Covering bass lines exactly? No need?

[Bilbo]

Just got an email for a wedding gig - we will be doing Good Times

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1085427' date='Jan 11 2011, 01:05 PM']My view on Good Times?

Its the classic problem with dance orientated music. 'Great' line (is it?) but the tune is actually bubble gum.

[i]Good times, These are the good times, Leave your cares behind, These are the good times
Good times, These are the good times, Our new state of mind, These are the good times

Happy days are here again, The time is right, For makin' friends
,Let's get together, How 'bout a quarter to ten, Come tomorrow, Let's all do it again

Boys will be boys, Better let them have their toys, Girls will be girls, Cute pony tails and curls
Must put an end, To this stress and strife, I think I want to live the sporting life

A rumor has it that, It's getting late, Time marches on, Just can't wait
The clock keeps turning, Why hesitate, You silly fool, You can't change your fate
Let's cut a rug, A little jive and jitterbug, We want the best, We won't settle for less
Don't be a drag, Participate, Clams on the half shell, And roller-skates , Roller-skates[/i]

Is it just me or is it junior school level poetry? I particularly liek the rhyming of boys and toys, girls and curls, late and wait.... Every rhyme is entirely predictable (the first thing that would come into most people's heads) and forced. It isn't Mark Twain, is it? At least Joni Mitchell doesn't have to worry about losing a grammy to Chic.

I always think that the best songs are made up of great music and great lyrics. Good Times is essentially two riffs which are 4 bars long, both rifs are against the same two diatonic chords a perfect fourth apart. Probably the first chord change anyone with a guitar ever learns? The only thing that is even credible is the bass line and that, whilst it is iconic, is three notes on the beat followed by what is essentially a dorian minor scale (EF#GABC#DE) followed, in turn, by a slightly more interest lick on the A using the sixth and dominant seventh. The singers are [i]really[/i] lightweight (would never have made boot campm on X Factor) and the whole thing is just not very interesting.

For me, and I stress again that this is and can only ever be subjective, Good Times evidence what I consider to be one of the maladys of musicians; we like the part so the whole tune must be good. Its a great bass line on a crap song. Like a lot of Jamerson, Marcus Miller, Pino etc - great players playing great lines on crap songs. Sax players like songs that make the sax player look good, as do guitarists, drummers and everyone else. Bass players are no different.

Is that specific enough, Pete?

I understand that people like it but they also like Mustang Sally and Moondance. This is as bad.[/quote]

A very good answer, Bilbo.

Chic were a self-proclaimed 'disco-funk' band. That is, music to dance to. I doubt anyone enjoying the groove would be bothered about the lyrics. It's a fairly simple bassline, but I've rarely heard it played correctly, and with the proper groove. And that part in the second section is tricky.

The singers are far from lightweight. Nile Rodgers would never use anyone that couldn't sing to a high standard.

How about you record and post your version, and I'll post mine?

[essexbasscat]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1085823' date='Jan 11 2011, 06:00 PM']Just got an email for a wedding gig - we will be doing Good Times [/quote]

[spinynorman]

With all these references to Cream and Clapton, I now have this vision of Nathan East slaving over the tabs for White Room till he got the Jack Bruce part right.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1086029' date='Jan 11 2011, 08:28 PM']How about you record and post your version, and I'll post mine? [/quote]

I'll see what I can do with Cubase and a drum machine. And the drummer in the function band has a Zoom thing so can record the tune on the next gig (its not until April tho'). Should be interesting!!

A Chic duel

[Doddy]

[quote name='spinynorman' post='1086111' date='Jan 11 2011, 09:29 PM']With all these references to Cream and Clapton, I now have this vision of Nathan East slaving over the tabs for White Room till he got the Jack Bruce part right.[/quote]

With the big exception that I guess Nathan wouldn't use tab.

But,he probably spent quite a while in front of the record player when he first got the Clapton gig.

