Best Bass Players

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

All right, I'm wrong. Hot Tuna were first with that melody and chord pattern. Or maybe somebody else was first.

At any rate, I'm not on this thread to criticize Hot Tuna or Gov't Mule. I have listened with pleasure to both bands in my time, and the CD of The Worst of Jefferson Airplane, which contains the Kaukonen exhibition piece Embryonic Journey, is sitting on a shelf not five feet from where I'm typing this. So are CDs of Déja Voodoo and The Deepest End. I didn't come to this thread to diss outfits like that, whose only crime is that they are not geniuses.

My issue is with the masturbatory athletic exercises some people mistake for music. Neither of the above outfits are really known as perpetrators of that kind of thing, though Gov't Mule sometimes come close.

Here's an interesting point: the jock-rock fans have been accusing me of narrow-mindedness and musical ignorance. Well, all that jock stuff is ultimately derived from a single genre, the most intellectually challenged of all popular music forms: heavy metal. It's all about distortion, parallel fifths, minor third melodies and riffing. Seriously, what is the scope of that musical palette? You can add all the polyrhythms, altered chords and wanky techniques you want, but in the end it's always the same old dur-dur-dur-dur.

Here are a dozen bassists I like. All are (or were) great musicians, working in very different musical forms. Some of them don't (or didn't) play very much at all; but the music that results (or resulted) from their ensemble playing is sublime, and they share the credit for every note of it, not just the notes they play themselves. Without them, music today would sound very different. Much of it would not exist at all.

Walter Becker
Ron Carter
Bootsy Collins
Willie Dixon
John Entwistle
Charley Haden
James Jamerson
Carol Kaye
Paul McCartney
Jaco Pastorius
George Porter, Jr.
Bruce Thomas

Google the ones you're unfamiliar with, and you may find your musical horizons widening just a little bit.

Damn ATS and it's content lately, just begging me to argue about things I generally have no interest in debating. What the hell is going on with me??

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

All right, I'm wrong. Hot Tuna were first with that melody and chord pattern. Or maybe somebody else was first.

Gotta love the originality that just courses through the genre

My issue is with the masturbatory athletic exercises some people mistake for music. Neither of the above outfits are really known as perpetrators of that kind of thing, though Gov't Mule sometimes come close.

My issue is with bands that play generic progressions, that were just being rehashed by different groups, maybe a few years apart...some cases not even that long.

Here's an interesting point: the jock-rock fans have been accusing me of narrow-mindedness and musical ignorance. Well, all that jock stuff is ultimately derived from a single genre, the most intellectually challenged of all popular music forms: heavy metal. It's all about distortion, parallel fifths, minor third melodies and riffing. Seriously, what is the scope of that musical palette? You can add all the polyrhythms, altered chords and wanky techniques you want, but in the end it's always the same old dur-dur-dur-dur.

So now this is a new one for me. Heavy Metal came before other types of rock? I would agree if you said something like "Heavy Metal, derived from rock and roll, has branched out and many modern, distinguishable styles of metal have been created from it". And just for that, here's a band full of highly trained musicians that each carry more talent in their pinky fingers than most any 'jock-rock' (whatever the hell that is) player to ever pick up an instrument...playing a little metal for you, if you dare 'expand your musical horizons' that is. Let's see if you have the gusto to sit through 12 minutes of the 'same old dur-dur-dur-dur'.

Hear all that distortion? Sounds pretty nice to me.

All the parallel fifths? Minor third melodies? Hmmm...they aren't standing out to me. Let me guess, some smart remark about my understanding of music theory? 20+ GIGGING years under my belt, in various settings/genres say otherwise.

The bassist (John Myung, mentioned previously in this thread somewhere) is insanely clean, unlike a few of the examples presented here, in a BEST BASS PLAYER thread. Not influential, not played the same generic progressions with lots of famous groups, but their ability to play the instrument.

Here are a dozen bassists I like. All are (or were) great musicians, working in very different musical forms. Some of them don't (or didn't) play very much at all; but the music that results (or resulted) from their ensemble playing is sublime, and they share the credit for every note of it, not just the notes they play themselves. Without them, music today would sound very different. Much of it would not exist at all.

Walter Becker
Ron Carter
Bootsy Collins
Willie Dixon
John Entwistle
Charley Haden
James Jamerson
Carol Kaye
Paul McCartney
Jaco Pastorius
George Porter, Jr.
Bruce Thomas

Google the ones you're unfamiliar with, and you may find your musical horizons widening just a little bit.

A bunch of good players, I usually favor jazz style when it comes to bassists. Everything else can be a bit...boring for my tastes. But many of them (the ones who can actually play) are known (to musicians, like myself) to indulge in this very 'masturbatory athletic exercises' that you loathe oh so greatly.

