Bass Guitar Mag Janek Gwidzala

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='paul, the' post='158034' date='Mar 15 2008, 04:12 PM']...here's good too.[/quote]
what.. for me!
Only if I want to dunk myself in the briney.

[paul, the]

Anyway, I can't help but feel a lack of connection with the music with session players. I don't think it's possible to take on the meaning of the music and perform it with a sincerity someone who was brought up with the music/background would, not to mention genuine unity between musicians.

It always feels emulated.

I guess I don't agree with it. I'd rather take the unrefined charms of traditional music to the over-produced stuff.

Session work/repetitive technical exercises have so many connotations with 'industry' to me, over the love of music itself. I rarely want to listen to it because I can't connect with it. It is, so often, an artificial marginalisation and profiteering of the past's pure music.

[paul, the]

Did anyone else see the program on Irish music on BBC4 last night?

They were talking about trying instill traditional values and promote distinct culture in order to ease the partition with the UK through pride. The politicians were looking for a figurehead for Irish music and auditioning fiddlers. On auditioning, they kept trying to get the musicians to perform flawlessly without 'mistakes'; akin to classical music. They didn't understand that it was the imperfectly perfect poor intonation that was so important for getting the right sound.

To make relevance, it shows the importance of the connection with the culture behind the music and the understanding developed through a long-term association with it. This is where the creativity is born too. And the technical improvement comes from the joy of repetition from playing with others.

[bigd1]

[quote name='paul, the' post='158055' date='Mar 15 2008, 04:46 PM']Did anyone else see the program on Irish music on BBC4 last night?

They were talking about trying instill traditional values and promote distinct culture in order to ease the partition with the UK through pride. The politicians were looking for a figurehead for Irish music and auditioning fiddlers. On auditioning, they kept trying to get the musicians to perform flawlessly without 'mistakes'; akin to classical music. They didn't understand that it was the imperfectly perfect poor intonation that was so important for getting the right sound.

To make relevance, it shows the importance of the connection with the culture behind the music and the understanding developed through a long-term association with it. This is where the creativity is born too. And the technical improvement comes from the joy of repetition from playing with others.[/quote]
Believe me orchestral performances contain mistakes just like any other performance.
Something that has started to happen of late is, because classical groups are now using Pro Tool and the like to record. They now will do as many takes as needed to get a perfect patched together performance. The problem is audiences of new classical listeners are then disappointed when they hear the work played live. It is now causing problems with ticket sales.
Just to throw a fresh spanner in the works, should we be trying to get a perfect performance, is slight timing and intonation mistakes what make the music live or should it all be, note and timed to perfection.

[BigBeefChief]

Part of my objection to overly technical excercises probably stems from my dislike of overly polished performances.

I like a live band to be a little rough around the edges. I aso tend to like those albums recorded in weeks rather than months. Likewise, my favourite vocalists tend to be people who can't "sing" in the the traditional sense (Liam Gallagher anyone?).

Pretty lucky really, given that I'm an incredibly sloppy player and can't sing for sh*t.

[s_u_y_*]

[quote name='bigd1' post='158126' date='Mar 15 2008, 07:11 PM']Just to throw a fresh spanner in the works, should we be trying to get a perfect performance, is slight timing and intonation mistakes what make the music live or should it all be, note and timed to perfection.[/quote]

That is an interesting subject. I'm doing quite a bit of recording at the mo for different stuff. One band I'm working with is very much studio based. As a result, they really like to go into the wav files recorded and really polish them. My main band is very much a live band. The bandleader doesn't mind touching up a stray note that is too loud, but as long as it feels right and natural he'll want to keep that take. Last night I did this one take for a verse which was the best, but he scrapped it because I was early on the very first note.

If we compare Linkin Park (a champion of Pro Tools) to say White Stripes... we have two completely forms of recording artists. There is a beauty to rough recordings. "Mistakes" if not overly blatant can be accepted by the listener and adds richness to the recording. For example, Dave Marks during a lesson gave me a wonderful recording of Michel Camilo which was performed together in a studio in a single take. Everything was in time and sounded fantastic, but if you really really listened you could hear the odd ever-so-slightly late note. But nothing was taken away.

However as a musician, I strive for perfection. To hear a mistake of mine on record is embarassing for me. So one hand I think "mistakes" add to the richness of a recording, but I myself don't like to make those mistakes. It is an interesting debate which I have only just realised I never dealt with.

