Charles Berthoud

[Doctor J]

Interesting comparison, using Metallica. They were pioneers. In the 80's they were pushing the boundaries of music to somewhere it had never been before. Underground bands playing thrash now are pedalling a music form from 40 years ago, one which already died on its arse in the early 90's. What they're doing has likely already been done as well as it's ever going to be. Think about it, it'd be like Metallica copying Glenn Miller and the like in the 80's instead of establishing their own sound in a contemporary genre. How big would they have been then? A lot of what made Metallica stand out was that they brought something which had never been heard before and it was of exceptional quality. That's what made them remarkable to me back then. Can a new band playing old music ever attain a similar status? Personally, I don't think so. No matter how good the quality, they don't have that new factor, just an interpretation of what as already been done and that's why they're in tiny venues. I say this as someone who is often in the crowd at these gigs at tiny venues. Could a band bringing something genuinely new and high quality "make it" these days? I'd like to think so, just don't think it'll be something which has already been done to death for 40 years.

 

 

Edited August 10 by Doctor J

[Kev]

1 minute ago, Doctor J said:

Interesting comparison, using Metallica. They were pioneers. In the 80's they were pushing the boundaries of music to somewhere it had never been before. Underground bands playing thrash now are pedalling a music form from 40 years ago, one which already died on its arse in the early 90's. What they're doing has likely already been done as well as it's ever going to be. Think about it, it'd be like Metallica copying Glenn Miller and the like in the 80's instead of establishing their own sound in a contemporary genre. How big woulf they have been then? A lot of what made Metallica stand out was that they brought something which had never been heard before and it was of exceptional quality. That's what made them remarkable to me back then. Can a new band playing old music ever attain a similar status? Personally, I don't think so. No matter how good the quality, they don't have that new factor, just an interpretation of what as already been done and that's why they're in tiny venues. I say this as someone who is often in the crowd at these gigs at tiny venues. Could a band bringing something genuinely new and high quality "make it" these days? I'd like to think so, just don't think it'll be something which has already been done to death for 40 years.

Perhaps missing the point I am making a little, but if Metallica appeared now, in the current market, would they break through?  I'm not sure that, against current competition, they would.  Impossible to fairly consider of course, as wiping their impact out would change the platform today.  But it's interesting.

[Doctor J]

And perhaps you're missing mine too. You mention the amount of music out there and you're right, but it's worth bearing in mind that new bands aren't just in competition with the other new bands, they're also in competition with everything which has gone before, such is the current streaming age. If you're playing music of a bygone age, you're putting yourself in competition with those who created the genre in the first place too and you're unlikely to be that good if you're operating within parameters created by someone else and not creating your own unlimited artistic expression. Why would I ever listen to a new thrash band playing their interpretation of Master of Puppets or Reign in Blood when I can just listen to Master of Puppets and Reign in Blood? If a new band came along of high quality who were doing something actually new, I would think it might stand a better chance of standing out and reaching an audience than a regurgitation of something which already exists with a 40 year catalogue of releases to compete against.

 

In a nutshell, by creating something new, you reduce the amount of direct competition. That's what Metallica did in the 80's. That's what Korn, for example, did in the 90's. Would a band bringing something as new and as good as what Metallica brought in the 80's stand out today? I'd say yes. More so than a band in competition with the past.

Edited August 10 by Doctor J

[Kev]

5 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

And perhaps you're missing mine too. You mention the amount of music out there and you're right, but it's worth bearing in mind that new bands aren't just in competition with the other new bands, they're also in competition with everything which has gone before, such is the current streaming age. If you're playing music of a bygone age, you're putting yourself in competition with those who created the genre in the first place too and you're unlikely to be that good if you're operating within parameters created by someone else and not creating your own unlimited artistic expression. Why would I ever listen to a new thrash band playing their interpretation of Master of Puppets or Reign in Blood when I can just listen to Master of Puppets or Reign in Blood? If a new band came along of high quality who were doing something actually new, I would think it might stand a better chance of standing out and reaching an audience than a regurgitation of something which already exists with a 40 year catalogue of releases to compete against.

