cheddatom

Very cool, I really like the contoured top. I assume that hole will have the electonics and have a covered top?

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280454' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:13 PM']Ok I can see what your saying, but I can’t agree with you that you will “quite clearly know what you’re missing”, because you won’t. If you just look at your example about the rollercoaster in that you think what you will be missing will be the extreme speed or G force, what experience have you got to qualify that statement? How do you know that that’s what you will be missing and not something else, or how do you even know that you won’t like it? It’s like the argument for keeping battery chickens in tiny cages; they don’t know any different so it’s not cruel. When it comes to music theory you don’t know anything different than what you already know or you’ve already experienced, so you quite clearly don’t know what you’re missing.[/quote] I am aware of the laws of physics. The rollercoaster analogy is not a good one. The jazz performance is a good one though. If I watch a 3 piece, a guitarist is playing some chords like i've never heard before, and he keeps changing chords at seemingly random points in time, but the bassist is constantly playing notes that sound nice with the guitar, and he always keeps rythm, with him even though it sounds like the rythm is random. Watching that, I can tell that these people know their way around the fretboard to such an extent that they can create a chaotic sounding peice of music, and yet make it sound "musical" or "nice", and stay together time-wise. I would put that down to music theory whether I know any or not. They would have to have a theory of some sort in order to keep this "random" rythm and for them both to be able to play in the same time (unless they're psychic). If I am a musician in this situation, I would be able to watch them and compare their skills with my own. If I think "I could never keep up with those random timings, I could never come up with that many notes to fit with those chords" etc, then I quite clearly know what i'm missing - that knowledge. Doesn't that make sense? [quote name='mcgraham' post='280457' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:15 PM']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. Mark[/quote] I'm not saying you're confused about what theory you're talking about. All I was saying is that "the harmonics and interference produced by a given interval/set of intervals" can be defined using the laws of physics etc, where as "this is C major, if the song is in the key of C major, playing notes from C major will sound good" would be an example of music theory at work. Am I wrong? When I was at school I learned a lot of music theory from teachers and books etc. Most of what I learned was about key signiatures, scales, timing/rhythm, transposition etc. 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. Quite obviously what you do with your theory knowledge is your own business, i'm not saying that people should or do stick to music theory as though it's a rule book. I think though, in and of it's self, the majority of music theory text implies musical opinion such as "this is a good idea" (another example would be all of the ways to end a peice, I can't remember the proper name, but they teach you around 10 different ways to finish a piece, and then get you to identify them by listening to them, and you have to name them etc. It implies to me that these are the ways that a peice of music SHOULD be finished). I'm not sure if i'm making sense. My only point to you Mark was that I have studied the science of sound waves - how they interact and how we hear them and why, and I have studied music theory and they seem like wildly different topics to me.

[quote name='mcgraham' post='280444' date='Sep 9 2008, 03:53 PM']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).[/quote] I think this is where the debate falls down a bit. Theory means different things to different people. IMHO The theory you're talking about is the science of sound. Music theory is different, and DOES say whether something sounds pleasing/good/right or not. That is why our opinions differ.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280391' date='Sep 9 2008, 02:34 PM']OK - your point is completely valid - you don't need to understand 'grammar' to speak a language (a French friend of mine doesn't get this 'masculine'/'feminine', le/la stuff any more than I do) and there are many people who don't understand theory who can 'hear' the more complex and 'advanced' elements of some jazz. I have no argument with that but I think that any player who wants 'be the best that they can be', the study of theory opens doors that may be otherwise difficult to access.[/quote] I would agree apart from the "be the best they can be" - I think it should be "be the best that they can within the context of modern standardised music". There may be musicians who feel the need to abandon convention, and I would liken them to writers who understand spoken English, but enjoy deviating from the "standardised" written form, abandoning grammar, making up words or even whole dialects etc. It's not necessary to have a doctorate in English to be able to make up a new form of it, and I fail to see how it would help. I think this only makes sense in the context of a composer rather than a musician - like I said it depends what you want to do. If I want to be an original and unconventional composer, I would try to avoid listening to other people's music, and avoid reading music theory. If I wanted to go and play in a jazz band, I would learn music theory. Obviously there's a world of possibilities in between. I don't think we disagree, I think i'm just being pedantic.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280362' date='Sep 9 2008, 02:01 PM']I understand everyone's 'live and let live' attitude. Its all very pro-social and positive and is fundamentally where I stand also. Unlike a lot of people, however, I make sense of the world by talking and arguing and debating and pondering and re-visiting issues and arguing some more. It helps me keep enthusiastic and interested. Agreeing to disagree before you have disagreed with me gives me nothing to deliberate on! You can disagree without being disagreeable! So, kindly rant on and feel good about it!![/quote] I totally agree there Bilbo - why not respond to my response to your response to my post? Regarding theory - I think it can be important to learn, or it can be not important to learn, depending on what you want to do as a musician. It can never be important to not learn.

