Great bassists who have had a negative effect on modern bass?

[alexclaber]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='234006' date='Jul 7 2008, 10:54 AM'][b]I blame the guy that invented 'tabulation'. [/b][/quote]

Probably a 14th century Italian.

I guess if I had to name one it would be Mark King though only because he's influenced a whole generation of Brits who think all that tinkly bottom-shy thwackery is how you play funk... But that's not his fault, he himself says he's not a like a real funk bassist laying it down but almost like a jazz drummer in his approach.

Alex

[Bilbo]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='234047' date='Jul 7 2008, 11:59 AM']but almost like a jazz drummer in his approach.[/quote]

Steady on!

[endorka]

[quote name='tauzero' post='233976' date='Jul 7 2008, 10:12 AM']For disservice to bass - James Jamerson, for making people believe that they should play Precisions with ten-year-old tapewound strings.[/quote]

That's bad?

Jennifer

[bremen]

[quote name='endorka' post='234121' date='Jul 7 2008, 01:26 PM']That's bad?

Jennifer[/quote]

Warwick players *all* hate JJ. He played a Fender and made it sound good, you see ;-)

[6stringbassist]

One persons negative effect, is someone elses positive.

I actually like Mark Kings sound, it fits the music, I grew up listening to him, so he's a major influence.

I also like Jamersons sound, that too suits the style of the music.

I love the work being done by extended range bassists, and by bassists who think beyond the normal role of 'bass', Michael Manring for instance, who is in my opinion probably one of the most gifted musicians on the planet.

Jaco is/was amazing, both musically and technically, ever tried to play Kuru and make it groove the way he did for how many minutes ?.

And Punk jazz, the first time I heard that intro I was blown away.

[xilddx]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='234006' date='Jul 7 2008, 10:54 AM']Tough question this because the conscious contributions that individuals have made through their playing has primarily been to the music they make and not to 'bass playing' per se. Any influence they have had on the bass play fraternity has been peripheral to their core business but, in some cases, has become greater than the popularity of their [i]actual[/i] music (Wooten is a great example).

But its not their fault. Our 'I want, I get' culture extends to musicianship as much as it does Nike trainers and X-Boxes. Learners like the sound of Flea, Fieldy, Jaco, Claypool and buy DVDs and 'tab' books that give them the secrets of how to play like their idols. Most bass playing is not that hard to execute; compared to a rudimentary piano piece, for instance, the technical chops required to play like Flea are a joke. The consequence is that bass players particularly can develop what appear to be quite sophisticated technical skills without having the education and discipline required to know [i]when[/i] to used them. The technical skills get applauded at jam sessions, gigs etc and the learner starts to receive affirmation about their developing technique and focusses on this aspect of their playing during their practice time. Not harmony, melody, rhythm, reading, orchestration or arranging - technique for its own sake.

The most negatively influential bass players are, therefore, the ones whose playing, when copied, delivers the WOW factor to a developing player without the need to study properly. The low input, high return stuff. I don't blame them; I blame the part of the industry that sells these superficial 'quick fix' solutions to gullible kids. [b]I blame the guy that invented 'tabulation'. [/b]

Remember: its not the notes that matter but the relationships between them.[/quote]

A very well thought out argument that I simply don't agree with, because any instrument is whatever you want it to be and one does not need graduate from Julliard unless you find you need or want to. You can be a three note player and still absolutely slay an audience with your incredible groove. The defining factor is whether or not you and other people enjoy what you're doing and/or the context in which you are doing it.

My negative? All those technical bass players who infer from their heroes that it's a competition.

[Bilbo]

Great - lets all advocate for idiocy.

I suggest a Master Class on the note of E, followed by a session on A and, for the more advanced player, a week long seminar on D. We can then look at the gaps between them and then we can groooooove.

My advice - never listen to anyone that argues that doing less work will make you a better player.