It's ok to have your favorites, but just know that your favorites aren't necessarily going to be the BEST when it comes time to throw down. Again, BEST BASS PLAYER thread. Technique (including playing clean), tone, phrasing, originality...let's face it, a lot of the 'classic' players weren't all that proficient in the technique department.


And kudos to you for luring me back in here with your posts. I'm generally pretty good about staying out of a thread once I say I'm gone. But music is more to me than any other topic that could possibly presented on this site.

Oops, double post

originally posted by: Astyanax

Here's an interesting point: the jock-rock fans have been accusing me of narrow-mindedness and musical ignorance. Well, all that jock stuff is ultimately derived from a single genre, the most intellectually challenged of all popular music forms: heavy metal. It's all about distortion, parallel fifths, minor third melodies and riffing. Seriously, what is the scope of that musical palette? You can add all the polyrhythms, altered chords and wanky techniques you want, but in the end it's always the same old dur-dur-dur-dur.

You're certainly right about the jock rock BS being highly derivative of metal bands but I'm definitely not on the same page, he ll probably not even the same book, as you Are and your opinion of metal bands being intellectually challenged. A few that I hold In Pretty High esteem wold be Meshuggah, Candiria, Neurosis and Intronaut. Meshuggah is known for their insane polyrhythms and some pretty incredible musicianship, Candiria is probably more of a hardcore band than metal but not only do they play in multiple time signatures they add some amazing jazz, especially on bass and include hip hop which is done quite well and nothing like Limp Bisquick, Intronaut is another band I love and as a bassaYer they blow my mind with one of the most a azmg rhythm sections I've seen since Entwistle and Moon. In my band we too add a lot of jazzy parts, odd time signatures and often within the same song and often do some amazing and bizarre extended jams.I also use a variety of scales and modes ad incorporate a lot of jazz and blues. I don't want to hijack this thread but if you're curious to hear some of my stuff just PM me and ill send you some links to check out.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

All right, I'm wrong. Hot Tuna were first with that melody and chord pattern. Or maybe somebody else was first.

I could care less. It happens all the time sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. Didn't George Harrison get in trouble for that?

At any rate, I'm not on this thread to criticize Hot Tuna or Gov't Mule.

Yes, but for some reason you went down that route.

My issue is with the masturbatory athletic exercises some people mistake for music.

Why do you care what other people enjoy or consider music?

You can add all the polyrhythms, altered chords and wanky techniques you want, but in the end it's always the same old dur-dur-dur-dur.

Don't listen to it.

Google the ones you're unfamiliar with, and you may find your musical horizons widening just a little bit.

The point of the thread was to widen my musical horizons but mostly for my son who just started playing the bass.

Reply to peter vlar

Thanks for the vids, peter. They didn't charm me, I'm afraid, but that's all right. My comments were general; there are, as I said earlier, always exceptions to the rule. I have a few metal types I occasionally listen to myself: Tool, A Perfect Circle, Rammstein. I quite liked Primus for a bit, but then the joke started to wear thin.

*

Reply to Zeta Rediculian

Why do you care what other people enjoy or consider music?

I don't especially, but it's the subject of this thread. Which, I believe, you started.

Don't listen to it.

I don't, unless someone specifically asks me to.

*

Reply to: ChaosComplex

Heavy Metal came before other types of rock?

I said it gave rise to the jock-rock genre of musical self-abuse, not that it gave rise to rock music.

All the parallel fifths? Minor third melodies? Hmmm...they aren't standing out to me.

Hardly surprising, if you don't hear the difference between G and G7.

Hear all that distortion? Sounds pretty nice to me.

That video is a perfect example of the what I'm condemning.

20+ GIGGING years under my belt

Oh, we're comparing sizes now? I played my first public gig in 1982. If you don't count my years as a choirboy, that is; I sang my first public solo ('Once in Royal David's City', no less) at one of the oldest and snottiest Episcopalian churches in my home country in 1970 (and fluffed it, but that's another story). I've played more gigs than I can count, made and produced studio recordings, been the musical director of more than one theatrical production. Still, I'll admit I'm no professional; that way beckons a hard life and an early, nasty death. Luckily, I had the option to choose a less self-destructive profession than music. I say 'luckily' because remaining an amateur has enabled me to explore music more freely and fully, without any pressure. As Jimmy Page once pointed out, professional musicians often end up hating music.

a reply to: Astyanax

I don't especially, but it's the subject of this thread. Which, I believe, you started.

The topic is ambiguous but you seem to want to take center stage and do your own "solo". The point being, everyone else participating seems to "get it". There is a wide variety of bass styles and bass players out there. Everyone has their own idea of what makes a good bass player. That is totally expected. If someone wants to showcase bass styles from their favorite Death Steroid Masturbation Metal band, I think that's cool. Even Paul McCartney's wanna-be-Jack-Casady bass lines are cool.

originally posted by: ChaosComplex


I personally think the Beatles are crap. Highly overrated, three chords and a hook crap.

