, you have a point about the shinyness, but I saw his one man band tour last year and he is everything but corporate IMO, he is just a guy who likes to play his music to people, again IMO.
When it comes to TV as publicity, we have to shake hands with the devil to a certain extent in this business, I have worked closely on the management side with some very large concerns in British TV and its as simple as (and this relates to some of your earlier posts on self promo) if you don't do it (promote) you won't pay the bills. It's exactly what you say to young bands but on a national or international scale.[/quote]

I am sure he is fine in concert where he has type one audience and can relax a bit more ...


Sure, I appreciate the marketing angle too but with the very limited availability of air time for anyone at all, James getting [i]so much[/i] BBC time at the expense of some edgy upstarts just seems excessive, especially when its on Jools ..
BTW, I'm very happy for him to be on Jonothan Ross TV and Radio 4's front row and Radio 2 etc etc and I love hearing his stuff ..

[Huge Hands]

[quote name='OldGit' post='171260' date='Apr 7 2008, 11:23 AM']I like the hairy troubled folkie he used to be. This slick media savvy guy is someone else.[/quote]

I agree. "When I was a lad", I saw a clip of Fire and Rain and it blew me away, rumbling brush-slapped floor toms and everything. I went out and bought a JT Greatest Hits, and loved it.

About two years ago, I bought a live JT DVD. Was expecting greatness, and to a lot of people it probably was.

To me, it was too perfect. David Letterman style lighting, and perfect crisp sound.

I know I will sound hypocritical, as I used to be both a studio and live engineer. However, I always want my recordings/gigs to sound real, as if everyone is there at the same time.

I want everything to sound clear, but I also want to "smell" the sawdust and spittle on a recording, not a wipe clean, air-freshened no smoking studio floor! Does that make sense?

At the time I was getting into/learning sound, I was really into Acid Jazz (early nineties). I loved the music, but hated the fact that everything had to be so perfect in the recordings. The epitome for me at the time was The Brand New Heavies. The recordings sounded so clean, I could have rubbed my finger on them and got a squeak.

This is a purely subjective point of course. For the one of me that hates ultimate noise free production, there will be many of you that love it and flame me right out of here.

As Jamerson said, "..the dirt keeps the funk.." For me, that goes in the production as well!

[bass_ferret]

I'm gonna record this weeks on both normal/stereo and HD/5.1 to see if the mix is different. I've not always been impressed with the mixing on Jools and I'm kinda curious how it is done, different mixes for the room/live broadcast/live HD broadcast/rerun broadcast/rerun HD broadcast/iPlayer etc.

[Rich]

Watched it on Friday, have only just got round to commenting here:

Estelle -- music not my cuppa tea, but jaHEEzus was that band tight or what? Cracking performance.

Adele -- yeah she can sing (apart from that Winehouse/Allen/Kate f***ing Nash it's-like-me-accent-innit voice that drives me up the wall), but did anybody else find her habit of gazing at two bits of ceiling and looking really bored INCREDIBLY annoying?

Black Kids -- speechless. I was aching to tune the "singer"s Tele properly, and then twat him with it.

The Only Ones -- oh my god, Perrett looked genuinely frightening. Instead of telling kids to 'just say no', all we need to do is show them a picture of him.

James Taylor -- loved it, especially Copperline. Lovely, moving song. Best thing on the entire show IMHO.

'Jazz' trio whose name I can't even remember -- diabolical. I've heard better jazz from crusties in the subway.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='OldGit' post='171276' date='Apr 7 2008, 11:42 AM']Sure, I appreciate the marketing angle too but with the very limited availability of air time for anyone at all, James getting [i]so much[/i] BBC time at the expense of some edgy upstarts just seems excessive, especially when its on Jools ..[/quote]

It's about clout, and to that extent I suppose your comments about the corporate nature of it all are valid. You have to remember (like it or not) that all TV/Radio/media in general are at the same time vying for ratings, so they want the biggest selling, most popular, most hip, most celebritised etc etc

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Huge Hands' post='171277' date='Apr 7 2008, 11:43 AM']About two years ago, I bought a live JT DVD. Was expecting greatness, and to a lot of people it probably was.


This is a purely subjective point of course. For the one of me that hates ultimate noise free production, there will be many of you that love it and flame me right out of here.

As Jamerson said, "..the dirt keeps the funk.." For me, that goes in the production as well![/quote]

It is subjective, personally I am impressed by guys that can turn out an album quality performance at gigs. Although they [i]know[/i] they are being recorded and many of those top players will (I have heard this first hand) rip it up on gigs that aren't being recorded, and have two different temperements if you like live/recorded. If you are a person that gets recorded (I do quite a bit) you have to remember that you will be judged on that for time eternal, so playing safe and solid is often the code word.

Edited April 7, 2008 by jakesbass

[OldGit]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='171388' date='Apr 7 2008, 01:23 PM']It's about clout, and to that extent I suppose your comments about the corporate nature of it all are valid. You have to remember (like it or not) that all TV/Radio/media in general are at the same time vying for ratings, so they want the biggest selling, most popular, most hip, most celebritised etc etc[/quote]


Sure, you mentioned you'd read some of my stuff before so you'll know I know this.
I appreciate the reality of it and why people like JT (no Q!) George Michael and Annie Lennox get massive publicity when they release an album (relative to their less salable contemporaries).
I know how business works and spend a lot of time on here reminding people of the need to play the game to get on. But, behind the pragmatism and acceptance of the situation sometime I just wish it was a little different.

Mind you Seth Lakeman got a whole programme to himself on Sunday so I guess all is not lost ...
[url="http://www.sethlakeman.co.uk/"]http://www.sethlakeman.co.uk/[/url]
And yes I realise the fact that he's drop dead gorgeous (according to Mrs oldGit) has something to do with it but you can't deny the passion..
Nice laid back upright bass playing too from Ben Nicholls (?)

Edited April 7, 2008 by OldGit

[cheddatom]

I've seen a few bands in my time that basically sounded exactly like thier CD, and I find this utterly boring. I'm not sure what the cause of this is though. Too much sound processing, too much rehearsal, too apprehensive to improvise a bit? I don't know.