I was out having drinks with a friend tonight - he's a guitarist, and he knows that I'm totally new to bass, and that it's my first instrument. He mentioned this earlier in the day, but really went into depth with his stance tonight: That I should put bass on hold and "get good at guitar first before messing around with other things". Supposedly, it's more fruitful and easier to go from guitar to bass than vice versa, and that it was just necessary to be good in the first place. There's a reason I chose to learn bass over guitar right now, I just tend to lock into rhythm more than I do pure melody, though I know both are crucial. I'd have probably taken up drums if not for the noise constraints against practicing, too. But I see his point in studying other instruments that serve different purposes than bass/drums, and asked whether learning keyboards or saxophone would suffice. He said no, because guitar is close enough to bass to be relevant, but different enough to necessitate learning it first. Honestly, his explanation didn't really make much sense to me. Sure, if I ever wanted to be in a band, I should know how guitarists play/operate to be in synch, etc. But this guy is insisting that I have to actually get GOOD at playing GUITAR (and not any other instrument, like sax). That a working familiarity wasn't enough. I do notice that most bassists (even here) also play guitar, but I wonder if it HAS to be guitar. Is he right about this? I'm going to be admittedly annoyed if so, as it'll feel like veering off track when I've already gotten into bass. Lol (Also, nothing against guitar - there are just other instruments I'm more interested in first).