IMO, the bass is the bridge between rhythm and harmony......so when compared with instruments that are more harmony/melody, than yes.
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.
Why is the bass inherently more rhythmic?
- Thread starter Flatwoundround
- Start date
Coming from RnB there was never a question about the bass being the texture builder in the rhythm section.
We were/are charged with the beat & groove rhythmically, and tonally with leading the listener to the next chord, melody.
It's Jazz that opened my eyes to the other voices of the instrument. Playing, as in messing around with the rhythm and/or beat and that whole soloing thing. It's amazing.
I feel that I never really played bass until I played an upright in a jazz session. Maybe I'm just getting old?
We were/are charged with the beat & groove rhythmically, and tonally with leading the listener to the next chord, melody.
It's Jazz that opened my eyes to the other voices of the instrument. Playing, as in messing around with the rhythm and/or beat and that whole soloing thing. It's amazing.
I feel that I never really played bass until I played an upright in a jazz session. Maybe I'm just getting old?
Les Claypool said:
There are not enough bands with 2 bassplayers yet, would love to try that. I love to classify musicians as songwriters. Often the bassplayer is the one who is the best due to having to master all 3 music roles (on the upper level). It sickens me that I play faster and write better songs and still have to "fight" a guitar player that can only play Wonderwall for kudo's, it's a pretty ungrateful job overall, but I'm not giving up so easily.
Certainly the drums are exclusively a rhythm instrument. Right?
On the other hand, if you have enough of them and tune them to pitch aren't they also a melody or harmony instrument?
Some can argue that there's no demand for doing such things. And those who [incorrectly] use the bass or rhythm instrument as a melody device don't do so in a band context, but rather as a solo instrument. Those people are right; at least for the most part ...so far.
For all we know maybe there will be popular genre of music in 10 or 15 years that will feature bassists playing the lead melodies and rhythm and texture is turned over to treble instruments such as cymbals, triangles, cowbells, recordings of jackhammers and insects or some electronic synth/computer thing. Certainly our kids and grand-kids will choose to love something that sounds godawful and weird to us.
But art is art; and popularity does not determine quality. No artist ever made a name for himself by simply doing what everyone else had already done. But he might have paid the bills easier by doing so.
Play it how you want. Rhythm thing, melody thing, solo, band, covers, originals, whatever. Don't let other people limit your horizons by their own point of view or traditions.
On the other hand, if you have enough of them and tune them to pitch aren't they also a melody or harmony instrument?
Some can argue that there's no demand for doing such things. And those who [incorrectly] use the bass or rhythm instrument as a melody device don't do so in a band context, but rather as a solo instrument. Those people are right; at least for the most part ...so far.
For all we know maybe there will be popular genre of music in 10 or 15 years that will feature bassists playing the lead melodies and rhythm and texture is turned over to treble instruments such as cymbals, triangles, cowbells, recordings of jackhammers and insects or some electronic synth/computer thing. Certainly our kids and grand-kids will choose to love something that sounds godawful and weird to us.
But art is art; and popularity does not determine quality. No artist ever made a name for himself by simply doing what everyone else had already done. But he might have paid the bills easier by doing so.
Play it how you want. Rhythm thing, melody thing, solo, band, covers, originals, whatever. Don't let other people limit your horizons by their own point of view or traditions.
I think you, kind of, answered your own question but...
The rhythm guitar is could be much more "rhythmic" than the bass. Check "Chic", "Earth, Wind and Fire", etc...
(A military tank could also be CAPABLE of getting groceries from the corner store.)
Let's use a "big" word, EMPIRICAL, as
"derived from observation or experiment, guided by practical experience and not theory."
What would happen if the guitar player - with the regular EQ settings for the rhythm guitar - would start playing the bass-line, and the bass player would play the rhythm guitar parts on the bass but not going above the 8th fret?
Just don't say anything about this or that effect.
Ajapses
Gold Supporting Member
To answer your question; in that specific context the bass and guitar would occupy the same sonic space and muddle things up a bit.
And if I were in an active war-zone and needed food, I might well opt to take that tank if I had one available.
Empirically, I've already recorded a few songs with the bass playing non-bass parts. chords and melodies. I think it sounds great and so do other people. But I didn't use a traditional band doing standard stuff. I used banjos, backmasked guitars, effects, q-chord, violins, drum machines etc... You need to create an environment that it works in.
Last edited:
Dubstep is quite popular right now. And bass is the main melody and texture instrument.
Interesting side note as to why those old country groups had no drummers. The most prestigious place to play was the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville. The had a rule that there was no stage set up time. You had to play what you could walk on and start playing. There was no FOH other than some mics for vocals and instruments. There were a few that brought on a snare, but most did without drums altogether. It was the bass player's job to provide the rhythm.
wintremute
mediocrity at its finest
- Oct 16, 2014
- 6,942
- 29,551
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Langstrom Carrot Farms
There is a lot of semantical debate going on here, and to answer the OP's question directly, it, in and of itself is not.
If what he really meant is why it fills that role well, just listen to any form of music that has a strong rhythmic emphasis.
You will see, it fills that role well.
It is by no means limited to that role, which was the argument by some who got their shorts in a wad, but the O.P. didn't imply that.
Big band music when it came in, was new in that it emphasized a strong rhythmic foundation. Bass in several forms, string bass, lower end of the keyboard, and bass sax were often doubled or tripled to maximize the pulse. Low frequencies are just good at that.
More modern forms of music have followed suit, it just works.
A bass can do a piccolo's role, but a piccolo ain't gonna be in a rhythym section, get the point ?
If what he really meant is why it fills that role well, just listen to any form of music that has a strong rhythmic emphasis.
You will see, it fills that role well.
It is by no means limited to that role, which was the argument by some who got their shorts in a wad, but the O.P. didn't imply that.
Big band music when it came in, was new in that it emphasized a strong rhythmic foundation. Bass in several forms, string bass, lower end of the keyboard, and bass sax were often doubled or tripled to maximize the pulse. Low frequencies are just good at that.
More modern forms of music have followed suit, it just works.
A bass can do a piccolo's role, but a piccolo ain't gonna be in a rhythym section, get the point ?
I like discussions here at TB that don't require any Music Theory knowledge that even I can participate.
(Some classes in "Conspiracy theory" could be beneficial.)
I agree with your opinion about those "biasses":
I think there is a very strong and biased opinion against the bass players among all those string-makers.
Why are they making the bass strings thicker than the guitar strings???
(I'm not talking about EXCEPTIONS.)
I cannot find any other reason for it but a deeply rooted "conspiracy" theory against the bass players.
Next,
we need to talk about the biased "grammarians" and "word-makers".
They are trying to impose "limitations" on us by teaching us that:
"bass
noun
a voice, instrument, or sound of the lowest range, in particular.
- the lowest adult male singing voice.
noun: bass; plural noun: basses
denoting the member of a family of instruments that is the lowest in pitch.
3. A vocal or instrumental part written in a low register.
5. The tones in the lowest register of an instrument..."
Next.
I think it's time to change that biased theory of low frequency physics with all those questions like, "why low-frequency sounds are much easier to hear through walls than high frequency ones.
Also, I'm very unhappy that a ferret or a cow has better hearing range than a HUMAN.
Invalid Link Removed
Please PROMISE ME not start any semantical discussion about that other word in bold.
Just explain to me this.
Why the string-makers PURPOSELY are making the bass strings thicker than the guitar strings?
Why low-frequency sounds are much easier to hear through walls than high frequency ones?
