• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Rock bands with no bassists

Well for some of these bands when the bass player is pretty much limited to just doubling what the guitar player is doing may as well just use an octave pedal and split the cut among fewer people.
It sucks but it is what it is for those type of bands.
Years ago I did a show warming up for Steppinwolf and they just had the keyboard player filling in the bass lines. Pretty disappointing as there were some killer bass lines on those old albums and it just didn't sound the same.
 
I've heard some really great bands w/o bassist, very musical bass lines thanks to a talented keyboardist BUT.........

Steve Miller going on tour without a bassist doesn't cut it with me..... especially given some of the great bass lines played in his recorded music.

(Shubabadu...... something or other).
 
Well, plus they used a live bassist on most album tracks and in all of their larger gigs by 1968 or so. That band is a somewhat bad example of a baseless band as a result.
I guess it depends who you believe. I think they make a good example of a bassless band.

From the Doors Biography ([Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Notably, the Doors had no bass player. Manzarek filled that role at live shows and on early recordings by playing a Fender keyboard bass with his left hand while playing conventional keyboards (organ and piano) with his right hand. In the studio, they’d occasionally recruit other musicians to play bass. - See more at: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
I guess it depends who you believe. I think they make a good example of a bassless band.

From the Doors Biography ([Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Notably, the Doors had no bass player. Manzarek filled that role at live shows and on early recordings by playing a Fender keyboard bass with his left hand while playing conventional keyboards (organ and piano) with his right hand. In the studio, they’d occasionally recruit other musicians to play bass. - See more at: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I've read at least 4 or 5 full bios (books) on them. Densmores autobiography, Sugarmans book, etc.

They had a bassist on every track on every album starting with the second and a live bassist regularly starting in about 1968.

Shockingly the RnR Hall of Fame bio is not terribly accurate.
 
I've read at least 4 or 5 full bios (books) on them. They had a bassist on every track on every album starting with the second and a live bassist regularly starting in about 1968.

Shockingly the RnR Hall of Fame bio is not terribly accurate.
Yes, I found a lot of other sources on the internet that said the same thing. I guess they are all wrong. ;)

Proving once again that there is no point that can't get argued about and debated on TB. I guess I'll continue to use them as an example and you can continue to say they aren't.
 
It makes sense that young cats have trouble

A: finding a bass player

B: finding a bass player who doesn't want to be "mr. bass player"- overplaying-

I'm thankful that I am fonder of rock music in my older age and look forward to playing in a stripped down and simplistic project at some point.

To be honest- I regret having thumbed my nose at throttling eighth notes in my 20's. Could have slept with a lot more white girls.

I've seen a number of no-bass bands at local showcases and they usually disappoint.
 
I've been thinking about this for a long time. We've been limiting ourselves on expectations and preferences within certain styles of music, then ridicule anything that tries to be different.

Most of the time bands are made up by pure coincidence of networking. The sound is limited by talent and/or choice of instrumentation not creativity. People get used to that certain sound, and believe that's the only way to do it. It becomes a style. Then it becomes a requirement. It's only until someone willing to be creative, and popular, do people realize they can do something different and still be within a recognized genre.

Even within our own discipline of bass guitar, we are prejudiced by gear and technique.

Some folks cite The Doors. Sure, they initially didn't have a bassist, they rocked, they became popular. Eventually, they decided they needed to conform to the standards of having a true bass guitarist.

The Presidents of the United States, they rocked. They didn't have a true bass-guitar, just modified guitars while one player was delegated to "bass lines."

The White Stripes would play without a bass-guitarist. Most likely bass playing in studio recordings (beats me, I don't listen to them), but I've seen live videos with just the two playing and they do that rock and the roll.

It makes me wonder how should I define "rock." The musical end-result? Or the specific instrumentation used to make it? Certainly if I want to mimic a previously done sound, it helps to mimic the instrumentation. I do realize "rock" incorporates a lot of styles, genres, sub-genres... whatever. My current definition of what rocks can be entirely different from another person's.

Technologically, we have things that can mimic a bass guitar. Not perfectly, but just enough so an audience will hear what most modern music uses: low rhythmic harmonies. I just refuse to believe a genre can only be acceptable by incorporating an amplified plucked (or picked) thick metal string.

Fortunately, most people don't think like I do, so I retain my bassist job.