the "rhythm section" discussion

[M0ses]

I want to talk about something that has been in my head for a while.
The entire concept of "rhythm section" is total crap. In a group of four or five people, which by my guess is pretty much standard for most groups, dividing the band into "sections" is a very, very bad thing to do. Sections in an orchestra are made up of 10-20 people. Not two. Two people are not a section. Calling the bass and drum duo "the rhythm section" implies that the rest of the band is somehow less responsible for rhythm than the other two. And that is wrong, dead wrong. A guitarist who doesn't pay as much attention to rhythm as a bassist is a crap guitarist and will make the band sound like crap. Every single member in a 3 4 5 or 6 piece band is responsible for rhythm and harmony as much as any of the others.

 

[quickfix]

The band is the rhythm combo in any large group I've ever worked with. Rhythm guitar, keyboard, bass, and drums. Sometimes the lead/jazz guitarist is also included in the combo. These are the folks that back up the singer, or orchestra.

 

[The Bass Clef]

The rhythm section sure can be 2 people if only 3 people are playing and one is say, a lead guitar. But if that lead guitar starts playing rhythm and a singer comes in, then the guitar is now part of the rhythm section too.. for as long as they are playing rhythm. Traditionally, the bass and drums are the "rhythm section" of a rock band because they are always playing rhythm, while a guitar, harmonica, keyboard, etc.. can go back and forth from rhythm to leads. That's not to say that a bass can't do a lead solo too, but traditionally the bass and the drums live their whole lives in the rhythm section, while the other instruments are not "confined" to that. The concept is not crap IMO, it's just a generalization that is correct for most bands out there. If a band has a rhythm guitarist and a separate lead guitarist, the rhythm geetard would be just as much part of the rhythm section as the bass and drums.

 

[cheapbasslovin]

I'm supposed to be rhythm?




















That explains a lot.

 

[SamJ]

Are you playing melodic basslines? or are you playing rhythmic bass lines? that is the question... 99% of the time, I'm the latter..

 

[MalcolmAmos]

I want to talk about something that has been in my head for a while.
The entire concept of "rhythm section" is total crap. In a group of four or five people, which by my guess is pretty much standard for most groups, dividing the band into "sections" is a very, very bad thing to do. Sections in an orchestra are made up of 10-20 people. Not two. Two people are not a section.

When I sing and play my rhythm guitar my voice takes care of the melody and my strumming of the chords takes care of the harmony. How I phrase all that takes care of the rhythm. Music is made of melody, harmony and rhythm. Sounds best when all three are provided.

I see it a little differently. There are three things that make music; melody, harmony and rhythm and each is a section unto itself.

In my rhythm guitar example I divided melody, harmony and rhythm into sections and took care of each of them - myself. My point; the number of people is not important as long as some are providing the melody and some are providing the harmony and all are following the rhythm assigned to this song.

I look upon music as having sections with someone responsible for each section. Yes you can sing just the tune.... or you can play just the chord progression.... and you can pound on you instrument and provide rhythm. When it all happens at the same time it sounds better.

You make a good point, when does a band become an orchestra? Some say when you add the fiddles LOL. How many rhythm guitars do you need for harmony? One, two, God forbid three? Three make mud. Got dishes to do, see ya.........

 

[ole Jason]

Calling the bass and drum duo "the rhythm section" implies that the rest of the band is somehow less responsible for rhythm than the other two.

A rhythm section is bass, drums, keys, guitar, etc. I think you're thinking of the term in the context of rock music which is basically meaningless.

 

[48thStreetCustom]

Personally, I'm not a fan of when guitarists play rhythmically. I'm thinking of that strummy Jack Johnson style where they try to do the drummer's job. To me they alway feel constricting to play bass with.

 

[elgecko]

In a jazz big band, the "rhythm section" is basically anyone not playing a horn. Outside of big band, the term quickly loses meaning.

 

[bass12]

Personally, I'm not a fan of when guitarists play rhythmically.

Huh? Are you saying that you don't like rhythm guitarists or that you don't like Jack Johnson (I would totally understand the latter)?

 

[48thStreetCustom]

Huh? Are you saying that you don't like rhythm guitarists or that you don't like Jack Johnson (I would totally understand the latter)?

I don't like that Jack Johnson style of strummy rhythmic guitar playing. A lot of jamband guitarists do it, too. I never seem to be able to do anything interesting playing along with that style. It feels so constricting rhythmically. To paraphrase Frank Zappa, "it's like wearing tight shoes." Some guitarists seem to think playing rhythm guitar means dominating the rhythm section.