[bremen]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='234246' date='Jul 7 2008, 04:06 PM']My advice - never listen to anyone that argues that doing less work will make you a better player.[/quote]

I don't think that's quite what Silddx was suggesting - he was, I believe, saying that you don't *necessarily* have to have great technical skills to produce a fantastic groove. Jah Wobble might be a good example of this.

[Bilbo]

You do, bremen. You need the appropriate skill level to get the job done. THAT is what makes great technique - in my experience, it only becomes 'technical' if the skills used are more advanced or the ear more sophisticated than those of the people who criticise others for being too 'technical'. I will accept that I metaphorically bit silddx's virtual head off and I apologise (to him/her) but I think there is too much lashing out at people who have a sophisticated perspective on music by those who think its 'magic', play what they 'feel' and 'entertain' people rather than play the music as well as it can be played.

This discussion is about players who have had the most negative impact upon bass players. I personally think that the constant dumbing down of skills to merely 'adequate' is counter-productive and undermines the effort of those players (of all genres of music) who put some effort into dealing with their music. It makes bad, lazy players and serves no-one, least of all the audience. Nobody said anything about Julliard (trust me, you don't need to go to college to learn this stuff - most of the best people we all listen to didn't) but that doesn't mean you shouldn't nail this stuff properly. [i]That[/i] is a negative trait that should be challanged

Anyway, I've strayed off-topic again (moi?) so will get back in my box.

[xilddx]

[i][/i][quote name='bilbo230763' post='234246' date='Jul 7 2008, 04:06 PM']Great - lets all advocate for idiocy.

I suggest a Master Class on the note of E, followed by a session on A and, for the more advanced player, a week long seminar on D. We can then look at the gaps between them and then we can groooooove.

My advice - never listen to anyone that argues that doing less work will make you a better player.[/quote]

Bremen is correct, that's not what I was saying at all. That's a blinkered statement based on your need for technical and theoretical expertise to do what you do.

I am saying do what you want with your bass. You play a lot of jazz, the technical and theoretical extension of the Blues. I play pop, rock and electronica much of it based on kwaito, afrobeat and some reggae. You need to study a lot more music theory than I do. A lot of the music I play has very little theoretical history, it's aural history and based on rhythmic and lyrical properties.

Besides that, my ears and experience are such that I can do what I do with enough taste, style, accuracy, dedication to supporting the singers and the song, and get a hell of a buzz from doing so. I play in bands with trained professionals who have been around for a long time, and I do my job of helping entertain an audience, that includes stagecraft, marketing and knowing how to make the performance compelling. I have absolutely no interest in playing with or like Chic Corea, Frank Gambale or Victor Wooten.

If I criticised [u]most [/u]jazz bands for having absolutely no marketing nous, no idea of how to promote themselves, having the naffest band names based on dreadful puns, and equally naff and meaningless lyrics, would you think it was important to learn those skills or improve those standards? If you said it's not necessary and I said "let's vote for idiocy", how would you feel?

It's horses for courses, old thing.

Edited July 7, 2008 by silddx

[bremen]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='234272' date='Jul 7 2008, 04:35 PM']You do, bremen. You need the [b]appropriate[/b] skill level to get the job done. THAT is what makes great technique[/quote]

well, yes, absolutely...did Silddx or I say otherwise?

[quote]- in my experience, it only becomes 'technical' if the skills used are more advanced or the ear more sophisticated than those of the people who criticise others for being too 'technical'. I will accept that I metaphorically bit silddx's virtual head off and I apologise (to him/her) but I think there is too much lashing out at people who have a sophisticated perspective on music by those who think its 'magic', play what they 'feel' and 'entertain' people rather than play the music as well as it can be played.

This discussion is about players who have had the most negative impact upon bass players. I personally think that the constant dumbing down of skills to merely 'adequate' is counter-productive and undermines the effort of those players (of all genres of music) who put some effort into dealing with their music. It makes bad, lazy players and serves no-one, least of all the audience. Nobody said anything about Julliard (trust me, you don't need to go to college to learn this stuff - most of the best people we all listen to didn't) but that doesn't mean you shouldn't nail this stuff properly. [i]That[/i] is a negative trait that should be challanged[/quote]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't disagree with Silddx either. He didn't lash out at skilled players, and neither would I. And we all agree that 'that doesn't mean you shouldn't nail this stuff properly'.

