paul_c2

A friend of mine spent £800 on a lightweight hard case for a cello....so it might not be a typo....

[quote name='The Jaywalker' timestamp='1479732999' post='3178783'] In my experience as a bassist and arranger the part is notated 100% correctly; with the repeat bars aligned with the normal barlines. I've very, very rarely come across parts notated like this orchestral one - when I have it has annoyed the hell out of the band! It looks like this may be an example of differing/evolving conventions between the jazz and classical worlds. As Jazz is effectively the applicable system of academic theory/harmony etc for rock/folk music I would suggest to the OP that he's on the right track with his notation convention. Bottom line: it's easier to read ;-) [/quote] Ok, "wrong" is a bit strong and its not necessarily wrong to notate as the Enter Sandman example, but its definitely incomplete and without the rest of the music, its a bit difficult to properly judge. The fact that the time signature is 4/4 but the first bar has 1 quaver in it, isn't right unless the last bar has 7 quavers - but then its incomplete. And the double bar before the key signature is definitely not right. I'm happy to concede that there's sometimes different ways to notate something and the "rules" of music notation are flexible enough that sometimes something which at first appears not right, is simply "convention" rather than being strictly right or wrong. I guess so long as its clear and understood then its alright. And yes, the Espana piece is a complete pain in the arse to play, the notes are very simple but the number of rests, and the fact that the other parts playing are far from clearly defining the pulse makes it difficult. On page 2 there is another "desert" of 25 or so bars rest. The first time we practised it it was a dog's breakfast, some people were 1 bar ahead, others were 1 bar behind.

[attachment=232409:espana.jpg] Sorry its such a bad example, but its the only one I have to hand. Note how the repeat bars at section B don't align with the normal barlines.

[quote name='paul_5' timestamp='1479571986' post='3177572'] We refer to it as a 'push'. Quite common in rock and essential in Motown/Soul music too. AC/DC have made a career out of syncopated blues, as have many others. If it helps then show this to your drummer, might help him to understand if he sees it as well as (not quite) listens to it... [url="http://s1221.photobucket.com/user/paul_510/media/Sandman%20Push_zpsrgdus2uo.jpg.html"][/url] [/quote] The above example isn't actually notated 100% correctly, if a part has an anacrusis then the repeat bars do not align with the normal bar lines. I'll find an example and post it. [quote name='ras52' timestamp='1479669501' post='3178322'] It depends A strict definition of an anacrusis might insist that it's unstressed, ahead of the downbeat - whereas here it's the stressed beat that's been brought forward. [/quote] The Enter Sandman is an example of syncopation. Without looking a bit more deeply into it, I can't tell if its a good/bad example of anacrusis too (something could be both an anacrusis and syncopated - but doesn't need to be syncopated to be an anacrusis - for example Happy Birthday isn't syncopated but is an anacrusis).

[quote name='LITTLEWING' timestamp='1479666441' post='3178289'] Well, so far only a handful do it, and most just install them and by the sounds of it have no problems. Maybe modern manufacturing processes and [color=#ff0000]materials are miles better [/color]than yesteryear and simply don't require the old experienced guy's methods anymore? [/quote] I'd have thought the materials are more or less the same; and if they're different, the physical properties of the material relating to needing stretching or not, are the same. Unless strings are now "pre-stretched", but I doubt it.

I do it, basically it saves the first day or so of constantly retuning the bass as the strings stretch in anyway. [quote name='LITTLEWING' timestamp='1479656912' post='3178165'] There's a bit about not doing it as it can detach the windings from the core and instantly 'kill' the string, [/quote] They're either doing it wrong (ie way too much), or the string is faulty. If its faulty, I'd like to know ASAP, not during a later performance - bass strings can and do break, usually because they are faulty rather than simply worn out + too aggressive a technique.

[quote name='Stickman' timestamp='1479599918' post='3177822'] It's called an 'anacrusis' [/quote] Thanks for that! For some reason, I couldn't remember what they are called......