 

[BassChuck]

Everyone in a group is responsible for rhythm, and tempo. But there is more to it than that. The rhythm sets the style and while the horns and singer have a part in that, without the support of the rhythm section, their job is impossible. (if they are singing rock and the rhythm section is swing in jazz the end result is more jazz than rock) And on that same topic, you might have noticed that a horn player or singer can be a little or a lot late or early to a note and the whole world looks at it as 'interpretation'. Try that stuff on bass and you'll be looking for a new gig.

We all have different jobs. The drummer can't do a whole lot about chord progressions or intonation. Style and time are everyone's job, the they are the life blood of the rhythm section.

 

[reddesert]

Years ago when I was a freshman in college my roommate had to explain to me that there isn't a physical difference between a rhythm guitar and a lead guitar (as listed in album credits), it's two different musical parts. This was shortly before I started to learn guitar myself. He's still friends with me, so thank him for his patience.

 

[bass12]

I don't like that Jack Johnson style of strummy rhythmic guitar playing. A lot of jamband guitarists do it, too. I never seem to be able to do anything interesting playing along with that style. It feels so constricting rhythmically. To paraphrase Frank Zappa, "it's like wearing tight shoes." Some guitarists seem to think playing rhythm guitar means dominating the rhythm section.

Thanks for clarifying that. I can't say I'm much of a fan either.

 

[RED J]

I never really thunk about it much, but in the strictest sense, elgecko pretty much nailed it.

 

[ac11367]

In my 4-piece band with one guitarist who can shred, the contrast between the rhythm and the lead sections cannot be more apparent during guitar solos. My drummer and I provide rhythm service, and my guitarist is the user of this service.

 

[M0ses]

In my rhythm guitar example I divided melody, harmony and rhythm into sections and took care of each of them - myself.

My point is, NO, you didn't. Melody cannot exist independently of harmony. Harmony cannot exist independently of rhythm. Without rhythm, you're not playing music, whether or not you're playing "lead guitar" or singing or playing the spoons. Music occurs through time, not on dots on a page. You didn't sing or strum chords for no time or no specific duration, you sang with a rhythm, you gave each and every note a specific beginning and end.

That's rhythm. Just because it's not a repeating pattern doesn't mean it's not rhythm. And, based on the majority of popular western music, it probably was a repeating pattern, anyway!

 

[Pacman]

I want to talk about something that has been in my head for a while.
The entire concept of "rhythm section" is total crap. In a group of four or five people, which by my guess is pretty much standard for most groups, dividing the band into "sections" is a very, very bad thing to do. Sections in an orchestra are made up of 10-20 people. Not two. Two people are not a section. Calling the bass and drum duo "the rhythm section" implies that the rest of the band is somehow less responsible for rhythm than the other two. And that is wrong, dead wrong. A guitarist who doesn't pay as much attention to rhythm as a bassist is a crap guitarist and will make the band sound like crap. Every single member in a 3 4 5 or 6 piece band is responsible for rhythm and harmony as much as any of the others.

Good luck getting everyone else to go along with you.

 

[BazzTard]

Are you playing melodic basslines? or are you playing rhythmic bass lines? that is the question... 99% of the time, I'm the latter..

you mean I can't be BOTH?

Sir Paul WILL be pissed !

 

[The Bass Clef]

My point is, NO, you didn't. Melody cannot exist independently of harmony. Harmony cannot exist independently of rhythm. Without rhythm, you're not playing music, whether or not you're playing "lead guitar" or singing or playing the spoons. Music occurs through time, not on dots on a page. You didn't sing or strum chords for no time or no specific duration, you sang with a rhythm, you gave each and every note a specific beginning and end.

That's rhythm. Just because it's not a repeating pattern doesn't mean it's not rhythm. And, based on the majority of popular western music, it probably was a repeating pattern, anyway!

Melody can exist independently of harmony, I'm not sure where you're going with that. And yes, all music and melody has rhythm to it, but rhythm within a guitar solo or a vocal is not the same as a rhythm section. Some instruments simply focus more on a supporting role, and they just call them the rhythm section.. but it's just another use of the word. You could call it the "supportive section" if you like, but the purpose of those instruments in a group is still the same.

Also, I think most non-musicians actually hear the rhythm section of a band (whether it be just bass and drums, or bass, keyboard and drums, etc..) as one single entity. It may be hard as a musician to not separate all the different instruments and break the music down because we know how the music is made.. but I think the average listener hears a guitar solo or a singer, and all the music behind them is just back there, like the background of a movie.