• 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.

People who whine about slapping

Status
Not open for further replies.
#224
bd7


If I were going to listen to people complaining about slapping I'd listen to Chris Rock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: legalbass and Jeff K
#226
Honestly, what it sounds like to me is that some folks in here have:

A) Heard bad musicians attempting to slap (haven't fully grasped the technique, chops monsters)
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4xlVLbnP-Qk

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/u43c-BwRoMc

B) Don't have a working knowledge of funk or R&B
Example:
(We all know this guy can play, so relax)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o_NbNJ_fA3c

Some of you hear great slap parts like these and totally miss the musicality in it because you're lost rhythmically and all you hear is "thwackity-thwackity-thwack"






 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jerry
#228
SpankBazz said:
We get it. You don't like it.
Go somewhere and do what makes you happy.
I don't ever hear anyone asking guitarists not to play with distortion.
It's not going anywhere.
Please get over yourself.
That's all.
*steps off soapbox*
Click to expand...
The only reason I avoid it is because of an injury. I fractured my scaphoid bone and will get pain if I slap. That injury was the single most constructive thing to ever happen to my bass playing, though. As soon as I stopped focusing on slap everything else drastically improved and I became a way more accurate, consistent players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobyoung53
#229
It gets old if that's all a player does.
I can think of a few players that are mildly famous on FB or YT & that seems to be their go to trick.

At the nearest Guitar Center there is a group of guys who will come sit in the bass section & play only slap relatively loudly & it's annoying as Hell!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FRoss6788
#230
SpankBazz said:
Honestly, what it sounds like to me is that some folks in here have:

A) Heard bad musicians attempting to slap (haven't fully grasped the technique, chops monsters)

B) Don't have a working knowledge of funk or R&B
Example:

Some of you hear great slap parts like these and totally miss the musicality in it because you're lost rhythmically and all you hear is "thwackity-thwackity-thwack"
Click to expand...
What problem are you trying to cure, Doc? Some people just don’t like distortion on a guitar. And it doesn’t have to be because they are ignorant. I’ve only heard one person in my life ever say “I hate slap bass” and she was an acoustic guitar player. I’ve heard lots of slap I didn’t like, but I’ve also heard a lot of finger style and pick playing I didn’t like. Doesn’t mean I hate the bass, or that I need some kind of five step improvement plan. Slap on! :bassist:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tanner5382 and FRoss6788
#231
Sparkl said:
I mean... Ok, I'll bite even if it smells like trolling to me.

What on earth does time-span of a certain technique have to do with anything? Remember, saxophone used to be laughed at as a jazz instrument. Clarinet was "da thing" back then. What if Hans had wheels and flew to the moon to send an sms to jupiter...
Click to expand...

Being the academic that I am, I decided to make a few inquiries into this claim of the saxophone being laughed at by jazz musicians and the clarinet being preferred early on because that statement sounded dead wrong to me. I do this not to insult anyone or start a fight but rather to make sure there is a historically accurate depiction of the sax because the statement here is just questionable and should be corrected if it is wrong.

I remember a conversation I had with the great (And really likeable!) Archie Shepp some years ago when he was explaining to a group of us his take on the history of jazz. I paraphrase here but - After the civil war, Former slaves had disposable income for the first time. This coincided with the decline of the late 19th century civic band craze that swept the nation after the Civil War. Pawn shops were flooded with used band instruments and black musicians were buying them. Thus endeth the Archie Shep part of this post.

My point in stating the above is that Saxes weren't available in these pawn shops in any number because saxophone really didn't hit American shores in any significant number until the 1920's after America started producing the horns domestically. Saxophones imported from Europe were used in small numbers in both Ragtime and Vaudeville when they were available. They were embraced by Jazz musicians the moment they became available in quantity. I can find no historical reference to them being laughed at in preference to the clarinet. Rather - the moment they became available they replaced the clarinet rather quickly. (My guess is that the increased volume of a sax over the clarinet was attractive to players who were fighting trumpets and drummers to be heard. Some things never change. <sigh>)

Perhaps you were thinking of the several times sax was "dissed" by the Pope who banned it from the Vatican in 1902 or the Nazi party who called it and the Jazz that musicians were making with it "Degenerate Art".

