Technical v.s. more "tradiional" playing, which do you prefer?

[glocke1]

Ok, so while I find the technical abilities of Stanley, Jaco, Geddy, Victor, et. al. to be impressive, musically they just do not do a whole lot for me, and truth be told I hardly ever listen to these guys, and when I do I can only listen for a few minutes before I get bored.

The bass players that really get my rocks off, and make me want to spend time with headphones on picking out their bass lines are the James Jamerson's,Phil Chen's, Paul McCartnerys, Phil Lesh's, etc...The guys that groove and keep the song going...

Part of the reason that I prefer these guys has alot to do with the the way the instrument sounds (timbre??). They sound like a bass, fat, sometimes woody, and you can feel it. Oftentimes the technical oriented guys seem to have the lows dialed down and all you hear are the highs and mids.

So, who here prefers traditional playing, who prefers technical playing, and why?

[LegoBass]

I am much more of a 'Technical' player. I enjoy the runs with the crunchy bites from the mids and highs. I also like someone who can solo beter than a guitarist and then fall back into a groove with no problem. I personally play more with my mids cranked and bass lower than fat, it gives nice clarity and catches your attention. For the "traditional" playing, which I still enjoy, I just use my cambered Les Paul and get that woody sound of Paul McCartney and warmed of James Jamerson. I guess you can say I like to listen to both equally, but am more of a technical player. I kinda made that a little long winded.

[millerfreak]

You see, for me, it's about getting out of comfort zone.. I used to like play slapping alot and ignore fingerstyles & just the pocket playing, but I knew if I don't try I wouldn't be improving and at least become a good player.. So I learnt both, and boy didn't I make the right decision... Music is like life, if you don't learn many things, you'll become very limited.

[Jazz Ad]

I'm not sure I can make a difference.
You can slap in a very straightforward, easy way and you can play very complicated bass lines that now are seen as classics.
I just like a line that fits the song. I hate gratuitous wanking but if the song calls for a lot of technical skill then it's all good.

[Exploiter8]

Originally Posted by glocke1

I hardly ever listen to these guys, and when I do I can only listen for a few minutes before I get bored.

Me too!

[onosson]

I like bass lines that deal in melody and harmony - anything else definitely loses my interest pretty quick.

[Gawd]

Originally Posted by onosson

I like bass lines that deal in melody and harmony - anything else definitely loses my interest pretty quick.

I was unaware that there were bass lines that don't deal in melody and harmony...

[onosson]

Originally Posted by Gawd

I was unaware that there were bass lines that don't deal in melody and harmony...

You'd be surprised! But I guess what I should have said was, bass lines that function around a song's main melody, or play off it harmoniously. These are what appeal to me, as a listener.

[C.Linton]

For me personally, my preference would be "Duck" Dunn rather than Stanley Clarke, so I guess that would make me a traditionalist.

[unclejane]

Originally Posted by glocke1

Ok, so while I find the technical abilities of Stanley, Jaco, Geddy, Victor, et. al. to be impressive, musically they just do not do a whole lot for me, and truth be told I hardly ever listen to these guys, and when I do I can only listen for a few minutes before I get bored.

The bass players that really get my rocks off, and make me want to spend time with headphones on picking out their bass lines are the James Jamerson's,Phil Chen's, Paul McCartnerys, Phil Lesh's, etc...The guys that groove and keep the song going...

Part of the reason that I prefer these guys has alot to do with the the way the instrument sounds (timbre??). They sound like a bass, fat, sometimes woody, and you can feel it. Oftentimes the technical oriented guys seem to have the lows dialed down and all you hear are the highs and mids.

So, who here prefers traditional playing, who prefers technical playing, and why?

For me, the level of technique I use depends on the type of music I want to play. For ages, I worked and worked to get as fast and clean and clear as possible; I just wanted to have the most developed technique I could possibly get. I.e. I basically wanted to be Andy West in the dixie dregs so I woodshedded and woodshedded to try to achieve that.

