|
Bill Posters posted:The bass is another drum. I take issue with this. If every bass player shared your perspective, we'd never have had James Jamerson, or John Paul Jones, or John Entwhistle, or Paul McCartney. Plus, if I wanted to play a drum I'd become a drummer. Though it's important to be aware of the relationship between drums and bass, don't forget that the bass is a guitar. There's no need to throw your guitar licks out the window, because there's so much material from the guitar that can be put to good use on the bass. You're truly selling yourself (and the instrument as a whole) short if you consider yourself just a cog in the groove machine. That's pure nonsense. It's a cliche I hate as much as the old "less is more" mantra that you hear bassists use so often. Less is often less. In short, the bass is not "out of the melody game", if you know what I mean. Don't let the groove nazis fool you. Go wild, experiment, just be honest about whether the end result actually works and sounds any good. Record as much of your own playing as you can and be critical of it. The possibilities are endless. EDIT: One more thing: locking with the drummer is often a safe bet but it's not nearly always the way to go. You're not his/her sidekick, you're allowed to have a voice of your own. Just, again, be reflective and honest. cactuscarpet fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Oct 7, 2011 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:In my mind, my bass is an 88-piece drumkit. Does that mean it can't carry a melody and have phrasings with its own voice? Of course not. Lots of percussive instruments are like that, hell even a standard drum kit has its own voice and phrasing. And beyond that listen to some good tabla playing, a vibrophone, hell even a piano is technically a percussion instrument. The point is groove and melodic-playing are far from mutually exclusive; I'm not trying to say "hit the root when he hits the kick." But you have to be on the same page rhythmically (for most types of music), otherwise it'll sound just plain off. You have to know the time signature you're working in, know how to break it down into different sections, build your phrases around that time, and figure out how to carry those phrases up and down to suit the piece you're playing. Granted all of that can be said of most any instrument... I absolutely agree bass has a place in the melody game (I do it a poo poo-ton), but remember the dude said he was JUST STARTING on bass. Further down the road, yeah, start incorporating some melody, harmony, resonance, dissonance, etc. into your playing. But off the bat??? Learn to play in the pocket before you start jumping into the deep end. And I don't think anyone was making the argument that the bass is just the drum's "sidekick." EDIT: And just a little add-on to the Entwistle thing... He always said he played the way he did because Keith's drumming required him to do so. He built his lines to Keith's (insane) beats. EDIT EDIT: And the less-is-more/less thing. Personally I like incorporating "space" into certain pieces, but you have to find a way to do it interestingly. This is where syncopation becomes a must. Scarf fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:How easy is it to transition from guitar to bass? I've played guitar for years and years now, enough that I consider myself at least reasonable at it. A friends band are in need of a new bassist and I'm considering giving it a go with them. Aside from the unholy amount of effort to get up to speed with all their material is there anything I should be looking out for\paying attention to? I came from playing guitar and StudyBass was really helpful in terms of laying out the basics, technique, explaining the importance of chord tones and so on. Aside from the technical differences between the two instruments your timing is really important, and in a band people will be relying on you and the drummer to keep a consistent pulse, so you have to develop your own reliable internal sense of rhythm - which is why you see a lot of bassists moving when they play, it really does help. Get a metronome, and keep it simple at first! Oh everyone seems to like Bass Fitness if you want a book of drills. I guess other things to look out for are the music you want to play and the kind of bass you want, if you want a 5th string to hit some lower notes without retuning, if you want (or don't want) active or passive hardware, general tones you want to emulate (which might mean playing with a pick instead of fingers and vice versa)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
Scarf posted:I'm not trying to say "hit the root when he hits the kick." But you have to be on the same page rhythmically (for most types of music), otherwise it'll sound just plain off. This is the part that I think is important to highlight -- that this is advice for "most" types of pop format music. There are exceptions, but even bassists who are exceptions still have songs where they are responsible for groove, and it's very important to have this technique locked. A run before you learn to walk sort of thing, because I think being solid rhythmically is much more difficult than innovating melodically, but that's just me. Scarf posted:I absolutely agree bass has a place in the melody game (I do it a poo poo-ton), but remember the dude said he was JUST STARTING on bass. Further down the road, yeah, start incorporating some melody, harmony, resonance, dissonance, etc. into your playing. But off the bat??? Learn to play in the pocket before you start jumping into the deep end. Again, I'd say playing in the pocket is the deep end, so I guess I'd argue that the emphasis here is misplaced. I agree that playing melodically is sort of the "fun" cherry-on-top, but just because it comes in post-graduate