dlloyd

[quote name='rslaing' post='479581' date='May 5 2009, 12:24 AM']Hendrix - innovative different, and talented, but not necessarily a great musician. Big difference. It's also a question of taste. Miles Davis actually said he once wasted a whole afternoon with Hendrix talking about varying aspects of his musicality because Hendrix could not translate his musical attributes in to words or the written detail. Hendrix admitted after this that he wished he had a greater understanding of what he was able to produce so that he could explain himself in a better way instead of having to sing or play his ideas to get the message over in a non playing scenario.[/quote] It's interesting that you brought up Miles Davis. The only quote I've ever found from him about Hendrix is this one, in which he talks about other musicians he considers 'great' despite the fact they can't read... [quote]I first met Jimi when his manager called up and wanted me to introduce him to the way I was playing and putting my music together. Jimi liked what I had done on Kind of Blue and some other stuff and wanted to add more jazz elements to what he was doing. He liked the way Coltrane played with all those other sheets of sound, and he played the guitar in a similar way. Plus, he said that he heard the guitar voicing that I used in the way I played the trumpet. So we started getting together... He was a real nice guy, quiet but intense, and was nothing like people thought he was. He was just the opposite of the wild and crazy image he presented on the stage. When we started getting together and talking about music, I found out that he couldn't read music. Betty (Mabry) had a party for him sometime in 1969 at my house on West 77th. I couldn't be there because I had to be in the studio that night recording, so I left some music for him to read and then we'd talk about it later. (Some people wrote some sh*t that I didn't come to the party for him because I didn't like having a party for a man in my house. That's a lot of bullshit.) When I called back home from the studio to speak to Jimi about the music I had left him, I found out he didn't read music. There are a lot of great musicians who don't read music - black and white - that I have known and respected and played with. So I didn't think less of Jimi because of that. Jimi was just a great, natural musician - self taught. He would pick up things from whoever he was around, and he picked up things quick. Once he heard it he really had it down. We would be talking, and I would be telling him technical sh*t like, "Jimi, you know, when you play the diminished chord..." I would see this lost look come into his face and I would say, "Okay, okay, I forgot." I would just play it for him on the piano or on the horn, and he would get it faster than a m*****f***er. He had a natural ear for hearing music. So I'd play different sh*t for him, show him that way. Or I'd play him a record of mine or Trane's and explain to him what we were doing. The he started incorporating things I told him into his albums. It was great. He influenced me, and I influenced him, and that's the way great music is always made. Everybody showing everybody else something and then moving on from there. But Jimi was also close to hillbilly, country music played by them mountain white people. That's why he had those two English guys in his band, because a lot of white English musicians liked that American hillbilly music. The best he sounded to me was when he had Buddy Miles on drums and Billy Cox on bass. Jimi was playing that Indian kind of sh*t, or he'd play those funny little melodies he doubled up on his guitar. I loved it when he doubled up sh*t like that. He used to play 6/8 all the time when he was with them white English guys and that's what made him sound like a hillbilly to me. Just that concept he was doing with that. But when he started playing with Buddy and Billy in the Band of Gypsys, I think he brought what he was doing all the way out. But the record companies and white people liked him better when he had the white guys in his band, just like a lot of white people like to talk about me when I was doing the nonet thing - the Birth Of The Cool thing, or when I did those other albums with Gil Evans or Bill Evans because they always like to see white people up in black sh*t, so that they can say they had something to do with it. But Jimi Hendrix came from the blues, like me. We understood each other right away because of that. He was a great blues guitarist.[/quote]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479506' date='May 4 2009, 10:44 PM']Who said you can't have fun? Where is that mentioned? And what the hell is wrong with trying to be a good musician (and become a better one) by improving yourself?[/quote] Because you're missing the wood for the trees. Don't get me wrong... I'm probably more obsessed by music theory than any other person on this forum, but there's a point where you have to admit that some of it is entirely unnecessary for most of our purposes. I mean, I've yet to find a use for enigmatic scale, or the petrushka chord, or the neapolitan sixth... it's there if I ever need it, but I've never needed it. They're as relevant to popular music as Klezmer modes or Indian Ragas are to Blues players. Would Django Reinhardt have been a better musician if he had a full understanding of Gamelan? Would Hendrix have been a better musician if he could have read?

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='479385' date='May 4 2009, 09:08 PM']Nah, it's only bass. Play the root, the odd pentatonic fill, show up on time and don't shag the singers missus. You're a pro. Job done.[/quote] Single most intelligent post in this thread. If you're approaching music as a means to 'improve yourself' at the expense of 'having fun', you are getting it dead wrong. Take up bridge or judo or something.

[quote name='Chris V.' post='479426' date='May 4 2009, 09:35 PM']Oops, I made it seem like I would only be doing it so that I could show it off. What I mean is, would it help me get gigs? Let's say if I applied to position in an already pretty well established band (gigs lined up, relatively good fan base), would they hire me over another guy because of my Grade 8? Thanks.[/quote] If I was advertising for a band member and got a phone call from somebody who said he was 'grade 8', it would probably go against them... I'd assume they hadn't played much outside of their bedroom.

