Why do people think that more notes = better?

[cnltb]

Imagine if Geddy Lee started to slow down, remove his overdrive and play soft because he is getting old ... it wouldn't be Rush anymore. "Maturing" or the "less is more" approach can get too far and you end up loosing what made you unique.

I am not talking about a less is more approach( I think less is less and more is more)
Rush also wouldn't sound any better to me, if Mr.Weinrib played fewer notes...I think.
I am referring to people that play more notes to play more notes, rather than because the music will benefits from them doing so. I have seen many that do it without realising that they are.

 

[citizenchris099]

That's the beauty of music: there's room for every style possible. Posers, wankers, classic rock players, punks, name it they all fit somewhere.

Deciding who's or what's the best is very subjective and a personal thing. To each their own. I have the same approach with gear, there's a market for everyone, for every wallet.

This

You already answered your question. They are not knowledgeable. Period. End of story.
I've learned that if someone has an asinine musical opinion and they themselves are not a musician of some sort, I tend to take their thoughts with a grain of salt. Fans are fans musicians are musicians.

And this

 

[Jhass]

I'm at a total loss trying to understand th OP's reference to James Jamerson.
Clearly Jamerson, played a LOT of notes... Often very fast.
He was the original "lead" bass player. Even when playing with 10-15 musicians, including 3 virtuoso jazz guitarists, Jamerson always played lead. To paraphrase Joe Messina, 'the first time I played with him (Jamerson) I was like, ok, I guess we'll all just play along to him.'
And Paul is not exactly a groove player either. George Martin centered every mix around the bass, almost always the loudest instrument.
But Jamerson is the original over-playing bass player. If he, or anybody, played like that in a session today, half the producers around would roll their eyes and say, "back it off a little..." Or "...play more in the groove." Lol

Good point. My reference to Jamerson was that his bass lines, as "busy" as they often are, are always in support of the main melody. He's playing a lot of notes, but they are "underneath" the melody, so to speak. And my reference to Sir Paul was as an example of bass lines that are often counter melodies. But I see your point!

 

[SweetKetchup]

Your brother-in-law probably never listened to bass at a very high volume. I had no idea how many flaws I have in my technique until I turned the amp volume knob beyond 12 o'clock. Fast lines sound great on normal volume, until you go to a live situation and hear all the mud and dissonance due to focusing on speed and not precision.

 

[Jhass]

Ask Mozart.

The way you asked your question is biased so any response you get you contrary to your idea is most likely going to be dismissed. If you can avoid that, I have some answers.
1.) No instrument has a set role. It is up to the creativity of the artist to find new ways to use something. The role of the bass is whatever the player wants it to be.
2.) Playing more notes is exciting. Playing less notes is boring. For all the yammering TBers do about "the pocket" the truth is no one really likes boring bass players that play less. Even old school guys like Duck Dunn and James Jamerson played more than on-beat root quarter notes. There is a point of diminishing returns for playing too much, but more is more fun.
3.) Its a simple matter of what I think of as "leveling." I'm a RPG nut, which are full of skill trees. To move from one level of the skill tree to another, you have to meet the prerequisites. If a bass player can shred, its given that he\she can just play a back beat. Mike Manring, Victor Wooten, Les Claypool, Nick Schendzielos, Jaco, Stanley Clarke, Ryan Martinie, etc, etc, etc can plan anything they want. They OWN their instrument. Playing whole notes at 90bpm is a waste of their enormous talents.
4.) No one talks about the "pocket" players because no one cares. I don't know anyone that says Michael Anthony or Nikki Sixx are awesome bass players. People may like them because of their bands or their personalities, but they play forgettable lines. They are co-stars in someone else's movie; I can't dig that. Steve Harris IS Iron Maiden. He doesn't need to shred solos, but his playing is what drives their songs. Geezer Butler is Tony Iommi's equal, not his rhythm section.
5.) If you think less is more, try listen to SunnO))) or some other drone band. That stuff is boring AF.
6.) Some people have a little trouble with this: James Jamerson has been dead for 33 years. The Beatles were a big deal 50 years ago and Paul McCartney hasn't been a relevant musical force since the 80s. That stuff is old man. They played in a style that doesn't really exist anymore. Music has become more complex, as has the playing, to a point where even Rush and Yes are considered a little quaint. As the complexity of the music increases, by necessity, so does the playing of the bassist. If you are happy with old music that there will never be more of, have at it; whatever makes you happy. However, don't be surprised when obsolete playing paradigms aren't enthusiastically supported.

