neilp

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

Only to those aware of these notions; to everyone else, they're just out of tune. 

Or beautiful, depending on context.....a bit of subtle sharpening of a leading note, for example, can make the resolution onto the tonic seem like Paradise found, rather than just the obvious last chord of a piece.

On 11/05/2021 at 09:37, zbd1960 said:

I don't want to open a complex discussion about temperaments, but curious as to 'what' they autotune to? I assume that since keyboards are likely to be involved, as well as fretted instruments, then it must be equal temperament. But ET itself is a compromise, and at times will sound out of tune especially on major thirds. There are purer temperaments around which have nicer (narrower) major thirds and purer (wider) perfect fifths (there are complex reasons why we tend not to use them, not least being you can't be in tune for all keys at the same time). 

That's exactly right, and is the reason we got the idea that certain keys have certain identifiable characters. In fact, on an equally tempered keyboard, there is no difference in character, only in pitch, whereas in just temperament, for example, there are identifiable differences

On 09/05/2021 at 14:55, leftybassman392 said:

It's a good point well made, but wouldn't you agree that:

1) Even very good singers are rarely absolutely bang on pitch all the time (as in 'accurate to the point that a pitch correction algorithm would have no effect on the received signal') - indeed very slight fluctuations in pitch can be viewed as part of that singer's vocal  'personality' (criticisms of Autotune being 'too perfect' are often cited as one of the reasons people don't like it);

2) What is tolerable varies as between musical styles;

3) in certain circumstances, what counts as perfect intonation can differ according to the style (I'm thinking in particular of early music, which uses older temperaments with differing tunings), and can also vary slightly according to what instrumentation is present?

1) I totally agree, but the modern use of autotune (or Melodyne or whatever) is over-corrective and does correct even slight variations. Good musician CHOOSE how to tune each note, and removing that removes the humanity, just as editing to the grid kills the groove

2) True, but again, good musicians make choices, and unless you can play in tune (or sing in tune) to start with, you can't make the choices, because you don't have enough control

3) Same thing applies. When I play Baroque or Classical music, depending on what the conductor or Director wants, certain intervals will be played wider or narrower than you would hear on a piano or a guitar fretboard. Again, this is "in tune". It's about control, and awareness and intention, and the existence of Autotune etc seems to lead some producers and performers to believe that that level of skill is not required any more, when in fact that level of skill is what makes great music so musical. IMHO.... Apologies for the tardiness of my comment, I was busy playing music....

54 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

There's different 'levels' of singer (and other musicians...), depending on genre. A rap artist would get short shrift at an operatic audition, and vice versa. There's not a lot of DB players here that work in symphonic orchestras, but do well as blue-grass players. What is suitable, or even required, of a pop artist is not the same as a jazz artist, or folk. It's not much cop to compare, still less judge, their respective merits and foibles. 

I work in symphony orchestras, chamber music groups, rock bands, blues bands, soul bands and a folk trio. Out of tune is out of tune. Other technical considerations vary, I grant you, but tuning is not optional

On 08/05/2021 at 00:06, leftybassman392 said:

This topic has come up a number of times in various threads that I've been involved in recently.

Perhaps we should have a proper argument conversation about it.

For the benefit of anybody who has recently arrived here from Mars, pitch correction is a studio effect that functions to massage vocals slightly to ensure correct pitching of notes.

It's best known as a way of correcting slightly off-pitch vocals, but it can and regularly does work with all manner of pitched notes from pretty much any tuned instrument. Additionally, current versions are capable of numerous other functions - and uses - but we may or may not get round to talking about them here.

Correcting pitch is what it does; it cannot compensate for dull or lifeless singing. Even within it's stated brief, there are limits to what it can deal with and still produce something of musical value; despite what I suspect many believe, it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for any old tosh that's fed into it. There's more to being a good singer than (near) pitch-perfect note production.

Many in and around the music industry have a very negative view of it's use, and it's not hard to find such commentary from a variety of industry sources. I don't doubt we'll see some links from time to time.

Be that as it may, pitch correction has for many years been a ubiquitous studio technique that is in very widespread use: in truth you'll struggle to find many professional studios that don't use it on a regular basis. It's even available as a plugin on freebie DAW apps such as Garageband for Macs.

At this point I'll refrain from putting my view up in any sort of detail, but suffice it to say that I don't look at it as heralding the death of 'real' music (whatever that may be) that some around here might.

One caveat: I'm not here to defend pitch correction's honour. That said, I am aware that many people just don't like it. All opinions are valid in this thread, and even if I could (which of course I can't) I would make no attempt to censor opinions I don't agree with. Good arguments will speak for themselves.

 

 

Over to the Basscht collective...

I agree there is more to being a singer than good intonation, but there is a simple fact: If you can't sing in tune, you can't call yourself a singer. 

The other issue is the question of the odd slightly "pitchy" note. We accept those in live performances, and before pitch correction was available we accepted it in the studio for the sake of an otherwise gripping performance. Has it made anything "better"? Not in my opinion, any more than perfectly aligned drums and bass, with all the transients bang on the grid has. this stuff may be great for some forms of "music", but the more you remove the human element, the less musical it seems to me. Mind you, I'm one of the idiots who doesn't believe you should copy Ronnie Lane's mistakes, just because they are on the record, so what do I know!?