[quote name='Chris V.' post='479392' date='May 4 2009, 09:14 PM']Hey guys, A few years ago when I lived in England I had a bass teacher who laid a lot of emphasis on Grades. He pushed quite hard to get me to do them but I kept turning him down because I didn't think I needed them. Now that I'm older and wiser I'm wondering whether I should have taken up on the offer? More precisely I'm wondering if it actually [i]matters[/i]. Does anyone [i]care[/i] if I have a Grade 8, say? I want to be as practical as possible here and not waste my time (and money?) on something no one will ever want to see evidence for. Thanks, Chris[/quote] Are we talking about RGT/Rockschool grades? I can imagine they would be a useful way of measuring progress and structuring practice for a lot of people, but they don't mean anything to anybody else. There's an argument that they're worth UCAS points for a limited number of subjects for college entry, but they're few and far between. You will never, never be asked what grade you are in a real life situation.

[quote name='Eight' post='478439' date='May 3 2009, 07:10 PM']Is it still free? I used to use it and recommend it all the time - then someone came back to me and said they'd started charging a "small" fee for it.[/quote] I downloaded it last a few months ago... it was free then.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='478427' date='May 3 2009, 06:59 PM']So, when that response gets no acknowledgement, but instead is met with the same tired accusations, how else am I supposed to respond other than to deduce that it's some sort of prejudice? I have respect for these people. It's a shame there's very little coming back the other way.[/quote] That's the thing though... it's a dumb argument, and why should you care what Bilbo thinks?

[quote name='rslaing' post='478367' date='May 3 2009, 06:01 PM']So, to cut through all of this crap, can someone tell me the ADVANTAGES of not being able to read music? Because I can't think of any.................and it sounds like your music degree has all the authenticity of a first class honours in knitting. Sorry, but that is how it comes over. If anyone can give me an advantage to not being able to read music, then you might change my mind.[/quote] You might joke, but there are some pretty good 'knitting' (Constructed Textiles) degrees on offer out there.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='478274' date='May 3 2009, 03:16 PM']Personally I didn't go to university to improve my CV, I went because I wanted to learn more about making music. A little unrealistic, you might say, but it was worth it to me. Had I looked at it as a career thing, then as I said above there was lots of formal skills teaching available to me, I just chose to not go down that road.[/quote] Without being judgemental about the course you took, I still find it utterly mind blowing that you can walk away from any university with a first in Music without the ability to read, given that it's not that long ago that the ability to read was a requirement to take O-Level Music.

I currently use Finale Notepad, which is free and fairly easy to use. It certainly has some limitations, so I would appreciate it if anyone who has experience of both could compare them.

Champion Jack Dupree Leadbelly Elmore James Frank Frost Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee Big Joe Williams

[quote name='maxrossell' post='476955' date='May 1 2009, 12:57 PM']Ah aha ha. Very funny. University of Central Lancashire. Joint Honours, Bachelor of Arts in Music & The Creative Arts and Performance Technology. And you can save whatever Mickey Mouse comments I'm sure you have in store, because I'd rather you didn't unwittingly insult the former tutors and now close friends of mine who wrote the course.[/quote] Is that Preston Poly?

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='476906' date='May 1 2009, 12:19 PM']Unfortunately (for those listening to me), I don't get 15 mins a day to regularly practice. I doubt picking up the basics is difficult, especially for a genius like me, but to actually site read, I'd assume it takes some real graft? And no, I don't know where the notes are on the fretboard either![/quote] To sight read, you have to put in [i]some[/i] work... how much obviously depends on the complexity of the piece. I'd imagine you could sight read this already: And if not, you could be reading it within a few seconds.

I find reading pretty handy. I'm not proficient enough to sight read anything particularly complex on bass... I couldn't go and play a reading gig cold... but I find it much quicker to learn music from standard notation than tab.

[quote name='The Funk' post='476557' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:58 PM']One thing I want to do with music that would specifically require me to be able to read proficiently is access a lot of the material in books to do with different aspects of music theory. I do agree with you though. If you don't want to do anything musically that would require you to read music then you'll never need to be able to do it.[/quote] You don't need to read proficiently to access theory, even at an advanced level. You just need enough knowledge to decipher it.

Most of what I used to listen to when I was really into blues has been mentioned... John Lee Hooker apparently has not. You're all grounded. Robert Nighthawk. Furry Lewis. Gus Cannon. Bukka White. Charlie Patton.

