I would agree that many, if not most, SOLO artists hire session musicians, but bands?? I'd have to disagree with that, although I will admit that I don't usually check the album credits for bands.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Playing note for note.
- Thread starter Ric5
- Start date
I would agree that many, if not most, SOLO artists hire session musicians, but bands?? I'd have to disagree with that, although I will admit that I don't usually check the album credits for bands.
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I was surprised, too, but like I said...if you read the fine print of the liner notes, you'd be surprised. It doesn't happen ALL the time, but it does happen sometimes. I guess my point is that the world of a live/bar band musician is a little different from that of a session musician. They might overlap, but your average [strictly] session musician will probably be a better-paid (and alas, "better" in the sense of "technically proficient") player than your average live/bar band musician.
At the least, you can't always assume that every bass line on a band's album was played by "the average bass player you hear in a club"...and furthermore, some of the bass lines that are played by paid session musicians instead, ARE better than the lines which are played live by the original bassist instead.
I'm not trying to sound like I'm criticizing live performers who may have been replaced for the album at some point in their careers...it's not always just a matter of ability but also of style...sometimes, it's the producer's decision for any number of strange reasons generally involving money.
I'm just trying to explain the subtle differences here. And to a degree, I think it does play into the covers debate in a way...because we're also saying, in a way, "Should we stick to the studio version or should we do what those bands do when they play it live?" (Learn both ways, why not!)
You want to provide me sheet music, accurate sheet music, not the haphazard tabs out there, I'll learn it.
Right now, pretty sure I'm playing most of Clapton's and Cream's bass lines closer to the original recording than Clapton's bassists I've heard on his live youtubes. ... but not playing it note by note.
I'd rather not learn a tune note by note, but just get the feel and style right.
Right now, pretty sure I'm playing most of Clapton's and Cream's bass lines closer to the original recording than Clapton's bassists I've heard on his live youtubes. ... but not playing it note by note.
I'd rather not learn a tune note by note, but just get the feel and style right.
LOL. Yeah, if you're talking about Fieldy, Anthony, Trujillo and the like. But guys like East, Sklar, Levin, Pomeroy, Weeks, Davis and countless others who have played on hundreds of CD cuts must be in that 1 percent. Your assertion is just silly.
Jive - If you can play your guitar and it is in tune, then you are in the top 10% of guitarists. I swear that 90% of guitar players in the world cannot play in tune. I don't know whether they can't tune their instrument, or their guitar is way out of intonation and needs a pro setup, or they are just so ham-fisted with their chords that they bend the strings out of tune. Whatever the cause, I am positive that playing out of tune accounts for way more guitarist suckage than not playing note for note ever will.
Getting back to the actual point of the thread, which is playing note for note, my comment is aimed at the people who seem to think that just because it's on a CD, it is good and that people that play on CDs and producers must know more about playing bass than the rest of us.
Considering that hundreds of thousands of CDs are released every year and you are naming a handful of players, it is actually your assertion that is just silly.
I consider most bass players I hear on CDs average to good; I rarely hear a bass player and think, wow that is great. If you would like to deify someone because they managed to release a CD, please feel free.
I've met the session bassist who played on Nickleback's album. He did NOT get credit.
Or he didnt want the credit
I don't think anyone is asserting, or even implying, that any-ol'-song on a CD is "good" simply because it was recorded.
No, just because it's on a CD doesn't make a song good. I would say "if it's a HIT, it's good."
We're talking about cover bands covering, for the most part, hit songs here. And if a song is a hit, that means it's popular, and that means it's good. You or I may not like a particular song, but if it made the charts it's good.
Well, within the parameters of our discussion, those people created a hit song, so they know something we don't.
Wow, that's quite a statement! Every hear of Brittney Spears? Justin Beiber? The Kardashians (not musicians but crazy popular)? Sorry, popularity does not equate with quality.
The hit makers know how to make a hit, quality is a secondary consideration, a good bass part probably isn't even on the radar.
I'm 54, I've been playing bass (and listening to bass on records) since I was 13. I know what I like and I stand by my statement that I think most of the bass players I hear on CDs are average to good, not great. But just to be clear, this are my opinion, other's may disagree.
