Ancient Mariner

It's interesting that with a couple of teens I know who've been learning over the last 2 years, both play guitar AND bass. One is a much better lead guitar player than the other, while the second is much happier doing rhythm work. When it comes to bass though, they both happily swap instruments depending on how the feel about the song - the rhythm player (Josh) has even started posting 'how to play' bass lessons on youtube, to share the bass parts he's worked out. Maybe Bass really IS becoming acceptable - which will make it VERY uncool indeed!

When I started playing guitar >30 years ago Rotosound was one of the first makes of strings I tried - and very quickly dumped because they'd go dead and start being difficult to tune within a week (really). About 5 years ago I bought a new JJ goldtop at Music live, and asked Tony Muschamp (owner of JJ then) what strings they used and recommended - I was surprised to hear 'Rotosound'. I used it from time to time and the strings stayed good for quite a while - complete contrast to the Rotos I remembered from my youth! For most of my other guitars I use DR, but for the JJ I still fit Rotos. At some stage I'll have to try some of their bass strings.

Most people mellow after 2 or 3 decades of playing, and bands that are lively and exciting at first very often become more refined and less 'fun'. There are exceptions, but I find sometimes that I miss the reckless energy and raw performance from a mature band's performance: for me, refinement and subtle technique are no substitute.

I'm sure you could return an 'unplayable' instrument to Thomann as a warranty return at no cost - it's covered by guarantee. That may not be the case if you just don't like how the bass feels or sounds, but it plays quite acceptably from a technical POV. The thing with cheap instruments is that they are *more* of a lottery than more expensive ones (which are STILL a lottery). You can't economically fix manufacturing mistakes, like twisted necks or badly cut neck pockets on a cheapie, but you can do a lot about set up to make it play better. Whether it's worth going the upgrade path so that you pay by installments or just buying a decent bass outright is very much down to the whim of the purchaser. Either way, you'll probably end up spending close to the price of a squier if you do start swapping out PUs etc, but you may end up with an instrument that's more 'yours'.

Interesting, thanks for keeping us up to date.

[quote name='Grand Wazoo' post='1162626' date='Mar 15 2011, 01:03 AM']I have had my Drophead 30, 1 X 15" Combo (featuring the Little Bastard Head) since Nov 2010 and I have played it on quite a few particular gigs with a "part-time" band I have recently joined, that it's still only a project but soon to become a Carlos Santana tribute band, and we are talking about the late 70's Santana style not the recent one with hip hop singers and sh|t. We don't even have an apt name for it, so... suggestions are welcome [/quote] How about Samba Party?

You should be panned for that comment!

Looking forward to a (slightly used) RP-1 turning up in a week or so. Dark blue and maple - just begging for a white pearl scratchplate and possibly a pickup upgrade.

[quote name='Circle_of_Fifths' post='1160130' date='Mar 13 2011, 06:05 AM']For a short time Squiers were made in Mexico with US and Mexican parts to use up old stock and on-the-shelf parts.[/quote] I have what I believe was one of those. Has Fender in solid black on the headstock and a previous owner has removed the tiny 'squier by fender' decal. I bought it as a wreck thinking it was a genuine Fender, and it's served me well over the years. I has a veneer rosewood board, and is really due a refret sometime soon.

There used to be a lot of information available (amp schemas etc) on the freeinformationsociety website. I'm not sure if it's still going, but might be available through the waybackwhen/time machine facility (where they archived a lot of websites.

Often things do sound worse recorded than live, and it may be that mostly they do sound OK live. They need to hear sooner or later, and if they're seasoned as you say then they should be able to recognise they're a bit off. No amount of careful adjustment of EQ will fix bad timing or an off key singer. Don't let it put you off working with friends.

