Edumicate a Guitarist on what BASS is all about

[ShredCow]

Well its about time I made my bovine presence felt in these halls of thundering low end-ness.

Heh.

Okay, jokes aside.

I would love to understand the low end better. Things like playing bass, setting eq, yadda yadda - I understand them to a CERTAIN extent - but I'm also very certain I'm possibly understanding from the mindset of a guitarist.

And more importantly, when discussing things, I find I learn, which I'm sure many of you do too, much more than just sitting down and observing... plus no textbook beats experience.



So, 2 questions:

What makes great bass playing?

What makes for great bass tone?




My preconceived notions about playing the bass:
I've always thought great bass playing is all about the groove... laying a solid foundation, working with the drummer, rocking the house down not in a shreddy widdle dee doo manner that guitarists like to indulge in.
Is that ALL there is?
Am I on the right track in terms of concept?
Give me your whole understanding of what it means to be the bass player... your role... tips and suggestions to make it "more" exciting than "just doing" groove...
What is it that bassists frequently DON'T get?
Is there ROOM in a band for a "creative", "over-playing", "lead" bassist? (E.g. Sheehan -> is he considered the Malmsteen of the low end?)


About bass tone:
What matters more - The bass, the amp or that direct in pre-amp thing?
Pedal effects, what makes sense?
Would effects take away from the whole groove thing?
Which players seem to utilise effects in an excellent exemplary manner?
Or is good tone all about the simple setup of a great bass into a great amp?

I've seen cool stylish basses - looking sleek and futuristic (e.g. some Ibanez) - but they sound bad, thin and there is no richness to the tone --> what matters more in choosing a good bass?


I know this is a HUGE, WIDE topic to discuss and I'm just shooting off queries but well, if I do spy something I'd like to know more about, then the PMs will fly and I will seek out the specifics from there on.

 

[shinobi]

with regards to tone, i'd reckon it should be the same as the guitar... to me tone is a preference. it varies depending on the individual. almost like a reflection of the bassist's personality; it's the way HE wants the bass to sound

in terms of playing style (not musical style), i think the bass is abit special because there are so many different techniques of playing the bass such as slapping, tapping and what not. and my personal opinion is that there is no bassist out there today that claims to be totally well rounded; they all seem to lean towards a particular technique of playing

if you are really interested in discovering the bass guitar as an instrument, maybe you could check out the evolution of the bass. the modern electric bass resembles an electric guitar to such a great extent that its easy for people to misunderstand its role. if you go back to its roots, the double bass, you will realise that bass and guitar are 2 totally different animals

this is a series of clips that i really love http://www.soundjunction.org/thedoublebasspizzicatotogo.aspa?NodeID=192

this is somewhere in the middle of the series, it's about pizzicato playing (finger style) on the double bass

 

[Freeko]

Is there ROOM in a band for a "creative", "over-playing", "lead" bassist? (E.g. Sheehan -> is he considered the Malmsteen of the low end?)

I don't really get why you associated "over-playing" with "lead style playing" and "creativity".

When you say creative I think of someone who can add to the music in an interesting yet tasteful way but not over-play. Lead playing doesn't mean over playing too!

There are many bassists who play in a lead style fashion! Like John Entwistle of The Who, John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin, Pino Palladino when he played for Paul Young, they list goes on! They may not play a lead style on all tracks, but they did really well on the ones they have!

Examples maybe, "Everytime You Go Away" by Paul Young and "The Lemon Song" by Led Zeppelin! Some solos I like are "My Generation" by The Who and "Mr. Big" by Free!

On Billy Sheehan, no I don't really think he's the Malmsteen on bass, but is tapping is similar to that of Eddie Van Halen! He also does keep his role as a bassist, in terms of locking the band in solid, etc. he also mentions the role of a bassist(having a tight, solid groove, and so on..) in a lot of videos and interviews! So he knows his stuff! He ain't just a dumb shred fool!

just my 2 cents!

 

[ShredCow]

with regards to tone, i'd reckon it should be the same as the guitar... to me tone is a preference. it varies depending on the individual. almost like a reflection of the bassist's personality; it's the way HE wants the bass to sound

Thanks for the post!

Okay, my mindset is that - for a bassist, his "preference" for whatever bass tone is 2nd place to what actually works?

As in, like Manowar - Joey De-something - and his super thin sounding, distorted to bits bass tone when playing live (on at least ONE youtube vid) ... that strikes me as bass that is really... well, don't have bass lah. What's the point of bass if the tone is akin to a lead guitar?

So therefore, for the bass, is function (keeping the groove, low end, yadda yadda) > than personal tone preference?

 

[ShredCow]

I don't really get why you associated "over-playing" with "lead style playing" and "creativity".

Hence the use of "". I felt that those terms convey the idea I want to convey in the most concise manner but can be easily misunderstood or interpreted in various ways... so I'm kind of leaving it up to the read to interpret and post...

On Billy Sheehan, no I don't really think he's the Malmsteen on bass, but is tapping is similar to that of Eddie Van Halen! He also does keep his role as a bassist, in terms of locking the band in solid, etc. he also mentions the role of a bassist(having a tight, solid groove, and so on..) in a lot of videos and interviews! So he knows his stuff! He ain't just a dumb shred fool!