But after I while I discovered I really didn't like listening to that style of music. It was great as a technical exercise but it honestly didn't do much for me musically.

So I actually spent a lot of time and effort trying to obtain a level of technique that I really can't use for anything that I _really_ want to listen to. I've more or less dropped the efforts to develop a 3 finger technique, wild arpeggios, etc. Nowadays, I'm concentrating more on developing good intonation, clean notes (with a standard 2 finger technique at sane speeds) and learning to read music, etc.

The other part of it is I've begun to lose interest in learning to play like other bassists. I.e. my heros like Geddy Lee, Louis Johnson, Bunny Brunel and so on. It's like Victor Wooten said once - first we imitate our heros and then at some point we take that and start making it our own. These days, I'm more interested in just playing the way I play, using whatever tools I've acquired over the years.

So my goal is somewhere in between the traditional "walking" bass style and the ultra-technical style. My tone goal is -ish Bunny Brunel/Rocco Prestia (one of the reasons I play a BB70F) but sometimes something more pinched (and I use my L2000 for that). The boomy, motown tone gets the thumbs down, tho, as does slap. I no longer have any interest in either of those sounds or styles.

That's my story.

LS

[Slyonbass]

I enjoy technical and non-technical playing - when it's good it's good. But if I have to choose I would say non-technical seeing as most of the time I listen to more groove oriented stuff. What I like about technically challenging lines is just that - the technical challenge of learning it and the rewards your technique recieves when you push it.

[JimmyM]

i've found that the best groove players often have the technical side down, too.

[dpbass66]

I think that we bassists often get caught up in this dynamic of being flashy vs. not. Right from the start, this concept of bass playing is limiting. I choose to think of the bass as the way that I just so happen to express my music. It certainly has a specific role in music, and I recognize that role and have developed my playing to address it. On the other hand a long time ago, I also recognized that our relatively young instrument (if you are assuming "electric" bass) is constantly evolving, and while we come from the tradition of low-end/support/rhythmic foundation, it can be so much more.

I think we owe it to this evolution to embrace the "tradition" of the bass AND the progression of the bass. So, in a jazz setting, for example, is perfectly appropriate to play rhythm all night long, but I think we have come to the point that if you don tknow how to take a convincing solo, your development as a player is somewhat lacking. Same goes for other styles too, rock, funk, salsa....whatever.

Jimmy said it best so far, the best players can play pocket all night long and then rip off a smokin' solo when it's their turn. In a way, this is harder for bass than any other instrument.... usually we havent been soloing all night, so THOSE chops are still in the envelope, our instruments tone/sound doesnt naturally lend itself to soloing, so we have to tweak that, and then of course our bandmates usualy dont know how to support a soloing bass player (WHY DO THEY ALWAYS STOP PLAYING?!?!?), anyway I digress, my point is it isnt easy, but I think at this point in time you ought to be able to do it all.

[Mayers]

I prefer to listen to Victor Wooten, Alain Caron, John Patitucci Micheal Manring and Zander Zon. I also like a lot of technical death metal like Necrophagist.

Now that I don't play in a band anymore because I got very very sick of playing very easy stuff. I really like a technical challenge.

While I play alone I'm starting to sound like Zander Zon.


As a member of TB, sometimes I feel like I have the wrong instument in my hands or I'm guilty of bass heresy.

[HolmeBass]

I find myself unwilling and unable to make such a distinction, and I listen to all kinds of bass players as the mood strikes me. I love Jaco, Stanley, James, Duck, Louis Johnson, Geddy, Phil Lesh, Family Man, Ray Brown, the guy in the Budos Band, and many others. There are some "great" players whose playing I don't enjoy, so I don't listen to those guys, but it's not really a technical vs groove dichotomy for me.

[dpbass66]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

I find myself unwilling and unable to make such a distinction, and I listen to all kinds of bass players as the mood strikes me. I love Jaco, Stanley, James, Duck, Louis Johnson, Geddy, Phil Lesh, Family Man, Ray Brown, the guy in the Budos Band, and many others. There are some "great" players whose playing I don't enjoy, so I don't listen to those guys, but it's not really a technical vs groove dichotomy for me.

