Bilbo

[quote name='clauster' post='234311' date='Jul 7 2008, 05:19 PM']Aren't you both saying the same thing? It's informed musicality that's important rather than techical pyrotechnics for the sake of being flash?[/quote] I think, in the main, you are right, clauster. The difference is that I always advocate for the methodical study of an instrument and get irritated by people who are 'casual' about learning (my prejudice not anyone elses). I think siddx was coming down in favour of only needing to be as good as you need to be to enjoy yourself; is that right, siddx? My fear is always that there are people out there, including major artists, who, for reaons relating to their image, advocate for a sloppy approach to learning. Whilst this may be ok in certain circumstances (hobbyists?) and for certain people (millionaire bass players who are just not very good), it sends a destructive message to young learners that they could unconsciously use to justify laziness and attempts to take short cuts to nowhere (e.g. tab vs notation, practice vs playing etc). It can put people back years. Some people aren't bothered by any of this but I hear of so many people that used to play an instrument but stopped due to poor experiences. Seems a waste to me.

That squeezing balls stuff is a waset of time - hte strength you need to play the bass was in your hands by the time you were 3 years old. You need to look at your technique, particularly your wrists - are they straight? A bent wrist constricts nerves and vessels etc and doesn't help with managing pain. Do you need to wear your bass differently, higher or lower? Alexander technique is very good for this kind of thing; it makes you focus your attention on the detail of your playing techniques and can provide you with comfortable solutions. But, first and foremost, if it hurts, stop doing it. Hands takes a long time to recover and you don't want to do too much damage trying to 'work through the pain'. My hands have been hurting for 8 years and occasionally, on a gig, I have to move positions just to manage the pain on repetetive parts (eg playing an ostinato in C on the E-string instead of the A). The pains rarely surface when I play jazz because you tend not to stay in one place on the neck for very long so RSI is less likely. Plus it is generally quieter and less physical music anyway so is more forgiving. Maybe that's the answer - play more Jazz!

[quote name='silddx' post='234278' date='Jul 7 2008, 04:45 PM'][i][/i] If I criticised [u]most [/u]jazz bands for having absolutely no marketing nous, no idea of how to promote themselves, having the naffest band names based on dreadful puns, and equally naff and meaningless lyrics, would you think it was important to learn those skills or improve those standards? If you said it's not necessary and I said "let's vote for idiocy", how would you feel? It's horses for courses, old thing.[/quote] I probably deserved most of that

You do, bremen. You need the appropriate skill level to get the job done. THAT is what makes great technique - in my experience, it only becomes 'technical' if the skills used are more advanced or the ear more sophisticated than those of the people who criticise others for being too 'technical'. I will accept that I metaphorically bit silddx's virtual head off and I apologise (to him/her) but I think there is too much lashing out at people who have a sophisticated perspective on music by those who think its 'magic', play what they 'feel' and 'entertain' people rather than play the music as well as it can be played. This discussion is about players who have had the most negative impact upon bass players. I personally think that the constant dumbing down of skills to merely 'adequate' is counter-productive and undermines the effort of those players (of all genres of music) who put some effort into dealing with their music. It makes bad, lazy players and serves no-one, least of all the audience. Nobody said anything about Julliard (trust me, you don't need to go to college to learn this stuff - most of the best people we all listen to didn't) but that doesn't mean you shouldn't nail this stuff properly. [i]That[/i] is a negative trait that should be challanged Anyway, I've strayed off-topic again (moi?) so will get back in my box.

Great - lets all advocate for idiocy. I suggest a Master Class on the note of E, followed by a session on A and, for the more advanced player, a week long seminar on D. We can then look at the gaps between them and then we can groooooove. My advice - never listen to anyone that argues that doing less work will make you a better player.

What I liked about his duo CD was it wasn't a 'bass' cd but a cd of great songs played in duet with a bass and a singer. Particularly liked Aaron Neville's 'Stardust' and Cheryl Bentyne's 'Angel Eyes'

[quote name='alexclaber' post='234047' date='Jul 7 2008, 11:59 AM']but almost like a jazz drummer in his approach.[/quote] Steady on!

