mcgraham

Man, I am envious of that guitar. A headless guitar with a sustainer AND a midi pickup is something I want to have (and preferably build) at some point. Mark

Slap sound is great! It'd benefit from a slightly more versatile preamp in the signal chain though. The tweeter is a lot less aggressive than standard tweeters. It's not brittle sounding, and not weak, but 'seems' to be of a lower volume when you listen to it solo, but you still find yourself with plenty of top end. It's just a very balanced sound. With a good slap sound on your bass, you get a good slap sound through your cab, simple as. I haven't really bought into the whole 10s vs 12s debate. With a decent setup and some knowledgable fiddling I believe you should be able to get 'your' sound regardless. Mark

Just spotted your thread! I happen to think that these things are fantastic cabinets. They are amazingly complex bits of equipment, but that are stupidly simple to operate and get right. This was part of the inspiration behind Jim Bergantino making this range (so I believe), to help bass players stop screwing up their sound with the wrong power amp/configuration/setup. I like that I've got a flat sounding cab that already has the power amp section built in, together with compression and limiting to sort out any peaks or the like. As such, they are exactly what I'm after: simple, easy to use, full and balanced sounding. I'm now on the look out for the perfect preamp, or at least a selection I would say though that I did and would refuse to buy them at their normal brand new price. That's just my conviction and personal preference. I waited, so when I got mine, its second hand cost matched up with cost of a normal second hand bass rig. Bit of a no brainer there really? CK, they are quite sweet sounding, a sound guy described it as 'very wide' and 'less in your face than your Schroeder'. However I believe that with the right preamp you can get virtually any sound you want; this being a great benefit of such a setup. Re: the Summit TD100 - a thread on Talkbass summed it up 'sounds great, but at the cost of versatility'. From what I recall, I quite liked it, but I want more tone shaping versatility in a preamp than just 'volume' and 'impedance'. Mark

My Berg is excellent I didn't get it from BassDirect, I got it second hand/multiple hand off of Owen who is a member on BC. I believe he got it off another BC'er before that who got it from.... etc etc. But I was convinced of their worth when playing at BassDirect. One of the things left to get now is the extension cabinet. I've got a Berg HS115 that I'll sell eventually the fund that (still in the packaging). Essentially, it's a one cabinet solution for even large function rooms designed to kill sound. With a good preamp (I consider the ART Tube MP I'm presently using to be decent/good, if a little sparse on features) it reaches great volumes and sounds full, rarely needing PA support except for monitoring. What else do you want to know about it? Mark

Received Tayste's old Yamaha MU15 module. Was very accommodating with my Paypal woes and it arrived very promptly. Highly recommended and trustworthy seller. Thanks bud! Mark

So... basically... I was right. Glad we established that Just jesting. I agree that classically the term refers (at least primarily, if not exclusively) to how you use changes in volume, but I'm a subscriber to the more contemporary use of the phrase. See the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on Dynamics (music) for support in reference to such dynamics. Mark

[quote]Two things - firstly the obvious issue of how it's recorded and then how you're hearing it via the interweb. But more importantly, if you don't play through the preamp yourself how do you know what it's doing? There's a complex feedback loop between plucking the string, hearing the sound from your amp and adjusting how you play, and listening to a recording can't tell you about that.[/quote] This is true. Which is why I'd want to try such preamps out. [quote]There's no justification for that price tag. It's just a simple preamp after all. He's targeting bass players who wear Rolexes.[/quote] Hmmm... whilst I don't think it's a small amount of money, and I'd certainly think twice about ever dropping down that much money on just one element in my soundchain, for some tone-freaks that is a small price to pay if it gets you a subjectively better tone. Mark

This may be considered heresy, but from the clips of the Millenia and the ART Tube MP on basstasters.com, I could not discern a priceworthy difference between the base sound. I feel if I can't hear a substantial difference in a solo recording, then I imagine it'll have negligible impact in a live mix. I'd love to try all these amazing preamps out, but unfortunately there just isn't the time, money or place to do this... bar bassdirect of course... Mark

[url="http://www.michaelpopedesign.com"]www.michaelpopedesign.com[/url] Sorry about that! Looked it up as an afterthought. It just intrigues me. I'm definitely on the lookout for a good preamp, now that I've gotten to grips with my Berg. I'm not looking in that price bracket just yet, but it still intrigues me.

Has anyone noticed that Mike Pope has released a 1U preamp? I have no idea how long this has been about but I just noticed an ad for it over on TB, thought I'd flag it up as it looked interesting. Not cheap at $1500USD, but by all accounts he makes amazing preamps. Anyone else curious? Mark

[quote]Personally, I don't think any of that really counts as dynamics. Dynamics is a bit more specific IMO than just altering the feel or intensity of a song.[/quote] I would say that's [i]exactly [/i]what dynamics is... I would say dynamics is playing with the ebb and flow of the song, intensity, loudness/softness, speed, arrangements etc. Mark

Fortunately the other musicians I grew up with had never heard of Jaco, so I just heard about him via the internet, so I wasn't ever peer pressured into listening or even liking him. IMO, it's a mixed bag, and that's not so much a reference to pieces done by early drug-free Jaco and then later troubled Jaco; I mean that some of his stuff was great, some so-so, and some quite poor (again IMO). He is a legend in his own right, having done things with the bass that hadn't been done before (new techniques etc) or ever done to the same level as he did it, he brought the electric bass to the forefront of a band, in a solo context, a different sound, and a dynamic (if a little erratic) personality. The same can be said of Hendrix with the electric guitar. However, I think that we often get confused between their [i]ability [/i]and their [i]influence[/i]. Both were undoubtedly excellent musicians (at least at the time), but I personally think they are overrated as musicians by musicians today. They were influential on music then and that influence can still be felt today, but I don't think that their technical ability and musicianship warrants the hype the get to this day. Does anyone else feel this way? Mark

