mcgraham

I would love a simple in-ear monitoring system, for those gigs where you can't hear yourself, won't be able to hear yourself, etc etc. I was thinking about perhaps mounting a headphone preamp inside my bass so that I could run headphones from it, just as a personal monitoring solution. As a crazy thought, how about a volume pot that you can mount on your bass that has a headphone jack in the centre, the pot controlling the volume of the headphone output? I don't think it exists, but it would certainly be a nice easy way to add headphone capabilities to any bass. Mark

Sweeeeet Not long til you'll be joining us in the finished 'Gear Porn' section. Mark

Alex, most definitely Yours is a great bass, solid workhorse. Was really impressed by the physicality of your bass when I tried it at the Northampton bash. I was going to have it strung B-G, but I ended up with it strung E-C, and it's completely blown away my previous dislike of high C strings. You may recall in other threads that I hated high C strings because they sounded great on their own, but were awful in even a quiet mix. They effectively taunted me, as I wanted that range and the chordal possibilities, but I could never use them due to their limitations. This is not the case with this bad boy. The ebony board is fantastic, particularly in combination with the banjo frets, it feels almost fretless. It just gives the feeling of a much stronger connection to the instrument, which can only be a good thing. Also, when I got it I was also pleasantly surprised with the neck profile, as I'd previously tried them and thought that they were nice, but I'd prefer a more shaller 'D' shape. However my tastes appear to have changed as it wow'd me as soon as I started using it. Oh and the contoured heel... if you've not tried it you're missing out. In fact, half the people that have seen it prefer the back of the bass to the front, and there's not even any figured wood back there! Mark

It is indeed a great bass, W&Ts are a cut above the rest IMO, hence why I went with them. Ped, the 'little black extension' is an ebony overlay. It had a different bridge on it at one point, but we elected to go with this one piece bridge instead, much more functional. The ebony overlay matches the bridge and covers the old mounting holes from the previous bridge. So more or less for aesthetic purposes only! 7string, thanks a lot. If you're ever down in the Notts area you're more than welcome to try it. Same goes for you Ped! Mark

Well, it's finally here! In a nutshell, I've been waiting for this bass since the middle of last year. It's been a long wait, but it has paid off. I held off posting this thread until I had pictures ready to upload. And here they are... [attachment=19241:IMG_0496.JPG] [attachment=19242:IMG_0503.JPG] [attachment=19243:IMG_0499.JPG] [attachment=19246:IMG_0504.JPG] [attachment=19247:IMG_0507.JPG] [attachment=19248:IMG_0510.JPG] [attachment=19249:IMG_0512.JPG] [attachment=19250:IMG_0515.JPG] [attachment=19251:IMG_0516.JPG] [u][i]Specs[/i][/u] Chronos 'Klimt' 5 strings, EADGC 33" scale Neck through 7 piece neck - Zebrano-Padouk-Ash-Maple-Ash-Padouk-Zebrawood Walnut body wings Alder and ebony heelblock Ebony fingerboard 26 banjo frets Abalone dot inlays Figured poplar top (wings only) Matching headstock and trussrod cover Kent Armstrong Dual Coil pickups Ebony finger ramp Wood&tronics ETS bridge W&T East preamp (3 band parametric w/ passive tone) Series/parallel/single coil switching Brass nut [u][i]Brief Review[/i][/u] Essentially, I have been using the same bass for the last 4-5 years, and the same type of basses (J-basses) since I began playing bass. I've always enjoyed using them and greatly enjoy their sound. However, in the last few years, certain limitations have started to bug me. Not enough detail in the sound, simply functional, requiring a great deal of work and practice to coax articulate sounds out of it. Also, not enough frets, strings or range to satisfy my needs. In short, I wanted a bass without the limits that I was fighting and practicing to get around. I've had the bass for a little over a week, and spent the first weekend setting it up and tweaking it. Firstly, the bass is a work of art. Despite my poor photography skills, I'm sure you can see that. So many amazing touches from the continuous wood backplates, to the lasercut wood logo on the back of the headstock, it's all beautifully put together. Physically, it's a joy to play. It has a massive range due to its 5 strings and 26 frets. The deep cutaway and seamless heel-less design means that it is effortless to get from the top to the bottom. It's also designed to sit more central to your body and have less of the neck 'sitting off to the left' as with most basses. It's marginally heavier than my Geddy, but considering it's got substantially heavier woods it's not that surprising. However it's balance means that it doesn't weigh down on you. Soundwise, it's great. Clean, clear and crisp sound. Very extended frequency response. With the bright switch on the preamp engaged it sounds almost like a mix of the mag pups with a piezo, almost acoustic. The preamp always has a slight bass boost when set to the centre detent, which reeeeally helps with getting the C string to sound useable in a band context. I'm still experimenting with sounds but I can get my previous bass sound, and a whole lot more. I'll do a fuller review once I've really got to grips with this bass, but so far, I'm loving it. If I make it to the Notts bass bash I'll bring it along. Big props to Mark at BassDirect who hooked me up with this bass, and also to Enrico and Erik at Wood&tronics who made this entirely possible. Mark

