risingson

[quote name='jakesbass' timestamp='1317420357' post='1390699'] I couldn't disagree more... ! The "energy" you speak of in my view is what I think could possibly be construed as showmanship, as far as I'm concerned this music is cerebral, and I for one love it for that, it is the epitome of considered, crafted, and placed music, the idea that it is somehow sterile because there is a chart on stage is a highly spurious and visually driven adjudication as far as I'm concerned, so I would therefore suggest listening with ears and not eyes to [i]hear [/i]just how great these performances are. [/quote] I was indeed speaking from a musical perspective as opposed to a visual one, but I would certainly say that disengaging as a reader and being sunk into a band situation without having the dots there lends itself to a totally different kind of performance from the performer concerned in many situations. I happen to think all round that Steely Dan can often come across both live and on recording as a sterile band sometimes. I've listened to them from a very young age, and have enjoyed their music for many years but I think that they do lack a more real 'human' touch sometimes... the pitfalls of an imperfect performance perhaps, or a less than perfect approach to production would be have been interesting to hear from time to time. This is not a criticism, more a personal preference, and I feel not in any way spurious on my part.

Hmm all a bit confusing really. I love Lennon but he shouldn't have been allowed to play bass on stuff, he was bloody awful, not a patch on Macca or Harrison. I would still guess 'Birthday' was the Fender VI but I'd be interested to hear otherwise.

Aww Beatles banter and I missed out! I've also seen it repeatedly stated that it was in fact George who played a Fender VI on 'Birthday', listening to the track I'm pretty convinced that's what it is. But I know Macca was using his freebie Rick around this time also. EDIT: Just found this if it is at all helpful in deciphering what's what... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZeTCQtR0Cw&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL0F18C934AEC7BF42

[quote name='jakesbass' timestamp='1317415986' post='1390637'] I can't see what the difference is?? If you can play as well from a chart as from memory then what on earth is wrong with having a chart there? [/quote] I think it takes a lot of energy out of the performance, although with the greatest of respect to both Walter and Donald, I do believe that this is something they do lack live anyway (don't kill me Pete! I love 'em all the same). I don't expect Tom Barney to be jumping around/pogo-ing or anything but I dunno... comes across as very sterile in a live environment, to me at least.

Yes, I'm afraid so. It's Fender moving into every sector of the market they can with no regard for the quality of their product.

Haven't played the bass but have played their Strat equivalent like dlloyd in Costco. It was piss poor, you'd be better off looking for something else as I think the quality of these particular instruments is actually an insult to even a novice.

The short and tall of it is that if they're being unreasonable by telling you to turn down (when you're operating at a reasonable level) then they shouldn't even be putting on live music in the first place and they are undeserving of having you as live entertainment. Look elsewhere for gigs.

The 5 string is the obvious move (I'm not saying get one, just saying it would be easy given your situation). Tuning down for the kind of music you describe though is generally seen as the best move, I believe DR do a set of strings catering exclusively for lower tunings that are meant to be excellent. The octaver I always felt was an effect rather than a substitute for extended range/drop tuning. I'm in no doubt that it would work with some practice, but I think downtuning adds to the general heaviness that your kind of music would require. I hate doing it personally but hey ho.

Sounds like more music journalism attempting to sanctify a genre by outlining the reasons why the figurehead band of said genre had nothing to do anything. The lines drawn in the sand are far too vague for this particular writer to have any sort of authority on the matter. If the majority of people refer to it as 'grunge' then the likelihood is that that will be the category you'll find it under at your local music store. For the rest of us, it's just good music.

I've just noticed this topic, don't fancy reading all six pages but here is my opinion on Sandbergs... ... they're great. Wanted to dislike them at first (don't know why, I'm like that at times), but ended up loving all the ones I've tried. Really well made, uncomplicated but very usable instruments and they offer serious bang for your buck. I think if I had a bit more money I would shell out for a Sadowsky Metro which I think is a slightly superior instrument in a lot of respects but I would have no hesitation in buying a Sandberg California at all. I've played the JJ's, JM's, PM's, 4 and 5's, fretted and fretless and haven't come across one that hasn't impressed me. Here endeth my opinion

Lessons available, just message me and you'll get an instant response.