Tough question this because the conscious contributions that individuals have made through their playing has primarily been to the music they make and not to 'bass playing' per se. Any influence they have had on the bass play fraternity has been peripheral to their core business but, in some cases, has become greater than the popularity of their [i]actual[/i] music (Wooten is a great example). But its not their fault. Our 'I want, I get' culture extends to musicianship as much as it does Nike trainers and X-Boxes. Learners like the sound of Flea, Fieldy, Jaco, Claypool and buy DVDs and 'tab' books that give them the secrets of how to play like their idols. Most bass playing is not that hard to execute; compared to a rudimentary piano piece, for instance, the technical chops required to play like Flea are a joke. The consequence is that bass players particularly can develop what appear to be quite sophisticated technical skills without having the education and discipline required to know [i]when[/i] to used them. The technical skills get applauded at jam sessions, gigs etc and the learner starts to receive affirmation about their developing technique and focusses on this aspect of their playing during their practice time. Not harmony, melody, rhythm, reading, orchestration or arranging - technique for its own sake. The most negatively influential bass players are, therefore, the ones whose playing, when copied, delivers the WOW factor to a developing player without the need to study properly. The low input, high return stuff. I don't blame them; I blame the part of the industry that sells these superficial 'quick fix' solutions to gullible kids. [b]I blame the guy that invented 'tabulation'. [/b] Remember: its not the notes that matter but the relationships between them.

I am an Eden Metro man and use it for Jazz - I have no problem with warmth and find the eq versatile enough for anything I have ever thought of. I find the secret is in the bass and in having strings that are older than some of the players on this forum!

Latin gig in Peterborough - dogs breakfast in terms of organisation and so, after starting to play 3 hours after we should have, we got home at 6 a.m. All to an audience that numbers less than 30. And the in-house PA gave us a dreadful on-stage sound - too loud and no definition. Al round sucksville.

When I was into metal and seeing them live (Paul Di'annio was still the singer - it was 1981), I though Harris was the DBs and, like you, was astonished by his fingerstyle playing. But, after plugging away for a couple of years, it became apparent that this was nothing special and all it took was a bit of practice, proper set up of amp and bass and the development of stamina. There's no secret, just keep at it.

www.narbeth.com/Halesworth2007/AlbinoCubana/Albino How do I look?

I'm gonna come at this from another angle. I accept what other people have said about basses, amps, eqs, fingers etc but I think that, in order to be in control of your sound, you need to deal with the following: your ears - your ability to recognise the constituent parts of a sound, recognise what is right and wrong about the sound you are hearing and being able to replicate the details of your sound using the available technology (i.e your sound is only your sound if you can recreate it at a pinch - otherwise, its just a sound) your mind - you need to develop an adult relationship with your critical senses (how does it sound tonight? Is it as good as it can be with the available gear? have I soundchecked properly? A bad attitude to this area of your practice will undermine your sound - the most obvious example being 'I'll use this amp because its lighter to carry despite the fact that it doesn't sound as good as the other one' - understandable but potentially counter-productive) where you set up on stage the room, the nature of the stage/floor coverings etc the drummers sound (in jazz, the wrong ride cymbal can KILL the bass sound) the guitar players sound the piano/keyboard players sound the room the room the room oh, and if I forget to mention it, the room. Learn to control the rooms you play in and you will find nirvana (please, no Cobain jokes).

Absolutely - a 'who is the slowest bass player in jazz' thread. Charlie Haden! Did you ever hear Marc Johnson's 2nd Bass Desires LP 'Second Sight'? There is a tune on there (can't remember which) which is the slowest groove I have ever heard. Much harder than be-bop. That kind of feedback from Mike Walker would make my day. As Jim Mullen once said of me; 'who?'

PM'd Rodby is another of my favourites. I love going back to some of his Metheny stuff and just listenig to his tone and time feel. I have a love/hate relationship with the Metehny Group cd 'We Live Here' because of teh core rhythms but Rodby's bass sound on that cd is awesome. Like Steve Swallow, he gets the job done without the unnecessary fireworks. THey can burn if they need to but recognise that it is rarely the most musical option. I wish I had their discipline! In fact, I wish a lot more people had it!!!

Some sort of stereo recorder (2 channel minimum) with two PZM microphones, one each side of the room. Have used that set-up many times and the overall sound is highly credibleand useful for listening back to a performance (although not good enough to release commercially - unless Jaco is on it, then you can release ANYTHING, however crap it sounds).