bass playing doesn't mean it's necessarily more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Scarf posted:In my mind, my bass is an 88-piece drumkit. In your mind, that's fine. But in reality, it is a 4 string guitar. Even more than that, it is a bass. I understand what you're saying about the necessity to lock and groove, but being able to share the same time, feel and rhythmical concepts should be a given for each member of the band. Too often people treat it as the bassist's domain and, worse than that, limit them to it. re: "drummer's sidekick" - I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, and I don't want to appear condescending or combative or anything. I'm also aware that philosophy isn't really relevant for a beginning bass player. However, wherever possible, I try to take a stand against the pigeon-holing of bassists as being part of the "groove family". I don't mean that in a "bass is so much more than that" way, I mean it in a "it's a totally different thing" or even a "there's no such thing as a groove family" way. Though you can't always break new ground and sometimes you have to stick to tradition, I would be a happy man if I could convince a novice bassist to think outside the "groove box". Perhaps this is misguided of me, because all I've ever run into are bass players who are stuck in that box, as opposed to the notorious "guitarist-bassist" you guys seem to want to prevent Cast_No_Shadow from becoming. I can see I'm getting more and more incoherent, so I'll just leave you with what I feel is a beautiful bassline that's not trying to be part of a groove, even though it obviously is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_0zrd2u3uk&ob=av2e I hope that makes sense to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
Schlieren posted:Again, I'd say playing in the pocket is the deep end, so I guess I'd argue that the emphasis here is misplaced. I agree that playing melodically is sort of the "fun" cherry-on-top, but just because it comes in post-graduate bass playing doesn't mean it's necessarily more difficult. I suck but I've found that playing simple lines can sound kinda blah, so the motivation's there to add more melodic complexity on top to make it sound more interesting - but if you concentrate on playing that simple line dead on then it suddenly sounds a whole lot more awesome. Just being a little weak on your rhythm can rob nice basslines of their power and make you feel like they need fleshing out
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:I can see I'm getting more and more incoherent, so I'll just leave you with what I feel is a beautiful bassline that's not trying to be part of a groove, even though it obviously is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_0zrd2u3uk&ob=av2e I hope that makes sense to you. I think at this point we're basically saying the same thing, but we're losing each other in semantics. It's important to be able to lock in with your drummer. It is equally important to be able to branch out and take a more "lead" role with your instrument. And yeah, that's a great example of both playing to the drum beat (and adding to it), as well as providing an accompanying melody. It's arranged as such though, there's a TON of space to fill in that song, which allows the bassist to do that (and with still plenty of space left, which I think is part of why it's good). EDIT: And I think you and I have different definitions of "groove" so I'm going to stop using it. It's probably the most overused but ill-defined term in music. Scarf fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
Scarf posted:And yeah, that's a great example of both playing to the drum beat (and adding to it), as well as providing an accompanying melody. It's arranged as such though, there's a TON of space to fill in that song, which allows the bassist to do that (and with still plenty of space left, which I think is part of why it's good). I bet those sorts of songs are as fun to play for the "normally melodic" instruments like guitars or whatever as it is for the bassist, because they get to be ornamental, or more about timbre, or more about noise, or whatever the hell they want. That piano in the track cactuscarpet linked is to my ears more about "Don't pianos sound beautiful?" than any of the notes in particular. Here are more examples because these are usually my favorite sorts of pop songs  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfXVXcYV_LU <--ornamental guitars in verses, all instruments revert to more "traditional" roles for choruses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SZtXkEwZXk <--the bass line is so loving sweet that everybody plays it or makes noise
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Scarf posted:I think at this point we're basically saying the same thing, but we're losing each other in semantics. It's important to be able to lock in with your drummer. It is equally important to be able to branch out and take a more "lead" role with your instrument. Well, I feel the semantics are important. We're approaching it from opposite ends. As I said, having good time is as important for the keyboardist, the guitarist or the saxophone player as it is for the bass player. I don't consider it a selling point, I take it as a given. More significantly, I don't want to view playing a more elaborate bass line as "branching out" or "taking more of a lead role". It may seem nitpicky, but to me that implies that there's a certain level a bass player should be expected to operate at, and deviations from that level are "un-bass-like". Whether you're playing a 2 note part or a 12 note part, whether you're playing chord tones or tensions, what's the difference, really? It's all just material and you're allowed to use it! EDIT: I keep feeling like I can't make