It seems to me that there are two kinds of bassists (well, could apply to any 'artsy' inclination - from drummers to painters).

In short, and hopefully without any negative connotation, I'd say there are artists and hobbyists.

Hobbyists are the easier to define - those who play because 'its fun', it gets the chicks/beer/fame and recognition/money?, or it gives them something to do.

Artists, I would say, are those who play because they are compelled - because something inside them forces them to play. Because they can't NOT play, create, and pick up the instrument. Chicks/checks/beer/whatever are secondary, and ultimately irrelevant. Because it is the sum and total of their dreams, and if they gave it up, they may as well be dead.

Do you think this is a fair assessment?

If so, what are some of the other differences? What category do you fit in? Have you moved from one to the other?

I'm just curious, this is something that has sat in the back of my mind for quite a while.

Bassists play for many different reasons; and there is room out there for all of them. I'll agree a true "artist" plays because they have to, whether they want to or not. (like me). Luckily I want to most of the time!

I'm compelled to be a hobbyist.

Some play just for money

Some play just for money

Lots of easier ways to make money!

Lots of easier ways to make money!

ya but a lot of jobs dont come with chicks and beer.

id expect most people to say artists, just because it makes them look like they are passionate about it, when really thats not the main reason they play

for me, id say im not sure, yet. its too early and i ahvent been playing for very long. i mean i really enjoy playing, but im fine not touching the bass for a few days.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those that don't. :D Seriously, I don't think you could create any two groups with which to label people that are both all-inclusive and mutually exclusive.

In your example, hobbyists may play for fun, but some of that fun is the creativity of music, the artistic sense. Even if they're playing covers, there's art in adapting the song for their band's style and abilities. And what starts as a hobby could eventually become a career; no matter how far you want to go, you start at the same place, playing local bars and clubs. The difference is if and when you decide to ditch the day job.

On the other hand, artists may be driven to perform and to create because doing that will get the girls and the booze and the fame and the money. And there are plenty of originals bands made up of highly creative folks who gig on weekends and are perfectly content not to be "discovered" and thrust into the global spotlight (the "starving artist" stereotype), considering what they do a "hobby".

I had the very same conversation with a muso buddy of mine! Neither one of us has made a friggin' dime in years, both of us donate our time to others frequently, and all we do in our free time is play. It is something I need to do to remain balanced. I hear a sound in my head (no, not a voice :help: ) and I have to replicate it then and there.

it cannot be black or white here, they're is a fair amount of gray area

ya but a lot of jobs dont come with chicks and beer.

id expect most people to say artists, just because it makes them look like they are passionate about it, when really thats not the main reason they play

I realize that. Being 'passionate' about it, as if that somehow makes you superior to those of us who play because it beats wasting hours a day playing a video game, earns a little coin or free beer, and is more fun than quilting.

I don't really think one is better than the other. There are valid points on both sides, and some of the players who I would look at and think "he's a hobbyist" are phenomenal players, because they consciously apply themselves to it, while those who are 'artists' often sound like they're in a rut - they play because they need to, but without the clarity of a conscious decision. Yes, the inverse can apply, but how many hobbyists pick up an instrument if it makes them feel miserable? They play when they enjoy it, and that comes through.

There are 2 kinds of bassists - those that can't count, those that can and those that just don't know.

Categories and labels, black and white. Wouldn't life be easy?

I'm somewhere between the two. What bugs me are the people with the theory that if they ever do get famous, they'll stop playing becasue "that's not what it's about" It's a bitter shame that Grandaddy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandaddy) split up, for that reason. I play out of pure compulsion to do so, but at the same time, there is nothing like the feeling of being on stage with the whole room swaying to your groove, then having a load of chicks giving you the eye after the show ;) .

I'm compelled to be a hobbyist.

I'm with Lug.


I was compelled to take up bass from a very early age, played lots and lots and lots of gigs, got fed up with Musician drama / baggage until I finally stepped away for a couple years.

Now I play for fun, for myself... as a hobby. Compelled to write and record... and jam with like minded players. I play EVERYDAY but couldn't care less about gigs and bars. I love my "real job" and I love my "hobby" :bassist:

ya but a lot of jobs dont come with chicks and beer. How about being a bartender?

Kidding aside, who cares whether a bassist is a hobbyist or an artist? It does not change the music or the performance. Morevoer, someone certainly can be both - they are not mutually exclusive.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those that don't. :D Seriously, I don't think you could create any two groups with which to label people that are both all-inclusive and mutually exclusive.

