Bilbo

I find that the perfect sound is just over the horizon.....

[quote name='chris_b' post='237188' date='Jul 11 2008, 11:36 AM']Jazz was created in New Orleans, supposedly between 1890 and 1910,[/quote] Read Alyn Shipton's 'A New History of Jazz': the robustness of the 'jazz started in New Orleans' argument has been questioned by academics for some while now. There is compelling evidence that New Orleans was not the only place where the music that is classed as jazz was appearing at this point in its history. Like all creative developments, the ideas of individuals get attached to places that have no irrefutable claim to them (like when a newspaper reports the success of a kid who is 'a pupil at XXXX school' when the school played no part whatsoever in the thing that kid is getting credit for). Jazz was created by individuals knew individuals who knew individuals who undoubtedly spent time in New Orleans but the music appears to have sprung up all over the US at the same time.

Soundtrack albums. An acquired taste but what are your favourites? The rule is it must be a work put together for a film soundtrack and not a compilation of hits to act as a backdrop to a 'set piece'. Personally I regularly revisit: Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings Trilogy Navarettes score for 'Pan's Labyrinth' (a recent acquisition) Pat Metheny's 'A Map of the World' John Williams' 'Schindler's List' 'Finding Forester' - some great work by Bill Frissel and the late Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's version of 'Over The Rainbow' is deeply moving - actually, this technically breaks the rule but no-one would have ever heard the 'hits' compiled for this soundtrack so I let it in! Any great soundtracks out there that stand up for themselves as pieces of music?

Ignoring that last remark for now (I do bear grudges), I would say it all goes back to the Blues. A lot of this history of music is tied in with the economy and technologies of the day. Pre-US Europe had lots of sophisticated ways of making music but, when the 'Pilgrims' went to America, they didn't pack a lot of pianos, celestes, harpsicords etc! So early music making in Amercia was done on fairly rudimentary instruments. The absence of a music teaching fraternity also meant that a lot of early US music was religious and fairly basic. The African contingent brought some sophisticated rhythms and took up things like guitars and violins etc but you have to remember that there was no Manny's, no Denmark Street, no Thomann - it was all pretty basic stuff and most people wouldn't have been able to afford sophisticated instruments or decades of tuition. Lots of instruments were home made. So they knobbed about a bit and, utilising the field hollars, chain gang tunes and hymns, put together a rudimentary form of the Blues. Early recordings are of solo guitar and voice and things like harmionicas and fiddles - little things that don't make much noise. As instruments became more readily available, people started to play. Jazz, ordinarily cited as being developed in New Orleans, was being created in several areas of the US (Chicago, St Louis for starters) and quickly found its way to New York. It became popular as an instrumental music because, at this stage, there was no real amplification that would allow vocalists to compete with a 13 piece horn section! So the 'big' spectacle music was instrumental not vocal. Bands were working all over the US every night because aLL of this effectively pre-dates recordings. People had pianos, player pianos and pianolas all over and went to see live music all of the time. The radio progammes were made up of live sessions all day; there were no records to play. The big selling medium wasn't recordings like it is today, it was sheet music! The arrival of recordings and amplification allowed the vocalist to move the the fore and, money being money, the bands got smaller and smaller. Rock n Roll was a simplified version of the Blues and appealed to a new market; teenagers. Rock 'n' Roll changed into 100 different genres; rock, pop, metal, funk, hip-hop etc etc and Jazz went its own way, occasionally interacting with rock and funk but with only limited success. All of these musics are now ebbing and flowing in popularity all of the time. The 1950s jazz scene in the UK (that which spawned Chris Barber etc) was a Dixieland revivial not an originating period. The Stones etc were a UK based Blues revival that the US picked up on and bought wholesale. If you understand basic music theory and song forms particularly, the twelve bar blues form has spawned hit after hit, generation after generation, genre after genre. I doubt there are many genres that don't have blues sequences in their arsenal of options. There are other things that happen to form our cultures: a musicians strike/recording ban in the US resulted in a proliferation of doo-wop groups (vocal only), the development of be-bop took place when there was a recording ban and a lot of the developing ideas were lost to posterity. Recordings all took place live in a single take and, because of rudimentary technology, woodblocks were used instead of drums and tubas instead of basses - all now considered to be the 'authentic' instruments in 'trad' jazz. All accidents or borne of necessity! And you thought there was a master plan!

