How good does a (pop) bass player really need to be?

[thisnameistaken]

Right... I've been playing bass for 20 years now, with a pause of about 6 years where I wasn't in a band but I still regularly picked up the bass for jollies. And I've come to the conclusion that practicing playing bass beyond the first year or two is probably a waste of time.

Yes I know there are some fringe forms of music that require virtuoso bassists but they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Let's ignore them, because nobody buys their records anyway.

I was thinking about this earlier and I came to the conclusion that - as a bassist - the first thing you need to know is why James Jamerson played like he did, and once you figure that out there's really not much else worth learning. At that point you should divert your attention to learning about how music works full-time, or learning to sing or write songs or something with more mainstream value like that.

I am playing devil's advocate somewhat here, but go on:

[YouMa]

Its a real shame there is not more information about James jamerson he was a pinnacle of musical evolution,i always get the impression that there was no god given talent though,just an extremely expressive,sensitive, individual and artist. I like him and other players like him because i think you could have given the man any bass or guitar and it would still deliver. He just had a fantastic connection with music. If i could have someone at a table he would be there. Its the same with Bernard edwards there is not really that much information on the guy considering the impact he must of had on peoples in the 70s/80s who were not even aware that this man created the soundtrack to there lives.My reply is completly off the point though sorry.I would be happy just to write good funky tunes that sell and to be honest like him or not JK is the only guy in the charts who seems to be doing this.(Im babbling)

Edited June 23, 2009 by YouMa

[bigjohn]

I've been playing for about 20 years also, with a break of about 10 when I wasn't in a band. Also used to pick up the bass now and again for fun though.

I still feel like the more I practice, the better I get.

[MythSte]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='521376' date='Jun 23 2009, 02:22 AM']the first thing you need to know is why James Jamerson played like he did, and once you figure that out there's really not much else worth learning.[/quote]

To be quite honest, I think that in itself could take a lifetime of practice! Not as easy to most as it seems!

[alexclaber]

They need to have a good feel and sound and general appreciation of what is needed for the track. Timing, tone and taste. Technique-wise all you need is enough technique to ensure that your ideas are executed as you intend, no more and definitely no less!

Alex

[rslaing]

I suppose you can just practice to get to the level you want.

But if you practice enough to be able to play more complicated stuff, the simpler material will be easier to play.

Most people don't practice much because they don't enjoy it, so they end up noodling. This results in no major improvement in their playing so they start to think that practice is a waste of time. So they stop practicing

I feel the most important thing is to develop a practice routing that you like and you enjoy. Make sure when you practice it is MUSICAL.
Once you have mastered something, move on to something that is more challenging.

Don't practice for more than 25 minutes without taking a break for 10 minutes or so before you resume. It helps to you subconciously absorb what you have been practicing.

One other thing that may lead to frustration and practice not being enjoyable:

If you keep making a mistake in the same place when you are practising, it is normally because of something you are doing just prior to that error. Instead of concentrating on the error, practice the bit before your error and make adjustment until the mistake is overcome. Otherwise all you are doing is reinforcing the mistake

I picked that one up from Victor Wooten who said that it was a very important factor that helps him even now when he practices. And it halves my practice time when trying to nail the difficult stuff.

Edited June 23, 2009 by rslaing

[iamthewalrus]

It really depends on your interpretation of "pop" music.

If you're talking about the increase in popularity of bands such as The Kaiser Chiefs, Coldplay, Franz Ferdinand, Kings of Leon, or most rock bands, then you need to at least be a fairly competent & solid player. The guys who play bass in those self contained bands probably have a good idea of what they can play around the chord progressions in the songs they play.

On the other hand, if you're talking about everything else - these gigs are possibly either being covered by guys out of places like Berklee, BIT, ACM, ICMP, or the small cadre of session bassists in Europe & the US ("schooled" players - the only exception to this would be Pino ).

I think the vast majority of us gave up eons ago trying to figure out what "pop" music is - everything nowadays seems to fit in category somewhere.

