mcgraham

Good for you Steve! I'm glad I'm getting through to at least one person. Mark

I was going to post this in the technique section, but realised it didn't fit. Some artists can play over mindbendingly bizarre time signatures, e.g. John McLaughlin, whilst others have written songs that don't feel like they are odd, e.g. Take 5, Mission Impossible Theme, numerous songs by Dream Theater. I'm fascinated by both groups, i.e. those who can feel a pulse over pieces that really lack a natural groove in their raw state, and those who can write songs in a truly different time signature but that still 'feel' natural and normal. One of my favourites is 'Just So Only More So' by John McLaughlin. I also like 'Sacrificed Sons' by Dream Theater, 'Fives' and 'Sevens' by Guthrie Govan, '(A) Love Eternal' by Joe Satriani (I think that's the one I'm thinking of). All of these have a (more or less) natural feeling time signature that is not just in straight 4. I'm sure there's more but those are the ones that leap to mind right now. What other ones are there out there? What are your favourites? Mark

Indeed. I particularly like Paganini's Caprices on guitar. Excellent for sweeping, alternate picking, string skipping, hybrid picking, finger rolling, position shifting, understanding chromaticism, the works. What I meant was that, whilst classical pieces are difficult, they are not intended to be a technical workout in the way that Hanon is. As such, it [i]will [/i]improve your technique from where it was to start with as they are difficult, but a given piece [i]may not[/i] evenly develop your technique. Repetitive sets of exercises that approach technique from every possible angle (though they may seem boring) can guarantee that, with practice, you will achieve well rounded technique that will allow you to traverse your instrument with ease. Mark

[quote]Personally I reckon there's much more to be learned from Bachs inventions/preludes and fugues - all keys major & minor, useful lines that you can actually utilise..You also get to learn a little about Form..Cheers[/quote] Thanks for your honest response! To respond in kind, there is much more to be learned from actual pieces. However people don't seem to be able to take it in that these exercises are aimed at developing technique. Even on piano that is the aim of these exercises. They cover all bases and aspects of technique on both piano and electric bass. How? Because they are minor boring variations of each other so that no stone is left unturned in rounding out your technique. You see them as boring, I see them as a means to an end. The difficulty with actual pieces is that, unless they are directed towards covering all aspects of technique, it is hit and miss whether you can develop well rounded and effective technique. Mark