Snide retort: there are two types of people in the world - men, and women. :D

it cannot be black or white here, they're is a fair amount of gray area

I agree, that there is a huge amount of gray area in this, and you can't 'lump' all the players like this, as hard and fast rules, permanent mind sets. That is why I mention switching back and forth - I personally have gone from compelled, miserable player to happy hobbyist and back a dozen times. I've read a lot of interviews with 'big name' bassists who are the same. That 'do you practice at home' question often seen in interviews is frequently telling.

I'm really curious as to how many of us have that experience, though - I'm sure many of the long term players have had the experience of feeling like they 'needed' to play, and they have had times where they put it down because it was doing nothing for them.

When I was young, I had artistic pretentsions, but for the last 15 or 20 years, I have come to terms with being a hobbyist who loves gear.:smug:

I don't ever plan on making money or a career in music, but I do plan on making music for the rest of my life on bass or whatever. Art in any media is totally ingrained in my soul, which is strange because no one in my immediate family is what people would consider artistic.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those that don't. :D Seriously, I don't think you could create any two groups with which to label people that are both all-inclusive and mutually exclusive.


+1

I'm so inbetween the two its not funny.

Kidding aside, who cares whether a bassist is a hobbyist or an artist? It does not change the music or the performance. Morevoer, someone certainly can be both - they are not mutually exclusive.

That is part of what I wanted to get to. I really don't think it changes music or performance, but there seems to be a stereotype that the 'driven, miserable artist' is the one who will write some phenomenal new piece, or take the instrument to new places.

In my opinion, that stereotype, like most of its kin, is probably inaccurate. I'd really like to see some information about the clearly 'hobbyist' bassists doing something that truly changes our perspective of the instrument. I know, personally, dozens of cases of the opposite - driven individuals who ultimately have had zero impact on the craft as a whole.

I'm compelled to be a hobbyist.

im with you there!

Two Kinds Of Bassist?

I assumed you meant 1) tall and skinny 2) fat

:ninja:

I assumed you meant 1) tall and skinny 2) fat

:ninja:

Yep. You got it!!

:p

I'm really curious as to how many of us have that experience, though - I'm sure many of the long term players have had the experience of feeling like they 'needed' to play, and they have had times where they put it down because it was doing nothing for them.

I'd say that this goes along with pretty much any pursuit worth.. uh.. pursuing. In each of my hobbies (all of which I'm passionate about!!) I've gone through *waves* of learning. I'll find a 6 month window where I can do no wrong, I progress, I feel like an artist. Then perhaps I experience a year of stagnation, being caught in a rut (with playing bass, the chicks and beer help get me through these times). Most musicians I talk to experience the same sort of thing. When I'm in a rut, I'd rather do just about anything than pick up a bass, but sooner or later, I'll be convinced to play with some guys, and especially if some of those guys are better players than me, the progression cycle will swing my way again.

As far as playing for or against success, for me, it's a really awful reason to play. Most of my current band plays for the dream of success, which is why I'm miserable playing music with them. Like someone else said, I'm absolutely positive that I will always feel compelled to play music (or I've got some real explaining to do about all those guitars and amps), but I'm equally positive that it will always be a hobby.

Gosh...I hope I didn't come off as pretentious. :( That particular friend of mine put me in that category of artist because, according to him, those people would continue to do it minus money, accolades, social gain, free beer, poonanny, partying, popularity, or even people wanting them to join their band in the first place. It took me off guard, in all honesty, to have someone else call me an artist in any situation...I just think of myself as someone who plays music to keep from killing others. :p

It seems to me that there are two kinds of bassists

[..] there are artists and hobbyists.


Khaspir,

I think that if one had two create two categories, these would be a good start, yes.

Lots of easier ways to make money!

Find me a job that pays $100+ per night for 3 hours of work, and enjoy doing it!

Hobbyists are the easier to define - those who play because 'its fun', it gets the chicks/beer/fame and recognition/money?, or it gives them something to do.

Artists, I would say, are those who play because they are compelled - because something inside them forces them to play. Because they can't NOT play, create, and pick up the instrument. Chicks/checks/beer/whatever are secondary, and ultimately irrelevant. Because it is the sum and total of their dreams, and if they gave it up, they may as well be dead.

Do you think this is a fair assessment?

I don't think that is a fair assessment. I think that you are a bit mixed up.

You are comparing hobbyists and professionals. Either one can be "a true artist" who is driven to play because they "just have to", or they could be playing for other reasons like chicks, beer, and money.

That's right - there are pro's who play for reasons other than "true art" (you think Sid Vicious was a "true musical artists"?)