I'd be interested to see what the pros who post on here would say about this subject....

Cheers,
iamthewalrus

[rjb]

Sometimes you can make millions needing to do little more than play root notes in 4/4.

Adam Clayton, Guy Berryman - I'm looking at you!

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='521376' date='Jun 23 2009, 02:22 AM']Right... I've been playing bass for 20 years now, with a pause of about 6 years where I wasn't in a band but I still regularly picked up the bass for jollies. And I've come to the conclusion that practicing playing bass beyond the first year or two is probably a waste of time.

Yes I know there are some fringe forms of music that require virtuoso bassists but they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Let's ignore them, because nobody buys their records anyway.

I was thinking about this earlier and I came to the conclusion that - as a bassist - the first thing you need to know is why James Jamerson played like he did, and once you figure that out there's really not much else worth learning. At that point you should divert your attention to learning about how music works full-time, or learning to sing or write songs or something with more mainstream value like that.

I am playing devil's advocate somewhat here, but go on:[/quote]

It's an interesting question.
I feel for the purposes of debate, you can broadly divide the argument into two convenient portions:

1. Those who's goal it is to make music for reasons of entertainment of others and have fun and give a good time and have a good time.

2. Those who are interested in playing music for the sake of music itself, for art and for (IMO laudable) high achievement technically or otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned both endeavours are legitimate.

I try to exist in both camps, what some of my colleagues in the jazz world would consider cheesy I will play with relish because I see the value to the listener and feel my role is complete if they enjoy my contribution eg my trip to Germany on the weekend involved playing crossover classical to over 7000 very appreciative people. I loved it.
I also play jazz and learn what some here would term elevator, or noodly music. I endeavour in that direction for aims of a personal nature , to be technically proficient, and to achieve difficult things. The reasoning, it is a personal challenge and to that end, I have very little concern about people disliking it, and unlike some jazz and contemporary players, I don't think of the public as useless, artlesss oiks who should (damn you) like my output.

Interestingly you cite James Jamerson as an example of the standard to achieve... well in my view, no one since him yet has (although for me Jimmy Johnson is close). Interestingly he was, in the fifties, a Jazz double bassist and a huge amount of his musical language came from the jazz improvised school of playing that people are often so critical of today. If I could say I played as well as he at this point in life I, would be a deliriously happy man, but I can't and there is much much much much more to Jamerson than your words seem to imply (although I have a feeling you know that already)
Another point worth considering on this is that there is a bit of a difference between our pop music scene and that of our US cousins which in some sepcific regards gives them the edge.
I will give you some examples:
Stevie wonder is a monster player/singer
Alicia Keys is a monster player/singer
Jimi Hendrix was (you get the picture)
James Taylor
James Brown
Ray Charles
Billy Joel
Barbara Streisand
Barry Manilow (brilliant musician career before soloist MD and arranger)

Those are chosen at random some great US artists, it goes on... the musicians (most of them virtuoso)
Steve Jordan played drums on 'Walking on Sunshine'
Dave Weckl played drums on like a virgin
Tony Levin played bass on Sledgehammer
Steve Gadd has played on too many hits to mention
as has Marcus miller
or Will Lee
or Greg Phillinganes
or Richard Tee
or Steve Lukather
etc etc the list goes on and on and it is filled with musicians that are absolute monsters. And in many cases they make great music.

I've tried to be wide in my brief to cover as many genres as possible so I doesn't necassarily cover my taste but it [i]does[/i] cover what I respect as a musician, and I hope ultimately that it adds a little weight to the legitimacy of being good at what you do. Something I have always tried to do.

Edited June 23, 2009 by jakesbass

[Golchen]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Within the context of live music, and most certainly with Church-related worship bands (seen a LOT!) - one thing that REALLY lifts the music to another level is when the bass player is really good - I don't mean flashy, and I don't mean playing too many notes (!), but players who play around the changes intelligently and give the impression that they have gone a long way beyond the bare essentials.

