Band versus Bassist

[HengistPod]

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 07:09, Cuzzie said:

I would listen to Metallica more - but Lars has got less timing and rhythm than a middle aged man Dad dancing the electric boogaloo.

Undoubtedly true, although you wouldn't know it to listen to the records. Studios are marvellous things, particularly when equipped with an engineer adept at cutting and splicing tape. 

Digital recording and editing suites must've made the making of a Metallica record much easier.

[Cuzzie]

Agreed and the death of bass in music for many years with that stooopid trick of editing out our Jason

[Japhet]

2 hours ago, HengistPod said:

Undoubtedly true, although you wouldn't know it to listen to the records. Studios are marvellous things, particularly when equipped with an engineer adept at cutting and splicing tape. 

Digital recording and editing suites must've made the making of a Metallica record much easier.

I wish I could tell you in detail how totally (dare I say spookily) spot on your assertion is.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Japhet

[Muzz]

I'm firmly in the 'it's about the song' rather than even 'it's about the band', and definitely not 'it's about the player'. Even my favourite players in my favourite bands have generated some duff old songs, which no amount of playing can save...

There's bassists I like, but they don't dictate what I like to listen to, and I definitely don't gravitate to solo/virtuoso bass stuff, and definitely, definitely not the widdly/shreddy stuff. Most of those guys have got enough competition these days from 10-year olds on YouTube anyway...if you'll forgive a footballing analogy, it's like watching someone playing keepie-uppie rather than a good match...  The only person I willingly listen to/watch playing solo is Bobby Vega, and that's mostly because of that little knee-bend shuffly boogie thing he does... 😀

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Muzz

[mingsta]

Some exceptions to the rule, but generally if the bass is good, then the music is good! 

[tonyquipment]

On 19/11/2018 at 19:06, BigRedX said:

For me the actual music comes first and the musicians who play it it a long way down the order certainly behind the songwriting/composition, production and image.

I don't care how "good" a musician you are if I don't like the music that you play, you are IMO using your powers for evil and consequently of no interest to me.

Pretty much this. I listen to music for texture. I think it’s just the way I am built. I DJ a lot so knowing the music texture(key tempo/overall fit) is just second nature to me 

like for example when a song with lyrics is presented, I generally ignore what they are singing about and listen to more of the tune and how the chords and instruments have been put together. It’s loke I’m lyrically blind. I know the tune but the actual words could be anything to me. Strange I know. I’ve looked up lyrics of songs before and have been like haha ahhh that’s what they’re singin about 😅

[Barking Spiders]

On 20/11/2018 at 14:19, Monkey Steve said:

Each to their own, but I'll listen to a band I like first, and if they have a good and interesting bass player, so much the better - Art Liboon's playing in Mordred is a great example.  I don't think it's an exact science - I might like the band more because the bass lines are particularly excellent or interesting, but I'm very unlikely to listen to a genre that I'm not very interested in just because the bass lines are great.  the comparison I'd make is that I know that professional opera singers are very talented, but I don't like any opera that I've heard so I'm not going to start listening to them rather than Motorhead just because the singers are more technically adept than Lemmy.

I have tried to get into the virtuoso stuff but it leaves me cold.  30 years ago I got dragged to see Joe Satriani on the Surfing With The Alien tour by a guitarist friend who thought it was the best music ever made.  Stu Hamm's bass solo was the one bright spot in an otherwise utterly dull evening, so when I found a Stu Hamm solo album I bought it anticipating a brilliant set of songs played by a great musician.  Can't argue about the great musician side of that, but the only song worth listening to was the Moonlight Sonata.  the rest of it was technique over song craft, and I have no interest in that

Reminds me when a friend took me to see G3 at the NIA , with Satriani, Vai and Fripp. The sense of communal boredom was palpable as many of us in our row kept looking at eachother to see who'd make the first move to leave. Me and my mate did and then half a dozen more immediately followed. We all agreed that this was possible one of the dullest music events any of us had ever suffered. It was was an interminable widdleathon devoid of banter and any entertainment.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Barking Spiders

[Phil Starr]

On ‎19‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 16:19, stewblack said:

 Just recently Scott Devine did another instalment of his "bass players you must check out" series on Youtube.

Funnily enough I watched one of these last night. By the time Scott reaches the 1970's it's all about the bass and the technical gifts of the bassists and bands less well known songs that happen to have extraordinary bass lines. Now I would love to have a fraction of the skills and musical intelligence of a Scott Devine but the music left me cold. I can appreciate how good these players are but for me it's a bit of a musical exercise, a great work out for something with a bit of meaning later on which never happens. Yet I get real pleasure out of a great bassline and as a non musician of 55years turned player I get more pleasure now I have a little understanding. Listening to Graham Maby on the Joe Jackson songs is a real thrill now I know a little more. For me though it is still the song first and the musicianship further down and I'd take an Andy Fraser over a Jaco any day.