[peteb]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1086119' date='Jan 11 2011, 09:34 PM']I'll see what I can do with Cubase and a drum machine. And the drummer in the function band has a Zoom thing so can record the tune on the next gig (its not until April tho'). Should be interesting!!

A Chic duel [/quote]
Now that does sound like fun...!

[algmusic]

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1085745' date='Jan 11 2011, 05:19 PM']Where I'd agree with you of it was a strict covers band (or tribute act/show band etc), I wouldn't if it's an originals band that throws in covers or if the entire band was collaberating on changes to the song (even just to rework the ending as opposed to a fade out).

The original question was about the guitarist wanting to play the original exact & the OP doesn't. I'd ask the rest of the band if they're happy reworking the parts of the song that you want to change & if you've got a bassline you want to use as opposed to the original, then work with the band to get them locking in with you.
If the band want to do every song as the original recording, then you have 2 options:
A) Lump it & learn the bass parts as they should be or Start a band that let's you play how you want.

I agree that random busking is amature, but playing covers just like the originals over & over can quickly lose it's fun factor.[/quote]

I agree, after playing especially pop it can start to sound a but dull, but also being devil advocate, people hardly add and take parts away on a classical piece. Why can't pop players be this way..?? Just a thought

[algmusic]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1086137' date='Jan 11 2011, 09:48 PM']With the big exception that I guess Nathan wouldn't use tab.

But,he probably spent quite a while in front of the record player when he first got the Clapton gig.[/quote]

+1 - nathan using tab.. no

I agree also, I would ask, what Nathan is listening to and writing when listening to a Clapton gigs?

[JTUK]

If the gig is worth it, you'll put the effort in, in whatever form you can. For a fun gig, I'll be having fun not spending hours learning the set, for an expensive wedding, I'll expect the band to brief me on the set and have a book.

Depending what sort of band they are, I could probably busk the set anyway and make notes for the rest.
It really depends of what you are used to. I'd love Good times to be in there as that is one you don't have to worry about at all.

If you have a decent ear and half know the song, then busking is a fine way to 'cheat'..and you need a decent mix to hear the changes.

In many cases, a rough chord chart is enough and if you have heard the song before, you'll make a fist of the line...or you don't get these type of calls or get a call-back.

It is up to you to know what you are doing and be able to cover the gigs that you take

[spinynorman]

[quote name='algmusic' post='1086150' date='Jan 11 2011, 10:00 PM']I agree, after playing especially pop it can start to sound a but dull, but also being devil advocate, people hardly add and take parts away on a classical piece. Why can't pop players be this way..?? Just a thought[/quote]

Classical is a different model. The writer and arranger functions are combined into the composer, while the role of musicians is to interpret what is written, under the guidance of the conductor. Even that isn't as set in stone as you suggest - Sir Thomas Beecham was often criticised for modifying scores to make them more exciting or accessible, but he was still an immensely popular and successful conductor.

In "popular music" up to and into the 1960s the writer and arranger functions were separate. The arranger might work for the band or the recording company and might in some cases be the writer, but their remit was to provide the best arrangement of the song for the artist, with the resources at their disposal, without necessarily being tied to an original score.

With the rise of pop groups and singer-songwriters in the 1960s the functions of writer, arranger and musician began to converge. The Beatles had an arranger (George Martin) outside the band, but many later bands didn't, though the producer might fill some of that role. Many of the members of early rock bands had cut their teeth in jazz, so they were more used to improvisation. As a result, the functions of writer and arranger become a collaborative effort within the band, and as the jazz influence has faded, there is a strong possibility that your immovable reference bassline was written by a spotty kid who only knew root notes.

Of course, at the X-Factor/Pop Princess level the writer/arranger/artist relationship remains largely separate, as it was.

Edited January 12, 2011 by spinynorman

[TimR]

[quote name='spinynorman' post='1086722' date='Jan 12 2011, 02:12 PM']... there is a strong possibility that your immovable reference bassline was written by a spotty kid who only knew root notes.[/quote]

This is the best point yet and goes back to my point about understanding WHY the bass line is like it is.