Best or favourite? Best at what?

My favourite guitarists, in no particular order:

Jimmy Page

Jeff Beck

Robin Trower

Peter Green

Wilko Johnson

Jimi Hendrix

Eddie Van Halen

What does it mean? Sod all. Enjoy what you like and don't try to establish absolutes

On 05/04/2021 at 20:01, mikel said:

I didnt even hint you should not have an opinion, or what to think, I was simply intrigued by your reasoning.

There were three other musicians in the Beatles, or did that pass you by? McCartney on his own is exposed as the mediocre talent he is, in my opinion

5 hours ago, mikel said:

Upset me? Hardly. I believe you said "The World would not miss one of his songs", sounds contemptuous to me. As he was probably responsible for about half the Beatles output I don't see how you can love them.

I'm not sure you need to see how I can love the Beatles. The fact is I do, but I don't love McCartney or particularly value his contribution to the Beatles. I'm pretty sure I'm permitted to express that opinion. I'm certainly not telling you what to think. If you like what he does, fine. I don't like it. I find him insincere and self-obsessed. Hey ho, the world goes on and nobody much cares what either of us thinks....

On 03/04/2021 at 19:25, mikel said:

It always makes me wonder why people who profess to dismiss the Beatles and all their music will happily trawl through page after page of a thread merely to state their contempt. I have no time for many musical acts so I ignore any reference to them. Its much easier. There again modern music would be nothing like it is now without the fab four, so perhaps that rankles with some if they dont "get it".

You didn't read the rest. I love the Beatles. I was joining in a discussion about whether Paul McCartney was under appreciated. The Beatles I absolutely "get". McCartney? Nope. No contempt involved, but I don't find him a likeable person, and I don't particularly like his musical output. My view, I'm not demanding that you should agree, so why would it upset you that I express my view?

On 02/04/2021 at 14:52, Pseudonym said:

Your disagreement is noted. Obviously, all posts of this kind make assertions. You might notice that I do not say McCartney necessarily meets the critieria I mention, merely that I offer possible reasons why (a) some think he is great, and (b) others really do not. In that sense, I am not asserting facts. I am merely proposing criteria in relation to an inherently critical topic.

It is up to you, or to anyone, to judge for yourself whether you think McCartney is one of those musicians who meets the criteria I set out in the first sentence. Obviously, you do not, but I don't have any sense of whether you think the yearsticks themselves are invalid. Second sentence, regarding noteworthy technique, by now has a critical consensus that appears robust. That is about historical significance more than technique per se, of course. Third sentence about virtuosity is, again, a stipulated critical perspective, widely shared by aficionados of popular music (and acting, visual art, literature etc) regarding all but the most strictly formalised modes of creativity. (It is also why it is pointless to compare classical performance with improvised jazz, for example.) But the notion that the world would not miss a single one of his songs seems a little far-fetched, given that they still sell and it is not hard to find enthusiasts young enough to be McCartney's great-grandchildren.

This is ultimately a commercialised form of music we are talking about. He doesn't need to be Mozart. I don't rate him as an artist the way I rate numerous other well-known figures. But I don't think his longevity and appeal are any great mystery. Craftsmen also endure. As much as the Beatles were more than the sum of their parts, perhaps McCartney is one of those artisans who is more than the sum of his abilities. Whether he bores you or not, I assume you would agree that not everyone shares your view. I am more interested in the structure of his appeal to those who like his work, because an individual's boredom doesn't really need explication if it provides no general rule. If McCartney bored everyone, your boredom would be interesting. As it is, it is a matter of taste, and I completely respect that.

He might be a git. He might be a git sometimes. He might be a git to you. Does it really matter? A gobby taxi driver who gets me to Heathrow in record time still gets a big tip from me.

I must admit, a gobby taxi driver would get little or no tip from me, record time or not, but I have a less transactional view of the world than most. I'm not interested in how popular and lauded McCartney is, but if YOU want to tell me what you find exciting and moving about his music, I'm all ears. This is all totally subjective and entirely a matter of taste. The fact that he made a huge bucketload of money means absolutely nothing to me. The fact that he's a git is more relevant. I've met him several times and observed him consistently being gittish to me and other people he regarded as insignificant.

On 30/03/2021 at 21:22, Pseudonym said:

That makes sense, I think. There are very few musicians who are simultaneously (a) distinctive instrumentalists, (b) prolific and astute composers and/or lyricists, (c) charismatic performers, (d) long-lived contributors to a musical canon, and (e) willing to experiment even after decades. If McCartney were merely the bassist he is, that would make him noteworthy -- his technique was quite radical in the early 1960s. A creative or performing artist who works well within his limits is not necessarily inferior to a virtuoso who works perfectly within pre-existing limits.