What's your poison, Lizzie? Punk, jazz, folk, classical, rock, zydec, afro-pop, indie, hip-hop, acid-jazz, jazz-funk, EMO, death metal, speed metal...... Go on, tell us, tell us now!!! :wacko:

Just noticed something worth mentioning in this thread. I just went to a Dave Holland Transcription and tried to read it but was struggling to make sense of it in real time. I then picked up an imaginary 'air' bass (it was an imaginary Wal, of course) and tried to read it again, this time 'playing' the bass and moving my fingers according to instructions. Suddenly, the chart made sense. I struggled to read it without a bass in my hands and could read it easily with one (albeit not really). What's [i]that[/i] about?

I had one of these when I was 17 (1980) - cost me £125 if I recall correctly. Seemed a lot to me at the time! It got me gigging. I ripped the frets out of it when I got an Aria SB700. That went well!! :wacko:

[quote name='teen t-shirt' post='235042' date='Jul 8 2008, 03:56 PM']i've just listened to some stuff on you tube... not really my sort of thing nor did it grab me... sorry bilbo [/quote] You'll thank me one day :

Try Barry Green's 'The Inner Game of Music' - its about controlling that panic...

Hey Prosebase - your brother is showing his ignorance, I am afraid. Some bad jazz is bad but thats bad jazz - its like judging classical music on the basis of Bond or Myleene Klass. Classical musicians are trained in exactly the opposite way to jazz musicians and many classical musicians can't play jazz (I had to call the Principal Bassist from the BBC Welsh Symphony orchestra in as a dep once and he was shocking - the bands view not mine). More to the point, they don't [i]understand [/i] it and are critical of it until they do. Then they realise that it is as demanding as anything they achieve as musicians. There is a great book called 'Music of the Common Tounge' by Christopher Small that explains it very well - I really recommend you and your brother read it. Brand X are probably not jazz per se; jazz rock? fusion? Prog. rock even? Not sure but there is a significant body of critics and musicians that would balk at the suggestion that Brand X and Duke Ellington played in the same genre.

Depends what it is. If you learn your scales and intervals throughly, it is often easier to get something down because it is a variation on something you have already done. If its a new technique that's completely alien to you, it'll take a whole lot longer. If you can practice something repetetively over and over again for hours, its going to happen quicker than if you can try it for 15 minutes a day. Personally, I think there are some techniques that you have to really want to get into to warrant spending the time. I don't like two handed tapping so the time I would need to spend to get to do it like Michael Manring would be prohibitive for me. I am also not that fond of slapping although I can do that to a certain level. But to get it up to Wooten standards wouldn't be worth my time as I don't want to do that kind of stuff. Yet new Charlie Parker heads take me about 15 minutes because I have worked out so many and, consequently, they are all fairly accessible. Its horses for courses again. I once entered Donna Lee onto Sibelius backwards to see if it would sound like anything. I tried to learn it - you think its hard the right way round!! Great exercise tho

Jeff Berlin's version of 'Dixie' is cool - one of the last things he did that was worth hearing!!.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Johnson"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Johnson[/url] [url="http://www.amazon.com/Bass-Desires-Marc-Johnson/dp/B0000261H4"]http://www.amazon.com/Bass-Desires-Marc-Jo...n/dp/B0000261H4[/url] There is also some stuff on YouTube

Pots may be dealt with by a squirt of WD4O? - can't help with the internals, tho', I know NOTHING!

Have you got a dodgy lead?!!

Their first LP is in my top ten!

Not militaristic or prescriptive. I am not talking of college tuition (I have only had about five or six lessons in my life), I am talking about learning the instrument sufficiently well to play music on it. (I actually think think the college systems in the UK and US are about income generation not creating musicians. There are people in colleges in Essex that are passing degrees but who are objectively a disgrace to our craft on any level (can't count in, never mind hold a groove) yet they still pass. Is anybody inspecting these places?) We aren't disagreeing really. I guess I am just saying 'do it properly or not at all'. How you define doing it properly is a matter for you.

I had forgotten about that book, I have it somewhere. I'll get it out later and BBBURN! Great concepts well presented. That Scofield stuff was great/ Have you heard The Sound of Summer Running? Some great composing and lovely playing.

Just listening to The Paris Concert - Edition One by Bill Evans. Isn't Marc Johnson a great player? Saw him with John Taylor on Taylor's 60th birthday tour and his SOUND live was exactly like it is on all those fantastic ECM recordings with John Abercrombie - yeah, I know that is stating teh obvious but it sounds soooo great. His bass, apparently, was built while Bach was still alive and his bowed sound is the best I have ever heard. Johnson is a diamond. Hear him and grow!

[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.