my point exactly clear. Maybe I'll return to the discussion tomorrow with a fresh mind. EDIT: One more thing which I neglected to respond to earlier: Scarf posted:And yeah, that's a great example of both playing to the drum beat (and adding to it), as well as providing an accompanying melody. But I don't believe the bass player is consciously trying to "add to the drum beat" any more than the pianist or the singer. That's sort of what I'm getting at. It's impossible to play anything in time without adding to the beat, which means that to see that as an end in itself is missing the point, to me. cactuscarpet fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:Well, I feel the semantics are important. We're approaching it from opposite ends. As I said, having good time is as important for the keyboardist, the guitarist or the saxophone player as it is for the bass player. I don't consider it a selling point, I take it as a given.  That's why we take up music in the first place. At least, that's why I did.quote:More significantly, I don't want to view playing a more elaborate bass line as "branching out" or "taking more of a lead role". It may seem nitpicky, but to me that implies that there's a certain level a bass player should be expected to operate at, and deviations from that level are "un-bass-like". Whether you're playing a 2 note part or a 12 note part, whether you're playing chord tones or tensions, what's the difference, really? As a well-rounded bassist, you should be able to do both. You should be able to form the backbone of the piece and guide the rest of the band through it, and you should be able to go outside that role. Mike Watt in his infinite wisdom put it quite well when being interviewed by Mike Gordon. Although this is mainly about playing up and down on the neck, not necessarily the content: (paraphrased) MG: What are you thinking when you play up high on the neck? MW: I'm trying to make the audience think. I want them to say "what's he doing?" I want to give them something unexpected. MG: And what about when you play low. MW: I want to bring them back in. Make them feel like they're in the womb. quote:But I don't believe the bass player is consciously trying to "add to the drum beat" any more than the pianist or the singer. That's sort of what I'm getting at. It's impossible to play anything in time without adding to the beat, which means that to see that as an end in itself is missing the point, to me. He's aware of the structure he's been given and is working to add his part to that structure without going so far outside of it as to detract from the other instruments and the piece as a whole. THAT is groove. Long story shot: BALANCE DANIEL-SAN, BALANCE!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Scarf posted:Um, I don't really get where you're coming from with this. No one has said anything about it shouldn't be fun Good time, not A good time.  Sorry, I guess I should have said timing.Scarf posted:See, I DO feel that there are certain expectations for the bass (and all instruments) in terms of the "role" they play in a band/song/arrangement/composition/etc. Of course there are! But you use this as the basis for what I consider a false dichotomy: Scarf posted:Does that mean they have to stick to that role all the time? Of course not, that'd be incredibly boring. But completely sticking OUTSIDE of that perceived role can also get incredibly boring and kind of defeat the point of playing that particular instrument. In my mind, there is no difference. I mean, where would you draw the line anyway? Playing too busy or getting the way of other instruments is always a problem and each instrument comes with its own considerations in that regard, but that doesn't mean, to be somewhat hyperbolic, that your basic approach should be to simply wait around on the root and the fifth until you have room to do more. Don't start by worrying what's expected of you. You'll learn what works and what doesn't soon enough. Scarf posted:He's aware of the structure he's been given and is working to add his part to that structure without going so far outside of it as to detract from the other instruments and the piece as a whole. THAT is groove. That's music! A question: if this part had been played by a keyboardist, would we be talking about it in the same way? I doubt it, save in rough terms. Of course Darryl Jones knows how to groove and of course he's aware of how all the parts sit in the measure. That's so evident from the part he's playing, however, that I don't consider it as one of its primary qualities. Another question that might make clear what I'm trying to say: is this bassline a groove or a lead (or something else)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYHxGBH6o4M How about this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I&ob=av3n This one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmJ7EKkv93o Man I'm starting to sound more and more convoluted. I hope I'm getting closer and closer to make my perspective clear, though. If not and it all just sounds like nonsense I hope you'll tell me. cactuscarpet fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
I'm glad my question sparked some good debate, very interesting to read. Oh and thanks for the study bass link as well. Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Oct 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Just wanted to update that I'm gone for the weekend but will pick back up on the discussion when I get back. Annoying as hell to post from my phone...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Who needs a drummer anyway? I've done a bunch of jazz gigs with no drummer. I was the rhythm section. And when I do have a drummer, he backs me up 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Jesus H Christ. The study bass website is fanfuckingtastic. Everyone, guitar or bass needs to go through that at some point, preferably as early as possible. I've always hated theory, I now realise its because I never learnt it in the right way, that guy is spot loving on. Its..its all so clear now...how could I not see some of this before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