Just one guitar - an El Maya that I bought in the late 70s and sold around 82 or 83 to fund a motorcycle. Maple through neck on mahogany wings, carved top and some of the sweetest overdrive tones I've found anywhere. I've only even heard of anyone owning one other (a guy in Holland) but I keep scanning ebay. I kind of miss a Switch (plastic bodied) guitar and a Godin Radiator I had a few years back, but it's not really a big deal.

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' post='1155244' date='Mar 9 2011, 01:10 PM']I tried a Wal Custom in the 80s... it was horrible. Lifeless, flat and with no bottom end to speak of, no matter what you did with the controls. A couple of years later I had a play with a another example and it was just magnificent. Just goes to show. The first real bass I tried was in a shop in Bradford in the 70s. A Rick 4001. It was again, another exquisite bass, whereas most Fenders I've tried have been underwhelming, apart from a particularly good Jazz that really oozed playability and tone. All this tells me is that it's wrong to dismiss a bass model on playing just one example.[/quote] This is always how it will be because of the nature of wood and variability. The single biggest advantage one might hope to find in a hand made guitar is that they've carefully selected the wood based on its tonal properties, but I suspect it's much more a case of "what do we have in the storeroom that will fit?" and the fact that they can't afford to throw away bits of expensive wood, just because they go 'thunk' in stead of 'boing' when you tap them with your knuckles.

I use a lemon oil from 'Guitarsweet' that I bought at a music show some years back, however their site address doesn't work and a quick google draws a blank. You could try Gerlitz GGH Guitar Honey Fingerboard Treatment - around £3-£4 Whereabouts in Hampshire are you? I do a couple of days a week in Hartney Wintney near Fleet - could lend you my stuff.

Not tried enough basses yet to have an expectation (hope to change that soon though!). But for years the Les Paul was what I imagined the ultimate guitar might be: time came to actually try them and, generally, they were almost completely disappointing. I do have a great one now (actually a Tokai) but I've only ever found a couple of Gibson versions that I'd want to own and several that I definitely wouldn't want. Likewise bought a 'worn finish' Gibson Flying V from a guy in the states - it felt like a £25 Chinese guitar from ebay.