...and there are certainly hobbyists who are driven to express their art. I know a few. My drummer is a good example. Why would a person continue to play an instrument with bands and practice on their own for 31 years without ever making a significant amount of money? Why does he have to go find a new band when his bands break up? Why would he continue for 31 years while working full time and raising a family and having very little free time for music? He makes the time, sometimes sacrifices, so that he can play music because something inside him makes him feel that he has to. IMO - That's "the real deal". He's an artist and a hobbyist. A hobbyist who is driven to perform his art.

SO - I think you have it wrong. I think that there are two types of bassists:
Hobbyists and Professionals

AND, also, within each of those groups there are two kinds:

Hobbyists who are driven because they are "true artists" and Hobbyists who play for "other reasons".

just like there are two types of professionals - professionals who are driven because they are "true artists" and professionals who play for "other reasons".

All I know is that without music and playing gigs, life for me would be a very shallow affair. After thousands of one nighters, I still get wood knowing it's time to get up there and give it all you got....and any time I need a shot of salvation, I just head back into the studio for some sonic revitalization and work on my tan.

I play because I love it, it's fun and I "can't" not play (even though playing bass doesn't pay my mortgage). I think thats probably most musicians.

The type of bassist I am depends on what gig I'm doing.
If I'm playing a wedding or corporate function. I'm all about the money.
If I'm playing originals it's about the creativity.
If I'm recording in the studio it's a little bit of both.
If I'm playing Zeppelin covers in bars, It's about playing Rock star and having some fun.

It's like an addiction and so I did it for money because it was the only thing I knew. Then it became a job but none the less for me to play is as birds to fly. Take it away and you've clipped my wings. So I must continue to work because playing to an audience is apart of the total experience to use it like a power to move them. Whats the use of having the power if you don't wield it and it's only fair to get paid as any true artist who lives by his craft.

The type of bassist I am depends on what gig I'm doing.
If I'm playing a wedding or corporate function. I'm all about the money.
If I'm playing originals it's about the creativity.
If I'm recording in the studio it's a little bit of both.
If I'm playing Zeppelin covers in bars, It's about playing Rock star and having some fun.

Absolutely.

You need a balance. I'm definitely on the artistic side of the fence, if you put a gun to my head and made me choose. But It IS a hobby, by definition. I get paid here and there for it, and I have my band, our album, etc, but really its a hobby because its not my main source of income. I'd love it to be, and I'm working on it, but we all know that is a sloooow process to make a reality.

SO - I think you have it wrong. I think that there are two types of bassists:
Hobbyists and Professionals

AND, also, within each of those groups there are two kinds:

Hobbyists who are driven because they are "true artists" and Hobbyists who play for "other reasons".

just like there are two types of professionals - professionals who are driven because they are "true artists" and professionals who play for "other reasons".

I totally agree with this view. Being artistic doesn't necessarily mean being a professional. It reminds me of this one time that a bunch of Scientologists at the Celebrity Center in Los Angeles (long story) kept asking me if I was "an artist." I kept saying that I was. Even though I know that they meant a professional in the arts, to me it doesn't matter whether you get paid or intend to find fame and fortune for "doing art." What they really want is people who take their gifts to the professional level and become famous. The more famous people that are Scientologists the easier it is for them to spread it out and gain new followers. It's their smart tactic. They were intentionally vague to just mask that fact.

Some "hobbyists" have the ability to write great basslines.
Some "artists" can't write a good enough bassline to save their lives.

I'm compelled to be a hobbyist.

+1

there are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't. :D

I am a craftsmen. I work in the medium of low end sound. I have been practicing this craft for many years. At times, more intensely than others. Sometimes I create low end that is reminiscent of existing art. Other times it is totally my own.

Many times I get paid for my craft. Other times I donate it.

I do this because I love to do it. It is part of who I am.

It is more than a hobby, and yet I never want to take myself too seriously and take the fun out it.

JKT :bassist:

I was the fat kind, I am moving toward the tall and skinny.

i think the main difference ...and maybe the only place to draw the line.. is if you ask someone what they do. The majority of people will answer with their day job. If said person is a plumber they might then start out about a plumbing story.. on the other hand.. A rare few people will answer that question by saying "I play music" or "i write" or "I paint" ...they'll answer this way whether they are making it their career, or they have a day job, or even if they have fallen on hard times and maybe hven't been able to play for a long time..

that's where i'd draw the line.

and for what its worth i'd consider myself the second of those two.

Khaspir,

What about a distinction like: those with great innate talent and those without?

Khaspir,

What about a distinction like: those with great innate talent and those without?

I'm not Khaspir - but here's my take:

What about a distinction like: those with great innate talent and those without?

