Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Bass Guitar Mag Janek Gwidzala


bigd1
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156568' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:45 AM']We're just discussing stuff aren't we?[/quote]

Oh yes, and I'm giving you my opinions (and accepting yours) on what I am able to deduce from your line of reasoning.
I have taught literally hundreds of people to play bass guitar and double bass from school age through degree courses and up to retirement age. And believe me I've heard many arguments, some compelling and some spurious.

Edited by jakesbass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156569' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:53 AM']Oh yes, and I'm giving you my opinions (and accepting yours) on what I am able to deduce from your line of reasoning.
I have taught literally hundreds of people to play bass guitar and double bass from school age through degree courses and up to retirement age. And believe me I've heard many arguments, some compelling and some spurious.[/quote]

So after all that experience you're totally convinced that to be a great bassist, you need to learn theory, and practice technical regimes which may not always be musical?

If the answer is yes, then I guess I have to give in to the experience really. I'm way to young to have settled on my opinions and I have to predict that I will eventually come around to your way of thinking.

Just to be clear - I'm not lazy or procrastinating or making excuses or whatever. I put a lot of effort into my music and i'm constantly learning and developing. I may not be practicing uber-technical routines every night, and I certainly can't read music, and I have no desire to re-learn any theory, but this doesn't mean that i'm ignoring everything that has gone before me, and it doesn't mean i'm lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156573' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:59 AM']So after all that experience you're totally convinced that to be a great bassist, you need to learn theory, and practice technical regimes which may not always be musical?[/quote]

I have said in earlier posts "not exclusively" there are exceptions that prove the rule.
If you are musical no amount of practice will hinder that, if you are not musical an amount of practice can, to an extent, cover that.
Added to that, a great performer will make music out of anything. (unmusical technical regimes included)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156583' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:06 AM']I have said in earlier posts "not exclusively" there are exceptions that prove the rule.
If you are musical no amount of practice will hinder that, if you are not musical an amount of practice can, to an extent, cover that.
Added to that, a great performer will make music out of anything. (unmusical technical regimes included)[/quote]

I think earlier other people were saying and/or implying that it would be stupid to ignore music theory and unmusical technical regimes. Where this may be true for people who are struggling with getting to grips with an instrument or music in general or just average students (you know 'cos you've taught them!), it's certainly not true in EVERY situation.

When you say it's only a very small minority of players who can progress without these things, I suppose i should trust your judgment on that, but I really didn't think that was the case when I started rambling on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dlloyd' post='156591' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:15 AM']A player who genuinely has no theory would just be playing random notes of random length at random times. That would be pretty unconventional in a musician, but I probably wouldn't ask him to join my band.[/quote]

The player couldn't hear what they were playing and learn from that? Oh, those notes sounded nice, where were they? Oh, this run of notes seems to form a shape, and I can use that shape with this different song as well. That note sounded crap, I wont use that with that chord again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dlloyd' post='156607' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:30 AM']Which is learning theory.

Call it 'that thing I play in that song' or call it 'E minor pentatonic', you're still organising musical knowledge in a theoretical way. Having a name that other people understand helps you communicate your idea with other people.[/quote]

But if you learn in that way, you might develop weird new scales and shapes, which are combinations of what theory already describes but sound like a totally new style.

Just one possibility?


In reply to the post before, maybe no-one actually said "stupid" but it was the impression I got from comments like "is entirely illogical to choose to ignore beneficial information"

Reading too much into things I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Having a name that other people understand helps you communicate your idea with other people.[/quote]

Most definitely. I've had numerous occasions where the lack of theory and understanding of said theory in a band prevented them from partaking in something more interesting and restricted me to basic playing. Never fun.

