leftybassman392

Absolutely gorgeous. I'm not normally a huge fan of acoustic basses, but that is just obscene!

[quote name='BurritoBass' post='690208' date='Dec 20 2009, 10:03 PM']I have a 1978 Fender Precision with the lowest action of all my bases and it plays beautifully. I've played a couple of other 70s Fenders which were also really good. Your post may be meant light heartedly but I feel the balance should be redressed.[/quote] I have a '77 Jazz with an excellent action too.

Not to seem obtuse, but I thought this was a thread about Phil Jones amps.

Might it be an idea to move this over to the 'Technique' forum? Just a thought...

Bob Marley - Stir It Up

Boring technical explanation: [i]When put your finger on a string you 'stop' the string at that point. This applies to (amongst others) any stringed instrument that uses a fingerboard/fretboard. {not too sure where the term comes from...anyone?} Multiple stops happen when you stop several strings simultaneously. Specifically, a double stop happens when the player stops two (usually adjacent) strings at (usually) the same point/fret. It is also used to describe any two notes played simultaneously, though strictly speaking this is probably stretching the original definition a little.[/i] Common examples would include a root+fourth below (e.g. 'Smoke on the Water') and root+fifth above (standard power chord - verse riff of 'All the Small Things') Hope this helps

You may want to look at something like Guitar Pro, depending on exactly what it is you're trying to achieve. The sound samples are nothing to write home about, but it's good for scoring and pretty straightforward to use. Currently around £30 - 35 I think. Also +1 for Band in a Box.

I teach weekly at 3 Primary schools, plus an under-12's group on a Saturday morning - a total of around 65 students with an average age of 9. Exactly how you go about it will depend on the individual child, but here are a few general pointers: 1. Keep the theory to a minimum unless the student shows a clear aptitude for it at a very early stage (i.e. within the first couple of weeks), and don't do more than they need for what they are currently playing. 2. Avoid scales for their own sake like the plague! If you really must, then make them i) short and simple; and ii) directly applicable to the work they are doing. 3. Allow the student to develop at their own pace, but don't let things drag. You'll work this out by watching how they tackle the work over the first few weeks 4. Make sure the student has achieved what you've asked before moving on. 5. Keep the lessons focussed - don't start yakking about what it was like when you were growing up or some other trivia (in case it isn't already obvious, kids have a much lower boredom threshold than adults). 6. Bass is an extremely large and cumbersome (not to say physically difficult) instrument for youngsters to get their hands around - make sure that the student can actually hold it well enough to be able to play it (and advise the parent to get a smaller one if necessary). If you don't, then none of the above will matter anyway! 7. Get the student into a regular practice regime (preferably daily) and stick to it. Apart from the obvious reason that it's just a good idea anyway, it makes it easier to spot problems later on - a student that isn't practising can be an indicator of any of a number of problems. Not an exhaustive list but it'll get you started. Above all (as others have hinted), keep it interesting. Later edit - forgot to mention... Plan ahead based on what they're doing now - don't just turn up and say something like 'what are we doing today then...'

Excellent stuff. Unfortunately the first one isn't quite in sync on my laptop so spoiled the fun a little. Ah well, maybe tomorrow...

[quote name='Eight' post='681209' date='Dec 11 2009, 12:18 PM']Just realised my theory above leaves a big question unanswered... if A is the starting point. Then why is the starting point around 435-440Hz!?! So... I did some "research" (i.e. I made this up) and here we go. Once upon a time, Raven (who was more known for his keen mind than his singing ability) fell in love with Canary and sought to draw her affection away from his rival Mockingbird. However, Raven realised he didn't have the vocal chops and was only able to produce one note with any clarity. Frustrated by his own lack of talent, but being a great-thinker, Raven decided to gather around him the best singers available and throw a concert in honor of Canary. Each bird invited to join his chorus was known for their remarkable ability to "know" just which sounds would follow another to make wonderful tunes. The night of the concert, Raven was confident and brash - expecting success at the highest level. However, during the first song it became apparent that something was wrong - all of the chorus disagreed on which pitch to start with and even though they moved in similar intervals, this difference in starting point created a disharmonious racket. But Raven was neither a quitter nor a fool - seeing Canary about to fly away, he stopped the concert and gave harsh instruction to the chorus. He told them all that their reference note for their intervals was to be the only note he could sing - "Awwwww". Using their theory and this new reference note, the chorus produced an aria that filled the world with music... and most importantly of all, seeing his clear musical skill and direction, Canary immediately fell in love with Raven. So there you go, the origins of Concert A and of conductors.[/quote] Whatever you do for a living, you're in the wrong job - unless of course you already work as a fantasy writer! FWIW, here's a suggestion for a serious answer to the 440Hz reference. Again it's mathematical - 440Hz or so (amazingly, even today not everybody uses exactly 440Hz - that's why electronic tuners allow you to adjust the exact pitch slightly) is a more suitable mid-point in the context of the limits of human hearing (approx. 20Hz - 20kHz) than middle C at around 260Hz in Equal Temperament. Also it's an A, which is at the start of the alphabet and hence has more of a commonsense appeal than C:- 5 Octaves down from 440Hz gives approx. 14Hz - just beyond the lower limit of most people's hearing and around the pitch of the lowest notes on a church organ 5 Octaves + a fourth up from 440Hz gives around 19kHz - around the upper limit. If you raise the concert pitch by even a few Hz (a lot more common than you would think) it becomes even more central. If you use C at around 260Hz the numbers are a bit skewed towards the lower end (less space downwards, more space upwards).