Gerry bought a bass from me - paid promptly and was great to deal with. Recommended.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1150102' date='Mar 4 2011, 11:12 PM']I'm just looking at my "music reading for bass" book from MI and the last sentence by Wendi Hrehovcsik seams to sum this up for me. "I sincerely hope the tools presented in this book provide you with the keys to unlocking your potential and lead you to many exciting musical encounters, both on the written page and off." Sounds good to me?[/quote] And that's a big part of the point. For some, learning music theory in the classical sense presents them with a great set of tools. For others the classical approach to theory makes no or little sense at all, and if they're to actually play an instrument then they need to find other ways of doing it and also how they can work with other musicians. The original point about a basic understanding has become a little obscured in all this. The thing is, our ideas of what constitutes a basic understanding varies considerably, and the minimum necessary level of understanding required will depend almost entirely on who you have to play with and the musical style you are familiar with. It will also be affected by our musical preferences and our innate musicality. At risk of things getting personal and going off on unhelpful analysis, I find I can hear certain kinds of chords very clearly while others (primarily those I don't like - yes, there are chords that are wrong in my ears) I can't readily distinguish. This makes it amusing because in one band I was accused of being too technical, while in other circumstances I can't always hear where the music is going because of the kinds of chords used. I'd suggest that the minimum 'basic understanding' necessary is one that will let you work without excessive trouble with the musicians you're playing with.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1148674' date='Mar 3 2011, 05:55 PM']A learned player won't think "I'd love to substitute a flattened 5th there" either,they still know how the note will sound.Just because you know about theory doesn't mean that you stop listening and rely purely on knowledge,however that knowledge is always there in the background,subconciously. The big difference is that the pure ear player may hit the flat 5 and realise that it sounds horrible, whereas the schooled player will already know that it's a bad choice.[/quote] TBH this is as arrogant as the claim having no theory is essential to creativity. A good player with or without theory will avoid the note that sounds bad because they know it will sound bad. The player with theory will be able to give a detailed explanation for why it sounds bad, whereas the ear player will just say they avoided it because it would sound bad. As someone pointed out here, theory players don't usually spend all their time calculating what notes may and may not be played over a progression - they know because they've learned how music works at an unconscious level, just like the ear player.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1148357' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:46 PM']That's how it works. We 'theorites' (have I invented a new word?) don't sit there thinking 'ooh, great, I can wack in that flattened fifth substitution there followed by an altered dominant'. We use our ears the same as anyone else but our ears are better informed because we spend hours running scales and arpeggios and chord sequences and subtitutions. Occasionally, I will solve a problem by intellectualising it in real time and I am almost always disappointed by the obviousness of the solution but, in the main, its your ear that guides you not your head. But the important lesson is that your ear is educated and informed not just intuitive.[/quote] One could argue that being able to hear a musical progression is evidence that one's ear had been trained and educated - the thing missing is the mechanism to explain what you hear to someone else using 'English' to describe the flow of notes. [quote]No but it will massively improve your chances. Massively. And not having theory won't automatically make you capable either. And why the 'biological playback device' comment? There is an implied assumption that 'theorites' play with their heads and 'luddites (see what I did there)' play with their hearts. In fact, theorites play with their hearts and minds whilst those without technical knowledge are only able to use their hearts and minds .[/quote] Apparently we all play with our hearts and minds after all? I don't entirely disagree - with the statement you didn't quite mean to make. The thing is, a luddite won't think "I'd love to substitute a flattened 5th there", but instead they'll think "I'd like the music to progress like this" because they'll know what that note sounds like, even though they don't know it's a flattened 5th. TBH I would expect that a musician knowing more theory to be a better musician than one who does not - generally speaking - because they will have a love and enthusiasm for music that has driven them to learn the theory. Perhaps they are better because their minds can understand how music is built, rather than just identifying shades and tones in the wash. But to me (and the reason I put the comment about the biological playback device in) is that theory doesn't make the musician - musical creativity is something else. The theory is a tool, a very useful one, but a tool only. Otherwise we'd have a lot of computers creating music far in advance of the best human players.

Sorry to hear that feller - don't let it get to you and find another band - not everyone is a git.

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1147891' date='Mar 2 2011, 11:45 PM']The language of music is the music though, not the names we ascribe to aspects of it. I find music theory really interesting but someone can be such a complete ear player that while they're fluent in the language of music, they're unable to speak in English/(Italian) about what they're doing. That's only a problem when the direct communication through the music fails.[/quote] Thank you. I suspect that guitarists will generally be less up on music theory because they are generally the lead instrument. However since bass is primarily an accompanying instrument, knowing theory is much more helpful, if not essential. I have some basic theory: enough that most of the time I can explain where a song more-or-less goes. However I can usually hear reasonably well, and as long as the people I usually play with can give me the key we're playing in then I can usually hear the chord changes and play along quite happily. The thing is, music theory isn't (generally) very exciting to learn, and it doesn't necessarily make you a better musician unless you can't hear where the music goes and then need to be told/work it out. However it does make explaining to others less difficult, unless they don't have much theory either. I remember an interview with Yngwie M - he was talking about how much he'd studied, all the theory he'd picked up. In the next breath he explained that when he solo'd he'd deliberately forget the theory and just play what he felt like playing. Having theory won't automatically make you capable of musical expression, although it can make you a very good form of biological playback device.

I suspect a part of the reason guitarists don't play bass well is that they're primarily thinking of it as a lead instrument playing a melody, rather than a rhythmic instrument playing an accompaniment. If you're rhythmically oriented then it's less difficult to see what a bass player is required to do, which is probably why drummers find it less difficult to adapt to (except for all those funny notes ;-). Over the years I've come to play a lot more rhythm guitar, and can see a big difference in my approach to bass compared to when I was a teenage guitar hero.