How on earth did Jamerson do it?

[Stumbo]

Originally Posted by JTE

There's another aspect that's often missed here. Listen to the space he has. There's not often a guitar player chomping six string chords on every beat, the piano's left hand is clear and clean, and the chords aren't dense. The kick drum doesn't dominate like it does in the post-Bonham world either. A Motown mix was once described as "a happening bass line, a tambourine, hand-claps, or finger-snaps on 2 and 4, and those voices!".

Trying to play like that in the context of a band of typical rock players and it doesn't work nearly as well.

jte

+1

That thought came to mind with me as well. IMO, A lot of "smooth jazz" type guitars/keys/drums allowed Jamerson to be kind of a "lead" bass player, carrying his own counterpoint below the vocals and never much worrying about the "1" because the drummer was always there on time.

[Deluge Of Sound]

I imagine he didn't spend all his time on the internet trying to find out how his heroes had done it.

[Vetchking]

Learn all your scales, all the modes.......... etc

then forget them.......... put them in the bag.

How did he do it?

He sang it and played it......... Ta Da........... Later

[mark107]

Originally Posted by Stumbo

+1

That thought came to mind with me as well. IMO, A lot of "smooth jazz" type guitars/keys/drums allowed Jamerson to be kind of a "lead" bass player, carrying his own counterpoint below the vocals and never much worrying about the "1" because the drummer was always there on time.

Fonts

Being 54 years old, I remember the 60's hits well. The bass was king back then. Not just on Motown tracks, but most of the stuff on the radio had pretty predominant bass parts. It was vocals, and bass, in the forefront. The kick was pretty far back. And the bass was far more melodic than what you hear on the radio now. And the tone of the bass itself wasn't so "hi-fi" that it melted into the track like most bass parts do now. There was more thud, and less sustain, which made it much easier to make out. It's what inspired me to take up the bass in the first place. Blasphemy as it may sound, I've been telling people for years that I think we are living in the dark ages of the bass guitar (notable exceptions not included of course). If I was growing up today, I'd probably still be inspired to take up the bass, but that inspiration probably would not come from casual listening to the radio like it did for me in the 60's. James Jamerson, Paul McCartney, Phil Lesh, Jack Casidy, Carol Kaye, Joe Osborne, Chuck Rainey. And plenty more. I've always thought that one of the reasons that these guys became famous was that you could actually HEAR what they were doing. Contrast that to a modern recording, where the bass hides behind the kick and guitars, and rings and rings and rings, such that it just disappears behind the din of everything else. And it had better lock with the kick, or else you won't even hear the attack. (This is a very general statement, I know.) In the 60's there was no need to lock to the kick, because the bass had plenty of kick on it's own.

if you have heard JJ's bass solo'd (as I have), you might be shocked at how crappy it sounds. But in the mix it really works. This is a major factor on why he could get away with so much. If he was playing a modern bass with modern strings and electronics, I highly doubt it would have worked as well.

I make most of my money mixing and mastering records now. I can tell you that a bass with a lot of sustain will have to be mixed rather low in the track, or else it will wash over everything. Same with the ringy kick drum. Or sustaining guitars, etc. But something that gets out of the way pretty quick can be put pretty up front if you want. Listen to the bass on the early Tower of Power records. It sustains about as long as a conga hit. And as such, it's mixed pretty loud, and you have no trouble hearing it, even on laptop speakers. Jamerson's bass is pretty much the same way - pretty dead sounding. Food for though, huh?

[paul_wolfe]

if you have heard JJ's bass solo'd (as I have)

Is that with the tracks you can get via Rick Suchow's site? Or other stuff - let us know, we're all intrigued!

[christoph h.]

Originally Posted by LilRay

If you are what you eat, see if you can crap a steak.

Music as well as food has to be digested and processed. Even though you eat Jamerson, that doesn't mean your going to eventually be able to become his clone. Even protoge's of musicians don't sound like their heroes, and that doesn't matter what your doing. That's like saying an impressionist sounds "exactly" like the person their impersonating. No matter how good, that will never happen.

God Bless, Ray

i think you're taking the quote much too far. i don't really know why you assume i meant it in the way you describe, as that's the most extreme (and ultimately useless) interpretation possible.

the person i replied to spoke about being able to improvise "in a Jamerson way" not sounding "exactly like him" or "becoming a clone".

