Deanol

Master up full and adjust gain to give the volume you want is a pretty standard way of getting a clean tone for guitar amps. As someone said upthread it bypasses the master volume. A master volume simply sends some of the power amp output signal to ground, passing the rest to the speakers (yes, I know they actuall pass it to the output transformer, but the net effect is still to reduce the amount of signal sent to the speakers). So turning up the master volume to max sends all of the output signal to the speaker. So adjusting the gain (or pre-amp volume as it should be called) will simply send more or less signal to the power amp. It means that the gain control adjusts the amount of distortion and the volume of the amp. If the master volume was lower, the gain would have to be turned up to get the volume needed, but it may also introduce some distortion into the signal. With the MV up full, the full headroom of the amp is being used which means the signal can be kept free of distortion. Well, almost free of distortion. With a valve amp there is always some distortion, but it will probably be so low it can't be heard. The lower the wattage of the amp, the more you have to turn up the gain to get the volume you want, and the more distortion you get. It is virtually impossible to get a really loud, really clean tone from a small wattage amp. That's why people who want loud and clean go for big wattage Fenders (100W Twins and the like) as they have high headroom. Guitar amps are not bass amp. They might work along similar principles, but they are built with different aims in mind, and are voiced differently. When I played in bands, I used to use a non-master volume AC30. In eeffect it was like having a mster volume turned up full. To get it clean was easy, just adjust the gain to get the volume you wanted. To get it to overdrive (which is what we all wanted to do!!) you needed to turn the gain up to start it distorting, but that was loud - really, really loud!

Wht doesn't the first number equal the sum of the remaining numbers? Is there a missing state? For the record, mine is 0-0-0-0

I think you are anthropomorphising guitars here. They are well protected and not at risk of damage in a vault. The guitar doesn't care, but if it did I'm sure it would prefer that life to being knocked about in the back of a van. Surely buying instruments as investments isn't a bad thing is it? The only downside is that some people who really want to play an original 64 Strat or Precision but can't afford to will be disappointed, but then again if they want to hang the Mona Lisa up on their bedroom wall, they are going to be disappointed there as well. Why should musical instruments be immune from the economics of supply and demand? I'm no milk-and-water liberal, but even I can see that investing in musical instruments is a much better use for one's money than investing in an arms manufacturer!

The thing with guitars and other stringed instruments, is that they are nice to look at. They are works of art in their own right. That's why there are collectors who aren't players. They simply like the look of them, which is understandable because they are things of beauty. You don't need to be able to play them to appreciate their sheer loveliness. If I won the Euromillions and had a hundred-plus million in the bank, I would buy them just to look at. Not just guitars either, but violins, violas, cello's etc. They just look "right", in a way that a piano or drum kit doesn't. They are sculptures, for want of a better word. That drives the price up of (a) influential instruments such as the first Martin D-28 produced (b) instruments owned by famous people such as "blackie", and (c) vintage instruments. If they didn't look as pretty as they do, the cost of them would be much lower. But because they are art, their prices are influenced in the same way that paintings or sculptures are.

Hello, My wife bought me a lovely, lovely Fret King bass for Christmas. I have been watching the usual free You Tube videos from TalkingBass.net, Scott's Bass Lessons, the one by the "enthusiastic" Australian bloke, etc. However, I am thinking about taking proper face-to-face lessons so that I don't start off with poor technique etc. I think face-to-face might work better for me based on the "Weightwatchers" principle. They weigh you publically each week, so you are motivated by the threat of humiliation. Eat propely and you will be spared your blushes! I think I might be more motivated to practice what a Real TutorTM has told me I need to work on, if I know that I will have to play the pieces in front of him. Right now I want to work on good technique, so I don't need a tutor who is a specialist in a particular genre (i.e. a bass tutor who specialises in jazz or rock). That might come later but if pushed, I think I would like to work on rock and jazz. I have this vague notion of playing in a local theatre orchestra for pantomimes and musicals (we have a fantastic production company up here - Chesterfield Operatic Society. Don't let the name put you off, they are rehearsing "Grease" and "9 To 5" at the moment), so at some point I would need someone who specialises in getting sight-reading up to scratch. I live in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, so can anyone recommend a bass tutor in the Chesterfield/Sheffield area please? Thank you in advance.

I have not! Thanks for that. I didn't know it existed. Everyday is a school day. I have posted my OP in the Tutors Available forum.

Yes, and I believe that playing using the Locrian mode is still a capital offence, for which you will be hanged until dead. Although we haven't yet managed to catch Steve Vai and bring him to trial.

Hello, My wife bought me a lovely, lovely Fret King bass for Christmas. I have been watching the usual free You Tube videos from TalkingBass.net, Scott's Bass Lessons, the one by the "enthusiastic" Australian bloke, etc. However, I am thinking about taking proper face-to-face lessons so that I don't start off with poor technique etc. I think face-to-face might work better for me based on the "Weightwatchers" principle. They weigh you publically each week, so you are motivated by the threat of humiliation. Eat propely and you will be spared your blushes! I think I might be more motivated to practice what a Real TutorTM has told me I need to work on, if I know that I will have to play the pieces in front of him. Right now I want to work on good technique, so I don't need a tutor who is a specialist in a particular genre (i.e. a bass tutor who specialises in jazz or rock). That might come later but if pushed, I think I would like to work on rock and jazz. I have this vague notion of playing in a local theatre orchestra for pantomimes and musicals (we have a fantastic production company up here - Chesterfield Operatic Society. Don't let the name put you off, they are rehearsing "Grease" and "9 To 5" at the moment), so at some point I would need someone who specialises in getting sight-reading up to scratch. I live in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, so can anyone recommend a bass tutor in the Chesterfield/Sheffield area please? Thank you in advance.

