More than 4?

[gypsymoth]

nah, people mentioned slide bass - tune 5 on my link below ends with a lengthy slide bit on the 8 string, tune 1 starts with slide on the 5.
I like slide bass. heck, I could have fun with a slide on my four string I even like it for guitar.

[Dood]

[quote name='setekh' post='94371' date='Nov 26 2007, 02:19 AM']was anyone expecting that? [/quote]


lol.. well, it has been interesting to see what opinions people have I guess.. Ones as heated as religion and politics by the looks of it!

[Bilbo]

I started it!

I HAVE learned some stuff I didn't know and seen some players I previously hadn't (which has, in turn, put me in touch with some more etc) so I got a lot out of the debate. I have seen some great young players and been inspired to look at practising again (complacency had set in). I won't be looking for a 9-string in the near future but nor will I discount them as a credible tool in the production of music.

Just a little point to consider. Progress is never achieved by people who agree - only by people who argue, discuss and debate. If everyone agreed, there would be no need to innovate. Don't ever settle for concensus, for the middle ground. That's why national television is so sh**.

Edited November 26, 2007 by bilbo230763

[Kiwi]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='94528' date='Nov 26 2007, 01:38 PM']Just a little point to consider. Progress is never achieved by people who agree - only by people who argue, discuss and debate. If everyone agreed, there would be no need to innovate. Don't ever settle for concensus, for the middle ground.[/quote]
In my experience consensus isn't compromise and doesn't necessarily represent the middle ground. Or else all popular bands would be playing sh*t music by the same definition and the public (to take the definition one step further) would also be happy listening to sh*t music.

Consensus represents an area where opinions and values converge, it only represents compromise when the [i]process of achieving [/i]consensus is compromised.

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='94538' date='Nov 26 2007, 01:50 PM']In my experience consensus isn't compromise and doesn't necessarily represent the middle ground. Or else all bands would be playing sh*t music by the same definition and the public (to take the definition one step further) would also be happy listening to sh*t music.

Consensus represents an area where opinions and values converge, it only represents compromise when the [i]process of achieving [/i]consensus is compromised.[/quote]

Buttt even after reaching a consensus, that doesn't mean you've achieved perfection... consensus doesn't usually refer to universal consensus; there'll always be someone who's not 100% happy with your result and there'll always be a way of improving what you've done - so never settle for anything, even if it's a consensus Admittedly, this isn't practical - I've taken this approach with a couple of projects and as a result, songs have taken years to approach completion and in fact will never truly be ready... however, some things should never be finished, such as legislative policy, personal faith, education and of course the development of the bass guitar! All of these things have a beginning but ideally they'll continue forever

[Bilbo]

Crazykiwi - I think that most popular music, as it is presented in the mainstream media, IS s**t. I don't believe that as an absolute (so don't be coming back at me for that) but, if you watched primetime tv and listened to the radio between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., no piece of music would ever last more than 3.20, no-one over 25 would ever sing, no-one would ever play a solo, most genres wouldn't exist etc, etc.

Ask yourself this; how much of the music I like did I hear first on the radio or television? I bet its a small percentage.

My point is that consensus is sometimes a great way of ensuring mediocrity.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='94544' date='Nov 26 2007, 01:57 PM']Buttt even after reaching a consensus, that doesn't mean you've achieved perfection...[/quote]
Often there's a logrithmic curve of effort in relation to how close to perfection you can get. Its up to an individual to decide how much effort they want to and how far they will get for that effort. A bit like increases in horsepower vs improved acceleration times in cars for example, the price of basses in relation to increases in quality as they get more expensive.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='94544' date='Nov 26 2007, 01:57 PM']consensus doesn't usually refer to universal consensus; there'll always be someone who's not 100% happy with your result and there'll always be a way of improving what you've done - so never settle for anything, even if it's a consensus [/quote]
There's also a difference between consensus and complete satisfaction.

Consensus is best used within the context of a team where no single individual can achieve an objective without the help of others. Usually a team is needed and each person in that team has a clearly defined role and area of expertise. It often happens that there are conflicts between one area of expertise and another. Consensus is the process by which an [i]acceptable[/i] balance can be achieved between two opposing constraints.

