Bass players in famous bands who've had to play below their own levels of ability

[SteveXFR]

I'd have thought most can play above the technical level of the song. Especially in rock and metal, you want a bit in reserve so you can still play well while moving around the stage. 

It's pretty boring to watch someone stood perfectly still while they concentrate on shredding. 

[chris_b]

I went to a bass clinic at GAK with Nathan East and he said, always play what's right for the song, but the best guys "leave something on the table".

 

So put in a memorable lick or few notes that will make the bass line special and stand out. That's where your musical understanding and superior technical skill can be best used.

Edited February 9, 2022 by chris_b

[mattbass6]

For me, it’s Robert Trujillo of Metallica. The man is an incredible player. I know the money is great, the tours, etc etc etc but imagine having to play with Large Oil rig as your drummer. 

[BigRedX]

The best technically complex playing is the stuff that doesn't sound like it.

[Oomo]

I sometimes wonder how to best approach learning with tasteful playing in mind.

 

There often seems to a view that technique is in some way linear (i.e. that if you can play something incredibly technical, you can easily play something more laid back and tasteful), and often encouraged to work on things that are hard but less commonly used (e.g. playing harder songs, increasing metronome speed for exercises, learning double thumbing, tapping, pinch harmonics etc.).

 

Could that time be better spent on learning to play with more restraint? If you spends hours learning a technique you'd use in 1 in 1000 songs, would be better to skip that technique entirely, to avoid the temptation of using it on the other 999 where it wouldn't be appropriate?

 

 

[chris_b]

1 minute ago, Oomo said:

I sometimes wonder how to best approach learning with tasteful playing in mind.

 

 

Learn your scales and modes.

 

Tasteful is melodic which requires you to know the notes and make good note choices. It doesn't have anything to do with speed or tortuous time signatures.

[BigRedX]

34 minutes ago, Oomo said:

I sometimes wonder how to best approach learning with tasteful playing in mind.

 

Learn to be able to hear in your mind what you want to play and then know where to put your fingers on your instrument in order to play it. If I'm stuck for ideas I simply "sing" along with the track until I hear something I like. IME singing has noting between the idea and the execution - i.e. its unhampered by (lack of) instrumental technique. I also ought to point out the to others my singing is awful, but in my head its good enough for me to work out the notes I want to play

 

30 minutes ago, chris_b said:

 

Learn your scales and modes.

 

Tasteful is melodic which requires you to know the notes and make good note choices. It doesn't have anything to do with speed or tortuous time signatures.

 

This way you'll never play anything "wrong" but you are also unlikely to play anything truly musically remarkable either. There's nothing wrong with knowing your music theory, but you also need to know when it might be more musically interesting and still tasteful to bend/break the rules too. There's a reason why it's only "theory" and not "law".

[Doddy]

42 minutes ago, Oomo said:

 

 

Could that time be better spent on learning to play with more restraint? If you spends hours learning a technique you'd use in 1 in 1000 songs, would be better to skip that technique entirely, to avoid the temptation of using it on the other 999 where it wouldn't be appropriate?

 

 

Being proficient in a technique doesn't mean you're tempted to use it all the time. It means that it's there for when you need it.  I'd hate to be required to play something and not have the means to play it- even if it's only on one gig a year.

 

3 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

This way you'll never play anything "wrong" but you are also unlikely to play anything truly musically remarkable either. 

Nonsense. Knowing your scales doesn't mean you won't play anything interesting. Knowing stuff doesn't automatically shut off your ears.

[SteveXFR]

If you follow all the rules all the time, you'll end up with Ed Sheeran and no one wants that.

You can't have character without imperfection. Sometimes a carefully used very out of key note can really add interest. 

[BigRedX]

21 minutes ago, Doddy said:

Nonsense. Knowing your scales doesn't mean you won't play anything interesting. Knowing stuff doesn't automatically shut off your ears.

 

It might not for you, but there are plenty of musicians I know who treat musical theory as hard and fast rules and never step outside of those boundaries.

[jonnybass]

Is it not more around which rules (theories) you choose to use?  When a guitarist plays an E minor chord, there isnt even just one rule (theory) on what notes you can/cant play, there are different rules (theories) depending on the context of the song.  

 

I always think note choice should be decided by taste and the harmony you are either highlighting, suggesting or supporting.   Specific rules (theories) can help, but only in as much as a starting point for your options.

 

Jonny

[Lozz196]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

The best technically complex playing is the stuff that doesn't sound like it.

Good point, Gimme Gimme Gimme by ABBA illustrates that nicely 

[chris_b]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

This way you'll never play anything "wrong" but you are also unlikely to play anything truly musically remarkable either.

 

Tosh. You won't paint great pictures if you don't know how to combine the colours at your disposal.

 

Knowing your notes is what every good bass player does from Dusty Hill to Jaco.