Also, when it comes to transcription and playing things by ear, you will always find new things you've not heard before. If you have internalised theory and sounds of various ideas, then you can transcribe things much quicker than if you hadn't.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]But if you learn in that way, you might develop weird new scales and shapes, which are combinations of what theory already describes but sound like a totally new style.[/quote]

Too many mights. I'd rather stick with a certainty. I've worked with and 'made' numerous 'new' scales or rather permutations of fragments of theory. Knowledge of theory allowed me to do it, not living in ignorance of it.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156555' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:33 AM']If there are melodies that use the movements you've been practising then IMHO you should have been practising those melodies in the first place.[/quote]
That would only work if you knew in advance what melodies you're going to want to play, which does rather defeat the purpose of improvisation! And I was under the impression that bringing all your practise techniques into the music was supposed to be a bad thing :) The best practise is that which you enjoy - nobody's forcing you to be a musician, so if you don't think it's worth practising difficult, non-musical stuff, fair enough! Some of us aim to push ourselves musically, some of us want to be able to improvise, some of us want to learn covers and some of us are pros who need to be at the top of the game - if your aim is to write music and then practise until you can play it, maybe your method is most appropriate, but it can't hurt to try our way for a month or two, can it?
My best friend (a multi-instrumentalist) works in a similar way to you; he writes (startlingly good, IMO) songs and then records them, fiddling until they sound perfect, and the only practise he does is playing his own songs and bits of stuff he's learned by ear - it's very much his own style and I admire him immensely... but here's the catch :huh: He listens to everything he can and takes his influences directly from the music he listens to; in fact he goes so far as to aim to sound like these artists (he samples a lot too) - he also knows his theory, having played cornet, double bass and piano before taking up guitar... in spite of all this, his music still sounds like nothing you've ever heard before

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156568' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:45 AM']I have never refused to accept the validity of music theory! I accept it for what it is. All I am saying is "I wonder if we really need it" or, would a player who didn't have it be a less conventional player? Does less conventional mean good? Do you have to be able to play harder things than you actually need to to be a good player? etc etc etc.[/quote]
Yes, we need it - without it we'd still be bashing rocks together (or as I suggested earlier, setting off alarm clocks at random and humming) and nobody would have made any real musical instruments ever
A player without it would, again, just be bashing rocks together and, as unconventional as this would be, it would most likely take hundreds of years of people expanding on your style to make it sound anywhere near listenable - so no, less conventional does NOT mean good! If you hear some music and think "ooh, that sounds original" - it's almost certainly not original; it's just innovative; if you wanna create innovative music, assimilate all the theory and music history you can and strive to build on that (as opposed to either just ignoring it or doing something completely different)... you can't change history, and you certainly can't change the fact that you already have influences and these will be reflected in your playing - just accept it!
As for being able to play harder things than you need to... if you can't, that means that you'll be playing at the peak of your ability every time you're on stage! I find it hard to believe that anyone can [b]consistently[/b] play at the absolute peak of their ability - unless you play well within your comfort zone, you will screw up

Oh btw, Kant and Hume really are incredibly dull to read! If you make it all the way through Critique of Judgement you're probably deserving of some sort of prize - also [i]Of the Standard of Taste[/i] is here: [url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html[/url]
[quote name='cheddatom' post='156612' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:37 AM']But if you learn in that way, you might develop weird new scales and shapes, which are combinations of what theory already describes but sound like a totally new style.

Just one possibility?[/quote]
It's even more likely you'll come up with something like that if you learn the theory first! If you start from nothing, you might spend several hours devising the harmonic minor scale, when you could have just found it in a book! If you wanna re-invent the wheel, you have to know what a wheel is first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously knowing theory doesn't stop you from experimenting with different notes and scales which aren't even described as such by theory.

However, to do that you wouldn't need to know any theory either.

A person who knows theory MIGHT stick to what they know and have learned as the correct way of doing things and/or the way things have always been done.

A person who knows no theory would not be able to stick to standard scales and the like, because they wouldn't know what they are.

I'm not saying people shouldn't learn and use music theory. I'm speculating on it's effects upon creativity and development as a musician as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='156630' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:58 AM']in spite of all this, his music still sounds like nothing you've ever heard before[/quote]

This guy sounds interesting, can we have a link or something?

Your post was very good! I need to take a break from this thread for today or i'll get shouted at for not getting any work done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156643' date='Mar 13 2008, 12:19 PM']This guy sounds interesting, can we have a link or something?

Your post was very good! I need to take a break from this thread for today or i'll get shouted at for not getting any work done![/quote]
Ahaha, thank you - I ought to be taking a break for a good while too!