I think that's yet another thing… so if you want to look at that aspect of things, I think that you now have eight categories instead of four:

A) Hobbyists who are driven because they are "true artists" who were born with a great deal of innate talent.
B) Hobbyists who are driven because they are "true artists" who, while not born with great innate talent, achieved their level of success through a great deal of hard work.
C) Hobbyists who play for "other reasons" who were born with a great deal of innate talent.
D) Hobbyists who play for "other reasons" who, while not born with great innate talent, achieved their level of success through a great deal of hard work.
E) Professionals who are driven because they are "true artists" who were born with a great deal of innate talent
F) Professionals who are driven because they are "true artists" who, while not born with great innate talent, achieved their level of success through a great deal of hard work
G) Professionals who play for "other reasons" who were born with a great deal of innate talent
H) Professionals who play for "other reasons who, while not born with great innate talent, achieved their level of success through a great deal of hard work

:hmm: I'm starting to think that there are more than two types of people in the world, no matter how many times I hear statements to the contrary.;)

Hey Matthew,

I don't know if it was rhetorical or not, but all your examples A through H could still be divided into two categories... innate talent or no innate talent. Pick any binary.... example "All basses are either bald or not." There's no reason to say, "well I could be bald... and TALL or SHORT." You're still either bald or not bald. Missing from your subcategories - not to suggest you claimed they were exhaustive - are bassists with and without innate talent that aren't great bassist.

Hey Matthew,

I don't know if it was rhetorical or not, but all your examples A through H could still be divided into two categories... innate talent or no innate talent.

No - That's what I did to get 8.

You might have to study my A through H again carefully. I may have made typing errors (or copy and paste errors) but I don't see them.

I used the terms "born with a great deal of innate talent" and "not born with great innate talent, but achieved their level of success through a great deal of hard work" to represent the two categories you call "innate talent or no innate talent"
I chose the phrase "achieved their level of success through a great deal of hard work" to describe the 'no innate talent' crowd hoping it would describe both those of all levels of success, whether that be great or small.

So, yes, umm "hobbyists vs. professional" could be broken down further into:

Hobbyist / artist
Hobbyist / other motives
Professional / artist
Professional / other motives

Then factor in the "innate talent" question and 4 categories becomes 8 -

Hobbyist / artist / with innate talent
Hobbyist / artist / without innate talent
Hobbyist / other motives / with innate talent
Hobbyist / other motives / without innate talent
Professional / artist / with innate talent
Professional / artist / without innate talent
Professional / other motives / with innate talent
Professional / other motives / without innate talent


…and yes, I understand that we could address the bald vs. hair issue and we'd now have 16 types of bassists.
We might also look into whether bass players are dudes vs. chicks (32 types of bassist) or tall (64) or fat (128) democrat or republican (256)
It all supports this theory I've been working on that involves there being more than two types of people in the world… ;)


:p

Snide retort: there are two types of people in the world - men, and women. :D

I guess trannies and hermies don't exist... :hiding::smug:

I guess trannies and hermies don't exist... :hiding::smug:

Trannies don't count. They're still one of the two. They just traded sides.
Hermies count as 1/2 of each...

I kind of look at it this way. There are 2 types of bassists in the world. There are those who know how to play the bass and then there are musicians.

Those who know how to play the bass have to learn not only technique but also theory, ear training, etc. They practice long and hard to develope those skills to one day maybe do something with it. They can take it or leave it since they mostly do it for fun or to make some extra cash on the weekends.

Musicians do the same thing. They practice long and hard, learning theory, technique, ear training, but when they pick up a bass they take off with it. They learn much faster and theory just comes natural. They already have an ear so all they do is develope it better to hear the song in depth more. Usually they play other instruments as well. They play not because they want to get something out of it but to get something out of themselves. It's programmed in their DNA. It's all part of their physical make up.

I'd say I'm a musician. I played piano at age 3, picked up guitar at age 15 and bass about 8 years ago and now I play them equally and am driven to become better at it, not out of necessity but out of desire.

I'm somewhere between the two. What bugs me are the people with the theory that if they ever do get famous, they'll stop playing becasue "that's not what it's about" It's a bitter shame that Grandaddy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandaddy) split up, for that reason. I play out of pure compulsion to do so, but at the same time, there is nothing like the feeling of being on stage with the whole room swaying to your groove, then having a load of chicks giving you the eye after the show ;) .

I have to agree with you, although I am compelled to play bass, I also do it purely for fun, I think that no matter who you are you can be an artist, and that art is supposed to be enjoyed. I personally think you're an artist if you do it for the music and not the free beer or money, and you just want to
express yourself. We need to remember that the arts are a form of expression, and that can mean just having fun at the same time.

I'm compelled to be a hobbyist.

you deserve a high five!:cool: