Practice, motivation and inspiration

[The Jaywalker]

Yeah, the US regressive, Europe progressive thing is bogus when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it; and that's not what I'm suggesting. I simply meant that a lot of the music I hear feted as "new" from the US isn't that stylistically new compared to European stuff and some folk don't realise that. It's just all cross-pollination with different styles and influences etc. I'm not trying to diss US jazz here. That would be stupid. I'm just not up for switching off my critical faculties and putting music/bassists on a pedestal because they're from the US and sidelining European music/musicians for not being.
As far as the 1958 thing goes, I'm talking primarily about bass here. There's a stylistic pressure to play in an outmoded fashion because "Tradition" was laid down before our instrument had fully developed. The unamplified thing is tradition, but also practicality on the NYC transport system. If you want qualified opinion on its merits, check out what Ray Brown and Ron Carter had to say about playing unamplified and folks who still do it today. Pretty scathing. It's like analogue vs digital recording: most folk who think the old way was best weren't actually around at the time. I'll stick my neck out and say that regarding playing the bass loud enough acoustically to keep up with a drummer as important is more concerned with pointless "killin' it" machismo than musicality - and does you no technique favours when you end up playing amplified anyway. I read an account written by a bassist/luthier who saw Mingus back on the day. Intros sounded great but when the sextet was playing he was as inaudible as any other bassist. I also loaned my rig to a US guy from the "every note as hard as possible" school - he had to turn the amp volume up and down for different vibes as he had no dynamic control of his sound. Slave to the amp, perversely, I guess.
Don't get me wrong, there's phenomenal bassists playing old school tradition. Carlos Henriquez :-) Peter Washington :-) However, there's also guys with minimal technical ability who don't play the instrument particularly well (sometimes not well at all), but get away with it because of "Tradition" ie, the recorded sound of guys struggling to play loud enough to be heard on a gut-strung bass with a huge action.
"The acoustic bass is an instrument you can get away with playing and satisfy your peers even whilst you still really need to get your stuff together on it" (interview with Larry Grenadier). I'm far from against guys who don't want to be soloists. I'm a bassist, I love bass! However, I still expect them to play the instrument well and not be at the very limit of their ability doing the bassics, as it were. I'd rather hear the sound of effortless mastery than the sound of struggle any day ;-)
As far as that list of players you goes; you've mentioned a couple of names I perhaps had in mind. One hugely overrated as a bass icon; another who's pretty substandard on the instrument. That's my final word on that and I'm not naming names.
I'm at a loss as to why my assertion is "preposterous"... If Paul Chambers solos are pretty much reading and/or lick copping practice for today's bassist, then there's nothing Larry has that isn't as readily achievable if that's the kind of playing one aspires to. It's not difficult technically or musically in the grand scheme of things - and that's not intended as a criticism, just calling it like it is. I've always been inspired by the Bill Evans bassists and the European guys; so I guess our respective scales for bassists to be off might be calibrated differently. And it'd be a boring musical world if they weren't, after all :-)

Edited March 25, 2016 by The Jaywalker

[The Jaywalker]

[quote name='mtroun' timestamp='1458909968' post='3012050']
Long, but covers it pretty well: http://jazztruth.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/blast-from-past-stuart-nicholsons.html
[/quote]
Yeah, the thing that makes this interesting is that I can agree with the article and the guy's response in almost equal measure at times!

[mtroun]

I dunno about fully developed, can most people today play as well as Paul Chambers? Is it just reading practice to play extremely fast bop lines with the bow on gut strings? Ron Carter has said what he has to say about unamplified bass, but in fairness his best years as a player were before he started using an amplifier all of the time. I've also heard people say that Ron Carter can't play! I don't even know what to say to those people. I know what you mean about machismo, but also practicality comes into it, you need to play hard enough to be able to make the instrument vibrate, and you can amplify that sound much better than tickling on a 1mm action! I think players care deeply about their sound today whereas in the 1970s they were just really happy to finally be able to be heard!

Larry Grenadier has a point about being able to impress your peers with minimal technique, but in the hyper competitive world of today's jazz scene, I'm not seeing anyone who can't actually play like you say, feel free to PM me the name of the player who you think can't play the instrument(I meant Thomas Morgan not Ben Morgan, I was thinking of the rugby player!) I don't really know what constitutes mastery in your book if you think top players today are limited technically. It also seems to be you are wanting to hear music that pushes the boundaries technically rather than concerned about the overall musical effect. I know there are few players today that play as expansively as LaFaro for example, but as much as I admire his playing, I'm more of a Charlie Haden/ Sam Jones/ Butch Warren workman bassist fan myself. Leave the twiddly stuff for the horn players and get focused on making the band sound as good as possible. When it comes to soloing today, I think a lot of players play less linearly and use a lot of rhythmic superimpositions as opposed to focusing on hornlike lines. Certainly the degree of rhythmic prowess it takes to be a first call NYC player today is pretty astounding and certainly not very 1958.

The problem with a lot of European jazz today and since the 1970s (and I hate to generalise) is there is generally a lack of that rhythmic drive. I see this as an African American tradition that needs to be respected, a lot like behind the beat playing in hip hop. Jazz is definitely a lot whiter today than it originally was, but American jazz still maintains a lot of the older musicians and the younger generation that played with them, which means American jazz musicians are judged a lot more on their ability to play the history of the music. I don't think this is a bad thing and this is maybe where we differ in opinion. Younger players coming up still in theory have to pay their dues and demonstrate that they can play standards whereas there is less pressure to do so in Europe, so the frame of reference is different. I personally find that this can lead to a lack of depth and subtlety. That said, most of the best European jazz musicians have a great deal of respect for standards and swing and can play it, even if they choose not to, much like their American counterparts. For example, Jakob Bro is a widely admired Danish guitarist, but he works extensively with American musicians as well as European ones. Everything is of course deeply interconnected.

Anyway, I'm aware that we've wandered fairly off topic. I get the feeling that we probably aren't as diametrically opposed as it comes across on here, but I still think Stuart Nicholson is a hack who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, so we must agree to disagree on that point!

[mtroun]

To go back on topic for a second, to the OP, one thing that really helps players develop is the peer group you are with.
It's of course more difficult as you get older, but you're never that far from other musicians with similar interests and opportunities to spend time with them.
I remember a while back talking to a young bass player who wanted advice about music college and the differences between the different colleges. I tried to emphasise the point that while you're at college you learn the most from the other people in your peer group who are striving towards the same things. It's worth catching up with other bass players and making it to jam sessions or gigs to get an idea as to what level you are at. For me, I do a few sessions in Leicester, but I travel to Birmingham weekly because there's a bigger community of musicians who are at a similar level to me, or slightly worse or quite a lot better! It's so useful to have a sense of perspective and something to aim towards. I'm sure being that you live in Edinburgh, there are plenty of players about - there's a sizeable contingent of Scots on Birmingham's jazz scene!

[The Jaywalker]

In terms of being fully-developed, again, I'm talking about the instrument in terms of setup, quality metal strings, amplification options and the stylistic, technique, expressive and tonal benefits that followed. It's important to remember that at the same time, there was a bass revolution going on in the classical world as well. Guys could play on better strings with a much more manageable setup. The number of bass concertos/music written in the past 50 years has been exponential.

" I don't really know what constitutes mastery in your book if you think top players today are limited technically. It also seems to be you are wanting to hear music that pushes the boundaries technically rather than concerned about the overall musical effect. I know there are few players today that play as expansively as LaFaro for example..."
You've got me completely wrong. I just want to hear guys that can play the instrument well. Really well. There's a lot of folk out there that will quite happily write off any bassist with great technique as all about the technique and not the music. It's bullshit. If they've ever taken the time to transcribe or analyse what NHOP, Marc Johnson etc are up to in solos they'd see that themselves. Also, it's precisely BECAUSE of their technique that these guys can say more with a couple of slow, lyrical notes than the "saying more with less" cliche-brigade will in their entire lives!