Hi all Well, I said I'd do a more complete review once I'd had my bass a little longer, so here it goes. I've had it about a month now, and ended up tweaking the setup a little bit after the first week once it had a chance to settle and I had a chance to make initial adjustments to the new bass. I've been playing it extensively, getting it 'played in', tweaking my technique, getting the strap height right, learning what tones it produces as well as how and why etc... So, breaking it up into some kind of sensible order. [b]Sound[/b] The 'base' tone of this bass is a crisp and clean sound, very extended and lively response. There is a slight, natural compression to the notes, keeping each note very even but without making them sound choked. It has a woody character, with air, detail and articulation in shed loads, but it is balanced by the slightly smoother sounding pickups that emphasise the bass and low mids a tad more than the original Nordstrands. The sound is throaty in the high mids and treble, and has the slightest touch of growl in the low mids and bass. But it is primarily smooth sounding. It has detail and articulation, but isn't undesirably polite. It really does shine in a mix, with each note capable of jumping out, or merely filling out the sound of a band. I'm particularly pleased with the bright switch (see below) as it gives an almost piezo acoustic quality to the sound. The parallel setting is beautifully smooth and even with a slight Ken Smith like quality to the upper register, i.e. the slight mid scoop we've all heard. It's so slight, but helps enhance the detail and articulation of the sound, whilst not causing the bass to 'disappear' from the mix or not cut through. The series setting adds a good strong low mid bump to the sound but without sounding unpleasant or gnarly. Good honk can be gleaned over the bridge pickup in this mode. Cuts through a mix brilliantly. Single coil setting adds some slight snarl to the sound, but doesn't thin out the sound. It's like series but slightly less thick, top end of the low mids drops down in volume and the highs become very extended and obvious. In essence, there are loads of great tones in there, and I'm learning my way round. It's base sound is just what I was after, and just slight eq changes makes this bass into a plurality of different sounding basses, whilst still retaining its own character. [b]Feel[/b] It feels better than any other bass I've played. Period. I was reminded of this when I picked up my Geddy today to go over some songs. I hadn't picked it up since I received the new bass, so it was really was like trying a totally different and somewhat unfamiliar bass since adjusting to the new one. Basically, the feel of the W&T is far superior to anything I have played before. It has an ultra-fine satin finish on the neck. I dislike gloss finishes as they stick to me, and I dislike most satin finishes as I find them too dry. This is neither. It is like a highly polished satin finish. That should mean it's a gloss finish, but it's not. The neck is much wider than a four string as it is full 19mm string spacing at the bridge and 60s jazz nut spacing at the nut, but this is easily adjusted to. The board is, I believe, 16" radius, which is just right for chords, bending, barring and reaching across the board. The banjo frets help reduce fret noise, and create an almost 'fretless' feel to the bass. You feel a much stronger to the connection to the instrument as a result of this. Initially they feel odd, but you soon adjust. Access to the 26th fret is totally unrestricted by the extreme lower cutaway and totally unique neck heel sculpting. What is of particular note is that the bass sits off to your right, bringing the headstock end of the neck closer into your left shoulder, making the stretch to 1st position a doddle. It also sits flush against your body, which is great. Makes it feel very compact. Even with these features, access to the 26th fret is not impeded by the bass being so close to you and so far to the right. The upper bout feels great to rest your forearm on and doesn't stick to you nor dig into your arm. The finger ramp is set up nicely, and the pickups are setup to complement it and facilitate additional ramp area. In essence, W&T have thought all of these physical attributes through and implemented them into a total instrument package. [b]Aesthetics[/b] I've stated the wood specifications in another thread; I'll add the pics over here in a bit together with the specs. Not much to say here except, I love single cuts. I love the 'notch'. It's always a talking point. The top appears to be deeper each time I look at it, and there's always something that catches my eye about this bass. Nice touches are matching backplate that is magnetically attached, matching truss rod cover, highlighted silver saddles on the satin black hardware, tastefully large abalone dot inlays, laser engraved 'Wood&tronics' plaque on the back of the headstock, and the subtle 'W' wave that is their logo. I particularly like the 7 piece laminate neck, especially the contrast of the padouk and zebrano. [b]Features[/b] The preamp is a W&T variation of the East preamp. 3 band parametric w/ mid sweep, passive tone w/ active/passive pull switch, volume, blend. Pull up on the treble to get the bright switch. Toggle switches provide series/single coil/parallel switching options, each of which can be switched separately for each pickup and sound totally different. The frequency centres for the eq are voiced sensibly, and the slight bass boost that is ever present on the East preamp help to make this bass totally usable in all situations. They also put on matching black knobs. The new bridge is an ETS Tuning Fork bridge (I believe) that now has the 'Wood&tronics' logo on, very classy. Props to Enrico here. During our conversations I mentioned my sensitivity to nut height. He then, off his own back and without me telling him, or him telling me, went and made a brand new brass nut with appropriately V-profile nut slots to allow me to get the lowest possible nut height, effectively a 'zero fret' string height at the nut, but without the zero fret. The preamp sounds great, and is very usable. The bridge is very easy to adjust and looks great. The matching backplate is easy to remove so performs functionally very well as well as looking great. [b]Cost[/b] As I said in another thread, for what W&T offered me in a bass, for the price they offered it to me, I couldn't say no. Mark @ Bass Direct was very helpful throughout the whole process, and offered a total customer service package, in that he discussed my needs with Enrico, and they together reached an informed opinion based on their experience about what would suit me, and they decided on a price that they felt was fair. All in all, I got the deal of the century right here, and I'm enjoying it immensely. In summary: The [b]sound [/b]is clean, clear, crisp, extended and articulate, with the eq providing great versatility. The [b]feel [/b]is greatly superior IMO to all other basses I've tried, it makes me want to sell on my other basses. The [b]aesthetics [/b]are just what I was after, and I always smile when I take it out of its case. The [b]features [/b]really complement this bass and compound its fantastic initial feature set. The [b]cost [/b]was a no-brainer and my bank account is still happy, as am I. I'm one happy chappy Mark

Glad we're on the same page I realised after I posted I kind of left it open for people to assume that I was talking about your comments being in the same vein as 'mumbo jumbo'. I didn't think that at all, so I apologise if it read that way. Yea, contemporary musicians are bizarre that way. For example, when a new head comes out... comments like "I bet that sounds great" just confuse me; I want to say "You've never heard it!! And it will produce a different sound depending on what cabinet you pump it through, and it will marry with different basses in different ways!! How can you possibly be certain it will sound great?!"... but I don't... And then there's tonal perceptions. Totally subjective what wood/component imparts what tone, and even then, it's totally controversial whether certain aspects impart tone at all, let alone what sort of tone they impart. Yet bold assertions abound with little to no rational basis, or with weak reasoning at best. ARGH! It's enough to drive a sane physicist crazy! Mark P.S. I agree about Nordstrands, they were nothing special to me. Most were not bad, some were everything I didn't want in a pickup, but in general they left me unmoved.