It changes all the time though, the better I get and the more I understand the further I'm drawn into the technical aspects but I hope to always be more of a bass-watcher than a twitcher.

[WHUFC BASS]

1 hour ago, Phil Starr said:

Yet I get real pleasure out of a great bassline and as a non musician of 55years turned player I get more pleasure now I have a little understanding.

Stanley Clarke (of all people) came out with an absolute diamond piece of advice once in an interview. He said "Learn all you can about theory and then forget about it". I didn't really get that until years later. It basically means learn as much theory as you possibly can, but just play what you think sounds best, regardless of what you think will impress.

[stewblack]

2 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

more of a bass-watcher than a twitcher.

That's brilliant

[stewblack]

It's interesting how many people seem able to draw distinction between the song, or band and the individual bassplayer. To me the bassline is such an important part of what makes a great song. It's one of the reasons I love many songs, the bass part reaches out and grabs me, makes me smile.

This isn't to the detriment of the song any more than a wonderful lyric or fine trumpet solo or beautiful voice would be. Yes the song comes first for me but the brilliant bass part is one reason I love the song in the first place.

[Monkey Steve]

25 minutes ago, stewblack said:

It's interesting how many people seem able to draw distinction between the song, or band and the individual bassplayer. To me the bassline is such an important part of what makes a great song. It's one of the reasons I love many songs, the bass part reaches out and grabs me, makes me smile.

This isn't to the detriment of the song any more than a wonderful lyric or fine trumpet solo or beautiful voice would be. Yes the song comes first for me but the brilliant bass part is one reason I love the song in the first place.

yes, having a great bass line could be why you like the song, and thus the band.  But equally having a great bass line may not do any more than roll a turd of a song in a little bit of glitter.  So given the choice, for me, a band who play music that I like even if the bass player is pants is always better than a great bass player playing music that I dislike

[Unknown_User]

I'm kind of in both camps I suppose.  For example there's no way I'd have considered listening to a lot of stuff I now do since getting more into playing bass properly.  Or at least as close as I can get to properly!  I can't imagine choosing to listen to The Jackson 5 or Fontella Bass before I learned the basslines to I Want You Back or Rescue Me.  Now I love listening to them.  Particularly the bass on I Want You Back is joyous and just makes life feel brighter when I listen to it.

Since joining a covers band there's loads of stuff in this category that I now listen to and enjoy which I would have either just pulled a face at or listened to and been nonplussed by ten or even five years ago.

On the other hand stuff I now realise a lot of the songs I liked best when when I was young have amazingly effective bass lines that I had obviously enjoyed but not properly appreciated at the time.

On 19/11/2018 at 21:02, stewblack said:

Begs a question what happens if a favourite player goes off and joins someone I don't like ? 🙉

This happened for me when the bass player from Marilyn Manson, of whom I'm a big fan, joined A Perfect Circle with the singer from Tool, who I find massively boring.  The result: massively boring to my ears.

I guess it depends on the band, the bass player and how the two fit together.

[Barking Spiders]

4 hours ago, stewblack said:

It's interesting how many people seem able to draw distinction between the song, or band and the individual bassplayer. To me the bassline is such an important part of what makes a great song. It's one of the reasons I love many songs, the bass part reaches out and grabs me, makes me smile.

This isn't to the detriment of the song any more than a wonderful lyric or fine trumpet solo or beautiful voice would be. Yes the song comes first for me but the brilliant bass part is one reason I love the song in the first place.

And often  brilliance is in pure simplicity. It's some of the simplest of lines that make the song. I'm thinking of tunes like Ball of Confusion, Peaches, The Chain and Once In A Lifetime. Try playing along to these and put in a few extra notes and you'll hear how this fooks up the song.

[stewblack]

3 hours ago, Barking Spiders said:

And often  brilliance is in pure simplicity. It's some of the simplest of lines that make the song. I'm thinking of tunes like Ball of Confusion, Peaches, The Chain and Once In A Lifetime. Try playing along to these and put in a few extra notes and you'll hear how this fooks up the song.

Absolutely no argument from me. When I say the bass part is one of the reasons I like the song in the first place I'm not only referring to virtuoso, faced paced, up and down the fretboard stuff. I love a solid repetitive line as much as the next guy and its very aptness would be what drew me to it.

[stewblack]

6 hours ago, Monkey Steve said:

yes, having a great bass line could be why you like the song, and thus the band.  But equally having a great bass line may not do any more than roll a turd of a song in a little bit of glitter.  So given the choice, for me, a band who play music that I like even if the bass player is pants is always better than a great bass player playing music that I dislike

Absolutely right but you see it's unlikely I'd have been drawn to that song in the first place if it was carp. And I meant to say the bass line would be one of the reasons not the sole reason I was drawn to the song.