risingson

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1328035120' post='1520699'] I don't know and haven't heard Lana Del Ray but a big plus one on listening to Nancy Sinatra - especially the stuff recorded with Lee Hazlewood. [/quote] Nancy Sinatra was amazing and very much of her time. She also had the good fortune to have had some great backing from L.A's finest songwriters and musicians like Lee Hazlewood, which just made her music so great. They say that music is largely cyclical nowadays. That's fine, and musicians should have every right to draw influence from their peers and contemporaries, but there needs to be something groundbreaking or indeed very special for the end product to hold any worth and importance. At the moment there is just too much music getting backing from labels that smacks of just backing sure-winners and derivative acts. This is Lana Del Ray all over. She has an impressive voice, but she's repeating what has already been heard. Music can't hope to move forward with these kinds of artists being sold as seminal and groundbreaking.

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1328026566' post='1520514'] I wasn't comenting on musicality or longevity, just that a lot of people liked the idea that this was something "grass roots" (do you know what I mean by that? like sprung out of no where by the sheer power of the internet and good-looking youthful music fans) and when they found out it wasn't as genuine, they didn't like it as much... They weren't judging the music, they were judging the story [/quote] Yeh, I do get what you mean and the Arctic Monkeys on the surface seemed to be the perfect blueprint for this kind of rise to fame. But the whole grass root thing is totally fabricated. I'm not saying it doesn't apply to some degree, and the power of viral marketing and video footage of new up and comin acts can't be denied, but it is obviously quite dishonest for labels to be suggesting that people like Lana Del Ray owe their discovery due to Youtube popularity or whatever.

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1328025534' post='1520492'] The Artic Monkeys seemed to suffer a bit of the same thing. They were trumpeted as a success of myspace or social networking in general - a "real grass roots" thing. It turned out someone had chucked some money at them, and (at least for the people I know) this seemed to destroy some of that charm. [/quote] The one thing about the Arctic Monkeys is that they were 'of their time'. They had a definite sound and Alex Turner had the lyrics that spoke to large amounts of people right across the board, and their first album will be remembered for a long time because it sold in ridiculous numbers. A cliche perhaps, but they were like the 21st century Oasis, probably with a lot more substance about them. Lana Del ray is just a carbon copy of things done a million times over, without sticking strongly in the public conscience. She's not bad, but there just isn't enough interesting about her for the comparison to hold up.

Music journalism is fadish, it has been for years, and the music business is just a game of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know' nowadays. Frankly it doesn't really matter whose money is behind you. She'd hardly be the first person to have used nepotism to her advantage to make her way to the top and I doubt she'll be the last. All I care about is the end product, which with Lana Del Ray is a resounding 'meh'. She ticks all the right boxes; at first glance she's alternative and a bit jazzy, plus she fits neatly into the 'female solo artist with husky voice' category that is so definitely flavour of the month right now. But let's face it, she's doing nothing new. If I want to listen to Nancy Sinatra, I'd listen to Nancy Sinatra. She hasn't got any lasting power, and I do believe she'll melt away and be forgotten in a year or two unless she does something drastic. And let's face it... Nancy Sinatra had better songs too.

Midnight Star - Midas Touch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeOIvkW4HjE

I actually think I owe quite a lot to Chuck Rainey. I've spent pretty much my whole life listening to him, being inspired by him, both directly as a bass player and by the music that he has contributed to. He's not only been a tremendous musician that enjoy listening to, but he's also been an absolutely huge influence on my development as a bass player. In fact, I would directly credit him for making me a better musician. And as a full time working musician, i.e. someone that makes their money solely from the music I perform, that means that financial aid is quite literally the least I can do for an old man who has sadly been taken ill and is no longer able to play music and make money for himself. I'm very much indebted to him. And there are some truly miserable people on this site.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1327529503' post='1513080'] Ah, but she is. As you have said in your second paragraph. [/quote] I meant technically, cos she ain't.... but you're quite right, there's more to it than that of course.

[quote name='BRANCINI' timestamp='1327506252' post='1512532'] If it pays well, you do what the punters want..agreed, Bit within reason. 99% of covers is OK, thats one thing, but you aint gonna lose out much by there being a few songs that you dont do. If you aint enjoying it, and it aint making you A LOT of dough, why do it ? and that goes for everything. Day job, type of music you play, sexual preferences, whatever... [/quote] If the money's not right I won't do cover gigs, as I have my own original music to be working on and playing out live, but if the money is right then I'll play whatever. I used to be of a similar mindset that I won't play this or that (and I will end up putting my foot down on certain songs that I really have had enough of playing), but largely for me at least it's a means to an end. I don't anticipate I'll be playing covers forever, but for now if there's one or two tunes that are hits with the audiences that I'll hate, I'll just grit my teeth and go to my happy place.