You haven't got a clue what you trying to talk about.

Songs written by The Beatles have on average 8.2 chords per song. In fact songs written by The Beatles are difficult for others to play. " You never give me your money" has TWENTY ONE chords.

Go away and learn some real facts.

www.icce.rug.nl...


www.songwritingscene.com...

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ChaosComplex


I personally think the Beatles are crap. Highly overrated, three chords and a hook crap.

You haven't got a clue what you trying to talk about.

Songs written by The Beatles have on average 8.2 chords per song. In fact songs written by The Beatles are difficult for others to play. " You never give me your money" has TWENTY ONE chords.

Go away and learn some real facts.

www.icce.rug.nl...


www.songwritingscene.com...

Wow. That is some serious fanboy stuff right there. Still, none of them are even slightly ahead of the curve when it comes to BEST ON THEIR INSTRUMENT. Twenty one bar chords with a few bits added for tension still isn't impressive to me. Yes, I'm comparing them to all musicians, including modern players because this is (was) a BEST thread, not a BEST OF 40 YEARS AGO thread. With that said, I would say it's fair to mention that I am VERY difficult to impress musically. Not that I am some godly awesome player, but being in the game for so long has essentially 'desensitized' me to standard composition styles.

Oh, and show me a guitarist, bassist, or drummer who can't play the Beatles and I'll show you someone who just needs a better practice regimen. That's more of what interests me, musical discipline. Which is why I'm not a fan of most music that came out around the Beatles' time.

Check out the videos I shared and you will see a few players that I find interesting, and you will also see a good bit of that 'discipline' I mention.

Like I said, it's fine to have favorites, it's fine to worship something that others find mediocre. The stuff I like might not tickle your fancy, as the poster I've been going back and forth with pointed out. You may have no interest in a bassist going outside of the rhythm section and grabbing a solo spot. That, to me, is something that separates a true musician from just another bassist.

a reply to: alldaylong

picking up where the Beatles left off


Gwar!

In fact songs written by The Beatles are difficult for others to play. " You never give me your money" has TWENTY ONE chords.

Yes their songs are mostly studio songs and they lip synched many of their live appearances. "You never give me your money" is a medly composed of about 7 unfinished songs. 7 times 3 is 21

a reply to: ChaosComplex

Hear all that distortion? Sounds pretty nice to me.

That was actually very impressive. I must say I agree with your comments. Many of the bands I am mentioning I have grown bored with witch is why I am making my query.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: ChaosComplex

Hear all that distortion? Sounds pretty nice to me.

That was actually very impressive. I must say I agree with your comments. Many of the bands I am mentioning I have grown bored with witch is why I am making my query.

If you're not familiar with Dream Theater I highly recommend them. Through their career they have changed their sound, going from a true prog-rock group into their more heavy style. Some of the material from the beginning of their heavy sound isn't my cup of tea, but they sure have developed a pretty badass sound! That video is actually an older song, but it has a bunch of sections of their other songs woven into it. Another thing I love about their live performances. When I have a few minutes I'll shoot you a PM with some bands you may or may not be familiar with. It's always fun showing people new music.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

I'm not super into Dream Theater but I've got to admit that 'Metropolis part 1' off of Images and Words is one of my favorite songs of all time.

Reply to: ZetaRediculian

You seem to want to take center stage and do your own "solo".

My first post in this thread was two lines long, named no names and simply made a point widely understood by music lovers and musicians. All the rest has been a simple response to people who evidently want to have their cake and eat it — not just to indulge their taste for bad music, but to make believe it's good music, too.

The point being, everyone else participating seems to "get it".

These competition threads ('whose the best?') always attract the jock fans.

There is a wide variety of bass styles and bass players out there.

Correct. And some are good, while others are an affront to music.

Everyone has their own idea of what makes a good bass player.

Yes, and a good many of them are wrong.

a reply to: Astyanax

These competition threads ('whose the best?') always attract the jock fans.

Odd since you are the only one that wants to compete.

Yes, and a good many of them are wrong.

That is a very ego based statement. I would even say that you don't understand music at a very fundamental level.

Tell me that this is not music.

a reply to: alldaylong

When it comes to the subject of psychedelic music your " Bay Area " bands where late to the wedding

a reply to: Astyanax

Rewriting musical history now, are we?

Just a little history lesson.

