4000

Crikey, how many posts while I was writing the above? Note to self, must save typing til hand is healed.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1330015343' post='1551498'] In answer to both. When i watch a performance i am watching the body language and listening for articulation and dynamics. The combination of these 3 things is what i think expresses musicality and what i see as the difference between a good performer and someone who's not quite there yet. I work on all 3 of these so i can put across what i guess can be described as a simulation of emotion. Say i'm playing a song that was written about pain; despite the fact i am loving the performance i can still get the idea of pain across using the combination of the 3 things suggested before. Same if i'm really not enjoying the gig i will play and have the body language to suggest i am. It's all fake but importantly its consistent. [/quote] I'm sorry, but this is possibly the most horrible thing I've ever read about someone's approach to music. You're approaching it like a bricklayer instead of an architect. Do you write music? More importantly, do you enjoy writing music? So far I agree with Nige 110% on this. Or is 110% hippy bollocks? I do however feel that there are musicians and musicians, IMO. There are those who live to play, and those who live to create. Of course sometimes they do both. There are those who look at music as some sort of mathematical exercise, and those who look at it as the fulfillment of some sort of magical creative urge. Of course some do both. I tend to fall into the latter category in both cases, as I suspect does Silddx. I've sometimes (often) found that the two struggle to understand each other. Another thing is that I've often seen that there are two distinct types of players that some aspire to be. One is to be an original, someone with a unique voice, even where that may limit your versatility. A Peter Hook, a Lemmy, a Jaco, a Stanley. The other is to be a musical chameleon who can play anything and blends in perfectly, becoming almost unrecognisable. A session player, in essence. Of course many, like me, want to be a bit of both. However the bassists I truly admire all tend to be original, unique voices; that's what draws me to a musician. Your example of Janek, Richard and Chris is an interesting one; two of those are two of my favourite players. I have them in a different order than you though (although FWIW no player is "better" than another as ultimately it's all a matter of context and personal taste); Chris is, in the context of Yes, arguably my favourite player. Janek would be the last of the 3 by some margin, although I very much enjoy his playing (and yes I've seen him too). Richard is wonderful (have seen him twice and he's truly inspirational), but I still prefer Chris. For me, Chris Squire is more of an original voice, more unique in terms of note choice and tone, more integral to the music that he plays. IMO. And of course as Nigel says, Chris wrote his lines (which in the context of his music are IMO more perfect than anything the other two have so far come up with). Interesting that you should throw Laurence Cottle into the mix. I've seen Laurence live, have even spoken to him. Seems like a nice guy, has excellent skills and a vast amount of knowledge. But you know what? His playing leaves me cold. I don't really feel like he has that much original to say. I can understand that he might be what you aspire to, but some of us aspire to other things. I have absolutely no interest in being a Laurence Cottle, good as he might be.