[quote name='Low End Bee' post='1373045' date='Sep 14 2011, 11:40 AM']As long as it's played through an Ampeg SVT toob head and two 8x10s. Otherwise it's worthless and you should be ashamed of yourselves.[/quote] Absolutely. Don't forget your P-Bass. By the way, this isn't a thread discussing which is more important to you, either 'bass' or 'music', it really is much simpler than that! It doesn't matter which one you like more. If we were going to discuss which one was more important then that would be contentious. And there's nothing contentious about this thread, that is the beauty of it...

Yeh, but think of what you could be doing instead of playing, that's what I always think. For your passion to be your job is an incredible thing, don't you think?

I thought we could have a post that everyone unanimously agrees on. Thoughts/opinions welcome, as long as they don't conflict with my own.

DC, I think it's a little unfair that you're catching so much flak for holding an opinion that is just [u]your[/u] opinion. But I'm 22 years old and have never felt like I could listen to just one type of music, so I listen to everything really, and I do mean everything. I try and keep an open mind to all kinds of music, old and new, as I think that whilst I'll never be a really big Elvis fan for example, there's no denying the fact that he left an indelible mark on popular music. I understand not everyone is like this, but I would always push for a person to keep an open mind! That's all It's kind of funny how we ended up talking about this from a topic that is seemingly unrelated but actually, these are the times I really enjoy the forum. Talking about music IMO is much, much more interesting than talking about which bass sounds better or why you shouldn't stack a 4x10 on a 15" cab etc.

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1371150' date='Sep 12 2011, 09:54 PM']I would say that being a talented and skilled composer/writer is far more important. If you don't have any good music to play then it doesn't matter how fantastic your gear or technique is.[/quote] I include composition under the same banner when talking about musicianship.

[quote name='derrenleepoole' post='1370913' date='Sep 12 2011, 07:07 PM']The same arguements can be applied to a car purchase. My car is horrible. But, it does everything it needs to and more. So why bother upgrading? We all know the answer to that one. Because we can.[/quote] Absolutely man, in fact I made the same comparison in my first post. I do understand the desire to upgrade, and of course buying a new instrument is a shedload of fun too. [quote name='dc2009' post='1370908' date='Sep 12 2011, 07:04 PM']She was a successful writer for many years before writing for herself. In my book, that makes her musically talented. If the Motown guys were 'talented' then they might have written songs that didn't all sound like each other, and I might actually like some of it. IMO they were boring musicians and producers and you'd have to pay me to listen to said dross. As for standing the test of time, I can honestly say you're the first person I've encountered under 30 years of age who is a Motown fan, the lions share of Motown listeners are people who grew up with it. I'd argue it really hasn't stood the test of time, because so few young people these days choose to listen to it. As for saying preferences aside, it sounds brilliant, that really isn't preferences aside, as I think it sounds terrible. I can think of several people, in contrast, who put lady gaga on their playlist, and no Motown, and IMO, she sounds a lot better. As for saying a million and one people could do what she does, so could all of the Motown writers be classed as the same. I'm sure plenty of people were skilled enough musicians, and would rather have been pro musos than factory workers or unemployed. To draw it all together, those guys were using the best they had available to them, just as miss gaga does now. They were also both enormously popular in their own right, not caring too much because in the end, it's all going to sound very similar on that LP through that gramophone. I don't see anything wrong with using the best equipment available to you, or with writing music that you know will sell fantastically well, and be very popular.[/quote] With the greatest of respect then, you can't have spoken to many people under the age of 30. I regularly play cover gigs at bars catering almost exclusively for those under 30 where we play out the likes of Marvin Gaye, The Four Tops, The Temptations, The Supremes, Smokey Robinson etc. etc. and response is always the same: favourable. People singing along word for word, people specifically coming and asking me for more Motown. The popularity has undeniably been carried down to my age group, I can account for it on multiple fronts. And of course the sound has stood the test of time, you only need to listen to Adele or Cee Lo Green's latest release to see how far reaching Motown's influence has been. 50 years on! That's insane longevity. Unparalleled in many respects. There's nothing notable about Lady Gaga in a musical sense. She relies on her quirkiness as the thing that identifies her (not a criticism, in fact a great way of marketing), but it doesn't make you musically talented or unique. You listen to Dusty Springfield or Aretha Franklin sing and you know who you're listening to in the first few bars. Total unbridled talent, whether it's your thing or not. I don't expect we're going to come to any logical conclusions arguing on this subject, so apologies to stray from the OT.

