fingerz

Lol. - It was only a matter of time before some panto gags came along! Thanks guys, I think it's sorted as I had a phone call from a member on here. Will confirm when it's concrete.

Hi, I'm advertising this on behalf of an MD I work for, looking to fix a bass player in Wrexham this Christmas. I don't know many people around that neck of the woods, so thought i'd stick an ad on here. The gig requires you to be a decent reader, professional and punctual. Dates: 6th Dec - 2nd Jan @ £425 per week. If you are interested, then call me or pm me, and I can put you in touch. I'd really appreciate any questions be asked directly as I don't have many answers, just putting this out on behalf of the company running the show. I hope this is of use to somebody on here! Cheers, Jo

Well, there's hundreds obviously but three that I've probably spent the most time in awe of: Stuart Zender Pino Palladino Julian Crampton

Tapping is a great example of using a new found skill for purposes that aren't exactly benificial to our aims as players, but many of us have learnt some tapping chops then thought 'Maybe not for me, but I can impress my mates now!'... This strikes me as exactly the same thing people feel about theory over these pages. That learning it will effect your playing and make you want to show off what you know, and take over from what you feel is musical, or appropriate. I guess it's something in our human nature that brings it on, but once the novelty has worn off you would find more confidence in your instrument through acquired abilities, curiosity and experimenting. To feel like 'I can tap, but I chose not to', relates to a respect for music acquisition that is found in all of us.

[quote name='lojo' post='1018097' date='Nov 9 2010, 08:45 PM']The OP stated "theory" Are we confusing "theory" and "reading" in this debate, I think I have, correct me if I am wrong but although they are connected they are different skills and knowledge?[/quote] I agree. It seems the subject of READING is the focus here for many people, not THEORY as the thread states. Theory is the knowledge of music in a formal sense, reading requires theoretical knowledge but is not theory in itself. Theory is often taught in a "do it this way, the right way" fashion, and not used to enhance your own concept and knowledge. I fail to see how learning theory is negative if you get the opportunity to do so. It's not like it requires you to become all pompous and soul-less in your playing, that's down to the individual right?.. For the record I don't look down on those who know no theory, I find it hard to get my head around the Theory of Theory on here.. if you know what I mean?

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1017781' date='Nov 9 2010, 04:28 PM']I know some people thought this was a pointless thread but it has yielded some interesting and informative stuff.[/quote] For sure

... And I'm a groove player !

[quote name='silddx' post='1017741' date='Nov 9 2010, 04:10 PM']Fair comment Jake. I think a lot of the problems lie in that most people seem to think "really really good" means to be really, really versatile, and hence be able to make a passable living as a professional musician from depping, MDing, teaching, sessions, etc. That sounds like hell to me. Give me my day job any time When I was in my formative years, I just wanted to be in a successful rock band. But not in the way Steve Vai or Billy Sheehan might be, but in the way Alex Lifeson or Geddy are. So I sat for 5-10 hours a day learning rock music by ear, and playing it on the guitar. Read some theory books and got put off by how extraordinarily complicated they made it seem. I think the Garry Hagberg & Howard Roberts Praxis system is excellent though, but it's for guitar and is in notation so it forcedme to read a bit.[/quote] I think it was Ronnie Scott who said 'Ultimately, I just want to sound like myself' - This is a common aim for the bulk of musicians pro or not. Yes being versatile is important (to make a living as a professional musician), but if you don't have an identity in your playing in whatever you do I think it can work against you. The problem with theory is that people think that it will dilute your playing and not give you the tools to express yourself better, it should be used to achieve the latter..

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1017702' date='Nov 9 2010, 03:43 PM']It's an interesting point Pete. The basic idea is that a large amount of the information is contained within a score and it takes rehearsal, a conductor/MD or even a producer to have an overview and express to the band exactly how it should be conveyed. There are many examples of classical conductors working their own interpretations from scores that were written by long dead composers. I guess the point is that the dots mean you can arrive without having spent hours memorising music, but can still apply all the skill and craft that your musicianship will allow making for very complete renditions of music that would otherwise require a large amount of time to learn.[/quote] Yep

[quote name='paul h' post='1017673' date='Nov 9 2010, 03:24 PM']If any one asks me what I just played I normally say. "I have no idea, what did it sound like?". [/quote] lol