I see I see... so the return to basics (as I understand it) is still the key thing...

 

[rottenramone]

if you're talking about breaking away from the traditional bass approach, there are musicians who use the bass in a more unusual manner, like michael manring.

 

[shinobi]

it depends on the dynamics of the band. many people think that the bassist has the job to 'lock in', but that job is not restricted to the bassist alone. in any kind of music, there has to be one instrument that plays the root note. so if you play a part of a song in Cmaj for example, one instrument (usually the bass) has to play the root note, which is the C. even if the bassist walks, he has to come back to the root note to spell out the chord. the other instruments (usually guitars) will open up the chord by playing the 3rds, the 5ths, the 7ths and whatever. this constitutes the melody. if all the instruments repeat the process in a chord progression, you have a song.

so by convention, the guitar does the melody because the range of notes of an electric guitar is far wider than the bass. the bass handles the groundwork because it can reach notes lower than whatever a guitar can produce. when you put the 2 instruments together you get a much wider dynamic range.

 

[ShredCow]

if you're talking about breaking away from the traditional bass approach, there are musicians who use the bass in a more unusual manner, like michael manring.

What's a "traditional" bass approach? Say in a band context - what makes a good bass player, and what makes good --> better --> spectacular?

Manring sounds like a tremendous soloist... I'm sure he could play a mean groove though... but I kind of think of him as a soloist and get that kind of vibes from listening to him.

 

[shinobi]

i can't think of many examples off hand, but one could possibly be jambi by tool. the song starts with heavy palm muting, and then the bass actually riffs on top of the guitar. so in this case the guitar is actually the one providing the foundation, especially when the bass goes into the delay riff. so much so that it is even able to cue a change in the time signature. during the talk box guitar solo the roles are reversed

 

[ShredCow]

so by convention, the guitar does the melody because the range of notes of an electric guitar is far wider than the bass. the bass handles the groundwork because it can reach notes lower than whatever a guitar can produce. when you put the 2 instruments together you get a much wider dynamic range.

If so - then its the bassist primary job is to keep the low end because its made that way...

And it would take talent/skill to be able to weave in, out, around lead-like bass noodling (secondary) and grooving, locking tight (primary).

Then in that case, regardless of band context, the instrumental context, the fact that it IS a bass --> there is less need/emphasis/want/tasteful to be a "lead" bass. So to speak?

 

[ShredCow]

i can't think of many examples off hand, but one could possibly be jambi by tool. the song starts with heavy palm muting, and then the bass actually riffs on top of the guitar. so in this case the guitar is actually the one providing the foundation, especially when the bass goes into the delay riff. so much so that it is even able to cue a change in the time signature. during the talk box guitar solo the roles are reversed

Good example...

I've got a bass player who is totally into the less "common" side of bass playing. I'm happy, grateful to get a player like that - using tremolo, delay, fuzz, chorus, etc --> Sure, nothing NEW but something less common, that willingness to branch out and do your own thing (which I value a lot).

Now, I'm afraid I am the one who might cap him up - bounded by my notions of what bass is about. Yeah, I mean, use my ears, just listen lah, if it sounds good in the mix, then? That's not good enough in my books - especially when its a band effort... we all have ideals on what sounds "good", basically ending up either holed up or... uh... turning into some chaotic rubbish.

What else is out there that I can take note of? Looking at a simple 1 gtr, 1 bass, 1 drummer, kind of band layout.

 

[shinobi]

in that sense i guess you are right. although it is all very subjective, i don't believe a bass should forget its primary objective, which is to cover the ground.

in the case of your bass player, just remember one of the universal rules: too much of something is bad. there is a time and place for these sort of 'uncommon' things, and to mix it in tastefully requires alot of creativity. which is probably the main reason why it is 'uncommon'

tool was an example of a 1guitar 1 bass 1 drum setup, perhaps another one could be muse. muse basslines are heavy on effects, to compensate for the emptiness of a 3 pc setup. in some cases, the bass actually allows the guitar greater freedom. something like in 'plug-in baby' by muse.

 

[neverconscious]

someone (the user, not just anyone LOL) once said that the bass is the glue that holds everything together in the band, and I think it's very true: the bass is a link between the guitars and the drums. In that sense this maxim informs most of the choices one would make about playing bass; from the choice of notes in a song to the very sound of the bass itself. I myself have a preference for a very mid-heavy, growly bass tone, but it may not be right given what is going on in the band sonically. This is especially so when the lineup I play in is big (more guitarists, inclusion of a keyboard player, etc): I would have to compensate by turning down the upper mids and turning up the lower frequencies to make sure I'm not fighting with anyone for that kind of space. I'd also have to play lower notes and maybe play more sparsely so as to keep the band from sounding like there's too much going on at the same time. It's the opposite in a 3-piece band, like Shinobi's example of Muse. The bass is now tasked with making sure the band sounds fuller and this can be achieved through the tone and also the number of notes.

