Why do bassists seem to be so obsessed with sustain?

[Skinnyman]

8 hours ago, chris_b said:

No one needs sustain, until you do. What do you do for the other bar and a half when you're asked to play a song where a note that should hang on for 2 bars dies out in 2 beats?

I view it like this; my car will do over 100 mph even though I don’t need that amount of power.

But having it there is useful for reasons other than outright speed.

Same with the sustain on my bass. I can choose when to damp or mute a note that would otherwise ring out. I can’t force a note to ring out when the bass itself isn’t capable of doing it.

Now “heft” on the other hand..... 😁

[drTStingray]

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Serious question, does anyone here have a bass that can't sustain for 2 bars at any sensible tempo?

It depends what you call a sensible tempo and as important, the quality of the tone in the sustained notes. 

I can think of several songs which require long notes and if I was playing them would pick certain of my basses over others. 

Mr Big by Free is an example (that is an EB3 through a large valve rig and is a particularly fat sound, as is most of what Free played - he also plucks mostly right next to the bridge)  - during the guitar solo section. A number of ballads I can think of do (Anita Baker springs to mind - that has both staccato notes and much longer held ones). 

Its not uncommon to require notes to sustain on a bass guitar. 

[dmccombe7]

Not something i've ever really bothered about. Typically my bass notes will sustain for a bar or at end of a song just run out but even then its usually just a few bars worth.

Dave

[chris_b]

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Serious question, does anyone here have a bass that can't sustain for 2 bars at any sensible tempo?

Others may not have a need for sustain and might be wondering why anyone would think it is a good idea, but I've needed long notes in slow songs where I wanted them to sound strong for the duration. 

For sustain read slow decay. 2 bars was just an example, I've had basses that would struggle to be heard after 1 bar because the note died away too quickly. Long sustain might not be a regular requirement but as I said, a bass that can sustain well usually sounds great on the short notes too. I had to play Boys Of Summer in a band and I was happy my bass held those long notes, with a good tone, for most of the 4 bars.

Most players won't notice what levels of sustain they have, which is fine. I just disagree with people who don't need it telling me I don't either!!

[prowla]

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Serious question, does anyone here have a bass that can't sustain for 2 bars at any sensible tempo?

Mine has, ever since I put a sponge under the strings; I don't know what's gone wrong - do I need to fit a hi-mass bridge?

[stewblack]

This is inevitably going to divide us into those for whom it's an important issue and those who don't give a fig.

Not sure me telling someone they're wrong to care about something will achieve any more than them telling me I'm wrong not to care. 

I think it's actually OK for us not to think the same. 

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, chris_b said:

For sustain read slow decay. 2 bars was just an example, I've had basses that would struggle to be heard after 1 bar because the note died away too quickly.

But that sounds like a bass with unusually poor sustain rather than a justification for basses that sound like they have a built-in e-bow 🙂

I must be in a particularly arsey mood today, so please forgive me!

[Maude]

27 minutes ago, stewblack said:

I think it's actually OK for us not to think the same. 

Get out! Get out now!! 

 

There's no place for that sort of rational reasoning on the internet you know. 

😉

[stewblack]

1 hour ago, Maude said:

Get out! Get out now!! 

 

There's no place for that sort of rational reasoning on the internet you know. 

😉

I... I'm so sorry... I... I don't know what I was thinking 

[prowla]

2 hours ago, stewblack said:

I... I'm so sorry... I... I don't know what I was thinking 

You... you... HATER!, you...

[Beedster]

Part of my reason for posting this thread was this: Whether we agree that sustain is desirable in bass playing or not - and I agree that all other things being equal it's better to have it and not use it than vice versa, as long as all other things are indeed equal - there's a definitive sense of 'better instruments sustain more' that posits sustain as a de facto desirable thing.

I'm not convinced. There's an argument that better engineered systems (instruments) resonate more in a previous post, but that's perhaps a by-product of some instruments and not a design feature of all; it is an argument that seems to have become widely accepted however. But you could equally argue that better engineered systems should resonate less; most engineers would prefer the latter, especially those that build bridges :) My second Wal fretless, a MK1, was, like all Wals, a wonderfully engineered and crafted instrument, it was a joy to play and had the most amazingly evocative and nasal tone. But it did not sustain at all, it was articulate as flip, really spoke when I played it, and I loved it, because frankly I found it so much easier to play because it didn't sustain. I also wonder - and this is the 'all other things being equal above - whether the absence of sustain added something to the tone and articulateness, and to the amazing ability that bass had to put what I played straight out of my speaker (it was the first bass on which I was ever able to play Rhythm Stick, and it was fretless!). I have a mandolin that doesn't sustain at all, a US made Breedlove, so again a very well built instrument, and one that I love; my previous mandolin would ring out for several seconds comfortably but again was harder to play.

I get that in some situations sustain is desirable and in others it's not, but this isn't about that. I've just never bought the idea that sustain is a de facto indicator of quality in the way some people argue it is.

Thoughts?

[Stub Mandrel]

41 minutes ago, Beedster said:

I get that in some situations sustain is desirable and in others it's not, but this isn't about that. I've just never bought the idea that sustain is a de facto indicator of quality in the way some people argue it is.

