Bilbo

I am getting the impression that my generation (born 1963) consist of significant numbers of people who floundered around in the dark a little in their early days and found their way to bass later simply because it was not 'there' when they were younger. In my 'yoof', I was a singer and won the school Eisteddford competition every year from 6 to 10 years old. I them stopped before Comprehensive because I somehow knew that singing like a choir boy is a great way to get your head kicked in at the big school! I remember a cousin giving me a guitar at a very impressionable age (I think I was about 12) and me fcuking about with it for about 5 years without really playing anything other than a few 'party pieces' (not whole songs but odd riffs, bits of Beatles tune, odd solos and melodies). I would have had no idea what a bass was at that age and there was certainly noone around who would be able to tell me about that kind of thing. Saxophones were absent, as woudl have been anything like oboes, French Horn, bassoon etc. I got hold of the idea of a bass at the age of about 15/16 and was playing bass lines on that old guitar a long time before I got a bass but the real thing came after I started work aged 17. Bass was then the priority although guitar was always there and moving forward concurrently (although more slowly). But bass is the only instrument I have ever really gigged on. Now I'm off to learn soprano saxophone (ordered one this weekend)!!

I have used ebay and paypal as a seller and buyer and it has never been a problem. On the single occasion I didn't receive any goods (a cd), I went into dispute via Paypal and they got my money back in a matter of days (it was only a few quid). Personally, I think it is a case of being careful with what you are willing to bid for and what you would want to see in person before parting with cash. I look for feedback and, if it is an ebay company, I look them up on the 'net and get an sense of whether they are kosher or not. So far so good.

I too have a stand although, as my music room is by default a 'me only' space (no kids and my wife just never goes in there because she has no reason to), it tends to lay on the floor on its side as to put it on the stand, I need to retract the spike which is a hassle. At gigs, it lays on the floor.

A simple but pretty little piece. I don't know Nick Drake's stuff but this is sweet and the overall recording/performance is cool too.

I intend to. I am not playing this seriously but to get out of the bass/guitar space I have been in for 31 years..... just to get some new perspectives!! Oh and its light to carry

One of these is on its way; it'll get me started without wasting vast sums of money [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGi-_zLfwjw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGi-_zLfwjw[/url]

I think 'Cats', in the jazz fraternity, refers to hardcore jazzers who can do it, as opposed to those on the periphery of the jazz scene who are not there yet. So, say Jasper Hollby could be a 'Cat' but I wouldn't be as I am not in that league. So if someone like Branford Marsalis or whoever called you a 'Cat' it would be a compliment. So old farts playng Jazz in pubs in Sheffield who call people Cats are kinda poseurs. Personally, I think you have to be a Cat to decide who else is so its a minefield and if you try to call someone a Cat who isn't, you coudl look a bit of a dick. I can't call anyone a Cat yet because I am mere cannon fodder. Alternatively, I could be talking total bollocks!

He must be good, he plays fretless. Fretless is hard.

I suspect he just plugged it in and there it was.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poNxrtz_p40"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poNxrtz_p40[/url]

Yes.

They're bleeding well making it up as they go along. Courageous but ultimately a failure. Rather listen to Spoombung.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2blyaechv0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2blyaechv0[/url] Bob being all wavey.....

Can't really hear it but it sounds like chromatic passing notes held over a little longer than is ordinarily accepted (that's a posh way of implying that the notes are poor choices, if not wrong). Can't say anything else other than 'accurate' transcriptions of wrong notes are more common than most of us would like!

Not heard it. What's the line-up?

A lot of this is why I prefer to play KJazz because, if you do it properly, the predictability element is minimised and every gig is different. I can do rehearsed sets but I do bore easily and it comes out in my face and pisses people off.

Thanks, Jake. Will have a look at that next chance I have.

I am the same; odds and sods. Love doing it when it comes around, though. Daflewis is a member here and he is (or was) doing Wicked in the West End.

The way it links the last six 16th notes with one beam. I would want to see it as 2 16th notes and then 4 seperate ones. Coralling them as 6 notes makes it harder to read, IMO. But I can't amke Sibelius stop doing it. The only option would have been to write it as 5 bars of 3:4 which, for me, wasn't how I heard it.