Thats my point, it shouldnt be. It should be about technique AND groove, all in one big alembic.... (sorry I couldnt resist).

[Florox]

I think the "technical" label is misused; you can be technical and still keep a groove, or a rhythm. I like using the word rhythm because words like funk, or a derivative thereof, and groove make me cringe. Anyhow, I digress, I like to think that every song has it's own musical space as in what it allows to be put in. When I visualize what I have to do in a song, I try to be as technical as possible without loosing musicality. Sometimes I can tap, other times it's simple grooves. However, the point of music as it is is making you feel good and telling something, and I think most players forget that.


Technique is a means, not an end.


This is what 80% of people who play instruments (As opposed to musicians) don't get. That's why there's 1000 slap solos on Youtube, and no meaning or feeling. Not saying it can't be, just saying, like shredding, it's usually just used as a "look at me, I'm better than you" or a scale to measure how good you are as a musician, which is ironic, because the only people that do this, are exactly the ones that don't get what music, or art does. By the way, meaningful does not mean something sad or bleak, it can something happy or something that pumps you up.

I always say it, there's only a few amount of artists in the world. The rest are just people repeating what others do in order to gain status.

[JimmyM]

you know, "groove" makes me kind of cringe, too. not all types of music are expected to "groove," for one. and for another, if you break it down to its core elements, all grooving is is keeping good time and knowing where on the beat to place notes for maximum effect.

[cnltb]

Originally Posted by glocke1

Ok, so while I find the technical abilities of Stanley, Jaco, Geddy, Victor, et. al. to be impressive, musically they just do not do a whole lot for me, and truth be told I hardly ever listen to these guys, and when I do I can only listen for a few minutes before I get bored.

The bass players that really get my rocks off, and make me want to spend time with headphones on picking out their bass lines are the James Jamerson's,Phil Chen's, Paul McCartnerys, Phil Lesh's, etc...The guys that groove and keep the song going...

Part of the reason that I prefer these guys has alot to do with the the way the instrument sounds (timbre??). They sound like a bass, fat, sometimes woody, and you can feel it. Oftentimes the technical oriented guys seem to have the lows dialed down and all you hear are the highs and mids.

So, who here prefers traditional playing, who prefers technical playing, and why?

I prefer whatever works musically in any given context.

[bluesdogblues]

Originally Posted by glocke1

Ok, so while I find the technical abilities of Stanley, Jaco, Geddy, Victor, et. al. to be impressive, musically they just do not do a whole lot for me, and truth be told I hardly ever listen to these guys, and when I do I can only listen for a few minutes before I get bored.

The bass players that really get my rocks off, and make me want to spend time with headphones on picking out their bass lines are the James Jamerson's,Phil Chen's, Paul McCartnerys, Phil Lesh's, etc...The guys that groove and keep the song going...

Part of the reason that I prefer these guys has alot to do with the the way the instrument sounds (timbre??). They sound like a bass, fat, sometimes woody, and you can feel it. Oftentimes the technical oriented guys seem to have the lows dialed down and all you hear are the highs and mids.

So, who here prefers traditional playing, who prefers technical playing, and why?

I understand what you mean.. I often feel (almost) like that too...especially in the way I'd like myself to play bass.
But In listening to other people music, especially 'those Great Musicians' like you mention, I try to just listen, enjoy and take anything that valuable for me to make me enjoy them, at the same time, enriching, broadening and deepening my personal experience..or sometime hopefully can get something for me to learn - bass playing wise.

Although maybe because years living as musician make it harder for me to not to 'analyze' any aspect of the song/music while listening, which sometimes can be diminishing the enjoyment in listening music....different way than when I was still very young back then, if you know what I mean.

But generally, or basically, I think I may have about the same "taste" as you in (bass function in the) song :-)