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='680221' date='Dec 10 2009, 01:27 PM']I am trying to look this up (saddo that I am) and can't find a definitive answer but it appears that it evolved rather than happened. Early instruments appear to have been variable in pitch but a common phenomenon appears to have been pentatonics (a Chinese discovery originally). Early keyboards would have had all white notes but, as musicians 'discovered' other notes, they added them one at a time calling them sharps or flats etc. Tempered scales came later but I guess noone woke up one day and said 'lets call this easy one C' but it evolved over centuries and across continents to what we call the tempered scale today. All of this is a Western phenomenon and other culltures have different notes/scales etc. In short, it was unintentional.[/quote] Sorry to come into this a little bit late. Equal Temperament is a relatively recent phenomenon, that basically emerged from amongst a series of attempts to resolve an inherent problem with Just Intonation. Although it's origins can be traced back to the late 16th Century, it's use didn't really become universal until the 19th. It is entirely mathematical in structure, starting with a reference pitch of 440Hz (A5 I think) and spreading out in both directions form there according to a formula based on a geometric series (for more on this you may care to check out post #5 in my series on Greek Music [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=59011"]HERE[/url]). Before that, the Western Medieval church held sway in all matters musical (and everything else for that matter). Their theories were basically hand-me-downs from the work of the Ancient Greeks in this area. Since there is nothing in the work of the Greeks that would suggest the use of C as the starting point (indeed the letter C does not even feature in the Greek alphabet, and in any case the notion of a central reference point for notes is slightly at odds with the way the Greeks approached the matter) it is hard to see how it came from there. My suspicion would be that you should look at the Medieval Church for the answer. C certainly appears to have been the accepted standard at the end of the Medieval period, and if it wasn't there at the start doesn't that suggest something? Actually I'd be interested to hear what the Major has to say about it. Hope this helps

Another method that I use and teach is to go diagonally downwards from the 12th fret, as follows: E string, play E F F# G A string, play G# A A# B D string, play C C# D D# G string, play E F F# G D string, play A# B C C# A string, play E F F# G E string, play A# B C C# etc.

My youth - with all my current knowledge intact if that's allowed. Oh, and Kate Beckinsale complete with Underworld outfit [attachment=37785:Kate_Bec...ale___91.jpg]

[quote name='Sibob' post='674210' date='Dec 4 2009, 02:48 PM']Indeed. It could also be considered a bit of an 'chicken-egg' moment. Was music first?, or written theory?. Most would say music was being made by humans before the species could write. So historically, one could argue that all theory is put in place retrospectively to explain what has creatively preceeded it. It would be interesting to know if anything musical has been written theoretically before it has been performed creatively, like some other 'conventional' scientific experiments. Si[/quote] One of the things that came out of my work on the Greek modes was the extent to which music theory was in flux throughout the period, with ideas about harmonic relationships being particularly susceptible to constant revision. This makes me think that throughout the ancient Greek period (by common consent one of the most creative periods in the history of western civilisation), music was first and foremost a performance activity - the only time musical ideas would need to be written down would be so that they could be either recorded for posterity or disseminated more widely from their source (fellow musicians in one's own area would most likely have learned by observation and demonstration in much the same way that folk music of all kinds has been passed on over the centuries). Either way, writing it down it would be a secondary activity. It also helps to bear in mind that a universally accepted notation format was still a long way off. Not exactly an exhaustive analysis I know, but it does give a pointer as to how musical ideas would have developed in ancient times.... and then the Medieval church tried to set it all in stone and nothing much changed for a thousand years! Later edit: Science works in an inherently different way. You observe things that happen and then devise a hypothesis that you think might explain what you've observed; then you devise experiments to test whether your hypothesis works; if your hypothesis passes all the tests, it then becomes a theory. Music, on the other hand, is inspired (quite literally for the Ancient Greeks) by The Muses. Explanation is not part of the creative process.

