Open mindedness

[ped]

[chris_b]

What type of cat is that?

[ped]

Its a scotch egg

[Bassassin]

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='132817' date='Feb 2 2008, 11:03 PM']Oh, and while we're on the subject of ranting, call me anally retentive if you like, but would people pleeeaaase stop calling our much reverred instrument a bloody "GUITAR!!!"

The electric bass was originally conceived as a handily portable alternative to a double bass (with the same tuning, basic technique, etc.) Any similarity in shape to the guitar is purely for convenience.

It's a Bass & quite proudly so [/quote]
Isn't this topic called "Open Mindedness"? Anyway, to fight pedantry with pedantry - that's not exactly accurate. Your description would be appropriate for the instrument you're holding in your sig pic - however, the bass guitar (I have no problem with the nomenclature, here I use the term to make a plain distinction) is a hybrid between the functionalities of the upright bass & electric guitar. The term "Bass Guitar" is appropriate, since "bass" doesn't refer to any particular instrument - that big fiddle on steroids is properly called a bass viol, amongst other things, and other than tuning & number of strings (and that's a sore point to some! ), "our" sort of bass doesn't have a great deal in common with it.

Mind you, it really pisses me off when people refer to it as just a "guitar".

J.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Bassassin

[ARGH]

"You play guitar dont you Ross"

"Er...well no,not really..I play Bass"

"Well thats the same thing innit?!...its got strings"

[Sibob]

This thread, in my humble opinion, is exactly the same as all the other threads which say "Where have all the good things that i like gone and why do you all like rubbish music" or some such.

All these threads are full of people listing all their current inspirations highlighting the fact that the OP simply has a different taste to everyone else.
So the example in this thread is Argh saying that the only person to take slap onwards and upwards since Larry Graham is Bill Dickens, now in my opinion, however technically adept Mr Dickens is, it's some of the most unmusical bass playing I've ever come across.

I could list all the bass guitar (4, 5, 6, 7, upright, piccolo et al), programmed bass, no bass music that i think is inspirational and moving things forward, but because the whole thing is so subjective, it's pointless!
I'm not actually bothered about how many strings we can fit on a bass, or how fast we can go, i want to know how we can contribute better to music, its been mentioned a billion times, but its the song that matters, not the individual instruments..........IMO

Si

[jakenewmanbass]

Before you rant on about how the whole thing needs to change, make sure you are at the pinnacle of achievement with what you've got.
Stand on the shoulders of giants to push boundaries otherwise you sound like you're desring change for changes sake.
and dare I venture because you are bored with what you do? Are you any good?
Qualification:
lest I cause offence those questions are rhetorical and NOT, i repeat NOT, personal. (cos I don't know you)
Jake

[ARGH]

[quote name='Sibob' post='132924' date='Feb 3 2008, 11:12 AM']This thread, in my humble opinion, is exactly the same as all the other threads which say "Where have all the good things that i like gone and why do you all like rubbish music" or some such.

All these threads are full of people listing all their current inspirations highlighting the fact that the OP simply has a different taste to everyone else.
So the example in this thread is Argh saying that the only person to take slap onwards and upwards since Larry Graham is Bill Dickens, now in my opinion, however technically adept Mr Dickens is, it's some of the most unmusical bass playing I've ever come across.1

I could list all the bass guitar (4, 5, 6, 7, upright, piccolo et al), programmed bass, no bass music that i think is inspirational and moving things forward, but because the whole thing is so subjective, it's pointless!
I'm not actually bothered about how many strings we can fit on a bass, or how fast we can go, i want to know how we can contribute better to music, its been mentioned a billion times, but its the song that matters, not the individual instruments..........IMO

Si[/quote]


1, No I didnt. Im saying techniques such as Dickens's are at the limit....there aint much else to develop,i think all the tools are there to learn,and the only way the instrument,we use, is going to develop is to physically change,if its going to exist into the next 100 years.

