risingson

[quote name='51m0n' post='951852' date='Sep 10 2010, 02:27 PM']I think we agree completely... Personally I dont think there is room in any song for cruft, and 7 minute long improvised or not solos on any instrument (unless on the bathtub, a most underrated musical intrument I am told) are likely to be cruft! Stick to the point, and keep it interesting. I love Nigel's more 'pointed' posts, they make you rethink what and why you do things. It would unfathomly boring around here if we all agreed![/quote] The premise of these arguments is why I enjoy this forum. Sure it's an argument that's been brought up before but who cares, it's interesting as musicians to talk about it! Not exactly going to have a spirited discussion with my Gran on the merits of improvisation on a bass guitar am I??

The world would probably implode.

[quote name='51m0n' post='951640' date='Sep 10 2010, 11:17 AM']I refer you back to the OP :- So in the original post it is clear that improvising is (for the sake of this discussion) anything beyond changing the odd note in a song. Doing this live is to cheat the audience. When I play I like to be in a position live (with any of thebands I've been in) that for the majority of songs I may have up to 5 or 6 directions or 'gears' I can take any part of any song, where it will work. This is preparing to improvise live IMO. It takes a lot of time to get there, both in personal practice and to a certain extent in reheasals.Then live I can go in any of those directions, mix and match them as I feel, add in new cool bits as the moment takes me. All the preparation makes any new bits far more likely to successful. What I dont do is play the song according to a rigorously defined bassline at all, but I still minimise the chance of really cocking up. Clearly if the song calls for a unison line then thats what will get played (although sometimes dropping out some or all of the bassline in a unison part can make the song better too), other than that I like the world to be my oyster. Its particularly helpful in the blues band, where although the songs are covers the interpretation is very much as the singer feels it. The structure of the songs is different every time, the dynamics are different, the interplay between the players is what makes the whole thing enjoyable, playing the same stock blues pattern would bore me, playing the songs different every time (at least to some extent) makes it far more interesting. No it doesnt always work, but we've never ever had a complaint! The upside of all this is that if anything does go wrong the band are all better at getting through it. Which is reason enough to work like that anyway. I should point out that I have been in bands where every single note was composed for every single song on every single instrument. It was some pretty complex stuff. The audience appreciated it significantly less than the stuff I have played with more room to improvise. Probably because the material was more challenging to listen to than to play (and it was damned hard to play!), where as the other stuff has been far easier to listen to.[/quote] Ahh to me it's just another one of those arguments, I do think the original question was too vague and too much is open to interpretation, so I probably jumped the gun a little. For what it's worth I actually agree with you on all points, the reason good players like session guys for example are hired to play someone else's music is always on their ability to add their subtleties to an existing bass line without overpowering the original record, and in that sense then yeh improvisation is integral to you being a good bass player. As far as improvisation in a soloing sense... sure it has it's place, but it's just not my thing, and as a result I'm inclined to agree that I'd prefer not to hear it. Still though, there's no detracting from someone like Victor Wooten for example, his musicality and ability to throw licks at you at breakneck speed without boring the audience to tears. As far as I'm concerned it's all about his delivery of ideas that is impressive, not how fast he can play. [quote]Naverending arguments on Basschat - Completely Pointless.[/quote] Disagree... why are we all here? To have a natter about crochet patterns and how the price of butter has gone up? If everyone agreed with everyone then the world would be a pretty dull place to live in don't ya think!

[quote name='chris_b' post='951674' date='Sep 10 2010, 11:38 AM']The guy's plainly overplaying. All those "extra" notes don't really add anything. Listen to Paul Turner playing this number on the Live at Abbey Road session. Much nicer, cleaner playing. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZVNrC0QYA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZVNrC0QYA[/url][/quote] Yeh you just can't fault Paul as a player, he hits the nail on the head consistently with his playing.

Agreed it's overplaying, the notes are all there and nothings particularly 'wrong' about it but I think he's missed the point quite a bit considering the original bass line Nick Fyffe put down was a lot more grounded.

[quote name='51m0n' post='951241' date='Sep 9 2010, 10:55 PM']Nah I disagree with you there, loads of funk live the bassists are definitely improvising, a lot, even in some rock (Living Colour's Muzz Skillings said he never played a line the same twice for instance). The thing is improvisation is not all about fret w@nkery at all, and yet people hear the term improvise and assume it must be. Any time you express yourself whilst playing in a way that chanegs any part of the groove at all, you are in fact improvising. I doubt there are more than a handful of people on this forum who really can play a song the same twice in a row, I mean record it twice, put the two versions up and really analyse it, there will be differences, if we are so good at playing in the groove and all that,they should at least timing wise be almost identical. They wont be, its not possible. If you could then getting to be like that would have removed all passion and soulfrom that piece of music, which would render it cr@p. Supportive yes, repetition to the point of drudgery no.[/quote] that's a different kind of improvisation, more altering something really and if that what the original post was about then yes, I'd struggle to find a bass player I enjoyed that didn't do that. As far as I was aware I thought the OP was referring to solo playing, which has it's time and place. I'm really not stupid enough to believe a good player never does the same thing twice unless it's a very specific bassline and even then it is subject to alteration, just never at the expense of the original tune.

