BigBeefChief

Fender: Normal people, normal music. If it's a P I expect it to be played with a pick, nothing fancy but solid stuff. If a J, played with fingers, also solid stuff. Great design, great necks, a bit of a cop out. Warwick: The sex offender of the bass world. Mulletted weirdos. Driftwood. A lump of melted butter. 5 strings. Godawful funk or Jazz fusion. Rickenbacker: Dissapointing to play. Band usually plays decent music though. Classy retro look. Indie. Alembic: A collectors bass, usually hanging up as opposed to being played. Weight. Lots of switches. BC Rich: A new kid at school, bit spotty, not very cool. The weird smelly metallers let them sit with them for lunch. The talk moves away from ear medicine to talk about games workshop. The new kid decides to buy some space marines. Next comes World of Warcraft. This kid goes on to buy a BC Rich. Gibson Thunderbird: Same kid, but flukes a shag with a drunken 19yo on his 16th birthday. Ditches the Space Marines, starts smoking and forms a cock rock band. Still shagging fat birds, but at least he's getting some. Status: Great playability, zero cool. Music Man: Batteries, fixing problems that don't exist. Guildford. Ibanez: Rubbish basses for rubbish metallers. A design team from 1989. Lakland: Fender clones without the fender feel. Sadowsky: Toasted Celinder: ??? Yamaha: Strangely likeable. Motorbikes. Billy Sheehan. Would probably never own one. Bass Collection: Awful. Ugly headstock. Sei: Laaaandaaan. Session musicians. Shuker: Tasteless northerners. Fodera: People who own them using stupid phrases like "priviledged". Get over yourself. Butterflies Zon: Big noses Epiphone: Good stuff but ruined by the varnish/paint on the necks. Burns: Laaandaaan. Retro quirkiness. Cool.

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='482070' date='May 7 2009, 03:28 PM']I think that actually, people that make assumptions about any genre of music aren't doing themselves any favours. By all means, dislike a type of music, it's a free world, but opinions based on a minority of people are by no means the be all and end all. Jazz has always remained faceless to me. I'm sure there was an image at one stage or another that went with jazz reminiscent of some cliched beatnik wearing a beret and wielding bongos and a joint, but it's a close-minded assumption that all jazz musicians are of this ilk.[/quote] Hey, I'm not saying these assumptions are good things or totally correct, but they exist. To most people Jazz is not "faceless". If it was, no one would be laughing at the Fast Show "Jazz Club" sketches.

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='482060' date='May 7 2009, 03:11 PM']Anyway, the point was that not about image, rather the accessibility of jazz music to a musician.[/quote] But if the slightly elitist attitude and image of Jazz puts people off the genre, its not unreasonable to suggest that some of these people might also be musicians. The point is, in an image focussed world, Jazz does its self no favours.

[quote name='BassMunkee' post='481993' date='May 7 2009, 02:06 PM']Ick. You can count me out of that... ...Not guilty your honour.[/quote] Not even back in the 80's? I had some stone-wash Fred Flinstone jeans.

It's not my thing, but how many of you people who don't get it have worn stone wash denim?

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote] I agree. Trouble is, its the way of the world. I think that Jazz needs a bit of a PR job currently. Less people listening to it will mean less people playing it. Personally, I'd gladlly never here a jazz record for the rest of my life, but unless it attracts new players and listeners, it'll only be available in libraries and tiny corners of Suffolk.

c'mon bilbo, get stuck in!

[quote name='BassMunkee' post='481911' date='May 7 2009, 01:13 PM']Oh God - now I'm agreeing with him again... [/quote] Don't worry about it, was probably a fluke!

Thanks

[quote name='rslaing' post='481868' date='May 7 2009, 12:46 PM']You make your opinion about the subject, you don't say things like "it concerns me that you actually used to teach people" See the difference? Thanks[/quote] rslaing, it's no comment on you as a person, but a comment on you as a musical educator. You're refusal to see value in music which doesn't meet you criteria of "proper" makes me question what kind of musical education you will give to others. In relation to this topic, it reinforces by belief that there is a form of elitism that exists within Jazz music, and I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this off putting. What future does Jazz have if the vocal fans of the genre shout down every form of popular music? I think this is killing jazz more than the fretboard w***ery.

[quote name='rslaing' post='481857' date='May 7 2009, 12:40 PM']Please retract your post, you are out of order. Make as many opinions as you like about my opinions, but don't get personal (again). Are you stalking my posts or something? Baiting does not work with me I'm afraid. Thank you[/quote] But any time someone disagrees with your opinions rslaing, you accuse them of getting personal! It's a bit of a cop out to be honest.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481849' date='May 7 2009, 12:34 PM']Either. Niche market, not enough money to be made. Too many amateurs focussed on the musical form rather than the business opportunities.[/quote] My penchant for grot mags alone surely elevates it above a niche market?

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481840' date='May 7 2009, 12:28 PM']But it WAS once that big. Just not anymore. Music has moved on...[/quote] ....to be more focussed on image!

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481837' date='May 7 2009, 12:26 PM']One of the things I do for a living is analyse musical and media brands. And frankly, I wouldn't take 'Jazz' on as a client - too long a haul for too little return.[/quote] Surely it depends if your talking about the music or the magazines?

[quote name='rslaing' post='481827' date='May 7 2009, 12:20 PM']The type of music that survives the course has never been commercially successful, at least not to the degree of Girls Aloud and the like. But it has and will survive.[/quote] You're right. Check these guys out: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles[/url] Apparently a popular "beat group" back in the 60's. I've never heard of them! I find you posts entertaining rslaing, but it concerns me that you actually used to teach people!