[quote]I want to improve the simple stuff more and more...[/quote] It sounded like Chris was referring to having to actually get the basic stuff right, rather than just improving what was already there. Of course, I could be wrong. I remember reading an interview with/article by Michael Manring who was explaining some of his practice exercises. One of them was for timing. He'd record a loop with a single staccato note and treat that as a repeating 'one'. He'd then try to hit that one everytime it came around in order to get right on top of it. He also tried to replicate the tone of that note to stay consistent. His timing and touch improved to the point where (he said) that on certain occasions he caused the original looped note to 'disappear' i.e. due to superposition of the played and looped notes being so close in all respects. Pretty clever and a good practice tool! I tend to just practice with a metronome very very heavily. Mark

This is one of the reasons when I practice (daily) through a headphone practice amp and a metronome. I've done this exclusively for about 3-4 years now and swear by it. I have just the bridge pickup on, the bass frequencies turned down a bit and treble turned up a bit. It means that I can hear every clank and horrible noise I make, and then I can practice such that I get rid of them. Mark

+1

It's pretty dependent on what the ultimate goal is. If it's just for the sheer enjoyment of the performers, just go for it; if it's for recording or a set performance, then take the guess work out of it and give your musicians some chord charts. At least tell them what it is they're meant to be playing correctly. Mark

Well, I haven't actually got one of these yet, but I'm still on the lookout. Has anyone had any more experience with these things? How about you CK? Have you put the Axon to use yet? Dan, would you mind sharing your experience using the Axon? Have you developed any tips/tricks to get past the limitations of using it on bass? Mark

Woah, resurrected thread alert! Thanks for the quote Bilbo. Si, I think that ultimately we should play music that we enjoy, that's what I do. However, life isn't perfect and we will always have compromise to some extent and for some period of time. The difficulty comes when the balance of our 'ideal musical pursuits' vs. 'the demands of real life' demands that we sacrifice something of one or the other, and sometimes real life can't be stripped down anymore or you're not willing to strip it down anymore. Sometimes it's just down to where your priorities lie, and which ones come first. Mark

Don't let them bother you Rik. Their attitude in that situation sounds poor. On the plus side though, at least some of your weaknesses have been highlighted! I know I found the thought of transcription terrifying. I used to think 'how on earth can anyone [i]recognise [/i]pitches?!' It's not like there's the same physical response you get as you do when playing a sport, e.g. football, the ball comes towards your feet, you see it, you kick it, you can sense what's going on with your sense of touch, sight, sound etc. But then the more I listened to stuff the more I realised that there [i]are [/i]physical responses to music. Certain chord progressions and note choices evoke certain feels/feelings/atmosphere/ambience etc. I found that working through the modes and transcribing chord progressions I eventually 'broke down' what notes and what chords were responsible for what basic feels, and worked up from there to get more complex responses and combinations of responses. It's hard to describe as it's such a subjective and individual experience, but I try to identify what I'm feeling, identify what core aspect of what I've just listened to is responsible for that response, and then learn how to use that in numerous different ways. Then you can use it both ways 'I want this feel, I'll use this note/chord/idea/phrase...', but also for transcription 'it's got that feel, therefore it has this note/chord/idea/phrase'. You can call this your 'vocabulary' if you like. As others say, you slowly build up your vocabulary based on hearing, learning and internalising new ideas and building on them. Mark

[quote]I just struggle to explain why I rarely seem to like the music created by those who are technicaly/theorectically very strong. OK, maybe all this Jazz nonsense is creative. Creative doesn't mean good though.[/quote] I think we've covered this ground in numerous other threads. A piece of recorded music or performed music does not automatically tell you what went into creating it, or the [i]complete [/i]skill set of the people who recorded it. Your love of the music you love indicates nothing more than... well, your love of the music that you love. Don't mistake what you like for what is good/right/'the way', just enjoy what you enjoy. That is the approach I try to keep, as well as challenging myself and reinventing what has become stale. I try to infuse what I create with new and more complex ideas for my [i]intellectual [/i]benefit, whilst always making sure it is musical if I'm going to use it; the latter is for the [i]musical [/i]enjoyment of myself and others. The intellectual and theoretical must always go hand in hand with the musical, if it's to be used at all. Of course, what is musical and what is not is subjective, but as long as I'm [i]genuinely [/i]playing what I enjoy, I'm having fun. At the end of the day, that's what it's about for me. Mark

[quote]Mainly, and this is a VERY important point, the ability to read music DOES NOT and has NEVER impeded anyone's ability to improvise or be creative. If someone can't improvise or create original lines, it is because they have never learned how, NOT because they can read.[/quote] This is true. I didn't mention this in my first post as I felt it was implicit from the way I worded my post. However, I would supposit that the same 'blinkered' view is present in both 'camps' (for lack of a better word). I get equally infuriated by musicians who insist that they are fine just playing by ear, as I do playing with musicians who can sight read well and then think that automatically makes them a musician. Although I'm probably more frustrated with the former types, and saddened and bored with the latter types. Mark

AM, absolutely. I totally agree. The video is on bassplayer.tv... Go to: BP Events --> BP Clinics '06 --> Marcus Miller --> Marcus Miller #4 about 1:15min in. He is such a funny guy Best quote: "you hear these guys say 'i'm not a reader' as if they're [i]proud[/i] of that... I say 'how old are you man'... '35' they say, I go '35?! you telling me that in 35 years you ain't found time to learn how to read?...'" Quality stuff Mark