Rickett Customs
Commercial User
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.
Whereas if you look at the people who started jazz. They didn't care about technique, they cared about their music. They were the people working in the fields doing manual labour and music was their only solace. They were hard workers, weren't required by society to THINK so much, just do work. What happens? Less left brain dominance, right brain can come out more. They observe things around them and they have continuous ideas pouring because of the continuous stream of bombardment of sensations and observations.
They translate it into what they want. "Whatever sounds nice" would be a good way to describe what they played. They learnt it from that kind of background, unlike the "technical" Asian culture.
Just my minute 2 cents.
Hope it's worth thinking about.
Wow! I really don't even know how to start on this one. I'm reminded of the remarks made to the Wisconsin State Assembly by the late, great, Rev. Reggie White:
"White people are skilled at organizing things, and business. They know how to get the money.
Black people are joyous and celebrate and are good at having a good time.
Asians are good at math and science. They can take a tv and turn it into a watch.
Hispanics are good at family togetherness. You can look at a hispanic man and he's probably got 20 or 30 people living in his house.
Native Americans were never enslaved because they are good at sneaking up on people."
Unfortunately, White was vilified in the mainstream media for his statements. Let's suppose that, instead of the above, Reggie had said:
"White people are better at guitar and keyboards.
Black people are better at bass and drums."
I'm sure the outcry would have been no less than it was. Those that knew the Reggie White know that he was not a racist, yet he was made out by the media as one due to some observations that he made which happened to tread into the area of stereotypes. White was attempting to acknowledge the strengths of various cultures rather than demeaning any of them. He simply chose an ineffective method of making his point.
Racism in practice wants to believe that human characteristics, tendencies, talents and abilities are determined primarily by race and that racial differences are responsible for the inherent superiority of one group versus another. This is a notion that I fully reject and suspect that an overwhelming number of participants on the forum reject as well. I think it important that a rejection of that set of notions does not cause us to reject the ability to identify positive cultural aspects of particular civilizations and races. I think that Reggie White was trying to make that point. Each culture, if examined, has some positive aspects that it can contribute toward the greater whole of mankind. We would be foolish not to examine these aspects so that we all can benefit from them.
In doing so, we must seek to uplift, rather than demean each other. The OP stated that he did not want to promote racist notions with his question and we should take him at his word. While he correctly noted the potential of this topic to be drawn into a larger discussion of cultural bias, the post represents exactly the kind of question that we should be able to examine without resorting to our worst instincts.
Cultural examination without prejudice, hate and fear can only be healthy. It is when we allow it to be driven by the desire for a negative effect or outcome that we tread into dangerous territory.
In my experiences as a church musician, I(a Caucasian) have been fortunate to have played in numerous churches that were either predominately or exclusively African-American. I can say that I have never felt more accepted or more embraced than at those churches. Often I would leave thinking that I would love it if the church I attended regularly(predominately Caucasian) was able to have that degree of warmth and emotion. In this case, it's a situation in which my observation suggests to me that one culture has much to learn from another in one particular area. Does this make me racist? I think not.
As an example that goes the other way, I was in one church(exclusively Caucasian) which was visited by an African-American family on a Sunday morning. While a number of us in the congregation were warm toward the family, many were not. At the church's business meeting the following Wednesday night, several of us confronted the issue. One man said "I don't know why you're all so upset...there's no sign on the door that tells them they can't come here...". My reply to that man was "There doesn't need to be...the sign is written on your face". My point is that one culture can certainly offer positive elements to another. We should all be able to recognize positivity when we see it and embrace it accordingly while giving proper recognition to the source.
The contribution of the African-American and the African communities to American popular music is immeasurable. It is safe to say that what we play and hear today would be markedly different without that contribution. That, in my mind, is not racism, just fact...and one that all races should celebrate. Are there great bassists from several races? You bet! But, the overall approach to the instrument would have evolved along much different lines without the African influence, and, had that happened, I'm sure that we would all have been much poorer for it.