Is it because the bassplayer couldn't play anything else.
Is it because they dragged the bassplayer out of bed with a massive hangover and it was all he could manage to play?
Is it becase it was arranged by a pro arranger.
Is it because they got a session musician who played something off the top of his head first time and they liked it. Said session player then listens to it later and thinks it's OK but given a bit longer could have come up with something better.
Did the band all sit down and work out all the parts as a collaborative effort and its part of 'their sound'
Is it the signature part of the song/melody.


The new bass player in my old band probably thought he was doing great until they told him to stick to the original line. If he had played something approximating the original in the first place he would have been fine as I know they don't listen to what's going on around them. But he improved it so much that they didn't recognise what he was playing.

Once you know what the function of that part is then change it if you must.

Edited January 12, 2011 by TimR

[algmusic]

[quote name='TimR' post='1086779' date='Jan 12 2011, 03:08 PM']This is the best point yet and goes back to my point about understanding WHY the bass line is like it is.

Is it because the bassplayer couldn't play anything else.
Is it because they dragged the bassplayer out of bed with a massive hangover and it was all he could manage to play?
Is it becase it was arranged by a pro arranger.
Is it because they got a session musician who played something off the top of his head first time and they liked it. Said session player then listens to it later and thinks it's OK but given a bit longer could have come up with something better.
Did the band all sit down and work out all the parts as a collaborative effort and its part of 'their sound'
Is it the signature part of the song/melody.


The new bass player in my old band probably thought he was doing great until they told him to stick to the original line. If he had played something approximating the original in the first place he would have been fine as I know they don't listen to what's going on around them. But he improved it so much that they didn't recognise what he was playing.

Once you know what the function of that part is then change it if you must.[/quote]

+1

Understanding the function is key

The classic complement I had from a band I was working with was when I change some bass parts before a recording.. their reply was 'hadn't noticed anything had changed'. But when dep came in a played the old line and not my new one, they told him it was wrong...and 'adrian played something different'

I've learnt you only know how good a bassist is when they are not there...

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='BurritoBass' post='1081692' date='Jan 8 2011, 12:14 AM']I think it's quite a talent to get a bassline note perfect but I always prefer the creative process of putting my own stamp / twist on something.[/quote]
I can see both sides of the argument. Why not do both;
Note perfect for when it's absolutely necessary.
Add a personal interpretation for when it's not.

Simples!

[Doddy]

[quote name='TimR' post='1086779' date='Jan 12 2011, 03:08 PM']This is the best point yet and goes back to my point about understanding WHY the bass line is like it is.

Is it because the bassplayer couldn't play anything else.
Is it because they dragged the bassplayer out of bed with a massive hangover and it was all he could manage to play?
Is it becase it was arranged by a pro arranger.
Is it because they got a session musician who played something off the top of his head first time and they liked it. Said session player then listens to it later and thinks it's OK but given a bit longer could have come up with something better.
Did the band all sit down and work out all the parts as a collaborative effort and its part of 'their sound'
Is it the signature part of the song/melody.[/quote]
Some good points there. The only other one I'd add is that the bass player(band member or session player) played
what was right for the track.

Just going off those points,I've always said that there is a big difference between someone playing a certain(usually simple) line because it
is the [i]right[/i](best?) thing to play and someone playing it because it's all that they [i]can[/i] play.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1086859' date='Jan 12 2011, 04:15 PM']Some good points there. The only other one I'd add is that the bass player(band member or session player) played
what was right for the track.[/quote]

There's also some room for maneuver in this option.

Paul Chambers' bassline on 'So What' was as right for the track as it's possible to get, but it would be daft to play it note for note as it was improvised.

Andy Rourke's bassline on 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now' was absolutely correct for the track, but it was a composed part and is absolutely integral to the song. Change the line in any significant way and the whole thing falls apart (assuming you're not rearranging the whole thing).