It's nice huh! Take a look at the fretboard memorisation exercise too, it works really well and gets you familiar with the circle of 5ths at the same time
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
So, I've got myself an Ibanez EWB20NENT acoustic/electric and an Ampeg BA-108 combo amp. Love them both to death and I'm having a blast. I'm having a couple slight issues though, and I don't really know quite how to approach them. I've been a classical cellist for 19 years and have never before messed with amplification in any way prior to buying this stuff a month ago. First, somewhere along the chain of the electronics, the D string isn't getting picked up as strongly as the other three. I can only assume that whatever pickup system is in there (I can't see it, nor can I find much information beyond a brand name and "It's for acoustics!" by Googling) has individual senses for each string, and the one for the D string is messed up somehow. None of the dials on the amp or on the bass have any effect on this. I have to hit the D string almost twice as hard to get the same volume as I do on the G, A, or E strings. It doesn't matter where on the fretboard I'm playing -- D string notes come through much more quietly than even the same pitches on the other strings, and the response is very even on all four strings when it's unplugged (so I know it's an electrical problem). Being as this is an acoustic/electric and everything is internal and I don't know what the gently caress, is there anything I can reasonably expect to do myself in order to fix this or am I going to be taking it to a luthier? Second, I can't seem to avoid some hum from the cable. I have a few different cables, and there are varying degrees of it from one to the next, but it's consistently there. One of my cables has the metal screw-on sheaths on each end. I assume these are for some kind of shielding -- again, I don't know what the gently caress when it comes to electrifying things. When I touch the sheath on the end of the cable that's plugged into the guitar, the hum goes away entirely. This leads me to believe there's a grounding issue. I wouldn't at all be surprised if these two issues were directly related. I just have no real idea how to approach fixing them, nor if I'm in a position to do it. I'm not particularly handy with a soldering iron, but I do own one and could manage a simple job if needed, so long as I didn't have to disassemble the whole instrument to do it. Is this something I'm going to have to just live with? Also, in terms of strings. The bass came with D'Addario EXP roundwounds, and I love the sound. There is enough fret noise to bug me, which I think might be somewhat solvable by loosening the truss rod slightly. However, the intonation is damned near perfect all the way up the neck and the action feels amazingly good to me. I know there aren't a lot of acoustic bass guitar players around, but does anyone by chance have any experience playing with groundwounds/compresswounds (or whatever they're called)/flatwounds on one of these basses? I feel like experimenting, but I'd kind of like an opinion first. And in case anyone wants some testimony, I adore this bass. It's quiet unplugged, but it has a gorgeous, natural tone and you can coax some volume out of it, especially playing with a pick about halfway between the soundhole and the bridge. I can manage to keep up with an acoustic guitar playing that way as long as the guitarist doesn't start hammering like mad. Plugged in it's even better. It's a fantastic instrument and I'm as madly in love with it a month after buying it as I was when I decided to buy it. Also, I just finished reading the entire thread. Took me three weeks. I learned a hell of a lot -- it's a good read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
First off, welcome! Bass is great. It definitely sounds like the electronics need some work there. Tough to say exactly what's wrong but it does sound like a grounding issue as you mentioned. Since you said you're not too comfortable with a soldering iron I'd recommend just taking it in some place to get everything fixed up. The pickup issue is definitely beyond a home fix and if you're taking it in for that you might as well have them check the grounding too. Hope you can get these issues worked out! Having a bass in solid working order is a wonderful thing. I recently rewired my Jazz with some new pickups and shielding and such, and it just makes it that much more fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Fret noise is more from moving your fingers while they're in contact with the string surface, I'm not sure messing with the truss rod would make any difference (unless you're having to push the strings down a lot to fret it? Might be worth getting it set up). The D string thing could be an electronics issue, but take a look at the string when it crosses the nut and heads for the tuner - is it bent at less of an angle than the other strings? Apparently that can cause a weaker sound, and it's a good idea to make sure the string has a couple of winds around the tuning peg so it starts lower and has a sharper angle to the nut, if you get me. Not sure how much of a difference it would make, and you said it sounds even acoustically - can you tell if the string saddle is flat and pressing evenly on the bridge/top? Lots of people here love flats (or tapewounds which might be a good fit for acoustic, ask Scarf!), I put some on a few months back and there's definitely less string squeak, they're much grippier than roundwounds and a lot darker in sound
