mcgraham

Good advice so far. Here's a couple of tips that helped me: 1. Keep straight, or at the very least straight[i]er[/i] wrists. This will help significantly. 2. Play with a lighter touch. Just turn your amp up to get the volume, and work on getting desired punch from your fingers alone. It is a balance of playing light enough to make it effortless and heavy enough to get good tone, but put the work in and you'll be fine. 3. Set your bass up and use string gauges that complement the above (purely personal choice of what that is). Angle your bass to be less parallel to the floor and more at a 45' angle. Doesn't need to be as extreme as this but it helps. Find a comfortable height for both left and right arms/hands in order to keep wrists straight on both hands, and to also keep muscles relaxed and not all tied up, i.e. prevent chicken wing on the right arm. Mark

I share similar thoughts and have often voiced great dissatisfaction with this element of the practicing (or not, the case may be) musician in today's culture. One of my greatest regrets was listening to the 'good enough' advice of a few decent musicians when I first picked up my instrument (I've told this story before). Their 'don't bother learning that, it's useless' advice, and 'what the hell is that? that's crap, don't do it' impeded my development, prevented me from experimenting and understanding music for myself. When I started to play along with albums, transcribe stuff and just have fun experimenting with things, the more bizarre the better, the more I developed and understood what I could do. The difficulty is, we've got to take our egos out of it to at least some extent, and serve the song. People then think this means 'just do the basics'. What people don't realise is that this doesn't mean you can't be adventurous, that you must play it safe. On the contrary! It makes it even [i]more [/i]interesting to take unusual, unique, and perhaps even completely bizarre sounding ideas and make them fit into different songs, to make those ideas your own and contribute to the song, without destroying the intended feel of the piece, but without sacrificing artistic experimentation in the process. Mark

On the topic of musicians in church worship teams being quite adept at being in a band situation, there is a key difference between the average band and the average worship team that contributes towards this. Average bands have a more or less set song list with a set order to each (e.g. chorus, verse, bridge played x number of times etc) and set dynamics in each song. In contrast, worship teams are there to support/serve the atmosphere at any given time. This means that there generally isn't a set-in-stone order to each and every song, and musicians need to be able to simply pay attention to what the band leader is doing. In time, teams and individual members begin to develop a common sense of where the music is 'going' (with regard to dynamics and sections) based on the song being played and the atmosphere at a given time. This helps tie them in more tightly than just weekly rehearsals. I'm saying this from experience and it has served me immensely well in numerous other ventures. On top of that, as someone else has pointed out, you frequently get given chord charts 30 mins before a worship set (or in some cases whilst the song is being started!). In a gospel choir I played in they literally only told me the key, and even then only when I asked, as they were starting the song. I'd then have the duration of the song to work out the chord progressions and something to fit in with what the music leader (typically piano) was laying down. In short, worship teams have to be a lot more flexible both in and out of their 'gig' time. Mark

I'd personally love an ERB. I absolutely love the idea of a 'total' instrument, one that combines the range of a guitar and a bass together in a compact instrument. My idea of a total instrument would be more like an Extended Range Guitar than a bass, i.e. scale length, spacing etc closer to that of a guitar than a bass. Here was my idea: I worked out that an 8 or 9 string would be a good combination (IMO), strung BEADADGBE like an extension of Charlie Hunter's original 8 string tuning, or perhaps BEADGCFAD. Fanned frets with a fan of approximately 32" to 29" (give or take an inch either way). The spacing would be more guitar like, but not quite as tight, maybe around 13mm (anywhere from 11-14mm?) at the bridge to make picking/guitar like chords easier, but still allow for more relaxed fingerstyle as on bass. Split pickups for the guitar and bass courses would be useful so as to allow for general strumming on guitar side without having to worry about the bass strings. Midi options on a fixed bridge/individual saddles would be good too. In fact... I think I may just get in touch with ACG about this Mark

