• 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.

Role of the Bass Player

tch90

tch90

Jul 5, 2009
142
0
Virginia
#1
Hey I was just wondering your opinion on the role of the bass player. As I continue to develop my playing I have found a desire to be able to play solos and have a more of a lead role in terms of playing songs. (For example, John Entwistle or Victor Wooten) This does not mean I pull from the traditional role of the bass groove, but instead of a "bass groove and guitar solo" type format, I enjoy taking the solo once in a while for myself. (Not to sound cocky)

What do you think? Is this a sin for the bass? Do you believe the bass should only play the supportive role or can it stand as a soloing instrument?
 
#2
IMO, there's a place for everything, w/in reason. If you're backing up an established artist, subbing or sitting in, there will likely be fairly strict requirements. If you want to keep that type of gig & get more, I'd suggest you lean toward supportive/grooving/ cooperative. Going solo? Play Bach-meets-the-Sex-Pistols w/a-dab-of-Dave-Brubeck on a 19-string, midi-synced, glow-in-the-dark triple-neck monster, or a 2-string cigar box POS. Of course there's lots of room between these two extremes, as well as worlds of possibilities far outside of the box I've presented. Most importantly(again- IMO), put as much love as you can into it all, and it will show. :cool:
 
#3
google reed mathis. IMO, he is the "perfect" player.

his grooves are tight and in the pocket. his walking basslines are amazing, and his extended bass solos drenched in whammy and wah pedals is enough to make even the most pompus bass-solo-hating-guitar-shredders admit, its cool.

when it comes to being one of the players that does take solos and that sort of thing, that doesent mean to overplay when its groove time. but when its your solo, you can get as bizarre as you want- but IMO the problem with most of the bass players that are able to rip, is that they never stop ripping. this is what i love so much about reed's bass playing...
 
#4
Well, its not a sin, first of all. Second, you listed two players who are the idols of many bass players around the world who took, or still take, many solos. The bass can solo, and there is nothing wrong with it at all. I saw Stu Hamm play a solo at a Satriani concert that blew my mind because it was still melodic, even with all the technical playing he was doing.

But, soloing on the bass isn't for everyone and there is nothing wrong with either approach. In my particular case, I have been in bands where I was encouraged to take a solo and I shied away from it. I got plenty of recognition at gigs for my playing without ever taking a solo and I never felt like it would have suited the music we were playing.

I also play bass in a prog-metal band where the guitar player wrote a song with a lengthy bass-solo section, doing so with me in his mind. I was not comfortable with it, but since he thought enough of me to do this without my ever seeking that kind of limelight, I took it as a very big compliment and tried my best to do a competent solo. And I think the results were pretty good, I don't cringe too much when hearing it now. :) But, I would rather try to make a statement with my rhythm playing because I think that is what people will remember more. When you look at a guy like Geddy, he takes very infrequent and brief solos, but his bass lines can be very technical and demanding, yet still have an essence of groove and/or melody. That is the approach I prefer.

That said, my approach may not be the same as yours and that doesn't make either one of us wrong. If you feel the need to solo, and you have something worth saying on the instrument, you should find a way to work some soloes in. My only advice would be too not neglect the rhythm for the sake of a good solo.
 
#6
I decide what the role is...I don't allow myself to be boxed into a role just because some people think that's how it goes. However, I also do it for a living, which means I need to be tolerant of the different roles the people paying me want for bass. If it's a box I don't feel comfortable with (happens a lot less these days than it used to), I don't take the gig. So if you want to do solos and stuff, don't take a gig in an AC/DC cover band.
 
#7
well, it's a great question. I would have to agree with Double Agent, it's very hard to play a solo if you're playing in a rock band. People may find bass solos boring (as they do with drum solos), so if you 're playing some solo, you'll need to wisely choose what you're going to play.
 