Well, you're close. If it makes the charts, stays there for a good long time, and sells well, it's good.
To a lot of people, anyway.
Laverne & Shirley lasted 7 years, Three's Company lasted 7 years, the Kardashians (or Kar-trash-ians as I call them) are still going strong. Popularity does not equal quality, in my opinion.
Who said anything about quality? My point was if it's popular it's good, from the standpoint of what a cover band plays. The word "good" in the context of this discussion means "dancing cougars like it." I don't care who else likes it or doesn't like it, they aren't the reason we're hired; the dancing cougars are.
But, yes, if a song is a hit, it's "good" in that it succeeded in becoming accepted and enjoyed by a large percentage of people, it's recognized when faithfully played by others, and it's well received and enjoyed by audiences. What else matters to a cover band that wants to work steady? I don't see much point in discussing the "quality" of the original, since it's already proven to be successful.
And how do you measure "quality" in music, anyway? I don't see any way to measure it other than popular acceptance. Usually, if a lot of people like something, that means it's good in some regard. I'd like to hear another way to quantify "quality" or "good"ness.
I agree with you that most popular music is easy to play, but that doesn't mean that it's of poor quality.
And why do you think Laverne and Shirley lasted seven years? Because MILLIONS of people LOVE Laverne and Shirley!
This is like someone saying "ice cream is not good" because they don't like ice cream.
What I reject is the notion that because a song is popular, that it's bassline must be copied note for note in order to leverage that song's popularity with the "dancing cougars". Most of these pop basslines are fairly simple, and changing up a fill here or there is not going to make a difference.
What DOES matter is whether you retain the groove of the original song, or at least attain a groove that gets the "dancing cougars" bouncing.
It's not what notes you play, it's how well you play them.
What DOES matter is whether you retain the groove of the original song, or at least attain a groove that gets the "dancing cougars" bouncing.
It's not what notes you play, it's how well you play them.
I challenge anyone to find a typical audience member*) that could hear the difference between the studio take and a bass line played live that is 90% the same.
*) Excluding producers, especially the original producer, the original bass player, musicians or people with perfect melody memory. Sometimes I doubt the original players even remember how to play something exactly the same. We are also assuming that such an audience member has not taken any intoxications whatsoever and is not tired from the earlier day, neither distracted by things like checking out the opposite sex and has perfect hearing as well as the PA and bass systems are accurate and clear.
*) Excluding producers, especially the original producer, the original bass player, musicians or people with perfect melody memory. Sometimes I doubt the original players even remember how to play something exactly the same. We are also assuming that such an audience member has not taken any intoxications whatsoever and is not tired from the earlier day, neither distracted by things like checking out the opposite sex and has perfect hearing as well as the PA and bass systems are accurate and clear.
I guess we have different definitions of the word good. However I never said most popular music is of poor quality. I said being popular doesn't mean it's of good quality.
I'll just simplify my position:
- Most bass players we hear on CD are average to good quality, not great.
- I don't feel the need to play something 100% note for note in most circumstances, and don't feel the need to insult those that do.
We can argue ad nauseam, but these are my observations from 40 years of playing, your opinion may vary.
um, it's not the same at all - also my opinion.
I agree with you guys that getting close is what counts. For me, playing "note for note" means you nailed the signature parts, the groove, feel, etc. It SOUNDS LIKE the original. 100% note for note is not even possible to do every time, IMO, as I stated in my earlier post:
And I also agree that the average audience member won't know if even the signature parts are there or not, most of the time. However the band should strive to sound as similar as possible anyway.
What I don't care for is the cover band that wants to "make a song their own" and the result doesn't even resemble the popular version. IMO that's serving themselves and not their employer or their audience.
And I also agree that the average audience member won't know if even the signature parts are there or not, most of the time. However the band should strive to sound as similar as possible anyway.
What I don't care for is the cover band that wants to "make a song their own" and the result doesn't even resemble the popular version. IMO that's serving themselves and not their employer or their audience.
Yeah, and I never said you said that. LOL.
I don't think we're miles apart in our views my friend.
But I am interested in how you would quantify a song as "good" or "not good," apart from your own personal judgment...