[alexclaber]

[quote name='Golchen' post='521465' date='Jun 23 2009, 09:46 AM']I'm not sure I agree with that. Within the context of live music, and most certainly with Church-related worship bands (seen a LOT!) - one thing that REALLY lifts the music to another level is when the bass player is really good - I don't mean flashy, and I don't mean playing too many notes (!), but players who play around the changes intelligently and give the impression that they have gone a long way beyond the bare essentials.[/quote]

But bear in mind that some basslines lift a song to a new level but you'd barely even notice how amazing the line is because it's so subliminal in how it works the groove and harmony. And sometimes the most obvious and simplistic bassline is the right one and it takes taste (and often maturity) to realise that. Endlessly pumping out 8th note roots is exactly the right thing to do if you're in AC/DC - the music would sound worse if you did anything else. But placing those notes in exactly the right place and giving them the right pulse through how you attack and damp them requires exactly the right feel - easy if that's what you do naturally, but damned hard if you have to consciously tweak yourself in.

That's why so many cover bands never nail the feel of the likes of the Rolling Stones. None of their material is hard to play if you're them but they created that sound and feel through how they naturally gelled. Synthesising that feel when you're a different group of individuals requires scarily amazing feel.

Alex

[peted]

I shouldn't think you need to develop a physically demanding technique to play (pop) bass. It's far more important that you develop traits such as:

Professionalism
Punctuality
Playing in the pocket
Adaptability
Improvisation
Reading Music

I'm no pro-musician but have respect for those that are, even if they're not playing a million notes a second and slapping and popping all over the shop.

[Leowasright]

The bass and the drums always should be the firm foundation and fabric onto which the guitar (and keyboards) and vocal paint onto. This is why the bass player and drummer need to fit together and gel.

That means to me that the bass should not overcomplicate the structure of the song too much.

My current band had a bass player before me who wanted to widdle slap and solo all the time. They suddenly found the band "improved" (their opinion) when the bass player changed. I simplified a lot of the bass lines; one down to 4/4 8th notes on one of the original songs. This was not because I couldn't play what had gone before, but I felt a simpler line fitted better.

Also, if you have two guitars, I feel the pocket into which you fit is smaller. This was proved when we lost one guitar for a gig due to illness, and this meant I had to fill 70% of the void.

James Jamerson never played complicated, and always stuck with the rhythm and the melody of the song he was playing on. Neither does Herbie Flowers. Adam Clayton and Cliff Williams and their like should be applauded for their adherance to what bass should perhaps really be about.

I like rock, but one of my favourite bass lines is the dead simple one in "Pure Shores" by All Saints, it sets the whole song off, and allows all the sound effects and the girls' vocals to flow over it.

Pop should not be complex.

[chris_b]

[quote name='peted' post='521545' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:10 AM']....I shouldn't think you need to develop a physically demanding technique to play (pop) bass....[/quote]
That might be true with bands like The Troggs, Oasis, and all the 4/4 root players we get today, but it's not true for most of the "pop" music that's been recorded over the last 60 years.

The London session guys like Herbie Flowers, The Funk Brothers (Detroit), the Wrecking Crew (LA) and a lot of the NY session guys came to "pop" music via jazz of one sort or another. So the "pop" soundtrack of the last 60 years is actually being played by guys utilising a minimum of their technical ability. But, what their background did give them was the ability to read and play a chart perfectly in 3 takes and make it sound easy!

[51m0n]

I'm defining pop as what is in the 'Top 40' as it were.

Jeff Berlin reckons he can take a hard working student to the level of serious session muso in about 4 years.

That involves a lot of very hard tedious work on theory and its application, getting your reading of charts and dots to the level of a monster and being able to improvise in any style and or key with great feel.

Thats in four years folks.

I dont think anyone can do it, but a lot could given the motivation.

Given that, I think its safe to say you could be a very proficient workhorse bassist in 2 years with the right attitude.

Most pop requires good solid foundations and a great feel, and some taste.

Thats all. It's nothing like as demanding as being a session player IMO.

