bass players selling out

[JakeF]

Once watched a guy whining to a pretty lady about how the masses and their undeveloped taste were ruining things. Well, the pretty lady did not want to sleep with him.

Neither did the masses.

He "didn't want to sleep with them either."

He is a liar.

The only problem I see in music is the mass of insecure children who want all the rewards of the Fame but don't wanna pay the price. They are their for respect and where the only people in the room who believed the term that someone "made it on their own terms." Horrid entertainers who thought their "art" is enough and that people should flock to see their shows in which they performed their music without performance. So dedicated to the art of music were they that all other arts meant nothing and they could no longer even understand the art of entertainment.

Respect the stage, and the art of entertainment. Or don't get up on it. Otherwise your music is something purely selfish.

 

[NWB]

Following the arguments here regarding popular music brings up a question.

Why have a bass player?

I mean, with sampling and sequencing technology being what it is these days, it seems most popular songs could just be done that way and lots of money would be saved over a live bassist.

For example, I have bass samples on Garageband that actually sound pretty good and I'm sure the high-end stuff is much better. Take that sort of technology into a typical bar band and 1) audiences wouldn't ever know the difference and 2) it would save the band a great deal of money per gig. Girls can shake their butts to a sample as much as a bass guitar.

It seems the role of the bassist could easily be accomplished with technology. You could just have a tablet on stage to control the bass sequencer.

I know this was tried in the 80's, but the technology to recreate bass sounds has advanced tremendously since that time.

 

[pklima]

Following the arguments here regarding popular music brings up a question.

Why have a bass player?

I'm adding some sequences to a band right now, so I've thought about this probably more than I should.

At the higher end the reasons to have a real bassist are: looks, backing vocals, and the human element. Audiences connect more readily with real people. I mean, the big name acts don't just tour with backing bands, they also have dancers on stage. A lot of DJs do live acts with sax or hand percussion or violin or whatever. I think it really is better to have a human bassist even if a sequenced bass track will sound better. Plus there is symbolic value: it shows that the tour is big enough to afford a full band, and it shows respect for musical tradition.

And the average bar band level: it's less work to have a live bassist. Most decent bar band bassists can fake it on songs they've never heard, react quickly to the singer going to the wrong section etc, so the bassist and the band doesn't really have to be as fully prepared. Plus, you don't look like losers who weren't good enough to find a bassist.

 

[NWB]

Plus, you don't look like losers who weren't good enough to find a bassist.

I don't know how valid this is since most people can't recognize a bass player anyway. I sincerely doubt many audience members would care or even notice.

I've given this some thought and the concept seems to make a lot of sense. We bass players may be a dying breed.

 

[JumboJack]

I don't know how valid this is since most people can't recognize a bass player anyway. I sincerely doubt many audience members would care or even notice.

I've given this some thought and the concept seems to make a lot of sense. We bass players may be a dying breed.

I hate to agree with you but... I went to see Trans Siberian Orchestra with a friend. On the way there talking about how large the band is he said something to the effect of "Oh they always have more than one bass player"... Doh!

 

[bass12]

I've given this some thought and the concept seems to make a lot of sense. We bass players may be a dying breed.

As far as the quality of the sound where bass samples are concerned, it really depends on the kind of music. For some stuff a sample can sound just fine but for a lot of stuff samples just won't cut it. I play in a fourteen piece band that runs sequences for a lot of the songs and, yes, sometimes I'm doubling a bass part. While some of the songs would sound okay without my added bass, the majority of them benefit (I like to think so anyway ) from live bass. Regardless, if something happens to the sequence (I've had this happen a couple of times during shows) and there's no bass bassist in the band - forget it. Show over. And speaking of shows, sure, you can start eliminating musicians and saving money but the one thing a band can offer that a DJ can't is a fantastic live show.

 

[Bassbubble11]

You may be an "equal member" of the band when it comes to making decisions on what color Tshirt you will put out next, and what your cover art will look like on your next CD. But musically, you are in a support role. Sorry. It just is. Musically, the lead singer and any "lead" instruments "outrank" everybody else in the battle for frequency, volume, and melody.

If you were to stand in FRONT of or right beside the singer and lead guitarist plikity plaking away jumping around blocking the audience from interacting with them during the entire song, overshadowing what they are doing visually, and equally as "forward" in the FOH mix, your band would get nowhere fast. If this weren't true, you would be correct. But it is true, so you are not. You can't have it both ways.

Name me one band where the bass player (from a NON MUSICIAN'S standpoint) is an "equal member" of the band if he is not also the lead singer. Name one band that had/has a bass player (who ONLY plays bass) who is just as familiar to the fans as the lead singer/lead guitarist is. Everybody knows who Steven Tyler is and most know who Joe Perry is. How many know who Tom Hamilton is? You MUST look at it from a NON musician's standpoint because we don't buy enough of each other's albums to count for anything. What non musicians think is more important than what we think as far as "success or failure" of a band.

My two pennies. OK I get long winded. Maybe my four pennies.

Steve Harris is just one.

 

[hernameisrio]

I just wanted to confirm that yes, John Taylor is the sexiest one of the bunch! (I saw that my name popped up in this thread so I figured I'd chime in again.)

 

[Thor]

Closed while I figure out what's so humorous about this, sounds a lot lihe a band management thread. You know, whiney, but missing all the usual sparkly cast of characters.

I may invoke the 'get funny or go to BM' rule.

 

[Thor]

I am thinking MISC, as BM doesn't work. Bassists?

I noted the comment about, "I think this is a troll post but I'll bite". I tend to agree, but I am not biting.

We don't feed trolls in the Humor forum. Nor pretty much any other forum, so I am just leaving it closed. PM me if there is some burning desire to continue this less than funny conversation somewhere else.