Well said.

 

[Jhass]

I took a course on cognitive theory and the arts, and about the only thing I remember was that there was a class on Coltrane, who was used as an example because of his 'sheets of sound' style in which he plays vast amounts of notes across all registers of his instrument while soloing.

The upshot was that this was perceived as artistry to the listener whose cognitive capacity was more capable of perceiving the connections between the vast amount of musical information he was presenting and their concept of the melody and harmony of the song he was soloing over.

music like coltrane's version of jazz or heavy metal shredding had a higher likelihood of being perceived as noise by those who had not developed the cognitive capacity to make those connections. It required a 'feat of cognition' to perceive the musicality of music like that, according to this guy anyhow.

I know that sounds like I'm saying slow or simple music is for dumb people, and that's not what I mean at all. People start with different capacities but things like attitude and repeated exposure come in to play as well

my main point was part of why people think more notes is better has to do with how the brain works and how it reacts to more complex information.

I am a busy player myself, and usually see my role as counterpoint to the lead instrument(s,) but I also play country and reggae where the bass's role is much simpler.

Interesting. I had not thought about it this way

 

[mantaraya]

My question is: why do so many people assume that playing more notes, or playing faster, means you are a better musician? Is it just that they don't understand music, and, in particular, the role of the bass in most songs?

R/: Whenever we are together, he ALWAYS asks me if I can play Yes or Rush. He will show me You Tube clips of these guys, and say, "now THAT's bass playing."

I think most of the answer is covered here

 

[Jhass]

So I just formed an instrumental avant jazz/rock band with a shredder guitarist and a drummer who hates 4/4. Thanks to this thread, I've decided to drop out of it. You guys are right...I should only play music that you like. Never mind what I like...music should only exist only to please you, and if it doesn't, it's crap.

Well, that wasn't my point in the OP, but I can see how it could have been construed that way. Apologies

 

[socialleper]

I was told one of the reasons people do originals was because they could add as much anything as they want with nobody telling them otherwise, I guess you could get away with ''overplaying'' if you never heard it any other way, I would think real musicians can tell regardless, I know I can and I'm a hacker.

That's putting too much thought into it. People play originals because without new music there wouldn't be anything for cover bands to play.
I don't bother with covers because its no fun to play someone else's stuff. People around here seem to forget that music is art. Its an expression of you. I can't express myself with someone else's notes.

 

[mantaraya]

Can't expect a non-musician to appreciate the finer skills of musicianship. I'd be happy that he even knows what a bass is and what it sounds like. Sometimes I don't think my wife even knows what I do.

IMHO i try to understand your point. But is a double-sided sword. Do you imply non-musicians to have a narrower or limited appreciation for fine music or musicians? And the contrary, only musicias can appreciatte the good art of fine music and fine musicians? So in essential only fine music is for educated fine musicians? I myself cant agree with that. So ALL Jazz is good and ALL Pop/Rock is bad?

 

[rtslinger]

Not sure why that is? I guess they think that they are impressing people. Solid bottom locked in with the drum has always put a smile on my face.

 

[socialleper]

I took a course on cognitive theory and the arts, and about the only thing I remember was that there was a class on Coltrane, who was used as an example because of his 'sheets of sound' style in which he plays vast amounts of notes across all registers of his instrument while soloing.

The upshot was that this was perceived as artistry to the listener whose cognitive capacity was more capable of perceiving the connections between the vast amount of musical information he was presenting and their concept of the melody and harmony of the song he was soloing over.

music like coltrane's version of jazz or heavy metal shredding had a higher likelihood of being perceived as noise by those who had not developed the cognitive capacity to make those connections. It required a 'feat of cognition' to perceive the musicality of music like that, according to this guy anyhow.

I know that sounds like I'm saying slow or simple music is for dumb people, and that's not what I mean at all. People start with different capacities but things like attitude and repeated exposure come in to play as well

my main point was part of why people think more notes is better has to do with how the brain works and how it reacts to more complex information.

I am a busy player myself, and usually see my role as counterpoint to the lead instrument(s,) but I also play country and reggae where the bass's role is much simpler.

Let's back that down to classical music. A full orchestra has a lot of different things happening. Its layers on top of layers, all weaving in and out of each other. Beyond the melodies, harmonies, and rhythms there is an appreciation for the skill required to write all of that, perform that, or bring it all together. The complexity is part of the experience. There is far more happening than in a concerto or chamber music. No one around here is saying that Mozart's symphonies are too busy. No one is complaining about the arrangement complexities of Mingus, Monk, or Miles Davis. If you really analyze the bass line to Reach Out: I'll Be There, its super busy. People around here love to bash Wooten or Miller, but ignore the fact that for his time, Jaco was a super busy player. When the Beatles first broke in the US, the list of cultural critics that called it noise is pretty long.