Some people have taken this personally,and have been rather hostile,some have seen it as negative...almost doomy in its viewpoint.
Thats understandable. Im not going to go round in circles,its not a topic of "All modern music is sh*t" if you think that reader you have got it wrong,I just think the instrument will change PHYSICALLY...the mental way we play as 'Bassists'...of 'Musicians..or whatever wont,the approach will be the same,the INSTRUMENT will be different.

Taking it to a personal level... scathing me for pointing this 'happening' change,wondering about my level of playing ability..thats missing the point.

Edited February 3, 2008 by ARGH

[ARGH]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='132916' date='Feb 3 2008, 10:56 AM']In what way is a bass not a guitar?[/quote]


As I wrote,in the public eye,there isnt much difference.

[Sibob]

[quote]I can only think of Double Thumbing and Bill Dickens's technique as purely an advancement of 70s slap[/quote]

Apologies, i must have misunderstood. Although you say that the techniques are at their limit, how about playing slap bass tastefully? Although this borders on musicality versus technique.

I agree with a previous poster that i think it's calling for change for change sake! I think that some people believe (not you Argh, or anyone in particular, i agree this isn't personal) innovation means 'bigger/better/faster/stronger'.

My point, Argh, about your initial post saying "Seeing as nothing new,or at least ear catching,is being made,this is bad", is that it is a completely subjective. If there was a massive sweeping movement of new arts and music, but you didn't like it, you wouldn't agree that it was a phenomenon. I believe there is some amazing music coming out at the moment, as Ped said earlier, but you instantly shot that down by saying "list it........didn't think so". Whats the point in us listing it when you clearly wouldn't agree!?

I also think that true modern musical innovation hasn't ever resulted from the invention or radical physical change of an instrument (in the common sense of the word)! Again, exciting music is about the whole, not the individual parts.

Si

[Bassassin]

[quote name='ARGH' post='132935' date='Feb 3 2008, 11:43 AM']As I wrote,in the public eye,there isnt much difference.[/quote]
That's because it [b]is[/b] a guitar. And paradoxically, the more strings you put on it, the more closely it resembles one to the untrained eye.

J.

[ped]

There is no 'limit' to a good groove. Nobody can reach the level where they cannot groove any more because they are too groovy. A groove is a feeling, something unquantifiable, natural and primal, which is why they have existed since the beginning of time and will continue forever.

Peace out

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='ped' post='132947' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:10 PM']There is no 'limit' to a good groove. Nobody can reach the level where they cannot groove any more because they are too groovy. A groove is a feeling, something unquantifiable, natural and primal, which is why they have existed since the beginning of time and will continue forever.

Peace out[/quote]

exactly

[ARGH]

[quote name='Sibob' post='132945' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:09 PM']Apologies, i must have misunderstood. Although you say that the techniques are at their limit, how about playing slap bass tastefully? Although this borders on musicality versus technique.1

I agree with a previous poster that i think it's calling for change for change sake! I think that some people believe (not you Argh, or anyone in particular, i agree this isn't personal) innovation means 'bigger/better/faster/stronger'.2

My point, Argh, about your initial post saying "Seeing as nothing new,or at least ear catching,is being made,this is bad", is that it is a completely subjective. If there was a massive sweeping movement of new arts and music, but you didn't like it, you wouldn't agree that it was a phenomenon. I believe there is some amazing music coming out at the moment, as Ped said earlier, but you instantly shot that down by saying "list it........didn't think so". Whats the point in us listing it when you clearly wouldn't agree!?3

I also think that true modern musical innovation hasn't ever resulted from the invention or radical physical change of an instrument (in the common sense of the word)! Again, exciting music is about the whole, not the individual parts.

Si[/quote]

1,Yes...
2,Thankyou for being clear
3,Who,are they doing anything different? Playing well is ALWAYS good,be it Zender or Chancellor,or Martine,or B-War,but is ANYONE breaking new ground? Even Ferrett said that its a problem not just in Bass but in music in general.

4,Eddie Van Halen,popularizing tapping and superstrats changed guitar design for good (Yes you will always have Les Pauls and 335s etc etc) I see alot of Sheehans ideas around.....and Steinberger's cricket bat.the Active phenom....

