Is being a good bass player a dying art?

[jive1]

Originally Posted by jungleheat

Jive, to some extent, those guys were right back then, and it's only gotten worse since then. Music pretty much peaked sometime around the 70s, in terms of musicianship, technical ability, production quality, and pretty much anything else you can think of. A "weird" band like Yes could have gold records and play to 50,000 plus people. And you look at those guys, and in fact they are still some of the best musicians out there, although they haven't released much great music lately. But what that meant in the 70s, was that you could be rich and famous playing just about whatever kind of music you wanted, as long as it was good.

It's undeniable that making basic music is far easier than it has ever been. Both in terms of recording, and even the playability of instruments (a cheap bass now vs a cheap bass 40 or 50 years ago is like night and day) LITERALLY anyone can make music with a bit of software and some kind of input device (ie controller keyboard, guitar, etc...). It used to be that people had to work at it to get to the point of being heard by anybody, so that would tend to naturally select the people that had some talent for music, because others would give up.

But now, anybody can put their stuff out there. That, combined with the fact that "musical" music (ie stuff that takes more ability than simple rock/pop) is almost completely disregarded by the general public these days, means it's a LOT less common for people to be great players, or even "solid" players, because there's no money in it any more.

Lots of good points.

From my observation, I see more of an ebb and flow in terms of musical complexity. Music gets complex, and then it simplifies.

I already mentioned the complexity of music of the 40s vs the 50s. To go further, as Rock and Roll matured, it also became more complex. The 3 chord rock tunes of the 50s turned into the Psychedelia of the 60s which grew into the Prog Rock of the 70s. Each decade culminated with a greater complexity of music. Then it all hits a head in the 80s, with the fun and indulgent guitar shredding of that time. Heck, even the bass and drums were shredding back then. But, after that you have the 90s with it's grunge and alt scene that didn't even have guitar solos. Not that many harmonies, shredding bass, busy drums or things that signified 80s Rock. Guys were playing cheaper instruments, dressing down more, and playing more stripped down shows. It was also during this time when 'Unplugged' became popular. Things got more complex over time, but not in terms of composition, but in arrangement. You now have 1-2 chord songs with lots of different sonic layers. With sampling, anything is an instrument. With synthesis, you can create your own instruments. Put those together, you are seeing lots more complex arrangements in terms of utilization of sonic space. But, I'm seeing that coming to head now. As artists like Mumford and Sons, the Black Keys, and Jack Johnson are becoming more popular, you are seeing a return to simpler music and arrangements. The popularity of 'fools on stool' in the recent years attests to that.

[WokenDeer]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I would answer "yes" to the OP's question. I would say the same of drummers, guitarists and most singers. Musicianship just doesn't seem to be "kewl" these days, "just f*cking play power chords, man".

I made a joke about that 12/12/12 concert the other day - who is going to replace these guys in 15 - 20 years? As far as I can see, nobody. There's not enough music in today's music. Striving for excellence on an instrument is practically frowned upon. Want proof, who are the great bands that came out post 90's? There are none. For God's sake, we're still looking to the British 60's bands to give concerts some real clout. What the hell does that tell you? I'd say Rock & Roll is a dying art, not just bass playing.

Ah we do have guys like jack white, jack Lawrence is also a killer bassist. Check out a band called parlor mob. Pretty cool. Arctic monkeys. I'm also a baroness fan, some good musicianship there. It's still alive. Despite what people say. There's a band called red fang whose pretty rock and roll. Also this band lo pan who is on small stone records also with a band called backwoods payback. This band priestess is really cool, check out lay down and I am the night color me black by them. It's not heavy or anything just rock and roll.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

More and more I see bands, local and national that have really so so bass players. Some local are quite bad actually. Pop music all the way from the 60's through the 90's required quite a bit of skill and most local bass players had pretty impressive technique and really solid fundamentals. You could tell they had spent time studying the masters over time.

Nowadays, I don't see that as much anymore outside of the first call studio guys. Anyone else noticing this? If so, what does this trend mean for the instrument?

I think a sense of historical perspective is in order - and thus far is missing here...

What goes around eventually comes back around. Old things become new again. Yes, there is a lot of mediocre bass playing. But there is a lot of mediocre everything playing.

Moreover, this has always been the case - for as long as I can remember. Even during the supposed heyday of groove during the Sixties.

At the same time, there is always fantastic, even groundbreaking music being made. The key, as always, is to find it, i.e. discover who's making it - and where. At the end of the day, this may be the actual wild card factor.

Eventually the pop music world will encounter The Next Big Thing once again. Maybe it will be as revolutionary as were The Beatles. Maybe less so. Maybe even more so.

