LawrenceH

[quote name='Doddy' post='1242777' date='May 24 2011, 11:44 AM']When I'm reading,I'm not thinking A,B,C# or whatever.If I see a D (middle line) written,I know I can play it in 3 different positions (on a 4 string) depending on which is easiest at the time.I'm not thinking 'that's a D,so I can play that here'-I'm just seeing the note and playing it. That's why you really have to know the fingerboard aswell.[/quote] This is an interesting conceptualisation, which for me encapsulates some of the inherent complexities in trying to self-analyse brain processes such as music 'theory'. At the synaptic level your brain has formed connections equating D written, with D the note with D on a fretboard. You don't consciously articulate those connections but they're there, as Bilbo's explanation sort of illustrates. I get frustrated by some of the back and forth over music theory because most of the argument stems from a purely semantic disagreement over what music theory is and isn't. A lot of classical musical theory was formally defined 'after the fact', the rules being arrived at by a gradual evolution led by the ear of composers/musicians, and enacted through composition and performance. Formal theory in that sense is completely and inherently non-essential, except for those genres where abstracted theory led musical development, eg the transition from late romantic to 20th century stuff like serialism and synthetic scales. Music that some would argue 'sounds' soulless and mechanical, but that's sort of incidental. Is music theory useful? Of course, it's a learning tool. Is it essential? Not with respect to formal theory based around abstraction of a sound, unless you prefer 'listening' to your music in written form. So why is there always this debate? Because some people equate formal music theory with ear training. Incorrectly, I'd say. Ear training is completely essential for understanding what you play and being able to compose/improvise in any style. Theory can help with ear training, a lot, but its definitely not absolutely necessary - there are plenty of 'non-musicians' who enjoy music, after all, and what's more can easily spot a particular genre and spot when something goes wrong/out of step with that genre. If any level of formal music theory was necessary for aural understanding then that wouldn't be possible. I'd go so far as to say that even when using musical theory to learn we're still led by the ears - music theory allows us to put convenient labels on what our ears [i]already know[/i] sounds right or wrong. Whether that's useful to you is probably down to how well you respond to different types of learning. Probably most people will find it useful, but there are a few who it'll definitely hinder more than it'll help. Reading itself is another issue and I think it's useful that silddx separated it from theory here.

[quote name='JimBobTTD' post='1240244' date='May 22 2011, 12:35 PM']Me![/quote] Me too!

Great thread! But no way would it be Lady Gaga, the Madonna-lite material's sub-average. Prince, if only I had the chops... Beyonce, good musicians and, well, the view from the backline

You should be able to get a decent secondhand Jap precision for that kind of price, no bother. Or those Classic 50s Ps look pretty tasty, and the Classic series (at least the jazzes I've played) are a cut above the standard MIMs.

There's a biiig gap between 'sight-reading fluently' and 'reading a bit'! Likewise with the theory actually. I'm in that gap I'd guess, I read fine enough except syncopated rhythms do my head in written down, similarly I have a good working knowledge of (classical) formal harmony, but my jazz knowledge doesn't really get beyond the basics of tritone subs. I could sit down and analyse something like a Parker/Gillespie piece on the written page, but I'd really struggle to pick the changes by ear as those strings of II-V-Is with subs/key changes are just too much for me. Reading - rarely use it, almost never for bass. Theory - I find it very useful, though mainly as a tool for improving my ear by putting handy labels on types of sounds.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1240750' date='May 22 2011, 08:21 PM']The strap length,for me,makes a bigger difference than playing a random bass.[/quote] I concur - I've ended up sitting because of this, I hate a really low/badly balanced bass, it just destroys my wrist on the lower notes!

[quote name='SidVicious1978' post='1240687' date='May 22 2011, 07:17 PM']i got nitromors how would i layer up with some coats? Sid[/quote] Looks to me like it's been done without proper sealing and grain filling. You need to use a filler to plug the grain followed by sanding flat - you can't rely on the paint alone to flat out as it shrinks over time and would require an impossible thickness at some points.

I don't know...especially if you do go down the twin 2x10s route. Even 5kg can be worthwhile and I've seen a fair few cabs made of really heavy chipboard or even mdf. It wouldn't do any harm to take out a driver and weigh it, work out how much the cab is contributing.

[quote name='crez5150' post='1240094' date='May 22 2011, 10:25 AM']You can get very very similar sound to this with an Akai Deep Impact.... The you have to be quick on the string muting though to get the effect correctly[/quote] I disagree - but depends how close you mean, I guess You'll get a lot closer with something like a Microkorg (and for less dosh too).

Dual analogue oscillators, octave or two apart and sync-ed so that one is a slave? Plus slightly delayed attack phase of the filter envelope to give that slight swell, I think...been ages since I've played with synths so I could be talking out of my a**e but that'd be my starting point, with maybe a slow phaser effect or similar. Unless you've got a handy preset though, I think you'd need a 'proper' synth to get this. I don't know where bass synths are these days, but no way would my old deep impact get anywhere close! Good luck...

