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.
Subtle or over the top?
- Thread starter JimmyM
- Start date
I think a lot of this is basically about your point of view/frame of reference. If you pov is strictly "bass player", then you might chafe at narrow definitions of the bassist's role as "supportive", etc. OTOH, if your pov is more oriented toward arranging/producing, then having fairly narrowly defined roles makes a lot more sense. And of course, the convention of bass being a supportive role is nothing new - it's been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and can be safely regarded as tested and proven. Now, I remember being young and rebellious, and thinking things like "who says bass can't play lead, and piccolos can't play the basslines?". By all means, test your ideas and soforth, but understand that the old cliches endure because they tend to work best.
I could however make the argument that bass can be just as effective and work just as well in any type of role, supportive or lead, as stringed instruments tend to be, though I've clearly stated this is about much more than rhythm and lead. I guess it's common to simplify unfamiliar arguments into familiar ideas, so not everyone is going to fully grasp what I'm putting out. Oh well.
But anyways, cello solos are also an old idea, one that can communicate certain pieces of music more effectively than, say, a violin solo, because of the different voice of the instrument and the different connotations it's sound will have, all able to paint a different picture than one might do with a violin, for example.
But furthermore, sticking with old cliches is all well and good, but in my mind it's one of the things in the music industry that makes a good deal of the new music I'm hearing nothing new or interesting or in my book good at communicating anything that matters. Just because it works and audiences are familiar with it doesn't mean there aren't people out there that want to hear something new again, like we could in the good old days. But the problem is that those people aren't the demographic who buy the most records. Teenagers are.
I'll assume everyone can see where this is going and not waste my time delving into it further. But the bottom line is that music is about expression, not tradition for the sake of marketability. People may be more likely to buy records that are instantly familiar because of their "traditional" approach to things like the roles of the instruments, but that doesn't actually make that kind of music more expressive or effective at communicating ideas to a general audience.
All I can do is speak from my experience as a musician, and many times I have been told by music fans that my performances deeply moved them. That's important to me, moreso than anything. To me it's all about connecting with people through music, one person at a time if we have to!
But also a question, what exactly do you mean by, "work best"? Best for what? Selling the most records? Communicating musical ideas most effectively? Being most accessible to a general audience? I'm not liking the possible connotations, intended or not.
Sounds like a very articulate way of saying 'bass pwnzors'
I personally believe there are too many instruments in the world to get stuck on the sound of one. But thats a seperate discussion and is pulling viciously away from this threads intention.
I personally believe there are too many instruments in the world to get stuck on the sound of one. But thats a seperate discussion and is pulling viciously away from this threads intention.
Roles that have "been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years" are in part the result of what worked for acoustic instruments. It was easier to play an intricate melody with a viol, a coronet, or a flute than with a double bass, and certainly easier to be heard. Now with the advent of electric amplification and some of the newer speakers that can really pump out the low frequency decibels different roles are available to different registers. I frankly appreciate lead bass and supportive guitar because the fatter tone of the bass is so much more effective for single notes and the guitar is so much better suited to playing chords. Or better yet, homogeneous polyphony a la Bach, Webern, or Palestrina.
It all depends on the sound of the band. An effect that sounds obnoxious and over the top in your bedroom may fit just fine with a whole band. Fuzzes are like this. Choruses tend to be the opposite, warm and mellow by yourself but completely over the top in band situation.
I like very deep and bassy tones, effects must sound huge to me. No subtlety needed.
Oh and to those who think bass traditionnally has a quiet role, you haven't listen to enough classical organ music.
I like very deep and bassy tones, effects must sound huge to me. No subtlety needed.
Oh and to those who think bass traditionnally has a quiet role, you haven't listen to enough classical organ music.
A classical organ has pretty much nothing to do with the sound, voice, application, whatever, of a bass guitar, the only similarity is that they play some notes in the same range. And I believe you meant "traditionally", but no one said specifically that "quiet" was part of any tradition, even if it may be.