I wonder if the fact that McCartney is notable for several reasons possibly dilutes critical evaluation of his specific abilities. Also, he can come across as a man who never outgrew the arrogant humility that he embodied as a young man. He is, perhaps, more gauche than we expect from an iconic musician. He's not Bowie, or Miles Davis. McCartney was never particularly cool. He was simply extremely good at what he did. Had he simply thought of himself as a bass player, rather than treating his bass playing as one ingredient among several, he might now be lionised for that alone. But in some ways he is too much of a cheerful, normal, sometimes foolish man to inhabit the persona of greatness.

See, here's the thing. You say all that as if it were incontrovertible fact. Granted he's been hugely successful over 5 decades, and he's a prolific songwriter. The rest though, I totally disagree with (apart from the arrogance, that is true. I have met him and he's a git). The world would not miss a single one of his songs, in my opinion. He's a good bassist, but no more than that. He bores me, to be honest

4 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

 

I think people who 'hate' music are just telling us something about themselves. We all like different stuff and we are all free to do so, you don't have to 'like' anything. People hating the Beatles? It's like being back in the 60's

For the record, I don't hate the Beatles. In fact I love the Beatles. I just don't particularly like Paul McCartney as a bass player, singer or songwriter

4 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Bach? Over-rated organ humper. Irving Berlin? Total amateur, couldn't read music.

People who don't know stuff will disagree with me but I'm used to it.

 

Mozart? Flatpack ear candy for the masses. I said I don't like what McCartney produced. I would agree he's a talented musician, but his output strikes me as mostly trite, twee, obvious doggerel. People who don't know stuff will disagree with me, but I'm used to it.

21 minutes ago, Nail Soup said:

I guess McCartney maybe sometimes just doesn't get recognised as a bass player, never mind a good one. He is most recognised as a songwriter, and can play most pop/rock instruments very well.

 

He's not a good enough singer to be known as a singer.

He's not (well wasn't) a bad enough singer to be known as a bass player!

In my opinion, he's an OK bass player, pianist and guitarist, whose songwriting is at best trite and at worst complete drivel, and who has survived for his entire career on a reputation that he never really deserved. Perhaps this should be part of the Emperor's New Clothes thread?

I like Paul McCartney's bass playing, but do I love it? No. His song writing is mediocre at best, especially without the rest of the Beatles, and his bass playing is rhythmically quite interesting, but I can't get wildly excited about it

Half price at £125, happy to let them go for less. Make me an offer!

Just to illustrate my point, there was a thread in Another Place discussing the "classic Rickenbacker" tone on a particular record. Now I would think, given how much everyone goes on about different tones of different basses, that everyone could spot a Rickenbacker in a mix, but it turns out we hear what we expect to hear, and the record in question was recorded with a P bass! Play what you enjoy, without apology.

Emperor's New Clothes? Absolutely. The differences in tone are pretty minute. The differences in feel are there, but are they worth the money? only you can say. In a recorded or live context, nobody will ever hear the difference between a decent Squier Jazz and a genuine '62 Fender, because the difference is tiny. If owning the 62 gets your motor running and you can afford it, go to it and good luck. There's no right or wrong

If anyone is interested to try Kaplans, I've just put a set of Lights on the Marketplace

Hi All,

New set going on ready for the mad rush!! So a nice set of Kaplan LIght strings for sale. I'm a bit obsessive about having fresh stings on my bass, so when they come off there's always plenty of life left in them. I clean strings every time I play, too, so these will do you a good turn! Less than half price. Note the bottom string is a C to suit a bass with an extension. I'm happy to post for cost, or you can pick them up in West Sussex - socially distanced of course

Cheers

Neil

When people ask this question, John Paul Jones is always the first name I think of, but that's because his playing was what grabbed me and made me a bassist all those years ago in the 70s. If you want an example of what the bass player CAN contribute to a band, look no further than Ramble On or The Lemon Song

On decent quality gear it's normally Neoprene. If you're making your own gear, it might be worth getting in touch with the local sailing/canoe/wild swimming club, see if you can pick up a wetsuit or two cheap. Lots of wetsuits these days have a fabric facing on the neoprene, which stops the foam disintegrating or sticking to the finish of the guitar. High performance dinghy sailors also use a thing called Progrip, which comes in varying thicknesses and is also pretty durable and inert

10 hours ago, police squad said:

what makes a great bass

easy

snake oil

BOILED snake oil

Flexocor Original come close, but the Kaplans are much more enjoyable to play than Belcantos, which in my opinion are decent, but unexciting in every way

On 03/02/2021 at 11:29, DaveFry said:

Interesting to see a berimbau mentioned .
We have a large Portuguese community here and a couple of summers back a Capoeira group used to meet in the park at weekends . One guy was playing a berimbau so I asked a Portuguese guitarist friend of mine about it and he explained that it was common to make your own out of driftwood from the Brazilian beach , fencing wire , a coffee tin and pebbles .
The next time I visited him he had made one from a garden cane , a guitar string , a margarine tub ,cable ties , a Kinder egg with rice in for the shaker , a chopstick and a 50pence piece so I had a play on it . Fascinating .

While I was Chairman of my local orchestra, I had a hand in commissioning a concerto for percussion and orchestra from a wonderful guy named Adriano Adewale. One of the vernacular instruments he used was the Berimbau. I loved it and still do