The thing is, I see the ornamentation elements of a players vocabulary as just that and, used sparingly, it can be the loveliest enhancement. When I listen to the greats, however, I hear about 5% ornamentation and 95% straight playihng. Its a bit like slapping in funk; 'less is more'. The more ostentaious the bass player, the more the swing is vulnerable to collapse. But for me, that 'DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM' thing, when it locks in, is the best feeling in the world. Its not the only facet of Jazz that I love by any means but its one of the most viscerally exciting.

Ps I don't like the format but Sibelius defaults to that and I can't figure out how to stop it doing that!!

Just thought I would post my transcription of the main riff on Phronesis' 'Abraham;s New Gift'. A real tounge-twister. Its a monster riff but, like everything else, playable if you slow it down and work it up to speed (I am at about 70%). Great exercise for string crossing on double bass. It is only two bars long but one is a bar of 3:4 the other 9:8, (or possibly 6:8 and 9:8?). Have fun. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly8KniNgkXo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly8KniNgkXo[/url][attachment=104176:Abraham's New Gift - Phronesis.pdf]

The fact that people get paid is not the problem here. There are a range of drivers like creativity, self expression, talent, applied study, motivation, money, the need for affirmation, the desire to be noticed, to get girls, so you can get pissed and stoned at work etc. Each of these and 1,000 more will have some bearing on the end product. Some of these motivating factors reflect socially accepted traits and others are potentially more destructive. The question is always what percentage of the motivation of the indivdual is simply financial and what is more about self expression etc. Joni Mitchell, for instance, would never be heard if she didn't record and sell her stuff and clearly has an investment in selling her stuff but her prime driver is probably not commercial. Miles Davis was an enigma. He wanted to keep moving forward but he also wanted to be admired and his latter stuff was about trying to attract the audiences he had seen attending rock concerts. His later stuff is much more commercially driven that his early stuff and a lot of people recognise that in the music and are critical as a consequence. The only way to judge whether something is Artistically successful is to define what that means and, by concensus, 'it sold a lot' or 'its great to dance to' doesn't cut it. The rhetoric of 'the artist' is used in commercial circles all of the time (I always laugh when some 19 year old girl band talk about 'wanting to express themselves as artist' as they wiggle their way through this week's bubble gum) as a means of enobling their craft. If an individual doesn't buy into that idea, then the discussion is ended. Music can be a commodity first and foremost but it isn't all that it is and it isn't the main purpose of most of the music I listen to.

The whole Art vs Commerce debate has probably been around since, well, Art and Commerce began. Mozart was reportedly (and repeatedly) annoyed at being told what was good and what was not by his employers. There is an established theme in ethnomusicology on the issue that essentially revolves around the concept of Art music as opposed to Popular Music (much the same as that which exists in the visual Arts; Hirst vs Constable etc). People use music for different things and people write/perform music for different reasons. Personally, I write/perform because I like to. If someone pays me for it, all the better, but, if they don't, so be it. The issue is simply whether or not the motivation is the music or the money. If it is the music, you are likely to end up with something different that if it is the money. History tells us that the most interesting/progressive/experimental/challenging etc stuff is written when money is not the driver. It also tells us that that, when money is the driver, the quality is often (but not always) compromised. Other things can compromise a piece of music, such as the need to time it to a visual image ('I need 1.24 of music for the car chase scene'). Great movie music is rarely great Art music but not never. Our individual and, by debate, collective experiences tell us whether, as audience members, any of this matters. My experience (and one shared by others, bearded or otherwise) tells me that the stuff written to sell is generally, by my standards, derivative, predictable and shallow. By the standards of others, which are different to mine (not better or worse, just different), this is not the case. A great pop record is a great pop record. Its success is measured by sales figures or by the number of people dancing. Art music is not measured in that way but in others, sometimes by concensus but sometime not. So, play it at a wedding and it will mostly fail. Doesn't make it bad just being performed in front of the wrong audience. Its no more or less personal than preferring The Beatles over The Rolling Stones. There is great rock music that is Art music, its is not genre specific.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1333545509' post='1603283'] Blimey. [/quote] We're getting into the Art vs Commerce debate, aren't we. Its a continuum not a case of absolutes. Few would consider music written for an advert to be Art but Art used as backing music for an advert still has integrity. The problem with people like Jesse J (I know only one song by her) is that, as 'artiists' they don't need to be told what to do by the industry because industry has already screened out the folk who would not 'do the right thing'. So, whatever she does, they will be happy because it ain't gonna be free jazz, is it? I would love it if she came out and did a prog rock cd for its own sake because, as an 'artist', that is where here muse took her Why do I think that to be unlikely PS none of this matters a jot.