When you start to get down the more bass-centric areas though, you need to invest more time on technique, but these are mostly outside the realms of current pop IMO.

I've played for about 20 yrs, I took 4 yrs off from gigging, but picked up the bass occasionally (far too occasionally).

I got some formal training, but never pursued it with anything like the dedication required to be a serious session cat, I was too busy impressing ladies with very fast fingerstyle, slap and tap stuff. More's the pity now!

Nevertheless if you want to be that pop cat you have to keep your chops up, mine are woeful compared to what I once had IMO, and my forearms are killing me from having to really work at some new songs that demand a lot of concentration to get the feel right (sigh!) - and these are pretty much pop songs. You just can not expect to play as well without the chops, physically, to be right on it at any given tempo. Let alone improv etc....

IMO

[chris_b]

[quote name='Leowasright' post='521577' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:36 AM']....James Jamerson never played complicated....[/quote]
Towards the end he was so complicated that the road bass players begged Berry Gordy to get him to tone his playing down, because they couldn't play what he was recording!

[alexclaber]

[quote name='chris_b' post='521587' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:49 AM']Towards the end he was so complicated that the road bass players begged Berry Gordy to get him to tone his playing down, because they couldn't play what he was recording![/quote]

If every pop bassline was as hard as 'What's Going On' I think you'd see a lot fewer covers bands! Way too much like really hard work...

Alex

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Leowasright' post='521577' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:36 AM']James Jamerson never played complicated, and always stuck with the rhythm and the melody of the song he was playing on.

Pop should not be complex. [/quote]

Don't take this the wrong way but I feel you've slightly misunderstood JJ, his lines were on occasion fiercely complex and not only that, very hard to execute in emulation, but the one thing they all had was a 'rightness' which I believe is down to his musicality. He could make anything sound acceptable which to my mind is the hallmark of a true great. Listen to the way Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, or Ray Charles phrase... now try and notate it... some great complexity in there but entirely valid in fact they set the standard.
Lines like 'I heard it through the grapevine' (Gladys Knight version),'Home cooking', 'I was made to love her', 'How long has that evening train been gone' and 'ninety day cycle people' are crammed with death defying rhythmic complexity that are extremely difficult to authentically emulate. And they contain oodles of real earthy feel.
So in fact your "James Jamerson never played complicated" is entirely without evidence, he was a master of the instrument, and had a feel to stop the world turning.

Edited June 23, 2009 by jakesbass

[51m0n]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='521610' date='Jun 23 2009, 12:24 PM']Don't take this the wrong way but I feel you've slightly misunderstood JJ, his lines were on occasion fiercely complex and not only that, very hard to execute in emulation, but the one thing they all had was a 'rightness' which I believe is down to his musicality. He could make anything sound acceptable which to my mind is the hallmark of a true great. Listen to the way Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, or Ray Charles phrase... now try and notate it... some great complexity in there but entirely valid in fact they set the standard.
Lines like 'I heard it through the grapevine' (Gladys Knight version),'Home cooking', 'I was made to love her', 'How long has that evening train been gone' and 'ninety day cycle people' are crammed with death defying rhythmic complexity that are extremely difficult to authentically emulate. And they contain oodles of real earthy feel.
So in fact your "James Jamerson never played complicated" is entirely without evidence, he was a master of the instrument, and had a feel to stop the world turning.[/quote]

So I can take it from that you aint too keen on his stuf then JB?

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='51m0n' post='521701' date='Jun 23 2009, 01:55 PM']So I can take it from that you aint too keen on his stuf then JB? [/quote]
Am I giving something away here??

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='521460' date='Jun 23 2009, 09:41 AM']1. Those who's goal it is to make music for reasons of entertainment of others and have fun and give a good time and have a good time.

2. Those who are interested in playing music for the sake of music itself, for art and for (IMO laudable) high achievement technically or otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned both endeavours are legitimate.[/quote]

You're right of course, any activity can be worth doing purely for its own sake. I was thinking more in terms of what's useful for ensemble performance.

