Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
- Status
Its not jimmym trying to make this scientific, but me having fun, because it can be science. Regarding @Gorn's comment, about a single event, I would like to discuss how a single event, (to me, a sampling of several points. at a point in time) can provide valid scientific data. But someone needs to buy the Guiness Stout, so the discussion can be fruitful. The Guiness beer is an important part of the discussion, and has historical relevance to the discussion. The conversation will be about, t-tests, paired and general, ANOVA, MANOVA, F-distributions, X (Chi) tests, tukey tests. type I errors, type II errors plus more. Twenty-two pages, and we have believers, non believers, a statistician, (which comes from the group, (Lairs, Lawyers and Statisticians)), and the confused.
That wasn't correlation, that was causation. Old strings: normal/no comments for months. New strings: suddenly abnormal comments on the sound. Causation, baby, causation.
But hey, ignore it at your peril.
Well, that's the rub -- it was but ONE MERE SUMMER SESSION at Harvard
A conceit on my mom's part -- like many lower middle class folk she thought privilege could be procured via access, rather than by pedigree. But that is of course not how it works! (Unless you are in show biz, of course - big success brings a "get out of class" card).
In any case, the "Soc" crowd at Harvard knew I was a pretender and sent me packing back to the West Coast.
But first I paid a visit to NYC where I was the guest of some rich Filipino "kids" who were wealthy wastrels in their
30s still partying in the State on their parents' pesos. I was still naive enough not realize I had been brought along with nefarious intent -- these guys were quite flamboyant gay swingers! They took me to some of the most sordid clubs imaginable, and then to a party at the Philippine embassy, where upon reaching the desired floor, a laughing man in a suit toppled through the opening doors of our elevator before a bunch of giggling transvestites scooped him up and carried him away. "That's our ambassador," said my hosts.
The NYC portion of the trip was the REAL education.
I removed the attachment, but are the old people combining the sign letter language letters D and I. one saying ID ID, or DI, DI, and no ID, no DI? @JimmyM, I believe guy is saying use the DI, on the FOH. and the lady, is saying, no DI,
i dont get the rude angle, theres no interaction, the gigs are not that "personal" if they were i'm sure it would be different.
I removed the attachment, but are the old people combining the sign letter language letters D and I. one saying ID ID, or DI, DI, and no ID, no DI? @JimmyM, I believe guy is saying use the DI, on the FOH. and the lady, is saying, no DI,
Well, precisely. The woman is throwing the sign at the sound man not because she is deaf, but because her screaming cannot be heard above the roar of Jimmy M's hairy new roundwounds.
Well I guess that all depends on the gig itself. I do some gigs where interaction is frowned upon and some gigs where it's encouraged.
Which brings us to another point that should be made, especially to the naysayers...who says this experience a couple days ago is a singular event? Does anyone really believe that after 40 years of playing professionally that this is the only time that non-musicians have commented on my playing or sound in a way that shows me that they're listening with somewhat sophisticated ears ? Get real. This was just the latest example. No, it doesn't happen on every gig, but it has happened many times over the course of 40 years. And sometimes I was rather unhappy about their input, although these days it seems to be happening less. Maybe I'm getting better
But hey, you naysayers feel free to keep assuming that your audiences are musical nitwits. You're just clearing a path for guys like me to swoop in and win their hearts. And your gigs.
The pareto effect is based on the pareto principle, which you like know, is a summation of the observations, Enrico? Pareto, an economist made. The numbers are not hard, but many know the principle by the 80/20 rule. Using that rule typically 20% of an observant group will comment, while 80% does not. Thus the quick math, says about 100 people noticed. My part time job, involves retention of previous customers. The goal of the employer is to retain 80% of last years customers, a number that will be tough to achieve, as historical retention is about 60 to 70%. And to make it worse, we are not receiving training in retention methods.
The following is a weak argument with a lot of holes: Will 7% of the large group notice. I believe you can make a good argument. Using highly bias information, a couple of schools, a couple of towns, My junior high had a music program. Six classes, about 40 students in each class. The population of the school. was about 1200, so at any one time, 20% of the school population was taking music. Lets say, 50% of the people forgot what was taught in the music class, that still leaves 10% of the population being somewhat knowledgeable in music. My high school had an orchestra program, a band program, and a choir program. with a marching band of about 75 to 100 people, an orchestra of 40 people and about a 100 people in choir, the numbers work out to be the same. In a medium sized town in SE NM, the band program filled four buses for marching band, about 175 kids for a school of 2000.
The exposure to music is important, as the exposure raises the possibility that some one noticed.
I know of one kid, who played trumpet, who received a lot of positive comments, that his pitch was better than the twenty other trumpets, because part of his training was staying on pitch while he changed the brilliance of the sound. It didn't hurt that for four years, he played first or second trumpet, so he was in a high profile position.