If quiet was a part of any tradition in music, then symphony orchestras and drums would have never existed. Not sure what it has to do with anything...just thought I'd throw that out there
Well the only effect I use regularly is a sub-octave/envelope filter for a few of the solos I do, or in my improv group when I wanna cut through the mix, and to be effective it is usually pretty in your face/over the top. The one important thing to me has always been that the low end is always intact, I tried different OD and distortion pedals for a long time and never found one I was satisfied with because I thought they just robbed to much of the low end. I've never really cared for to many other effects, although I have been thinking about a nice chorus
Right you are... I just didn't think it was necessary to make the argument that quiet is not really a part of the tradition of electric bass guitar... I think we've all heard and played enough music to know that 
.
.
What I mean by "works best" is mostly about the physics, and the way the ear works - not so much the cultural aspects, or old listeners vs. young.
I think the average listener is not even able to pick out the (sound of the) bass from the other instruments in a mix. They have to develop those 'ear muscles', (and most kids these days are not getting music training as part of their school curriculum, as I did when I was a kid!). That's not the case with guitar, trumpet, flute, etc. - the 'lead instruments'. Putting the lead instruments in lead roles works best for that reason, among others. If you're an arranger or producer, you probably should be thinking that way. Deviations from that norm are good for effect, novelty, etc. but usually not much else.
No, they aren't (meaning the average listener), but I've had the pleasure of working with Grammy award nominated producers, on several occasions, and they wouldn't necessarily agree with what you've said. In fact in my experience they were so successful because of their openness to anything I might want to contribute, whether it be a certain vibe from a rhythmic "bassline" I was feeling, or even a "lead". Especially the occasional fill! Not that Grammy nominations necessarily reflect who will sell the most records or things like that, but to me it certainly means something.
Well, one cliche I agree with is the idea of learning the rules before trying to break them, which applies to producers as well as anyone. I'd assume that a grammy winning producer has probably learned their craft well enough to know how and when to break 'rules', and when not to. I'd say it's analogous to a professional writer knowing when and how to use incorrect grammar.
And FWIW, I'm not against bass fills and soforth (I've been known to indulge in them myself), and I don't think there's anything wrong with going against traditions, especially not if you're doing what you feel, and what sounds good to you. I just think it's a good idea to be aware of the traditions (like bass instruments playing a supportive role) and the reasons they exist. They're usually pretty good reasons, and there's no use re-inventing the wheel if it's already been invented.
i like mild chorus (boss ce-2b) , mild overdrive (barber LTD SR), mild compression(BBE opto), and balls to the wall fuzz.......i guess fuzz can't/shouldn't be subtle.
Most certainly (in regards to learning their craft well enough to know how and when to break 'rules'), but tell me really, what do traditions have to do with making "good music"? Do you really think the audience is dumb enough not to appreciate the unusual? I'm not saying you do, but I like to have faith in mankind in general, and their ability to interpret art. But all I can do is speak from my own experience, and the number of people who have said something to the effect that they've been deeply moved by my performances are not in any way limited. This includes a lot of "non traditional" style playing. And of course I'll always say there's a use to re-inventing the wheel, if it can touch somebody and allow somebody to understand some small part of me, as that's the most I could ever hope to come from my music. You see my point.
I used to think people didn't appreciate music that was weird or went against convention, but really, they love it...IF it's done right. Primus did have two albums that made the Billboard Top 10.
I generally agree with this,...
its all taste though,... I mean, you cannot tell me someone can't pick out the bass lines in say, Nirvana, Alice in chains, red hot chilli peppers, heck,.... even that one band that did, what was it called,... smoke on the water eh? maybe supportive bass lines mostly in those bands but dang they sure can be heard,... AND some of those bands use not so subtle effects... *shrug*
and I'm in two minds about a bassists role in a band,... I like supportive driving rythm, I love crazy over the top stuff, I like it all,... and THAT is why I will listen to Justin Chancellor from TOOL rock out over most other bands,... who cares if most people confuse the intro to 46&2 to being a guitar part,... it's still awesome!
anyway, I won't let this get confused with the other topic called 'is music just mostly being rehashed and rehashed again until all the sub genres are used up or is there actually fresh new music out there'...
