hi guys, just wanted your opinion on this.

When you think of awsome bassists, do you guys think of how insane/many notes they play, or what they can do within the limits of a song.

One thing that bothers me most is when bassists dont get enough recognition that they deserve, just for playing what the song needs, and making it sound full. Adam Carson of U2 , Mark August Stoermer of the killers, Jeordie White from marylin manson, nine inch nails, Christopher Wolstenholme of Muse and Pino Palladino come to mind first.

when i listen to these guys i notice they dont play a heck of alot of notes, but they dont disrupt the melody, keep the groove down, chooses thier notes wisely, and make the songs more interesting.

i dont know, i guess thats my 0.02$ of the day! what do you guys think?

Tim

I look for someone who is solid as a rock, they can play one note or one million notes, but no matter the amount they groove hard and drive the song like a freight train. I also like to hear really sweet fills, things that could easily be missed, but are gems. The last thing I would say that is a requirment for a great bass player is the ability to step up front and play melodically while maintaining the groove. Frankly a great bass player is someone who can cover every part of the song if needed, but knows exactly when and where to do each.

15 years ago I was all about the guy who played a million notes and wowed everyone. Now I am into a good bassline that complements the song. I have lost my taste for extreme bass playing.

15 years ago I was all about the guy who played a million notes and wowed everyone. Now I am into a good bassline that complements the song. I have lost my taste for extreme bass playing.

+1
and im feeling the same way right now, even though, its still nice to put a marcus album and be blown away once in a while.

I look for someone who is solid as a rock, they can play one note or one million notes, but no matter the amount they groove hard and drive the song like a freight train.
Definitely.

My personal philosphy has always stated that shredding is like Karate: you learn it so that you never have to use it.

I just can't listen to that sort of shred style playing anymore without feeling like I've heard it all before.

Graeme

I'm troubled when I hear someone say "play for the song." It usually means playing something with no personality. Paul McCartney and James Jamerson both "played for the song", but did so with creative, melodic, groove based, MERMORABLE basslines.

What I'm looking for is someone with a VOICE on the instrument.

Yes I like Matt Garrison and Gary Willis and Squarepusher, but I also like Mike Mills, Colin Moulding, and Andy Rourke. What all of these players have in common, is whether they are playing wild solos, or supporting a pop song, they still have a distinctive PERSONALITY. They are EXPRESSING themselves.

I'd rather hear a bass player write something on the wall, rather than just lean up against it.

Guys like Will Lee & Nathan East do it for me! They 'always' play for the song! I can take 'wanking' in small doses but I'm not a fan of 'solo bassists' or any bassist who wanks constantly!

I play in three different bands and in each one I play appropriately for the music and musicians I'm with. No matter what crazy chops I'm working on or advanced harmony or ultra-noodly bullsh*t I can try in the practice room, that's where it stays.

As you find yourself playing with better and better musicians the more you find that having chops is great, but interacting and listening to those around you is the major priority - so that means playing something appropriate at any given time. Once in a while you might get the chance to show off something more outlandish, but if you respect those you are playing with and love the music you are playing as a group (as opposed to a frustrated bunch of soloists) then your approach and choice of notes should be arrived at logically, through listening first and playing second and most importantly - without your ego getting in the way...that's when good music really starts to happen.

Mike

"playing for the song" for me means supporting and not distracting the listener's ear from a prominent vocal line or guitar (or keyboard) melody- keeping fills and busier playing for where there's space.

it sometimes annoys me as a listener when I'm trying to focus on the hook of a song and the supporting players are getting in the way of it.

of course, the bassline can be the hook of the song.

But the real "virtuosos" are playing for the song, they just happen to write music that can showcase their chops.

I like how billy cox plays. He does it for the song and doesn't show off, but his style is amazing. He plays a lot of fills that are just insane and hard to find. He plays a lot of what I call "in between notes" and passing tones where it blends in nice. It's such a cool style where you can't really recognize the notes of the fill but they blend in together (don't know ifi'm explaining it right but those who listen to jimi hendrix woodstock cd and band of gypsy cds know what I'm trying to convey).

To me, the way he plays for the song is cool. No virtuoso tapping, slapping, fast runs or thumping, just good old fashion playing with down home R&B soul.

