This might seem like the wrong subforum for this, but I think it's the best fit. I believe the way you answer this question partially shapes the way you play, and therefore this is a technique-related topic. Here is my premise: When one refers to our instrument as the "bass guitar", the noun in that phrase is "guitar", and "bass" is merely an adjective. This implies that one can do anything on a bass that one can on a guitar, which means chords, solos, two-handed tapping, etc., are all available. This is the way I approach the instrument. There is an equally valid school of thought, in which the bass plays primarily low notes, primarily roots, and/or primarily traditional patterns. In other words: it's a "bass", and therefore its purpose is to play "bass lines". In this case, "bass" has been promoted from adjective to noun. I know, I know, you have to do whatever is right for the song. I get that. Still, most players seem to lean one way or the other, and "what's right for the song" is largely an aesthetic choice rather than a "right or wrong" answer. If James Jamerson had played on a Stax session subbing for Duck Dunn, the resulting bass line still would have been "right for the song", but it would likely have been busier and more improvisational too. It might seem like a pointless thread on the face of it (I honestly considered not bothering to post it) but I think it might be interesting to explore whether (and how) the language we use affects the ways in which we approach our instruments. So, do you call it a "bass" or a "bass guitar", and do you believe that it relates in any way to how you approach it?