[quote name='BRANCINI' timestamp='1327501132' post='1512398'] By people do you mean Musos or Punters ? i last played it around 1975, by which time I hated it with a venegance. Started playing covers again in the early 90s and was amazed that people still wanted to play it, and wanted to hear it. I have had so much stick over the years cos I wont play it, that I hate it more than ever. all sorts from a singer telling the audience that the guitard hadnt had time to teach me it (Hoho, what a wag) to the usual guitard question, cant you play the solo then - To which I used to reply by playing not just the bass part, but a version the guitar solo on me Bass as well. Glad I dont play rock covers these days, theres just so much that was good in its day, but is past its best, that I hate.and everybody seems to want to do. [/quote] 'Musos' want to play the music 99% of people don't want to hear, the punters will want to hear the 99% of repertoire that your band don't want to play. You do what you get paid to do in a covers band, and if you can derive some sort of enjoyment from doing it then you should. I hate the song, but it only lasts for 3 or 4 minutes. A 9 till 5 job lasts from 9 to 5, and I know which one I'd prefer to do.

[quote name='Monckyman' timestamp='1327498280' post='1512304'] Bully for them, the song is utter drivel dadrock posturing hoary old bollocks. I`m constantly amazed that bands seem to think they have to play it. It`s 42 years old ffs. Best play something more modern sounding like "The Seige of Mafeking" [/quote] People absolutely love it unfortunately.

I never get these kinds of arguments. The reason companies that do well exist is because there is demand for their product, so the people who buy the product obviously think said product is worth it. There's nothing wrong with having faith in a company that provides good quality products. Brands that fail to provide quality of service and quality of product deserve to fail as businesses, that I take issue with. But I don't think Fodera falls under this category. They're incredibly specialist, and if people want to invest in a bass from Fodera, I don't see an issue. Don't buy one if you're loosing sleep over it, it can't possibly be simpler.

I must admit, the footage I've seen of her she's by no means great. But as part of a larger group though she obviously fits in and has a driving influence within Beyonce's band. Being a musician in those kinds of situations has much more to do with just being able to be a wizard on your instrument. It's about the sum of the parts and if you're MD'ing, your ability to lead. She also visually looks the part as well.

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1327443768' post='1511468'] Is it true that although the scales themselves are the same irrespective of instrument, there are some fingerings that work better on one instrument than another? EG classical guitar scales often are organised to that they can be played "in position", which means the player can find a bass note and a melody note within reach, whereas the strictly 3 notes per string scales the rock widdlers use require at least one position shift and cover 2 octaves and a fourth. Does a bass player use "stretch fingering" on the lower frets to play a 3-note-per string scale? I think you'd need big hands to do that. So wouldn't the question be about fingerings suitable for basses being not necessarily the same fingerings you'd use on a guitar? [/quote] The space in between frets on the bass guitar does mean that beginners learning scales will be subject to an unnatural amount of stretching in the hand, but initially this should be compensated by choosing to learn finger-per-fret patterns higher up the neck, say on the 8th fret of your E string (C) to avoid wrist pain and then to creep down the neck as the hand begins to adapt. I find that position playing from both bass and guitar are easily transferrable as concepts, but the approach to touch with each instrument should be compensated for with good technique. I would argue there are more subtleties dynamically to be had from playing electric guitar than bass, depending on what music you're playing. But bass and guitar's close relation to each other means that the underlying concepts of position playing remain very similar, until you run up against the major 3rd interval that gets thrown up with the G and the B on guitar.

Russell Howard Paddy McGuinness The Beautiful South (Alison asked to sing with us but we were totally spent, bizarre evening) Prince Andrew (I didn't know who he was and consequently didn't greet him with any sort of royal address) Toploader I've been in the presence of some incredibly famous Swedish people during my time in Scandinavia but have had no idea who they were. Probably quite a few footballers and a variety of other C-listers to add to the list!

[quote name='Nate Caplan' timestamp='1327414749' post='1510815'] i thought so. feel free to back me up on you tube. thanks for clearing that up. [/quote] I would say a better idea was to never be drawn into commenting on anything on Youtube. Far too many people who like to think they're some kind of authority on subject 'X', despite having literally no idea what they are talking about. You're never ignorant for asking questions.

