mario_buoninfante

I suppose, and I might be totally wrong, because Jazz and Blues are well decoded genres with their rules and structures (to be bent as well) and that makes them good for teaching. I would like to see more courses about other genres, but I suspect that they would be mainly about learning songs rather than studying the theory behind them. Something that is quite valid, don't get me wrong, but I struggle to imagine a 12-20 lessons course on these genres that isn't mainly about learning songs. Don't wanna be that guy, but I'm pretty sure that jazz would prepare you quite well for that

I personally don't know neither the guy nor his band, but it looks like he does that for living

Also, this is generalising quite a lot. I met a lot of people from my area that started playing trumpet, trombone, tuba, etc. just to find job in marching bands, that is still a big deal in a lot of places in Italy. They ended up liking music, but their driving factor was finding a job. Why would it be just aimed at amateurs?

This doesn't really have anything to do with the topic I was addressing: "why there's mainly jazz, blues and funk on SBL". You could be studying on SBL (or anywhere else) even after 10y playing the bass. Actually that's the case for a lot of people afaik. Then, the "online vs in-person" thing is a totally different matter. I would generally prefer the in-person experience as well, but that's not always possible. Also, there are situations where the "student" is mature enough to be able to learn online without needing anybody to check on them (ie the 10y experience thing mentioned above).

For some people playing an instrument is their job, and like with every job, some training might be necessary, one likes it or not. There are things that it's easier to learn when you go at the source, and jazz is the source in a lot of cases. Ska comes from there. It's like studying Latin, you might find it redundant, and for a lot of people it is, but for those interested in studying languages and linguistic is really useful.

I see where you are coming from and I totally respect your opinion, but what I'm saying doesn't have anything to do with tastes. What I meant is that studying these genres is the equivalent of studying grammar at school. That said, like with other things in life, you can happily live and be a successful musician without ever touching them. I was just trying to say this is why these genres are there as courses and others are not. Tons of musicians have studied them but neither like them nor play them, it was simply part of the learning journey. Again though, it's not mandatory.

I agree and disagree at the same time about the diversity thing. Yes, the genres mentioned above are not really there, if not in the form of seminars, workshops or interviews. It is mainly jazz, blues, R&B and funk, but I think that (without wanting to justify anyone) there is a reason behind that, and it's because from an educational point of view these genres can be considered as the foundation. They are the starting point for so many genres and sub-genres such as rock, soul, neo-soul, etc. Again, it is kind of biased I agree, but it is because it's a school after all, and like with other schools a lot of effort is put in the basics (ie Picasso's training allowed him to draw like Rafael, and only after he started breaking the rules and coming up with something totally new).

ok, in this video it says that the FX send, not the return, uses the valves

it seems like the FX loop uses the valves too pic from https://orangeamps.com/products/bass-guitar-amps/terror-bass/

these ones look interesting too https://bartolini.net/product-category/electronics/buffers/

Interesting, but I'm happy with my pickups though. The Barts on my Legend Classic seem pretty good. I still have to try them bypassing the TonePumpJr though.

I suppose that'd be a really interesting and long thread The idea of "new" in music/art is tricky to define. Artists influence each other and are influenced by similar things at similar times. Today's world and its pace make it difficult to stick out for sure, but I do believe there is still new music (new = different, innovative) being made. But, with new, I don't necessarily mean different from anything else in ALL aspects. I don't think that is even an option. Anyway, waiting for that thread to start then

Regardless personal tastes, that are definitely playing a big role here (and that's normal), I thought that with "new music" we meant music released recently. Also, I do believe this is new music in "the other sense" too, as in it's a mix between jazz, afrobeat and hip hop, with a personal approach. I think I should have shared the studio album more than the live. More structured and sonically quite powerful.

Just found this video on YT and quite liked it. It shows how much work goes into it

https://reverb.com/uk/item/64965499-peavey-milestone-iii-2016-electric-blue-left-handed never played one, but they say these are really good for the price range

EDIT: deleting as I posted it on the wrong thread

the whole album is quite good

Thanks for sharing this. Yes the noise gets a little bit in the way, but to be honest I can hear it's a Spector! Maybe I'm convincing myself, but it seems like the timbre is there, it hasn't really lost anything. I'd like to hear what other people think as well though, as I might be biased.

some preamps have a mute switch, for example this is on my Laney Digbeth Pre

Like other people have said, I'd recommend you to experiment with it a little bit. Tuner goes first though. About the other pedals it all depends really, my instinct says: Tuner -> SYB5 -> Overdrive/Dist -> Chorus -> Preamp The reasoning behind that is that I'd considered the SYB5 a "source" more than an effect, something I'd then effect with the other pedals, so it goes first. I'd put the preamp last because in my experience (with totally different pedals though) is better. I treat it as if it's the preamp on a bass amplifier, I put it last unless it has send/returns, at that point something might be connected there. Also preamp outputs can be quite hot, so I'd check if my other pedals would be happy with that. Anything else in the middle is up for discussion.

Yap, after starting this thread I then found something on TalkBass that was interesting, and even something here. The TonePumpJr, the preamp in my bass, doesn't have the trimpot, so I can't really experiment with that. But, I'm quite sure that it wouldn't change my mind. I'm not saying this preamp is not good, it's just that is not my cup of tea since it colours a lot. I think my next step is to bypass it simply using crocodile clips, to at least make sure I like the sound of the pups in passive mode. Then I'll take it from there. At the moment I'm leaning more towards making it passive, rather than replacing the preamp, but we'll see.

Yap, I'm aware of that. But it's an active preamp, the EQ is passive. And I quite like that tbh. For the records I use mine in passive mode all the time.

Nice! Would you happen to have any recording you could share? I'd be really curious to listen to it. In the meanwhile I also discovered that Spector do a passive bass (apart from the entry-level Performer), the MK-5 Pro. I couldn't really find too many sound examples online, but from what I found it sounds really good. Now, I know that has EMG soapbars, while mine has PJ Bartolini, but at least that proved that Spector basses can sound good without an active preamp too.