You're best out of it, if you can't understand what he's written and he doesn't respond in a timely manner to your emails. There is one time I would forgive poor English - and that's when its not someone's first language. But not responding to emails......well I suppose there could be reasons, but best out of it all the same.

I am wondering if its a combination of a misspelling, then a predictive text replacement, and a semi-literate sender. For example he might have meant "You know Jaco Pastorius?" but it was spelt/typed as "u now Jaco Pastorouis", then predictive text combined with a mistype changed it "now" to "boy"?

Ok no probs, I too am browsing BC but get no dodgy popups. I forgot to mention, I also have Ad-Blocker plus. I didn't even realise BC had adverts on the page.

It will be some kind of malware on your computer, not the website itself. I bet that pretty much every other site you visit, you'll get a similar popup. I'm not sure on how to clean it off, but I run Avast Free Antivirus and it keeps the computer from being infected by this kind of thing.

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1479425747' post='3176537'] For a time I think this was pretty much correct. I know the JV domestic series had different price points with the domestic range badged as Fender and the exports marked as Squier. I've played both Fender and Squier badged MIJ E-Series (1984-89 ish) and they were almost exactly the same spec and almost identical to play, with the Squier slightly edging it. I guess it depends how authentic you really want to be- are the MIJ's strictly Fenders? MIM? Chinese? Strictly speaking there's no reason a Chinese Fender should be any more 'a Fender' than a Chinese Squier. [/quote] There's good and bad Squiers though. There's good and bad Fenders too....but overall, there's more good ones than bad. I guess there's a little bit of overlap in today's range; and if you take into account secondhand too, the early Japanese Squier stuff was/is better than certain Fenders. I've limited experience with them but I've always been able to tell from playability, but not put my finger on why it should be so, that the Fender was the better instrument.

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1479413632' post='3176426'] There's one 7 posts above yours - CV J v P v 50s P v US Custom Shop J v Japanese P and Japanese 51 p reissue. Couldn't be clearer - can't believe no one noticed!!! ...... Looks and sounds pretty clear to me!! [/quote] I actually meant a recording of the OP in the band situation(s) he's in, but I appreciate its probably not possible to obtain this. In my mind, the perceived weakness/unsuitability of the Jazz bass can be rectified with some simple EQ and obviously matching/tweaking the level as appropriate. I personally play my bass quite quietly but turn the amp up high, then when there's a need to achieve dynamics, and/or be more prominent, its very easy to simply play it a bit louder (or a lot louder). I've watched the video you posted from earlier, and also a number of other Jazz vs Precision videos and, to my ears, the Jazz can be made to sound just as rich/full/dark/bassy whatever you want to desribe it, in fact even more so than the Precision if needs be. I am not sure a Precision could achieve the same tone as a Jazz on bridge pickup only, the physics would suggest that its quite a lot to ask of EQ to make the sound as trebly as a bridge pickup would naturally hear due to its location (you can't boost what isn't there etc?) (I don't have a Precision so I can't be sure).

One wonders, if they're selling for £2500, why he is offering his for £1550. Possibly because the 2500 figure is a load of bollocks? Just like the rest of the wording in the advert. If you want that bass, and have the money, the internet can't tell you to buy it, you'll need to decide yourself. Personally its no way worth £1550 to me, but then I'm not you.

After reading 4 pages, I'd like to hear some comparison recordings with a Jazz bass and Precision bass.

Electric guitar has a different role - and/or is often required to perform a number of roles. Yes, some people don't exploit this and simply want a guitar to have one good sound - so a single pickup guitar will suit them. Many want an electric guitar to have a variety of sounds though, hence the popularity for 2+ pickup positions. Bass generally has one role, thus one (good) sound can be good enough.