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The D string thing could be an electronics issue, but take a look at the string when it crosses the nut and heads for the tuner - is it bent at less of an angle than the other strings? Apparently that can cause a weaker sound, and it's a good idea to make sure the string has a couple of winds around the tuning peg so it starts lower and has a sharper angle to the nut, if you get me. Not sure how much of a difference it would make, and you said it sounds even acoustically - can you tell if the string saddle is flat and pressing evenly on the bridge/top? This motivated me to poke around with the instrument a bit. First, the D string is wound fine as far as I know. All the angles, distances, winding, etc. are the same as the A string. The only difference is, of course, thickness, and it's hard for me to jive the idea of that mattering with my experience with large classical instruments. Also, I managed to get a look inside at how everything is wired inside the body. As near as I can tell (I know only what google tells me and what I see), it looks like each string has its own independent piezoelectric pickup that's part of the bridge, and those pickups are then augmented by a fifth piezo pickup on the underside of the top of the instrument several inches away. All of this is then combined and wired in a single channel to the preamp, and then to the outputs. That would lead me to believe that the low level on the D string could be solved by replacing/rewiring/something I can't see on the D string pickup itself. As far as the cable hum goes, I couldn't see the internal wiring on the preamp at any point (I couldn't pull the system out to the point I could open up the little box containing it). It looked as though there may not have been a whole lot of care taken to separate the mess of wires so they didn't interfere with one another, and not all of them looked all that substantially-shielded. No ideas there. Bah. By the time I take this to a luthier, I'll have figured out enough by poking around to build my own damned guitar. ...come to think of it, I just might try that eventually. EDIT: Yes, the string saddle looks fine to me. Glorks! fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Well from poking around the internet briefly I saw people talking about... well here I'll show you the kind of thing http://www.ukuleleunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?52567-Weak-Pickup-on-G-String That's a uke obviously but I guess the same problems could occur if the string->saddle->bridge->body connection isn't as perfect as it could be. It could be a wiring issue but my uninformed guess would be that you'd get a fairly uneven signal in that case - weak, sometimes loud, maybe crackly. If it's just quieter but consistent then I'd probably assume it's just not in an optimal setup, but I'm totally speculating here (I've never even used a piezo). Maybe there's some kind of phasing issue with the D pickup and the all-strings pickup? The hum could be your house wiring as well, unless you've tried some other instruments that amplify fine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Well from poking around the internet briefly I saw people talking about... well here I'll show you the kind of thing quote:The hum could be your house wiring as well, unless you've tried some other instruments that amplify fine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
quote:Another question that might make clear what I'm trying to say: is this bassline a groove or a lead (or something else)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYHxGBH6o4M How about this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I&ob=av3n This one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmJ7EKkv93o First of all, I don't use "groove" like that as a term, for me it's more of a descriptor. So second of all, again, the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the most basic of basslines, and they can "groove." You can have the most complex leads/solos/etc., and they can "groove." So let's just stop using the word, because it's never had a clear definition. quote:Man I'm starting to sound more and more convoluted. I hope I'm getting closer and closer to make my perspective clear, though. If not and it all just sounds like nonsense I hope you'll tell me. Going back and reading all of this stuff again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. So if you could just put it in a single sentence or maybe two, that would help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
Scarf posted:Going back and reading all of this stuff again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. So if you could just put it in a single sentence or maybe two, that would help. I'm arguing against the predominant notion that the bass is "a groove instrument". It's an approach that I feel is detrimental to the development of overall musicianship in a bass player. To me, it's inextricably linked to the idea that your "home" as the bassist is the root (preferably tied to the kick pattern) and anything you can add to that is just icing on the cake. Even though I know you're not saying that, it's the notion you inevitably have to start from when you think of yourself as being, first and foremost, responsible for "groove". I know this is mostly philosophical, but I still feel that the way you consider yourself, your instrument and your role in the band can make a huge difference in your playing. However, I will admit that it's only applicable after you've mastered the basics. Still, breaking out of that "groove box" can be what sets you apart from the thousands upon thousands of guys who are happy to just stick to that area and never really become part of the music. I agree that we should stop using the word "groove", but I think we'll both have trouble kicking the habit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Well, I loosened up the strings and pulled the saddle out. It's pretty damned straight. The best straightedge I could find was the edge of a stainless steel drafting ruler -- I'm willing to trust that for now. There was a braided copper wire running under the saddle, though, and it looked to be a bit smashed/bent in away from the saddle right around the D-string area. I pulled it up and coaxed a very slight bend the other direction before I reseated it. And then I proceeded to break my D string at the tuning peg while retightening the strings. 