Consensus does produce things that are often imperfect but this is often the reality of working in an imperfect world. It surely depends on your terms of reference too? If you are just making something for yourself then you can make it as perfect as you like and be happy because you are setting the standards by which success is judged. You can even come back to it and change it if your feeling of what perfection is changes.

A few things need to be in place for consensus to work properly:

1) A direction, or agreed idea of what you want to achieve which everyone has signed up to. (Objectives/benefits)
2) An agreement on how you will judge when what you are doing has been successful. (Quality)
3) How much effort you are all prepared to put in, to achieve the success you want. (cost)
4) By which time you expect to see results achieved (time - helps monitor progress)

Often compromise happens because 2) hasn't been defined properly. Someone needs to be responsible for making sure that second best isn't being settled for when there's no good reason to accept it. It can also take an extraordinarily long time for the process to have a positive effect if the process is particularly complicated. It may require (like any negotiation process) both parties to burrow down into levels of detail not anticipated before discussions in order to resolve where conflicts lie and where progress towards reaching agreement can be made. A poor 'facilitator' can forget to emphasise 1) at key decision making points in the process which results in 'scope creep' or a change in the goals.

For a solo recording artist, it may not be necessary to reach consensus on anything, up until they get to the delivery stage which is where aspirations meet real world limitations (for example, its too expensive to produce that surround sound DVD audio recording, or the technology isn't easily available.) Thats why I suggested it depends on context.

[Steve Lawson]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='94558' date='Nov 26 2007, 02:20 PM']Crazykiwi - I think that most popular music, as it is presented in the mainstream media, IS s**t.[/quote]

Not just popular music - by volume, most music isn't any good. That's because making great music is really hard. It's not something that happens overnight. It's not something people just fall into, even those who claim they just fell into it are almost invariably lying... And then there's taste - one man's genius is another woman's mindless nonsense...

Fortunately due to the sheer volume of music out there (no pun intended), there's enough world-beatingly great music around to satisfy any taste for a lifetime. The tricky thing is finding it. Or for musicians, it's being found. Then trying to balance the time it takes to make great music (a lot of time) with the time it takes to make yourself findable (also a lot of time). Something's got to give...

But for now, I shall make it easy for y'all - [url="http://www.stevelawson.net"]click here for great music[/url]



Don't be too hard on yourself or others if what you do isn't 'great'. Just try to be less sh*t tomorrow, and eventually you'll get there. I get up each morning with the intention of making better music than I did yesterday. It's a journey with no arrival point, the journey is the point, and all gigs, jams, recordings, lessons, videos, whatevers are stopping off points along the way. Musical fundamentalism is bad for the listener and the player...

[url="http://steve.anthropiccollective.org/archives/2007/11/transparent_mus_1.html"]this blog post might interest some of you, on this subject[/url]

Ears open,

Steve

Edited November 26, 2007 by Steve Lawson

[gypsymoth]

there may not be much consensus in solo stuff, but there is a great deal of compromise - starting with the initial decision (see all the my bandmates a flake threads).

whether you are playing a single instrument solo, or looping and layering it with effects, or doing multiple instruments, the whole concept and process is a struggle of limitations and compromise.

[Dood]

Woh! forget my previous comments! The thread is alive!

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='94564' date='Nov 26 2007, 02:33 PM']Often there's a logrithmic curve of effort in relation to how close to perfection you can get. Its up to an individual to decide how much effort they want to and how far they will get for that effort. A bit like increases in horsepower vs improved acceleration times in cars for example, the price of basses in relation to increases in quality as they get more expensive.


There's also a difference between consensus and complete satisfaction.

Consensus is best used within the context of a team where no single individual can achieve an objective without the help of others. Usually a team is needed and each person in that team has a clearly defined role and area of expertise. It often happens that there are conflicts between one area of expertise and another. Consensus is the process by which an [i]acceptable[/i] balance can be achieved between two opposing constraints.

Consensus does produce things that are often imperfect but this is often the reality of working in an imperfect world. It surely depends on your terms of reference too? If you are just making something for yourself then you can make it as perfect as you like and be happy because you are setting the standards by which success is judged. You can even come back to it and change it if your feeling of what perfection is changes.