Yeah, there's definitely a potential to efficiently structure practice time. I'll admit, I don't do enough, I play another instrument and do structure the practice time on this as best I can though. For the bass, I have tended to instead focus on actually playing pieces, and if there's something difficult, spend time on the difficult bits, working out fingerings, playing it much slower at first, then to a metronome at the right speed, then continuing at a faster speed - the idea being that if I can nail the difficult sections faster, then once slowed back to actual speed will make it easier still. Scales are - and always will be - a bit abstract compared to actual pieces, but there is a vague link so they are vaguely useful. It does seem that the classical training (of other instruments) seem to like them though, maybe too much so? For bass, probably just as important/more important is arpeggios. A lot of the time in pieces, arpeggios of a certain chord come up again and again.

Epiphone is definitely not Gibson but Fender do put the Fender logo onto Squier guitars. I guess they have determined that the uplift in sales to the Squier line, is more valuable than the potential devaluing of the Fender brand name. Yeah I agree though, its annoying when you do eg eBay searches specifically for a Fender, to have lots of false positives with Squiers where the advertiser has been enthusiastic and slightly too keen, and included Fender in the title.

[quote name='Hector' timestamp='1479220174' post='3174831'] You can extend Scott Devine's major scale fingerings into 5 positions on the bass (these positions repeat after 5). They're here: [url="http://www.cyberfretbass.com/scales/major/page4.php"]http://www.cyberfret...major/page4.php[/url] (N.B. I don't like to cover a major 3rd in one hand position, so I don't use it that much, these 5 positions use only two of Scott's fingerings, but you would have some intermediate positions in addition to these 5 if you wanted to use his third fingering that covers a major third). Everything I do on the bass is based on these 5 positions, they're totally foundational. What I do is I set the metronome at 60bpm and choose my key of the day. I then play the major scale in that key both across and within positions, making sure to cover the neck entirely (for covering multiple positions: it's possible to slide on one finger to cross to the next adjacent position or jump positions by shifting the whole hand). You can play two octave (and more) scales by switching between positions on any of the strings, just explore them. Because I believe in maximising the effectiveness of my limited shedding time, I add a timing element to scales. You should do the following, doesn't matter which fingerings you want to use. Instead of playing them in one single subdivision (e.g. just quavers), I vary the speed every two bars (8 clicks - we're assuming 4/4 here). So I'll play 8 clicks on one note per click (crotchets) then 8 clicks of two notes (quavers) then three notes (quaver triplets) then four notes (semiquavers). I would then, at least to start with, go down a subdivision every 8 clicks until you're back at crotchets. You could subdivide even further, 5 notes per click, 6 notes per click etc, but I would start with going 1 to 4 to get those solid. It makes everything much harder, but therefore makes you improve faster! This really works your time and forces your technique and knowledge of the scale you're currently playing to be solid as well. You'll really suck at this to start with This covers majors (and by extensions all major modes). Minors are slightly different, and I have my own fingerings for melodic minor in particular. That's another discussion though! [/quote] Agree. The 5 positions are derived from Scott's main 2 positions (root under 2nd finger, root under 4th finger) but considering that root on different strings, as different positions. Its not such as issue on bass, because its tuned in 4ths; as it is guitar where the positions extend to the B and top E strings (the B isn't a 4th from G). In fact, the 5 positions relate directly to the CAGED system on guitar. And, CAGED can be extended to 7 positions, since there's 7 different notes in a scale and you could place any of those notes underneath your first finger. In summary, the main 2 positions on bass; and the main 5 positions on guitar, are a useful system for knowing the location of the notes of a scale; but can be extended if desired. Regarding scales practice, it is truer than ever that "you are what you practice". Particularly when it comes to improvising melodic lines on the spot, if you limit yourself to practising scales up and down from root to root, then your improvised lines will also take on this appearance. A thorough practice/understanding of scales should involve: 1. Play up and down root to root (the basic scale) 2. Play up and down, but change directions randomly, not just at reaching the root or the first/last note in a particular position 3. Patterns like 123 234 345 and 1234 2345 3456 and 13 24 35 46 57 and 21 32 43 54 65 76 etc should be done (there's loads of different variations of these) 4. Play random notes from the scale, aim to not repeat the same note twice etc This way, the particular position you're in becomes thoroughly familiar, not just learnt as an abstract technical exercise. It builds upon your suggestion of altering the rhythms played. Also, I'll add: 5. Play the same dynamic, but accelerate/decelerate the speed through the scale (smoothly) 6. Play the same tempo, but increase/decrease the dynamic (don't get faster when you get louder!) 7. Play but decelerate AND get louder; or accelerate and get louder, etc Of course, those can be done in both directions both ways.