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1329996254' post='1550941'] That definition means that 99% of bass players, including all the ones regarded as "The Greats" are incompetent. Chris Squire would be f***ing useless playing jazz or latin music, just as the vast majority of gospel players wouldn't have the first idea what to do in an industrial metal band. Why do some people think bass players have to be masters of every genre or else they're rubbish? I never hear guitarists slagging off BB King because his two handed tapping is sh*t, or saying that Martin Taylor or John Etheridge are crap because they can't play a convincing Country solo. [/quote] And a big +1 to that.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1329994510' post='1550895'] When i think competent i mean someone who can do everything i cant do a few things i see as a good player: Someone who knows the notes on the fretboard in real time Someone with great time feel in a wide array of genres and can stand on their own two feet when a drummer takes off with poly rhythmic ideas. Someone with great sense of harmony and knows when to super-impose, the avoid notes, improvising behind melodies without taking any power from it. There are lots of very capable rock bassists, flea being a personal favourite. However, there are many who are not! Adam Clayton being well known for not having any knowledge of improvising around chords and the edge having to show him what to play. Whereas, in gospel, jazz or latin jazz if your no good it really shows. I'm at a music school, have been for 3 years. I said you naturally want to play them, the best musicians are those that wait until the time is right. All self control innit [/quote] First point; none of those issues are anywhere near as important as being able to play the right thing for the song. Someone who know his theory back to front and can play at the speed of light in perfect time is still incompetent if they can't play what the song requires, or something that takes the song to the next level. You don't need any real theory at all to be an excellent bass player in most genres, although it certainly isn't necessarily a hindrance and can help a great deal. If you think you do need all that then your emphasis is in the wrong area. It's quite possible to come up with a glorious line without really knowing how you did it or what the theory behind it is. Of course some people need the theory before they can do that, but others don't. By your argument Jeff Berlin (for example) would be one of the best bassists ever in any band situation, in any situation, when quite plainly he wouldn't be (despite what he may think!). Also FWIW, in a lot of bands the band leader / songwriter etc shows the bassist what to play, although the bassist may then get chance to expand on it. I think that's something you'll maybe need to get used to. In a music school it's likely that many of the other bassists you meet will want to be the next Jaco, but in the real world that's not necessarily the case. Two very different environments. Sometimes the time is never right. Learning that can be very difficult; I'm still trying.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1329995108' post='1550912'] By strange coincidence, I found an envelope stuffed into my letterbox this morning. It contained a transcript of some off-mike dialogue during the most recent U2 recording session. [color=#ffffff].[/color] [/quote] Oh I wish I could use emoticons at work (no idea why I can't). Genius. As usual.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1329920029' post='1549731'] That would be a jazz festival..... with Van Morrison headlining the Saturday and Jools Holland the Sunday. [/quote] Make it stop! Make it stop!

[quote name='shizznit' timestamp='1329986288' post='1550707'] I don't think your a wuss. You need to be comfortable when you play and your health comes first. [/quote] Big +1. I used to comfortably bench press 100kg for 8 reps, was able to do sets of 10 strict curls with 60lb dumbells and did aikido. I now have 2 slipped discs and shoulder problems and even my 8.5lb-9lb Rics are giving me trouble; I'm also starting to get fed up with carting my ABM500 about(35lb-ish?). If you're a wuss I'm twice one. The only wuss in my book is somebody who's scared of saying when they're having problems.

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1329986484' post='1550716'] I don't know why people think you can't show off in rock - what else is there to do? [/quote] Billy Sheehan and Joey Demaio spring to mind....

[quote name='Cairobill' timestamp='1329986376' post='1550712'] I think people who criticise rock and pop bassists have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word genre. Colin Greenwood is a walking textbook of pop/rock style and plays what is right for each song that he records, down to a specific string, bass and amp. To criticise him for not playing like a fusion player (or Mick from Supergrass who was half of one of the most dynamic rhythm sections of the britpop era) is nonsensical. I would expect that most chopmeister bassists would produce ersatz mushy session drivel if ever called upon to play in any of the bands mentioned in this thread. It's simply not a genre they understand. Also, just because something sounds easy doesn't mean it is. [/quote] +1. Ever tried playing a busy, intricate line in With Or Without You? Or Let There Be Rock? The song will fall apart. I can be a very busy player but have often ended up playing the simplest lines possible in some songs (bear in mind these are songs I've written too) simply because that's what works best. One factor that is often forgotten is also how the sound you have influences what you play and vice versa. If you have a bloody huge sound, it's quite easy to play something simple and have the track sit on it. If you've got a thinner back-pickup-y sound, it may not work so well so you may want to start playing more to fill it out. I remember once seeing Yolanda Charles (who I rate as a player) backing Paul Weller on something and I thought her sound and style didn't fit at all. IMO you should listen to the bass in the context of the music and not just in isolation. I think another point that has been touched on is the assumption that because someone plays a particular style in a / their band, that's all they can play. Using a topical example, Matt Garrison backed Whitney Houston; however I suspect he left all his flash Matt Garrison-isms at home.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1329961270' post='1550603'] also if you've put a lot of time and effort into learning the chops needed to be a good jazz player, you naturally want to show them off[/quote] Ah, the sign of a mature musician....

