• 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?

#101
Mark Olson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not saying that all music should sound like classical music, or follow baroque rules or anything like that. I'm just talking about being aware of, and making use of the accumulated knowledge of humanity that came before us. Chemists should probably learn about the table of elements before engaging in serious chemistry. There are musical equivalents to the table of elements, and this knowledge doesn't need to be rediscovered or reinvented because that work has already been done by our ancestors, and is available to us in various documented forms. There is an understandable impulse to rebel against rules and their perceived restrictions, but at some point you have to realize that at least some of those rules have some real value, and some of those old dudes actually knew what they were talking about.
 
#102
I'm not encouraging being unaware of anything that has come before, or disrespecting it, not seeing the value of it, etc., and I for one certainly know we wouldn't be anywhere without our influences, but I will say I think it is restraining to your expression to not expand on or go beyond those influences, which there is literally infinite room to do in music. That's something our predecessors have done a lot of too, you will admit, and therefore it is part of the very formula of "what works", as you'd say. And without expanding on what has been done in the past, all we are doing is essentially rehashing it. Not that that doesn't have it's place, obviously it does, but it's not the whole deal.

It is also limiting, you will admit, to limit your approach to your instrument. Literally, obviously. The argument could be made that I've picked the wrong instrument to expand on, for various reasons. But I could make the argument I've picked an excellent instrument to expand on, as electric bass is so relatively new and little has been done with it in the grand picture of what is possible to do with it.

And again I'm talking about more than just your old, typical "bassline", "rhythm", and "lead" roles. Just like Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood (who is a great bass player as well as guitarist by the way) and their "ancient art of interweaving", blending the lines between rhythm and lead. Obviously they do that with great artistic and commercial success. It "works".

But this can just as effectively be done with a bass as well, blending basslines, rhythm (chords), and leads. Jack Bruce and Eric Clapton in Cream did this way back when, and that "worked", artistically and commercially. Listen to tracks like the live version of Spoonful on Wheels of Fire.

And Jaco and Joni Mitchell had their collaboration, with bass parts sometimes even multitracked, blending the lines between basslines, rhythm, and leads, and it "worked". And countless other players have expanded and the fundamental roles of their instruments, and it's "worked". You get my point.
 
#103
I think we're talking about slightly different things, but yeah, I do get your point. I'm not really talking about musical influences. I'm talking mostly about the physics of acoustics, how the human ear perceives sound, etc. Our understanding of these issues continues to evolve, but the underlying principals aren't going to change, and there's not much any of us are going to do to alter or improve basic physics, or overcome the inherent limitations thereof, try as we might. IMO, these are the real relevant issues at work when we talk about the roles that different instruments are designed to play - much more than stylistic, cultural or generational issues, which are purely subjective and ephemeral.
 
#104
We are talking about different things, I'm sure, but I'm not unfamiliar with musical physics, having been rather schooled in physics and music myself, as well as engineering.

But my point on that issue is that while acoustic physics is not going to change, the physics of our gear is continuing to improve. With wider and clearer frequency responses, and much, much more clarity even with the wide frequency response of the electric bass guitar, which has been and is still today enabling more ideas to be expressed musically and with clarity. Just as a for example.

But moreover, I'm not talking about overcoming the limitations of musical physics. I'm talking about the limitless possibilities there are even when adhering to good use of musical physics. One aspect of musical physics I tend to strictly adhere to, for example, is the fundamental frequency range of what classical musicians would have considered to be a good bass note.

This, as you probably know, extends to the octave B on an electric bass guitar. Above that doesn't exactly provide a solid fundamental for a band mix, but I'll use chords, and I'm generally careful not to play more than one note at a time at or below that octave B in my chord voicings. Unless of course it's an artistic choice to use an acoustically muddier voicing to make the specific point I want to make. Like all rules, it's key to know when to adhere to or break the rules of good musical physics. For example I may choose chord voicings that are not physically speaking a good choice, but give my chordal structure the motion and feel I desire it to have. Or maybe an emotion I want to express is muddled or contrived in feeling, and having a muddy sounding chord to express that idea or emotion can help give it the connotations I want to give it. You get the point.

But more important than adhering to musical physics is simply "what sounds good". I've received lots of compliments on my chordal playing style, among other things, from professional musicians with very good ears for a good sound. Though it may not make as much sense in a musical physics point of view to voice a chord for bass rather than say, guitar, like I previously said, bass has different chord voicings that are convenient on it than guitar, with a distinctively thicker voice, which lends it's own characteristics or connotations to the story I'm telling in a way a guitar couldn't necessarily do. And that's also where taste comes into play, it can be actually very tasteful to do something not normally done on the bass guitar to make whatever musical point you're trying to make in an (artistically chosen) different way than a guitar would. Just as a for instance.
 
