risingson

[quote name='BigRedX' post='481303' date='May 6 2009, 06:39 PM']Has it got to be pointy? If not, how about a Gus G3? [/quote] That bloke who designed those things must have known what that extended horn looked like...

I've always been an advocate of doing it yourself. No point kidding yourself and others into believing you've mistreated your instrument.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='482064' date='May 7 2009, 03:18 PM']But if the slightly elitist attitude and image of Jazz puts people off the genre, its not unreasonable to suggest that some of these people might also be musicians. The point is, in an image focussed world, Jazz does its self no favours.[/quote] I think that actually, people that make assumptions about any genre of music aren't doing themselves any favours. By all means, dislike a type of music, it's a free world, but opinions based on a minority of people are by no means the be all and end all. Jazz has always remained faceless to me. I'm sure there was an image at one stage or another that went with jazz reminiscent of some cliched beatnik wearing a beret and wielding bongos and a joint, but it's a close-minded assumption that all jazz musicians are of this ilk.

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote] True enough, but the original point was that how well valued is jazz in the 21st century. I think IMO that like it or not, 21st century music has everything to do with the consumer market. It's again not something that a lot of musicians like to accept, but it makes up a large factor of the dictation of trends.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481844' date='May 7 2009, 12:29 PM']....to be more focussed on image![/quote] You're kidding? Since the 20's, nay even longer (centuries) music has been associated with image. Anyway, the point was that not about image, rather the accessibility of jazz music to a musician.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481820' date='May 7 2009, 12:15 PM']Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?[/quote] But it WAS once that big. Just not anymore. Music has moved on.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481768' date='May 7 2009, 11:34 AM']Regardless on my personal tastes, I don't think Jazz does itself any favours from an image perspective. I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is! To an outsider looking in, not only is the music pretty inpenetratable, but the image of the elitist jazz musician/listener puts people off. You read it on here all the time. Jazz fans say "I find Popular music doesn't satisfy me anymore". Maybe it doesn't, and there's nothing wrong with that view, but on a web forum it does sound slightly pompous! I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music. Personally, my views on the music are well documented. As a rule, I tend to stay away from music that is mostly popular with other musos. It does nothing for me.[/quote] Disagree with the image and accessibility thing, jazz is only as accessible as you wish it to be. You get the musos, sure, but you'll often find that their credibility is somewhat undermined by their arrogant and misinformed viewpoints. You just need to know how to stand up to them

[quote]unlike the pap that passes for rock these days, which is of course, saving the world.[/quote] With the greatest of respect, there is a lot of good music out there nowadays if you were to look hard enough. It's fine sticking to the argument that 'music isn't what it was back in the day' but it just simply isn't true. You need to let music evolve sometime, otherwise we're stuck in a cyclical situation where views such as that simply serves to inhibit new music to come. What I meant was that jazz (which as someone pointed out is far too much of an umbrella term anyway) doesn't serve as much of a huge sector of musical revenue nowadays because it seems to be viewed by most as an institution or an era, like classical. It may not be the most musically endearing news that practicing jazz musicians want to hear, but it's true.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='481380' date='May 6 2009, 08:25 PM']It's a gross simplification for sure, but the fact is that jazz no longer appealed to the masses. Rock and roll was part of the equation, but obviously wasn't the whole story.[/quote] To a lot of people it didn't stop appealing, at least not at that stage. Jazz didn't simply stop existing when Rock and Roll came about. Sure, rock became far more popular, but it still had it's place amongst the musos and social elite, and in the forms of Frank Sinatra, for example.

[quote]But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz[/quote] That's the biggest mistake of the whole quote. I wouldn't like to think the amounts of bands that have been influenced by jazz, it would hurt my head... somewhere out there Donald Fagan and Walter Becker's ears are respectively burning. Jazz nowadays has had it's day in the sun IMO, and in it's true form serves little to no purpose nowadays aside from entertainment value, but Jazz wasn't just some fad that can be tossed into the back of the books of musical history. In fact, essentially all popular music nowadays has it's roots in jazz and blues, the value og jazz as a genre and an entity is not something that someone can put a price on. Parker, Miles, Coltrane were the J.S Bach's of the 21st century, they just had the rotten luck of being around during the advent of drug abuse. They were just as important.

