XB26354

Pentatonics are just an available group of 5 notes. If you want to practise them musically try your exercises round the cycle of 4ths, use odd groupings (e.g. play up 5 notes of the scale at a time), use different rhythmic figures, like starting on the + of beat 1, then on beat 2, + of beat 2 etc. Melodically pentatonics have a simplistic and quite appealing sound, at least to my ears.

What I always think, even when I listen to the old stuff with Bill Bruford, is that his playing is technically very clean and impressive (e.g. Palewell Park, 5G, Water On The Brain), but actually sounds crap. It does nothing for me at all. What is the point learning what he has learned only to sound crap. I like jazz and even (gasp) some fusion, but only when music is the point rather than a crappy tone and way too many notes/chords etc. This is strange as from the way he talks about education and the music industry you'd think he was a revered custodian of the worldwide bass community rather than a marginalised, anachronistic player with seemingly no sense of taste. Oh and his solo albums are pretty awful musically

[quote name='ARGH' post='437594' date='Mar 17 2009, 05:31 PM']Oh its alright.... Its ok to be wrong,good construction is a good thing,just dont think it actually is the greatest influence upon tone.[/quote] Then in your opinion (with your reasons) what is?

I doubt very much that Pino doesn't read music. He contributed the very complex part to For Once In My Life to Standing in The Shadows of Motown and I'd be surprised if a non-reader could cop the part really. Mick Karn (who is one of my favourite players) basically had success in one band over a very short period. This isn't really a guide to either learning theory/reading or not, as players of all backgrounds develop their own styles. If I had the time and energy to practise several hours a day now, I would study harmony and arranging on the piano and/or impovisation on sax/trumpet from the start instead of worrying whether I could play slapped triplets up to 200bpm

I'm no scientist but having played 5 and 6-strings of most the major makes for about the last 20 years there are several factors in the tightness of sound, and also B-string response: Scale Length String material and diameter Tuning (dropped or standard) Body wood Neck wood and construction (bolt on or thru-neck) Frets Pickups and electronics Of these I believe the most important qualities are the woods, construction quality and pickups. I've played and owned several basses with 33", 34", 35", 36" and 37" and found that there is little benefit tonally to be had from extended scale length. The feel of the string is different due to increased tension, and the sound is a little clearer, but having played a number of Overwaters at 36" and Dingwalls at 37" I don't like the sound that produces. The best B-strings i have ever played came from a Ken Smith (34"), Warwick (34") and my new MTD (35"). All three were very well made with properly seasoned woods and high quality electronics. it's not just about price either - the Ibanez GWB45 has a great B and it is again 34" (and under £500). Unless you like the feel of a very extended scale I don't believe the extra scale length is worth the discomfort from wider spaced frets in the first position (which is where we do the bulk of bass playing, right?)

I've always thought that he talks a lot of sense about music education, even back when he had a column in Bass Player. Learning any instrument to a high level takes a lot of hard work, but even more sense about the right things to learn. The issue I have is that while he has a scary level of ability, both musical and technical, a lot of the music I've heard him make turns me right off. He also seems to describe things in very black an white terms as urb mentioned, and seems fond of picking arguments with other bass players. He is somewhat anachronistic nowadays - who is going to buy a Jeff Berlin CD if it came out anyway?

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='431348' date='Mar 11 2009, 11:02 AM']If you fellas will insist on putting batteries in your basses........[/quote] Actually I wire mine up straight to the mains. Saves lots of money on hair gel.

I felt very much the same way that a lot of you do up until recently. Every Stingray I played sounded thin, and 5ers had a dull, unfocussed B string. I've long been mystified why they design a 5 with the G string 1mm from the edge of the fingerboard. Total design flaw if you ask me. I saw a thread about this on TB and the Stingray lovers overs there said there was nothing wrong and it was "user error"! However, all has changed since I picked up a natural Stingray 5 recently. 2002 model, tortie plate with a maple board. This bass sings and growls. All I need to do to get the perfect fat tone is to put the pickup selector in the neck position and add a touch of bass. For me the eq does actually work. It does however sound a bit thin on the bridge position. Best bass I have ever played with a pick though - and the tight string spacing works a treat. The build and finishing quality is also first class - lovely wood grain, solid, well made parts, and just a bombproof feel. Far better than current American Fenders imho. In short, I think part of it is knowing the Stingray sound - if you don't like the tone you probably won't enjoy it as much, and part knowing how to get the best out of it. Tony Levin is one of my favourite players, and I doubt he would have used A Stingray for so long if there wasn't something there (freebies or not). Like any other mass manufactured bass, I guess you have to try a few first.