[quote name='51m0n' post='950998' date='Sep 9 2010, 07:57 PM']I think that how noticeable the bass is/should be is actually entirely genre dependant. If you are playing country, blue, rock (including a lot of metal), or most pop or easy listening type stuff then I agree the bass is almost purely supportive, and can be said to be at its best when it isnt really notices, if you play drum and bass, dub, funk, reggae then I'd say its much more of a forefront instrument. Improvising or not.[/quote] Agreed although the genres you stated I would say are even more reliant on a supportive bassist, the only difference to my ears is that producers have a tendency to mix and master the bass up front due to the nature of the type of music, so I guess they're more prone to being picked out if they make a mistake. A massive amount of 'easy listening' you mentioned about for lack of a better term usually has some session player wailing on a fretless in the background. My point being 95% of music relies on a supportive bass line to propel everything else forward. Improvisation on the instrument is fine but at at very specific moments and in very specific tunes. It's the horses for courses argument again but I'd much rather listen to Pino on a P-Bass with flatwounds thumping away in the background with Erykah Badu or John Mayer than hear any particular bass solo.

[quote name='Mykesbass' post='951077' date='Sep 9 2010, 08:50 PM']As per your other posts - Mods, please delete Sorry Neil, but this guy sums up to me all that is bad about overblown blues/rock - he even makes Gary Moore sound subtle!![/quote] +1. Good player obviously but a bit cheesy and to my ears nothing new really.

I don't like improvisation on bass that much at all, although I'll occasionally hear someone playing that will catch my ear. [quote]I read an article in BP magazine some time ago, where the player said that the groove you play has an hypnotic effect on the audience. I think this is true. To me, it's all about the groove, and the groove is what keeps the audience's attention. If you lose that, you're not doing your job. The song is the most important thing, regardless of what you play, and how much you improvise. The song is king. You have to make the singer and the song sound as good as possible.[/quote] I think a bass player should count himself pretty lucky if people come up to him/her at the end of the night and compliment them on the job they did, usually if you're a good player the only people that will have noticed what you've done will be the token musos in the crowd and the rest of your band. Bass players should be the ones in the band that literally support everyone else, like the bridge between rhythm and harmony, it's not something you notice if it goes right but one mistake and you know a mistake has been made.

They had Liam Gallagher singing for them at one stage. Would be interested in hearing it, mostly out of pure morbid curiosity.

[quote name='Lozz196' post='950058' date='Sep 8 2010, 11:02 PM']Could never understand why The Who (and countless others) felt the need to smash some great instruments. Even when I was younger, I thought it rather stupid and very un-cool. To me, its not about the money, its almost sacreligeous (hope I spelt that right, tho prob not) to smash a musical instrument. Am not fussed if my basses get dings, thats character & road-wear, but I`d never deliberately damage them.[/quote] It's auto-destruction, it's an art form in a loose sense... literally an expression of raw emotion culminating in giving your respective instrument the beating of a lifetime. Hendrix bankrupted himself at some stage doing it. He went through so many wah pedals just from standing on them and rocking back and forth.

Alex Al played synth bass as well as regular bass on the 'This Is It' tour with Michael Jackson (or was supposed to at least) but it was Greg Phillinganes that played on all the original records. Him and Stevie Wonder are without a doubt the best synth bass players I've ever heard. Most R&B and Hip-Hop players double on both, you'll always see Mary J Blige's bassist do it, for example. Nathan Watts with Stevie was meant to have set the pace doing this before anyone else.

Meh, as a once massive fan of Jamiroquai, this is pretty tame and nothing massively interesting to hear. Paul Turner is a hella bass player though.

It's very much the same with Aphex Twin, both guys are vastly talented but they both write music that challenges people's perceptions of what's right and wrong. Check this out also: For what's it's worth, I'm not a massive fan of Squarepusher's bass playing but I absolutely love his music, and a lot of other stuff of Warp Records.

Even before the gig started tonight we had some drunk guy who was asking the usual questions... 'you do this full time?' and 'I love music. You do any Kings of Leon?'. I've learnt to just get on with it!

Don't like going into regular guitar shops much because most places don't stock much I'd be very interested in, although I still do it from time to time. I love Fender's, particularly older ones now so I'll always gravitate a little towards them but like I say, incredibly specific kinds of a certain age.

[quote name='lowlandtrees' post='940112' date='Aug 30 2010, 05:10 PM']Yes you are absolutely correct. I went through a few mallets and a few strings before I found a light rubber mallet. I feel slightly embarrassed about it among a bunch of pro slappers (although whatsisname who plays with Peter Gabriel does so on occasion). I really like the tone that comes from the mallet. It is also easier if you have to record for 2 days solid every couple of months. Unfortunately it requires hauzers on the instrument. I thought maybe a short scale bass may help. Looking into the Yam RGX A2. Would like a Stingray but not sure if it is too light.[/quote] Those RGX's aren't the most aesthetically pleasing of instruments and I do reckon you might be better off with one of the older BB models but what ever floats your boat. Even the Squier 70's style Jazz might be up your street. Let us know how you get on anyhow.

I'd love to get my hands on an Alleva but I'd sooner have the 72 P-Bass Clarky! I wouldn't even care if it wasn't as easy for me to play, to me that's almost half the fun of playing it.

I would kill to play in Prince's band. Absolutely sick funk.

I judge each case on it's merits, I don't think I care as much about what gear they play as it seems a little elitist. I remember seeing a band play a while ago, the bass player had a nice Spector, but it sounded dire, and his playing was pretty rough. After they were finished, the next band came up to play, the guy plugged this Tanglewood bass into the same rig and it just sounded massive, plus the guy was a monster player as well. Gear isn't indicative of how good you are, and I've often found that people with majorly expensive gear are sometimes only compensating for bad musicianship.