Am I Missing Something Here?

[Bluesbreaker5]

My cover band isn't really learning new tunes so I've decided to learn some classic R&B stuff on my own. What I've done in the past is purchase the song I want to learn on ITunes and use my Bass Trainer to learn it.

ITunes charges $1.03 after tax for each song. Currently I've downloaded 503 ITunes songs = $518. Still a big bargain, but starting to add up. (I'm old enough to remember buying 45's for .79 each.)

But I was wondering if there are other or better ways to learn the basslines for 20 songs you want to learn without paying $21 bucks to do it? (Nothing illegal, I agree with copyrights.)

Maybe there's not a better way? Maybe I'm just getting cheap in my old age.

[Dmanlamius]

No, No, not at all!

Ok, firstly check bass tab sites. Use Google. There is a wealth of tab's out there these days...

If you like to learn by ear, try http://www.deezer.com. You can listen to streaming songs for free, and it's completely legal. Also, try youtube for the songs you are looking for. Sometimes, people just put the track up.

Good luck!

[manutabora]

You can use rhapsody, one of their packages might work for you. You won't own the songs, but you can still listen to them.

[RH434]

I'm partial to Bassmasta myself. http://www.bassmasta.net/

Here you can use the search option to get tabs on most any songs. Hardly ever something I look for is not there. If its not, I'll usually tab it and post it myself.

I also use a MP3 bass trainer. I rip most of my tracks off my CD collection and put them onto the trainer. If I didn't have the massive collection, I would probably use Itunes, same as you.

Hope this helps.

[DogPlaysBass]

Most songs I ever want to find are on youtube. A lot of people upload audio songs with pictures. You can find entire albums on youtube very easily. If that doesn't work try playlist.com

[trust24]

what is bass trainer?

[Jim Carr]

Ok, you're gonna laugh, but you can usually check CDs out of the public library.

[Groovy Bastard]

Originally Posted by Jim Carr

Ok, you're gonna laugh, but you can usually check CDs out of the public library.

A what from the what???

[Slax]

Originally Posted by Jim Carr

Ok, you're gonna laugh, but you can usually check CDs out of the public library.

+1! Best thing ever. I probably wouldn't have my jazz collection if it wasn't for the library!

Youtube, as said before, is also great. I find if you search for the song name followed by "lyrics" you'll get the album version as opposed to someone just playing it into a webcam.

[ccbass71]

Half Price Books has $2 cds in there clearance bins. There is usually some pretty good stuff.

[RH434]

Originally Posted by trust24

what is bass trainer?

It's like an MP3 player but can speed up / slow down the music and not change the tone. Some are MP3 and some are CD. See this thread:

Tascam MP-BT1! Woo!

Hope that helps!

[Phil Smith]

503 songs should be enough for a set.

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by Bluesbreaker5

My cover band isn't really learning new tunes so I've decided to learn some classic R&B stuff on my own. What I've done in the past is purchase the song I want to learn on ITunes and use my Bass Trainer to learn it.

ITunes charges $1.03 after tax for each song. Currently I've downloaded 503 ITunes songs = $518. Still a big bargain, but starting to add up. (I'm old enough to remember buying 45's for .79 each.)

But I was wondering if there are other or better ways to learn the basslines for 20 songs you want to learn without paying $21 bucks to do it? (Nothing illegal, I agree with copyrights.)

Maybe there's not a better way? Maybe I'm just getting cheap in my old age.

What cost $.79 in 1968 would cost $4.66 in 2007.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1968,
they would cost you $.79 and $0.13 respectively.

I think a buck-o-three is a pretty good deal there.

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

What cost $.79 in 1968 would cost $4.66 in 2007.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1968,
they would cost you $.79 and $0.13 respectively.

I think a buck-o-three is a pretty good deal there.

Not really a deal when you consider that the quality of a record was typically only limited by the equipment that you played it on. 128kbps MP3's would not be equivalent in quality to a 45 or a single cut of an LP.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

What cost $.79 in 1968 would cost $4.66 in 2007.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1968,
they would cost you $.79 and $0.13 respectively.

I think a buck-o-three is a pretty good deal there.

+10 people don't factor in difference in wages and value of the dollar. In 1967 minimum wage was $1.25. I remember Gazzarri's the hot club on Sunset for up and coming bands like Buffalo Springfield, Van Halen, Doors and other. They paid about $100 per week for the WHOLE BAND to do 3-4 sets a night. I thought it was outrageous I had to pay $16 to go see Jimi Hendrix. But a new PBass was about $130 now worth $10,000 or more.

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

Not really a deal when you consider that the quality of a record was typically only limited by the equipment that you played it on. 128kbps MP3's would not be equivalent in quality to a 45 or a single cut of an LP.

Actually, 45's were pressed in massive volume to sell as many as possible. The metal mold-plates were usually used beyond their duty-cycles and many times the vinyl was from ground up 45s that didn't sell from a different mass pressing.

Remember, these are just 45 RPM 7" singles, not 200-gram virgin vinyl masterpieces played back on a Goldmund or Nottingham turntables.

Plus, the 7" size of the platter meant that the tonearm was at the inner half of it's radius so the distortion % went up dramatically.

I appreciate your reverence to vinyl as I have a finely tuned Linn Sondek LP12 turntable myself, but once you take those factors into consideration, the 128kpbs mp3s probably perform better. Aliasing included.

/analog geek

[Phil Smith]

There's still the issue of a single cut from an LP, are you saying that a 128k mp3 sounds better than that?

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by DocBop

+10 people don't factor in difference in wages and value of the dollar. In 1967 minimum wage was $1.25. I remember Gazzarri's the hot club on Sunset for up and coming bands like Buffalo Springfield, Van Halen, Doors and other. They paid about $100 per week for the WHOLE BAND to do 3-4 sets a night. I thought it was outrageous I had to pay $16 to go see Jimi Hendrix. But a new PBass was about $130 now worth $10,000 or more.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

According to this site above:

Calculated in real 2007 dollars, the 1968 minimum wage was the highest at $9.47. The real dollar minimum wage (red squares) falls during periods Congress does not raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. The period 1997-2007, is the longest period during which the minimum wage has not been adjusted. The minimum wage increases in three $0.70 increments--to $5.85 in 2007, $6.55 in mid 2008, and to $7.25 in mid 2009. The real values after 2007 are projected for future decline in purchasing power.

Also a new PBass today doesn't cost $10,000.

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

There's still the issue of a single cut from an LP, are you saying that a 128k mp3 sounds better than that?

The OP was buying 45s. I have no argument that a 12" LP sounds better than any mp3 regardless of bitrate. Why do you want to start a fight where there isn't one? You wouldn't be trolling, would you?

[tomvelsor]

lets keep arguing about the quality of MP3s. thatll really answer the original question, for sure.