Phrases bassists should stop using immediately

[Brad Johnson]

Brad, you're screwing with my muse...

No, just paying attention to what you're writing. Sorry about that

OK, to make it clear...Someone in this thread posted something about getting paid to groove like I had no clue about such things. And I, being a working musician, pointed out how often I work because when the gig calls for "grooving," I "groove." Likewise, if it doesn't call for grooving, I don't. And the result of that is turning down almost as much work as I take because I'm often already booked.

Jimmy, YOU wrote both of these in this thread:


"I have never been fired for not grooving, nor have I ever turned down work because I refuse to groove".

And...

"So don't give me that "If the guy paying you tells you to groove, you'll groove" business. I turn down almost as much work as I get".

Your muse is asleep at the wheel

And because I don't use the almighty G word to describe every kind of music I could possibly play, people see fit to villify me publicly and turn me into a pariah. Well if you think "groove" applies to every situation, please tell me how to groove in 5/8, or 11/4 or any other time signature that isn't divisible by 2 or 3. Does the song "Here Comes The Bastards" by Primus sound like a groove to you? Please tell me how "groove" applies to a song where you're playing four whole notes tied together. You're hitting a note and letting it ring...where's the groove in that?

Does that include 5/4 and 7/4? Think one can't groove in those time signatures?

Hint: You already know many people don't limit their definition of "groove" like you do... so why ask a question that's only limited by your mind, not mine?

You think because you can hit a note on the one and let it ring for 16 beats that qualifies as "grooving?".

No, Jimmy... YOU think that. I never said anyting remotely similar to that.

And really, what the heck is so bad about wanting to not groove sometimes? Some of you act like I suggested bringing back human sacrifice.

Nothing. What the heck is so bad about saying any of the stuff you went off about?


You're the one who's worked up over all of this stuff. And to quote the great you* () FU, you big dufus and if you have a problem with me calling you a dufus, then maybe you should consider shutting your yap because you sound absolutely moronic*kicks Jimmy's sack repeatedly*.


Remember any of this or were you and the muse in a trance?




*from your first post, in case you forgot.

 

[dls59]

I'm getting a headache.

Just play the friggin' music, people!

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ooh, you're in the groove now!

Where's the "one"?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm getting a headache.

Just play the friggin' music, people!

I'll speak to Paul about that forced reading of mandatory threads thingy ASAP.

 

[dls59]

I'll speak to Paul about that forced reading of mandatory threads thingy ASAP.

It's an addiction.

 

[dls59]

By the way, Brad, I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the drummer's job, etc. Maybe we came at it from different angles. I do agree that the drummer should be musical, and everyone should be a part of the time-keeping process, so in that respect, we're on the same sheet of music. Moreover, I've played with groups that have no drummer, so that placed even more rhythym responsibility on the others. I will say that having no drummer contributes to the separation of the men from the boys, with respect to "grooving".

 

[BassManPatsFan]

Brad, you're screwing with my muse...

OK, to make it clear...Someone in this thread posted something about getting paid to groove like I had no clue about such things. And I, being a working musician, pointed out how often I work because when the gig calls for "grooving," I "groove." Likewise, if it doesn't call for grooving, I don't. And the result of that is turning down almost as much work as I take because I'm often already booked.

And because I don't use the almighty G word to describe every kind of music I could possibly play, people see fit to villify me publicly and turn me into a pariah. Well if you think "groove" applies to every situation, please tell me how to groove in 5/8, or 11/4 or any other time signature that isn't divisible by 2 or 3. Does the song "Here Comes The Bastards" by Primus sound like a groove to you? Please tell me how "groove" applies to a song where you're playing four whole notes tied together. You're hitting a note and letting it ring...where's the groove in that? You think because you can hit a note on the one and let it ring for 16 beats that qualifies as "grooving?"

And really, what the heck is so bad about wanting to not groove sometimes? Some of you act like I suggested bringing back human sacrifice.

Have you ever heard Dave Brubeck's Take Five?

Music, in any time meter, is about making music, not putting notes together to a certain pulse. If you're writing something in 5/4 just for the sake of having something in an odd meter, why bother?
-Alex

 

[Brad Johnson]

By the way, Brad, I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the drummer's job, etc. Maybe we came at it from different angles. I do agree that the drummer should be musical, and everyone should be a part of the time-keeping process, so in that respect, we're on the same sheet of music. Moreover, I've played with groups that have no drummer, so that placed even more rhythym responsibility on the others. I will say that having no drummer contributes to the separation of the men from the boys, with respect to "grooving".

Couldn't agree more with that last statement.

It's actually a lot of fun to play in front of an audience with no audible or visual timekeeper and play things with lots of space in them. That kind of stuff fascinates people, trying to figure out how you're doing it.

We're listening to our internal "drummer"

My guess is that we don't so much disagree as we are coming at this from two different angles.

I figured out a long time ago that if I had to depend on a drummer for time I was screwed. I love drummers and get along great with the vast majority that I play with... but every once in awhile you find one of those special drummers... the kind that can make you look even more incompetent than they are

 

[Brad Johnson]

It's an addiction.

It is, isn't it? I know how hard it can be to look away from this stuff...

but for cryin' out loud, don't complain because you can't.


Don't ya love the "I think this thread should be closed" posts? I do.

Hint: step away from the interweb device. Mission accomplished.


But of course it's there in the backs of their minds, nagging at thems*, pulling at thems... what kind of comeback could that guy possibly post? Who does he think he is? Why does he hate picks? So many unaswered questions.... go back, hit the Talkbass shortcut and right back at it again.


Dammit... sucked in again. Like nicotine, without the smell. On the bright side, it's also cheaper. Oops, forgot about GAS. Nevermind.