I like how billy cox plays. He does it for the song and doesn't show off, but his style is amazing. He plays a lot of fills that are just insane and hard to find. He plays a lot of what I call "in between notes" and passing tones where it blends in nice. It's such a cool style where you can't really recognize the notes of the fill but they blend in together (don't know ifi'm explaining it right but those who listen to jimi hendrix woodstock cd and band of gypsy cds know what I'm trying to convey).

To me, the way he plays for the song is cool. No virtuoso tapping, slapping, fast runs or thumping, just good old fashion playing with down home R&B soul.

Exactly! A player with personality!

I'm troubled when I hear someone say "play for the song." It usually means playing something with no personality. Paul McCartney and James Jamerson both "played for the song", but did so with creative, melodic, groove based, MERMORABLE basslines.

What I'm looking for is someone with a VOICE on the instrument.

Yes I like Matt Garrison and Gary Willis and Squarepusher, but I also like Mike Mills, Colin Moulding, and Andy Rourke. What all of these players have in common, is whether they are playing wild solos, or supporting a pop song, they still have a distinctive PERSONALITY. They are EXPRESSING themselves.

I'd rather hear a bass player write something on the wall, rather than just lean up against it.

Agreed. This is a ticklish issue for bassists, because many of us have known situations in which our more ambitious groove playing has not been appreciated or welcome, and insecure or ignorant other musicians have insisted that we "get back in the box" and "play like a bass player" - not realizing how much potential to elevate the music can come from a truly inspired, well-crafted bassline - that doesn't simply reproduce all the usual tired old cliches...

To me, the key to it is good taste - a crucial but difficult-to-qualify component of superior musicianship (i.e. I can't quite define it, but I know it when I hear it...)

In that reard, a couple of players I've come to really respect are Bruce Thomas and Paul Denman...

MM

I would never chose to solo at the expense of a song. I don't insist on cranking out a slap solo during Knights in White Satin.

However, I love to be creative, and I lvoe to play melodies. I suppose thats why I dig fusion the most, there is room for everything there. I can be a sideman and lay down a groove or I can improvise and speak in a true voice.

When I think of people that play for the song, in order for 'me' to think they are something special, they need to not only keep the song going, but do something a bit out there - i dont mean some mad tapping slapping shredding solo, I mean something a bit more memorable. A good example would be Paul M (however id class him more as a musican than a bassist).

I don't generally listen to anything that has blazing solos and stuff were I wouldn't expect it though.

I'm troubled when I hear someone say "play for the song." It usually means playing something with no personality. Paul McCartney and James Jamerson both "played for the song", but did so with creative, melodic, groove based, MERMORABLE basslines.
+1. There's a difference between "being creative and melodic" and "showing off", and most of us know the difference when we hear it.

As another great example, I'd like to nominate someone who never gets mentioned on this site: Garry Tallent of the E Street Band. He NEVER EVER shows off -- and if you search YouTube for his name, you'll come up empty -- but he improvises, he grooves, he's great. Here are a couple examples, live clips from way back in 1975, but the bass is nice and clear:

"Sandy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ314hldal4&mode=related&search=

"Saint In the City"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BktOzc8m93U&mode=related&search=

With a few more minutes of searching, I could probably come up with even better examples from Mr. Tallent.

Instead of playing for the song I would rather say "raise the overall quality of the song with their bass lines" . Kinda long though. MY favorites bassists all do this. PAul McCartney , Jack Bruce , JAmerson , John Paul Jones , Jerry Jemmott , FAmily MAn Barrett, Chris Wood , Robbie Shakespeare , Will Lee , Pino Palladino , Duck Dunn , Michael Henderson (Live-Evil era) , DAve Holland , DAvid Brown of santana . All play an important role in their records , they really hold it down without overshadowing the main artist.

I'm more into a bass player that has "presence" than the typical root thumping "groover". If you can show off and at the same time SUPPORT the song that's what makes a "virtuoso" bass player . IMO

Nice replies. I pretty much agree.

I have the same answer as Marcus Miller gave when he was asked, Should I learn to groove or solo? He said, Who said that you could choose?? :p

My favorite bassists are those that can light it up when then can, but secure enough in their talent to make their presence known without having to.

My List: Mike Watt, John Entwistle, Macca, Jamerson, Jemmot, and yes..........JACO.