I've double checked measurements. First fret length on: 36" scale = 51.344mm 34" scale = 48.493mm 33" scale = 47.061mm On this fret, this gives a difference of: 36 to 34" = 2.851mm 34 to 33" = 1.432mm So even less difference than I imagined. The difference between n and n+1 frets will only get smaller the further up the neck you go. EBS_freak, I agree that it cumulatively adds up, and if you are definitely at maximum stretch then it would possibly be foolish to change scale length to make this impossible. However, when you consider the [i]actual[/i] difference this makes, it begs the question, is it really physically insurmountable? Or is it all mental? You're right in that you should just play whatever scale length suits you, it's not as if there's lives depending on your scale length. I just dislike unfounded mumbo jumbo about instruments that avid musicians often descend into. Mark

[quote]On another note - all these 5 string 33 inch scale basses that are cropping up make sense to me now... at first I thought they were a bit weird... but if you string them E to C, then you have a great range and a scale that facilitates playing at speed and the playing of chords without stretching hell out of your fingers. B to G I think they are a bit flawed. The B strings are a bit... phleugh... for my liking.[/quote] TBH, I personally don't find it makes a significant difference. There's a 2.94% decrease in scale length from a 34" scale length. That decrease is squared in the decrease in tension needed to get to the same pitch (Tension is proportional to Length squared). There will therefore be a more noticeable difference in the tension than the feel of the distance between the frets. I definitely notice this tension difference, but I can't say how much is attributable to the difference between the scale lengths of my basses, and how much is the sum of the other differences. The 2.94% decrease in general speaking length however will mean a 2.94% change in each fret position. I can't access a fret calculator right now but I'm pretty sure that's on the order of a 2-3mm change between the nut and the 1st fret. This obviously diminishes the higher up the neck you go. Whilst this is all subjective, I don't believe that this makes a substantial difference to the playability of a bass, at least with regard to distances between frets. Mark

Looking good! Nice touch on the headstock. Gotta love that Buckeye top too. Mark

[quote]If its dull and repetitive, it'll probably work... (I have the Hanon and have used it on piano not bass. I could do with some bass practice but other things are in the way at the moment. Why does that always happen?).[/quote] Well... dull is a fairly subjective term. I happen to like the challenge of getting better, though it's certainly not as exciting as writing a song, learning a song, a riff, trancribing etc. Paul Gilbert said in a video interview he has this one lick he reeeeally loved. He practiced it over and over and over for months. He said he practiced it so much, it became easy to play. So he played it faster, over and over and over, until it became easy to play, and so on so forth. That's how you get to play fast, he said, doing the same things over and over until they become easy. There's no way around it. To draw a parallel with another activity, Ronnie Coleman (7 or 8 time Mr Olympia winner) said, in his own inimitable way, "everybody wanna be a bodybuilder but nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weights". Mark

You're welcome to a copy Alex. Be warned though, if you're looking for super-exciting-thrill-a-minute exercises they won't do it. If you're looking for something that [i]will[/i] help you develop great technique through structured practice that isn't as ludicrous as running chromatic scales all day long, then this is a great start. Mark

Not really. He certainly raised the bar technically and musically, and inspired a whole host of new bassists that have raised the bar even further, in the same way that Jimi Hendrix inspired a number of massively talented and influential guitarists around today. But I just don't dig what he played, how he played it, his sound, his style, or his tone. Not saying I have a [i]strong[/i] dislike, but I'm slightly more to the 'dislike' side of things than being neutral or impartial. This is just my opinion. Mark

[quote]It's great because the more you invest in it, the more it gives you in return. The demands it places on you as a performer and listener increase as your skills, knowledge and competence increase. You play the same song the day you start playing jazz and the same song 5, 10, 15, 20 years later and it will grow with you and demand more of you each time.[/quote] This is true. A great illustration of this (albeit in a slightly different vein) is some of the Guthrie Govan solo vids on youtube. Relatively simple backing track, something that anyone could improvise over, but an experienced improviser (GG does do/mimic jazz as well) can turn it into an absolute monster of a song. Mark

[quote]Absoflippinlutely. Its the best[/quote] Agreed I love it because it's enjoyable on so many levels. If you like it at first listen, you can at least appreciate it on its merits. If it's bizarre, you can revel in the sheer difference of it in comparison to what has gone before. If it's complex, you can try to understand it so that you can benefit your own playing. And ultimately most jazz has improvisation at its heart, so it's all part of a perfect training ground for improving your own improvisation. Gotta love it. Mark

Glad someone else bumped this, saved me searching for it. Was browsing BBC iplayer last night, came across a few recorded radio programs on jazz. Listened to one that was a full live concert by French guitarist Marc Dupret. Exciting and interesting to listen to, if a little eccentric, but it wasn't quite my thing. However the first band they played, Donkey Monkey (yes, I know) was very cool. Catchy and experimental, same sort of vein as early Hiromi. Which prompts this message... I LOVE JAZZ! I'd forgotten how good a fresh and original piece of jazz can be. Mark

