aryustailm

Very nice sound, are you playing direct or through an amp?

Great day - was good chatting to various members I don't think I've ever seen so many top basses per square metre - Thanks to all the organisers!

Just happens I'm staying in northampton for a few days and would love to come along

Wow quick reply - brilliant, thanks!

Anyone have any ideas what model this bass is? Thanks

[quote name='"s_u_y_*"']The question is should we iron out any imperfections in a pursuit for accuracy, or leave them in. I think that's a question that we all have dealt or should deal with as recording musicians.[/quote] Absolutely - a take with great energy but with bum notes, or a more-lacklustre performance in the name of accuracy? I think either extreme is un-desirable. Finding the middle ground is incredibly difficult, and it's even more difficult to be objective about ones own playing. EDIT: Just noticed mcgrahams post saying the same sort of thing, though in a slightly more entertaining way Personally, I think most of the influential and groundbreaking artists have not been excessively anal about machine like perfection. Hendrix, Jamerson, Jaco, Scofield whoever. They are accurate, but they retain a certain looseness and ease which comes across as very human. Mistakes don't faze them, they just embrace them and get on with making great music. Its often people striving to be a clone of those guys who strive for rigid accuracy, in some hope that greater technical prowess will make them better at being Jaco/Jamerson etc than the originals! Or it seems like that to me anyhow.

Paul, I missed the program, but it sounds very interesting I think you're definitely right about a strong culture playing a large part in strong music. It seems to me mostly why say, British or Japanese jazz can be highly competant technically, but is often missing the spark of the original black american guys, because the originals were there at the time in the middle of all the social changes at the time, along with various struggles and a strong culture born from that. And none of that can be diluted into book form. Which isn't to say there's not plenty to learn from them! [quote name='"dlloyd"']Here's a great example of it... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZey9fRiH4w"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZey9fRiH4w[/url] Les Yeux Noirs (Dark Eyes) from the Viennes festival 2002.[/quote] I saw a vid a while back of Birelli playing an electric in much rockier/louder setting, and on a blues with McLaughlin. I don't know much about Birelli's history, but it seems he has looked further afield than many modern head-in-the-sand gypsy jazz only guys, which is why he is great I find Wayne Krantz is one of the best examples of what deep understanding of previous music (or theory, whatever you want to call it!) can result in. He started playing as a teenager, spent over 20 years learning/imitating various idols, and could play very fast, with endless lines etc. Then decided he didn't like any of that as it wasn't 'his' music. And has spent the last 15 years defining what is truly his own (and rarely plays fast at all, even though he can). But spent all those years learning existing music to finally know what NOT to do! [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAejZa4Enc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAejZa4Enc[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQkkZiYmLw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQkkZiYmLw[/url] I think that vaguely ties in with session guys - they're paid to NOT be groundbreaking ie risky. But I agree, I don't really go for mechanical perfection at the expense of music with charm or some kind of spark to it. Having said that, there's a lot of sessions guys who are highly creative. The english bass player Tim Harries for example does a lot of session work (toured with Katie Melua I believe, and played with Steeleye Span), but is capable of producing some highly creative and out-there sounds (Spin Marvel). [quote name='"mcgraham"']The way I approach it is this; practice is preparation for performance. So if you have practiced to the point that you can confidently say, in all honesty, that you know you are prepared for your performance[/quote] I like this idea I think it explains why so many great recordings have that special 'magic' from early Louie Armstrong through to Jackson 5 or Led Zep - the studio sessions were practically a performance in themselves. Or the early beatles records when they would go in, track straight away as a group without hundreds of takes/overdubs and edits. It seems to be a lot more important in popular music currently to focus on reduction of spill/noise/hiss/roughness etc at the expense of actually capturing a living breathing performance complete with all human fluctuations. Those things are important, but they're not more important than the music. I think the same applies to technique - fast stuff is great, and precision is great, but never at the expense of music. Guthrie Govan wrote about a session where the producer had some fancy gear showing him he was 9/64's of a beat out. They edited the playing to be exactly on the beat and it sounded worse for it. More accurate, but less musical. What looks good on paper (or sequencer) doesn't always sound good.

[quote name='"dlloyd"']A lot of the musicians have very little clue about theory as far as the terminology goes, but they still have very indepth knowledge about chord substitution and use pretty advanced concepts of soloing over changes. Even if they don't use the standard names for them, they're still using the same concepts, but the 'rules' are passed on by demonstration rather than description.[/quote] I wholeheartadly agree with this, and that gypsy jazz is an excellent example. The most important thing is that those musicians (and any excellent musicians) have a highly developed ear. They CAN trade lines off each other no problem. They couldn't do that without understanding how music works (which is arguably a theory in their own terms). Whether they've been shown by a master, or through a lot of trial and error, or book theory, they understand music, which is more important than understanding fancy terminology. The terminology stuff *should* just help to name things that are around already. Its a means to developing a good ear. Which is a large factor in what enables musicians to become great musicians.