A few things need to be in place for consensus to work properly:

1) A direction, or agreed idea of what you want to achieve which everyone has signed up to. (Objectives/benefits)
2) An agreement on how you will judge when what you are doing has been successful. (Quality)
3) How much effort you are all prepared to put in, to achieve the success you want. (cost)
4) By which time you expect to see results achieved (time - helps monitor progress)

Often compromise happens because 2) hasn't been defined properly. Someone needs to be responsible for making sure that second best isn't being settled for when there's no good reason to accept it. It can also take an extraordinarily long time for the process to have a positive effect if the process is particularly complicated. It may require (like any negotiation process) both parties to burrow down into levels of detail not anticipated before discussions in order to resolve where conflicts lie and where progress towards reaching agreement can be made. A poor 'facilitator' can forget to emphasise 1) at key decision making points in the process which results in 'scope creep' or a change in the goals.

For a solo recording artist, it may not be necessary to reach consensus on anything, up until they get to the delivery stage which is where aspirations meet real world limitations (for example, its too expensive to produce that surround sound DVD audio recording, or the technology isn't easily available.) Thats why I suggested it depends on context.[/quote]

Absolutely true, but the context in question is that of a discussion about ERBs - our objectives are simply to enhance our music (I think?), quality is completely subjective and CAN'T be defined properly, cost is virtually nothing, as we are all willing to keep contributing to the discussion and just need to get past any unnecessary aggro, and time is pretty much infinite (I hope there's no time limit for basschat anyway!) - whilst this may not be the most wonderful example of discussion on this overall rather brilliant website, I see no reason it should end, whilst people still have opinions to express... unfortunately, it seems that we've fallen into a trap of discussing the discussion itself, which is pretty much pointless... with that in mind, I probably won't say anything more about it

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='gypsymoth' post='94598' date='Nov 26 2007, 03:50 PM']there may not be much consensus in solo stuff, but there is a great deal of compromise - starting with the initial decision (see all the my bandmates a flake threads).

whether you are playing a single instrument solo, or looping and layering it with effects, or doing multiple instruments, the whole concept and process is a struggle of limitations and compromise.[/quote]

Anything less than infinity strings is a compromise!

[Peaty]

Hmmm
I am happy playing four strings but i would love to have a go at a stick equally I would love to put together a broom handle and tea chest one string bass (as per my uncle in his skiffle days)

Way back in the thread someone said listen with your ears not your eyes and I would totally agree but I would go further if you enjoy it, if you think you might enjoy, even if you think you wont enjoy it but wonder what all the fuss is about, well it give it a go, try something new, diversity is a treasure and it is waiting to be found.

Pete

[Kiwi]

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='94607' date='Nov 26 2007, 04:13 PM']Absolutely true, but the context in question is that of a discussion about ERBs - our objectives are simply to enhance our music (I think?),[/quote]
We're taking a circuitous route around to the point I wanted to make which was, there's almost always something of mutual interest between two 'interest groups'. Trick is to find out what that is and build emphasis and agreement around it. Its classic negotiation, very typical of the type employed in the Northern Ireland Peace Talks for example.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='94607' date='Nov 26 2007, 04:13 PM']quality is completely subjective and CAN'T be defined properly,[/quote]
Thats one of the advantages of achieving consensus. A team can all agree what is acceptable quality given that they all want to achieve the end result. The other advantage is spreading and managing risk.

If a [u]musician/song writer[/u] doesn't want to reach a consensus within a [u]production[/u] team (for example because they believe the process will lead to unacceptable [u]creative [/u]compromise) then they have the option of leaving the team, of course. But if they can't find another team to work with, they can also take on more responsibility for not only creating but also delivering everything they want to see. However even if an artistic loner has the help of people to achieve their creative vision, that's an example of consensus, its just that the balance is very much in favour of the artist - Prince would be a classic example of this. Prince also takes on more responsibility and risk if things fail but he seems quite comfortable with that approach knowing that he has the fan base he has I guess.