I believe sir you have secretly married my wife. Have no worries, you can keep her!

This! You explained the concept properly,, whereas I failed miserably. I am playing using the bass score I found here... Free Bass Transcriptions - Daydream Believer (PDF) As you can see the last two bars of the chorus (where the A - A descending run is) are played over A major and D major. The last but one bar (the A major) probably does have a Dorian feel, but it only lasts one bar. Anyway, it's a nice little tune and knowing where the scale pattern falls under my fingers, means I can more easily play the run.

If I remember correctly, they ended up naming that ship HMS Sir David Attenborough. As bass players therefore we should be given the opportunity to use our "national treasures", so I give you HMS Bootsy Collins!

Quite right. Forget HMS Ark Royal, The QE2 and HMS Vanguard. We should have Ship 1, Ship 2, The Red Ship and so on.

I'm not keen on naming guitars, unless there is a really good story to them, like Lucille.

Some people just don't like wealthy people. Whatever a wealthy person does will be wrong, just because of their wealth.

Blood, sweat and tears. And teeth.

Fair one (although I would have sympathy if it was his Mrs giving him grief about the state of the back bedroom!).

I would have thought that any songs Ronnie Wood wrote would have been sold at commercial rates to others (he has his own music company separate from The Stones), or to the Stones, where it got renamed as a Jagger/Richards composition. I suspect RW is a canny enough businessman to get the best deal for himself. I remember Albert King complaining that SRV et al ripped off all his licks (which was true, and t'was ever thus in blues) but as was said upthread you can't copyright a lick or a riff, no matter how famous it becomes. It is only the lyrics and melody that are protected by copyright, so only those people who write the lyrics and the melody get songwriter credits unless stated in any contracts. I don't really have much sympathy for Andy Summers because he signed the contract that set out the financial split with the other Police members. If he was confident that his riffs would be the making of their songs, he should have insisted on getting co-writing credits on any songs he contributed riffs to, and got that put into the contract. Neither do I have any sympathy with Bill Wyman for the same reasons. I guess the moral of the story is to ensure when you join a band you have contracts that set out how the profits are divided up. We work in the music BUSINESS, not the MUSIC business.

Is there a point to DG's clear-out? Clapton auctioned much of his gear off to raise funds for his Crossroads Charity in Antigua. Is DG supporting a charity with his auction, or has his Mrs told him to clear out the spare bedroom of "all that rubbish you never play", much like my mrs did recently (I just moved it all into a different room - Hah!).

I don't think it is really. The whole tune is in G. The line descending from A to A is just a fill in the last two bars of the chorus. If it were a Dorian mode tune, I would expect the chords to be based around Am but they aren't, they are based around G major. It's just a 2-bar fill that happens to run down the G major scale that starts and ends with A.

As I am beginning with this "bigger guitar but with two missing strings" jobbie, I worked on something stratightfoward - the bassline to Daydream Believer by The Monkees. It's in G and the last two bars of the chorus descends thus A, G, F#, E, D, C, B, A. Which is a descending G Major scale, that just starts and finishes on A. What's not to like?

I'm not wanting to measure artistic merit in ounces at all. I want to know what your definition of "artistic merit" is. I asked you before (although instead of "artistic merit" you said "greatness") but you declined to answer. What you said was... Again, why should a musicologist define what is "significant"? You have now used three terms and not defined them... Artistic merit Greatness Significance How are these things defined when we discuss music? Again, the argument from incredulity - "I can't believe that you don't agree with me especially as we are on a music website!" - that is no argument. This is a music website, and I disagree with you that some niche genre of music, as dictated by some academic musicologist, defines what is artistically meritorious. Why don't you set out what is "artistic merit", "greatness", or "significant" in music?

I don't suppose anyone on here will buy it, but then again we are not the target market. Perhaps the target market who DO buy it might enjoy it and think it credible. My question, and it has yet to be answered, is why do some feel that just because something sells in large numbers it automatically has less artistic merit?

Why do they have more significance than the charts? Why are blockbusters slated as not being "worthy"? Why should a musicologist define what is and what is good music? Why can't sheer numbers of sales and listeners and gig-goers add their own claim to defining significance?

Arguably they are! They have brought pleasure and happiness to millions of people around the world. What definition of "greatest" are you using?

Sorry but this is simply wrong. 1) Punk didn't stop extended live songs. They just didn't play them themselves. They didn't stop long solos in other genres. 2) The 3 minute song wasn't invented by punk! Pop songs in the 50's and 60's all had 3 minute limits due to radio airplay demanding 3 minute songs as that was the amount of time a listener would stick with a song they didn't like before switching to another station! Punk was fine, a good genre, but let's not pretend it was anything except another genre. It didn't have magical superpowers to influence any other genres. Any influence it did have was simply because the bands in the other genres liked punk and wanted to incorporate some of its elements in their own music. It wasn't forced at all.