I agree with you 100% and unbelievably, Mills, Moulding, and Rourke are on about 80% of the CDs that I own. Can you imagine REM, XTC, or The Smiths playing "reunion shows"? :)

True musical personality often involves the combination of versatility, diversity, and of course, GREAT TASTE. ;)

Jay



What I'm looking for is someone with a VOICE on the instrument.

Yes I like Matt Garrison and Gary Willis and Squarepusher, but I also like Mike Mills, Colin Moulding, and Andy Rourke. What all of these players have in common, is whether they are playing wild solos, or supporting a pop song, they still have a distinctive PERSONALITY. They are EXPRESSING themselves.

I'd rather hear a bass player write something on the wall, rather than just lean up against it.

I just learned Day Tripper this weekend. Everyone knows about his work in Something , but over the solo in DT he is playing one note. Amazing!

Does it have to be a choice? Can't we have both? :hiding:

Does it have to be a choice? Can't we have both? :hiding:

Amen.

Someone said that the virtuosos play for the song, but in a way that showcases their chops. This could be true sometimes, but what is generally a more memorable song? A song by Mark King, or a song by Sting? Even if you don't like Sting, 9 times out of ten, his song will be more memorable, I don't know why, but it will. That's what I like.

Someone said that the virtuosos play for the song, but in a way that showcases their chops. This could be true sometimes, but what is generally a more memorable song? A song by Mark King, or a song by Sting? Even if you don't like Sting, 9 times out of ten, his song will be more memorable, I don't know why, but it will. That's what I like.

And chances are, Sting probably wrote a memorable bassline to that song (like Waling on the Moon).

Some great bassist (I think it was Ron Carter, although it could have been many people) said that he tries to improvise his accompaniments so that if you took everything else away, the bass part would be a coherent, self-sufficient piece of music.
That's fine, but there's also another interesting approach: Take everything else away, and the bass part sounds like a completely random (or at least impressionistic) collection of notes and rests... put everything else back, and you realize that the bassist was filling all the cracks, reacting to the other players, and making the whole thing happen.
Just something to think about...

I could use bass player examples all day on who I think is too much, too little (that's right) and just right. Granted its all IMO, but I do listen for a certain level of maturity.

Anyways, I'll say this. I play a bunch of tunes on the 1-5 tip these days, and I really don't have any desire to break from that save a few walk down or walk ups to the next chord. Even in the other styles, half the time I will just pump out the same exact bass line minutes on end, cause there are other people doing their thing and it just ain't my time. But, should we switch styles and somewhere I take a break, I wish to light it up (well, as best as I can). So yes, I spend a decent bit of time on the art of being melodic and shredding, but that's not to say when I get my chance I am cramming as many notes as I can per second.

I just get my tools together in my practice time so when called upon, I am ready. If I was a porn star, and they threw me into a scene with two chicks and my tools weren't ready......wait what are we talking about?

hi guys, just wanted your opinion on this.

When you think of awsome bassists, do you guys think of how insane/many notes they play, or what they can do within the limits of a song.

One thing that bothers me most is when bassists dont get enough recognition that they deserve, just for playing what the song needs, and making it sound full. Adam Carson of U2 , Mark August Stoermer of the killers, Jeordie White from marylin manson, nine inch nails, Christopher Wolstenholme of Muse and Pino Palladino come to mind first.

when i listen to these guys i notice they dont play a heck of alot of notes, but they dont disrupt the melody, keep the groove down, chooses thier notes wisely, and make the songs more interesting.

i dont know, i guess thats my 0.02$ of the day! what do you guys think?

Tim

By and large, I'm far more impressed witha bassist that can make astounding note and rhtyhmic choices and really spark a listener's interest as well as being the glue that holds a song together. People who can do both the sheer technique thing AND play for the song are a rare thing unfortunately.

To be completely honest, I'm not at all impressed by some guy who has a 45-string exotic wood coffee table and plays scales at 19,000 mph, what impresses me is someone with 4, 5 or 6 strings that can really make the music come to life with a combination of tone, uniquely individual note choices, groove, melody and harmonic awareness. Speed and technique for its own sake bores the crap out of me. But then again, I get just as bored with minimalism for it's own sake, it bugs the crap out of me just as much when a basist is just playing minimal stuff that adds NOTHING to a song.

However, please don't take this to mean that I'm down on solo bassists I'm not, I enjoy Michael Manring a ton and our own Stew McKinsey because these guys are MUSICIANS, not empty soulless technicians, guys who play MUSIC not scales or calculus.