[quote name='"bilbo230763"']I was once told that someone who is genuinely tone deaf cannot hear the difference in frequency between a dog bark and bird song. I think real tone deafness is actually very rare.[/quote] There was an article in New Scientist about tone-deafness, the thinking was something like: If a person can speak their native language with all the correct inflections/accents/phrasing then they're not tone deaf, as they can pick up all those subtle yet audible qualities. From that, I agree, true tone-deafness must be very rare. [quote name='"jakesbass']your claim to have no problem understanding and conveying musical ideas would most effectively be tested/proved by your ability to instantly assimilate and regurgitate what you have just heard. If you can't do that then your claim is limited.[/quote] That's exactly what I was trying to get at [quote name='"cheddatom"']ANYONE can analyse music just by listening and thinking about it, not just musicians. Whether or not they can communicate those ideas is limited by thier language skills.[/quote] Anyone can, yes, but that doesn't mean they can reproduce it, understand or communicate it. I can analyse the world around me, I can analyse a car for example, but I'm not an engineer and have no chance in hell of making my own car without first understanding how already existing cars have been put together. It seems silly to me to not find out how to build a car before trying to make your own super fancy exotic car. Sure, you could try multiple times to get it right, but thats a lot of crashes in the meantime. Music is not much different in that respect. [quote]I don't see why you would have to be able to totally analyse every single detail in a peice in one listen. Are you comparing this to reading music or something?[/quote] I'm comparing it to your post saying you can effectively analyse and communicate music. If you can, you should be play peoples lines/music back to them after one listen. That person can be yourself, it doesn't matter. But you should hear the music in your head first. (Not hear the music after your fingers have stumbled across something) The very best can play back after one listen, and I think it's one of the most efficient tests of overall musicianship (ignoring technical skill, which arguably doesn't make you a better musician, just a faster one ). Reading music has nothing to do with it. Reading music isn't important for making music. Again, it's only any use to communicate things that ARE to other people. If you can hear the music you want to play in your head first, and you have the necessary knowledge of music, you can play what you hear first time without any trial and error. I suppose the other good test is to sing something, and then play it first time. A lot of great players can sing exactly what they are playing, even when improvising. The music they hear dictates what the fingers do, not the other way round. To attempt to stay on topic, Janek Gwizdala is one who can do that. [quote name='"cheddatom"']you can let your mind wander while you play. I do this, and sometimes it comes out with some really cool stuff[/quote] You can, and it works - but surely it be would be nicer to come out with really cool stuff more than 'sometimes' and take the guess work out? Assuming you're hearing music in your head first, and not hearing music from your fingers.

[quote name='"cheddatom"']It should never dictate how music should be made - but does it? Maybe subconsciously, or maybe only the worst composers let it happen.[/quote] My point is, it should never be subconcious. You should actively know what you are playing, and not just 'hope' for music to happen. [quote name='"cheddatom"']I totally accept your point, but I honestly think that music can be understood to as proficient a level without any theory at all.[/quote] I agree with that - but the word 'theory' is just used to describe things that are. Just because you don't know the names of things like modes, substitutions, drop 2 voicings, contrary motion etc, doesn't mean those things don't exist, and don't exist in your playing. They're just words to describe things that are. Some people know them instictively without knowing the common names for them, which doesn't mean they don't exist. I listened to your band, I like them. It's all tonal, fairly simple harmonically and rhythmically and easily explainable in theory. But! that doesn't take anything away from the music. The word 'theory' is just used to describe those things. Call it what you want, but if you understand music proficiently, even on your own terms that noone else understands, it means you understand theory of music. Similarly, making a new weird scale that you've never heard before, doesn't mean there's not already a name for it. The terminology of music (scale names etc) is ONLY useful to communicate verbally with other people about music. [quote name='"cheddatom"']When i'm listening to music and analysing it in my head, I don't once wonder what that chord's called, or what time signature this is etc. I have no problem communicating my ideas about music without using the language of music.[/quote] If you truly have no problem analysing music just by listening, and no problem getting your ideas across, then you should be able to hear something once, and play it back perfectly. (Ignoring speed/physical aspects, just melodic lines/chords/phrases/rhythm). If you can honestly say you can do that, then I'll admit there's little more for you to learn. If it takes you 2 attempts or more to play a line or phrase back, then you're just kidding yourself about your abilities, and have plenty to work on, whether you make use of what people have learnt before or go it completely alone. I don't know anyone who is capable of playing crazy free jazz lines, atonal classical, funk, folk, rock, metal etcetc phrases all back after one listen. If you do, let me know - they'll be in the best position to create some of the most original sounding music ever made.