And when it finally happens, it will make virtually everything that came before it sound as square and as dated as Tennessee Ernie Ford during the year (1956) when Elvis broke out. Or as square and as dated as Bobbie Vinton during the year (1964) when The Beatles broke out.

MM

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

I think a sense of historical perspective is in order - and thus far is missing here...

What goes around eventually comes back around. Old things become new again. Yes, there is a lot of mediocre bass playing. But there is a lot of mediocre everything playing.

Moreover, this has always been the case - for as long as I can remember. Even during the supposed heyday of groove during the Sixties.

At the same time, there is always fantastic, even groundbreaking music being made. The key, as always, is to find it, i.e. discover who's making it - and where. At the end of the day, this may be the actual wild card factor.

Eventually the pop music world will encounter The Next Big Thing once again. Maybe it will be as revolutionary as were The Beatles. Maybe less so. Maybe even more so.

And when it finally happens, it will make virtually everything that came before it sound as square and as dated as Tennessee Ernie Ford during the year (1956) when Elvis broke out. Or as square and as dated as Bobbie Vinton during the year (1964) when The Beatles broke out.

MM

I seriously hope you're right, but I hope it doesn't take too long. Some of us will be dead soon, and we'll miss it.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by WokenDeer

Ah we do have guys like jack white, jack Lawrence is also a killer bassist. Check out a band called parlor mob. Pretty cool. Arctic monkeys. I'm also a baroness fan, some good musicianship there. It's still alive. Despite what people say. There's a band called red fang whose pretty rock and roll. Also this band lo pan who is on small stone records also with a band called backwoods payback. This band priestess is really cool, check out lay down and I am the night color me black by them. It's not heavy or anything just rock and roll.

Sure, there's good R&R bands out there, but there aren't any great ones. I hope that changes soon; I'd love nothing more than to hang on the release of a band's next CD. That hasn't happened for me in donkey's years, truth be told.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by bassbully

Ok Victor and I disagree.

I mean, how did Vic gain his popularity? Let me tell ya, he didn't stand out above the rest simply because he grooved harder and fulfilled the traditional role of a bassist all the time (although he can do that amazingly well).

All the best known bassists out there are guys who have done some amazingly out there things on the instrument. Flea, Jaco, Claypool, Brown, Vic, etc... You don't get that sense of greater appreciation from others unless you are one bad momma jamma. Otherwise, all the attention will simply go to the guitarist and singer as it typically does; and that's what hurts us. Good bass playing needs to brought into the spotlight more, but that won't happen unless we have bassists who are interesting and out there enough to steal spotlight. Unfortunately, simple, flawless grooving won't do that.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

I mean, how did Vic gain his popularity? Let me tell ya, he didn't stand out above the rest simply because he grooved harder and fulfilled the traditional role of a bassist all the time (although he can do that amazingly well).

All the best known bassists out there are guys who have done some amazingly out there things on the instrument. Flea, Jaco, Claypool, Brown, Vic, etc... You don't get that sense of greater appreciation from others unless you are one bad momma jamma. Otherwise, all the attention will simply go to the guitarist and singer as it typically does; and that's what hurts us. Good bass playing needs to brought into the spotlight more, but that won't happen unless we have bassists who are interesting and out there enough to steal spotlight. Unfortunately, simple, flawless grooving won't do that.

Yep, no use blaming the guitarists. Most people know who John Paul Jones is, or Jack Bruce, and they had fair guitar players.

[bassbully]

Originally Posted by bluewine

It's why you might notice I never use the term bassist. I always use bass guitarist.

I'm a bass guitar player.

Blue

This is also the Bass guitar forum not DB forum.

[Clef_de_fa]

Originally Posted by dvh

Two reasons:

- The feel. It may be the right note. It may be a perfect eighth of a beat. But there are still nuances into where on that beat it’s played and intensity
- The poster you quoted was not talking about a single eighth note. He was talking about eight note lines. And he’s right. It’s hugely challenging to play a moving eighth note line and make it sound good.

Ok so you speak about dynamic and deplacing accent ... I thought you were thinking 8th note are so different from one style of music to another ... like it isn't the same thing at all.

[bassbully]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

I mean, how did Vic gain his popularity? Let me tell ya, he didn't stand out above the rest simply because he grooved harder and fulfilled the traditional role of a bassist all the time (although he can do that amazingly well).