[quote]Personally, I dislike singers as a rule. Not because I don't like the human voice but because I have no interest in what most of them are saying. It is almost invariably something I have heard said before a miliion times, equally ineffectually. But I don't slag off all vocal music because it is self indulgent preaching, endlessly narcissistic or just plain boring[/quote] I totally hear you. Same opinion here. But I think that we are part of the minority. Only recently have I started to seriously recognise the power that a great vocalist has over an audience. I'm just starting to study what it is that has this power over people. Obviously musicality with the voice and strong songwriting comes into it, but why is it that people are drawn to music with lyrics over music without? Is it just what they're used to? Is it because they don't understand music that has no lyrics? Do they have too short an attention span? Is it merely the preference of an era for indiscernible reasons? Either way, I want to know, because I'm sure it'll have an effect on my overall musicality. Mark

[quote]Not just Jazz. I'm also including Muzak-stle funk, Progressive Metal and Radiohead.[/quote] How very inclusive of you [quote]Basically any genre that people pretend to like.[/quote] I know what you mean about some music. I sometimes get the impression it's like someone standing in an art gallery, looking with great confusion at an abstract art piece thinking 'how is this art?' second person (with or without a french accent): 'oh this is by blah blah blah blah, he's at the cutting edge of blah blah blah-ism' ... *moment of silence* first person: 'oh it's amazing, you can see the intricacies in the ..... ' Mark

[quote]I think that those people (like me) who enjoy comparitely "simple" music don't have the drive to learn theory in the same way a Jazz fan would.[/quote] I started playing in a church worship team, it doesn't get much simpler than that. I was interested in [i]why[/i] certain things sounded the way they did. I wanted a more ordered way of learning songs, to understand the similarities I heard in a less 'ethereal' way than just listening to stuff. Of course that helped, but it wasn't until I saw some basic theory on paper that I started to be able to make more sense out of what I was hearing in various different songs. Now, I can enjoy simple AND complex music. I can analyse and understand simple and complex music, or I can just sit back and enjoy it. I can also play along to either. What happens when you hear something that you want to play but it turns out to be ridiculously complex? What then? Mark

Also, define 'trained'. It's not a binary definition of 'trained' or 'untrained'. You can be totally untrained with no theory knowledge (non-musician, as you will inherently learn something by picking up an instrument, even if it's not formal or learned via traditional theory), but after you learn what a 'root' note is, you know [i]some[/i] theory. As you never finish learning, there's always something more to learn and always somewhere else to apply it, what is the threshold after which someone is 'trained'? Mark

WoT, do you have a desire to improve? If you have no desire to improve I'd class that as complacency, at least from a perspective of constantly pursuing excellence (IMO). If you're at least satisfied at your present level, that's fine, after all music is meant to be fun. If you have DO have a desire to improve but actively avoid learning theory because you don't think it will benefit you that's ignorance, as you are ignoring a great learning tool. Mark

[quote]HOWEVER, I strongly believe - despite what some people here think - it's possible to take a different route to achieve success (whatever that is) as a bass player.[/quote] Agreed, it would be ignorant to say that one MUST learn theory in order to learn music. However, it would be arrogant to say that one is better off without theory in their musical development (not saying you've been saying this, but you certainly haven't acknowledged that theory is worth using/learning even in minute amounts). I agree that by hanging out with musicians you can learn loads, however I can guarantee you will learn more quickly, more efficiently, more material, and with more diversity if you can use theory to get through material. I can choose to analyse songs with theory, which indicates what happens where, why something works, and I can do that without even hearing the song. I can recognise ideas that will work from sheet music alone and can arrange things without having an instrument with me and communicate this to other musicians, in simple language and more complex language. I can also do it whilst listening to the song, but I can do it by listening to a song only once. I learned to do this partly through playing, but these skills would not be as developed had I not put the effort in learning theory. As an aside, I learned to read/write music (mainly write) because I got sick of trying to 1) write down scales and chords and harmonies using letters and numbers on plain paper and 2) having to remember them and play them to other musicians when necessary. Just a few weeks spent writing standard notation cleared all of this up. Not only that but it means I can transcribe using just my brain and/or my voice, with an ipod and some manuscript. That's all I need now. Tell me that's not a skill worth having? I managed to transcribe 'Chromazone' whilst on holiday using this method. I was quite impressed with myself and I'd attribute this to a desire to learn and use theory/reading/writing skills effectively. Disclaimer: I'm not sayign you NEED to learn theory, but my logic is this: theory can help your improvement, to deny that is arrogant; to acknowledge that but not make use of this fact is ignorant/complacent; to acknowledge it and dismiss it based on flawed argument (and not acknowledge this) is out of pride. IMO there is no argument for NOT learning theory that is logical, and I hope I've demonstrated that; I would even go so far as to say you must fit into one of these camps if you choose not to pursue theory/learning in this way. Don't pretend it's logical, cos it ain't! Mark