"The Acid Tests were the epoch of the psychedelic style and practically everything that has gone into it. I don't mean merely that the Prankster's did it first, rather, that it all came straight out of the Acid Tests in a direct line leading to the Trips Festival of January 1966. That brought the whole thing full out in the open. "Mixed-Media" entertainment--this came straight out of the Acid Tests' combination of light and movie projections, strobes, tapes, rock 'n' roll, black light. "Acid rock"-- the sound of the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper Album and the high-vibrato electronic sounds of the Jefferson Airplane, the Mother's of Invention and many other groups--the mother's of it all were the Grateful Dead at the Acid Tests. The Dead were the audio counterpart of Roy Seburn's light projections. Owsley was responsible for some of this, indirectly. Owsley had snapped back from his great Freakout and started pouring money into the Grateful Dead and, thereby, the Tests. Maybe he figured the Tests were the wave of the future, whether he had freaked out or not. Maybe he thought "acid rock" was the sound of the future and he would become a kind of Brian Epstein for the Grateful Dead. I don't know. In any case, he started buying the Dead equipment such as no rock 'n' roll band ever had before, the Beatles included, all manner of tuners, amplifiers, receivers, loudspeakers, microphones, cartridges, tapes, theatre horns, booms, lights, turntables, instruments, mixers, muters, servile mesochroics, whatever was on the market. The sound went down through so many microphones and hooked through so many mixers and variable lags and blew up in so many amplifiers and roiled around in so many speakers and fed back down so many microphones, it came on like a chemical refinery. There was something wholly new and deliriously weird in the Dead's sound, and practically everything new in rock 'n' roll, rock jazz I have heard it called, came out of it.
Even details like psychedelic poster art, the quasi-art nouveau swirls of lettering, design and vibrating colors, electro-pastels and Spectral Day-Glo, came out of the Acid Tests. Later other impresarios and performers would recreate the Prankster styles with a sophistication the Pranksters never dreamed of. Art is not eternal, boys. The posters became works of art in the accepted cultural tradition. Others would even play the Dead's sound more successfully, commercially, anyway, than the Dead. Others would do the mixed-media thing until it became pure ambrosial candy for the brain with creamy filling every time. To which Kesey would say: "They know where it is, but they don't know what it is." -- Electric Kool Aid Acid Test - Tom Wolfe - Pages 250-51

www.postertrip.com...

Here Paul flies into SF, meets Jack Casady and gets inspired to do Magical Mystery Tour.
Paul meets Jack

oh and Owsley mentioned above was quite literally the Heisenberg of the day and also the Beatles dealer. So the Beatles were a quite literally late to the party. Everything they had "innovated" from Tomorrow Never Knows on had already been innovated.

all i can say is
victor wooten
tal wilkenfeld
nathan east
les claypool
bootsy collins

a reply to: CardiffGiant
Jino



Now this is just funny since someone else had them on their list...

It's all about distortion, parallel fifths, minor third melodies and riffing. Seriously, what is the scope of that musical palette? You can add all the polyrhythms, altered chords and wanky techniques you want, but in the end it's always the same old dur-dur-dur-dur.

Bootsy Collins

Go Bootsy! Hands down the winner of the jock-steroid-masturbator-ego-distortion-riffing- dur-dur-dur lifetime achievement award!

music is subjective. that said, a lot of replies in this thread are a huge pile.

the beatles????
i firmly believe that 'most' people that say they dont like the beatles are only saying it to go against the grain. say you dont like them and then point out that they were not technical virtuosos....

well, they were not virtuosos on their instruments. they didnt have deep music theory knowledge.

what they did do was change the course of music forever. what they did do was influence thousands of artists/musicians.

there are timelines when it comes to music. one of them is before the beatles and then after the beatles.

not too often do musicians come along that change music forever... the beatles did just that.

the beatles were a fantastic band. they wrote catchy songs with solid lyrics and backed it up with solid music.
what else can you ask for?

im sorry but Meshuggah is not even in the same realm as the beatles. sure, they have a serious following but come on.
the beatles were the biggest group on the planet. they still have music on the charts.

i bet the beatles even influenced meshuggah

a reply to: CardiffGiant
The Beatles were the first band I was into. They are also the epitome of commercialism in music. To me they don't represent a band that could perform live which, to me, is the essence of rock music. No doubt that they came on the scene with a vengeance and really inspired a lot of artists. Music was also changing underneath them and they were smart enough to go along with those changes. They were able to spend as much time in the studio as they wanted when they stopped touring which allowed them some freedom artistically but the live music scene was really growing during their later years despite what they were doing. What they recorded really does represent the time period. Did they change music or did they just represent the changes that were already occurring?

John Lennon-

Because we were performers - in spite of what Mick [Jagger] says about us - in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls. What we generated was fantastic when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain. As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off. You know, Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. But we sold out, you know. The music was dead before we even went on the theater tour of Britain. We were feeling # already, because we had to reduce an hour or two hours' playing, which we were glad about in one way, to twenty minutes, and we would go on and repeat the same twenty minutes every night. The Beatles' music died then, as musicians. That's why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it.

taz4158.tripod.com...