All the best known bassists out there are guys who have done some amazingly out there things on the instrument. Flea, Jaco, Claypool, Brown, Vic, etc... You don't get that sense of greater appreciation from others unless you are one bad momma jamma. Otherwise, all the attention will simply go to the guitarist and singer as it typically does; and that's what hurts us. Good bass playing needs to brought into the spotlight more, but that won't happen unless we have bassists who are interesting and out there enough to steal spotlight. Unfortunately, simple, flawless grooving won't do that.

Ok..again I disagree. Vic is one of the few solo type bassists I like. Flea and Claypool being the others since they are "Musical" and sit in a band setting. I hate solo bass players and their albums. A short bass solo is cool in a song or show but a jam with one is zzzzzzzz for me and most people I know.
Most solo bass greats are really only known by other bassists or hardcore music fans. Joe and Jane public do not know them or care.

To me the bass is a role in the music and is to provide support for the band. I never care if its simple or complex as long as it fits the music. If bass playing keeps going the way of 8 strings, wanking, solo's and wanting the spotlight then we have lost the focus of what the role of being a bassist is IMO.

[DWBass]

Wait............are we now debating flair over solid support playing?? 99% of us bassists are in 'bands'! We all can't be 'Victa'! You want to be an out there, solo bassist type of player, start your own band and do what you want. I want a solid groovin' bassist. Leave all the pyrotechnics at home. Not interested! In the past year, we had to replace our drummer. Got one guy in and in a matter of a month started playing hard and loud with a lot of unecessary and annoying fills. Changing grooves in the middle of songs because he was feeling 'creative'! Umm sorry bud, nobody's digging it. Goodbye! Tried out another guy who actually came out to see us quite often. When we got to the rehearsal spot, I made it a point to tell him, we DO NOT WANT YOU TO PLAY LIKE THE LAST GUY! Tried him out on a gig one time (not my decision) and what happens? He plays exactly like the last guy! Umm sorry bud! Goodbye! I honestly think a lot of musicians don't know what it takes to be in a 'band'! Need some strong lessons in ensemble playing!

Boring basslines? Well, the song was a hit, wasn't it? With those same boring basslines! C'mon guys, stop with the excuses! Embelish the basslines some. I'm cool with that but if your playing all over the song with no taste at all just because you're being creative, how about checking in with the band first.

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Want proof, who are the great bands that came out post 90's?

Soundgarden, Tool, Pearl Jam just to name a few. We will still be listening to there music in 30 years.

As for why they use 60's musicians/bands for major benefits and concerts of those types are because the target audience are middle age people, not generation X maybe.

Perhaps a benefit concert held in 2030 will have Chris Cornell be the headliner, who knows..

[MNAirHead]

Originally Posted by fmoore200

Soundgarden, Tool, Pearl Jam just to name a few. We will still be listening to there music in 30 years.

As for why they use 60's musicians/bands for major benefits and concerts of those types are because the target audience are middle age people, not generation X maybe.

Perhaps a benefit concert held in 2030 will have Chris Cornell be the headliner, who knows..

I'd argue these are less legendary iconic than a generation

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by MNAirHead

I'd argue these are less legendary iconic than a generation

Maybe it's generational by nature? The Beatles had less of a *direct* impact on me (and I'd assume some if not most of those in my generation) than Soundgarden..

But I will admit that what the bands I mentioned did was built on what the groups of the past did. That being said, that's like saying that Stravinsky isn't as good as Bartok because Bartok 'did it first, so is inherently better'.. They are both great for what they were/are..

[denhou1974]

Tab and the internet has made some people lazy. A good ear seems hard to find now days and I see more and more musicians (not only bassists) that obviously learn their songs from online tab. In that I meant that they play [most] of the right notes but the feel isn't there. I work with a guy who is like this. He hates it when I don't play the song "the way it goes".

I tell him "it goes how I play it, I play music". He don't get it.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by fmoore200

Soundgarden, Tool, Pearl Jam just to name a few. We will still be listening to there music in 30 years.

As for why they use 60's musicians/bands for major benefits and concerts of those types are because the target audience are middle age people, not generation X maybe.

Perhaps a benefit concert held in 2030 will have Chris Cornell be the headliner, who knows..

I'm not sure about that. I watched that audience, and they weren't that old. Actually, Bon Jovi probably got the crowd involved more than anyone, as he was more their general age group.

I hope Chris Cornell is one of the next generation (fantastic singer) - I guess we'll see (or maybe you will - I'll likely be dead by 2030).

[jungleheat]

Originally Posted by fmoore200

Soundgarden, Tool, Pearl Jam just to name a few. We will still be listening to there music in 30 years.