 

In a nutshell, by creating something new, you reduce the amount of direct competition. That's what Metallica did in the 80's. That's what Korn, for example, did in the 90's. Would a band bringing something as new and as good as what Metallica brought in the 80's stand out today, I'd say yes. More so than a band in competition with the past.

But in a lot of cases, it is the fans that are making the comparison to that of old, not the bands.  It would be pretty difficult to come across a thrash band now that wouldn't resemble some part of Metallica, given their longevity and how often their core "sound" has switched up. The sad thing is, anything Metallica has done since the glory days doesn't really stack up against other modern offerings, but inevitably comfortably outperforms anything new, even when half the fan base accept the individual shortcomings of the band members.

 

But I digress from my own point, i think we need to agree to disagree.  Given the sheer talent on display from literal children, let alone established underground bands, the idea that peak Metallica could be a new band today and instantly succeed is a difficult thing for me to believe.  Not without a hell of a lot of marketing that just wan't needed in the eighties.

[Barking Spiders]

I'm ok with Charles Berthoud and Davie 123 whatever. They've cornered a niche market on YT/Insta and good luck to them. Problem is there are loads of hyper technical guitar-bass- drum - ists spanking their planks on YT and Insta but the number of people who really give a FF about how great someone is at this is diminishing.

[Doctor J]

5 minutes ago, Kev said:

But in a lot of cases, it is the fans that are making the comparison to that of old, not the bands.  It would be pretty difficult to come across a thrash band now that wouldn't resemble some part of Metallica, given their longevity and how often their core "sound" has switched up. The sad thing is, anything Metallica has done since the glory days doesn't really stack up against other modern offerings, but inevitably comfortably outperforms anything new, even when half the fan base accept the individual shortcomings of the band members.

 

But I digress from my own point, i think we need to agree to disagree.  Given the sheer talent on display from literal children, let alone established underground bands, the idea that peak Metallica could be a new band today and instantly succeed is a difficult thing for me to believe.  Not without a hell of a lot of marketing that just wan't needed in the eighties.

 

But that's my entire point, thrash is a 40 year old music form. It's been done as well as it's ever going to be done. New new music has a better chance of standing out and succeeding as it is creating its own market, genre, audience, whatever you want to call it. It's not another fish in a pond which has been filling up for 40 years. Metallica brought something new as well as something very high quality. A new thrash band might be high quality but they are not bringing new music, therefore it stands to reason they are less likely to succeed in this day and age. A band who create a sound of their own have a better chance of standing out, just as Metallica did. A band needs to not conform to thrash and its 40 year old template to stand out.

[Kev]

22 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

 

But that's my entire point, thrash is a 40 year old music form. It's been done as well as it's ever going to be done. New new music has a better chance of standing out and succeeding as it is creating its own market, genre, audience, whatever you want to call it. It's not another fish in a pond which has been filling up for 40 years. Metallica brought something new as well as something very high quality. A new thrash band might be high quality but they are not bringing new music, therefore it stands to reason they are less likely to succeed in this day and age. A band who create a sound of their own have a better chance of standing out, just as Metallica did. A band needs to not conform to thrash and its 40 year old template to stand out.

Yes, but if Metallica didn't exist until 2024, would it have been done as well as it ever would be?  This is the crux of what I'm saying.  Given their pioneer status, it is fair to say if they didn't exist until now, it wouldn't have been done, so thrash would be new.  Would they cut through?

[Doctor J]

Metallica in 2024 would not be playing thrash, as Metallica were doing something new, not their interpretation of music of 40 years ago. However, a band bringing something new and high quality, to the same standard as Metallica were new and high quality in their time, will have a better chance of standing out in this day and age than a band ploughing a 40 year old trough. 

