• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bassist make or break a band?

#42
This is an intersting question and IMO it has more to do with the attitude and confidence in which you play than whether you are a "lead" bass player or traditional supportive bass player. I believe that in every situtation that I am in the band in which I am playing will be better; in other words I believe that my playing makes a difference and that I bring something unique to the table when I play.
 
#43
Different bands have more or less of a need for a good bassist. Bands can make it with a root note player, and other bands can make it with a great bassist who holds the band together. It on a band-by-band basis.

I have found that, on occasion, I will like a record more if the bass playing is solid in the pocket with good tone.
 
#46
scottbass said:
Make? No.

Break? Yes.

IMHO
Click to expand...

I would have to agree. As long as all of the members are at least competent at what they do it won't break the band. One incompetent member will however. Can one stellar member improve a band, yes again though that raises the bar of what's considered competent for the rest of the band.

IMHO
 
#47
grimniggzy said:
Being bassists I wonder if you all share my feelings on this particular subject.
Can a bassist make or break a band for you?
Will a bassist alone make you like a band?
I myself have never that I can think of liked a band solely or even mainly for that matter because of the(ir) bassist.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, but I think I`ll typically like a band regardless of their bassist.
 
#48
willgroove2 said:
I have never heard or seen a great band in any style that didn't have a good to great drummer.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't imagine a great band of any style that didn't have a "good" bass player. If you think about it good is a pretty low standard. And Ringo was just good at his best. If you mean the ability to hit one when it is one I agree. There are plenty of good bands with mediocre drummers (drummers without a great sense of dynamics), and their have been plenty of good bands without great innovative bass players. But I can't think of any great bands with both.

Think of the Beatles and the Stones, I think its fair to call Bill Wyman a mediocre bass player. I certainly wouldn't call him innovative, adequate is about the best I can give him. But Charlie Watts was a world class drummer and while he wasn't flashy in the Stones, he had great time, an exceptional R & B pocket, and some serious Jazz chops. With the Beatles I'm in the same view with Starr, mediocre at best, its disputed if he even played half of the early stuff in the studio. But McCartney was exceptional a true innovator with great time, a great sense of space, and the ability to make a tune rhythmically exciting with a boring drum part. But I can't think of any great band that had a mediocre drummer and a mediocre bassist. I'm not sure its possible.
 
#49
In my experience good bands (wherever and whoever they are) are an integrated whole. Nobody is more important than any other band member, everybody has to do their job, and (this is very important) nobody must suck! When you listen to any band you're hearing the totality of their efforts to produce a given piece of music, and if any one member doesn't do his job then the music suffers, and you'll know right away.
 
#50
burk48237 said:
Well, I can't imagine a great band of any style that didn't have a "good" bass player. If you think about it good is a pretty low standard. And Ringo was just good at his best. If you mean the ability to hit one when it is one I agree. There are plenty of good bands with mediocre drummers (drummers without a great sense of dynamics), and their have been plenty of good bands without great innovative bass players. But I can't think of any great bands with both.

Think of the Beatles and the Stones, I think its fair to call Bill Wyman a mediocre bass player. I certainly wouldn't call him innovative, adequate is about the best I can give him. But Charlie Watts was a world class drummer and while he wasn't flashy in the Stones, he had great time, an exceptional R & B pocket, and some serious Jazz chops. With the Beatles I'm in the same view with Starr, mediocre at best, its disputed if he even played half of the early stuff in the studio. But McCartney was exceptional a true innovator with great time, a great sense of space, and the ability to make a tune rhythmically exciting with a boring drum part. But I can't think of any great band that had a mediocre drummer and a mediocre bassist. I'm not sure its possible.
Click to expand...
Those are good examples but what I mean is that I have seen many bands where the bassist is not a prominent focal point but just's play a role bordering on invisible but held the band together,in fact IMO that is a art in and of itself.
 
#51
M0ses said:
The thing about bands is that ANY one member can break it, but it takes everyone to make it.
Click to expand...