My band's music is fairly progressive I guess, but not in a cheesy kind of way, kind of in a early Genesis/Supertramp kind of way, with a healthy mixture of electronic and more modern influence. The style of music I love to play though is R&B, Soul and Hip-Hop and some Jazz as well.

I didn't read the comments, but a scale is a scale. You play a C major scale on a bass, it'll be musically identical to playing a C major scale on a guitar. The only difference between the two instruments is the facility to play much lower notes on a 4 string electric (a low E on electric bass is one octave lower than a low E on a guitar), as well as each instrument's tonal characteristics. Disregard any misinformation about scales being different on either instrument, it simply isn't true.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1327334316' post='1509479'] went once for the day... never again! [/quote] Ahh, you got to know Liverpool intimately in a day did you? Totally ignore this advice and get to Liverpool if you can. It is a brilliant city with so much to see and do. Live music, great shopping, some brilliant hotels and of course the home of the world's most influential and famous band. Manchester is just a trip across the M62 and is also another great city to see... but if you can only see one I'd strongly advise Liverpool. edit - I see the last time you were in Liverpool was a while back... the cityscape has changed dramatically, the restaurants and live music is worth coming for alone, but there really is a wealth of stuff for you to do!

Can't you dial back the treble on the preamp? I like (love) the sounds of Stingrays but I hate the sound of them with the treble on them ramped up, it gets really clicky. If ever get round to owning one I'd probably string it with flats to take the edge off the aggressiveness a little.

Forgot to mention I saw you guys with my girlfriend a bit before Christmas, we came to see you after a meal. Sounded good, nice and tight. I'll try and make it down again soon.

For those who are interested, Christian McBride has just received his new Fodera as well, to be seen here: http://www.fodera.com/Main/NewBornDetails.aspx?FeaturedItemID=315

I wouldn't necessarily describe it as 'fat', but my Lakland Daryl Jones 4 is very 'forward' and well defined, not to mention being light too. It can growl as well. I'd recommend it if you're a fan of Jazz basses.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1327195143' post='1507806'] i owned a american deluxe fender jazz 5 and i own a Overwater jazz 5. The overwater is only worse because its not as good looking (the fender had a transparent crimson red finish and a maple neck ) At everything else it is far better and that makes it better for gigs as it doesnt give me anything to worry about. My favourite jazz bass is my tokai though, as it does an amazing set of sounds and looks very cool. Havn't found any jazz bass i like more since i bought it. [/quote] Funny, only today were my band complaining about me selling my Fender Jazz bass. I tried explaining to them that it played like a dog and also was starting to sound like one (figuratively speaking), and that my Lakland Darryl Jones 4 literally murders it on all accounts.

[quote name='geoffbassist' timestamp='1327179757' post='1507610'] Risingson you are so right. Where's the x factor band? At least Strictly has a band. This is a great thread. Im loving the music! [/quote] I know! You tune into American Idol, you at least get to watch Ricky Minor and the house band rip it up a little. Likewise with the BBC stuff, they're good with the live musicians a lot of the time. [quote name='Faithless' timestamp='1327180305' post='1507629'] Well, what I'm trying to say, is that I'm wondering why most of big artists stick with programmed/synthetic stuff when making their [i]studio [/i]stuff - CD's, Singles, etc. I know it must be down to money and time (good players are busy, and it's hard to get them together in one place for a record, of course) to a certain extent, but maybe this is something to do with the audience they're selling to - programmed stuff has pretty much taken over the 'studio' music (most of the pop stuff we hear on radio), so maybe listeners are more used to that, rather live-sound based music? I'm just guessing, but I'm not keen at all on this stuff, which probably relates to music-production, so I'd be really interested to hear from guys, who may know more about this.. best- Laimis [/quote] I think you answered your own question with the money and time thing. It's very much a production line ideal. Being able to roll out major top 40 hits with just a few people on a track. Of course the production line thing isn't anything new - it's been a staple part of the music business for years and indeed has completely characterised certain label's sound as we know it (Motown being the classic example), but of course the way we make music today is totally different from how it was made 40 years ago, and has been facilitated by the advent of technology that has on the one hand made making music incredibly affordable and easy, but on the other hand has partially drowned out the need for the human touch. All of this combined with the fact that major labels aren't taking risks on stuff anymore, and why would you in the current climate? It's depressing but true.