That is a nice theory; it just isn't historically accurate.The folks who started Spirituals and the Blues were out working in the fields, but jazz musicians have always tended to be well educated, and often from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. That is why they were able to get the education they needed to play the complex musis they played. Pick any twenty major jazz musicians, most will be musically literate with some notable exceptions like Charlie Christian. Many, like Cab Calloway and Miles Davis came from professional families and benefitted from extensive and intensive private lessons when they were very young, and they had parents that could afford to buy them instruments.
It is not at all surprising that the concept of groove and feel would be a bit stronger in someone of Africa descent. How could this be and why?
ster·e·o·type: noun, verb. A simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group.

Well Im not really into alot of music besides Rock so I guess Ill just use that as an example of why people think race plays a role in the natural ability of a bassist.
Blues has the ability to make you sway back in forth in your seat like crazy, because it is simple and full of emotion. It is simple because the early blues players could not afford to have extensive lessons, couldnt dedicate ALL of their time to music usually because they were poor, and other reasons. This, to me, is what made the blues the way it is, you were poor, sometimes lonely and sad, music was your escape and your canvas to convey your emotion on, and you were usually black.
The Blues was played and listened to by blacks almost exclusively and it stayed that way for a decent amount of time into the 20th century in the United States. Black music was on black labels, white music on white labels, same with juke boxes and radio stations. A large part of this is because during the post WWI Era (and even later) The US was experiencing a Hyper Nationalist movement in the South and Midwest, the American Ideal was white anglo saxon, nothing else. This idea of white supremecy that had moved throughout the south and midwest and now into other areas(this was always present in the south obviously) and you pass this school of thought down to your posterity, that is how racism survives. If you break the chain a generation or two white supremecy will take an enourmous blow, that is why black music was not played on white playlists, labels, etc. If the youth begins listening to the same music, absorb some of their culture, they realise they arent so different and question the lies fed to them by their elders.
Since the music in black culture is traditionally rythmic and was not played for whites, it took some time for whites to develop this groove. Now cut to the time of the Rolling Stones and other artists in England, they arent cut off from this music like those in the US and identify with the pains of the Blues due to the social unrest of the era. Rock evolves with the help of the blues and black music, now you have playeslike Rex Brown for example that groove their ass off, which i the traditional ideal for a bass player, the ability to groove. Black players grew up with the blues, funk, and other forms of music that werent listened to by whites for some time, but after becoming acceptable whites began to be able to groove because rock is the dominant music for alot of whites, which was influenced like crazy by black music.
This is all about rock, how this kind of thing evolved in other forms of music I cant say. Sorry for the length and sorry if it seems incohesive at points and over simplified, its late ha ha. Yeah, Im a nerdy History Major, so what?!![]()
Easier done than said.
It all depends on your perception of the term - most people think of stereotypes as gross, negative overgeneralizations about a group. But just as many exist that are positive. Stereotypes are at least perceptually true for at least part of a given group. And any perceived or observed attribute of some members of a group can technically be a stereotype.
So, what's the trouble, again?![]()
Members of a group? Trouble
True for at least part of a group? or MOST of? Trouble
perceived or observed? by whom? trouble
attribute of SOME members? what members would those be? Trouble
"Positive stereotype" how so? it's an oxymoron, all stereotypes are harmful, no matter how good they sound Trouble
Lo end PUNCH said:If it makes on feel better to say it's just "cultural" still only proves the point more, does African American culture or cultural history then only be regarded as stereotypical simply because ther are a few exceptions? I think not.
I know we disagree about the usage of the word "stereotype", and believe me, I'm fully aware of its negative implications - I've experienced racism firsthand as a Chicano from the east side of San Jose, California. That's not my point however.
Human beings naturally approach the world through the use of heuristics. Stereotypes are used by ALL human beings to understand the world around them. It's a starting point. Not the best one by any means, but it's a natural consequence of how human beings think about and organize the world, and it's easy to use. Easy to a fault, in fact. But it's not to be dismissed as purely detrimental, because then you're dismissing how you initially developed your sense of the entire world.
I've spent a great deal of time in college in sociology and political psychology, if you're curious about how I understand the word "stereotype".
I think you're off-base here. You're mixing up concepts. Stereotypes are perceptions and observations. They are based on perceived and observed truths - not to be confused with other concepts. I never said anything about culture or history themselves being mere stereotypes, because that wouldn't make any sense.