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1329960985' post='1550601'] But from guys i know, most would rather play the chicken than enter sandman. [/quote] The first part being the issue I suspect.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1329959422' post='1550591'] there is nothing wrong! Just got back from w3 and JUST WOW! These guys are all between 17 and 25 and they have more talent than most of the old timers! I think its just that rock bores most competent players and so they move on to jazz, funk, neo soul, gospel ect. [/quote] ????? I guess that depends on your definition of a competent player. To me it's someone who does the job required for the music, chops or no (see Risingson's earlier post). I think you'll actually find that many truly "competent players" (using what I suspect is your definition) are quite happy to play either; go and have a chat with Marco Mendoza for one.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1329767383' post='1547062'] I really do think Martin has such a good eye and does things that are just right. [/quote] Agree with that 110%.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1329926726' post='1549889'] I have stated time and time again that if the music sounds good, then the bass player (or indeed any musician in the band) has done his or her job properly. The consistent moaning about Adam Clayton only playing 8th notes for example. I'm not the biggest U2 fan in the world and I never will be, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that they must be doing something right because their music sounds good, even to me if I'm completely honest. And to a lot of other people (millions of other people in fact), their music sounds [u]brilliant[/u]. Bottom line, if brilliant music is made with a bass player playing note perfect 16ths or very imperfect and out-of-time quarter notes, then the bass player has done his job correctly. People that try and argue otherwise are the types of people usually unable to look at the larger musical picture. [/quote] And a huge, fat, enormous +1 to that. Well said indeed!

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1329831650' post='1548038'] At the moment, after years of umming and erring, I am so glad I did not sell my streamer. Offered it up enough times! New pups and wow! This is going no where! [/quote] What pickups did you put in it?

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1329839758' post='1548279'] Where did you get your lightweight staircase from? [/quote] I made it out of a pre-CBS Fender....

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1329830904' post='1548018'] True, but you'll wait a long time to see the Beatles. Meanwhile, there are thousands of pubs and clubs that simply wish you to entertain their punters for a couple of hours and are prepared to pay you for doing so. If the venue, audience and band are happy what's the problem? Currently I play in two bands - one originals and one covers. They are different bands because of the people in them, not because of who wrote the material we play. If i stopped enjoying EITHER of them I would quit. I really don't understand the rather elitist attitude that some people have about playing covers. There is so much music around that it CAN be all things to all people, and what is an original tune anyway? A hotch-potch of ideas that have already been used and the same notes and chords but in a different order! If you think your music is [i]truly[/i] original, then either you haven't listened to enough covers or you are Jimi Hendrix. If it makes you happy, do it. If not - stop. It's really not that complicated. [/quote] I believe we had this conversation last time. "If the venue, audience and band are happy what's the problem?". If that's the case, then no problem. However I wouldn't be happy, therefore there's a problem for me. "If it makes you happy, do it. If not - stop". But that was my point. Bar my first 2 gigs 30 years ago I never really started playing covers in the first place because I (wasn't commenting on your or anyone else's preferences, which you seem to have missed) don't enjoy it. So what's your point?

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1329826435' post='1547898'] My Rickenbacker 4002 that I part-ex'd for next to nothing in about 1986 for an Aria SB-1000. I couldn't afford more than one bass at a time back then [/quote] Triple Ouch!!!