It might be that ERB'ers also see themselves as innovators, trail blazing their own paths but thats no reason for any individual to be intolerant of those who choose a more traditional route. In fact, if anything I think an innovative ERBer still depends on traditional forms of playing to help them define who they are as players.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='94607' date='Nov 26 2007, 04:13 PM']cost is virtually nothing, as we are all willing to keep contributing to the discussion and just need to get past any unnecessary aggro, and time is pretty much infinite (I hope there's no time limit for basschat anyway!) - whilst this may not be the most wonderful example of discussion on this overall rather brilliant website, I see no reason it should end, whilst people still have opinions to express... unfortunately, it seems that we've fallen into a trap of discussing the discussion itself, which is pretty much pointless... with that in mind, I probably won't say anything more about it[/quote]
OK, I think you might have misunderstood me a little there but its not important. I have a soft spot for more circuitous routes of discussion because they're a lot more interesting than people simply stating their opinion and leaving, so to speak.

[Bilbo]

I understand that Keith Jarrett thinks any music over and above that of the solo performer will inevitably require compromise. I guess its is true in a way but I see music as a communal activity because, even if you are a solo performer, the moment the music is out there as sound, its beauty is in the ear of the beholder. There are now two people involved so the debate begins anew.

I think the role of the innovator is a lot easier to take a perspective on with hindsight. Remember Stanley Jordan - whatever happened to him? For every innovator who succeeds in moving the art form forward, there are 1,000s taking it up all sorts of blind alleys. Who is to say who is right, other than a concensus? I just think that the debate is more important than the outcome!

[Kiwi]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='94633' date='Nov 26 2007, 04:55 PM']I understand that Keith Jarrett thinks any music over and above that of the solo performer will inevitably require compromise. I guess its is true in a way but I see music as a communal activity because, even if you are a solo performer, the moment the music is out there as sound, its beauty is in the ear of the beholder. There are now two people involved so the debate begins anew.[/quote]
That's the point I was trying to make. Any artist who wants to be appreciated enters into a form of consensus [u]if they care[/u] about getting recognition. Where that point of balance between their vision and their tolerance of compromise is achieved is another question, however. Some artists don't need to compromise their vision and get recognised anyway, such as Banksy. But he must care about recognition or he wouldn't feel like putting his works in high profile locations.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='94633' date='Nov 26 2007, 04:55 PM']I think the role of the innovator is a lot easier to take a perspective on with hindsight. Remember Stanley Jordan - whatever happened to him? For every innovator who succeeds in moving the art form forward, there are 1,000s taking it up all sorts of blind alleys. Who is to say who is right, other than a concensus? I just think that the debate is more important than the outcome![/quote]
This is interesting, because you're describing a process of natural selection to a certain degree. Survival of the fittest. But its also possible for musical performers to come back from the dead, The Police could be a good example of that although whether their music is still innovative is another question.

[ARGH]

Sadly discussion is only as open as those around allow it to be open. The only real boarders are imagination and ignorance,one cant be measured,one is obvious,and this isnt a level playing field. Involving everyone is the only way forward,figureheads have only their own interests at heart,regardless of what they say...
Quality is subjective,Ive seen instruments that someone paid 2 grand for and its only fit for the fire,a name means nothing...and that goes for music too....Saying that innovators last out,and good musicians adapt,multitasking is just one facet of such an example. You HAVE to slap,and tap and have a 5...etc etc to get on at gigs,performance..add vocal skills,and you are never out of work...Saying you do one thing and thats all you do is fine,but it wont get you really much further than at the bottom of the fishpond where most of us are,working stiffs..in the pubs and clubs (for which I am very much one). If you just wanna play for your mates thats fine,but some of us are just never satisfied.

Musically speaking,the only thing we seem to have here regarding the ERB question is fear,a fear of change,its a percieved threat,lets face it its a versatile instrument,more so than a 4 or a 5,and its really very new,and quite shocking on the 1st time viewer. I have little time for traditionalists if thats all they want me to be,I pluck the instrument with my hands,I tap,strum etc etc...I have all the notes available to me on a 4 string bass,and more and its a nice feeling being the only one I know in the flesh,but its not an arrogance,I still have to play the thing,and make it earn its keep,maintain and modify,redesign and introduce concepts and ideas.


I dont think I have yet met online any ERBist that looks down upon traditional players or derides them with the limp wit or sexual lambast that the reverse occurs,most are trad players to pay the bills as I am,except we are not satisfied,I feel we WANT to drive onward,to at the very least change things musically....harmonically,in a way that benefits MUSIC.