[quote]and this rather than any religious beliefs, is why I could never trust your opinions[/quote] I know I know, I've tried my best to like it. On top of that, I'm marrying a vegetarian! dlloyd, prosperity theology, i.e. health, wealth and prosperity gospel, is a bit of a concerning area, particularly in the States. I can completely see where any of you are coming from if that's all you've seen of Christian speakers/churches/movements etc. However, I have attended ALC a number of times and have many friends there, I have seen [i]nothing [/i] that comes close to prosperity theology at ALC, something which I have witnessed to some extent. Mark

[quote]Can i ask a quick question on this subject. although you can ignore the lyrics in the first place why complain about the lyrics?[/quote] I didn't complain about them, I didn't say that I think they should change or that they're crap etc. I said that I often find them hard to follow, and those that I do follow are lyrics that tend not to hold my interest for very long. It was like that even before I was a Christian. That's all, maybe that says more about me than the music.If you are the founder and [quote]originator of something, it's hardly a surprise if you're "self-appointed." I'd also like to see your referenced source for the "sports cars in his palatial dwelling" comment.[/quote] +1 I would too. I will speak to my fiancee about the exact details of ALC origin. [quote]Surely if someone has an opinion which they think to be true, to them it is a fact?[/quote] I would disagree. Case in point: I don't like bacon, I dislike the taste. The fact is not 'bacon is unlikeable and it tastes horrible', the fact is 'I do not like bacon, I dislike the taste'. [quote]The idea you suggested that is that worship songs as they are in some 'sacred sphere' "the content carries a lot more weight" is the same idea[/quote] I'm sorry, but I really feel you are reading alleged 'facts' into something that was little more than me stating why I rarely listen to lyrics in contemporary songs, but why I find myself listening to the lyrics in worshipful songs. Put it this way, I listen to anything that comes on, and I listen as long as I can. If it doesn't make sense, I stop trying. If it does make sense, but I find the content boring, I stop trying. If it does make sense, and I find the content interesting, I will attempt to relate to it. If the content is something that is important to me, particularly if it's a song that is intended to help me worship God, then of course I'm going to relate to it and choose to listen to it and respond accordingly. But I treat all songs similarly, worship songs are not exempt from scrutiny just because they're 'worship' songs. They're written by people, and therefore can be poorly or weakly written. Being about God doesn't make them instantly beyond qualification as a 'good' or 'bad' song. I hope that clarifies a few things. Mark

Well, as it seems I've got to put a disclaimer on anything I say in this thread, so... Personally, I find that unless lyrics have some cohesiveness or a story I can reasonably follow more or less from start to finish, I tend to lose interest in the lyrics and pay attention to the underlying music. Unfortunately for me a lot of contemporary music, at least in Britain, is built on pretty poor lyrics, and the underlying music is not much better (again, IMO). So, I turned to more or less totally to instrumental music. Joe Satriani is a big personal favourite, Hiromi is also good, Laurence Cottle, Guthrie Govan, Brett Garsed, Charlie Hunter, Barber (particularly the Excursions) etc. I listen to a fair bit of jazz but if it sounds good I'll listen to it. Stuff with lyrics, some of you may cry 'hypocrit' but I like some of Van Halen's work, the Eagles (Wasted Time is a beautifully crafted song IMO), Dream Theater, Mr. Big. However, only certain songs of the artists with lyrics appeal to me. I'll look through my iPod and fish some out for you. Mark DISCLAIMER: this is just my opinion

[quote]i know it is your opinion and not fact, I understand that but since when were opinions sacred and not to be questioned?[/quote] I am totally happy to entertain a discussion about our differences of opinion, in the hopes of perhaps learning something from each other or even reaching a common understanding. But, to be honest, you didn't respond to my opinion, let alone bring it up for discussion or question it. Your post read stuff into it that was [i]totally[/i] extremising what I'd said, and you reacted as if I'd stated it as fact. I don't see how that is in any way fair or in the interest of discussion. Mark