I'm sure we've been here before but basses I regret selling: 1. Alembic Triple Omega (custom built for me)- loved it to bits but my back couldn't cope anymore. Still miss it dreadfully, still wish I could cope with it so could get it back. 2. Sei 4 headless buckeye burl - sold to finance my second Ric CS (which I later sold). One day I still hope to get it back! 3. Sei Flamboyant headed 5 - sold to finance my '72 Azure. I don't regret that (it was the only way I could sensibly get the Azure) but I do miss it a great deal. My favourite 5 that I've ever played by some margin. 4. Sei Series 2 singlecut - again a sensible sale at the time but I miss this too. 5. '73 Ric 4000. The most aggressive sounding bass I've ever played, and surprisingly versatile (more so than any of my other Rics which seems impossible). Sold in a fit of pique after a bad gig. Stupid, stupid, stupid. 6. Rick 4003s8 - sold to finance the Alembic, which I don't regret. I do miss it though; monster sound. 7. Warwick Dolphin Pro 1 '91 - far, far better than the later '96 I had, sold to pay for a new staircase! Heavy though (the bass,not the staircase). 8. Warwick Dolphin Pro II - great, underrated bass. Sold to a mate who loves it. 9. Warwick Streamer Stage 1 '91 - just because I'm currently gassing for another. Mine went in p/x against the '91 Dolphin... 10. Wal Custom - sold to a mate in '96-ish for £550; ouch. He has used it as his main bass ever since. Would be nice to have at home for some things, but even better to sell for £3k! Still, it went to a good home so all's well.

[quote name='Daniel Acheson' timestamp='1329823082' post='1547812'] I really don't enjoy covers gigs. The buzz you get playing a set of songs you really believe in and have had creative input with, is a completely different thing to playing a set of the usual boring covers. [/quote] I know exactly where you're coming from. When my band of several years lost its drummer, our guitarist (one of my two best friends, the drummer being the other) insisted, despite knowing of my hatred of doing covers, that we became a cover band. In order to not split up the band I reluctantly agreed, but I can honestly say that the rehearsals were like pulling teeth. I could not get motivated and didn't enjoy playing the songs, despite picking songs that we exclusively really liked. In the end we couldn't get a replacement drummer, the tensions came to a head and the guitarist left, with the band folding shortly after. As I suspected, it seems I can only get excited doing original material; I don't know why. Probably for the same reasons I don't like copying other people's paintings. As I've said before, I play for me. If the audience likes it, great. If not, so what? I've never played in a covers band in my life, because it just doesn't interest me. What I hate about many cover band audiences is that they can't seem to differentiate between a cover band and a successful (famous) originals band. To them there's no difference. Maybe that's quite nice in some ways, but to me the creation of the music is by far the most important thing. There are millions of musicians who can play Beatles (for instance) songs, but it took the Beatles to write them. To me, that's the important bit.

Having learnt to play on Rics I find the opposite problem. Fenders and their ilk invariably feel all wrong to me. Having said that Rics vary enormously (as, to be fair, do Fenders) so I wouldn't just try one. They vary massively across the years too so try as many as you can from different periods. By far my favourites are '72 and earlier. Mid '73 onwards (with some exceptions) up to to the last couple of years I'm generally not that interested in, having owned a few and played dozens, but of course YMMV; you may like ones that I don't or you may not like them at all.

I reckon I'm pretty much with Bilbo here; loved them up to and including MP and then after that started to lose interest, although I do like most of Signals. Have to agree about the Subdivisions bass sound. Obviously I think his Ric sound was his best, no suprise there. It's not because I'm biased though, it's because it was!

Also the intro to Assault and Battery by Hawkwind and the segue into The Golden Void.

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1329482371' post='1543089'] For me SO is one of the best live albums I know of. I love listening to it through my headphones, volume turned up a tad, in a dimly lit room. [/quote] I hadn't got round to Genesis yet, but +1000. My most-played album of all time. There are so many awesome bits; the excerpt from the Musical Box ("You stand there" etc), Firth of Fifth(partic the "There is in fact more earth than sea...more earth than sea" arpeg bit), Cinema Show (all the instrumental section - I love the bit where the bass plays that ascending line towards the end), Los Endos (completely unreal from start to finish and a millio times better than the TOTT version) and of course Supper's Ready; my favourite bits of that are the "Can't you see he's fooled you all" section, far better than on Foxtrot IMO, and the end "New Jerusalem" sequence. On the theme of Genesis, other fave bits include the "all along the wagons" section of Deep in the Motherlode, the fade-out section of Say It's All Right Joe, the choruses and end section of The Lady Lies (some of my favourite bass playing too), the intro and keyboard solo at the end of Entangled (heck, just the whole song), and doubtless many others.