I still think If Jean Baudin was sat on Youtube playing Bartok or Mozart not many people would bat an eyelid,alas utopia is impossible.


(Faust rests)

Edited November 26, 2007 by ARGH

[Steve Lawson]

[quote name='gypsymoth' post='94598' date='Nov 26 2007, 03:50 PM']whether you are playing a single instrument solo, or looping and layering it with effects, or doing multiple instruments, the whole concept and process is a struggle of limitations and compromise.[/quote]

...as is all musical performance, if you have some 'ideal' in mind.

I used to be really confused as to why so many of the artists I looked up to hated listening to their own recordings, whereas I love listening to mine - was I just a narcissist, and they were 'true artists' or what?

Then I noticed the one fundamental difference in the way their music was created - if you write music ahead of time, then set about realising it, it's a very rare thing for the end result to be all that you imagined it to be when you started. Your primary question about the end result is 'is it right?' - which is not the question your audience are asking. They are asking 'is it good?'.

The beauty and wonder of improvised music is that it allows the artist to sit with the listener - I get to the end of a recording (I improvise pretty much everything in the studio) and ask myself 'is it good?' - I have no prior concept of 'right' because I wasn't necessarily aiming for something specific in the first place. So I can hear new things in my own music each time I listen, and don't hear what should be there and isn't, because there is no 'should'.

If you contrast this with ensemble improv, one can often be left wishing that the other musicians would do certain things, hoping that they're respond to the changes you've put into the music, and go with it, that they'll hear the shift in the harmony, that they'll understand what you're getting at... That can be a huge frustration and can lead to way more compromise than solo improvisation, which at its best is unfettered.

I've been unbelievably lucky to assemble a community of improvisors around myself with the [url="http://www.recyclecollective.com"]Recycle Collective[/url] - improvisors who bring things to an improvised music setting that I wouldn't dream of conceiving. I attempt to empty my mind of any fixed notions of where a piece 'should' go, and allow myself to get lost in the imagination and creativity of my fellow players, responding with my own musical palette to their leading, and then leading it myself when the musical dialogue suggests that would be a good thing. At its best, it ends up far greater than a sum of its parts. At it's worst, it's still flippin' amazing.

I've VERY picky about who I'll do those kinds of gigs with, because bad improv is horrible. I don't want to end up doing 'funk in E' for hours on end, or trading licks like Freddie Mercury doing his 'deeeeeoooo' schtick with the audience...

OK, so where does this tie in with a discussion about ERBs and shredding, circus bass and too many strings? It puts gear and chops in a context - both are utterly vital and integral to the palette of sounds you have available, but have to be entirely subservient. A player with a pile of stock licks who sits waiting for a chance to show what they can do stands out a mile in a collective improv setting - like a footballer who never passes.

It's all about context. Discussions about compromise are all relative because time, space and the immutable laws of physics are a compromise in an absolute sense, but all limitations are also gateways to liberation...

stay thoughtful,

Steve

[Telebass]

Quote Dood "What would have happened if the original stand up basses had six strings to start with???"

They did. And frets too...

[Dood]

[quote name='finnbass' post='94746' date='Nov 26 2007, 08:25 PM']There's enough hot air on this thread to inflate several zeppelins [/quote]


What's your view Finn?

[Dood]

[quote name='finnbass' post='94780' date='Nov 26 2007, 09:18 PM']Simple really, people should just engage with what they are comfortable with, enjoy themselves, and try not to turn art into religion.

A basic understanding that we don't all think along the same lines would go a long way too.

[i]Vive la difference [/i][/quote]


Cool ;o)

[Kiwi]

Some good stuff going on here. It's great that people are sharing their views and exploring some ideas together.

[Dood]

yeah lovin it! I thought the thread was destined for the gutter, but its good to see some real meaty posts...

[pete.young]

[quote name='Telebass' post='94760' date='Nov 26 2007, 08:57 PM']Quote Dood "What would have happened if the original stand up basses had six strings to start with???"

They did. And frets too...[/quote]

Indeed. Any of you guys ever seen a Theorbo?

14 or more strings. Between 6 and 8 fretted, typical scale length 30 - 32 inches. The remainder 52 inch unfretted.
Bass and Tenor register. Fabulous things.

[metalmaniac]

Mr Lawson... I concur.