In reference to your question about what the time span of a technique have to do with anything: Well that depends on the reader. Some here want to argue about what they like or hate. Others of us find the history of a technique and it's independent origins over several centuries fascinating. You may not enjoy such things however, and as Stuart Smalley once said "That's OK".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GregC
#237
SpankBazz said:
Honestly, what it sounds like to me is that some folks in here have:

A) Heard bad musicians attempting to slap (haven't fully grasped the technique, chops monsters)
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4xlVLbnP-Qk

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/u43c-BwRoMc

B) Don't have a working knowledge of funk or R&B
Example:
(We all know this guy can play, so relax)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o_NbNJ_fA3c

Some of you hear great slap parts like these and totally miss the musicality in it because you're lost rhythmically and all you hear is "thwackity-thwackity-thwack"






Click to expand...

Don Blackman and Level 42 in one post? That deserves a :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerry and SpankBazz
#238
thmsjordan said:
Being the academic that I am, I decided to make a few inquiries into this claim of the saxophone being laughed at by jazz musicians and the clarinet being preferred early on because that statement sounded dead wrong to me. I do this not to insult anyone or start a fight but rather to make sure there is a historically accurate depiction of the sax because the statement here is just questionable and should be corrected if it is wrong.

I remember a conversation I had with the great (And really likeable!) Archie Shepp some years ago when he was explaining to a group of us his take on the history of jazz. I paraphrase here but - After the civil war, Former slaves had disposable income for the first time. This coincided with the decline of the late 19th century civic band craze that swept the nation after the Civil War. Pawn shops were flooded with used band instruments and black musicians were buying them. Thus endeth the Archie Shep part of this post.

My point in stating the above is that Saxes weren't available in these pawn shops in any number because saxophone really didn't hit American shores in any significant number until the 1920's after America started producing the horns domestically. Saxophones imported from Europe were used in small numbers in both Ragtime and Vaudeville when they were available. They were embraced by Jazz musicians the moment they became available in quantity. I can find no historical reference to them being laughed at in preference to the clarinet. Rather - the moment they became available they replaced the clarinet rather quickly. (My guess is that the increased volume of a sax over the clarinet was attractive to players who were fighting trumpets and drummers to be heard. Some things never change. <sigh>)

Perhaps you were thinking of the several times sax was "dissed" by the Pope who banned it from the Vatican in 1902 or the Nazi party who called it and the Jazz that musicians were making with it "Degenerate Art".

In reference to your question about what the time span of a technique have to do with anything: Well that depends on the reader. Some here want to argue about what they like or hate. Others of us find the history of a technique and it's independent origins over several centuries fascinating. You may not enjoy such things however, and as Stuart Smalley once said "That's OK".
Click to expand...

This is not true at all.

I'll just quote this here, to spare me from some typing:

(source: Los Angeles music teachers, Burbank CA 91502)

In the 1940’s clarinet was one of the most popular of all jazz instruments. Think of 3 of some of the biggest names in popular music of that era and you’ll come up with “Benny Goodman” (who had many number one hits), “Artie Shaw” (who also had number one hits), and many others including the great Woody Herman, (who also had many hits). All of these were great jazz clarinetists and leaders. The clarinet was also a huge part of Glenn Miller Big Band sound (who was a trombone leader, and according to the “Glenn Miller Story” said the clarinet helped him find his unique sound).
At that same time in the early 40’s, the saxophone was gaining in popularity. Don’t forget that the big band was comprised of 5 saxophones, 4 trombones, and 4 trumpets and rhythm section. The saxophone could more easily compete with the loud brass and add the flavor and energy right for the dance bands of that era. Many saxophonists (who also doubled on clarinet) found that the clarinet had a very popular period in the early 40’s but by the end of the 40’s, with the advent of Bebop, the clarinet started to decline in popularity, and being thought of as more of a swing instrument which began to take on the impression of being passe to the hip new bebop players of the late 40’s and early 50’s. And by the mid 50’s the Hard Bop era which was influenced by rhythm & blues brought the saxophone to even higher popularity.
The clarinet never recovered it’s place in jazz. The saxophone had many decades of some of the most influential jazz stars of the late 40’s, 50’s right through today’s current jazz music, with Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Charlie Parker, Dexter Gordon, Stan Getz, Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Michael Brecker to name but a few of the greatest jazz musicians that shaped jazz. With the exception of a few great jazz clarinetists like Buddy DeFranco and Eddie Daniels who always sounded modern and hip, very few other clarinetists ever gained enough popularity to inspire new young clarinetists to play the instrument.
And one final thought that may have led to the unfavorable direction of the clarinet was the simple fact that it’s a much more difficult instrument to play than the saxophone. I don’t think there would be much argument among woodwind doublers (who play both clarinet and saxophone) that the saxophone is a much more logically laid out instrument and much more free blowing than the clarinet. That fact in itself could be the real reason that the saxophone replaced the clarinet in jazz.
Click to expand...