Yeah, I can see where that might happen

*apologies to Golem

 

[idoru]

I hate these phrases, never use them ever, and I think anyone who does should be kicked in the sack repeatedly:

<snip>

"Overplaying is bad." Yes, sometimes it is. And sometimes overplaying is awesome. Does anyone tell Victor Wooten not to overplay? Or Jaco?

I should hope not. I can see a whole bunch of frustrated bassists standing by his grave, yelling "Overplaying is bad!"

 

[david_bassist]

Ok that Jimmy guy is way too cranky, but there is a grain of truth in what he is saying.

I do think that a lot of the 'rules' of bass playing are just the quirks of some styles of (American) music. The global influence of Bass Player magazine is partly to blame for this, I think...

The argument will always go like this:

Pro-groover: Good bass playing is always about groove.
Anti-groover: No, good bass player XYZ doesn't groove, and he's still good.
Pro-groover: No, really he does groove, just your definition of groove is too narrow. It's just a different kind of groove...

Apparently even classical is about "groove". But that just stretches the meaning way too far, IMO. If it means nothing more than "rhythmically appropriate", why not say that? Why use a word that is so biased in the direction of one particular style of music. Nobody would argue against bass playing being rhythmically appropriate.

The double-meaning of the word (to some funky, to others just appropriate rhythm) is a problem, because people confuse the two, and this leads to stylistic bias. People think groove = appropriate/good, groove = funky, therefore appropriate/good = funky.

Hence, I recently saw a whole thread trashing Britpop's bass for lack of groove. But Britpop bass is perfectly suited for the style of music. It would sound stupid if it had "pocket".

So... in short... it's more logical to go for a narrow definition of groove to avoid confusion. If all you mean is good rhythm, just say that!

 

[YogSothoth]

Why?

 

[david_bassist]

Because groove implies funkiness... and there are more good ways to play bass than just that...

 

[Tired_Thumb]

Ok that Jimmy guy is way too cranky, but there is a grain of truth in what he is saying.

I do think that a lot of the 'rules' of bass playing are just the quirks of some styles of (American) music. The global influence of Bass Player magazine is partly to blame for this, I think...

The argument will always go like this:

Pro-groover: Good bass playing is always about groove.
Anti-groover: No, good bass player XYZ doesn't groove, and he's still good.
Pro-groover: No, really he does groove, just your definition of groove is too narrow. It's just a different kind of groove...

Apparently even classical is about "groove". But that just stretches the meaning way too far, IMO. If it means nothing more than "rhythmically appropriate", why not say that? Why use a word that is so biased in the direction of one particular style of music. Nobody would argue against bass playing being rhythmically appropriate.

The double-meaning of the word (to some funky, to others just appropriate rhythm) is a problem, because people confuse the two, and this leads to stylistic bias. People think groove = appropriate/good, groove = funky, therefore appropriate/good = funky.

Hence, I recently saw a whole thread trashing Britpop's bass for lack of groove. But Britpop bass is perfectly suited for the style of music. It would sound stupid if it had "pocket".

So... in short... it's more logical to go for a narrow definition of groove to avoid confusion. If all you mean is good rhythm, just say that!

DING DING DING DING DING, We have a winner folks! Please c'mon down and claim your prize!



Not redeemable on talkbass.com due to rules and restrictions.

Rules and restrictions may not be shared publicly due to rules and restrictions.

 

[david_bassist]

 

[Brad Johnson]

Because groove implies funkiness... and there are more good ways to play bass than just that...

Think Bluegrass players don't groove?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ok that Jimmy guy is way too cranky, but there is a grain of truth in what he is saying.

I do think that a lot of the 'rules' of bass playing are just the quirks of some styles of (American) music. The global influence of Bass Player magazine is partly to blame for this, I think...

The argument will always go like this:

Pro-groover: Good bass playing is always about groove.
Anti-groover: No, good bass player XYZ doesn't groove, and he's still good.
Pro-groover: No, really he does groove, just your definition of groove is too narrow. It's just a different kind of groove...

Apparently even classical is about "groove". But that just stretches the meaning way too far, IMO. If it means nothing more than "rhythmically appropriate", why not say that? Why use a word that is so biased in the direction of one particular style of music. Nobody would argue against bass playing being rhythmically appropriate.

The double-meaning of the word (to some funky, to others just appropriate rhythm) is a problem, because people confuse the two, and this leads to stylistic bias. People think groove = appropriate/good, groove = funky, therefore appropriate/good = funky.

Hence, I recently saw a whole thread trashing Britpop's bass for lack of groove. But Britpop bass is perfectly suited for the style of music. It would sound stupid if it had "pocket".

So... in short... it's more logical to go for a narrow definition of groove to avoid confusion. If all you mean is good rhythm, just say that!

One can play appropriately with no feeling at all... or play with all the feeling in the world and never click with whomever else they're playing with.

Then again some people want simple rules.

 

[Grueber]

The double-meaning of the word (to some funky, to others just appropriate rhythm) is a problem, because people confuse the two, and this leads to stylistic bias. People think groove = appropriate/good, groove = funky, therefore appropriate/good = funky.

+1

 

[Matt Till]

Think Bluegrass players don't groove?

I kinda feel the outside the groove idea... punk rock/metal (the real stuff, not the pop stuff) is on top of the beat a lot of the time creating tension. I don't consider that groovin'.


P.S. Why does thread exsist?
P.M.S. Why does it have so many replies?

 

[nudge]

what's so wrong with using bass plectrums? surely is they are made then there is a need for them. I understand perhaps it sounds a little 'warmer' or however you would describe it . . but what if you don't want warm? I just started playing (9 days ago) and use a plectrum i caught at a staind gig. But my friend keeps telling me not to use it even though he only plays guitar. what's so wrong with it?