What a subject! "Theory versus Groove" as a title, suggests the two concepts work against each other which is very dangerous IMO. I usually draw parallels between speaking and playing - both ways of communicating. Do you need to know how to read and write to speak? No. Do you need to read and write notation to play? No. However, if as a student, you can't play something right and don't understand why it is wrong, then theory will come in very useful. Knowing that there are four beats in the bar (in most of the music we hear and play at least!), crotchets and quavers etc and how they fill those four beats can go a great way to explaining and understanding why a student is out of time. Same with the notes we play. etc etc. If I was playing a groove and wanted to play a fill, if I know what key i'm in, and what notes are available then I am free to come up with my own sound than purely copy something I may have heard. There are many great musicians who don't know any theory in the formal sense, but through hard work and endless playing have a great oral understanding of the instrument and music as a whole. IME curiosity has lead me to enquire more and more about theory as I play and hear more music. I have a friend who studies indian classical music, when I'm like 'what did you just play?!' we are able to have a conversation that leaves me informed, scared and confused! But amazed at how little I know and how it's almost second nature to him because he's put the time in to understand it. What I mean is, most theory will dissolve into musicality if treated the right way anyway. So this hole discussion seems somewhat academic and slightly negative. Theory won't make you any worse. And if you play with theory in mind, not feel, then it will often sound crap anyway (well, not my cup of tea anyway) - it needs to be part of your language, that's the point. If you have options when you play, but don't feel the need to use them all, then you will be playing what you play for the right reasons IMO.

This is impossible to give a straight answer to. There are many factors at work in a cabinet that effect the sound and how the speaker tone gets into the room. One thing that is going to be apparent in this general comparison between 2 vs 1 cabs is the SPREAD of the sound into the room - as there is flexibility to arrange the two cabs in different ways. This is NOT to say that two would be necessarily louder than one.

[quote name='pantherairsoft' post='1003870' date='Oct 28 2010, 03:23 PM']Yeah, my old GB was solid body and sounded amazing, better in fact than the exotic Rumours I tried (which still sound amazing!). My new one will be interesting, as while it has a top, you could argue it wasn't exotic, as really, its rotten (Spalted)…. Maybe the worse the wood, the better the tone! Thats where we've all been going wrong all these years! Make a bass out of your Ikea wardrobe… who knows [/quote] haha! I look forward to seeing more pics of your bass as it develops. It'll no doubt be awesome, and looks fantastic in the pics to date. 6 strings do scare me a bit tho! Good stuff, keep us all up to date!

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1002954' date='Oct 27 2010, 08:13 PM']It's a monster - it's one of the best sounding GBs I've heard. I was talking with Bernie - just goes to show that the none fancy woods can often sound better... the ones that seem to stand out always seem to be the solid colour ones! Having said that, I was around when Bernie strung up your 6 - he passed it me to see what I thought of it. The fundamental notes are very strong and the notes sustain for ages... it's looking good![/quote] Interesting all that. I think (and Bernie would agree) that until the bass is put together, there is no way of being sure how the instrument will sound. It always makes sense to me, however, with solid/non-laminated bodies that the hardware vibrates against the wood of the body, and not a thin laminate on top of it. But I think it can all color the sound in a good way, and there are so many variables outside of that, that it's hard to tell what is contributing to the tone. Both my basses are plain solid bodies and work for me. It's not like there are rules, but it's funny how the solid colour ones have stood out. I always drool over the look of GB's, they look fantastic (specially the ones with fancy tops!!), thanks for the update.

That's an amazing looking bass Mark. I daren't come and play it incase it gives my Jazz a run for its money! Great investment for somebody for sure. That's a very good weight for a 70's Jazz too. Hope all's well with you. Cheers.

Update bump. Cheers

Play some Yamaha's while you're looking... They do some cheaper 5 strings and they don't make crap. One of my students brought his cheap Yamaha round the other night and it blew me away with it's big growl. Defo worth a play..

Wow, those last two (walnut top? four, and 6 string) look stunning. Bernie's basses always look amazing, I regularly stop by for a drool ! Nice.

[quote name='Doddy' post='963440' date='Sep 21 2010, 03:55 PM']Well....as Fender own the name 'Jazz Bass' I'd say that they are a 'proper' Jazz Bass. Everything else is either a copy or an evolution.[/quote] Well said. That's it !!!

I have a Celinder J update 5 as my 5 string. 'J' being the obvious hint here. It is a substantial Ash body, maple neck, 70's pup placement, J type body shape, scratchplate, single coils etc etc.. I love it, and Chris Celinder obviously knows what playing a Jazz is all about. On paper it's everything a Jazz should be. I must say tho, that my Fender Jazz sets such a high standard in terms of sound and feel, I don't know why Fenders sound like they do, but there's definitely that 'thing' that so many manufacturers try to achieve, but many just seem to miss completely. It's amazing and very strange how Fenders sound how they do, but hats off to them, it's no wonder so many manufacturers try to get in on the action..

Well, as far as future collectables go, it's hard to think as there is so much stuff now and it's all so good. I think Alembic, and Fodera will always be sought after and have a very high demand if/when they ever stop producing them, or the company changes direction/ownership. There are so many Jazz type basses around that will only saturate the market and make the original fenders even more sought after by comparison. I think anything a bit different, anyone taking a risk (above names, status, headless designs) will be sought after. Most instruments tho, seem to follow in the purposeful steps of Fender, and I can't seem to imagine them being valuable in time, just reaching a certain point in depreciation and being used for years and years...