19 years of playing cello and I've broken maybe three strings ever. 4 weeks of bass guitar, I'm 1 for 4.  This led me to swap all four strings for the set of Ernie Ball Super Slinky roundwounds that the shop where I bought this threw in for free with the purchase. I hate these strings -- they require a LOT more tension to get up to pitch -- so much so that I'm actually worried to leave it in standard tuning -- and they sound like rear end on this instrument. It's pretty obvious that they're not made to be on an acoustic. At that point I gave up for the night and went to bed. Bass: 1; Me: 0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
Glorks! posted:Well, I loosened up the strings and pulled the saddle out. It's pretty damned straight. The best straightedge I could find was the edge of a stainless steel drafting ruler -- I'm willing to trust that for now. There was a braided copper wire running under the saddle, though, and it looked to be a bit smashed/bent in away from the saddle right around the D-string area. I pulled it up and coaxed a very slight bend the other direction before I reseated it. I'm clearly not as knowledgeable about stringed instruments in general as you, but unlucky on the strings, if they were clearly too tense I'd have them off in a second, although I imagine an acoustic bass of all instruments has a pretty strong neck so you're probably not going to do it any damage, I'm just a cautious carol. As for the dodgy d, no idea what that copper is for, but that sounds like far too much of a coincidence for it not to be related in some way...be optimistic!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
Scarf posted:Going back and reading all of this stuff again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. So if you could just put it in a single sentence or maybe two, that would help. cactuscarpet posted:I can see I'm getting more and more incoherent, so I'll just leave you with what I feel is a beautiful bassline that's not trying to be part of a groove, even though it obviously is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_0zrd2u3uk&ob=av2e I hope that makes sense to you. OK, so the bass in "I Believe in You" is a melodic bassline that hits the root of every chord. The bass is the most pronounced instrument in the mix, so it seems to play a lead role as well. And it's a little riff-y. It's also arguably the instrument defining the groove and holding everything together, as the drums and piano can feel a little sparse and scattered. The bass is not tied to the kick drum (Black Dub, after all), but it's still playing on the 1 for most of the song. So uh, yeah. Cool stuff is going on in this song, but I still don't know what you guys are arguing about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:I'm arguing against the predominant notion that the bass is "a groove instrument". It's an approach that I feel is detrimental to the development of overall musicianship in a bass player. To me, it's inextricably linked to the idea that your "home" as the bassist is the root (preferably tied to the kick pattern) and anything you can add to that is just icing on the cake. Even though I know you're not saying that, it's the notion you inevitably have to start from when you think of yourself as being, first and foremost, responsible for "groove". quote:I know this is mostly philosophical, but I still feel that the way you consider yourself, your instrument and your role in the band can make a huge difference in your playing. However, I will admit that it's only applicable after you've mastered the basics. Still, breaking out of that "groove box" can be what sets you apart from the thousands upon thousands of guys who are happy to just stick to that area and never really become part of the music. There, glad we've cleared all that up. Bourbon posted:So uh, yeah. Cool stuff is going on in this song, but I still don't know what you guys are arguing about. That makes 3 of us
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
If we agree, how can you say that "bass is primarily a rhythm instrument"!?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:If we agree, how can you say that "bass is primarily a rhythm instrument"!? It is primarily a rhythm instrument. It's primarily a rhythm instrument. That doesn't mean it can't be/isn't more - it certainly is. It doesn't matter what you do on a bass or how beautifully you play, if you don't have rhythm, it sounds like crap. That's true for everything!