[quote name='dc2009' post='1370805' date='Sep 12 2011, 05:48 PM']motown's soul and humanity is dubious, I swear half the time those terms are use to describe that music it's due to nostalgia and listener's preference, not any factual basis Whilst a lot of modern pop is poor musically, Lady Gaga's stuff is some of the best. Some really well written songs (from a musical standpoint), she's actually a big iron maiden fan etc If a modern band doesn't sound good production wise, I'd be the first to say why not? The audio quality should augment the listener's experience, not hinder it (IMO of course). What do I think sounds good production wise? I like stadium arcadium and for the more extreme stuff, Gorod's Process of a New Decline. These records have had lots of care and money spent on the instruments, recording equipment and production to final sound, something jamerson clearly didn't care for and something (again IMO ofc) I think his music suffers for in comparison to the two I just mentioned.[/quote] I don't think we're going to agree here dc! Lady Gaga is talented in as much as she has managed to amass a small fortune through being musically talentless (she has other talents). I don't think she can sing, I think she's a terribly mediocre writer and I think people are numb to this because there's been far too long a time passed since the last truly exceptional female singer and writer. Her music's production lack depth, and the majority of her output is bereft of substance and quality. And on the Motown front, well of course everything is personal preference, including a person's choice to listen to Lady Gaga. But if you were to tell me that Lady Gaga had the same level of skills that were displayed by the Motown songwriting and arranging team (HDH), producers and performers (both in-house and vocal), then the argument kind of starts to fall apart. Continuing to use the Motown as an example, the production team at Hitsville did their level best to put something together that has ended up really standing the test of time (50 years and counting), in spite of their technological disadvantage in direct comparison to what even the most basic studios run today. All preference aside, it sounds brilliant. Unique too. There's nothing unique about Lady Gaga, a million and one people could do what she does, providing they had the money behind them, leading me to think the comparison between the two pretty redundant.

[quote name='derrenleepoole' post='1370762' date='Sep 12 2011, 05:06 PM']I'm now in a position where I'm seriously thinking about making an investment in a bass that takes me up to the next level. [b]Even though I'm happy with what I currently have[/b], the decision to do this is three fold: because I want too, and because I've earned it, because I'll appreciate it. I'm glad that it's taken me this long to get here though, as the journey would of been far more expensive if it hadn't [/quote] You have every reason to invest in whatever bass you want, but I don't see the point if you're happy with what you've got. What I've learned in the 10 years playing is that the quest for gear is pretty futile, especially if you're happy with what you've got, regardless of price. This 'step' system of moving up a price-level as you progress as a player is misleading as it would suggest that the level of your progression should somehow dictate what instrument you play. The reality is that it doesn't matter, all manner of players play all kinds of gear.

Gear is nice, but ultimately replaceable. Being a talented, skilled musician is indispensable. It's a no brainer as to which one is more important. I understand why gear is appealing though, in the same way that cars are appealing to me even though I'm never going to be a racing driver. It's not up to anyone else to decide what kind of bass or amp you buy, just as long as the person isn't duping themselves into believing that new gear can somehow supplement talent then I don't see a real problem. There are plenty of people out there who don't use sites like these because they're not interested in talking about gear but are great players who sound great too. [quote name='dc2009' post='1370556' date='Sep 12 2011, 03:27 PM']IMO that was relevant when the bass track you laid down was recorded through a tin can, copied onto a terrible music format and played through a crap hi-fi. These days, where everyone has access to some seriously high quality audio, and many like myself invest hundreds of pounds in precision engineered devices to listen to it through, if the bassist was playing on a rusty stringed piece of crap through a cardboard box amp, with all of the 'feel' in the world, it'd sound like crap and you'd laugh at the record, let alone ever buy it. Therefore I think that statement is completely irrelevant to today's world.[/quote] It depends what you're aiming for though. Not everyone wants to hear cleanliness and evidential proof of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of hardware/software behind a track. Maybe that's why Jamerson's comments are more important than ever in fact, I feel very strongly that popular music has lost its way in this respect. Motown was a production line, but it was a production line with soul and humanity behind it, but the likes of Lady Gaga (IMO I should stress) have bastardised this legacy.

[quote name='Doctor J' post='1369063' date='Sep 11 2011, 07:27 AM']That was very interesting. One in the eye for vintage Fender lovers [/quote] She was doing so well until 9:39.

He's my favourite bass player, just totally awe inspiring. Him and Steve Jordan are a force to be reckoned with when they play together.

Any pictures? Fender did do some interesting sparkly finishes but I can't help feeling this may have been in the later period of the 70's. The brass bridge sounds like a retrofit too, but pics will help clarify the situation. It sounds in principle like a lovely bass.