No worries, it's winging its way to you now. Mark

Sure... once you send me an email address You forgot to put it in your PM. Mark

[quote]Overall I don't think i will be adding them to my practice regime as I don't see myself using them in an actual playing situation. They are great for dexterity, coordination etc, but I would rather practice this in conjunction with fragments/shapes I would actually use in my playing (saying that, I'm sure one or two may be what i'm talking about, but I haven't played through all of them). I feel it is better to see it as a concept. i.e. come up with a shape of say play a note go up a forth play three scalar notes then done a forth for an example, rather than using the strict examples laid out in the hanon. (I think that makes sense!?)[/quote] That's exactly the point. They themselves are just exercises, albeit musical ones. The point is they cover an aspect of playing the bass that is not typically covered by most parts written for a bass. They involve rapid and intermittent string skipping, use linear playing, together with raking, requires precise and accurate shifting, works out different fingers and different fingering permutations for each position, helps with efficient finger rolling/barring, and makes you work hard at efficient muting... I don't think I need to go on. If you already have that covered, fair enough. They are, at the end of the day, just a means to an end. If you don't experiment with them you're missing the point. They are simple, they're not songs, not rhythmically interesting at all. Most bassists will be able to handle them up to maybe 16ths at 100-120bpm. But making them sound clean, with good tone, no ringing strings or duff notes at 150, 180, 200, and beyond isn't great. Part of the difficulty in developing good chops is not knowing where to start, not knowing what will definitely get you said chops, and not being efficient with your practice time and your method of practice. Hanon will answer the first two questions, and the bumf I put in the email will help address the third. Mark P.S. I used them in my exercise routine a few years ago, now I use them as warmup to get up to speed quickly. Metronome goes up by 10-30bpm each time, and on each 'round' I use Hanon, chromatic exercise, four finger chromatics, and 9th arpeggios. 15-30 minutes on that and I'm warmed up and up to speed.

[quote]I agree with everything you say above. I'm not in the happy position to be able to commit to a regular practice regime at the moment, which is a shame - that would make it easier to incorporate such as this. As it is, I pick up my bass whenever I can (which is most days for varying durations, so it's not all bad) and have to concentrate on band material mainly, with some reading practice on an opportunistic basis. Not ideal, but at least it's regular.[/quote] It is difficult to fit it in to a busy lifestyle. I find that there's enough hours after work to get practice in, but if I have something else on it completely takes my evening away. And lately it's getting pretty bad. I find myself getting up earlier to get practice in. I commend you for identifying what you want to work on and doing it though, most people who profess to be musicians can't even do the first part, let alone getting onto doing the second. Keep it up! Mark

Hi Steve Thanks for your honest reply! I can't believe of all the people I've sent it to only one person has replied and been honest. They are not the most exciting exercises, but they are more musical than most, and they are difficult to get up to speed cleanly. It's an unavoidable fact that if you want to get better at something, strict formal repetition is the only way to get better at it. That's one of the reasons a lot of 'musicians' reach a plateau: they get bored of/with practicing. If your priorities lie with reading, fair enough, but I would encourage you to find exercises you don't find boring and get into it. Mark

Thanks Eude! That's the badger! Lovely looking bass. Just my opinion, but personally I'd be more into an ERG then an ERB, because of string concerns and fingerboard width. Mark

My W&T is a 33" scale. Whilst it is presently strung EADGC, I have had it strung BEADG as well. I found that it had no negative impact to the sound. In fact the 'feel' was tauter than other basses of similar repute that I've tried. A guy on TB had Carey Nordstrand make him a 30" scale 6 string bass incorporating loads of little ideas into the design to optimise low B workability. To my knowledge he was satisfied it had worked. I think it was 'JimS' but I could be wrong. Personally I don't think that an inch can make all that of a discernible much difference. more than an inch, i.e. 2", 3", one way or the other have a more noticeable effect. The main difference I found in shorter scale and longer scale instruments is that they feel different to play. I found 32" a bit toy-like. I was happy with 36" scale, didn't notice it til someone pointed it out, but it did explain why things had felt a bit more strenuous to play. In summary, I reckon that great construction can make up for loss of scale length, and that you should be fine with 33/32" scale. Mark

Joe Satriani. Without a doubt. IMO, no other guitarists even come close to his combination of taste, songwriting ability, technique, as well as being a genuinely humble person. His musical ability is a real inspiration to me. I also like Guthrie Govan, Paul Gilbert & Brett Garsed. I listen to (but not necessarily like) John McLaughlin, Steve Vai, Paco deLucia, John Petrucci, Dave Fiuczynski & Blues Saraceno (no idea about his real name). Mark