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280265' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:18 PM']I respectfully totally disagree. I think you’re way off the mark with this one. How can you have practical knowledge of something you have no experience or understanding of? You could end up living a very small and narrow minded life if you go around believing that you understand everything despite having no experience of it – no offence meant (and I’m in no way saying you “live a very small and narrow minded life, because from your other posts on the forum I know that’s just not true ), I’m just trying to make a point.[/quote] I think you misunderstood my post. I never said that I would have a practical knowledge of complicated jazz music - I said that I could watch it, listen to it, compare it to what I already know on the bass, and quite easily realise that it would take a lot of technical musical theoretical knowledgetical knowledge to accomplish what I am seeing and hearing. I don't have to have that knowledge to know that. [quote name='bilbo230763' post='280266' date='Sep 9 2008, 12:18 PM']Not really. If you try read a book in a language you don't understand but you can't make sense of it, you will not know what you are missing. If you can hear those 'weird' changes, they are subjectively more beautiful than the simple little diatonic major harmonies in most poular music. If you can't, you wouldn't know.[/quote] Like I have said before, music is not comparable to language in that way. Music could be reffered to as a language if you like, but everyone all over the world can understand it. It's like saying you have to have an expansive knowledge of music theory to enjoy listening to jazz music, and to be able to think about what goes into that music you have to know all of the technical terms that the musicians use. I'm sure there are loads of jazz proficianados (critics, DJs, producers etc) who know no music theory. I can hear weird changes without knowing what they're called and/or how to do it. I am using jazz as an example here because it generally requires a greater knowledge of (how notes works together and where and when to find them) music theory than say... Pop-Rock.

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='280251' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:57 AM']Although realistically by definition you probably don’t know what you’re missing. How can you know or appreciate what you’re missing if you don’t actually understand what you’re missing?[/quote] If I don't like the idea of rollercoasters because of the extreme speed and G force involved, I won't go on rollercoasters, I will never have the experience of that extreme speed or G force, but I will know that that is what i'm missing. If I go and watch a jazz band do a load of improvisation in some weird keys that's quite obviously technically challenging, I can observe the use of the theory I don't know - so I quite clearly know what i'm missing.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='280232' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:40 AM']But those that don't know what they don't know can only want to know what they don't know if they have a very real sense that they don't know what they don't know. If they knew that, and knew that they knew that, then they would want to know, you know?[/quote] I know I don't know a lot of stuff. It doesn't mean I don't know what i'm missing.

In cubase there's a great plug-in called "quadradrive" which is an overdrive, but used in the standard "blank" position is basically an excellent multi band compressor - try it out. Everytime I record something in too much of a rush or have made a mistake and can't go back to fix it, I use this plug-in, on guitar, bass, drums, and vocals.

The closest i've come to a gimmick is wearing a plain silver very reflective shirt - it was pretty dazzling, but some c*** nicked it after the first gig [quote name='Mr Fudge' post='277624' date='Sep 5 2008, 09:57 AM']hoping competitions[/quote] How do you win? Whoever gets a secret wish granted?

I reckon if what you have has a sound you like, and is loud enough, you should really stick with it. The only times I have spent money on gear is when i've felt i've needed something. If you just fancy something new, buy a pedal or something a bit cheaper! A new bass would probably make more of a difference than swapping from a good Ampeg model that you love, and a good Ampeg.

[quote name='OldGit' post='279591' date='Sep 8 2008, 12:01 PM']Guardian liked it [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/may/11/1#a"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/may/11/1#a[/url] "oh yeah, I play the bass/the bass plays me/the four-stringed, thick-bellied electrified monster, you know, the one that eats all other noises alive and I've gone walking down these four strings most every hour of every day, of every year and every busted heartbeat, just trying to get along to where the last riff kisses the dark/the subsonic groove, we call it dub culture/midnight's vibration/something to reach for some throat, some bottom, some neck and some deep clutch of riverpulse/gets you hot just strapping yourself into the thing/and the more you play, the hotter it gets, the slicker the slide/and all for nothing much because none of the songs you discover, ever come anywhere near to what you hear in your dreams"[/quote] I quite like that quote! I may buy it!