In terms of the "overall musical effect" and playing a solo using a couple of notes and rhythmic figures, modulations etc - I know the vibe. the overall musical effect is often some dude with a crap sound and really poor technique thrashing away on a couple of notes. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's putting the instrument back 50 years. Too bad for them. Leave them to it. I'd rather listen to someone actually play the bass. If I had a quid for every time someone had hipped me to a "you MUST be into this guy, he's SICK" bassist and been sorely , but unsurprisingly, disappointed...
In terms of "mastery" I look to guys like LaFaro, NHOP, Eddie Gomez, Chris McBride, Arild Andersen, Miroslav Vitous, Ray Brown, Marc Johnson, Gary Peacock etc
Do any of the players you've mentioned stack up to these guys? No. Categorically not. Do they NEED to? No. Again, categorically not. it's not about personal taste or stylistic preference. Again, I'm not making a musical judgement here: I'm dealing with a bald fact - Larry's (as an example) stuff ain't hard in the slightest; which isn't a criticism, it's an observation. Ray, Eddie, NHOP - different ball game. Contemporary bassists often don't really move me (obviously there's always exceptions). Is it a stylistic choice not to develop? Is it laziness? Lack of ability? I once had a telling conversation with an NYC sax player who tried to make a point and call me out for having a well-developed technique. He said that the only thing you need to practise on the bass is Blues lines with a metronome; that's all his friends (dropped some names) ever did/do. And it sounds like it ;-)

When you think about it; bass is weird...the low level of instrumental ability that's accepted on it (and indeed, lauded) wouldn't be acceptable on any other instrument in the Jazz canon. That's the unfortunate side of Tradition I guess.

Edited March 25, 2016 by The Jaywalker

[Bilbo]

I think that jazz suffers somewhat from an identity crisis in as much as different people have massively different perspectives on what 'the point of it all' actually is. I am often appalled at what some people, a, think is Jazz and how, b, they assess content. I am not setting myself up as the guru who has the inside line on the definition of Jazz but a lot of people seem to get off on what I call the athletes and jugglers who do remarkable things with various techniques but which lack any musical substance. Double bass has generally avoided that tendency thankfully and most players actually play rather than do tricks but the audience expectations for supercharged athleticism remains a potential distraction.

[mtroun]

Wow, ok, strong opinions there. I do completely disagree with you but there you go. I've got to say I'm completely unconvinced by NHOP and Eddie Gomez, in fact I find them unlistenable (this is partly down to their over use of 1970s amplification trends, I heard a video of NHOP early in his career when he sounds much better IMO). I'm fond of Miroslav Vitous but I still think he's a bit over concerned with virtuosity as an end in itself. It's interesting because your opinion is precisely the opposite of most people I know, though I did once encounter a bloke at a jam session who loudly extolled the virtues of NHOP above all other bass players, explaining to me why he was so much better than Ray Brown.

Interestingly NHOP was a massive Sam Jones fan and recorded a two bass album with him. It's weird but it's hard to tell them apart, I think NHOP slows down to suit SJ while SJ plays a lot more notes, probably to try and keep up. That record is more of a curiosity than a good record though. And I feel the same way about the later Oscar Peterson records with NHOP, lots of notes but a noticeable going through the motions, crowd pleasing kind of approach.

I think saying 'what Larry Grenadier plays isn't hard in the slightest' is a bold statement. Are you really saying you can play at that level and that his status among contemporary players is a sham? Certainly with Fly, he demonstrates incredible thumb position chops, incredible control of the bow, the ability to play fluently over complex rhythms, not to mention his highly developed ears, I call all of this virtuoso stuff and I certainly can't match up to that, or indeed hope to without years more practice. Larry Grenadier was playing with Joe Henderson in his teens and has been called upon by countless older jazz masters. I'm sure he has plenty of chops that he doesn't demonstrate in such an overt way as for example Christian McBride. Interestingly, Brad Mehldau's first album has both Christian McBride and Larry Grenadier on it.

When Pat Metheny picked Larry Grenadier to play with him was it because Marc Johnson was unavailable? Not to mention the fact that Charlie Haden, the anti virtuoso, is along with Palle Danielsson and Gary Peacock one of three bass players to record with Keith Jarrett, and in my and a lot of others' opinion, the best one. Again, was Pat Metheny just being nice by choosing Charlie Haden and Dewey Redman in a band that also included Mike Brecker and Jack DeJohnette? Did Chris Cheek go mad when deciding to record with Larry Grenadier, Matt Penman and Ben Street on various albums when he'd previously used Marc Johnson?

I'm genuinely a bit perplexed by your assertions.

[Jebo1]

Anyway, back to the topic, I found out today that playing piano has helped with jazz phrasing and the approach to the bassline. Fascinating in fact.