Its still E when you play an E,but I just think the only way to develop now is to develop the instrument....styles and techniques come and go,like fashion(80s slapola,Sheehans Tapping),as do types of instrument....but standards change...and as Ped says,groove..or feel is unquantifiable,you have it or you dont.

but thats personal,the instrument will change...

Edited February 3, 2008 by ARGH

[bass_ferret]

[quote name='Sibob' post='132945' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:09 PM']I also think that true modern musical innovation hasn't ever resulted from the invention or radical physical change of an instrument (in the common sense of the word)! Again, exciting music is about the whole, not the individual parts.[/quote]
Beg to differ. In 1951 Leo Fender changed the world of popular music.

[ARGH]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='132958' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:28 PM']Beg to differ. In 1951 Leo Fender changed the world of popular music.[/quote]

And DIDNT he keep changing the instrument...

[ped]

Is that a question?

He changed it to make money probably

[Sibob]

So let's say that tapping brought about a design difference in guitars, you yourself have said that such techniques are quite 'fad' like, so wouldn't that make such design changes redundant whilst tapping was 'unpopular'?
I also wouldn't refer to tapping as a musical revolution. I would refer to Punk as a musical revolution.

Aren't Superstrats simply strats with Humbuckers? Now forgive me, but i can't remember the last time i got excited about a band because the guitarist was playing a Fat Strat as opposed to a USA standard! .

I don't think the instrument will change, it doesn't need to, it provides a job! Its the players and writers that will change, a product of the world around them. I would argue that bassists who write music for a mass audience (ie not solo players) tend to write parts on multiple instruments, i think this stems from the fact that although ERB's sound very cool when played right, the simple fact is that a Piano sounds nicer and is more suited timbre wise spanning the octaves........well i think so anyway

Si

Edited February 3, 2008 by Sibob

[Bassassin]

[quote name='ARGH' post='132955' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:23 PM']4,Eddie Van Halen,popularizing tapping and superstrats changed guitar design for good (Yes you will always have Les Pauls and 335s etc etc) I see alot of Sheehans ideas around.....and Steinberger's cricket bat.the Active phenom....[/quote]
With all due respect - that's nonsense. Sure, EVH & others popularised those techniques at the time, but 25 years on, it's widely viewed as nothing more than a cheesy 80s fad, and is as inherently dated as ra-ra skirts, Level 42, mullets, pointy headstocks, Floyd Rose w@nk bars & shark-tooth inlays!

The 80s were a time of total cultural excess - and as a result, the music of the era overdosed on ego, flamboyance, & facile flash histrionics. There's always the possibility that popular culture's obsession with recycling itself will bring that all back - but that will be in the name of lazy moneymaking, rather than the advancement of creative musicianship.

J.

[JoeS]

[quote name='ARGH' post='132931' date='Feb 3 2008, 11:40 AM']1, No I didnt. [b]Im saying techniques such as Dickens's are at the limit[/b]....there aint much else to develop,i think all the tools are there to learn,and the only way the instrument,we use, is going to develop is to physically change,if its going to exist into the next 100 years...[/quote]

How can you possibly know? Do you really think the first electric bass players of the 50's ever envisaged people like Bill Dickens (to use your example) playing the way he does?

I agree with Sibob (who was actually agreeing with someone else), this is calling for change for change's sake. You can only change the way an instrument is designed or played so much before it becomes a different instrument altogether.

[ARGH]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='132987' date='Feb 3 2008, 01:16 PM']With all due respect - that's nonsense. Sure, EVH & others popularised those techniques at the time, but 25 years on, it's widely viewed as nothing more than a cheesy 80s fad, and is as inherently dated as ra-ra skirts, Level 42, mullets, pointy headstocks, Floyd Rose w@nk bars & shark-tooth inlays!

The 80s were a time of total cultural excess - and as a result, the music of the era overdosed on ego, flamboyance, & facile flash histrionics. There's always the possibility that popular culture's obsession with recycling itself will bring that all back - but that will be in the name of lazy moneymaking, rather than the advancement of creative musicianship.

