mcgraham

That's good to hear. It may feel a bit odd on the E string at first, but you should find that as long as the (side of the) thumb is in contact with something (like the body of the bass, finger ramp, pickup, etc) you should find it's fine. Mark

You may have done. Best re-iterate it just in case. I know it's not light as small cabs go, but it's a more manageable size than the light but comparatively bulky neo cabs that are around. Mark

Awesome Is the Demeter pre based on some traditional Fender preamp design of legend? I forget the name, it just rings a bell. I'd like to get a Berg IP one day. Particularly the 112 as I'd like to have a one cab/two cab option, i.e. walk with a bass and an active cab to a practice, drive to gig with bass and both cabs for the full rig. However, funds do not allow this. If just the IP112 came up for sale I could reasonably foresee moving the Schroeder & TF on in favour of the Berg, or in a trade + cash, but I think there are too many eager beavers waiting for a spare Berg IP112 coming up for me to make good on that. Mark

No worries TF! Always good to be clear on such things. Re: Hanon, just check out the other thread I've been posting in recently, or any other one in technique that I've posted it in as I'm likely to have mentioned it then. It's a piano pedagogy book, the exercises work very well for developing electric bass technique as they are not intended for bass, therefore you have to work harder and think more carefully about your technique than standard guitar exercises like the 1-2-3-4 chromatic thing that Dave Marks has commented on. It also works well on guitar as it forces you to get your string skipping as strong as your same string alternate picking. Once I'd got the left hand pattern on bass the right hand wasn't too hard so I've got them at about the same level. Mark

Re: The Satch thing - it's not inversions, they are 'stand-alone' chords if you will. Essentially you can split the whole 24 chord progression up into 'pairs' of adjacent chords. Let's forget about the (add9) quality for now. Bm - G is like playing in Bm then going to the 6th chord in Bm, being G. The next pair is the same but in Em, the next is the same but in Am etc. There are several reasons it works. Each time you start a new pair you 'essentially' modulate to a new minor key but it doesn't become definite until you finish the subsequent pair, i.e. Bm - G - Em is still in the key of Bm, but the complete progression of Bm - G - Em - C shows that when you hit the Em you have essentially modulated to the relative minor of the G, but it's not clear from the context of the progression at that point. The other reason it works is because of the (add9) quality; without that, Bm - G - Em - C is all in the key of G. The add9 helps cement each pair as a new key once they are complete. Does that make sense? Note: this is just my way of internalising it, write the whole thing out and learn it, then fiddle with it to get your own understanding of it. Re: arpeggios, up and down the neck is good, but try doing the add9 arpeggios on each of the chords of such a progression. Maybe start with the Bmadd9 - Gadd9 and just repeat that over and over to get the pattern and feel down. Mark

Sure. The Joe Satriani progression is a progression he wrote for his students called 'Endless Rain'; he developed it to help his students learn to solo in all keys, and learn to mentally shift which key/scale/tonal centre they were in a more manageable and more rock-centric way. It's quite hard to type and get chord charts right on here but I'll stick in a text document and post it up. Essentially it cycles downwards in major/minors in thirds (or upwards in sixths?). So Bm - G - Em - C - Am - F - etc..... All of them are XX(add9). The Hanon exercises are classical piano pedagogy exercises. Again, I can email people copies if they wish along with tips/advice I developed for making the most use of them. Essentially the exercises are more difficult on bass than the average chromatic practice regime, so they workout your linear playing, string skipping, phrasing, shifting, stretching, barring etc, all in just one or two exercises (though there are 60 of them; I only used 3 or 4) that is actually musical. The symmetrical ones are for getting inside their respective sounds. I have one for the whole tone scale, I'd need to record it/notate it to explain it. Similarly with the H-W/W-H/Fully diminished symmetrical scale/exercise pattern. That particular one is in 9, or perhaps you could think of it as compound time of 4 and 5. Again, I'd need to record it or notate it, or show you it for it to make sense. If I can get to the bass bash I can show anyone who's interested. Mark

Finger per fret isn't a golden rule, it's a general rule of thumb for a good 'home' or 'base' position. If you have a good 'home' position, and it's well ingrained, then when/if you need to stretch or change to something you will be starting from a good position and going back to one when you're done. It makes general movement, stretching and shifting a lot easier. Mark

Again, I recommend but a few exercises from Hanon for a good workout that hits most aspects of technique that need work. Mark

[quote]Right hand, I'd recommend a floating thumb technique. That means anchoring your thumb on the string below the one you're playing and shifting it up and down as you move up and down the strings.[/quote] I'd like to point out that this is [b][i]not[/i][/b] the floating thumb technique. That is, for lack of a better definition, a movable anchor, and presents a great difficulty of shifting up and down strings over true floating thumb or total anchor. Floating thumb means [i]NO[/i] anchoring, i.e. the side of your thumb slides across the strings and doesn't actually anchor to any of them. Search for Gary Willis or Todd Johnson on Youtube for a better illustration. [quote]You should also alternate with fingers 1 and 2 on the right hand.[/quote] Yes. Although whether you choose to rake strings (i.e. when descending you play through a higher string into a lower string, plucking the lower string with the same motion of that finger) or whether you choose to always alternate regardless of whether you ascend or descend is a debate in itself. Mark