That's too weird to even contemplate. I think we have just both been conditioned by periods in Cardiff playing with Andy Maule. He just wants everyone to be Steve Rodby Anyway, you're a pro. What are you doing up this early?

I always found NHOP to be one of those people that played clever for the sake of it and not because it was musically valid - bit like John 'I'm gonna stick this 32-note fill in now whether you like it or not' McLaughlin. I also found Pederson's tone to be a bit thin/whiny But, when he keeps a lid on it, its cool. Just not one of my faves.

Like Hejira, love Shadows and Light. Agree that this is some of Jaco's most musical work (less testosterone!).

Yep - would you believe it is in the cassette player on my desk at work as we speak. Those string arrangements are great (I hadn't read the cover so hadn't clocked it was Mendoza - I did recognise Hancock and Shorter but no-one else - didn't even know it was done in the UK). I still rate 'Shadows and Light' as one of my top five of all time (LP not CD - the best tracks were omitted from the cd).

Dave Holland Quartet - Extended Play - this band are monster! Also his Critical Mass cd - different drummer but the drive is still there... Anything else by Dave Holland - he is one of the most consistent voices in jazz... Andrew Hill - Black Fire (Roy Haynes on drums - such energy)... Charlie Hunter - Right Now Move - some great grooves a la Medeski, Martin & Wood but with Curtis Fowlkes on trombone and John Ellis on sax/bass clarinet. Fernkky! Mingus Ah Um - how great is that CD?

I agree mcgraham. Where I differ from others is that I see that fact as an opportunity (this is not about my wanting to do 10 minute jazz odysseys). If they aren't really listening, why are we pandering to some bizarre collective sense of 'what they want'? If you are going to do covers, do interesting covers, do covers that stimulate AND educate (there are 1,000s), do covers that challenge people a little or a lot but do it knowingly. What I think people should NOT do is to take the top 20 covers of all time and just regurgitate them year on year on year (tweaked or otherwise). Last week I did 'Pick Up The Pieces' by the Average White Band (1974), 'Street Life' by the Crusaders (1979), 'Young Hearts Run Free' (1976), 'For Once In My Life' (1968), 'Knock On Wood' (1978) etc, etc. You know the drill. There must have been a million great (and very popular ) songs that have seen the light of day during the 20 to 30 years that have passed since then and yet we all keep trotting out these pliocene relics. I have this discussion all the time with punters (not AT gigs but in work, social settings etc) and the general consensus is that these types of bands are tired and dated. I also know a lot of people think that these endless tribute bands are a joke without a punchline. I can't argue with them.

[quote name='ianrunci' post='229724' date='Jun 30 2008, 02:13 PM']Cover bands are just a different alternative to a DJ, I can't see that ever changing. And personally I would rather see musicians get the work rather than DJs[/quote] Agreed but two wrongs don't make a right. Some musicians and I () were discussing this on Saturday (we were playing a wedding and the thing was running late (never!!!) so we had time to kill and we were discussing the 'give them what they want' philosophy. The question was asked 'how many 'functions' have you gone to as a guest (not as a player) where there was band playing'. The average amongst the 5 of us was one every two years. So, we asked, how can anyone even begin to know what the audience 'wants' when they are a, never asked and b, guaged from only 4 gigs a decade per punter? Is there some sort of mass hysteria where if a crowd exceeds 12, it functions like the Borg Collective and only wants 'Ain't Nobody', 'Respect' and 'Son of a Preacher Man'? We should be told. Personally, I think we are deluding ourselves and selling our audiences short with this stuff (but, then again, you knew I thought that, didn't you).

[b]I WILL SURVIIIIIIIIIIIVE!!!![/b]

[quote name='ianrunci' post='229709' date='Jun 30 2008, 02:01 PM']Unfortunately thats the way life is now, people like convenience. I doubt it will change[/quote] I think it does, quite regularly. People are out there watching bands and then quickly become aware that they are seeing the same thing again and again and eventually stop going and stay at home with Cds, DVDs and YouTube. So the audience in 2008 is not the same audience as in 2005; they have all gone home to their iPods. As a musician and music fan who spends 100s of hours and 1000s of pounds a year on music, I am amazed at how rare it is to see something that I want to go out to see/hear. I think this dumbing down is undermining the potential of live music and is, in the long run, counter-productive....