#8
tch90 said:
Hey I was just wondering your opinion on the role of the bass player. As I continue to develop my playing I have found a desire to be able to play solos and have a more of a lead role in terms of playing songs. (For example, John Entwistle or Victor Wooten) This does not mean I pull from the traditional role of the bass groove, but instead of a "bass groove and guitar solo" type format, I enjoy taking the solo once in a while for myself. (Not to sound cocky)

What do you think? Is this a sin for the bass? Do you believe the bass should only play the supportive role or can it stand as a soloing instrument?
Click to expand...

I think bass solos are as good or bad as those of other instruments.
If done well they can be a very musical experience.
If done wanky and tasteless, they can be a major annoyance.
Just like with any other instruments' solo.

If you mind the music you'll be fine!
 
#9
groooooove said:
the problem with most of the bass players that are able to rip, is that they never stop ripping.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail square on the head with this one!

Personally, I think of myself kind of like a movie director. If the director of a movie does a great job directing, you aren't even aware that he was there in the first place.

I strive for a certain amount of invisibility, but my main goal is not to be unnoticed, but rather to try and make sure the vocalist and guitar get noticed. I feel I do my job best when I'm making the people out front stand out. My drummer and I like to say we set a stage large enough for the other guys to perform Hamlet on. At least we consciously try to anyway.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a smokin hot bass solo. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pedaling on the root if it enhances the guitar solo either.
 
#11
Not much of a fan of "soloing" as far as devoting total attention to the bass players role. I believe in the "get out and push" school of bass playing. Wait for the little holes in the composition to take their heads off, then get back to business. Make what you do more of a surprise to the listener.

Of course, I kinda suck as a bass soloist, so I may be a little biased ;)
 
#12
Whatever floats your boat, man!

For melodic bass playing in a blues environment, I'd recommend "Tons of sobs" by Free - totally blows me away every time I listen to it. To me, blues bass just doesn't get any better than this.
Well, it's not bass soloing per say, but that kind of playing adds so much more to the songs.
 
#13
You spend years learning how to play because you want to create music.. not because you want to pigeonhole yourself. Every musician needs to sever themselves from the idea that they fill a role, and put their energy into serving the music.

All the best tunes out there give each and every instrument room to breathe. Sometimes the bass stays in the background and establishes rhythm. Sometimes the bassist is up front shredding. The same holds true for a guitarist, a drummer, a violinist, a brass player.. every single instrument ever made is used best when it grabs attention when it needs to, and provides a solid foundation when it doesn't.

With that in mind, I think determining roles is not helpful at all. Instead spend your time learning styles and techniques, which will keep you flexible enough to find a "role" no matter what situation you're in.
 
#14
The ROLE of the bassist is the same no matter what. To connect the rythym to the melodic/harmonic content, and to define the harmony. But, as Jack Bruce said in a Guitar Player Magazine interview way back around 1974, just because that's the traditional role, one doesn't have to fulfill it in a traditional manner. Look at Jamerson's classic period. Those lines were bass solos, but maintained the supportive function. And Jaco (at least when he was coherent), Wooten, Entwistle, Stu Hamm, etc. all know and fulfill that funciton too.

The problem seems that when we talk about Jack Bruce, Vic, Jaco, etc. is that too many folks only focus on what they do when they're soloing. It's like Jimi Hendrix. Too many guitarists don't have a CLUE about JH's mastery of the guitar as a rhythm instrument. And I don't think (at least with the artists specifically mentioned) that it's the artist's fault. All have been clear that the flashy stuff is only a part of the picture.

So, if you hear the music with the bass leading it then go there. But be warned that some people (bassists and non-bassists alike) assume that's blasphemy. I was once fired because "bass players don't play chords" (to which I replied "Well I figured somebody should play the right one once in a while"...). There are folks here who espouse the "no money above the fifth fret" mantra. There are guitarist who'd kill you if you tried to play like Entwistle. There are drummers who'd freak if you played like Jamerson.

So, part of maturity is to be able to be sure you're always serving the MUSIC, not your instrument nor your ego.

jte
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back