[waits for BBC to comment]

[quote]Anyway, I've strayed off-topic again (moi?) so will get back in my box.[/quote]

Was that OT?

Not really. This is though: [url="http://www.monkeon.co.uk/youwhat/"]http://www.monkeon.co.uk/youwhat/[/url]

[Bilbo]

[quote name='silddx' post='234278' date='Jul 7 2008, 04:45 PM'][i][/i]

If I criticised [u]most [/u]jazz bands for having absolutely no marketing nous, no idea of how to promote themselves, having the naffest band names based on dreadful puns, and equally naff and meaningless lyrics, would you think it was important to learn those skills or improve those standards? If you said it's not necessary and I said "let's vote for idiocy", how would you feel?

It's horses for courses, old thing.[/quote]

I probably deserved most of that

[xilddx]

This is not off topic at all, Bilbo, it's debate about what what we think IS negative.

And I work hard at, and nail my lines, thank you. The paying audience deserves nothing less.

Cheers.

Ahh, you posted too quickly for me ;-) I'm not having a go at you, Bilbo.

Edited July 7, 2008 by silddx

[bremen]

[quote name='silddx' post='234303' date='Jul 7 2008, 05:08 PM']This is not off topic at all, Bilbo, it's debate about what what we think IS negative.

And I work hard at, and nail my lines, thank you. The paying audience deserves nothing less.

Cheers.

Ahh, you posted too quickly for me ;-) I'm not having a go at you, Bilbo.[/quote]

A manly hug is called for, I believe.

[clauster]

Aren't you both saying the same thing? It's informed musicality that's important rather than techical pyrotechnics for the sake of being flash?

Silddx, I'd say that a three note player still needs good technique. It's more rhythmic than harmonic, but its still a technical skill.

[paul h]

I would rather have a tiny bit of "feel" than any amount of "technique".

The problem being that I have neither.

To be honest I am not actually sure what "technique" is. I don't think I have ever come across two bass players who play exactly the same anyway, so how do you ascertain what the correct "technique" is if everybody plays differently? To me it's all about the end result and has almost nothing to do about the methods employed to get there. Detune to C# and hit the thing with a spanner for all I care as long it sounds good.

Back on topic.....sort of.

Steve Harris had both negative and positive effects on me personally. Firstly he got me excited about playing bass in the first place and I spent ages trying to sound like him. Now I have spent the last 20 something years trying NOT to sound like him.

On a more global scale I can only agree with most of what's been said and just add that probably any well known musician is more than likely responsible for and equal number of positive and negative effects.

Inspiring someone to take up music and search for some originality = positive.

Spawning an endless number of clones = negative.

Paul.

Edited July 7, 2008 by paul h

[steve-soar]

At the end of the day music should move people, empower them, make them dance, think, f***.
I stopped slagging other muso's off a long time ago, just about the time I realised that I wasn't the centre of the universe.
We all have completely different taste, when we are young we mostly follow trends for acceptance and we then criticise others to prop-up our insecurities.
These posts are always a bit sour tasting and negative. I don't think any bassist has had a negative effect on modern bass and how is it right to slate our own kind?

[Oscar South]

Enough with the moral high ground, its just an excuse for discussion.

[steve-soar]

Errrrr, that's what I thought I was doing.

[Oscar South]

Its not specifically targeted at just you, theres been a few comments that I thought were just taking a morale high ground for the sake of it. I do disagree with your post in some respects too though, I think you got the wrong end of the stick.. I wasn't insulting the great bassists I was talking about (in fact I gave them a lot of praise), I was just talking about how other players have taken their styles off in the wrong directions to perhaps less great results. Ok so theres a bit of moaning involved but I think its a lot more interesting then the many 'favourate [thing]' threads where you just get 10 pages of people posting the same old names with very little discussion. Also I don't think that playing the same instrument as someone grants immunity from criticism, and in fact I would certainly not want that for myself.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Oscar South

[XB26354]

Don't want to be funny but when I see a thread that seems to end up in an argument here I do notice that your name crops up as the OP quite often...