I have provided non-scientific highly bias information, but it does show a trend.
Which brings us to another point that should be made, especially to the naysayers...who says this experience a couple days ago is a singular event? Does anyone really believe that after 40 years of playing professionally that this is the only time that non-musicians have commented on my playing or sound in a way that shows me that they're listening with somewhat sophisticated ears ? Get real. This was just the latest example. No, it doesn't happen on every gig, but it has happened many times over the course of 40 years. And sometimes I was rather unhappy about their input, although these days it seems to be happening less. Maybe I'm getting better
But hey, you naysayers feel free to keep assuming that your audiences are musical nitwits. You're just clearing a path for guys like me to swoop in and win their hearts. And your gigs.
You are the one assuming people think that. But the reason you are getting blowback is for calling people who disagree with you arrogant and stupid. Even if you have a valid point (you don't), when you present yourself as an antagonistic d bag, some people are going to take it the wrong way.
Bullcrap. Nothing I said about this particular event even tacitly implies that it's the only time it's ever happened. If you think it does, that's on you, not me.
Probably been said but the room is a huge factor in sound.
I played a room last week with cement floors and loots of glass. I had to cut all the lows and boost all the highs just to get a decent sound. A week later I played one of my usual locals and WOW! The instrument sounded like a chipmunk .
I played a room last week with cement floors and loots of glass. I had to cut all the lows and boost all the highs just to get a decent sound. A week later I played one of my usual locals and WOW! The instrument sounded like a chipmunk .
I have compared and contrasted those two basses over and over, even made recordings doing it, and the only difference I hear when the strings are of similar wear is the Fender has a tiny bit more fret rattle because the action is slightly lower. So they made the comments, and me being the guy who's supposed to know why they made those comments because it's my job, figured that the fret rattle probably had less to do with it than the newness of the strings on the Fender.
The only ones who could possibly be offended by that are the ones who identify with that subset of musicians who think their audiences are stupid. If you're not in that subset, then you won't be offended. And if you are, then I don't care if you're offended or not.
Gorn, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by quoting 2 of my posts without comment, but I'll take a guess that you think I contradicted myself with causation vs corollary.
Nope.
The strings caused the sound change which caused the additional comments which Jimmy/OP didn't anticipate.
The corollary conclusions are 1) you can't always know what an audience will notice, and 2) it is wrong/arrogant to presumptuously underestimate them.
These basic points are correct and unassailable. Attempting to deconstruct them is not scientific in the slightest: science is often made by samples of one. Yes, one event, as predicted by hypothesis and witnessed by multiple peers. Einstein's eclipse, with photographs of starlight behind it, is a dramatic example.
I presume there are witnesses to the comments Jimmy got, so then the only procedural difference between Jimmy's Dunlop and Einstein's Eclipse would be that Jimmy apparently didn't predict anything at all, and thus had no initial bias.
Trying to deconstruct those clear conclusions doesn't serve science, it serves only to justify disrespecting audiences. Even if you don't mean such disrespect and don't intend to actually justify it - that's still the devil your arguments are trying to serve.
It is incorrect and inexcusable for performers to disrespect audiences, especially behind their backs on a forum like this. Anyone who convinces themselves that audience-blaming is ok, is really just trying to cover their own inadequacies, and should tell their gear immediately and retire permanently. Audience-blamers have no future as performers anyway.
Nope.
The strings caused the sound change which caused the additional comments which Jimmy/OP didn't anticipate.
The corollary conclusions are 1) you can't always know what an audience will notice, and 2) it is wrong/arrogant to presumptuously underestimate them.
These basic points are correct and unassailable. Attempting to deconstruct them is not scientific in the slightest: science is often made by samples of one. Yes, one event, as predicted by hypothesis and witnessed by multiple peers. Einstein's eclipse, with photographs of starlight behind it, is a dramatic example.
I presume there are witnesses to the comments Jimmy got, so then the only procedural difference between Jimmy's Dunlop and Einstein's Eclipse would be that Jimmy apparently didn't predict anything at all, and thus had no initial bias.
Trying to deconstruct those clear conclusions doesn't serve science, it serves only to justify disrespecting audiences. Even if you don't mean such disrespect and don't intend to actually justify it - that's still the devil your arguments are trying to serve.
It is incorrect and inexcusable for performers to disrespect audiences, especially behind their backs on a forum like this. Anyone who convinces themselves that audience-blaming is ok, is really just trying to cover their own inadequacies, and should tell their gear immediately and retire permanently. Audience-blamers have no future as performers anyway.
- Status
Latest posts
-
De-fretting - How much fretboard chipping/removal is expected on a Jatoba neck?
- Latest: bass player 53
-
-