[Chuck Sylvester]

Originally Posted by paul_wolfe

Is that with the tracks you can get via Rick Suchow's site? Or other stuff - let us know, we're all intrigued!

Here's one instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqtELR5GyfI

I think there are others if you search him on Youtube. Search on "James Jamerson isolated bass" (don't add the quotes). Yeah, his bass is pretty dull and thuddy with little sustain. But hearing him solo'd only makes me appreciate his genius even more. The man had a clock. And what style and nuance!

His background may have been as a jazz upright player, but his Motown pop playing demonstrates that he was hearing something NOBODY else was hearing. A unique, new way to lay down the groove.
Chuck

[mark107]

Originally Posted by paul_wolfe

Is that with the tracks you can get via Rick Suchow's site? Or other stuff - let us know, we're all intrigued!

I'm not aware of what is there, so I can't answer. Where is it?

[20db pad]

http://ricksuchow.com/press-group-250.html

[dlmarquez]

I am of the school that thinks Jamerson is the man...everyone else just expanded on what he discovered.
The man had SOUL....HEART....and he lived in the groove.

Interestingly enough, Jamerson didn't shred, didn't solo, didn't try to out-guitar the guitarists or double them.
He simply felt the groove and the changes and weaved his magic on 4 strings.

I suspect that he was more interested in the groove than anything else.

Rocco reminds me a bit of Jamerson. Much busier and less syncopation, but groove, soul, and heart

[LilRay]

Originally Posted by christoph h.

i think you're taking the quote much too far. i don't really know why you assume i meant it in the way you describe, as that's the most extreme (and ultimately useless) interpretation possible.

the person i replied to spoke about being able to improvise "in a Jamerson way" not sounding "exactly like him" or "becoming a clone".

Firstly It was a JOKE! Hence the winking smilie. One isn't good enough? Maybe you need four smilies to see them

How's the interpretation useless? Even if it is extreme the point is still valid. You use a cliched statement and think my opinion of the statement is useless? (Don't miss the smilies) The point being we'll never be Jamerson and it doesn't matter what we do. You can sit and read the dictionary everyday nonstop, that doesn't men your going to become a great linguist, or for that matter be able to absorb any of it.

If you don't want anyone joking about your statements, offer a legitimate point rather than a cliched statement.

God Bless, Ray

[RickC]

Originally Posted by spigmu

He was on Mars. We're on Earth. : ) We need to visit Mars to understand, so to speak.

Or maybe just Detroit

[RickC]

Originally Posted by mark107

Fonts

Being 54 years old, I remember the 60's hits well. The bass was king back then. Not just on Motown tracks, but most of the stuff on the radio had pretty predominant bass parts. It was vocals, and bass, in the forefront. The kick was pretty far back. And the bass was far more melodic than what you hear on the radio now. And the tone of the bass itself wasn't so "hi-fi" that it melted into the track like most bass parts do now. There was more thud, and less sustain, which made it much easier to make out. It's what inspired me to take up the bass in the first place. Blasphemy as it may sound, I've been telling people for years that I think we are living in the dark ages of the bass guitar (notable exceptions not included of course). If I was growing up today, I'd probably still be inspired to take up the bass, but that inspiration probably would not come from casual listening to the radio like it did for me in the 60's. James Jamerson, Paul McCartney, Phil Lesh, Jack Casidy, Carol Kaye, Joe Osborne, Chuck Rainey. And plenty more. I've always thought that one of the reasons that these guys became famous was that you could actually HEAR what they were doing. Contrast that to a modern recording, where the bass hides behind the kick and guitars, and rings and rings and rings, such that it just disappears behind the din of everything else. And it had better lock with the kick, or else you won't even hear the attack. (This is a very general statement, I know.) In the 60's there was no need to lock to the kick, because the bass had plenty of kick on it's own.

if you have heard JJ's bass solo'd (as I have), you might be shocked at how crappy it sounds. But in the mix it really works. This is a major factor on why he could get away with so much. If he was playing a modern bass with modern strings and electronics, I highly doubt it would have worked as well.

I make most of my money mixing and mastering records now. I can tell you that a bass with a lot of sustain will have to be mixed rather low in the track, or else it will wash over everything. Same with the ringy kick drum. Or sustaining guitars, etc. But something that gets out of the way pretty quick can be put pretty up front if you want. Listen to the bass on the early Tower of Power records. It sustains about as long as a conga hit. And as such, it's mixed pretty loud, and you have no trouble hearing it, even on laptop speakers. Jamerson's bass is pretty much the same way - pretty dead sounding. Food for though, huh?