[Kev]

17 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Metallica in 2024 would not be playing thrash, as Metallica were doing something new, not their interpretation of music of 40 years ago. However, a band bringing something new and high quality, to the same standard as Metallica were new and high quality in their time, will have a better chance of standing out in this day and age than a band ploughing a 40 year old trough. 

But If Metallica didn't exist 40 years ago, where would "thrash" be?

 

I think that agree to disagree thing still applies, even if I'm not sure either of us understand's the other's point!  

[tauzero]

1 hour ago, Kev said:

But If Metallica didn't exist 40 years ago, where would "thrash" be?

 

The music on the jukebox in the Tardis?

[NancyJohnson]

I was sent a link to a video of his a couple of years ago and was asked, 'Can [you] do something like this in the next lot of recordings?'

 

When I said no, the guy I was working with asked if I was jealous of the bloke's talent.  I just replied it was beyond my ability, not really musical and whythefeck did the bloke have d-tuners in every string?

 

There's no doubting the guy has machine-like ability/accuracy, but it's showboating; the bass equivalent to keepy-uppy, or snooker trick shots, or those knobheads shredding in guitar shops (although to a global audience as opposed to a few guys buying strings).  I've not investigated anything beyond a couple of videos.  No idea whether he does band stuff, not really bothered/interested to be honest.

[OliverBlackman]

7 hours ago, Doctor J said:

Metallica in 2024 would not be playing thrash, as Metallica were doing something new, not their interpretation of music of 40 years ago. However, a band bringing something new and high quality, to the same standard as Metallica were new and high quality in their time, will have a better chance of standing out in this day and age than a band ploughing a 40 year old trough. 

There’s very little opportunity for ‘new’ left. That’s why we see bands/ artists/ performers pushing ‘music’ to extreme limits where it no longer resembles music for most audiences*. Plus you now need to be able to make your product as cheaply as possible to make any sort of living.

 

*although pretty sure many people were saying the same about Metallica when they started.

Edited August 11 by OliverBlackman

[Doctor J]

It probably gets harder as time goes on but I think it's ridiculous to say there's very little opportunity for 'new' music left. Just because you or I may not conceive it doesn't mean someone else can't. For every leader there are countless followers who don't have that level of talent and imagination. That's why we remember the likes of Metallica, the true creative forces stand out.

 

 

Edited August 11 by Doctor J

[OliverBlackman]

1 hour ago, Doctor J said:

It probably gets harder as time goes on but I think it's ridiculous to say there's very little opportunity for 'new' music left. Just because you or I may not conceive it doesn't mean someone else can't. For every leader there are countless followers who don't have that level of talent and imagination. That's why we remember the likes of Metallica, the true creative forces stand out.

 

 

I hope you’re right but fear you’re not.

[lowdown]

I like him... I think he plays great, entertains well and is top draw at promoting his product.

His playing is articulate, tight and certainly 'on it' as far as groove goes. He has a musical brain that phrases well and to my ears, he does sound like he knows what he is doing.

 

A lot of the material on his albums I find a bit lacking, boring even, but they were from his early days. He's probably matured since then.

Good luck to him, he's certainly a hard worker!!... 

 

I happen to like his Fretless playing and at times, I find his musicality and technique are top draw (IMO of course). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beedster]

16 minutes ago, lowdown said:

I like him... I think he plays great, entertains well and is top draw at promoting his product.

His playing is articulate, tight and certainly 'on it' as far as groove goes. He has a musical brain that phrases well and to my ears, he does sound like he knows what he is doing.

 

A lot of the material on his albums I find a bit lacking, boring even, but they were from his early days. He's probably matured since then.

Good luck to him, he's certainly a hard worker!!... 

 

I happen to like his Fretless playing and at times, I find his musicality and technique are top draw (IMO of course). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect a mistake many of us make is expecting good technicians to also be good composers?