Frankly I'm surprised that anyone disagrees with this. It's just so true. This remark isn't aimed at anyone here, but I think if someone is arrogant enough to think that they are making the band, then they probably suck. I would be in my basement playing the same licks over and over if it weren't for my bandmates, who are all talented musicians. And without me, they'd be in their basements, too. Literally, I've been to everyone's house, and we all have our practice gear set up in the basement :D
 
#56
Sav'nBass said:
+1

I didn't realize it at the time but the main reason I liked Sly & The Family Stone was Larry Graham. After he left... it wasn't the same... the sound wasn't the same..

For the most part, for me.. most of the bands I like have decent bassists.. I can appreciate the great soloists and the technicians.. but I just like good solid bass lines.. Jamerson was a stellar bassist.. IMO anyway.. his work on "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye is for me some of the finest bass work I have ever heard.. and I don't recall ever hearing him do a blazing solo at all.. but the man was a giant.. so .. I agree with scott.. make.. no.. because Wooten with a crappy band..(as if... ;)) would get old quick.. but break? .. yeah... but really, for the bass to break a band.. he'd have to be a pretty bad bassist....:p.

If he does nothing but keep the pocket.. and the rest of the band kicks.... :cool:
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

And let me just say that, for me, when I go and see a band I'm usually paying the most attention to the bass player. I've gone to a couple concerts having never really heard a band's music before. Once the bass player gets going I get sucked right in.
 
#57
As a bassist who has been through several bands with several drummers in the past, and who has extensive experience playing in jazz trios/duos with NO drummer, I can say that a bassist can definitely be the main glue that holds things together. I stick to my guns with regard to tempo, groove, etc. and can hold things together quite well even WITHOUT a drummer. A drummer can enhance a band in many ways, and there's nothing like playing with drummers you really lock in with, but a bassist can really make the difference in my opinion. I read somewhere that a bassist should be able to define and hold a groove, feel and tempo without any percussive assistance. I took that point to heart quite deeply.
 
#58
i tend to have an unpopular perspective on this subject.

i think a band is only as good as its weakest member. for some reason, people became very alright with the idea of mediocre bassists in popular music. ive been somewhat trained to not even notice the bass.. as it rarely steps out of the shadow of the guitars low end and the kick drum.

live.. it doesnt seem to matter, because the bass gets mixed down to a terrible rumbling sound anyway. just last night, my bassist's sound (very mid heavy, overdriven single 15") was miced with a beta52 ::rollno:: at the very edge of the cone.. and completely buried. every rock band ive seen in the last decade live.. unless they were pulling chancelour style rank (as i tend to), they got buried.

but back to my original point. assuming one can hear the bassist, if he/she is dead weight, the band isnt good. period. its not a band PLUS the guy that isnt very good. i dont like VH because i find their music dated (im 20) and i find roth insufferable. i dont care HOW good people say EVH is. from what i understand their bassist is just passable. not helping their case.

but lets face it.. bass has been a backing instrument for years. there are exponentially more "hotshot" flashy (self indulgent) guitarists in the world than there are are such bassists. not because they cant hack it.. but because they dont want to.

there are some bands that i was drawn to because i heard insane bass work. sometimes even great tone. this is normally based on hearsay alone, and the rest of the band had better back them up. any weak member (especially singers) can break a band for me. but in the studio and most often live, the bass isnt heard, so its less likely to break to band.

with that said, there are bands made a whole lot better by their amazing bassist. even low key ones like a wilhelm scream. do they NEED that sort of bass gymnastics? not really. they were doing alright before robinson showed up.. but he added a LOT more to the mix when he got there. now everyone with strings is flying about the fretboard.

could a band like queen or LZ have made it with a just mediocre bassist. yea.. probably. since the rest of the band was proficient, they could have covered. hell.. deacon and JPJ are 2 of the most overlooked bassists of that era.
 
#60
For me a good bassist is often the difference between my loving a band and just liking it. If the bassist doesnt catch my ear then the guitarist and singer are gonna have to do a lot more work to make up for it. But then again I might be confusing boring with bad. (solid, simple playing does not = bad if its what the song calls for, but just following the chords with no personal touches is usually a good way to lose my interest pretty quick)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back