I picked up a book called Jazz piano voicing a for the non-pianist

It's really interesting to read and play along with tunes in a different way.

[Jebo1]

And my wife said it was more in tune than the double bass

[mtroun]

Regarding tuning, do people play along to irealb, or Aebersold recordings to check their tuning? I used to quite a lot, not so much these days, but then my tuning is pretty solid (not perfect) and I think I have a good ear for knowing if I'm in or out of tune.

[Jebo1]

I play along with those sorts of things. I've got a good ear, so it really helps.

[The Jaywalker]

[quote name='mtroun' timestamp='1458928822' post='3012233']
Wow, ok, strong opinions there. I do completely disagree with you but there you go. I've got to say I'm completely unconvinced by NHOP and Eddie Gomez, in fact I find them unlistenable (this is partly down to their over use of 1970s amplification trends, I heard a video of NHOP early in his career when he sounds much better IMO). I'm fond of Miroslav Vitous but I still think he's a bit over concerned with virtuosity as an end in itself. It's interesting because your opinion is precisely the opposite of most people I know, though I did once encounter a bloke at a jam session who loudly extolled the virtues of NHOP above all other bass players, explaining to me why he was so much better than Ray Brown.

Interestingly NHOP was a massive Sam Jones fan and recorded a two bass album with him. It's weird but it's hard to tell them apart, I think NHOP slows down to suit SJ while SJ plays a lot more notes, probably to try and keep up. That record is more of a curiosity than a good record though. And I feel the same way about the later Oscar Peterson records with NHOP, lots of notes but a noticeable going through the motions, crowd pleasing kind of approach.

I think saying 'what Larry Grenadier plays isn't hard in the slightest' is a bold statement. Are you really saying you can play at that level and that his status among contemporary players is a sham? Certainly with Fly, he demonstrates incredible thumb position chops, incredible control of the bow, the ability to play fluently over complex rhythms, not to mention his highly developed ears, I call all of this virtuoso stuff and I certainly can't match up to that, or indeed hope to without years more practice. Larry Grenadier was playing with Joe Henderson in his teens and has been called upon by countless older jazz masters. I'm sure he has plenty of chops that he doesn't demonstrate in such an overt way as for example Christian McBride. Interestingly, Brad Mehldau's first album has both Christian McBride and Larry Grenadier on it.

When Pat Metheny picked Larry Grenadier to play with him was it because Marc Johnson was unavailable? Not to mention the fact that Charlie Haden, the anti virtuoso, is along with Palle Danielsson and Gary Peacock one of three bass players to record with Keith Jarrett, and in my and a lot of others' opinion, the best one. Again, was Pat Metheny just being nice by choosing Charlie Haden and Dewey Redman in a band that also included Mike Brecker and Jack DeJohnette? Did Chris Cheek go mad when deciding to record with Larry Grenadier, Matt Penman and Ben Street on various albums when he'd previously used Marc Johnson?

I'm genuinely a bit perplexed by your assertions.
[/quote]

And I'm a bit perplexed by why you felt the need for a tirade.
I've tried to make it clear that I'm interested in people who play the INSTRUMENT really well in the first instance. Their other musical attributes are an aside strictly in that respect as they are aspects of musicianship (however phenomenal) and quite apart from their essential performance on the instrument. I also don't care about who's played with who when I'm considering that. It's a straw man and irrelevant in that particular respect. Does Ben Street play the instrument as well as Marc Johnson? Er...no. That's obvious to anyone. Personal taste doesn't come into that.
Am I saying I have Larry's ears or rhythmic ability improvising over complex rhythmic stuff?Absolutely not!!
Would I be comfortable walking into all his gigs? I kinda doubt that...
Purely from an instrumental and technical bass point of view, can I play his stuff?
Yes. Easily. Loads of folk can, because in the grand scheme of things it's not that difficult. That's not a bold or contentious statement at all - or at least it shouldn't be; unless folks are so blinded by their sacred cows that everything Larry does must be a virtuosic impossibility.....
I would never use the phrase "incredible chops" to describe him. And there's nothing wrong with that as I don't think that's what he's all about as a player! Big Jimmy Garrison influence etc.
And again, this is not a criticism of what Larry does at all, he's a great, great musician. I really like his stuff with Pat. I'm just saying I find the pinnacle status he enjoys among bassists today a bit odd, considering the other options out there for inspiration.