J.[/quote]


Nope you are talking about aesthetics,Im talking about technique....and seeing as Tapping is becoming a required technique on some gigs,and has nothing to do with the examples of 'fads' you listed,although it was around and 'popular' at the time of the 80s.

I understand people not liking change.

[paul, the]

I haven't read the thread.

--

Music played with integrity that others can empathise with will always be timeless.

Very few bassists have roused universal attention and had much influence unto their style. Maybe Jamerson, Graham, Flea...

I don't think bass has much of a say in the direction of popular music. Where there is rhythm, melody, harmony - bass will have a place.

Bass is an interdependent part in most cases. I don't think subversionary or solo ideals will ever gain enough popularity to have influence.

Sometimes the majority is right.

Let popular music influence and inspire. Don't be defeatist about it or rude to other bassists. Look at the musicianship that had to compete/complement Stevie Wonder's left hand. The low notes have an important job and there will always be room for someone who dedicates all their time to them.


Chill out and feel a stone-cold groove.

[Sibob]

[quote name='ARGH' post='133030' date='Feb 3 2008, 02:13 PM']Nope you are talking about aesthetics,Im talking about technique....and seeing as Tapping is becoming a required technique on some gigs,and has nothing to do with the examples of 'fads' you listed,although it was around and 'popular' at the time of the 80s.

I understand people not liking change.[/quote]

I completely embrace change, but at the same time I'm of the opinion that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", it's effort that could be put into something else that does need attention!

And I've never...ever heard of, let alone played a gig where tapping is a required necessity, nor have i needed to have anything more then 5 strings..ever. Thats not to say I disagree with people experimenting with ERB's, i think its great, but in my professional playing experience, they are not necessary for 99% of payed 'pop' gigs/jobs/sessions.

Si

Edited February 3, 2008 by Sibob

[Bassassin]

[quote name='ARGH' post='133030' date='Feb 3 2008, 02:13 PM']Nope you are talking about aesthetics,Im talking about technique....and seeing as Tapping is becoming a required technique on some gigs,and has nothing to do with the examples of 'fads' you listed,although it was around and 'popular' at the time of the 80s.

I understand people not liking change.[/quote]
If you read my post you'll notice I am talking about technique. You suggested that the guitar-playing styles & equipment which emerged, and were briefly fashionable in the 1980s had become an indispensable part of every modern guitarist's toolbox. I don't accept that they are, and neither are the equivalent styles & equipment in the bass playing world.

Like all techniques, it's no doubt good, for the sake of broadening one's depth & versatility as a musician, to be versed in them, and on a personal level, if that's what excites & motivates you as a player, then that's excellent. Realistically though, I don't accept that they comprise the bread & butter of the average working musician. If one's ambition is to earn a crust through your instrument - then you're far better off being able to knock out a solid version of [i]Mustang Sally[/i] - depressing & unappealing though the idea might seem.

I'm not opposed to, afraid of, or resistant to change - I think I'm just long enough in the tooth - and have enough of a perspective as a result - to be aware that there ain't too much of it happening - and it's not us, the musicians, who are the reason for this.

J.

[tauzero]

[quote name='ARGH' post='132955' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:23 PM']Its still E when you play an E,but I just think the only way to develop now is to develop the instrument....styles and techniques come and go,like fashion(80s slapola,Sheehans Tapping),as do types of instrument....but standards change...and as Ped says,groove..or feel is unquantifiable,you have it or you dont.

but thats personal,the instrument will change...[/quote]
Well yes, after all, in the guitar world, there had to be a significant change in the instrument for an innovator like Hendrix to play so wildly differently to a twangy conservative like Hank Marvin.

I don't see why there shouldn't be innovative playing on four-strings. And I played the 7-string at the barn dance band's rehearsal on Wednesday, and it's difficult to get more conservative than 300 year old tunes. So you can play old tunes on a new fiddle as well as new tunes on an old one...