Ah, but he said POST 90s. As in, "after the 90s". Soundgarden has been around since the early/mid 80s and the other 2 started at the dawn of the 90s. And what you have to understand about ALL of them, is that they grew up in the 60s/70s culture where musicianship was not only respected, but ASPIRED to.

Unfortunately, the punk/80s/MTV era shifted a lot of the focus away from musicianship and more to image and "catchy beats". Add the hiphop culture to the mix and you've got a recipe for disaster in terms of spawning creative, inspiring musicians. Throw in the internet/cheap digital recording age and it's a perfect storm for the death of musicianship.

Guys my age (early/mid 30s) are really the last to have that tie to the "old days" and to a higher standard of musicianship, and of respect and compensation for musicians. Yeah, I mostly grew up in the 80s and 90s, BUT during those times, I was still being exposed to all the greats of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. "Classic rock" (Zeppelin, Who, etc...) was sort of out of favor the first 10 or 12 years of my life, but in the meantime, the generally very musical pop and rock music of the mid/late 70s would be played alongside the newest stuff of the early/mid 80s. Around the mid/late 80s is when a lot more interesting NEW things were starting to happen with bands like Faith No More, etc..., which carried over into the "grunge"/alternative era, coupled with the return of classic rock to the airwaves and media, which resulted in a "2nd golden age" of music, however brief.

But now, the kids that were born in the 90s and beyond have almost no connection to those earlier periods, and so their "coming of age" years were maybe 5-8 years ago, when frankly, music sucked the big one. On top of that, they have no concept of the value of music because it has always been "free" to them. Music is something you get for free from the internet, because I mean, come on, the kid down the street makes his OWN music, so it couldn't be that hard, right?

So it's a vicious cycle, it really is. The standards get watered down more and more until there's nothing left. I mean, honestly, how likely do you think it is that we'll see another Steely Dan or Toto type band in the next 10-20 years? A band filled with excellent musicians that write more or less catchy and accessible music, but with some actual musical "meat" to it, and be HUGE? I don't see that happening. Radiohead is great and all, but they've been around for TWENTY YEARS and put out 8 or 9 albums. By the time Led Zeppelin had put out that many albums, their drummer was dead and the rest had moved on to other things, to give some perspective.

Yeah, there are great bands like Baroness. But those aren't the bands that are getting huge, and even the bands that ARE getting huge are selling FRACTIONS of what older huge bands would sell.

If we don't have a serious renaissance soon, it's just going to get worse and worse.

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by jungleheat

Ah, but he said POST 90s. As in, "after the 90s". Soundgarden has been around since the early/mid 80s and the other 2 started at the dawn of the 90s. And what you have to understand about ALL of them, is that they grew up in the 60s/70s culture where musicianship was not only respected, but ASPIRED to.

Unfortunately, the punk/80s/MTV era shifted a lot of the focus away from musicianship and more to image and "catchy beats". Add the hiphop culture to the mix and you've got a recipe for disaster in terms of spawning creative, inspiring musicians. Throw in the internet/cheap digital recording age and it's a perfect storm for the death of musicianship.

Guys my age (early/mid 30s) are really the last to have that tie to the "old days" and to a higher standard of musicianship, and of respect and compensation for musicians. Yeah, I mostly grew up in the 80s and 90s, BUT during those times, I was still being exposed to all the greats of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. "Classic rock" (Zeppelin, Who, etc...) was sort of out of favor the first 10 or 12 years of my life, but in the meantime, the generally very musical pop and rock music of the mid/late 70s would be played alongside the newest stuff of the early/mid 80s. Around the mid/late 80s is when a lot more interesting NEW things were starting to happen with bands like Faith No More, etc..., which carried over into the "grunge"/alternative era, coupled with the return of classic rock to the airwaves and media, which resulted in a "2nd golden age" of music, however brief.

But now, the kids that were born in the 90s and beyond have almost no connection to those earlier periods, and so their "coming of age" years were maybe 5-8 years ago, when frankly, music sucked the big one. On top of that, they have no concept of the value of music because it has always been "free" to them. Music is something you get for free from the internet, because I mean, come on, the kid down the street makes his OWN music, so it couldn't be that hard, right?

So it's a vicious cycle, it really is. The standards get watered down more and more until there's nothing left. I mean, honestly, how likely do you think it is that we'll see another Steely Dan or Toto type band in the next 10-20 years? A band filled with excellent musicians that write more or less catchy and accessible music, but with some actual musical "meat" to it, and be HUGE? I don't see that happening. Radiohead is great and all, but they've been around for TWENTY YEARS and put out 8 or 9 albums. By the time Led Zeppelin had put out that many albums, their drummer was dead and the rest had moved on to other things, to give some perspective.