Different people are defining lead/melodic/solo in different ways. Personally for me, a "lead" line is one which the listener is drawn to due to its prominence or movement - so it will probably be melodic too. BUT a melodic line isn't necessarily the lead line - it could be a counterpoint. Solo is when one instrument alone is playing the lead/melodic line, but doesn't mean that the other instruments are silent - there might be harmony/backing/counterpoint from them too.

[quote name='scalpy' timestamp='1479195267' post='3174576'] There's a really useful video by Scott Devine on this one. [url="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VmBy7XA0ceI"]https://m.youtube.co...h?v=VmBy7XA0ceI[/url] For me it boils down to- reach pinky, slide to next note, cross string and repeat. Reverse for descending. As to why, it's always useful to be over capacity in terms of technique, it affords a degree of grace that is more pleasant to listen to. Think Ferrari doing 100 miles an hour rather than a Ford Focus. You cover the same amount of ground but i believe the former would be more graceful! If you want to hear this in action have a listen to the numerous play along videos springing up to Vulfpeck's Dean Town. They can play it, but Joe Dart's over capacity technique affords him the opportunity to put more inflection and style into the lines which gives it so much more life. (At least to the plays alongs I've watched so far, and if I did one I'd view my own playing the same way!) [/quote] Great, thanks for the link and the example. I was on the right track - I'd never rigidly followed a fingering I "must do" but knew about the 3 different shapes/patterns to play scales with, extended them to cover all 4 strings (ie playing the few notes above or below the octave in that position), then freely slid between them if a piece needed position shifts. I'd learnt how to do "a" 2 octave scale but never really put it into practical use because none of the music I played, really needed it. And of course, real world examples are never just running up and down a scale!

I'd have thought straight-ish fingers was ideal, because when the left hand is pressing down on (for example) E string, it is also able to mute A D and G strings - left hand muting. Similarly, fretting the A string allows left hand muting of D and G string (right hand mutes E string).

[quote name='FinnDave' timestamp='1479150694' post='3174376'] I agree that Jazz basses are more versatile, but (and this is a serious question) when do you actually get to use the sounds it is capable of? I've never played slap in my life (been playing over 40 years) and I can't imagine a situation in a gigging pub & club band where the rear pickup 'Jaco' sound would be of any use. I bought my Jazzes because of their versatility, but I really haven't found a situation in which it is of any use. [/quote] I guess your band has 2 guitarists? If it had one guitarist, and he does a solo, the sound of a Jazz bass can really fill out the "gap" left by the guitarist not playing rhythm bits any more.

How do you play/practice 2 octave scales? Why do you practice 2 octave scales like that?

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1479129703' post='3174120'] Someone with more theory will help me out but: Say you're playing in C major. The only other major chords available to you are Fmaj and GMaj. The IV and V. You could play minor chords but that really affects the mood of the song. All the 'other' chords you bolt into a song after those 3 are really just inversions with added notes or passing chords leading to one of the three. . [/quote] True - if you were sticking to diatonic chords only. BUT you don't need to, in fact departing from diatonic chords in itself adds some interest. For example you could play C major, Eb major, F major, G major. Obviously Eb major isn't diatonic, indeed Eb is not even in the scale. You could also throw in Ab major for a similar effect. When I am sight reading some music, an accidental is great because it often "sticks out" in the music and provides a useful check that you're in the right place (especially after 17 bars rest, etc). But then, this thread is about how music can be interesting without interesting harmony......