I think Goldfish has the best hearing range to play the bass; therefore, it's time to change the name of Goldfish to Bassfish.
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
I think Goldfish has the best hearing range to play the bass; therefore, it's time to change the name of Goldfish to Bassfish.
Because the frequency of a vibrating object is related to its mass and it takes a lot of mass to stop a long audible wavelength.
Ha- I've thought that, too, at times,
But that would be too easy for some, and I'd prefer to see an explanation and reasons supporting a "do not like".
I think it's a conspiracy against the bass players created by "Anti-Bassist" physicists in order to blame the bass players for that Loud Noise.
You should check out the recent albums "Fourth Dementia" and "Le Fil Rouge" by Julie Slick and Marco Machera (the latter album under the band name EchoTest).
Here's a short clip of them playing as a duo. The albums have drums (and sometimes additional instrumentation) on most tracks, but I think the clip demonstrates clearly that other instruments are strictly optional:
You know, You might be on to something there. I suggest you get in contact with Brian May from the band Queen. Not only is he their guitarist, but also a famous astrophysicist. While he is too young to be responsible for such a conspiracy, I bet he would know who is behind it. Take your research papers, but be careful and don't approach him with scissors. He will rock you.
Maybe. But some instruments are intrinsically better suited to certain roles within a given music performance than others.
And yes, maybe a double bass can play the same lines as a violin - but why would you want it to when it already has it's own unique voice?
Here's the thing...nowadays it seems like half the players of an instrument (any instrument) want to play everything and be a one-man band. You see this all the time with the "bedroom virtuosos" who wow their friends when playing solo, but can't work within the context a band to save their lives. And we've all run into one or more of those. They're the ones that have played by themselves for so long that they can't get out of the habit of playing every note and filling in every millisecond of space. Put them in with four other musicians and they fall apart.
As far as putting things in "boxes," I don't see it that way at all. We now have an entire generation brought up with the unshakable belief that we're all completely equal in talents and abilities; and that we can do anything we want to - if we really want to.
Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way. We're all different in the level of talent, ingenuity, and abilities we have. And while dedicated study and practice can improve things immensely, there's no guarantee it will. In some cases all the desire, dedication, and hard work in the world won't produce a superior result.
The same goes for musical instruments. They each have intrinsic roles they're particularly well suited for. That's why there are so many different instruments. So while it may be true that a double bass could play any line a violin could - once again, why would you want it to? Like that guy who could play Bach toccatas and fugues on a harmonica...interesting perhaps. But there are many much better suited and better sounding instruments to play Bach on. And they'll yield superior results with far less effort. So why would anyone bother, other than they're bored - or just decided to 'prove' it could be done?
This isn't to say we shouldn't be open to new things. Or that we shouldn't continue to push the envelope with our instrument. But I always thought it was far more effective use of time to build on an instrument's strengths rather than try to twist it into something it's not. Because all too often, it starts turning into little more than a collection of "party tricks" when you make a habit of it. I used to love Vic Wooten. Nowadays I can barely listen to him. He's an excellent bassist. Or was back when he was still playing bass. I really don't know what he's playing now - even if it is on a Fodera. (Feel free to disagree BTW. This is just my personal opinion about him.)
So no, I don't think it's a case that we musicians "need so much to put everything in little boxes and never ever try to leave them" at all. I think it's more that we understand our instruments well enough to know what roles they're each uniquely suited for. And we then move forward and act accordingly.
YMMV.
Last edited:
Thanks for your advice.
Now, what are we going to do with the bass string-makers. Let's start a petition to make the bass strings as thin as the guitar strings.
Also, it's a new, Google, age and as you said,
"...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...";
therefore, I would suggest to start playing the bass-lines on the flute. It's time to change the law of nature and all those "lame" vertical dimension of harmony where the bass notes, for some unknown reason are usually on the bottom.
I think you are just simple following some kind of Natural Law.
Just unbridle the limitations imposed on you by the Law of Nature and let the flute players play the bass-lines.
It's cool and thanks for posting, but...
Do you think that this discussion has anything to do with Music?
Ooo! Now there's a thought! Let's standardize ALL instrument notation using nothing but the C-clef in order to avoid reinforcing the antiquated notion that there's really any difference between one instrument and another.
And to make it "fair," we should stop labelling the parts in a score for a specific instrument as well. Players could just come in and pick the part they wanted to play. (Best show up early if you want to get a good one kids!) Or even better yet - all take turns playing them.
lol!
We should reflect that you can only trifle with the Laws of Nature up to a point before you risk some cosmic disaster. I have it on good authority that the primary cause for black holes isn't the gravitational collapse of a star. Recent research has conclusively proven they are actually caused by an entity, in the vicinity of said star, attempting to play Gregorian Chant on bag pipes that causes these stars to collapse in the first place.
I liked it when bassist extraordinaire Andy Kulberg (who was also flute player) played flute as much as I enjoyed him playing bass on his bass.
I probably wouldn't have liked it as much if he tried to do both at the same time however. I know because I tried. The results I obtained possessed a certain awkwardness and lack of musicality that no amount of practice on my part could ever entirely erase.
Last edited:
And to make it "fair," we should stop labeling the parts in a score for a specific instrument as well. Players could just come in and pick the part they wanted to play. (Best show up early if you want to get a good one kids!) Or even better yet - all take turns playing them.
Now we are talking serious stuff here!
As a bass player, I've always felt those limitations imposed on me by Nature. It's time to say,
Enough is Enough.
I just checked out some duos by Julie Slick and Marco Machera on YT.
I don't think it's so much other instruments were "strictly optional" as they simply weren't used.
But there were also amps and effects boxes used - and I count those as instruments in their own right - so there was a little more than two basses at work there. (They also got a little repetitious, but it wasn't bad - so thx for giving me someone else to listen to!
)Note: If you can't ever get enough "low," try Snarky Puppy doing Too Hot to Last with Lucy Woodward. They've got two baritone guitars plus electric bass running on that one. I wouldn't have believed it could work unless I heard it with my own ears. Because a baritone guitar is so hard to work into a mix without it overwhelming everything else. Those overtones just go everywhere. So props to Mike League and his ensemble for pulling it off:
And what a truly "eye-opening" statement.
P.S. Why do we have drones as an unmanned aircraft and drones as bagpipe drones: "a pipe which is generally not fingered but rather produces a constant harmonizing note throughout play."
Bagpipe Drone - Drone - Aircraft - Cosmos - Universe - black holes...
Can you follow my drift?
Of course, my statement about other instruments being "strictly optional" was meant tongue-in-cheek. But the serious point, apropos to this thread, is just that this is an example of bass(es) covering the roles of melody, harmony, and rhythm. Granted that they use some electronic tools to accomplish this, but I don't think that takes anything away from the point.