[quote name='OldGit' post='474306' date='Apr 28 2009, 04:25 PM']That's about £350 in today's money though... [url="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/historic-inflation-calculator"]http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/historic-inflation-calculator[/url] The early 80s Squiers were only "budget" basses in relation to the Fenders they were cloning. Edit: Dlloyd got there before me .. [/quote] I used this one... [url="http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/"]http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inf...ice-conversion/[/url]

[quote name='Twigman' post='430254' date='Mar 10 2009, 12:20 PM']My Squier JV series precision cost me £149 back in 1984...it still does a blinding job![/quote] That's £360 in todays prices... can that still be thought of as a 'budget' bass?

I vaguely remember it being something to do with playing violin as a kid... although I can't see how that would make it more comfortable.

[quote name='Golchen' post='473579' date='Apr 27 2009, 06:24 PM']Thanks for the advice everyone. I really don't know how you guys work out basslines from recordings, I have a real job picking out the bass, let alone trying to play it. I really struggle with what's going on. Maybe it's because I've spent decades not really listening to bass??[/quote] Play a small section of it over and over again, listening intently to the bassline, and learn to sing it first, then try to play it on the bass. Start with fairly easy stuff. With time the small sections will become larger, the number of times you have to play it over and over again before you learn to sing it will reduce and so will the number of attempts it takes you to get it on the bass. And your accuracy will improve over time. It's the single most effective way of developing your ear. For more complicated tunes, you can use software to slow down and loop sections, to the point that you can even isolate individual notes.

[quote name='Golchen' post='472873' date='Apr 26 2009, 07:28 PM']I never understand this anal thing of having a perfect tab to copy, surely if it pretty much sounds OK then that's good enough for a gig? How many people in a standard audience are going to give a toss?[/quote] Sure, it just comes down to what you define as sounding pretty much okay... the transcription from Bassist just doesn't sound okay to me. If you're learning it as a technical exercise, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (to me) to learn anything other than the correct version.

[quote name='Jase' post='471209' date='Apr 24 2009, 12:50 AM']Part of my problem is discipline, I complain about not understanding any theory (quater note???? )[/quote] You know when you're playing and you're maybe tapping your foot in time with the beat, a lot of the time you'll be counting 1,2,3,4, 1,2,3,4, ... ...you're playing in what's called 'common time' or 4/4 time ('4/4' is read as 'four-four'). Each group of four beats is called a 'bar'. A note that lasts as long as a beat lasts a quarter of a bar (in this particular instance) and is called a 'quarter note'. A quarter note looks like a solid black oval with a stem coming out of it vertically (up or down) A whole note lasts for a whole bar (four beats) in 4/4 and a half note lasts for half a bar (two beats) A whole note looks like a hollow oval without a stem and a half note looks like a hollow oval with a stem. Easy, huh? The logic breaks down a bit when you go into other time signatures, where there are more or less than 4 quarter notes per bar, and/or the beat may not be a quarter note in length, but that's what happens when you try to simplify terminology.

[quote name='Bobo_Grimmer' post='470670' date='Apr 23 2009, 01:18 PM']This is something that's been said before but what do you mean about aiming too high?[/quote] Music theory needs to be learned in a fairly structured way for you to get the most out of it. Some musicians get the idea that they need to learn, say, the modes, and hack away at it without having any real understanding of what they're learning and why it might be useful. Then they give up on it, because it's too much to learn in one go. The LCM have a graded popular music theory syllabus that is fantastic. To understand the material in grade 8 would be a daunting task for a beginner, but if you progress through the grades you'll get there no problem. For instance, for preliminary grade, you have to know what constitutes C major, A natural minor, G major and E natural minor scales, how to construct C, G, Am and Em triads, what a whole, half and quarter note is, and what their respective rests are and what 4/4 time is. If you can build on that, it's easy to understand the extra material that's required for grade 1. And from there you can easily build to grade 2. And eventually you'll be able to build on grade 7 material, such that you understand major, natural minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor, pentatonic major, pentatonic minor, blues, Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Locrian, chromatic, whole tone, Phrygian major, Jazz melodic minor, Lydian dominant, Superlocrian and diminished scales in every key, extended and altered chords and their inversions, odd time signatures, syncopation, fairly advanced harmony, etc. etc. And more to the point, you'll understand why you learned them. [url="http://www.popularmusictheory.org/"]http://www.popularmusictheory.org/[/url]

[quote name='Aussiephoenix' post='470587' date='Apr 23 2009, 12:23 PM']I dont know if I agree with the OP completely...In relation to Theory... I've tried it, I simply cant focus long enough on it to get something useful from it. Bores the crap out of me. What I cant figure out is... why do you put yourself through it? Unless you're aiming to make a living as a bassplayer, I dont see the point.[/quote] Because it's interesting and useful. If you're having difficulty focusing on it, there's a good chance you're aiming too high to begin with. It may be that you need to work on more basic material first.

[quote name='Musky' post='470499' date='Apr 23 2009, 11:24 AM']Personally I use the Amazing Slow Downer for this. It's mac only, but the simple 5 band eq does quite a decent job.[/quote] It's also available for PC