45 minutes would be fair, but if we're using the bigger P.A then a bit longer. We all know by now not to be leisurely with setting up, especially not at weddings where we're working to a timescale.

Paul Turner I loved on all of the George Michael stuff he played on. Randy Hope Taylor is also a favourite. Pino Palladino, Doug Wimbish, and Laurence Cottle all played on Seal's first and second albums respectively, and there's some great bass on those albums.

Never really bought into the whole guitar/midi thing. I think if you wanted to make your guitar sound like a synth, then buy a synth instead. Maybe that's a bit close-minded of me but all the same...

Wow, looks like this topic has deviated a lot from the original question! Poor guy, he only wanted to know what 16th notes were, a couple of the posts seem a tad patronising IMO. In regards to the whole 'American corruption' of semiquaver vs. 16th notes, well actually I fear the Americans might be winning the war on the technical vocab... I know most of the professional musicians and Jazz musicians subscribe to the same lingo nowadays. I actually think it makes more sense.

Thought it might bring a bit of relief!

Carol Kaye may have really pissed on some people's bonfires in the past, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most influential bass players of all time. There was good reason for sound engineers for big film scores wanting Fender electric bass played with a pick on all of their tracks after they heard the likes of 'Mission Impossible'. She has also taught theory to the likes of the Pocarro brothers as well... her musical integrity isn't up for criticism in my book

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAiRfPNQdJY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAiRfPNQdJY[/url]

I love Anthony's playing, but I do not love his blinkered and ultimately short-sighted bitterness. The future of music could be bright if all the 'has-beens' weren't so tied up in believing that some horrific musical apocalypse was just round the corner. [quote]The guy's expressing a personal view and you lot just heap insults!![/quote] It's the sort of view that serves only to damage people's perception of music in the future, and I think direct criticism of his notion of pessimism in that particular article is well-founded. He actually strikes me as incredibly arrogant anyway in interviews.

[quote name='endorka' post='475611' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:44 PM']Tuning fork? Somehow I can't see it :-) Jennifer[/quote] Yeah, like Keith Richards was ever going to use a tuning fork... I should imagine their rehearsals would go something like this; "Mick, should I tune my Telecaster, or take some more cocaine?" Easy answer really I think it's kind of rock and roll to be out of tune really. Just check out a lot of Bowie stuff. I remember an interview on Radio 2 a while ago with Cliff Richard who was complaining that all the Beatles' stuff was out of tune what a moron...

1. Fender Precision 2. Jazz 3. Hofner violin bass. So famous 4. Stingray 5. Rickenbacker

I feel a lot like vomiting uncontrollably! I'm sure it will sound great, but not £2500 great. Also, it looks a lot like it's been hacked into shape by a group of blind monkeys... a bit like Sterling Ball has betrayed the original vision of Musicman really.

Above post = great, love the YB brass band, Bjork and Mr. Scruff especially. I think a lot of older musicians are used to hearing stuff from back when they were first absorbing music, and are sometimes not always willing to accept the new and unfamiliar... or to put it a better way, are less compelled seek out newer music, and therefore can make generalisations such as 'all new music is crap'. I'm not saying that accounts for every older person, I know my Dad is still really open to new music even now, but I do think that it's a relevant point.

[quote name='ednaplate' post='468187' date='Apr 21 2009, 10:29 AM']Excuse my ignorance but what does IEM mean?[/quote] I'm assuming 'in-ear monitors'

I wouldn't drop everything for the POD unless you were particularly enamoured with its sound. In-ear monitoring I reckon would be preferable maybe (I'm about to go down that route). Not cheap though, but I guess you pay for quality most of the time.

[quote name='Josh' post='467935' date='Apr 20 2009, 11:08 PM']Noted . Still, I've had no complaints for just favoring the neck pick up, both my Siggery and MTD deliver a precision tone in spades.[/quote] No offense (I'm sure that MTD sounds great), but I'm actually of the belief that nothing sounds like a P-bass other than a P-bass. No point on putting a striped coat on a lion and telling me it's a tiger sort of thing. Interestingly, I reckon the main reason the likes of Sadowsky and Pensa Suhr in NYC started recreating classic jazz and precisions to their own specs is because most of the time, engineers back in the day would rarely entertain the idea of having anything other than a Fender bass on their records.