I use a peavey TNT 15" combo, which has a crossover built in. I use the high output to go to a jonhson 2 x 12" guitar combo. It sounds so much better than most rigs I have played, but that's because it's tailored to my tastes I suppose. It's just surprising how much volume I get out of it, and quite funny when compared to some massive bass rigs i.e 8 x 10" or 4 x 10" and 1 x 15" - it easily keeps up. EDIT: I suppose it's actually "perceived volume" rather than actual SPL?

[quote name='fifeq' post='277757' date='Sep 5 2008, 12:51 PM']I like to use simmilar setup but have a problem with feedbacks. anyone know how to solve it? does the behringer or other cheap mark do feedback destroyer thing(i think boss does)? or any other option? cheers![/quote] Turn down, turn away from your amp, or get a noise gate. You don't want a feedback destroyer!

It's good to hear it's going so well Dave!

I would come up tayste, i'm constantly board these days and need to fill my time up. I don't have any nice/boutique pedals but I can bring the sh*t load that I do have.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='277081' date='Sep 4 2008, 03:13 PM']I hear what you're saying, but... Someone mentioned earlier how great a producer Phil Spector was. And he was. He also knew *exactly* what he wanted each instrument to do. HOWEVER... he didn't play the instruments himself. He got someone else to do it. Someone who knew that role inside-out. Do you respect him less because of that? ...a producer's relationship with their engineer is no different.[/quote] I don't know much about phil spector sorry..... If I wanted a paiting on my wall, I would go out and find a painting I liked, and then hang it. If I knew exactly what the painting should be, I would try to paint it myself. If I could get an artist to paint it for me, exactly as it was in my head, I would be a communications genius. I don't have less respect for a composer who can't play his own music compared to a composer who can, but to compose music you have to understand how to relate that music to musicians using notation etc. To be fair, I do think you have a point. Maybe great producers are communications geniuses! Most of this thought process was spaked by the realisation that I loved the sound of certain albums which Rick Rubin had worked on, but Rich Costey had engineered. When Rich Costey broke away to produce stuff AND engineer it, it all sounded as good, if not better than when he worked with Rick Rubin. When I realised Rick Rubin didn't have a clue about actually technically crafting the sound - just what he wanted something to "feel" like, I thought it was pretty obvious which of the two was accomplishing the amazing sound of the music.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='276933' date='Sep 4 2008, 01:12 PM']Aye, but... what makes a GREAT producer great is knowing what *right* sounds like. No offence to the engineer's mum, or the band's manager, but chances are they don't have a clue.[/quote] Yeh, good point, I would just have more respect for someone who knows what "right" is, and how to get it, rather than trying to get someone else to get it "right" and probably settling for a compromise.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='276873' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:28 PM']Subjective it may be, but 'the producer' will only be happy when he hears the sound that is in his/her head. It's not that uncommon for a producer to be 'hands off'.[/quote] I totally agree, but before I realised this I would give the producer credit for what I now think is mainly the engineer's work, and I think a lot of people are like that. The producer might get the engineer to keep working until it's "right" but I think that could be anyone - the band, the manager, the engineer's mum....

[quote name='tayste_2000' post='276887' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:38 PM']You can stay away from me as well with that thing poking out[/quote] I couldn't get anywhere near you! ..........................Unless I was walking backwards

[quote name='SteveK' post='276775' date='Sep 4 2008, 10:30 AM']That's common practice - A good producer will be concerning himself with the music. Patch bays and the like are for the engineer to worry about...Engineers engineer and producers produce. At least, that's how it was in the olden days Steve[/quote] Obviously, my point was that Rick Rubin doesn't even touch any faders. He might say to the engineer "I need to hear more bass" or "that guitar sounds crap" but my point is that the description of sounds/musicality is so subjective that without actually sitting there moving faders and trimming pan pots, you're not actually "crafting" the sound. For all we know, Rich Costey (one of Rick's most famous previous engineers) just used the DDA filter all the time.

Every time tayste posts his board I have to walk around at work the whole day with an erection. I should just steer clear of this thread!

I love listening to the sound of albums, the "production" but I think a lot of producers get credit for things they haven't done. I always though Rick Rubin was a master producer, considering the amazing sound on some of the albums he's done, but I read in an interview that he doesn't and has no interest in knowing how to use a mixing desk. He just tells an engineer how he wants it to sound. With the description of sounds being so entirely subjective, I find it hard to beleive that he has been the one actually "crafting" the sound.

Next time tell them you'll buy it if you like it.