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Manky posted:It is primarily a rhythm instrument. It's primarily a rhythm instrument. That doesn't mean it can't be/isn't more - it certainly is. It doesn't matter what you do on a bass or how beautifully you play, if you don't have rhythm, it sounds like crap. That's true for everything! But it isn't primarily anything! There's nothing in the instrument itself, it's all in the player. And yes, any instrument sounds bad if your timing is bad, but what does that have to do with it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:If we agree, how can you say that "bass is primarily a rhythm instrument"!? Manky posted:It is primarily a rhythm instrument. It's primarily a rhythm instrument. That doesn't mean it can't be/isn't more - it certainly is. It doesn't matter what you do on a bass or how beautifully you play, if you don't have rhythm, it sounds like crap. That's true for everything! Manky gets it, and I couldn't really put it better than that. Thanks I mean, if you don't like the labels given to instruments, that's fine. But it is what it is. Instruments are tools, and those tools are designed to do certain jobs. And again, that doesn't mean they can't do other jobs as well... but while it may be kind of fun/interesting to use a drill to set a nail, sometimes you just really need a good hammer. cactuscarpet posted:But it isn't primarily anything! There's nothing in the instrument itself, it's all in the player. And yes, any instrument sounds bad if your timing is bad, but what does that have to do with it? See, I disagree. And my previous statement right up there^^^ says it all. Instruments can cover various roles, but they all have that one role they were designed for. Ever heard a tuba cover a piece written for piccolo? Sure it can be done, and it might sound interesting, or even amazingly awesome. But if something is written with a particular timbre in mind... Again, it's all contextual. Here is Ron Carter doing Blue Monk, with the piano transcribed to piccolo bass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFbwEdkUuIM It's flat out amazing, and in this case it works wonderfully well. Can we say it would ALWAYS work well in ALL cases? Not necessarily. Scarf fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I have no clue what you guys are talking about. Is the discussion about whither or not having the perspective that bass is meant to groove or be primarily focused on rhythm and how that may adversely affect a player's potential? There are good bass players who believe in bass as a rhythmic instrument, and those who don't. So I don't think the personal philosophy of a bass player affects the quality of the player. What I think is the problem are mediocre players who justify their mediocrity with philosophical excuses instead of stretching themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Scarf posted:See, I disagree. A-ha! Scarf posted:Ever heard a tuba cover a piece written for piccolo? Sure it can be done, and it might sound interesting. But if something is written with a particular timbre in mind... I have heard all sorts of compositions played by all sorts of instruments they weren't written for and whether the result is any good is mostly a matter of taste. But that's the thing: let your taste decide what you play, not other people's imagined expectations or some fictional boundary of where your chosen instrument's purpose begins and ends. And never, ever go "the instrument was designed to do this or this" because that kind of talk is of use to no one. If that sort of thinking had any merit, slapping or playing with a pick (or anything other than our thumbs) would be out of the question! On a related note I would like to say that I am enjoying this discussion and I hope we can continue to swap ideas, hoping we don't derail the thread too much... Rifter17 posted:What I think is the problem are mediocre players who justify their mediocrity with philosophical excuses instead of stretching themselves. Yes, but this is a problem with those players and not the philosophy. But I like your point that different players have different approaches and they can all work. However, I think the "groove" approach is the more common one and I think it creates a lot of imaginary limitations for many bassists. cactuscarpet fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:And never, ever go "the instrument was designed to do this or this" because that kind of talk is of use to no one. If that sort of thinking had any merit, slapping or playing with a pick (or anything other than our thumbs) would be out of the question! None of us are being as black-or-white as you're trying to portray us. And no one said anything about technique. By the way, slapping was developed as a rhythmic technique But if you can't accept the fact that the bass was developed to cover the lower-register, underlying rhythm and structure of a song/composition, then I really don't know what else to say. But again, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN ONLY DO THAT AND NOTHING ELSE. And I really don't know how many more times anyone can say that, so unless there's a new point to bring up, I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Scarf posted:None of us are being as black-or-white as you're trying to portray us. No, and our opinions aren't that far apart, really. But the black-and-white thinking is something I've come across a lot, which is why I'm being so zealous. Scarf posted:But if you can't accept the fact that the bass was developed to cover the lower-register, underlying rhythm and structure of a song/composition, then I really don't know what else to say. But again, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN ONLY DO THAT AND NOTHING ELSE. Naturally there's no way for me to deny that. But to me that's already a much broader definition than "bass is primarily a rhythm instrument". That may sound like nitpicking but I think it's a big difference. It creates much less of a gap between what the bass does in a band and what the other instruments do. To me, the roles are not as sharply defined as some people make them out to be. I guess that's what I'm getting at. Scarf posted:unless there's a new point to bring up, I'm done. That's fair enough, I don't think there's much left to be said on the topic. Thanks for indulging me!