The other thing I find strangely perplexing is that often virtuosity is expected, demanded even, in the Jazz world. Unless it's from a bass player...
Then it simply gets dismissed out of hand in certain quarters. It's weird. Tenor plays an eighth note solo on a bop tune - great; piano does same - great; bassist does it and it's written off as chops or technique for its own sake. Bizarre!
Anyway, this thread is about inspiration. Sometimes I get it from Charlie Haden, one of my all time favourite players; sometimes Rufus Reid ; other times its Arild, Miroslav or NHOP. Other folks are going to be different. To quote Dave Liebman at a masterclass: "listen for inspiration and aspire to Masters; nothing less..."
I don't see anything wrong with that advice - or looking for a certain amount of instrumental mastery in bassists I find inspirational.

[Beer of the Bass]

I must admit, I'm not well versed in the current crop of jazz bassists. With a few exceptions (like EST) most of the albums I keep going back to are from about the mid 50s up to some time in the 70s or more recent music from guys of that era. So I love Charlie Haden, Dave Holland, Buster Williams, Miroslav Vitous, Mingus and PC (who between them span quite a range in terms of technical facility) but quite a few of the names mentioned I'm less familiar with. I guess that in itself is something to look at.
I'm not one who is turned off by virtuosity, though I might equally enjoy a more limited player if they've developed a distinctive voice. I have sometimes felt that the lower bar for bassists might be to my advantage, but I realise this is lazy thinking! I do think that for me to be a straight jazz musician is probably not my niche - I love to listen to a lot of it, I could learn a lot from studying it, but somehow I don't feel those are my gigs.

[mtroun]

I don't think there's a lower bar for bass players, far from it. In fact Ron Carter has stated that the bass player has to be the best musician on the bandstand, not always the case, but it's a good aspiration. I think maybe where we're going round in circles is the stated criteria for admiration of a bass player.
The first priority for me will always be the time feel created by a bass player, as I see it as a rhythmic instrument, like drums. I've played with some drummers who were quite technically gifted but couldn't keep time properly, so essentially their chops meant nothing.
Also very important is the sound, harmonic knowledge, great ears, melodicism. Technical prowess is a means of achieving all these goals.
Like Beer of the Bass says, having a distinctive voice is an important factor.
The idea of being a 'limited player' is a bit strange though, to be able to play jazz professionally great musicianship is taken for granted.
If you choose to play very complex stuff, then that's fine but choosing not to do so doesn't make you limited.

[Beer of the Bass]

When I say the bar is lower for bassists, I don't mean in terms of renowned musicians, but I get the impression that almost any bassist who can keep time and maintain the form can function at some level on most local scenes. Maybe not as first-call guy, and not on the best gigs, but they can function. I'm sure the learning curve is steeper for pianists or sax players for example. This would chime with the Larry Grenadier quote further up the thread.

[mtroun]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1458981428' post='3012522']
When I say the bar is lower for bassists, I don't mean in terms of renowned musicians, but I get the impression that almost any bassist who can keep time and maintain the form can function at some level on most local scenes. Maybe not as first-call guy, and not on the best gigs, but they can function. I'm sure the learning curve is steeper for pianists or sax players for example. This would chime with the Larry Grenadier quote further up the thread.
[/quote]
Yeah, I see what you mean. Though keeping a form isn't easy and a lot of even quite decent horn players get lost in forms because they are used to someone else doing it for them! I think when we talk about technical expectations, bear in mind how ridiculously easy it is to play fast on a saxophone. The challenge isn't in the execution but in coming up with the content!

[Bilbo]

Agreed. When I was a young player, I used to transcribe Jeff Berlin parts and could play them. Joe Frazier. Bach, Marabi, Motherlode, Five G. Then there was Teen Town, Silly Putty etc etc. Could execute them all. It was then that I realised that execution of complex music was a million miles away from creating it. HAVING the ideas is much harder than playing them.

