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.
What constitutes a bass player being considered overrated ?
- Thread starter JAUQO III-X
- Start date
But how do you measure what their skills are when you are not the one playing the bass lines, or who has developed the idea and concept to approach the bass the way they do.
Well that gets to the whole thing of being a critic and what critique is. One does not need to be better than the person who he is critiquing in whatever he is critiquing him about.
You don't need to measure the skill against your own, there are plenty of people with skill in which you can compare the bassist too. As a long-time bassist yourself, I'm sure you can tell when a musician knows what he is doing... or when people praise a musician who isn't quite up too par with the amount of praise he receives.
You don't need to measure the skill against your own, there are plenty of people with skill in which you can compare the bassist too. As a long-time bassist yourself, I'm sure you can tell when a musician knows what he is doing... or when people praise a musician who isn't quite up too par with the amount of praise he receives.
But the end result is that most critics can barely do better, than the bassist their criticizing.
Also I feel should add it isn't only skill. People can overrate someone's influence on the genre, the merits that young bassists have received from these "idols".
I think the term "overrated" is often used to describe players that are high profile and high exposure rather than necessarily them being overrated. Other players flat out get tired of hearing about them and seeing their mugs on magazine covers. Personally I don;t like throwing the "overrated" term around. How am I supposed to know what a given player is really capable of? I may not be into their music but that does'nt mean they are not a fine player.
Generally to earn the label 'overrated bassist' you have to be good enough at bass and/or be in a position due to your bass playing that other people envy, this automatically grants you the honorary status.
I guess literally I'd say to consider someone 'overrated' would just be a subjective opinion resulting from someone feeling a player gets more credit for his playing than he or she deserves.
I guess literally I'd say to consider someone 'overrated' would just be a subjective opinion resulting from someone feeling a player gets more credit for his playing than he or she deserves.
Well there are different reasons to criticize.
- Criticize in order to improve the person being criticized (in which you don't necessarily need to be better or more experienced than the person you critique)
- Criticize them to put them down (point out there flaws in a negative manner)
^Seem to be the main ones.
So, to have an opinion on, say Jaco Pastorius, I would have to be a better bassist than he was?
Criticism is a finely honed art. Up until the age of the blog, a critic was not just someone expressing a personal opinion about a subject. A critic's job is to form an opinion, based on the work's relation to the context and the author's canon and public levels of expectation, and then convince everyone else that his/her opinion is representative of society at large. A true critic is therefore a researcher and a careful evaluater with a keen eye for public opinion who is attempting to advance the state of the art for the art's sake. A "blog critic", which describes 99% of TalkBass readers, is someone who simply voices an opinion, and then uses authority to back up his/her claims.
In this context, saying that (for example) "Les Claypool is overrated" really means that "A lot of people like Les Claypool, but I don't," and, implicitly, "Too many people like Les Claypool, who doesn't deserve it." I think this form of criticism really is that shallow. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having taste and a whole array of likes and dislikes. But to assert these tastes as fact using your own superiority as your authority is pretty self-centered. And it's a disservice to professionals to call it criticism.
In this context, saying that (for example) "Les Claypool is overrated" really means that "A lot of people like Les Claypool, but I don't," and, implicitly, "Too many people like Les Claypool, who doesn't deserve it." I think this form of criticism really is that shallow. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having taste and a whole array of likes and dislikes. But to assert these tastes as fact using your own superiority as your authority is pretty self-centered. And it's a disservice to professionals to call it criticism.
It's all opinon. There is no way that this question can be boiled down to a fact.
To me, an overrated bassist is one who has skill up to their eyeballs, but zero mass appeal. I think that in order to be a really "good" bassist, you can't go berserk on the thing, and have some kind of mass appeal. That's what I consider a really killer bassist.
To me, an overrated bassist is one who has skill up to their eyeballs, but zero mass appeal. I think that in order to be a really "good" bassist, you can't go berserk on the thing, and have some kind of mass appeal. That's what I consider a really killer bassist.
When audiences, be they bassplayers/musicians/casual listeners, praise said bassist for his/her ability to play hi-octane 64th note runs like a bebob saxophonist rather than their ability to lay down the pocket and make the rest of the band kick ass. IMO of course.
So, to have an opinion on, say Jaco Pastorius, I would have to be a better bassist than he was?
If nothing else, at least be able to bring something to the table.
Most people who think what they may be doing is giving an opinion, really doesn't know what an opinion is
Sometimes comments come from little things called not knowing or understanding.
If nothing else, at least be able to bring something to the table.
Most people who think what they may be doing is giving an opinion, really doesn't know what an opinion is
Sometimes comments come from little things called not knowing or understanding.
I see what you mean a bit better now, I often will state an opinion, without explaining it, might come off badly in hindsight, but I always do have reasons, and am willing to explain them, I just don't think of it.
Now the other end of the stick is, how do I expain this........
Lets take guitar, I suck at it, seriously, extremely, I mean like I know two chords. But I still have fave guitarist's, ones I dislike, yet, when asked I have zero imput to bring, except what I believe sounds good, what I believe dosn't etc. I still can make a valid point(IMO), but this discussion seems to point towards saying I should not be allowed to have an opinion, without first learning the axe.
At least be able to step up to the plate and bring something equally or close to who one is criticizing.
- Feb 8, 2005
- 3,636
- 1,053
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Bag End - Dean Markley - Thunderfunk
I think it's important to distinguish between having some knowledge of the thing you're critiquing (which is what I think Jauqo is getting at) versus possessing a specific set of skills.
Example:
If I tried to critique a dancer, they could rightly say "Well, let's see what you got". Well, I got nothin'; I don't have the skill set so I would look a fool, and the critiqued dancer could feel justified in dismissing my critique. But what's really happening is that I don't know jack about what I am critiquing, and that is the real reason why my critique would lack value.
As opposed to:
Me critiquing a saxophonist. He could also say to me "Well, let's see what you got". In this case too since I lack the skills to play the sax I would suck and he could feel equally confident dismissing my critique. Initially it would appear my critique of his playing was just as hollow as my dancing critique.
The difference is I know the subject matter here. If he's out of tune, has bad time, poor note choices, uneven tone, etc, etc...I do not need the specific skill set of playing his axe to be vaild in my critique. Rather, I need to know what I'm talking about.
You don't have to be an amazing bassist to be able to make a valid critique of another bassist, but you do need to know what you're talking about is you wish your critique to carry any weight.
That's how I see it anyway
Example:
If I tried to critique a dancer, they could rightly say "Well, let's see what you got". Well, I got nothin'; I don't have the skill set so I would look a fool, and the critiqued dancer could feel justified in dismissing my critique. But what's really happening is that I don't know jack about what I am critiquing, and that is the real reason why my critique would lack value.
As opposed to:
Me critiquing a saxophonist. He could also say to me "Well, let's see what you got". In this case too since I lack the skills to play the sax I would suck and he could feel equally confident dismissing my critique. Initially it would appear my critique of his playing was just as hollow as my dancing critique.
The difference is I know the subject matter here. If he's out of tune, has bad time, poor note choices, uneven tone, etc, etc...I do not need the specific skill set of playing his axe to be vaild in my critique. Rather, I need to know what I'm talking about.
You don't have to be an amazing bassist to be able to make a valid critique of another bassist, but you do need to know what you're talking about is you wish your critique to carry any weight.
That's how I see it anyway
Film critics have to make movies? Music critics have to be in bands or play instruments? Someone has to be an architect before they can say a building is ugly? I don't think so. The critics job is not to create, but to evaluate, as objectively as possible, the creations of others.