cactuscarpet fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
You all seem to agree to some extent, no one is saying any instrument is predefined for a set role and there it will stay forever lest everyone be damned. No one is saying the bass can't lay down a kickass rhythm just playing roots and fifths. Everyone seems to agree that in the right hands, any instrument can do pretty much everything you want and more (within reason). I think the salient point is remembering where we are, the bass beginners thread. If you love the melodic aspect of music, you're probably better of picking up a guitar or piano or something people traditionally play melodies in. If you want to be in the rhythm section, holding it all together, yeah start with bass, or drums or whatever. I get the original point, its a bad philosophical view point to partition off bass as just rhythm and so on. But any body new to bass should learn it as a rhythm instrument first, in my opinion of course. If you can't do what a bass is traditionally seen as, then its not going to help when you want to play with others, and if you don't want to, why pick bass first? Given its a beginners thread surely the original advice wasn't anything other than, learn your fundamentals but don't be caged in by them. A bass player that can hold it all together when needed and bust out some amazing riffs as well is a musician. A bass player that can throw out wicked melodies but refuses to do any rhythm work is playing alone. (Or in a very small niche). Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Rhythm and melody are just tools. All I know is why would you want to play anything other than bass when you get to play the bass line to Give It Up, Or Turn It Lose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf5CqSDgiLU
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 07:27
|
|
|
Gosh I just can't stop replying.Cast_No_Shadow posted:You all seem to agree to some extent, no one is saying any instrument is predefined for a set role and there it will stay forever lest everyone be damned. Unfortunately, when you say that the bass player is "in the rhythm section" you're already halfway to saying that. "Rhythm section" is a term originating from the jazz tradition, where you had one soloist (at a time) and the rhythm section was there to support them. If that's how you want to work that's fine of course, but I think most people nowadays are interested in working as a cohesive band, not as "The [soloist's name] Trio". If you want to take yourself seriously as a musician (and sound like you do), you have to start by giving yourself the same responsibilities as everyone else in the group. Cast_No_Shadow posted:No one is saying the bass can't lay down a kickass rhythm just playing roots and fifths. Absolutely. Cast_No_Shadow posted:I think the salient point is remembering where we are, the bass beginners thread. If you love the melodic aspect of music, you're probably better of picking up a guitar or piano or something people traditionally play melodies in. This is what I hate to see.  I don't think that's true at all! It's exactly what I've been trying to contradict. Choose the bass because it inspires you, for whatever reason. Even if for a lot of people that inspiration comes from the wealth of classic, groovy basslines in popular music, that doesn't mean the instrument itself is intrinsically less "melodic" and more "rhythmic".My point is, if you love melody and aren't really into "groove", there is no reason to not choose the bass. But... Cast_No_Shadow posted:If you can't do what a bass is traditionally seen as, then its not going to help when you want to play with others, and if you don't want to, why pick bass first? ..this is of course true to an extent. Just as with any instrument, you're going to have to bone up on your source material to get any good and to get people to want to play with you. That means transcribing other bassists. But not just other bassists. Material from pianists, vocalists (my favourite), saxophone players and especially guitarists is just as, if not more valuable. It's all stuff you can use in the "traditional bass role" while having very little to do with "what bass is traditionally seen as". Does that make sense to you? Cast_No_Shadow posted:Given its a beginners thread surely the original advice wasn't anything other than, learn your fundamentals but don't be caged in by them. Yes, everyone here has given you good advice and I certainly started out by giving the impression that my stance was somehow radically different. Naturally that's not the case, much of what we're saying boils down to the same thing even though I'm being a bit pedantic about it. I would say, though, that bass fundamentals, technique aside, are not different from any other instrument's fundamentals. Cast_No_Shadow posted:A bass player that can throw out wicked melodies but refuses to do any rhythm work is playing alone. (Or in a very small niche). I haven't met too many guys like that. I would say that that is a result of poor musicianship in general, meaning they haven't invested a lot of time in learning what their instrument really sounds like and what it does for the music. I mean, you could say the exact same thing about a pianist or a guitarist. To add to what LordPants said, rhythm and melody are tools, not "jobs".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
cactuscarpet posted:If that's how you want to work that's fine of course, but I think most people nowadays are interested in working as a cohesive band, not as "The [soloist's name] Trio". If you want to take yourself seriously as a musician (and sound like you do), you have to start by giving yourself the same responsibilities as everyone else in the group. Again, I'm not a bassist, so let's talk about a couple guitarists for a second. Freddie Green, Nous'che Rosenberg—these are two giants of rhythm guitar. You can spend a lifetime studying and practicing and never be as good as them. They may never take solos, but to suggest that they aren't part of a cohesive band, or that they have fewer responsibilities than the soloists, is to do them a massive disservice. By all accounts (including Basie's) Freddie Green was the core of the Basie band for 50 years, and all he did was play one chord per beat. And not many people in the world can keep up with Nous'che when he gets going, so it's a good thing he's playing with two people who can. I wouldn't discourage anyone from aspiring to be like these guys, or tell them that they're making a mistake by thinking of themselves only as a rhythm guitarist (except maybe for economic reasons). Edit: I guess I could have been shorter here by saying: Rhythm is the job of Nous'che and Nonnie Rosenberg (bass), but there would be no Rosenberg trio without them. And Freddie Green was Mr. Rhythm. Maybe this just varies with the style of music—all I really know about is jazz—but I kind of doubt it. The idea that you're somehow a less important part of the band because you're playing rhythm is absurd. Of course you, shouldn't lock yourself into any one style if you don't enjoy it. (And you're definitely less visible as part of a rhythm section, which is important for some people.) But that's a far cry from saying it's bad in principle to think of yourself as purely a rhythm player. Edit: And here by saying: Rhythm doesn't have to be a job. But it can be, and there's nothing wrong in principle when it is. Pyrthas fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Oct 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 16:18
|
|