Meaning yes, of course saxophone overtook the clarinet, though at a later period than what you would suggest (in a true sense of "overtaking"), for obvious reasons.

But you won't be able to deny the fact that, as much as you have the so called "traditionalists" or rather "jazz police" guys being extremely wary and cautious of newcomers (new instruments) in such band setups nowadays, such was the vibe back then as well. Imagine the first people bringing the sax to a session and other people funnily looking at them, questioning themselves what the hell have they brought into the band now.

P.S.: I also have an academic degree in jazz music, as a small sidenote.
 
#239
Sparkl said:
This is not true at all.

I'll just quote this here, to spare me from some typing:

(source: Los Angeles music teachers, Burbank CA 91502)



Meaning yes, of course saxophone overtook the clarinet, though at a later period than what you would suggest (in a true sense of "overtaking"), for obvious reasons.

But you won't be able to deny the fact that, as much as you have the so called "traditionalists" or rather "jazz police" guys being extremely wary and cautious of newcomers (new instruments) in such band setups nowadays, such was the vibe back then as well. Imagine the first people bringing the sax to a session and other people funnily looking at them, questioning themselves what the hell have they brought into the band now.

P.S.: I also have an academic degree in jazz music, as a small sidenote.
Click to expand...

Ok, I will agree with your first point that this happened a little more gradual than I might have suggested. I disagree with your second statement. Sax was in use as early as the late 19th c. in Vaudeville and Ragtime and would have been known to musicians at this period even if it wasn't widely available. I know nothing of Jazz police and traditionalists of this era looking down on an instrument that would have been known by them. If you have any documentation on this I am happy to be wrong but I couldn't find any.

I can't find anything to nullify my assertion that people were not "laughing" at Jazz sax players back in the day. My assertion was that sax was not prominent early on was more an availability issue.

I am glad to find another lover of Jazz on Talkbass. Greetings and we can agree to disagree on that last point. My advanced degrees are medical but I certainly learned how to do research in Grad and Post grad. I double majored in music and did a dual career that left me little time for anything else for years.

I'm glad that my guess on volume being part of why the sax replaced the clarinet was correct.
 
Last edited:
#240
thmsjordan said:
Ok, I will agree with your first point that this happened a little more gradual than I might have suggested. I disagree with your second statement. Sax was in use as early as the late 19th c. in Vaudeville and Ragtime and would have been known to musicians at this period even if it wasn't widely available. I know nothing of Jazz police and traditionalists of this era looking down on an instrument that would have been known by them. If you have any documentation on this I am happy to be wrong but I couldn't find any.

I can't find anything to nullify my assertion that people were not "laughing" at Jazz sax players back in the day. My assertion was that sax was not prominent early on was more an availability issue.

I am glad to find another lover of Jazz on Talkbass. Greetings and we can agree to disagree on that last point. My advanced degrees are medical but I certainly learned how to do research in Grad and Post grad. I double majored in music and did a dual career that left me little time for anything else for years.

I'm glad that my guess on volume being part of why the sax replaced the clarinet was correct.
Click to expand...

Hey all good, I'm not looking for a quarrel either, just normal discussion.

Where I come from is the fact that jazz music as a genre in general, came to be by merging Western harmonic ideals (European classical music at the time) and African rhythms. Thus, in the early 1800s first songs came out which would be described later in literature as the beginning of blues music.

When I say western classical ideas, this mostly also implies the European marching music at the time (Austrian, German, British to some extent) - this is the direct ancestor of Dixieland bands forming in the US at the time.

And roughly speaking, this is where Jazz gradually got formed. And Dixieland knew no saxophone, so normally traditionally, jazz bands more linked towards Dixieland as its origin, directly translated the choice of instruments as well, that being clarinet among the others.

This is of course all meant in a very broad and generalized way, obviously there was other stuff forming and merging into what later came to be known as ragtime and jazz as a whole throughout the 20th century.

Sure saxophone got used before as well, but my point is, it was nowhere near being the icon of jazz as it is today. If it weren't for people insisting on using saxophone as a jazz instrument, and convincing people it sounds "right" by playing it, who knows what jazz would've sounded today.

This is where I finally make my point, related to this topic - all techniques and sounds and whatnot have their own place in music and have critically contributed to the music as a whole at some point, and still do. To discard slapping as a viable technique would be the same as discarding blue color for a painter, thus losing about a third of available colors as a result. I hope at least that much we can agree on :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: thmsjordan
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back