Hi, I am really bad at knowing good songs to play, I was just wondering if anyone could recommend some really nice sounding songs for me to learn? Thanks.
Drums and bass are made in midi, guitar (Rhythm & lead) is me.
So I did learn Clapton's version of crossroads, but always wanted to do John's version too. I started with playing the bass note and then the syncopated hits that john does.. Got rid of the bass note, changed the feel a bit with some hammering on, and thats how I ended up with this "crossroads" vibe.
Feel free to give me advice, they're always welcome haha.
Hey r/bass, I've been inspired by Adam Neely's videos (hope that doesn't make me any enemies!) and started a new youtube channel. This is my 4th video and probably most relevant to bass players. https://youtu.be/kBNvPb331SQ Would love to hear any thoughts and whether you like what I do. Enjoy! David
Has anyone ever put a 145 or 150 tuned to B, or Bb, or A? (question is flexible there, since i know its unlikely that most have tried a gauge that heavy while still tuned to B…however its possible that some have)
If youve tried a 145 or 150 but only tuned to A, a description of how the tension felt would be helpful still, like could it have been even more tension while still being bearable, or was it really tight, etc…
Was just reading about balanced/progressive tension here…https://www.talkingbass.net/flappy-b-strings-tight-d-strings-and-the-switch-to-progressive-tension/
And the guy suggested a 145 for a string, still tuned to B, to match the tension of the E 105. Is that cool? What about a 150?
155 would be too much for a A#? This is all 34" scale speaking.
So I suggested this a while back (like half a year ago maybe) and it hasn't been implemented yet, so this time I decided to make this a more public discussion about source quality.
While original sources are encouraged, redditors still post articles from sites that are not doing their job properly. It happens, that's not the issue. But I think it would be a good idea to "flag" sites with source quality indicators.
Why? Here is the most recent example:
The article only links to a previous article from 2015 from the same site, which then provides another link to the main page (probably because that article is even older an not around anymore). So the author basically quotes a few scientists, doesn't provide any original sources at all – and people simply buy it (looking at all the comments) – that's how misinformation spreads and ppl get wrong ideas about things that aren't even true.
Here is the actual source they are probably refering to:
I doubt the author even read the paper. So maybe the content of the article also fails to mention a few other things? Since I don't have access to the paper I can't tell, but failing to provide the source is often an indicator for bad practice and a more creative interpretation of available information.
I'm aware that journalism and science don't always go well together – so what this subreddit should do is provide redditors with a rough idea if a source is actually good or not.
Obviously news.sky.com is not an astronomy site – it's the Sky news site (which belongs to Sky plc). As a reader of this sub, I don't want to have to check every single time if articles are solid and if their sources are legit and it would be a massive quality of life upgrade imho if the sub would at least provide a rough estimate if a link leads to a good source or not.
Right now, people have to point this out in the comments – which is great. But way too often that's somewhere at the bottom and who would search all comments just to see a source analysis? No one.
Give this another thought please, I think a source quality initiative would be quite beneficial to this sub.