Yeah, there are great bands like Baroness. But those aren't the bands that are getting huge, and even the bands that ARE getting huge are selling FRACTIONS of what older huge bands would sell.

If we don't have a serious renaissance soon, it's just going to get worse and worse.

Wow, that's scary! I read 'from the 90's'... My mistake

Edit: pressed send by accident on my phone...

Well than rock music (which is what this thread is talking about) has seen it's day and gone the way of jazz. It was for a time the biggest, popular music and now has spun off into various genres and sub genres, much like jazz. The only problem is that mainstream rock music has always shunned overt intellectual music (by it's very nature of 'rebel music') and that is what is causing the slow death of the genre.

Every one cries about the kids that don't know scales or chords, but on this very forum there is a thread questioning the need for music theory! Rock musicians don't want to be educated musicians, much like rappers, because they lose credibility in the genre.

Now I know these are generalizations, and there are some fairly well trained rock musicians, but I got out of the rock band game mostly because I got tired of going to an audition and the guitarist not knowing what chord he was playing ("uh..it's the third fret on the top string...")

[bassistloaded21]

I think its just the times are changing. The chances of bands being picked up playing local or randomly on your are pretty much over, still happens sometimes, but most of the good musicians are flocking to the music mecas such as NYC, LA, Nashville etc. good bass players still exist, theyre just all kinda in one place, which is creating the awesome music scenes in these cities.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Yep, no use blaming the guitarists. Most people know who John Paul Jones is, or Jack Bruce, and they had fair guitar players.

That's exactly my point. Neither one of them played very traditional or straight forward basslines. They did a lot of tasteful embellishment that made them stand alongside the rest of their band as equals and not simply as a backing, support instrument and player.

Originally Posted by bassbully

Ok..again I disagree. Vic is one of the few solo type bassists I like. Flea and Claypool being the others since they are "Musical" and sit in a band setting. I hate solo bass players and their albums. A short bass solo is cool in a song or show but a jam with one is zzzzzzzz for me and most people I know.
Most solo bass greats are really only known by other bassists or hardcore music fans. Joe and Jane public do not know them or care.

To me the bass is a role in the music and is to provide support for the band. I never care if its simple or complex as long as it fits the music. If bass playing keeps going the way of 8 strings, wanking, solo's and wanting the spotlight then we have lost the focus of what the role of being a bassist is IMO.

I guess you and I are listening to vastly different music then. I think we have plenty of meat and potatoes players. We don't have enough guys like JPJ, Flea, Jack Bruce, Claypool, etc... turning things upside down and making listeners pay closer attention to our low-end brothers and less to our high octave cousins.

Originally Posted by DWBass

Wait............are we now debating flair over solid support playing?? 99% of us bassists are in 'bands'! We all can't be 'Victa'! You want to be an out there, solo bassist type of player, start your own band and do what you want. I want a solid groovin' bassist. Leave all the pyrotechnics at home. Not interested! In the past year, we had to replace our drummer. Got one guy in and in a matter of a month started playing hard and loud with a lot of unecessary and annoying fills. Changing grooves in the middle of songs because he was feeling 'creative'! Umm sorry bud, nobody's digging it. Goodbye! Tried out another guy who actually came out to see us quite often. When we got to the rehearsal spot, I made it a point to tell him, we DO NOT WANT YOU TO PLAY LIKE THE LAST GUY! Tried him out on a gig one time (not my decision) and what happens? He plays exactly like the last guy! Umm sorry bud! Goodbye! I honestly think a lot of musicians don't know what it takes to be in a 'band'! Need some strong lessons in ensemble playing!

Boring basslines? Well, the song was a hit, wasn't it? With those same boring basslines! C'mon guys, stop with the excuses! Embelish the basslines some. I'm cool with that but if your playing all over the song with no taste at all just because you're being creative, how about checking in with the band first.

You have a real tendency to get hyperbolic in regards to my posts

I'm not saying we should replace tastefulness with ego-driven basslines. What I am saying, however, is that we shouldn't be afraid to step out and do something unique on our instrument in the context of a band. Guys like Flea and Claypool became big names in the music business because they could play over-the-top lines while simultaneously remaining solid and grooving. They could steal attention without completely stealing the song, and all the while they could keep the groove thumping along. Sometimes all a song needs is a simple 8th note, root rocking line, but I think (a lot of the time) a lot of us bass players go there simply because it's easy and because it downplays the chance of confrontation from guitarists and singers because we're stealing spotlight. We shouldn't be afraid to do that. Our instrument is capable of much more than simply being a support unit.