[quote]Most secular music style over substance? Now forgive me for disagreeing but thats just daft. The fact you dont care about the asda girl but do about jesus doesnt mean one has no substance and the other does thats called personal taste.[/quote] Please read my response again, I did not iterate as fact, nor did I state it in such an extreme manner as you are making it out to be. [quote]I would call most secular music as being style over substance, [i]at least to some extent[/i], [b]but that's just my opinion[/b][u][/u]. Honestly, I can rarely work out what the point of the lyrics in secular songs are about.[/quote] It happens to be my opinion on many songs, maybe it shows a lack of ability to relate to some of the things that people sing about in songs? I don't know. But I didn't say I didn't like secular music. I happen to have a vast collection of music, and worship music isn't my most listened category. [quote]Go and read some good poems. They arnt about Gob but they can move you. Go watch a film, look at some art, read books whatever. Just becuase it doesn't 'carry any weight' as religious content it is absurd to exclude.[/quote] Again, you appear to be misconstruing what I said. I was talking about [i]some[/i] secular music (I used the word 'most' and I stand by that as my opinion), I did not say that [i]all[/i] secular music was like this, or that I consider all secular music to be like this. Moreover, I said nothing about excluding arts because they are secular or don't carry a message that I agree with or understand. Mark

[quote]So it is OK for you to slag off "typical , boring, uninteresting" secular music "style over substance" yet you take umbrage when others criticize happy clapping and songs to a deity for which their is no proof . Most popular music lyrics are a reflection on real life not fantasy[/quote] I'd like to respond to this comment, not on a religious front but because I feel it is more of a heavy-handed personal attack. Firstly, I did not slag off these songs. I stated my opinion that I find it hard to understand what they're singing about. I said nothing about my like or dislike about such music. I did say I don't care about singer songwriters that sing about mundane events. Again, I made it clear that this was my opinion. Secondly, I did not get on my high horse when others criticised worship to God. I believe I responded fairly and in a patient manner. Thirdly, and I am not hiding behind this, we have been asked quite politely and with good reason by the moderators to not turn this into a religious debate. I am enjoying this thread, but I see no reason to spout forth offensive comments about God. Mark

[quote]When I'm jamming on by bass or guitar, the tune often dictates the lyrics. If I was a Christian, I'd get p1ssed off trying to cram references to God, Jesus, a burning bush and feet washing into my songs.[/quote] Whilst I agree that one can be limited by lyrics, I personally think that lodging oneself or one's band into a given genre is [i]far [/i]more limiting than having a 'target' audience that the content of one's songs is aimed at. For example, in corporate (as in congregational) worship times we can (and do) play songs in a vast array of styles, because we are not bound to one particular style. It is the subject matter, not necessarily the vehicle by which it is conveyed that is key. It is not style over substance, the substance needs to be cohesive and logical, that focuses people on the reason they are worshipping and inspires them, and ultimately causes them to praise God. Whether you agree with this being good or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what worship music is for. (Which is another reason why music is peripheral to true worship, but that's another topic). In contrast, I hear very few songs that actually make any sense at all (e.g. those in typical rock, metal etc), and those that do (ala singer songwriters) happen to be (to me) quite boring and uninteresting stories. I don't care about the girl you met on your trip to Asda that looked stunning but broke your heart and now you're singing about the whole darned thing, Mr. Ben Folds (maybe not singer songwriter but you get my point). I would call most secular music as being style over substance, at least to some extent, but that's just my opinion. Honestly, I can rarely work out what the point of the lyrics in secular songs are about. One last thing, just to try and explain where a good proportion of worship music lyrics come from. Some come from the Bible yes, but others are just people writing songs about God in their own way based on their own personal experience of how good he is. Much like singer songwriters do, and yes I acknowledge there are some weak ones. What is different though (again, IMO), is that the content carries a lot more weight than and as I do care about such things, I am instantly drawn in to listen to what they are singing about. Mark

[quote]wouldn't it be great to have some funky / souly / even reggae type music to accompany them?[/quote] Rumble, the worship director at our church is a music teacher with the local schools, together me and him often come up with some truly funky arrangements. We did the awfully cheesy song 'There's a place, where the streets shine' in a truly funky James Brown-esque style. If you want I can throw together a chord chart for you with some notes on the arrangement. Mark

[quote]Couldn't say it better myself. Agreeing with you big time![/quote] It's a hard balance to strike, as it must be pointed it that if the music becomes overly complex or showy, people can/may become distracted by the music during worship, and not focusing on the whole point of that time. Even those who don't agree with organised religion, or have their reservations etc, I'm sure that even they can recognise that if a team of people is meant to be doing one task that it is their responsibility to do, it would be sub-ordinate for them to try to change their responsibility to something they'd 'prefer' to do, or 'like better'. To give a secular example, if you're meant to be a quiet jazz lounge pianist who's responsiblity is to do quiet background jazz that sets a mood, it would be entirely irresponsible and subordinate to the task that said pianist been assigned if they then chose to play Hiromi, Herbie Hancock et al at high speed very loudly. Though it may be impressive, it's not actually the reason they are there. Mark

I was contemplating getting an MTD when I was pooling resources for a custom. I was fortunate enough to get to try Ari's MTDs, and whilst they sounded good, they just weren't for me. Good for my wallet, not good in the sense that my illusions of them being great for me were let down. Mark

[quote]Blessed are the cheese-makers.[/quote] Tell me about it... True worship is beyond genre or style. But what is beyond me is why a great proportion of Christian/God-centric worship music is stuck in an apparent time warp. I love re-arranging songs and making them radically different, it just seems a shame that I've always got to do this. The new wave of such songs seem to be an ever-evolving but never-progressing parody of the songs that went before them. Mark

Josh, I'm happy to take it to PMs Re: Andrew Gouche, as I'm primarily a gospel bassist (at least that's been 80-90% of my gigs for the last 5 years or so) I was surprised to have only heard of him in 2008. Does anyone who's more up on his work know if he's just come to more prominence of late, or has he been around for a while? He has a decent tone, a little heavy on the more percussive style of playing to my ears, but it is mighty tasteful and tuneful nonetheless. Whilst I love playing gospel, only certain musicians grab my attention. Israel Houghton being one of them. He's brought a fresh approach to gospel music and (IMO) breaks free of the more stereotypical cheese fest that gospel music can often turn into. Mark

Please, I don't see the need for snide comments. The italics were to highlight what appears to me to be the crux of the matter. If these things [i]were[/i] true, that there is a creator God, and the associated trinity, would it still be ludicrous? Would it still be delusional to do the things that Josh listed as delusional if this were true? Apologies Rich, if anyone wishes to continue in PMs they are welcome too (I hope it's ok to say that Rich, let me know if you want me to remove any of my comments). Back to our regularly scheduled programme Mark

Josh, let me see if I understand you correctly. All the things you've described (which I think have been at least mildly misrepresented in your post, but lets leave that as it's peripheral) appear ludicrous to you. You see it as an unfounded delusion that these people are indulging in the belief of a creator God, singing praises to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, [i]because you do not believe that any of these things are true[/i]. Is this the case? Or is there something else that I am missing? I just wish to respond accurately. Mark

yorks5stringer, my fiancee recently moved to Nottingham so that we could be closer and there was a nice sending off party for her. There was no difficulty involved in that. I honestly have not heard that it has been, or could be difficult to leave ALC, other than it just being emotionally difficult personally for one to leave this church. Josh, what do you define as delusional? Earbrass, why should kids say no? I ask these things in the hope of reasoned discussion. Mark