Mark, I'm the same age as you and I so understand where you're coming from. It's true. I still hear it and love it old school. That's why I gravitate towards old basses and never change my strings. Some of us are still out there, carrying the torch so to speak.

/rick

[KPAX]

I tend to agree, though I don't use that old school sound myself.
Back in those days, the bass was often specifically mixed to come through on the crappy radios of the time so the tone was pretty narrow and focused - not nearly so wide or "hi fi" as today. Modern bass amps have way too much lows and highs IMO. Often times it makes it harder to get a good tone that sits right in the mix IMO. That's something I like about the SansAmp preamps. The frequency range is narrower.

Originally Posted by mark107

Fonts

Being 54 years old, I remember the 60's hits well. The bass was king back then. Not just on Motown tracks, but most of the stuff on the radio had pretty predominant bass parts. It was vocals, and bass, in the forefront. The kick was pretty far back. And the bass was far more melodic than what you hear on the radio now. And the tone of the bass itself wasn't so "hi-fi" that it melted into the track like most bass parts do now. There was more thud, and less sustain, which made it much easier to make out. It's what inspired me to take up the bass in the first place. Blasphemy as it may sound, I've been telling people for years that I think we are living in the dark ages of the bass guitar (notable exceptions not included of course). If I was growing up today, I'd probably still be inspired to take up the bass, but that inspiration probably would not come from casual listening to the radio like it did for me in the 60's. James Jamerson, Paul McCartney, Phil Lesh, Jack Casidy, Carol Kaye, Joe Osborne, Chuck Rainey. And plenty more. I've always thought that one of the reasons that these guys became famous was that you could actually HEAR what they were doing. Contrast that to a modern recording, where the bass hides behind the kick and guitars, and rings and rings and rings, such that it just disappears behind the din of everything else. And it had better lock with the kick, or else you won't even hear the attack. (This is a very general statement, I know.) In the 60's there was no need to lock to the kick, because the bass had plenty of kick on it's own.

if you have heard JJ's bass solo'd (as I have), you might be shocked at how crappy it sounds. But in the mix it really works. This is a major factor on why he could get away with so much. If he was playing a modern bass with modern strings and electronics, I highly doubt it would have worked as well.

I make most of my money mixing and mastering records now. I can tell you that a bass with a lot of sustain will have to be mixed rather low in the track, or else it will wash over everything. Same with the ringy kick drum. Or sustaining guitars, etc. But something that gets out of the way pretty quick can be put pretty up front if you want. Listen to the bass on the early Tower of Power records. It sustains about as long as a conga hit. And as such, it's mixed pretty loud, and you have no trouble hearing it, even on laptop speakers. Jamerson's bass is pretty much the same way - pretty dead sounding. Food for though, huh?

[christoph h.]

Originally Posted by LilRay

Firstly It was a JOKE! Hence the winking smilie. One isn't good enough? Maybe you need four smilies to see them

How's the interpretation useless? Even if it is extreme the point is still valid. You use a cliched statement and think my opinion of the statement is useless? (Don't miss the smilies) The point being we'll never be Jamerson and it doesn't matter what we do. You can sit and read the dictionary everyday nonstop, that doesn't men your going to become a great linguist, or for that matter be able to absorb any of it.

If you don't want anyone joking about your statements, offer a legitimate point rather than a cliched statement.

God Bless, Ray

wow, man.

EDIT: To clarify: Again I think you go for a rather extreme interpretation of what I wrote. I didn't miss your joke and I also wasn't offended in any way. I understand your point very well, but I don't agree with it at all.

I will accept that my way of offering a cliched quote without much added commentary wasn't the best move but I don't feel like your interpretation is very helpful at all. I know this is the internet, but I often wish that people had a little more faith in the intelligence of other posters to put things into the right context. Neither I nor the person I replied to talked about "being" (or "becoming") "exactly" like Jamerson. At least for me, it was about integrating a style into your playing.

Lastly, I didn't mean to say that "your opinion is useless" but that your extreme interpretation renders the quote useless. I would never want to use it that way.
If it came across differently, I apologize, but English is not my native language.

My original post and the contained quote were meant as an encouragment - nothing more, nothing less.