Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Valuing Bassists on Stupid Criteria


xilddx
 Share

Recommended Posts

By god I see a lot of this on here. It seems many of us judge the quality of musicians by their chops. I have seen plenty of bassists with great chops, and the articulation and expression of a sedated sloth.

Why is this? Are we so deaf to beautifully nuanced simplicity? Are we only focused on the bland displays of the mechanics, demonstrating years of study and practice? Yes yes, some of us vindicate ourselves by slagging off Nigel Clutterbuck, and exalting James Jamerson, and then post a video of 'An Amazing Bass Solo' featuring, you guessed it, some SLAP, supposedly funky, almost always about as interesting as a sheet of toilet paper and with less texture.

Why can't we value TASTE over technique? Is it because we think it requires no tangible effort?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bass player and I'd rather hear someone playing BASS rather than widdling about like a second rate lead guitarist. I love playing thumping bass that shifts some air and gets the groove going, and I get a real buzz out of hearing other bassists doing the sane, be it anyone from Bernard Edwards to Cliff Williams!!!

Edited by kevin_lindsay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point. We can (probably) all admire onanism on any instrument recognising that effort gone into demonstrating it, although I'm not sure "taste" is the right word though as that tends to be quite individual. Not sure what the right word is though. Possibly effortlessness, or the somewhat overused "being in the pocket?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting point. Some seem unable to accept someone as a good player unless they display "awesome chops". To me, for example, Cliff Williams's playing is just as amazing as Stu Hamm's or Victor's. I feel no need to see him slap and tap at high speed to "prove" that he's a great player. Yet this attitude still seems to exist - almost as though people are uncomfortable accepting someone's ability unless they've been seen to indulge in high speed technical junk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

If you go back to childhood we wanted to be those that we idolised - Batman, Flash Gordon, various stetsoned gunslingers and daredevils.

I can't help but wonder sometimes if we just do a variation of it in adulthood because we feel a need to be associated with our grown up idols, that their (reputed) talent will in some way rub off on us.

Yeah, I can play loads of twiddly sh*t that'll impress an audience, but there's no disguising the fact that it'd just be twiddly sh*t for the sake of it.
I get far more satisfaction being a musician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1327530724' post='1513100']
Why can't we value TASTE over technique? Is it because we think it requires no tangible effort?
[/quote]

It's because we all have an opinion... Which is different.

Some people value 'tasteful' playing, some enjoy technical displays, others prefer complex chord sequences and others like a straight forward rock song.

If we all valued music/musicians in the same way we'd live in a very boring world... Or North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1327531845' post='1513121']
It's because we all have an opinion... Which is different.

[b]Some people value 'tasteful' playing, some enjoy technical displays, others prefer complex chord sequences and others like a straight forward rock song.[/b]

If we all valued music/musicians in the same way we'd live in a very boring world... Or North Korea.
[/quote]

All of which can be executed with TASTE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1327532094' post='1513127']


All of which can be executed with TASTE.
[/quote]

The problem is, technical ability is quantifiable... 'taste' is highly subjective.

(although I agree that I would much rather see the latter over the former... But good luck trying define it!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1327532558' post='1513139']
The problem is, technical ability is quantifiable... 'taste' is highly subjective.

(although I agree that I would much rather see the latter over the former... But good luck trying define it!)
[/quote]

So should musicians should be 'quantifiable'?

Why do so many 'musicians' seem to WANT to be 'quantifiable'?

Edited by silddx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been interested in who is playing, don't give a damn to be honest. I'm more interested in what is being played, from the very simple to the highly technical.

It perplexes me completely when I see the adulation poured over some 'well known' players when what they are playing is absolute arse. They may be able to play this that and the other, but I really don't give a toss when the song or whatever they are playing makes me want to rip my ears off. It can be technically brilliant and played tastefully, but if it's a sh*te song it may as well be played by someone who can only play root notes.

I don't do hero worship :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1327532793' post='1513142']


So should musicians should be 'quantifiable'?

Why do so many 'musicians' seem to WANT to be 'quantifiable'?
[/quote]

Musicians should definitely NOT be quantifiable. But when you have a limited knowledge of the intricate elements of music, such as feel, dynamics, taste etc it is easy to simply appreciate the elements that are obvious and quantifiable, ie technique, speed of playing etc.

Im not saying its right, just easy for beginners with a limited knowledge and others who rate technical ability as the highest element of music for appreciation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1327533334' post='1513150']
Musicians should definitely NOT be quantifiable. But when you have a limited knowledge of the intricate elements of music, such as feel, dynamics, taste etc it is easy to simply appreciate the elements that are obvious and quantifiable, ie technique, speed of playing etc.

Im not saying its right, just easy for beginners with a limited knowledge and others who rate technical ability as the highest element of music for appreciation.
[/quote]

I think that's why non-musicians seem to appreciate music so much more than most of us musicians do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1327532558' post='1513139']
The problem is, technical ability is quantifiable... 'taste' is highly subjective.

(although I agree that I would much rather see the latter over the former... But good luck trying define it!)
[/quote]
I don't think technical ability is any more or less quantifiable than taste. But then I also think that [i]good[/i] taste is not merely subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One man's poison is another man's meat. Taste is entirely relative. Personally I don't go in for the slap happy or Jazz Odyssey noodling, but I don't think worse of people who find it floats their boat. The only problem I have is when anyone tries to imply that one style is [i]better[/i] than another, or that a bass player is better than another because they play fiddly stuff. That just reminds me of daft endless pointless discussions about guitar solos I used to have at school when I was a metaller... ;)

Edited by Jerry_B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1327533878' post='1513166']

I don't think technical ability is any more or less quantifiable than taste. [/quote]

It is. You can either execute a technique or you can't. There's nothing subjective about it really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two separate issues here.

One is that good and bad taste are highly subjective, so there can be no consensus.

Second is that many musicians are too insecure so that the music they produce gets blanded out to the point where it's only distinguishable features are the quantifiable elements like technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1327535965' post='1513205']
It is. You can either execute a technique or you can't. There's nothing subjective about it really.
[/quote]
I know people who can execute all sorts of sh*t, but they can't seem to do it with any feel, dynamics, or communication of energy. There are many subjective elements to TECHNIQUE, it's just that some people can't appreciate anything but the technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1327536172' post='1513213']
I know people who can execute all sorts of sh*t, but they can't seem to do it with any feel, dynamics, or communication of energy.
[/quote]

I pretty much call that not being able to execute it, its practice until you can. Sometimes what is being communicated is a call for attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...