Whilst I agree that a lot of musically knowledgable people produce poor music under the pretense of it being 'jazz', I find your argument entirely flawed. Firstly, you don't know your favourite musicians personally, and unless you have very strong evidence to attest to this (i.e. a pretty honest interview with them) how do you actually know whether they know theory or can read, and whether they are using such skills to write music? Your 'logic' is not based on 'this person knows theory and makes crap music; this person doesn't know theory and makes good music', your reasoning is based on 'that person knows theory but makes crap music; and i ASSUME my favourite musician doesn't know theory AND / BECAUSE they make music I like'. I consider this to be flawed and uneven reasoning. Secondly, assume that you have a creative person, why would their learning of theory or learning to read impede their creativity? If they do NOT know theory, but have an idea, how do they communicate that idea effectively? Imagine you're at work and your colleague/boss/underling/workmate who is very creative is trying to tell you about a great idea, but they simply don't know the correct word/words to describe it...constantly saying 'you know, the thing? the thiiiiing? the thingummy?' over and over again isn't going to change the fact they can't tell you what they want. How infuriating is that for you, and how completely useless is it for them? If you have a comparatively uncreative person then yes, it will be infuriating if they know lots but have no idea what to do with it, as it opens up doors to them that they don't know how to use, and it will likely get widdly-w***y very quickly. But the knowledge of theory and being able to read shouldn't change whether someone is creative or not, if anything it should only increase their creativity as it provides them with more tools and understanding. The only reason I'd see not to learn theory from your logic is the fear of finding out you're actually uncreative, and that you'll end up producing poor music as a result of it if you tried to 'learn something'. Mark

Theory is important to me, but only insofar as it's necessary to understand what's going on, and to teach me what I can play. I would liken it to a hypothetical 'scaffold' that is rigid to start with, but as the foundation is improved and built, I can take down the rigid scaffold and use it as I please. It's just a tool, nothing more. Reading....hmmm... a relative weakness of mine. I can read to the point of being able to sing what is written, I can write it, and can read it tolerably, but not comfortably at speed. However 99.99% of the time it is not a hindrance. Partly because my ear is excellent, partly because I'm experienced in coping with different styles and feels, but mostly because the occasions on which I need to read something more complex than my ear can handle as written with no rehearsal time is ... well... never? I've had situations where almost all of those conditions have occurred, but never all of them at the same time. It is something I have down on my practice list, but it often gets relegated in place of creative application. Mark

I dedicate anywhere from 1-4 hours a day practicing, typically around 2-3. I get up early to make sure I get about 1-1.5 hours in the morning and an hour or so in the evening, more if I couldn't manage the morning one for whatever reason. Basically I enjoy playing, improving, and making music in my progress, and so I make sure to make time for that in my day. Some parts are very scientific, controlled and measured such as technique practice, but I always leave about the same amount of time for application of what I've been practicing, to 'flex' my artistic muscle using what I've been practicing. Just to share a moment of joy in such practice, I spent about 1-2 hours yesterday working on comping the chords to Giant Steps using different rhythms and time signatures. It's irrelevant how simple or complex it is that I'm doing, I simply want to enjoy what I play, and make things as accessible as possible via practice. Mark

They're good? Nay, great sounding basses. Absolutely huge and wide sounding, but they also have a very deep sound as well. A ridiculously good bass for sitting well in the mix (e.g. rock, pop, metal, country) with enough detail to work well in other genres (e.g. jazz, celtic/ceilidh, etc). It's not as clear sounding (just sheer bonecrushing hugeness) when set flat as Sadowsky basses set flat, even the Metro's, but I'm sure the preamp could dial in some top end zing for you, or scoop out a little mids to bring out a less immense sound. Bear in mind that all basses are different, don't get something based on 'a feeling', be sure to try it out. Mark