Thoughts?

It's an indicator of difference.

As I said above, if a £77 first time kit build bass sustains longer than a respected £950 bass it's clearly not a direct relationship between quality and sustain.

[MattM]

Having owned 2 Steinberger XL2s in my time, a subject close to my heart.  I’d prefer to have too much than too little tbh as I can always damp it out if needed via foam, or my preference, I side-palm mute at the bridge while playing with a pick.  My current ‘Ray Classic has mutes which I deploy more often than not, as it has amazing sustain for a wooden bass.

Its like talking about space with cars and houses, too much is mostly never a problem, too little can be,

[EMG456]

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It's an indicator of difference.

As I said above, if a £77 first time kit build bass sustains longer than a respected £950 bass it's clearly not a direct relationship between quality and sustain.

You've mistaken price for quality there. And also possibly missed the real measure of quality - fitness for purpose. 

Me, I like a long, even sustain and have never, ever placed a piece of foam under the strings of any of my basses. The dull thump sound is not one which has ever held any attraction for me.

[Lfalex v1.1]

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It's an indicator of difference.

As I said above, if a £77 first time kit build bass sustains longer than a respected £950 bass it's clearly not a direct relationship between quality and sustain.

But I'll warrant that you put the kit together properly.

Not £950 bass QC "pass", but properly, as many other forum members might also.

[Drax]

Great question and thread. 

Totally agree that sustain per se is not a marker of quality. We expect some sustain in any instrument, but it’s just one of many parts of the voice.  

Bridge manufacturers have done a persistent job telling us we need more, but stacks of records out there with beautiful, long sustained notes and harmonics via BBOT.  

[chris_b]

55 minutes ago, Drax said:

 . . . . . stacks of records out there with beautiful, long sustained notes and harmonics via BBOT.  

You can do a lot in the studio that doesn't work on stage.

Playing live and trying to recreate the recorded sound is where some of these difficulties arise.

[Drax]

7 hours ago, chris_b said:

You can do a lot in the studio that doesn't work on stage.

Playing live and trying to recreate the recorded sound is where some of these difficulties arise.

Sure, totally appreciate studio can add something. Would have thought live though, so many variables that bridge is pretty low on the list? 

[grandad]

Why do bassists seem to be so obsessed with sustain?

 

It's not just bassists.

 

https://www.cycfi.com/2013/11/sustain-myth-science/

 

[MacDaddy]

maybe it's because it's something we originally never had? There are still bassists today (you know who you are!) that think the ideal bass sound is a dull thud, because that was the sound of the bass during their formative years.

 

[Quilly]

Its one of those first world problems people complain about in the bass world. I used to obsess about things like high mass bridges and neck thru bodies until I realized all my bass heroes all played either passive P or Jazz basses, usually factory standard gear and that its all in the technique and basically being a good player. A bad carpenter blames his tools and all that.  

[jazzmanb]

My take is a well built bass will have a natural clear and precise ability to give you the best possible result from plucking a string . Its bottom end  will be more than just a noise amplified from a string resonating.

I too have to sometimes contain sustain .Is that not an  EQ Thing though ?,where a guitars electrics may not be a perfect match for what the unplugged instrument produces ? 

[LukeFRC]

I think the more important quality is the attack envelop of the note -rather than the sustain, though they are linked. 

I used to have a Warwick streamer, lovely thing, and like a lot of well built thru necks could sustain for hours. But when I got it it had active MEC pickups the attack was so quick it could sound like a machine gun, it sounded like it wasn't sustaining at all... based on the attack of the note. 
When I put passive Bartolini in it the attack was more subdued and it sounded like it had a lot more sustain... even though it really didn't. 
 

[Stub Mandrel]

15 hours ago, EMG456 said:

You've mistaken price for quality there.

That's flattering, but I'm sure the kit timber would be judged by most to be of lower grade. The other significant determinant of sustain would be the neck fit which is fine for both. The Fender hardware is better quality, though the same basic design for both.

My input wasn't much more than making sure the screws were done up properly, which ought to apply to any bass.

Odd thing is the jazz has Fender roundwounds and the kit P had Fender flats.  I would have expected the rounds to have more sustain.

I suppose the real question is why do some basses have less sustain? I suspect that in part its down to the pickups with the 'vintage' pickups in the Jazz being less sensitive.

[EMG456]

19 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

That's flattering, but I'm sure the kit timber would be judged by most to be of lower grade. The other significant determinant of sustain would be the neck fit which is fine for both. The Fender hardware is better quality, though the same basic design for both.

My input wasn't much more than making sure the screws were done up properly, which ought to apply to any bass.

Odd thing is the jazz has Fender roundwounds and the kit P had Fender flats.  I would have expected the rounds to have more sustain.

I suppose the real question is why do some basses have less sustain? I suspect that in part its down to the pickups with the 'vintage' pickups in the Jazz being less sensitive.

Again, the jazz maybe has woods that are assumed to be better quality but it's still a mass produced factory instrument with all that that implies. The pickups just report what the strings are doing - if they are lower output, that is compensated by turning up the preamp gain. You'll likely find that the difference is also noticeable acoustically. That string energy is being sucked up somewhere.