Bilbo

Mark Levine's Jazz Theory Book but it ain't what you'd call portable!! There is a kindle version but I can't speak for it was I have not seen it and a lot of these theory books don't work well on kindles because the screen is too small, rendering the musical examples unreadable. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jazz-Theory-Book-Levine-SpiralBound/dp/B00BQ21LIQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394202575&sr=1-2&keywords=mark+levine+jazz+theory

It's all only part of the equation. A great groove won't make a s*** song great and a lot of the best music doesn't 'groove' in any commonly agreed sense of the word. To my mind, a great groove can be like polishing a turd. It doesn't make a song any less naff if it has a great groove. I always find it astonisihing that anyone rates that 'Good Times' thing by Chic. Great groove, I acknowledge, but the actual song is icky beyond belief

'My' tone is different every time I do a gig. The 'ideal' tone I look to is only every an aspiration that is usually foiled by the absence or otherwise of a carpet. Sometimes I get close, sometime its a train wreck.

I think the point is Bass 10%, strings 5%, pick-ups 3$, human being 82%. Of course gear makes a subtle difference but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the most significant element is the performer. The details created by the kit are barely discernable to the lay man and pretty much irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. As I always say, what ever my bass sounds like on its own, one ride cymbal and those details are completely wiped out.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1394037819' post='2387234'] The point I am making, Bilbo, is that the sound as it is mixed in the studio is not an accurate representation of the performance anyway, [/quote] I agree. I guess the end point, for me, is that, if the result is not what it was at point of origin, then it is neither better not worse, just different! I don't have any axe to grind here. I have an ok hi-fi that I rarely listen to because most of my listening nowadays is on the road. I think I probably do lose out in quality terms because it is all against a background of car noise, people noise etc and is mostly background rather than dedicated. A great sounding recording is a great thing, though. I accept that 100%

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1394028214' post='2387066'] This assumption that the point of hi-fi equipment is to try and reproduce the music as it was originally heard in the studio is[u] completely wrong[/u]. [/quote] I actually agree with most of what you say but, when it is broken down, hearing what it sounded like when the musicians played it HAS to be the whole point of it all. Not in the sense that no-one is allowed to make any alterations to the recorded sound but in the sense that the inherent VALUE of the art form is in its production not in its reproduction. Shirley?

Doink. (Sound of Bilbo's head hitting the desk). (Again)

What has always turned me off high end hi-fi is the fact that, were I in the room with the musicians who made the original music at the time they actually made it, it would not have sounded like that. I always liked ECM recordings for audio quality but, after hearing loads of live Jazz, I never, ever heard anything that actually sounded like, say, Keith Jarrett's piano in real life. The closest I ever came to that, for instance, was Kirk Lightsey playing a good piano in the Norwegian Church in Cardiff Bay about 15 years ago (for those who don't know it, the music space in the church is a round(ish) room lined mosty in wood). The world of the audiophile is rarified but it is also a hall of mirrors designed to feature the equipment and not the music being played. If the music sounds 'better' on a player than it woudl if the musicians were actually there in the room, how can it be judged to be a 'good' sound?

Fishman Platinum Pro is exactly what you need - there are other brands etc but that is the industry standard and will do the job.

Fatback!! I gotta get me a fatback!!

You can get a set of new strings at around £70 and they go all the way up but I reckong £90 - £120 shoudl cover it. Like an idiot, I bought a five string so that's an extra £35-40 every time I change a set (which is NEVER!!! )

There is a delay between study, absorbtion and integration of theory into your playing (some say six months but I guess it depends on various factors). If you study something today and incorporate it into your Jazz playing tonight, the chances are it will stick out like a sore thumb and sound contrived. Don't be frustrated, be patient. Keep learning and it will come.

It all adds to the mojo, if you ask me. I am not at all put off by dings and dents, as long as the integrity of the instrument is not compromised. Cosmetic damage is just that, cosmetic, and I don't feel that in any way detracts from the instrument's value. I guess some do.

3/4 is the default size for most musicians nowadays - you rarely see a full-size bass outside of an orchestra and they present real difficulties for jazz players in terms of accessing the full range of the instrument. Personally, I always argue aginst EUBs as they are rarely a satisfactory substitute for the 'real' thing (most just sound like vertical fretless basses). You will get a credible starter double bass for your budget at either Thomann or Gedo Musik but the generally held belief is that you need to hold back about £300 for a specialist set-up, a new bridge, new set of strings etc so think £1200 for a bass and £300 for the work. Scour the Double Bass forums here; they are packed with advice. If you read like you do, you have a head start on most.

No surprise, there. The Fishman is a pre-amp and should come between your bass pick-up and your amp. It is not an 'effect' per se and would not really be doing its job on an effects loop. Your amp should be fine.

Don't think so

Will look next time I can get to it. Thanks for the steer!

Edirol UA-20 audio capture thingumma jiggy.

What's an o/p, bro?

I didn't pay that much (about half) but I did learn a lot. Not sure if I would pay £200+. It Is modular and each module has assessed projects.I did enjoy it.

Love it.

Could be either. What would the solution be?

I have had a problem with my recording set up for years and today had an epiphany in terms of troubleshooting the issue. I have, since I can remember, been hearing a little buzzing hum when I record which I have never been able to locate and address. Tonight, with new leads, new mics, nee everything realised that, if I hook everything up to the computer via mic/lead/pre-amp/lead/audio interface/pc, it is silent as the grave and the signal is good and solid. As soon as I open the Cubase SX software, there is the hum. Can anyone shed any light on what this may be? It appears whether you are recording or not. Do I need new recording software or will that make no difference?

If you can read eighth notes, you can read sixteenths. They are the same only quicker!! Half a bar of sixteenths is EXACTLY the same rhythmically as a full bar of eighths. You just have to learn to 'see' it quicker. It is only about practicing a little more to get to that next level.

Practice reading music - reading rhythms is easy without an instrument, reading notes accurately a little harder but you can try singing them quietly to yourself. A great skill to develop but years to really master. Learning chord sequences to standards is another 'silent' option.