[quote]Hold on, I thought if you played a bum note, then played it again, you meant it?[/quote] Only if you pull a face whilst doing so, the more intense the better... Mark P.S. I used to never play a note twice unless I was staying on a root. It was either 'root' or 'all over the place'. But then I started wondering why I did that, and why I couldn't play people playing a note twice in a bass line or phrase. I realised that it has it's place just as much as any other note. When I considered why I didn't hear this, I noted that in almost every piece I have the musicians featured on such an album rarely did it or did it to good effect. Just to be controversial, I feel that is due to a failing in an a number of musician's musical ability more than anything. Often people mistakenly think that the number of different notes you can play is directly proportional to your ability (I know I've fallen, and do fall, into that trap from time to time) and therefore neglect the cumulative effects of good feel, good timing, good selective note choice, etc that combine to make a piece more than it can be without just 'mindlessly' going through the motions. Mark

[quote]I'm always surprised that the instruments hanging up in a lot of small shops are often not set up at all and would put non-savvy purchasers off, so it must be a unique selling point to have new & secondhand instruments that play. Boxed encores from Argos won't be able to compete with that.[/quote] +1. I love guitars as well as basses, I enjoy looking at them and I enjoy playing them. However 90% of guitars in stores are so poorly setup (and I have the best gear for me) that I have reached a point where I simply do not ask to try any, either because I'm not ready to buy, or because I know I'll barely be playing it for more than 3 seconds before I go 'ugh, this thing is [i]foul[/i]!' because of the setup. I'm actually somewhat enthralled by the idea of buying cheap-as-chips guitars that are made from well-made parts but poorly setup/arranged, and then setting them up to compare with the top few guitars that they are copies of. I reckon one would get a few more interested parties coming along if they realised that a store offered gear whose playing quality far surpassed those of any other store in the area, or even the region. When I think about all the small places I know that are thriving, they all offer some type of service that is not available anywhere else within the area that keeps the pennies rolling in even when sales are down. Buying guitars you can do online, but quality repairs/setups/re-frets etc/body work/custom luthiery isn't something that is (generally) done over the net. One place I went to offered a guaranteed setup. If you didn't like the setup after a couple of days/gigs you could take it back and he'd adjust it for you free of charge. Re: Bass Direct - Mark is a smart guy. He started with stuff that was totally exclusive to him until Bass Direct was off the ground. I'm no businessman but this seems to effectively draw anyone with an interest in said gear in Britain to his store. He's now recently started expanding the range he offers now that bassists are more familiar with the company. That, to me, would help keep competition to a minimum at the crucial beginning stages. Plus he's a great guy and loves just showing bassists what is actually available to them Mark

[quote]They seem to emphasise solely playing something that fits.[/quote] I'd edit that to say: 'They seem to emphasise solely playing something that [i][u]they think[/u][/i] fits.' When I first started playing I listened to a lot of Primus. I was amazed at how it sounded. I'd started listening to music relatively late for a child of my generation (mid teens) and had no preconceptions about music. I couldn't tell you what they were doing, all I could tell you was that it didn't sound 'right' in the theoretical sense of things, but it fitted so well. I wanted to know why that was. However, the worship director at my church completely quashed my attempts to mess around with these ideas in practice. Because they didn't fit 'to him'. Fair enough I hadn't got it down at that point and they weren't working, but to him it was 'wrong', so he wanted it gone. I soon realised this wasn't going to be beneficial for my musical development so I worked on it a lot in my own time, just figuring out what was being played by ear, figuring out theoretical reasons for why it worked, and then identifying more qualititative ways of identifying why I liked stuff and why I didn't. This last part worked wonders for my ear. Essentially, all I'm wanting to add is that preconceptions are often the biggest killer of creativity and musicianship. Mark

[quote]I'm with you on that[/quote] It's a bit hard to reliably tell which it is. How can one tell whether they will be a creative musician or not before embarking on a long period of in depth study? I'd be pretty bummed if I knew all the stuff I did and couldn't write or make one bit of interesting music. Equally so I can't imagine NOT being able to do so, knowing all the stuff I know! That statement is not intended to be boastful, I just couldn't imagine someone having [i]really[/i] learned all such relevant material and then NOT being capable of coming out with interesting music. However, that doesn't seem to stop some musicians... and I use that term loosely. Mark