#105
I have no quarrel with any of that. I was originally responding to some comments about the restrictiveness of the traditional role of bass instruments. Trying to play devil's advocate in this case, my point is that it's best to choose your battles wisely, because if the traditions you're trying to overcome are things like basic low interval limits, you might want to select a different way to express your individuality. On the other hand, if you're truly following your muse, then nothing I say should make any difference anyway.
I've also found that the more arranging/producing I do, the more appreciation I have for the stodgy old traditional roles of instruments. They really do make more sense the more you're able to step back and look at the bigger picture. And believe me, I well remember having a much more bass-centric pov when I was younger (like, around your age :) ). I was very much into expanding the role of this exciting instrument. Now, I don't care about that at all. I'm just into making good music, with whatever tools work. The harsh truth for us is that bass solos, fills and soforth are very cool if your intended audience is other bass players, but beyond some occasional novelty value they're generally snore-inducing to the average listener.
 
#107
Ok I read the thing :scowl: and all I have to say is.......

This thread has become too silly
Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
#108
I wouldn't expect you would. But don't gloss over what I've wrote before you try to pigeonhole my ideas as the nearest thing you're familiar with that you've spent what little time you have considering and then call the role of devil's advocate. I'm the one playing devil's advocate against the more common and traditional lines of thinking as to the possible (and effective) roles of the electric bass guitar.

I'm not you so many years ago, clearly. I could tell you I'm 62 years old, would that change the validity of any of my ideas one bit? No not at all, and age makes a poor argument to try to combat ideas about music. Clearly, no young musicians have ever made any impact on the world of music, had commercial or artistic success, or what have you, yes?

But what I can tell you is that I've used my personal approach to the bass guitar on thousands of songs during countless performances in every musical situation I've been able to get myself into and it's "worked", and the "average listener" found it not so "snore-inducing".

Yes, the credit you've just given to the "average listener" is appallingly naive. Clearly John Entwistle's approach to the bass guitar was very "snore-inducing". And Jack Bruce in Cream? Only bass players ever dug Cream and The Who, right? They've never enjoyed artistic or commercial success with a wide audience?

And even if the "average listener" is so unappreciative of anything, what says they're who we need to write our music to appease? Music has a great advantage as an art form, being arguably the most accessible to the average person. In a commercial sense, you want your music to be accessible to the most people possible, especially in the demographics that buy the most records, in order to make as much money as possible.

But money is just one small reason to get into music, just a tiny part of a much larger picture. What about artistic gratification? What kind of audience would you really most like to connect with? In music we have the freedom to connect with all kinds of audiences, in part because of it's inherent accessibility. As I've stated before, I've known and worked with very successful producers, and their views towards music are most certainly not so narrow as to only view the money aspect, despite what you might think because of their success. They make music for all kinds of audiences, for all kinds of reasons. You get my point.
 
#110
When it sounds good it works and wether something sounds good depends on physics so you guys are both right.
So you can stop agreeing with each other over and over again every post :p.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that you can play a so called "lead role" while still fulfilling the traditional role of a bassist and that is what a lot of good bassist do. For it to work tho there has to be room in the mix (unless you play metal :)). Most bands that I enjoy create parts in the song where some instruments back off for a moment so you can hear what the individual instruments are doing for the mix. This both makes the mix more dynamic and points the listener to other "layers" in the music. Every instrument can play a "lead role" all at the same time as long as they work together and leave space for each other (I'm not talking about solo's here).

If you think you are progressive by putting the bass in the lead role you are in fact still thinking inside the image of particular roles that each instrument has and as such are not progressive at all. Each instrument can do whatever he wants as long as it sounds good together. For the bass this mostly means playing in the lower registers and leaving some space so that things don't turn to muddy downstairs. If you play something else and you can make it sound good than thats great and you should. That said however I mostly find most solo bassists rather meh sounding and enjoy listening to bassists in bands much more. This could of course be due to my taste but in general people don't listen to solo bassists unless they play bass themselves (I like to listen occasionally because they do inspire me by their skills and often different approach from which I can learn).

The reason a lot of bassists feel that they merely have a supporting role is because or ears are more focused on guitar frequencies and as such the lower frequencies are more difficult to destinguish and as such bassists get less credits. You can solve this by playing higher stuff in the guitar ranges (which can work really well if there is space for it). Another option is to add some punch and grit to your sound to stand out more and write some interesting basslines (my prefered optoin). A third option is to just get your groove on and not care (motown style). Lastly you can get rid of all the guitars and keyboards and play solo bass but most people don't seem to like the sound of this (at least it hasn't caught on yet :D).

Choose what you prefere as long as you make it sound good to yourself it works.

