If a bassist is herald as a god of sorts

[JAUQO III-X]

If a bassist is herald as a god of sorts and reaping all kinds of he's/she's the best,greatest,freshest voice to come along, etc. and this is taking place in the 90's or during the last 7 years and 90% of their bass lines
sound like they were borrowed from the 70's what would or could that tell you about the listener?

[PocketGroove82]

he's a noob?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

If a bassist is heralded as a god of sorts and is reaping all kinds of "he's/she's the best/greatest/freshest voice to come along," etc. (and this is taking place in the 90's or during the last 7 years) and 90% of their bass lines sound like they were borrowed from the 70's, what would or could that tell you about the listener?

That is a difficult sentence to follow Jauqo, so I edited it a little. Hope you don't mind

To seriously answer the question though, maybe because they're young? I was born in '86 and do not listen to anything older than 1990 for the most part. Bassists need to draw inspiration from somewhere too. I also tend to think that its possible for originators to be surpassed as well. Older does not always mean better.

[JAUQO III-X]

But a lot of the ones who are saying this aren't young at all but old enough to know and recognize where the players bass lines are predominately coming from.

[Spoiled Grape]

Perhaps they like the music, personality, or tone more of the new player.

[JimmyM]

It would tell me that the listener is unaware of 70's music. But that doesn't bother me so much. Everyone steals, and it's not the listener's responsibility to know the history of music.

[phat daddy]

I agree that it's not the listener's obligation to know the history of music. The way I see it, at least someone's carrying on the elder style or styles and keeping things fresh. The truth is, even though someone may sound remniscent of the 70's, the lines must have something modern to them or else they would not remain hearalded. It's this mix of old and new that provides bassists something to aspire to.

[middlebit]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

If a bassist is herald as a god of sorts and reaping all kinds of he's/she's the best,greatest,freshest voice to come along, etc. and this is taking place in the 90's or during the last 7 years and 90% of their bass lines
sound like they were borrowed from the 70's what would or could that tell you about the listener?

Sounded like they were borrowed from the 70's as opposed to being actually borrowed from the 70's?
In that case the listener (if of an 'older' model or with a thing for older music) would probably dig the 'nod' to decade when music stood for something better (in the ears of him or her).

If 90% were actually borrowed from the 70's, I guess either the fan doesn't know much about recent music history (as has been said) or he/she doesn't care about it, or the last 10% makes the difference, makes the dime drop, so to speak. It could be a question of cleaner or more 'modern' (what ever that means) technique or sound production that draws the listener to the newer player.

[Fliptrique]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

what would or could that tell you about the listener?

I`d say that he really likes a given basist. Almost every style of music, playing can be traced back to it`s roots - so, using your approach, considered unoriginal.

For me - what someone plays is really unimportant, It`s a matter of personal preference of a player. What matters is the way someone plays it. Character, personality is more important than the fact that some guys in the `70s played the same notes.

[Gawd]

it says that they're boring people

[Winterpegbass]

Sounds like Flea would fit this description.
1. Heralded as a god
2. 90% of basslines sound like they are from the 70s

I think that the listener would have to be unaware of the 70s music to consider this "fresh". On a positive note, it may introduce the listener to good music from the 70s that has been "repackaged". In flea's case this means Stevie Wonder, Ohio Players, Bootsy, etc. I prefer to listen to the original 70s music, but I don't mind Flea.

Another artist that fits this description for guitar/voice is Lenny Kravitz who has "repackaged" the 70s rock sound.

[morf]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

But a lot of the ones who are saying this aren't young at all but old enough to know and recognize where the players bass lines are predominately coming from.

So the egocentricity switch flipped. Buy them a guitar

[seanm]

I don't think it says anything about the listener.

I'll give you an example. I had never heard of Jaco before I joined TB. I have Heavy Weather, but it never did anything for me and I didn't know the bassists name. The only Weather Report song I would recognize is Birdland.

So if I heard a band where the bassist was heavily influenced by Jaco, but playing in a context I liked, I would say he was great/fresh etc. where you might say he is "just a Jaco clone".

We would both be right given our respective musical backgrounds.

[user101]

err...that the listener likes 70's basslines?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

But a lot of the ones who are saying this aren't young at all but old enough to know and recognize where the players bass lines are predominately coming from.

At that point I would say it just shows a matter of taste.

[Jared Lash]

Yeah, it seems a lot of people do like Stuart Zender.












Eh, a good player is a good player. I can appreciate anyone with serious chops, or more importantly, serious groove. But I really don't hear players with a clear (and distinctly) 70's influence being hailed as innovative. And to be fair, even a talented cat like Zender (or Flea) is the first one to prop up guys like Larry Graham, Bernie Edwards, Bootsy, George Porter Jr. etc.

What does it say about music listeners? Well, at least for young listeners - the same thing that's almost always been true of the general pop audience - that music is viewed as a consumable, to be taken in immediately, digested and forgotten.

Sad but often true. A mindset most often possessed by non-musicians, but not always.

Of course, many listeners reach a point where they stop seeking out new music and are stuck in a loop where they pretty much only listen to whatever they liked as high school or college kids. In that case, what's old is new again and they find some genuine comfort in familiarity.

[seanm]

Originally Posted by TheBigO

Of course, many listeners reach a point where they stop seeking out new music and are stuck in a loop where they pretty much only listen to whatever they liked as high school or college kids. In that case, what's old is new again and they find some genuine comfort in familiarity.

I know I have sorta fallen into this rut. I have a large choice of EZ (sic) rock, soft rock, and classic rock stations. But it is hard to find anything playing new rock

I am seriously thinking of getting satellite radio to try to get a broader selection of music. But I would probably end up focusing on blues stations.

[Swift713]

I'm not sure I really understand the question. I for one am very derivative, I use the same 12 notes that westerners have been using for over 300 years.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by seanm

I know I have sorta fallen into this rut. I have a large choice of EZ (sic) rock, soft rock, and classic rock stations. But it is hard to find anything playing new rock

I am seriously thinking of getting satellite radio to try to get a broader selection of music. But I would probably end up focusing on blues stations.

At least you'll have a blues station with satellite. Sirius has one. Pretty good, too. I totally love satellite radio and I find it impossible to go back and listen to regular radio. Howard Stern and other comedy shows uncensored, music without commercials...it's great.

[djwackfriz]

I think this is sort of silly argument if we take into account that this process HAS to happen in order for music to even develop over time. Just like the standard classical form posits a theme, develops the theme and then recapitulates the evolved form of the original theme, I think that the history of music has largely followed the same form. Someone hears someone else, modifies/develops/improves on his/her ideas, and BOOM! a new style is born - I mean, jazz couldn't have happened if no one borrowed from one another!

Being completely, totally, 100% original, especially under the umbrella of "groove", in my opinion is completely impossible. Without the musicians (and especially bassists) of a former era, "groove" as we know it would not even be a word that we could even define in any general sense - it's based on what others have already established as "groove". If it weren't, I could just hit my bass against a tree for 6 hours and say "OK, that was a groove". The thing that tells you that it ISN'T groove is the example of others before us who established what groove IS. So to say that people who are inspired/driven from past examples are unoriginal is just redundant, useless and, in my opinion, inflammatory.

As far as bassists openly PLAGIARIZING from earlier musicians (for example: "Oh hey guys, check out this bassline I wrote, I'm gonna call it 'Love Rollercoaster'"), this is another story, and not one that falls under the category of original/unoriginal. It's just dishonest.