When we were dating, my fiancee lived in Bradford and went to ALC. She helped run the kid's church, which for a 3000-4000 strong inner city church is a massive task. On the weekends we got to see each other I was privileged to get to go along to ALC, and meet and get to know a number of people that are involved there. It's a great church, I'd encourage you to keep going. One of the lead musicians there is a dude called Joel. FYI, he's the guitarist who plays a green PRS. He actually did a degree in Jazz at Leeds College of Music, and this shows in at least some of their arrangements. Also, another random fact, one of the singers (Abundant Life have a choir most weeks) was singing on X Factor in one of the choirs. My fiancee said we had to watch out for her. She was in the choir on the right in the Girlband rendition of 'Make it a better place', Last girl on the left in the back row with crazily long blonde hair. Mark

So the difficulty is that you've got to move the whole hand up/down strings in order to play a pattern such as an octave pattern? Regardless of the number of fingers you've got that's an inherent attribute of floating thumb, the point being your fingers pluck every string in the same physical way, reducing muscle memory you need to practice. Unfortunately that does mean you need to develop stability in your movements when shifting your hand up/down. It does come with time. This may not be that useful, but when I use three fingers, it's usually a three finger variation (IMR, not thumb) of the 4 finger Matt Garrison technique (have a look at urb/Mike Flynn's excellent videos for this) so it ends up being free strokes (not coming to rest on the lower string/using the 'loose string' technique). That definitely helps with not getting 'caught up' in the other strings that occurs when using rest strokes. However, as it's a variation of another multifinger technique, it may not be that applicable to or helpful for your situation, but I thought I'd mention it. Mark

[quote]yes they are expensive but to me they are worth every penny! if a bass can make you smile every time you pick it up to play, record, gig etc then sadowsky have to be doing something right. this is the first time in my playing life that ive had so many compliments on my sound! especially in the recording studio! and also the first time that im not worrying about any element of my instrument! everything about them is the best quality, solid and extremely road worthy! so i can just concentrate on my playing!![/quote] Absolutely! Could not agree more! Thing is, I already have a jazz bass that does these things, that's all. I was, for a time, seriously considering a Sadowsky, but then I got lucky with my present jazz, and the need/want was satisfied. Mark

+1 Also good advice! Mark

Anchoring your thumb is where you place your thumb in fairly secure/rigid contact with some part of the bass, be it the top edge of a pickup constantly (i.e. [i]never[/i] moving it) or moving between low B string and pickup, or anchored on some string below the one you're playing (i.e. rigidly anchored until you skip strings). A floating thumb, or perhaps a better way to explain the mechanism is to call it a sliding thumb, involves resting the side of your thumb across the strings. It's very very relaxed so that it acts just like a 'bit of flesh' that lies across the strings, thus muting them. You then simply slide your hand across the strings to move between strings, the side of your thumb muting any strings below the tip of your thumb, i.e. any strings below the one you're playing. If you anchor you will find that a) you have to find a place to anchor and lock in; b ) you have introduced more tension than less; c) when you want to move up or down one or more strings you have opposition as you're essentially pressing against something, thus preventing easy motion; and therefore d) you have to pull your hand/thumb away from the bass to 'break' the anchor, then repeat the cycle. I consider this to be highly inefficient. If you use floating/sliding thumb you will find that a) the sheer sense of your thumb against the strings is enough to tell you where you are and feel 'secure'; b ) you are very very relaxed; c) when you want to move up or down one or more strings there is NO opposition as you are not pressing against anything, thus enabling easy motion; and therefore d) you can simply slide along the string courses when playing, there is no cycle to repeat, just ease of motion. I consider this to be highly efficient. You don't lose 'needed' strength because strength isn't needed, a controlled light touch is all that is necessary to play fast; muscle memory is not a problem, as you develop (IMO) more versatile muscle memory due to the slight variations in held hand position when using floating thumb. Sorry for the long explanation, I thought it'd be better to give a complete picture rather than leave anything hanging. Mark