 

[shinobi]

@neverconscious what you are saying is totally true, and it is indeed the convention...

but maybe we can explore the possibilities of the bass taking another role, a more melodic one perhaps, and the guitar taking over the role as glue. even though both instruments were not really intended for these roles... it could be possible. and the tool example that i gave was what i felt came closest to that being achieved.

indeed, the bass is the GLUE, but may i add, what makes it the glue, whether its a walking jazz or blues line, or a funk slap-pop riff, the ROOT is always there, the marker, a signpost. the ROOT is in fact the GLUE.

LONG LIVE THE BASS. screw the white stripes

 

[kerplunk182]

besides muse, there's anti-flag too! I wonder how the heck he comes up with riffs like that

 

[edder]

shredcow.... go checkout steve bailey... he's got one particular clip on youtube with 3 or 2 other bigname bassist jamming.

all of them got groove but he... i think he's wanking but thats just me! :mrgreen:

 

[niyyo]

I think it boils down to "trying" to be "uncommon" vs creativity. I faced similar problems with a few bands i've played with coz i play the bass quite unconventionally... but i do what makes sense. When i write my bass line, i think of myself as a GLUE as neversconcious mentioned.

I start off by just doing the roots, from there i'll start creating a motif from the vocals or guitars or a mixture of both and yet rocking hard and grooving with the drums, or simply just filling out the empty parts of the song with a motif when no one's looking =P whatever makes sense to me during the process, my purpose for doing this is to create a link between all instruments and to give the song an identity by bringing out what i feel is the most catchy part of the song.

I always prefer my bass lines to interact with the whole band. Of coz all these are subjected to changes according to the preferrences of my band, i will fight for my cause when i feel strongly for it but i will never let my style or my "uniqueness" get in the way of creativity and the music direction of the band.

For effects wise, i must say, if its creating emptyness like lack of the bottom end which i hear from many bassists using various very interesting effects and the sounds are clashing, then the band should sit down and figure it out and do "what makes sense".

Some muse songs i hear uses the keys and strings to fill out the songs and when u do the the bass effects without keys or strings, its usually the "quieter" part of the song where the bass rock out with the drummer but of coz there are exceptions like hysteria etc etc, but they managed to find a balance so that all instruments could be heard.

Clarity is a MUST if your using effects for bass and the sounds of various instruments in a band shouldn't be clashing. what's the point of adding effects that only sound nice when u play the song alone? =)

 

[hecklerkoch]

Fundamentally, bass provides the structure of a 'traditional' song with a low end sound that perfectly accompanies the drumbeat, as though 'vocalising' it and adding tone to the whole rhythm.

Gosh, I am trying really hard to put that (what I personally think) across and describing it. Hahaha!!!

But at the same time, bass can be like totally independent and hold its own and have its own 'song within a song'. Again I am speaking alien language which I myself am not even sure of its credibilty.

I mean, will songs like say, 'Soul To Squeeze' sound 'better' without its fantastic bassline?

Bass, to me, appeals greatly as it is like low frequencies that affect people profoundly, compared to higher pitches. Sublimely, it has the potential to haunt because it is not in your face and sort of like in the background but still loud enough to be heard. That's why bass is so powerful.

Man, my reply is like a joke.

Whatever. Hahahaha!!

:mrgreen:

 

[ShredCow]

someone (the user, not just anyone LOL) once said that the bass is the glue that holds everything together in the band, and I think it's very true: the bass is a link between the guitars and the drums. In that sense this maxim informs most of the choices one would make about playing bass; from the choice of notes in a song to the very sound of the bass itself. I myself have a preference for a very mid-heavy, growly bass tone, but it may not be right given what is going on in the band sonically. This is especially so when the lineup I play in is big (more guitarists, inclusion of a keyboard player, etc): I would have to compensate by turning down the upper mids and turning up the lower frequencies to make sure I'm not fighting with anyone for that kind of space. I'd also have to play lower notes and maybe play more sparsely so as to keep the band from sounding like there's too much going on at the same time. It's the opposite in a 3-piece band, like Shinobi's example of Muse. The bass is now tasked with making sure the band sounds fuller and this can be achieved through the tone and also the number of notes.

This is kind of what I was getting at - that Bass, due to the nature of the instrument, is therefore relegated to play... Bass!

And the most consistently USEFUL manner to play Bass is... that way of being glue.

So if so... then what's #1 is - keep the damn low end... #2 work with the drummer... #3 don't interfere with the rest.

Something like that?

 

[ShredCow]

@neverconscious what you are saying is totally true, and it is indeed the convention...

but maybe we can explore the possibilities of the bass taking another role, a more melodic one perhaps, and the guitar taking over the role as glue. even though both instruments were not really intended for these roles... it could be possible. and the tool example that i gave was what i felt came closest to that being achieved.

indeed, the bass is the GLUE, but may i add, what makes it the glue, whether its a walking jazz or blues line, or a funk slap-pop riff, the ROOT is always there, the marker, a signpost. the ROOT is in fact the GLUE.

LONG LIVE THE BASS. screw the white stripes

And this is the other school of thought that strives to reach out and do something...

I like this... and I think if you can find the balance, wow, that's something.

But bo pian hor... cannot escape from being GLUE nonetheless...