Edited March 15, 2008 by s_u_y_*

[mcgraham]

[quote]Something that has started to happen of late is, because classical groups are now using Pro Tool and the like to record. They now will do as many takes as needed to get a perfect patched together performance. The problem is audiences of new classical listeners are then disappointed when they hear the work played live. It is now causing problems with ticket sales.[/quote]

That's really interesting! I personally love listening to mixed recordings of live gigs. I feel you get a great compromise between the atmosphere and intensity of a live gig (plus variations in songs that artists often do live) but you get a mix that sounds a lot better than being there live. Not the real thing of course, but great to listen to IMO.

[quote]Just to throw a fresh spanner in the works, should we be trying to get a perfect performance, is slight timing and intonation mistakes what make the music live or should it all be, note and timed to perfection.[/quote]

I'm picky to the point of being anal when it comes to my own playing. I've learned not to expect the same level of precision of other musicians, nor demand it of them, as that is projecting my preference onto them.

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 or for performing (ultimately determined by your own expectations of your playing) then any mistakes you make whilst performing, don't matter. No-one likes making mistakes but they happen, but that's why we practice, to mitigate the number of mistakes we make.

Mark

P.S. On this topic, I read an interview once, a long time ago. The guy was saying that the beauty of playing live is that if you make a wrong note 'bam!' there it is, and there it goes; people might go 'oh, that was a wrong note' but it's quickly forgotten and both the audience and performer come away with a great memory of a great gig regardless. But when you're recording, thats you recorded 'forever', those bum notes aren't going anywhere. Oops! So make sure you get it right when you record.

[mcgraham]

[quote]To hear a mistake of mine on record is embarassing for me. So one hand I think "mistakes" add to the richness of a recording, but I myself don't like to make those mistakes. It is an interesting debate which I have only just realised I never dealt with.[/quote]

If it's a studio recording there is no excuse for mistakes IMO. But I love to laugh at mistakes I have made on live recordings.

Mark

[s_u_y_*]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='158150' date='Mar 15 2008, 07:50 PM']If it's a studio recording there is no excuse for mistakes IMO. But I love to laugh at mistakes I have made on live recordings.

Mark[/quote]

Mistakes may have been the wrong word. I'm not talking about discernable mistakes. Perhaps imperfections might be better to describe what I'm describing. Take Bohemian Rhapsody for example. Was watching a documentary about Queen. They showed a the take on the record for the piano. The actual take isn't that great. Quite a few duff notes and noticeable spill from other instruments. An imperfect take... but it didn't stop loads of people buying the record though.

Another example is Walk This Way by Aerosmith and Run DMC. The guitar hook is played early. Again, people bought the record.

This is contrasted to the use of Pro Tools by a lot of bands today. Where everything is processed to be as perfect as possible, where natural variations in note volume or note length are ironed out. You have software which autotunes the voice. You also now have software which corrects the timing of an instrument recording!

These are two very different ways of approaching recording. I guess the background of the artist/band must play a major part in which way they operate.

Edited March 15, 2008 by s_u_y_*

[aryustailm]

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.

Edited March 15, 2008 by aryustailm

[s_u_y_*]

[quote name='aryustailm' post='158174' date='Mar 15 2008, 08:37 PM']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]

That's what I mean. Imperfections [i]can[/i] help bring a piece to life. But like mcgraham said "when you're recording, thats you recorded 'forever', those bum notes aren't going anywhere". For the most part, we do strive for a "perfect" take. 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.

Edited March 15, 2008 by s_u_y_*

[mcgraham]

[quote]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]

Completely forgot about ol' Guthrie! I had the pleasure of seeing him perform and take questions (half way between a performance and clinic) at Nexus music college in Coventry (and Brett Garsed previously to that). Guthrie advocates having fun with the instrument, which is great to see in such a technically able and musical musician.

However I was a bit 'uhh, mmmm' :S with his attitude towards improv. It's hard to put across in words. He spoke about times where he did licks, people would ask what he did, and he admitted to just madly widdling or not caring/thinking about the note or notes he was playing. To me, that is advocating mindless shredding or widdling. I know that's really putting words in his mouth and unfairly taking to an extreme what he was saying. But I don't think it's helpful to tell a room full of guitarists who already want to noodle around til the cows come home that it's great to do that live.