Eight, I don't pretend to speak for everyone, I was merely making an observation that was my opinion. As for the rest of your post... it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. [quote]I just have 10 songs to learn in a week (plus full time work, family, etc.) in a style of music I've never really even listened to, let alone played. I'm not planning to churn out shed loads of mass-produced country songs using major pentatonics with a few minor thirds thrown in, I just want to prepare for the audition in the easiest way possible.[/quote] Hence what spurred me to write the lengthy post above. [quote]Well, you can't teach someone to have an imagination - that's all I'm saying.[/quote] It's true. Although I would say that a person can develop creativity through study; I certainly did. Or perhaps I merely provided myself with the artistic tools with which to express what was already there... *throws up violently* Sorry, I'm allergic to pretentiousness. Mark

[quote]Of course, just knowing that you could play the notes from the major pentatonic scale over some country tunes doesn't make you a country player. I think that was your point and everyone on here agrees with you.[/quote] +1 [quote]EDIT: Actually, I think you had another point, which was that if everyone approaches music the exact same way, everyone will end up sounding the same. Having heard some ex-music college guys, you're not wrong to be worried about that.[/quote] Touche... I don't quite agree, but I can't deny there are a lot of immensely knowledgable but dire musicians out there. Mark

[quote]It's just all very... 'McDonalds'[/quote] I totally agree. It's sickening that the most learned people often seem to be the most stale musically. I'm not against you there. What you appear to be saying is 'don't take your ear out of the equation', albeit with more a slightly more cynical spin on things Feel free to correct me if you think that's not quite right. Anyway, whether you're saying this or not... ... I am definitely saying this. All these bits of theory are highly useful, to doubt that is ignorance. But please, for goodness sake, don't take your ear out of the equation. Be sure to listen to what you're playing and figure out the useful bits, and where those bits are useful. Mark

[quote]There's far more to it than just being armed with 'the right notes'. You have to feel it.[/quote] *engage rant-with-humorous-overtones mode* Does anyone else feel like it's a no win situation here? It seems that everytime someone asks a questions such as 'how do you know what to do on this song? what modes do you use? how do you know this will work with that song?' there are two responses of: (1) 'learn your modes and learn how they work and what sound they make' OR (2) 'you just need to feel it, it's all about the feel, just play and feel what works' If they get the 'academic' response first, we get the 'feel' militia in slowly increasing uproar over advocation of actually learning something before trying to play something. If they get the 'feel' response first, we get the 'academic' rah's poo-pooing and belittling such a *backwards* way of approaching a song. Firstly, to the feel militia, when people ask such a question they ask [i]what [/i]will work, [i]how[/i] and [i]why[/i], they want a helpful encouraging answer. Simply saying 'you gotta feel it' without even slight regard to theory that would at least point them in the right (or even just useful!) direction and give them at least a starting point with which to 'feel' their way out of a 'rut' is unhelpful and doesn't answer their question at all. This gives them nothing beyond what they already had to begin with. Secondly, to the academic rah's, when people ask such a question, the same holds; they want a helpful encouraging answer. Making bold assertions about how theory-less players are stumbling around in the dark, followed by reeling off vast quantities of theory that you have amassed doesn't answer their question any more than the above approach, and may in fact be likely to discourage the average player when they see how much there is to know. Linking such bold assertions to such theory makes it seem impenetrable and doesn't actually tell the player anything useful. We need to marry the science of theory with the art of music to be good musicians. If you don't know something or haven't happened across something, you can't use it; you simply can't use what you don't have. Equally so just because you know something doesn't automatically mean you know how to use it. The two are inextricably linked and to advocate one over the other and belittle the other as arrogant or ignorant is just the pot calling the kettle black. Mark *end rant-with-humorous-overtones mode*

Let's go bargain hunting! Power amp: Up until recently this was available - 400W power amp for £95 - [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=38568"]Click here[/url]. Not available now, but don't say there aren't bargains to be had. Pre-amp: I use an [url="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ART+tube+MP+preamp&meta="]ART Tube MP preamp[/url] and I like the sound. I got mine for a bargainous £37. Doesn't do anything bad to it and warms it up slightly. No eq though, so you could try the [url="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ART+tube+MP+studio+preamp&btnG=Search&meta="]Studio version[/url] that has built in eq curves (I believe) to suit different applications. That is £59. Eq: Until I picked up my new bass I used the [url="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Boss+GEB-7&meta="]Boss GEB-7[/url] just to dial in a touch of bass and treble. That is £65. Again, good sound, not noisy, good feature set, allows flexibility. So... minimum price would've been £132 (second hand amp + Art Tube MP). Highest price would've been £219 (second hand amp + Art Tube MP Studio + Boss GEB-7). And only the amp was second hand. If you could find the other components/alternatives second hand you'd be laughing. Mark