... and if you flatten the 2nd, 3rd, 6th AND 7th you get a Phrygian scale.

[quote name='jude_b' post='665689' date='Nov 25 2009, 10:34 PM']I think, for now, I'm going to have to agree with the sentiments of the original post title. I'm afraid that when I've read the above posts, I still just convert everything into major/minor scales with appropriate adjustments. When I'm playing/writing I also just think in terms of conventional scales or chords. I understand what modes are, I just haven't found them to be useful in practice - perhaps that's because I came to bass from piano, on which chords and harmonic relationships are arguably easier to visualise (at least that's what's implied by the use of pictures of the keyboard in standard books on harmony). Perhaps I need to look into modes a bit more carefully before dismissing them completely - they clearly are of use to other people and it's always useful to consider alternative approaches. I'm still surprised, however, that modes are introduced so early in popular guitar/bass books to, what I feel, is the detriment of conventional theory. I seem to remember having many conversations at cross purposes with guitarists who quoted modes without any real knowledge of the musical theory/notation that the vast majority of other musicians use! All the best.[/quote] It's a common problem I fear - IME guitarists are often taught how to play patterns rather than how to read music. They then get caught up in the idea that because the patterns they have learnt can be interpreted as modal scales, that is what they have learnt (when in fact all they have learnt is how to play the same (usually Major) scale in a number of different places). It doesn't mean that teaching patterns is wrong - sometimes it's the best way to do it with the student sat in front of you - it just means that they shouldn't be encouraged to believe something about their playing that isn't true.... and that's down to tutors (such as myself and some of the other contributors on this thread) to do our job properly.

Errr.... thanks (I think ). However I am a little surprised that reading my articles gave you the impression that scale structures are a combination of convention and fashion, much less that I was suggesting such a conclusion. To be sure, I did leave out a lot of detail about how notions of intervallic relationships developed, both during the Ancient Greek period and in more recent times (specifically how the current Equal Temperament system evolved from Just Intonation), but one of the main thrusts of the series has been to bring out the evolutionary nature of Western scale theory, with developments appearing out of a perceived need or else a perceived limitation in the status quo. I'm not so sure that convention - much less fashion - have had a great deal to do with it. In order to bring this out fully, however, I would have needed to go into a great deal more detail. In the event I decided that a broader picture would better suit the needs of those most likely to be reading it. If that approach served to confuse anybody, then I apologise. As to modes in the modern sense, I disagree with the claim that they are arcane. Not only are modal approaches adopted by musicians working in many genres; they form part of the exam sequence in both RockSchool and RGT syllabi, and can be an invaluable analytical tool. In order to obtain full benefit of these qualities however, one needs to have a sound grasp of the elements of music theory (as several posters on this thread have been at pains to point out). Teaching a guitar or bass student how to play the 7 patterns of the Major Scale (for example) is not the same as teaching them how to think modally. I suspect that most of the problems encountered in the teaching and learning of modes stem from a degree of confusion over this fact (on the part of both students and tutors).

[quote name='jude_b' post='660575' date='Nov 20 2009, 09:53 PM']"The root is King,The 5th is Queen, and the 3rd is the Jack" I like that too - sounds like Bob Dylan. I've never really got my head around modes, despite covering them in theory, they always seemed a bit unnecessary given a knowledge of major, minor and blues scales. I've just misspent some money on a bass magazine on a journey home from London and the theory part in the back on modes makes general relativity look like a breeze - really horrible. The names are enough to put you off alone. From memory, did modes predate the development of major/minor scales - I seem to remember them being used in Medieval plainsong or something? Can we consign them to history? They always seem to be used in guitar magazines and (I think) tend to confuse the issue. I can't remember Ray Brown directly using modes in his book on bass method. I'm self taught on bass, so maybe this is a gap in my knowledge - can anyone who's been trained with modes explain whether/how they are helpful? (Sorry for going a little off topic)[/quote] Without wishing to sound overly pompous & boring may I politely suggest you have a look at my article series on Ancient Greek music in the pinned thread on this forum, which will give you a historical perspective (and maybe a few other bits as well...)