Anywhere in that class it talk about how people can often react negatively to something that is unfamiliar to them? Because it really seems like that's the root cause for every "This is really good music" discussion.

 

[alembicguy]

Those who can do and those who can't cry about others doing it on the Internet. Simply a matter of taste.

 

[Alex J]

You don't have to be a musician to judge music. I don't have to be an artist to like a certain kind of painting.

I strongly suspect when people say 'less is always more' and call people 'wankers', what they actually mean is: 'I feel threatened when someone plays something above my skill level'.

 

[Altitude]

Imagine a chart where "feel" lies on one axis and "chops" lies on the other. You could plot any piece of music on that chart, at least according to your own preferences.

But, all else constant, if you were to draw a diagonal line at 45 degrees up and to the right, the further out you get on that line, the more rarified the air relative to the capability required to pull it off.

In other words, the guys I like the most are the guys who can blow but also have something to say when they do.

 

[pcake]

One thing that I've noticed is that bassists that routinely play fast (finger style or slap) with many notes tend to lack feel when it comes to playing different styles of music!

um... no. i've heard that for decades, and it's no more true of really fast players than it is of slower players. what IS true is that some people interpret highly technical players as lacking feeling, but in reality what they're lacking is the space to show their feelings. years ago, i had this argument with a friend MANY times. he brought up B.B. King as a guy who really plays with feeling. i had just read mr king's autobiography, and he himself said that usually he was imagining one of the women in the audience in her underwear. NOT the feeling my friend thought B.B. was displaying. a guy who plays the same song 200+ nights a year whether he feels great, has the flu, just had a fight with a roadie or just had a big steak dinner is probably not always feeling what he seems to be - it's showmanship.

But he is an hired gun ... what about a band like Dream Theater. I can't imagine John Myung play reggae or blues or whatever, so what ? Being a jack of all trade but master of none isn't better.

for all i know, he plays great blues.

Too many or too few notes? From a player perspective you can fill a measure with a blazing run that takes you up and down the neck but is it enhancing the song? Trimming it down to make the notes mean more can give it more weight, make it more impactful on the song and on the listener. Sometimes chugging on the root is what feels right and provides thrust to a song. Other times sticking to the root can be detrimental. Sometimes less is not enough.

agreed. sometimes trimming it down adds weight, sometimes a blazing run of low notes adds drama or tension to a song. i'm not sure why so many musicians feel that less is always more. less can be expressive or it can leave a big empty space or lack the drama the song needs.

 

[edencab]

ask him if the opening 16 bars to Dazed and Confused doesn't give him the chills..or Poppa was a Rolling Stone, Stir It Up....not a lot of notes, but damn fine tunes and decent bass players

 

[sawzalot]

I used to study with a very well-known and respected player in the industry when I was younger. He was and still is one of the fastest players alive. One of the exercises he would have me do was a simple spider--one finger per fret, up and down the fretboard, 16th notes to a metronome. We would gradually increase the speed to some fairly brisk tempos.

But the exercise he beat into my head more than any other was the same exercise, but whole notes, played *exactly* on the beat, starting at about 60 beats/minute and then gradually getting SLOWER. He said that most people could achieve some level of success with the speed training but what was harder was playing the very slow notes, exactly in time. Surprised me at the time how hard it was but it was a very valuable lesson. Most people don't get it.

Tom

 

[alembicguy]

You don't have to be a musician to judge music. I don't have to be an artist to like a certain kind of painting.

I strongly suspect when people say 'less is always more' and call people 'wankers', what they actually mean is: 'I feel threatened when someone plays something above my skill level'.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was trying to say!

 

[climber]

I play a LOT of gigs, 2-4 a week year 'round. Some with my own horn band, some with one of a couple of bands I play with regularly, some with bands who call me to sub with them. On all of them I play me. That means I always play the groove first, the vibe of the tune, and whatever I hear that brings my style into Whe music. UNLESS someone has written parts which I do everything I can to nail, OR they specifically ask me to play chill. But barring the latter, I do what I think is good, and very often that includes a fair amount of fast runs and interesting patterns. 98% of the time this approach works, and that includes playing more than what the OP would consider appropriate.

Of course 50 years of playing gives me a bit of perspective and of course YMMV...