Perhaps he did mean not to get too caught up in playing perfect notes that all have their intended place, as that would qualify as composition, not improvisation. Either way it was a great night

Mark

[queenofthedepths]

What I take from that is that he's internalised all the theory and doesn't have to think about what he's doing... I certainly don't think his playing sounds like random nonsense! But still, perhaps not the best way to express that to guitarists who don't have his discipline

[mcgraham]

[quote]What I take from that is that he's internalised all the theory and doesn't have to think about what he's doing... I certainly don't think his playing sounds like random nonsense![/quote]

Mmm, not exactly. There was a specific question about a lick he did on a youtube video (which, as you may imagine, he did not remember), and he then recounted a story of someone who asked him about a long lick he played (live I presume?) and they said that they'd transcribed it or at least learned it, but couldn't figure out why he'd used certain notes here and there. And he said that they a lot of the time, he has notes in his improv that are/were just wrong notes between phrases, and he said so with a bit of a shrug. Which tied into the whole 'no big deal' attitude towards improv. Saying that, he does advocated moving towards the 'home' note as he calls it.

Of course I'm probably colouring this memory due to the fact this was last year.

[quote]But still, perhaps not the best way to express that to guitarists who don't have his discipline[/quote]

Agreed. Such a fine balance to strike. There are music nazis who demand that every note, recorded, improvised, composed, arranged etc, be perfectly placed 'vhy vas zat note zhere!?' and then there are the 'nyaaaah, forget about it, doesn't matter' types who just widdle or noodle mindlessly, with or without technical prowess or speed.

Mark

[aryustailm]

[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.

Edited March 15, 2008 by aryustailm

[mcgraham]

[quote]Mistakes don't faze them, they just embrace them and get on with making great music.[/quote]

That's the important thing to remember, to have fun with making music. I practice hard so that when the real fun comes I can just let loose and go with it, and not worry about anything.

And on top of that, I really enjoy practice!

Mark

[jakenewmanbass]

I absolutely take the point about clinical perfection, although I think that really great musicians shine through any squeekiness/cleanliness. We should remember that recordings, especially sessions, are done with a specific commercial purpose in mind. If you see top session players live they kick ass in my experience, and will rip it up with warts and all. The same guys employ a different mindset to recording under the guidance of producers and sensibilities stemming from the fact that recorded means forever.
A couple of friends of mine play in Will Lee's Fab Faux, a Beatles tribute band, when they are in the UK (usually annually)
Will is one of [i]the[/i] most recorded bass players in history, and can be very 'studio cool', but on the gig he is a bundle of energy and a f***ing awesome musician who can thrash with the best of them.
Jake

PS. I love the way this thread is developing, its covering all there is to know about bass. Nice one Guys!!

Edited March 15, 2008 by jakesbass

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='paul, the' post='158047' date='Mar 15 2008, 04:31 PM']


Anyway, I can't help but feel a lack of connection with the music with session players. I don't think it's possible to take on the meaning of the music and perform it with a sincerity someone who was brought up with the music/background would, not to mention genuine unity between musicians.

It always feels emulated.

I guess I don't agree with it. I'd rather take the unrefined charms of traditional music to the over-produced stuff.

Session work/repetitive technical exercises have so many connotations with 'industry' to me, over the love of music itself. I rarely want to listen to it because I can't connect with it. It is, so often, an artificial marginalisation and profiteering of the past's pure music.[/quote]

While I would absolutely never attempt to suggest that you are wrong in your choices and taste (for obvious reasons)
I do think you are slighly underestimating the musicality of quite a large number of really great musicians by lumping them in together as 'session players'. and at the same time I feel that you give them short shrift, by dismissing their output in the way that you appear so to do. They are people too, and even if their workload is more akin to that of industry (although to my mind I'm not sure it is) I don't think that that would necessarily preclude them from playing with great feeling, sincerity and intensity.

[s_u_y_*]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='158252' date='Mar 15 2008, 11:37 PM']PS. I love the way this thread is developing, its covering all there is to know about bass. Nice one Guys!![/quote]

+1!

[paul, the]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='158258' date='Mar 15 2008, 11:49 PM']While I would absolutely never attempt to suggest that you are wrong in your choices and taste (for obvious reasons)
I do think you are slighly underestimating the musicality of quite a large number of really great musicians by lumping them in together as 'session players'. and at the same time I feel that you give them short shrift, by dismissing their output in the way that you appear so to do. They are people too, and even if their workload is more akin to that of industry (although to my mind I'm not sure it is) I don't think that that would necessarily preclude them from playing with great feeling, sincerity and intensity. [/quote]

Yes, sorry, I realised that. I was just trying to get something out quickly before I forgot it all.

It does go to reinforcing my point about the hurry and commercialism. I think someone brought up with that (concentrated) will always do a better job. I think session players (and again, I use the term clumsily) are a realistic practicality. The hard work should be respected, but I rarely see the beauty in it.

[mcgraham]

[quote]I think someone brought up with that (concentrated) will always do a better job. I think session players (and again, I use the term clumsily) are a realistic practicality. The hard work should be respected, but I rarely see the beauty in it.[/quote]

I see your argument but don't quite agree with everything.