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481818' date='May 7 2009, 12:13 PM']Disagree with the image and accessibility thing[/quote] Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?

You remember what I said about pompous attitudes..... [quote name='rslaing' post='481804' date='May 7 2009, 12:02 PM']You mean the commercial money making side of the business is about image. Like the sh*te that Simon Cowell manufactures and was started by Pete Waterman and his cronies. Who will remember any of the chart acts and their primitive crap in 50 years time? Who would want to? Good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and the rest of it will just fade away never to heard again. The main reason being that it has no substance and the ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote] Image is important in all genres. Don't kid yourself. You think Elvis wasn't partly about image? The Beatles? Motorhead? Hendrix? The Who? No doubt all these artists will "fade away never to heard again (sic)."

[quote name='rslaing' post='481787' date='May 7 2009, 11:48 AM']Really? I thought it was about sound............[/quote] I mean in terms of popularity, exposure, accessability etc. You won't reach large audiences if you don't have an accessable image. The majority won't persevere with music created by the "un-cool". If Gary Glitter were to release his best album yet, no one is gonna buy it, great music or not.

Regardless on my personal tastes, I don't think Jazz does itself any favours from an image perspective. I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is! To an outsider looking in, not only is the music pretty inpenetratable, but the image of the elitist jazz musician/listener puts people off. You read it on here all the time. Jazz fans say "I find Popular music doesn't satisfy me anymore". Maybe it doesn't, and there's nothing wrong with that view, but on a web forum it does sound slightly pompous! I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music. Personally, my views on the music are well documented. As a rule, I tend to stay away from music that is mostly popular with other musos. It does nothing for me.

[quote name='clauster' post='481647' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']As a commerially profitable venture, Jazz may not be top-of-the-heap at the mo, but here in Tunbridge Wells we have more venues where you can regularly go to a jazz gig than you can for rock.[/quote] I think they just do it to annoy me.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480954' date='May 6 2009, 01:24 PM']I did. But that is only more important to you. [/quote] ermm, I don't think so! What about all my fans on BassChat?

[quote name='rslaing' post='480943' date='May 6 2009, 01:17 PM']QUOTE (rslaing @ May 5 2009, 07:39 PM) * Hopefully I won't start off another war here, but SIGHT reading is an essential skill too. QUOTE (rslaing @ May 5 2009, 08:03 PM) * it is a major benefit to any musician to be able to read music..period. My answer (and to save one or two of the contributors having to accuse me of arrogance blah blah blah etc, it is only my opinion) :- Being able to read music is essential in order to become an "all round" musician, capable of meeting any opportunities that arise in the music profession. A musician will certainly gain more work if he has more skill. Why do you suggest there a yawning gulf between being able to read music and being able to sight read? The only difference is if you can sight read, you get the "job" done more quickly. Being able to sight read is only a matter of developing your reading skill to a higher level. I gave my daughter a music lesson this morning, and she was amazed that I could sing (I have an awful voice) the part she had in front of her at the piano without having to play it, or having heard it before. That example is about using both attributes - I can read music, and because I can relate to the dots and hear the intervals that I see, I can transmit that (quite well, but not always perfectly) to someone very quickly. That is a primitive example for sure, but this ability that has taken years to develop is surely better than having to dig out the original version of the tune, prod about on an instrument and then have to try and memorise it? Imagine even the personal benefits, if a musician could read music, of being able to look at a piece of music and actually hear the chords that are written down on paper? And understand how and why they sound like that without having an instrument in their hands? It has to be a major benefit to their musicianship. Can't remember who said it, but it went along the lines of the "the faintest ink is better than the best memory". Whenever I gig (which is getting less and less these days) I mostly don't use sheet music, but I always carry a decent library in case I get caught out with either a song I can't remember the changes for, or I have not played before. Thereby, hopefully doing a job that the non reader couldn't do? And for those that seem to think I am dissing the non readers, I also spend more time playing without reading, than having to sit in front of a sheet of music. I also spend more practice time developing aural ability than reading about 90% of the time. But this does not detract from my opinion regarding reading skills. A musician should learn to read as a priority when starting out, and develop aural skill alongside, they will soon find out that aural musical ability will take up much more of their time as they develop and become as, if not more, important. But not for the reasons I have seen given in some of the responses in this thread. But I still have the music reading ability if it is needed. It takes longer to perfect aural skill than it does learning to read music (although I don't think it is more difficult) so why don't non readers learn? I refer you back to my original theory that they can't be arsed (laziness) or they don't think there is a need. My previous pupils have actually ADMITTED these are the reasons so why should I change my mind? I will continue to follow this thread out of interest but I can't really spend any more time trying to justify my beliefs in writing. If anyone can convince me that it is not important to have both reading and aural skills, and tell me why aural skill is all that is needed, that would be great. But I really can't see it happening. And BTW maxrossell, regarding your post insinuating I think I am superior to anyone (and your other personal insults), I certainly know I am not, as do a number of other people on this forum that know me. I just happen to feel very strongly about people not just having instrumental skills etc, but the ability to have a greater understanding of music which can add to their talents. Being able to read music gives you that undersanding/comprehension, and I'm sorry, but unless you can read music, I don't think you would know what I meant. Also, to answer your personal criticism "Which I guess actually puts him at a disadvantage, because whereas I'd happily learn to read music if I needed to, based on a lot of the stuff he says he probably wouldn't touch many of the skills I have with a bargepole because he thinks they're pointless and beneath him." I assure you that you will be "better" at a lot of things in life than I am. But with 40 years experience, the odds are that I could be right about the odd thing?[/quote] More importantly rslaing, did you like my band???