[Kiwi]

Putting on my admin hat for a sec, I just want to say its great to see self moderation in action here.

Respect t' y'all.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='clauster' post='234311' date='Jul 7 2008, 05:19 PM']Aren't you both saying the same thing? It's informed musicality that's important rather than techical pyrotechnics for the sake of being flash?[/quote]

I think, in the main, you are right, clauster. The difference is that I always advocate for the methodical study of an instrument and get irritated by people who are 'casual' about learning (my prejudice not anyone elses). I think siddx was coming down in favour of only needing to be as good as you need to be to enjoy yourself; is that right, siddx?

My fear is always that there are people out there, including major artists, who, for reaons relating to their image, advocate for a sloppy approach to learning. Whilst this may be ok in certain circumstances (hobbyists?) and for certain people (millionaire bass players who are just not very good), it sends a destructive message to young learners that they could unconsciously use to justify laziness and attempts to take short cuts to nowhere (e.g. tab vs notation, practice vs playing etc). It can put people back years. Some people aren't bothered by any of this but I hear of so many people that used to play an instrument but stopped due to poor experiences. Seems a waste to me.

[xilddx]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='234739' date='Jul 8 2008, 09:29 AM']I think, in the main, you are right, clauster. The difference is that I always advocate for the methodical study of an instrument and get irritated by people who are 'casual' about learning (my prejudice not anyone elses). I think siddx was coming down in favour of only needing to be as good as you need to be to enjoy yourself; is that right, siddx?

My fear is always that there are people out there, including major artists, who, for reaons relating to their image, advocate for a sloppy approach to learning. Whilst this may be ok in certain circumstances (hobbyists?) and for certain people (millionaire bass players who are just not very good), it sends a destructive message to young learners that they could unconsciously use to justify laziness and attempts to take short cuts to nowhere (e.g. tab vs notation, practice vs playing etc). It can put people back years. Some people aren't bothered by any of this but I hear of so many people that used to play an instrument but stopped due to poor experiences. Seems a waste to me.[/quote]

Can you drive your car like Lewis Hamilton? Cook like Georgio Locatelli? Speak in public like JFK? Touch type on your keyboard at 140 wpm? Can you score an orchestra like Zappa or Stravinsky?

The instrument should reflect what's in your head and heart. There are so many brilliant musicians out there who never studied formally, they just picked up a bass and played, learned in their own way, adapted, etc. Why in heaven's name should you study it formally unless you want to? And what guarantees do you think it provides? I am all for learning one's craft but it depends what you want to do, what you want to play and how much effort you can put in.

Your approach seems very prescriptive, even, dare I say it, militaristic. I object to it because I feel you should not revere the instrument but rather who is playing it. I play it my way and it's a sum total of my influences and experiences, which are constantly changing. I don't need massive amounts of facility to do what I want to do well. If I wanted to play like Reggie Washington or (God Forbid) John Myung, I would need to train properly and extensively. However, Reggie I find extremely musical, John Myung I find extremely unmusical. Both are exceptionally developed instrumentalists, but very different in terms of musicality in my opinion.

Geddy Lee is relatively unschooled but is incredibly musical and highly skilled but with a very unorthodox technique, are you going to tell me "but just think how good he could have been had he studied at Berklee."?

[Bilbo]

Not militaristic or prescriptive. I am not talking of college tuition (I have only had about five or six lessons in my life), I am talking about learning the instrument sufficiently well to play music on it. (I actually think think the college systems in the UK and US are about income generation not creating musicians. There are people in colleges in Essex that are passing degrees but who are objectively a disgrace to our craft on any level (can't count in, never mind hold a groove) yet they still pass. Is anybody inspecting these places?) We aren't disagreeing really. I guess I am just saying 'do it properly or not at all'. How you define doing it properly is a matter for you.