Speaking as someone who doesn't really go for this sort of thing, I've had this playing in the background for several tracks now and am finding it very listenable - nicely constructed songs, arrangements and recordings, good job!

[quote name='son of frog' post='1206668' date='Apr 21 2011, 02:56 AM']Is there any preference for long lasting strings that maintain that punchy crisp sound for longer? I will upload a Video or sound demo later today, keep in mind that they were changed about midday friday, so its only been about 5 / 6 days.[/quote] Bit late to the party here but it really sounds to me like you had a duff set here if they went off that quick. I used to use EB hybrids all the time and although they go off quite quick with playing, just left strung up on the bass they stay bright for longer than a week. I've got a set on my 70s RI jazz that I put on a few months ago, but I've hardly played it in that time and the strings (fast-fretted) are still suprisingly zingy, nowhere near dead yet.

Don't worry, mine has so far sounded great through a Markbass F1, crappy Laney rehearsal amp, mediocre Trace boxer, and even passable through a Peavey at a gig where everyone else running through that amp sounded even worse (next to nothing above about 300Hz I think!). I'm sure an SVT wouldn't hurt though...

[quote name='Machines' post='1237912' date='May 20 2011, 11:00 AM']I wouldn't mutilate your Jazz by having it rerouted - it won't make it more valuable. I think you'd be better of selling it and getting the Aerodyne you really want.[/quote] Does the 2008 model require rerouting, or is it one where there's a large route anyway? However, I do agree that modding probably isn't the answer. I recently got hold of an aerodyne and can't stop raving about it! It's not just the fact that it's PJ, it's also the most acoustically resonant bass I've ever owned, and the ceramic pickups are really fat sounding. It has the best solo bridge sound I've ever had, taking the P out of the equation completely.

Out moonlighting as a sound engineer I've got to say I've seen good, versatile functions bands die on their arses just because the audience aren't up for it. It's amazing how far from appropriate some bookings will be.

[quote name='Dave Vader' post='1237039' date='May 19 2011, 04:11 PM']Real poly sealer stripping sadly can't be done any other way. [/quote] Except my way - using a poweful hairdryer and a paint scraper. Takes off the outer poly on a Fender and most of the sealer too

I'd guess that a p pickup in that position is going to sound something like a fattened jazz bass bridge soloed with perhaps a hint of Stingray on those top strings. Probably a pretty cool sound!

I have to say my Aerodyne is the best sounding bass I have ever owned, BBOT or not. I upgraded the bridge on a Jap 75RI but I don't see the need on this one, it's a damn tight funky sound anyway. I think an upgrade will be tricky to find though, sorry!

[quote name='derrenleepoole' post='1234540' date='May 17 2011, 04:42 PM']Just wondering, could anyone recommend a good 10" speaker that is better voiced for electric upright bass? I'm thinking of redoing [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=134712&st=0&p=1221776&#entry1221776"]this[/url] project cabinet as bought off Lemmywinks (which in turn came from another BC-er). Any thoughts at all?[/quote] I'll see if I can beat the rush...I can't see a picture, so is the cab ported, if so do you know the tuning frequency and approximate internal dimensions? Without that info its hard/impossible to make reliable suggestions. And what driver is in there already, and what's wrong with the current voicing?

I found this interview quite interesting actually [url="http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm12-8/sm12-8_marsalis_en.html"]http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm12-8/sm12-8_marsalis_en.html[/url] My personal favourite quote 'Nowadays, you see, you have guys who have been playing jazz since they were 12 years old and, all of a sudden, around 30, they start to try and play funk. They think that because there are far fewer notes, and the harmony is much simpler, it will be a walk in the park. But it turns out to be a disaster and only gets worse, a really pathetic slide.'

None of this actually matters that much when we're talking about music though, career success in music doesn't come from degree qualifications. If people learn something when studying you hear it in their playing, not on a piece of paper.

[quote name='henry norton' post='1230486' date='May 13 2011, 09:57 PM']Here's a picture of the big slab of maple it started out as plus a pic of the neck with 2 way rod installed and fingerboard machined and matched ready to glue up. I've done a bit more but haven't taken any more pictures so watch out for the next episode.[/quote] Are you making a Sue Ryder-style headstock there?

Talking about compensating for any difference using treble controls is missing the point that resonance alters sound in a [b]time-dependent[/b] fashion. Pickup position, type and equalisation settings are all constants that don't vary with note decay. That's why we can't use fixed filters to make a bass guitar sound just like a trumpet, the envelope characteristics are totally different. And this is where strings, their fixings (nut, frets, bridge) and the wood employed must all have an impact. My subjective impression playing (and having done a lot of messing around on synthesisers in the past), is that the decay characteristics of a maple fretboard tend to be a bit different to rosewood, with an extended early sustain in the upper-mids. I'd guess that we perceive them as brighter because that period lasts longer, rather than being louder per se.