I was thinking about how jazz players probably need good technical skills because they're required to solo a lot more often than most bassists, but then again not as often as other jazz musicians. So do jazz bassists have to practice soloing at home in order to keep those skills in shape? I can imagine horn players or guitarists can stay on top of it just from gigging, but bass players must have to put more effort in, no? That effort requirement for fewer opportunities to use those skills would wind me up.

[quote name='chris_b' post='521582' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:45 AM']The London session guys like Herbie Flowers, The Funk Brothers (Detroit), the Wrecking Crew (LA) and a lot of the NY session guys came to "pop" music via jazz of one sort or another. So the "pop" soundtrack of the last 60 years is actually being played by guys utilising a minimum of their technical ability. But, what their background did give them was the ability to read and play a chart perfectly in 3 takes and make it sound easy![/quote]

I guess that's where the extra ability comes in handy. If it requires very little effort for you to play the instrument you can concentrate on the chart or whatever. Yeah I can imagine having that kind of headroom is useful for studio musicians. I suppose it's difficult to determine though where the need for technical ability on the bass stops and the need for quick consumption and processing of music starts.

For "proper musicians" - people who've been educated - I can imagine the physical skills and the knowledge come hand in hand, but I imagine most bass players are like me, they picked up a guitar and learned to knock a tune out of it, and a limited knowledge of what they're actually doing only trickled in as a by-product.

That's why I was suggesting that it's probably more valuable to study music rather than the bass, because effective bass players need to understand the music really well but rarely need much in the way of physical skills on the instrument. I think I wasted my life.

[chris_b]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='521708' date='Jun 23 2009, 02:00 PM']....For "proper musicians" - people who've been educated - I can imagine the physical skills and the knowledge come hand in hand, but I imagine most bass players are like me, they picked up a guitar and learned to knock a tune out of it, and a limited knowledge of what they're actually doing only trickled in as a by-product.[/quote]
I was only talking about the tip of the iceberg. There are far more great bass players who had a little "education" and a lot of feel who made equally good records, "pop" and otherwise. Clem Catini and Jimmy Page, in London, and the Stax (Duck Dunn), Muscle Shoals (Tommy Cogbill, David Hood), Atlantic (Jerry Jemmot) and Nashville players like Michael Rhodes, probably never went near Jazz but had/have a feel and a musicality in their playing that transcends their technique.

[wesfinn]

I've been playing for about 10 years now and have the ability of someone whose been playing for a year or so. my technique is entirely self taught and for me this works great..ive been to a recognised music school to study a degree and ended up leaving as i just couldn't pick up the new techniques. however I have been in bands since starting playing and have gigged a heck of a lot which has been my most worthwhile thing for timing, feel and performance etc. In the last few years i've sessioned for a major label act and a couple of indie label bands and am now playing as part of a new band on a major label to be released later this year.

so i guess what im trying to say is you don't have to be a technical or amazing bass player to play pop on any level. all you need to be able to do is play solidly and in time and put the occasional SIMPLE lick or fill in to make it a bit more interesting. In my experience every audition has been based more on my image and looks and 'performance' more than my playing (thankfully ^_^ ) when it comes to pop music!

if you want to get into it then go on sites like starnow.co.uk and ukmusicjobs.net theres a fair few auditons popping up for decent pop acts every now and then.

[Owen]

What marks out a great bass player FOR ME (YMMV etc etc) is someone who makes the whole band sound good. It is feel rather than technique. Technique cannot ever hurt, but it is only a tool. Many guitarists can shred like food processors, but they will only ever be guitarists and not musicians. The difference is painfully obvious when you have two guitarists in the same band, one being a guitarist and the other being a musician who plays guitar. A decent technique is not rocket science and should be achievable fairly quickly, but sympathy and empathy to the song and the band takes real-time gigging and band rehearsal. It's like playing with a good drummer - you do not notice it until a bad drummer comes in.

Why do Jazzers fill the ranks of the session pros? Partly because they have learnt to listen to what goes on around them and making it work.

Just some musings