[Munurmunuh]

Rock appears to have died shortly after the release of Rust In Peace. Us listening to our albums from the previous 3 decades are like my friends dad listening to big band music on Radio 2 in his Citroën CX. 

[Munurmunuh]

14 hours ago, bubinga5 said:

watch your mouth with me pal 

 

Trying to remember the rest of the Kevin Bridges routine that this line comes from

[la bam]

I've never really understood playing crazy stuff that's obviously meant for a guitar or keyboard on bass. 

 

Yes, it technically unbelievably good, but what's the point? Just move over to electric guitar or keys to do it. 

 

There's a market for improving and expanding the instrument, sure, but the stuff they do is crazy and better suited to other instruments. 

 

Nothing against any of them though. Good for them. 

 

 

[martin8708]

Back in the late 80’s , I moved to the States for 6 months , I could not work , so I thought I would really concentrate on improving my bass playing . I bought lots of books , VHS vids ( Billy Sheehan ) and CD ‘s . I still own 2 of them, Stuart Hamm and Michael Manring I don’t think I ever made it past the 3rd track on either of those CD’s , despite forcing myself to listen to them ( I’m a bass player right?) 

Theses guys are incredibly talented and I would love to have skills , but I struggle to listen to them in isolation.

[Burns-bass]

The videos where he plays the fastest, most challenging and complex lines is the logical end point for someone like this.
 

He’s incredibly talented and is pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. Is it musical? Possibly. Does it have any real artistic value? Probably not. Is it fun? Yes. 
 

This is his job. He doesn’t profess to be a musical genius, just a guy who’s using what talent he has to make an independent living.

 

Good for him. 
 

I really can’t see much difference between what he’s doing and the people at the Olympics. Both pushing the boundaries of human endeavour in arbitrary and ultimately pointless activities. It’s the essence of humanity.

Edited August 11 by Burns-bass

[ghostwheel]

1 hour ago, la bam said:

Yes, it technically unbelievably good, but what's the point? Just move over to electric guitar or keys to do it. 

 

There's a market for improving and expanding the instrument, sure, but the stuff they do is crazy and better suited to other instruments. 

But why? Why would he move over to another instrument? Are there any regulations I'm missing? Is it prohibited by some law, to play one piece of wood strung with some wire instead of another piece of wood strung with some wire?

I must be a little bit naive thinking that in the free Western world, it is up to every person to decide which instrument they play and how.

No offence.

[chris_b]

All these "what's the point", and "it's a bass so technical brilliance is "showboating""!! comments are very disappointing. 

 

Bass is being progressed to new levels buy these guys, just like Mozart and JS Bach did for the piano and Paganini did for the violin. I can understand not liking what is being played but complaining that it is being played is absurd.

[woodyratm]

Yeah I don't get this attitude at all. 

 

It's getting more people interested in bass, and I'd hazard a guess that CB could rock a standard band gig with no issues. Just the technical silliness is what gets views.

 

Not going to lie, when I was a kid I spent ages learning to play weird stuff. Zero reason why the mental stuff has to be locked to guitars or keyboards! Watching and listening to guys like Vic Wooten, Michael Manning, Billy Sheehan etc. 

 

[la bam]

20 minutes ago, ghostwheel said:

But why? Why would he move over to another instrument? Are there any regulations I'm missing? Is it prohibited by some law, to play one piece of wood strung with some wire instead of another piece of wood strung with some wire?

I must be a little bit naive thinking that in the free Western world, it is up to every person to decide which instrument they play and how.

No offence.

 

Because (just in my opinion) it sounds better played on guitar or keys. Much better range on those instruments for playing solo versions of songs. 

 

If a guitarist played the exact same piece on guitar, or pianist on the piano, not many would bat an eyelid. It's the fact it's played on bass that gets the attention - but not for the right reasons. It's not a fantastic piece written for bass or a fantastic sounding bass part, it's just technically crazy difficult to do on the bass. Again, just my opinion, nothing against anyone doing it.