BTW. I like some subtle effects to sculp my sound (always on) and then some not so subtle to "rape my tone" as someone elogently put it.
 
#111
I depends on the effect for me. Overdrive I like subtle... like WAAY subtle. But then that's partly because my Cream Pie is an always-on effect (so I need no obvious difference in tone when I kick it on) and because I simply prefer the sound of a light overdrive on bass to a heavier distortion. Fuzz... I want a Woolly Mammoth, so I think it's safe to say I'm not so much a fan of subtle there. As for other modulation-type effects (filters, phasers, etc.), I don't have near the experience with different units that other on here do, so I haven't invested the time, effort, and money in building up as clearly defined tastes... But I'd still say it just depends on the unit, song, situation, etc. I know, cop out, right? ;)

Brian
 
#113
Bootzilla said:
So you can stop agreeing with each other over and over again every post :p.
Click to expand...

Well if I've been overly polite as to appear to agree, then I'm not making my points clearly enough. Or maybe people aren't getting them with the clarity I'd like. I wonder why that would happen? Hahaha ;)

Bootzilla said:
If you think you are progressive by putting the bass in the lead role you are in fact still thinking inside the image of particular roles that each instrument has and as such are not progressive at all.
Click to expand...

Have I not made myself perfectly clear, saying over and over again that this is not about basslines, rhythm, or leads? I'm trying to talk about much, much more than that. Moreover I didn't specifically say there was anything progressive about looking beyond even those traditional roles (of basslines, rhythm, and leads) but the extent to which anyone has been able to grasp, well, anything I've said is starting to make me think that it might just be a progressive idea. Huh.
 
#114
Mudfuzz said:
Kind'a.
Click to expand...

Well you might want to get your heart checked, because it might not be beating! Hahaha ;).

The points I'm trying to make are

1) Yes, even bass players are part of the group of "average listeners", and while even some bass players might not be turned on by some whacked out bass music like Lightning Bolt,

2) I've known plenty of people who weren't bass players who do dig stuff like Lightning Bolt.

So so much for your "average listener". That's such a narrow term that has such negative connotations towards our audiences it's just, well, you get the idea.
 
#115
Just to make myself clear, I am NOT saying anyone is an "average listener" and I'm not saying I'm going to divine what you listen to hahaha. I'm saying probably no one can so simply be described as an "average listener". "Average listener" isn't my term in this whole thing, which if you've been reading you'll know, but I kinda doubt anyone really is. :)
 
#116
OriginalCrash said:
I depends on the effect for me. Overdrive I like subtle... like WAAY subtle. But then that's partly because my Cream Pie is an always-on effect (so I need no obvious difference in tone when I kick it on) and because I simply prefer the sound of a light overdrive on bass to a heavier distortion. Fuzz... I want a Woolly Mammoth, so I think it's safe to say I'm not so much a fan of subtle there. As for other modulation-type effects (filters, phasers, etc.), I don't have near the experience with different units that other on here do, so I haven't invested the time, effort, and money in building up as clearly defined tastes... But I'd still say it just depends on the unit, song, situation, etc. I know, cop out, right? ;)

Brian
Click to expand...

Dude, that post is way too on topic for page 6.
 
#117
Mark Olson said:
Just to make myself clear, I am NOT saying anyone is an "average listener" and I'm not saying I'm going to divine what you listen to hahaha. I'm saying probably no one can so simply be described as an "average listener". "Average listener" isn't my term in this whole thing, which if you've been reading you'll know, but I kinda doubt anyone really is. :)
Click to expand...

I get you,... I just stopped getting interested when I tried to put my side up and there were two posters arguing over what generally seems to be,... nothing :hiding:

I think this thread just needs a kind of

<thread>'we all listen to different things, for the most part we serve what the song/mood/message needs and some times its full on over the top, othertimes its subtle, and other times it depends on what we are doing...

</thread>
 
#119
Well it's not really nothing... he just keeps putting up half baked justifications (a cop out if you will) for not having the chops, the cajones, or the musical savvy or inclination to step beyond what is essentially (I've covered the physics aspect at great enough length) an arbitrarily limited view of the effective roles of the electric bass guitar. And I've been a good sport and refuted each of these half baked notions in turn with politely well thought out reasoning, after each time he agrees with me completely before stabbing in the dark for yet another non-existent half baked notion that I haven't already considered.

So, I'll cut the BS, what's the bottom line? The bottom line is that he and anyone else are free to limit themselves in any way they choose, arbitrary or not, but it's asinine to try to convince me there's any good reason for limiting myself in the same way. There isn't. I have plenty of experience and success using an approach to the electric bass guitar which I've only vaguely outlined here. No amount of half baked notions or cockeyed ideas can refute that, clearly.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back