Genres of music are not isolated points in space and a given genre will share similarities with some others. I concede that some are worlds apart but there is not a single genre of music that doesn't have at least one that shares some important aspects of it with another.

Consequently it follows that a hard working musician (I use this to cover session players et al) who works on even a small number of genres that are exceedingly different (i.e. 'polar' opposites in the n-dimensional spectrum that you could consider music genres to lie on) would be able to cover a vast number of styles in between to a fairly good approximation. I myself have witnessed only a few of these musicians as, lets face it, we in the West have a pretty narrow view of what diverse musical variation means.

Furthermore, I agree that someone brought up in a culture with a very unique genre/genres of music (hungarian folk, whatever the music is that they do for capoeira, the stuff that hellborg and mclaughlin are into from north and south india) will have a distinct advantage and natural instinct to play that music.... [i]provided[/i] that they put in the work. i.e. you'd be looking for the equivalent of a low level session musician from the actual area, in order to justify not getting in a high level session musician who can cover that style to a good degree of approximation.

If the recording is intended for sale in the west and it is a truly different genre to what we're used to, I don't think it's going to matter one way or the other if it's pretty close as we are unlikely to frown any more or less as we are not familiar with such music.

Additionally, concerning us as bassists, we are [i]only[/i] bassists. I agree we have an important role, but we are not the dominant instrument in every style. If you were using this to discuss why violinists/fiddle players from eastern Europe would be better at their folk music than a violinist/fiddle player from the session scene in New York, then I'd probably be inclined to agree with you, as it's a good example of a pretty defining and dominant instrument in a particular style.

Not sure if that came out making a lot of sense, but hey-ho! Let me know if anything doesn't make sense.

Mark

[Davemarks]

To add to all that's been said, i feel it is essential to understand how the industry has changed - people like to buy sh*t. They buy rubbish magazines full of celebrity gossip, watch big brother and generally popularise and promote the value of soul-less rubbish. Gone are the days when bands can take 6 months or a year to make an album, where a lukewarm second album could lead to an awesome 3rd... a lukewarm 2nd album will get you dropped. Rec companies will fund you for a couple of weeks of recording...
With all of the technology that we have today, very poor musicians can be bolstered and supported into making good albums while genuinely good musicians struggle to be heard unless they wish to play pumping quarter notes on a Kylie record. Gone are the days of Pino, Chuck Rainey, Steve Gadd et al playing awesome parts on pop albums.
The music industry is in a bad place these days. I wonder if there was ever a time when it wasn't this hard...

If anyone watched the Xmas special of Extras - this is so true to life it's heartbreaking.

Don't hate the player, hate the game... :-)

Edited March 16, 2008 by Davemarks

[paul, the]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='158307' date='Mar 16 2008, 08:41 AM']I see your argument but don't quite agree with everything...[/quote]

I agree with all this and was thinking about some of it this morning. It brings to light the bassists role again too.

Great post, as always, Mark.

[mcgraham]

[quote]Great post, as always, Mark.[/quote]

Thanks bud much appreciated

Mark

[Bilbo]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='158129' date='Mar 15 2008, 07:17 PM']I also tend to like those albums recorded in weeks rather than months.[/quote]

Ha ha ha!

I love the idea that a 'raw' and 'unpolished' product can be recorded in weeks! What a lot of people don't realise is that most jazz is recorded in one take over an afternoon! Miles Davis recorded the greatest selling jazz lp of all time (Kind Of Blue) in two afternoons (around 6 hours) - no rehearsal, no overdubs and only a couple of re-takes. And what's more, the musicians got paid accordingly - Paul Chambers got about $350 for the whole thing. And it out-sold some of Simon and Garfunkel's LPs. Look at any one of 1,000 Blue Note cds and they will give the date of the recording as one day - look at the discographies and you will see that the sessions produced up to a dozen or more tracks. All the musos got paid union rates with no royalties (except the composers). Those great JOhn Abercrombie Trio recordings are all one day sessions - fantastic! Things are no different today. Gwizdala's cds are all recorded on one day, even if they are mixed and mastered on another.

Session musicians get the gig because they can deliver in one take what other take ten or a hundred to achieve. If the product is soulless, blame the producer - he chose the musicians and 'managed' the arrangements. I did a session once and didn't hear the results until a year or two later and I had to be told it was me because I couldn't remember it at all (and I was stone cold sober!). I know that is not uncommon for other players. We have to remember, as I said elsewhere on this forum, that lots of music that is recorded is often for different audiences than sophisticated afficianados and a polished performance in one arena would grate in another.