[quote name='"cheddatom"']Bearing all that in mind, how is it possible to say "learning music theory makes you a better bass player"?[/quote] How could it not? I never understand this anti-theory mentality. Its like saying you could always speak coherantly with your own ideas when you were a toddler. Obviously that isn't the case for anyone, and music is no different - You learn how to talk first (by imitation) then you realise why the things you are copying work, and can start to put together your own statements/ideas. Most people learn by listening and copying, and figure out how to use it for themselves instinctively. Some people figure out the intricate workings of the language, whether that's english or music, to understand how to say things more effectively without ums....errss.....or bum notes: they're the same thing. I don't see how knowing more about your chosen language/music could do anything other than make you better at getting your thoughts/music across?! Also, remember bass is just a tool to make music. You can't have bass without having music. You can have music without a bass. Getting better at music makes you a better musician. [quote name='"cheddatom"']While knowing the conventions inside out does not neccessarily restrict you to them, it may make you on average more conventional than a musician who is not aware of these conventions. I would like to be unconventional in my playing, so I try to ignore everything I know and just listen to what sounds i'm making/make the sounds I hear in my head. This seems to have at least a shred of logic to it?[/quote] Various people say this quite often, but I think the logic is flawed: It still comes down to what you hear in your head, and that is dictated largely by things that you have grown up listening to. If you thoroughly understand the common ground between all the music you like, you can start to pick and choose which bits you want to keep, and which you don't, which gradually defines your own style. Fumbling around is fun, but will very rarely result in something beyond your current abilities. You have to make a concious decision to understand what you (and other people before you) have played to be able to choose to NOT play those things, and try things outside of those. But that takes thinking and hard work Some of the most startlingly original players DO understand theory, which enables them to know exactly what to avoid in order to sound unconventional. No fumbling around endlessly hoping for something groundbreaking to 'appear'. They can conciously avoid the norm when they want. Over time, those new territories become normal for them, which = individual style. Some original players don't understand any theory, but they are truly a rare breed. Theory is only to understand music that has ALREADY been made - it should never dictate how music SHOULD be made. But, understanding your favourite music means you can choose to invoke something similar, or choose otherwise. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want the choice?!

Hi, I've had a similar experience, though with my right hand. My fingers were getting a little cramped and the ends going numb, not just whilst playing. I think there's some great advice here, but I can't help thinking it might be better to focus on more fundamental things. I have no idea about your level of playing, so I hope some of this doesn't seem insanely obvious! You mentioned that this has happened before, from being nervous. Any ideas what caused it this time? Regarding hands, do you do much other work with them? My problem, it turned out, was my elbow had been squashed between a flight case and a truck at work, causing slight damage to a nerve at the elbow. But the problems appeared primarily in my little finger Between spending time typing, bass playing and various other things, it was only when the doctor mentioned problems can occur from a knock to the elbow, that I realised what had caused it - it hadn't even crossed my mind previously. Otherwise, something as simple as strap-length/bass height can dramatically affect the amount of tension in your left hand. If your bass is very low, your hand will have to curve under then over quite severly, often resulting in wrist/forearm tension. The position of your thumb can greatly affect the amount of effort your fingers have to do. A very low bass often results in a thumb that's all over the place: less of an anchor for the fingers, so they have to do much more work to compensate for lack of having a strong base to clamp down on. A very high bass can cause weird and wonderful left hand elbow positioning, often causing tension in the upper arm. If your upper arm isn't relaxed, then anything lower down isn't going to be either: wrist, fingers, thumb etc. Obviously there's a middle ground between the two extremes, and there are players who play well despite having less than optimum hand/bass positioning. But for something as simple as adjusting your strap, it's worth experimenting with hand/bass positioning. I also think regarding the recommended supplements, they should be regarded as just that: supplements. branched chain amino acids are found in any rich source of protein (good quality meat, fish, eggs), vitamin b6 is found in similar sources as well as in nuts, amongst other things. All those nutrients are great, but just eating plenty of good nutrient rich food should come first, to help any healing. For some reason, people seem to remember to pop a pill in everyday more readily than they do to just eat some good food - I may be getting way off topic here! If the problem is with your hands/bass playing, I think it would be worth concentrating on your habits regarding them, THEN worry about nutritional problems/supplements. Just my opinion. Hope it heals quickly

[quote name='Jam' post='81847' date='Oct 31 2007, 05:41 PM']I just looked at those videos. Is that a 10 string? I don't think i'd be able to get my hands on one of them on a student budget! Are they hard to play?[/quote] He uses a variety of basses, but quite often it's simply a 4 string, making use of non-standard tunings. The second vid is a 4 string No Wontons For Elvis is one of my favourite tracks, on a 4 string, and fairly playable too. All the tunings per track are listed on his site I wouldn't worry about 10 string basses/money/buying new basses etc. If you're determined enough, you can make your own arrangements to suit your instrument. If you're more interested in slower/chordy stuff because the composition is stronger than in a slap-hammer-pop fest (not that there's anything 'wrong' with those every now and then), consider arranging existing songs on the bass. ie not just bass-only material. They don't have to be difficult/fiddly to be effective. But then that's more about playing music, not just about playing bass!

Michael Manring? [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js93qxDlIzg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js93qxDlIzg[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2hgiVE3KkM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2hgiVE3KkM[/url] Book of Flame is his most rounded album imo