This comes up in every music-related forum I have visited. How far would most of us get in everyday life without being able to speak, understand, read and write English (or whatever your chosen language is)? Sure there are some who never learn properly (or people who emigrate and can't/won't learn the native language), but they miss out on massive chunks of society. Why should music be any different? If you make music and don't understand how it works then you miss out massively. A lot of indigenous music isn't written down and doesn't need to be, and that is fine. Standard notation is the de facto standard for writing out music for other people to play (often without rehearsal). I don't think that Leland Sklar, Nathan East, Marcus Miller, Will Lee, Pino Palladino, Freddie Washington, JJ Burnel, David Hungate, Anthony Jackson, Tony Levin, James Jamerson or Chuck Rainey suffer/suffered from being able to read music! You may totally dislike classical music, but just about every musician and composer there has ever been was a reader. They have far greater technical and emotional challenges than we do playing bass, to the point that they don't really have a choice if they want to make the music happen. Once they get it under their fingers then they use their ears, experience and heart to turn it into real music (just like every other musician). I started playing by ear, had a good ear, then decided to teach myself music theory from a book. I went from there into understanding "jazz" harmony and arranging. I still love playing along with records or jamming, and as I get older appreciate all forms of music. It all reinforces itself - a good ear puts sounds to what you see on the page, and the theory formalises and recognises the patterns that occur in music (as well as nature). I blame the lack of decent music education in this country and the woeful standard of a lot of private teachers (of all instruments). Learning to read is not difficult, it just takes a bit of practice and dedication. The reward is the last 500+ years of music history.

I must admit the Wenge top one in the For Sale forum did look nice. Maybe it was because a Wal was my second bass - saved up the £1100 (back in 1986 when the Bass Centre stocked them) hoping to get that Geddy Lee tone, only to find that it sounded nothing like him. A cautionary lesson in buying a bass just because someone else plays it... Paduak top and mahogany core it was, and after a couple of years I traded it for a 5-string fretless Status (number 0005). If only for what they go for now I wish I'd kept it! I met Pete the fish a few times too, very nice guy and very accommodating.

[quote name='Rich' post='429271' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:37 PM']If a Warwick or Fender was handbuilt to the same extent as a Wal -- i.e. completely -- they'd be just as expensive, probably more so. OK so yes, I'm a Wal owner and a tad biased -- but if it was my choice between a Warwick, a Fender J and a Wal at the same price I wouldn't even fart in the general direction of the first two. Yes, you have to work at the tone controls. No, it's definitely not plug and play like a J bass. But the rewards are there to be had, and how. If the filter preamp was such a bad idea, the same basic idea wouldn't also have been used by Alembic or ACG for theirs, true? My Wal thinks your GBs look ugly too [/quote] Don't like Alembics and have no experience of ACG - two small manufacturers is hardly conclusive proof that a filter/sweep preamp works on bass though is it? If you record in a studio any software or hardware eq unit, or decent effects box will be more versatile anyway, and having boomy/mushy tones available to hand isn't very useful live. If I had £20K I wouldn't fart in the general direction of a Wal, having given them a chance a number of times - the last one I owned - mk III 5-string - had a naff boomy bottom B and tipped the scales at just over 12lbs. Still at least I got it cheap and made a small profit

I've owned three in my time, mkII 4 string, mkII 4 string fretless and a Mk III 5-string. I know that the preamp is capable of a wide variety of tones, but I always thought the basic sound is too thin and weedy - and the same goes for a lot of the well-known users. I am a little mystified why a lot of people here seem to hold them in such high regard. Well made and finished, but heavy as hell in a lot of cases, unergonomic and with 75% mushy unusable tones. Of course each to their own!