I'm with 6stringbassist on this; make your practice as musical as possible so you are killing as many birds with one stone as you can, i.e. technical practice, ear training, and improvisation. I rarely practice scales, but I like to play it in intervals, e.g. in 3rds (1 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 etc), in 4ths, in 5ths, in 6ths, some are more useful than others, 3rds and 6ths get my vote. Another way is to play a scale in one position (say B major) and when you reach the top note in that position (assuming 3 notes per string) come back down on the same scale but in a key a 4th up from before (E major), then when you reach the bottom note go back up in the next key up (A major) and keep doing that. For arpeggios I run chord progressions whilst playing arpeggios on each chord. Specifically the crazily long and wonderful chord progression Joe Satriani came up with. It goes through every major and minor chord on all 12 notes (24 chords). I also do 7th arpeggios but moving down in 5ths (so in C major it's Cmaj7, G7, Dm7... etc). I also use Hanon exercises. I've also got a few more complicated patterns for the symmetrical scales in various time signatures. Mark

Another request to hear from any Nottingham BC'ers going down. Please let me know, would love to attend this! Mark

[quote]I do realise that this sounds like internet review hyperbole but FOR ME (and ymmv) it is opening doors to forgetting about my signal chain.[/quote] That's really great to hear Owen I for one love to hear about other players getting closer to their ideal setup and tone. Particularly if it involves increased simplification of a rig rather than complication. How's the Berg IP working out for you? Mark

Indeed! The time has almost arrived... I hope! I sent a speculative email to Enrico last week just to see how things were progressing; he replied to inform me that it should be ready next week (this was on Sunday). We'll be chatting about it on Skype early next week if not sooner. I'm afraid I've not been issued with any pictures so I'm as keen as anyone to see the finished product. Si you are most definitely in the test drive list. PM winging it's way to you now. Mark

Anyone coming from the Nottingham area? Mark

Science is supposedly derived from the word [i]sciencio[/i], meaning truth (I think?). So arguably music is more true than any science we [i]think[/i] we know about. But I digress. Mark

I get what you mean, and it is difficult to see past 'musical prejudice' inherent in people's playing. However, you can look to different [i]styles[/i] for an illustration of how certain musicians are biased in their choice of notes/theory application. You look to metal (of course various genres ) and you find heavy use of angular intervals, lots of chromaticism etc; you look to rock/pop, you'll find heavy use of standard chord resolutions, chords based on diads and triads (i.e. R-5, R-3-5) with the sparse use of non-diatonic notes etc; you look to classical music and you find a hefty set of rules that govern what you're allowed to end with, start with, and notes that are 'wrong' or 'illegal' in certain contexts (depending on the type and era, I'm not an expert so please don't pick too many holes in that one). So, with regard to theory, if you pause for a second, and imagine that various musical styles incorporate different musical devices that are at least partly responsible for distinguishing their genre as [u][i]that[/i][/u], and that each of these devices from every genre is based on the same set of absolute principles, i.e. a major 2nd is a major 2nd, a Cm9#11 has 'these' notes, and (outside of enharmonic equivalence which we shall ignore) there's no two ways about it, after this you start to see the limitless and not limiting applications of theory. In essence what I'm saying is that each genre of music (and each teacher within each genre) advocates a slightly different approach to theory, coloured in the shade of that genre. If you add as many colours together as you can, you get a less and less coloured (less restricted) view of theory, i.e. broadening your horizons and expanding your palette. Each time I've tried my hand at a new style in a different group, I've heard something new, I've figured out what was going on, why it worked, and it has reshaped my previous understanding of what works and what doesn't work in a given style or context, thus expanding my theoretical understanding of music. Is that making sense? Mark

My sentiments exactly... ... provided we don't get the same arguments from the same people in another thread on theory Mark

The last bash was fantastic fun! If anyone is unsure whether they should go, don't be. It's a great chance to meet people, try out gear, and have a good laugh. Speaking of attending, is anyone from Nottingham thinking of going, and coming back the same day? If so would they mind giving me a lift please? Mark

Cheddatom, I appreciate you clarifying your point, however I feel you may have skipped over part of mine. [quote]any such comments are usually a colouring of the information by those teaching the theory[/quote] Whether this is first hand, second hand, from your teacher, or from Hanon via your teacher, theory is inevitably going to be coloured in some way by those teaching it, and the people they were taught by... a point I feel you've actually supported by your response. [quote]When put into practice, we would have examples like the one above "OK tom, i'm going to play in C major, you keep up" and if I played a note outside of the C major scale I was wrong[/quote] If your teacher told you it was [i]theoretically wrong[/i] to play anything outside of C major, they are (IMO) wrong. They are speaking in absolutes, which (as we have established in the course of this thread) aren't that helpful, at least in the pursuit of art. What they perhaps [i]should[/i] be saying is that it is unconventional to do so, in both a historical and experiential context (i.e. I do not dispute that there are rules associated with classical music and the like, but I put it to you that this is but a historical interpretation of music theory). Therefore, when you learn something, try to read between the lines as it is likely to be highly subjective. Try apply it to more than one context. Otherwise you're not reeeally internalising it, and you will be merely regurgitating it next time you come to play, taking the information at face value and not developing it nor making it your own. Again, I feel this example only serves to illustrate my point. Perhaps that's my own personal filter on the world making itself known Mark