 

You'll play interesting lines more regularly if you know the notes that fit and can put them together in interesting ways.

[Barking Spiders]

43 minutes ago, chris_b said:

 

Tosh. You won't paint great pictures if you don't know how to combine the colours at your disposal.

 

Knowing your notes is what every good bass player does from Dusty Hill to Jaco.

 

You'll play interesting lines more regularly if you know the notes that fit and can put them together in interesting ways.

But sometimes, the most interesting lines are made by people who don't know what the f3ck they're doing and in doing so they not only break the rules but don't even know what the rules are. 

 

[4000]

1 hour ago, chris_b said:

 

Tosh. You won't paint great pictures if you don't know how to combine the colours at your disposal.

 

Knowing your notes is what every good bass player does from Dusty Hill to Jaco.

 

You'll play interesting lines more regularly if you know the notes that fit and can put them together in interesting ways.

The thing is though, it’s the “in interesting ways” bit that counts. It’s certainly my experience that some people just are more naturally ‘musical’ than others. I’ve known many musicians, including a surprising number of jazz musicians and classical musicians, who really know their theory back to front but still struggle to create anything particularly melodic or harmonically interesting. And I’ve known quite a few musicians who are really creative with melody and harmony, particularly when it comes to songwriting, but do it instinctively and with no/little knowledge of the theory behind it.
 

The ideal is to both know your stuff and be creative with it, but for most it’s just not as cut and dried as that. I seem to remember Brian Beller, IIRC, once lamenting the fact that whenever he tried to write music all that came out was La Cucaracha. 😂 Whereas McCartney and Lennon seem to have coped ok. 😉

 

I certainly found in art school that the more I learned, the more my technique improved, but the narrower my horizons became. Obviously everyone is different. But I also remember Adrian Legg saying something to the effect - I forget the exact words - that it takes a strong personality to survive the academic. 
 

Going back to something I think BigRedX said, most of what I write I hear in my head first and then I have to translate that to various instruments. My other method is to sing everything first and then translate that. I only really resort to theory if I’m a bit stuck with something, which isn’t often. Obviously YMMV. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by 4000

[Doddy]

4 minutes ago, 4000 said:

 I seem to remember Brian Beller, IIRC, once lamenting the fact that whenever he tried to write music all that came out was La Cucaracha. 😂 

 

He did say that in an old issue of Bass Player but he's since released 3 excellent solo albums (4 if you count the live album), that completely negate that quote.

 

 

[4000]

9 minutes ago, Doddy said:

He did say that in an old issue of Bass Player but he's since released 3 excellent solo albums (4 if you count the live album), that completely negate that quote.

 

 

Fair enough, but it was just an example. I’ve known many musicians who that would still apply to. My dad (and many of the musicians he played with) played jazz all his life but couldn’t have written a tune if you’d put a gun to his head. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by 4000

[4000]

59 minutes ago, Barking Spiders said:

But sometimes, the most interesting lines are made by people who don't know what the f3ck they're doing and in doing so they not only break the rules but don't even know what the rules are. 

 

Oh God, I thought I was finally rid of that…..🤮

[OliverBlackman]

Learning theory just gives you a basic roadmap if 1) you are improvising over harmony or 2) you have writers block. Learning music and theory should be a side by side process not one of the other. 
 

Back on topic, I’m not at all a pop punk player but was once asked to audition for a very large pop punk gig. The other players I was playing with were all experienced pros of the pop punk scene and I couldn’t believe the level they were at. Technically excellent, fantastic tone (guitars) and on stage energy that was out of this world. I thought it would be beneath me but I was actually way out of my depth.

Edited February 9, 2022 by OliverBlackman

[EssentialTension]

3 hours ago, Barking Spiders said:

But sometimes, the most interesting lines are made by people who don't know what the f3ck they're doing and in doing so they not only break the rules but don't even know what the rules are. 

 

On the other hand, the most interesting lines are often made by people who do know what the f3ck they're doing. 

[SteveXFR]

18 hours ago, mattbass6 said:

For me, it’s Robert Trujillo of Metallica. The man is an incredible player. I know the money is great, the tours, etc etc etc but imagine having to play with Large Oil rig as your drummer. 

 

I think I could ignore Lars if it meant I could tour the world and play to huge audiences of excited fans. 

Lars is a decent enough drummer, it's when he's not playing that he'd be difficult to be around. 

Trujillo is very talented, Metallica have always had amazing bassists to play not very technical music. 

[mattbass6]

2 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

 

I think I could ignore Lars if it meant I could tour the world and play to huge audiences of excited fans. 

Lars is a decent enough drummer, it's when he's not playing that he'd be difficult to be around. 

Trujillo is very talented, Metallica have always had amazing bassists to play not very technical music. 

Which he clearly is, and I agree, I’d do the same, but it still must be a little disappointing not having the right partner in crime to really shine.