[tinyd]

[quote name='mtroun' timestamp='1458984914' post='3012557']
Yeah, I see what you mean. Though keeping a form isn't easy and a lot of even quite decent horn players get lost in forms because they are used to someone else doing it for them! I think when we talk about technical expectations, bear in mind how ridiculously easy it is to play fast on a saxophone. The challenge isn't in the execution but in coming up with the content!
[/quote]

+1. From my limited experience of playing with other musicians, keeping time and following the form of a tune are very underrated skills. I've seen some "name" acts where the timekeeping has been a bit suspect. My pet theory is that rhythm is often treated as secondary, both in formal musical education and when people are learning more informally, but I have zero evidence to back that up

[mtroun]

[quote name='tinyd' timestamp='1458987034' post='3012582']
My pet theory is that rhythm is often treated as secondary, both in formal musical education and when people are learning more informally, but I have zero evidence to back that up
[/quote]
The Irish bass player Ronan Guilfoyle is one of the world authorities on advanced rhythmic techniques and their application in jazz. He's firmly of the opinion that rhythm isn't given enough emphasis in jazz education. I notice that rhythm classes are starting to become more de rigeur on conservatoire jazz courses, but I didn't on my MA and feel like I could have been doing work on that aspect a lot earlier. I think a lot of people think they have good time, but there's plenty of ways to test that ability as I'm discovering.

[The Jaywalker]

I was fortunate enough to have a jazz Prof who was really big on time for all instrumentalists. Produced a document for bassists and drummers about the 9 possible variations of playing together either on, ahead or behind the beat. Eg, bass ahead, drums on etc. Naturally, some feel better than others. On the beat bass sounds really hokey and wooden etc.
Was also really fortunate to be able to study a concept called pulse relational rhythm theory with a percussion genius and all-round awesome dude Steve Forman. Exponentially improved what I do. He starts with the premise that we all have perfect time, physiologically speaking - or else we couldn't walk down the street. It's unlocking that and working with pulse rather than fretting over bar lines and counting 1234 it that's key. It chimes with a lot of what Jeff Berlin says about working with a metronome to improve time. The time is already there; most likely the issue is elsewhere in your technique, concentration, fatigue levels, rhythmic security etc. Really powerful and helpful stuff.

[Bilbo]

For me, time is about listening. If you cannot hear where the pulses, playing ahead or behind becomes a matter of chance rather than design. Playing triplets becomes fraught with difficulties etc.

[mtroun]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1458999137' post='3012699']
For me, time is about listening. If you cannot hear where the pulses, playing ahead or behind becomes a matter of chance rather than design. Playing triplets becomes fraught with difficulties etc.
[/quote]
I read a quote recently, can't remember who it was but a well known player, I think either a bass player or drummer, who said that time was about listening for who has the best interpretation of the beat and going with them. I'm not sure if that's quite my experience but there's a grain of truth there. Sometimes it can take a little adjustment to get to the right place. One of the problems I have had with some drummers (it's always drummers! One of the problems where I live is the shortage of great drummers) is when they assume that they have ownership of the beat and end up pulling back when I'm on top of the beat, or sometimes just completely ignore what I'm playing and plow on as loud as possible! On the other hand, it's a real pleasure when there's absolutely no doubt where the beat is, because you can be a little bit looser. I find the best horn players really integrate with the rhythm section and make sure their phrasing really fits in with the time.

[Silvint]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1458901798' post='3011944']
Great thread. Inspirational in itself.

For me, the 'secret', and it is not a secret at all, is to study things properly and not to dip in and out without properly dealing with the thing you have chosen to look at. I have two example. On double bass, I got a bow when I got a double bass and have never 'studied' it until fairly recently when I picked up the bow and the Neil Tarlton book. I spent a few days.weeks working on the bow for a few minutes a day (20?) and, before I knew it, I was actually playing the thing. Same with double thumbing. I am not a slap fan but, like many bass players, I feel the need to stay on top of new things. I tried double thumbing a few years ago and didn't make much of it and I only return to it for a few moments every now andthen but, the other day, I started playing something and it was there. My incremental input had borne fruit. I use reading as a means of generating practive pieces. BAch Cello Suites are a rich vein for practice and inspiration.
[/quote]

I could have written that! Same thing for me with the bow, the double thumb slap, and even the Bach Cello suite !

[spencer.b]

Jaywalker are you seriously suggesting that pops foster should be omitted from a book about the jazz bass tradition?

[The Jaywalker]

The point I was making was that I found it unfortunate that a raft of phenomenal European bassists were glossed over and some (including arguably minor) bassists included more because they played with historically important bands than because of their playing.