You'll probably be a bit disappointed by the contents of the myspazz - let me say that it's not been updated in ages, the songs on there are far from the cream and have been improved upon since being uploaded (as I said, he's always fiddling); also the compression process on myspace doesn't do the sound any favours... in general it's a bit AIDS (I think we just HAD to put the bit about major label interest on there - it is myspace after all), but if you bear that in mind along with the fact that he recorded it all in his small bedroom, with nothing other than a guitar, a microphone, a distortion pedal, some cables, a computer and occasionally some random objects like drainpipes (and sometimes me with my old bass), maybe you can appreciate it a bit better :huh:
www.myspace.com/dassein
Technically I'm a member of the band, and indeed a lot of the tracks feature my bass lines (and there is one with me replicating a sound effect from Age of Empires), but we've only ever had one disastrous rehearsal and the two of us are the only stable members, so the prospects of ever playing live or making anything of this are sadly diminished :) A pity, really, as this is what I'd rather be doing than a degree, but nobody gets paid just to be an artist, so knuckling down to the system is what we all have to do *sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156633' date='Mar 13 2008, 12:00 PM']Obviously knowing theory doesn't stop you from experimenting with different notes and scales which aren't even described as such by theory.

However, to do that you wouldn't need to know any theory either.

A person who knows theory MIGHT stick to what they know and have learned as the correct way of doing things and/or the way things have always been done.

A person who knows no theory would not be able to stick to standard scales and the like, because they wouldn't know what they are.

I'm not saying people shouldn't learn and use music theory. I'm speculating on it's effects upon creativity and development as a musician as a whole.[/quote]

I would have thought you would be no more experimental what ever method you have learned by.
As I said before both methods need you to listen, that being the case when you learn by ear you are only learning the sounds around you that would be based on already acquired knowledge. By the nature of the ear method you have to have heard it to play it.

A musician who can read music does not need to have heard the music to be able to play it, but knows what the written notes sound like again from pre gained knowledge. This would enable them to go through the piece visually knowing what it will sound like when played.

I would say not one nor the other method leads to a greater skill when it comes to experimentation or improvisation, both methods give you the skills to do this.

BIGd

Edited by bigd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156633' date='Mar 13 2008, 12:00 PM']Obviously knowing theory doesn't stop you from experimenting with different notes and scales which aren't even described as such by theory.

However, to do that you wouldn't need to know any theory either.

A person who knows theory MIGHT stick to what they know and have learned as the correct way of doing things and/or the way things have always been done.

A person who knows no theory would not be able to stick to standard scales and the like, because they wouldn't know what they are.

I'm not saying people shouldn't learn and use music theory. I'm speculating on it's effects upon creativity and development as a musician as a whole.[/quote]

You'd be struggling to come up with a scale that hasn't already got a name, TBH.

A person who knows no theory might find a few things that work and stick to them, so restricting themselves even more than if they knew a little more.

Music theory isn't there to have an effect on creativity, it's a language to describe what it is you've done.

Knowing certain general rules doesn't stop you from breaking them - for example, a common song structure might be intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/middle eight/verse/chorus/chorus - you don't have to write every song like that, you can do whatever you like.

Knowing that songs tend to be written in a single key doesn't mean you have to do that every time, there are ways of changing keys by using a chord that is common to both to jump from one to another, for example, which you can find quicker with a bit of music theory knowledge, or by trying every chord until you chance upon one that works.

You might now say that music theory might mean that you find a chord that works and stop looking, so missing out on a better chord, but that's also true of trying random chords, especially if you've tried 30 chords already.

Knowing some music theory basics is better, IMHO, than knowing nothing, but if what you do works for you, then so be it - if you never learn it, you'll never know - but having knowledge will only stifle creativity if you choose to let it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Paul_C' post='156722' date='Mar 13 2008, 01:47 PM']You'd be struggling to come up with a scale that hasn't already got a name, TBH.[/quote]
absolutely right. I think the Lydian Chromatic concept coupled with modes and eastern permutations and blues etc etc pretty much covers all possble combinations of what to do with twelve notes.
I suppose you could construct a scale that has intervals of six octaves plus a semi-tone per note, but then that might be a little pointless....
Not to mention the herds of Elephants, schools of Whales, packs of Dogs and flocks of Bats that might turn up at your door.
Are you catching my drift?

Edited by jakesbass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Paul_C' post='156722' date='Mar 13 2008, 01:47 PM']having knowledge will only stifle creativity if you choose to let it.[/quote]

After reading everyone's posts, I suppose that has to be correct. In which case you'd be better off with as much knowledge as possible, so yeh I guess my idea is crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...