I'm referring primarily to music theory, I am in no way confused about which theory I am talking about. The theory I have read suggests routes you can take, and provides experiential guidance on what may work and what may not, but it is by no means an absolute set of rules, merely definitions, ala a dictionary, rather than a manual. When people teach theory in such absolutes, they are likely to be colouring it with their own experience, with varying levels of severeness. AND! On top of this, our interpretation of what sounds good and what doesn't is based in part on the science of sound. It is our 'personal colouration' of these sounds that persuade us to choose one sound over another. [quote]But I guess my point is that a musical mind with that information should (in thoery ) be able to make something REALLY special happen! So, when asked do I need to know that theoretical stuff, my answer would always be an unqualified yes.[/quote] Exactly Mark

Ah yes, yet another debate on theory vs noodling. Dejavu anyone? I'm not a teacher nor a psychologist so please bear with me if you will. Firstly, theory is nothing more than information. It objectively provides us with a (more or less) scientific understanding of why certain things sound the way they do, e.g. the harmonics and interference produced by a given interval/set of intervals. That is [i]objective[/i]. It exists whether you like it/know it or not. In and of itself it does not say whether something sounds pleasing/good/right or not, any such comments are usually a colouring of the information by those [i]teaching[/i] the theory (please note I'm not saying all notes are equal, that's something else). It seems to me that there are two major parts to this, and that some of us seem to be advocating one over the other. (1) addressing the information (for want of a better word), followed by (2) internalising the information. Without the information readily/easily available, and to hand, it is mostly hit and miss as (without any theory dictating or predisposing you to make a certain note choice) all notes [i]are[/i] essentially equal, in a probability sense. Why would you pick one over another without good reason?However, without internalisation of said information, you do not progress beyond the knowledge stage, and you won't go the step further to learning why certain sounds/intervals etc [i]evoke[/i] the reactions/emotions that they do (linking it back to music being an art form). This is vital. There are some who are nothing more than technicians, as they have not learned how to make the theory work towards progressing their art form. On the other hand, there are songwriters who know very little, but have stumbled upon a few ideas and learned exactly how to coax the reactions they desire out of their audience/public using these ideas. Those who have even an ounce of both abilities, to take in [i]and[/i] internalise the information available to them, are unlikely to struggle as musicians. IMO. Mark

Hmmm. I've honestly not listened to enough jazz-funk to make such a call. I'd just prefer her to spend less time screwing around with a Nord. Sometimes it sounds good, but her choice of sounds gets a bit grating, and the excessive and poor pitchbending is just painful. Mark

That's not the best representation. Try and find a live version of 'Time Out' if you can. That is my favourite example of Hiromi's live playing by far. I agree on the bass tone. I used to really like TG's tone (Fodera), but the more I listened to it, the more unremarkable it sounds to me. I actually greatly prefer his sound on his new Yamaha. Mark

Dave Fiuczynski is a very cool guitarist. I'm not saying I dig all of what he does (some of it sounds a bit like noise to me) but he is definitely a unique musician. I believe it's a 12 string fretless on the top neck and a 7 string fretted on the lower, but with only the top 6 strings being attached to a trem. She has a great band, and I think that having an electric guitar [i]really[/i] rounds out the sound. I can imagine that it may get a bit overwhelming having four virtuosic (or at least highly technical) musicians in the studio/rehearsal all improving together, but their recorded offerings and live performances certainly seem to leave the right amount of space (at least for my tastes). I'd like to see what she could do with some horns in her line-up, but that could prove to be a example of more actually being less. Mark P.S. Does anyone else think that her live recordings have significantly more energy than her studio offerings?

We've mentioned her name a few times but I thought it'd be worth starting a discussion on this amazing musician. I first heard her about 2 years ago when someone posted a vid of Tony Grey playing in the Hiromi trio on Youtube. I really liked his lines, but after that I turned my attention to her music and realised what an immense composer she is. Particularly after transcribing some of her stuff, you realise how clever she is as a composer, both in terms of theory and in terms of artistic ability. I'd heard that she was releasing an album sometime this year that would be her her interpretation of/take of/stab at jazz standards. I have just seen that is now available on iTunes (called 'Beyond Standard'). I plan on purchasing this album this evening. Anyone else dig Hiromi's stuff? Or not? Also, has anyone picked up/downloaded a copy of the above album and would like to share their thoughts? Mark