Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Basses that changed history
Re: Basses that changed history
Fender Precision and Jazz - the basses that made modern music possible
and largely replaced stand up basses.
Rickenbacker 4001 - for a number of innovations like a through body
neck, double trussrods, and most of all because it sounds like an
electric bass, as opposed to a bass that tried to replicate the sound
of a stand up.
Music Man - first basses to come standard as five strings and with
active electronics.
I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one of
the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of Bass
Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive four
string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the minority.
--
bass_man86
Fender Precision and Jazz - the basses that made modern music possible
and largely replaced stand up basses.
Rickenbacker 4001 - for a number of innovations like a through body
neck, double trussrods, and most of all because it sounds like an
electric bass, as opposed to a bass that tried to replicate the sound
of a stand up.
Music Man - first basses to come standard as five strings and with
active electronics.
I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one of
the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of Bass
Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive four
string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the minority.
--
bass_man86
Re: Basses that changed history
"bass_man86" <bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
news:bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
> I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one of
> the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of Bass
> Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive four
> string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
> Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
> extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the minority.
Has Sadowsky ever pretended to be anything else? The key
innovation of Fender, really, was the solid ash or alder body
with a bolt-on maple neck. This construction generates
non-harmonic overtones that give the characteristic
percussive sound of Fender basses and it is not hard
for others to duplicate. Years ago I remember laughing
when I read an article saying that a lot of "luthiers" were
starting to go to bolt-on necks instead of the neck-through
constrction, belatedly discovering what Leo Fender had
figured out decades earlier.
- Gary Rosen
"bass_man86" <bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
news:bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
> I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one of
> the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of Bass
> Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive four
> string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
> Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
> extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the minority.
Has Sadowsky ever pretended to be anything else? The key
innovation of Fender, really, was the solid ash or alder body
with a bolt-on maple neck. This construction generates
non-harmonic overtones that give the characteristic
percussive sound of Fender basses and it is not hard
for others to duplicate. Years ago I remember laughing
when I read an article saying that a lot of "luthiers" were
starting to go to bolt-on necks instead of the neck-through
constrction, belatedly discovering what Leo Fender had
figured out decades earlier.
- Gary Rosen
Re: Basses that changed history
On May 10, 11:29 pm, "Gary Rosen" <garymro...@comcast,net > wrote:
> "bass man86" <bass man86.396...@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
>
> news:bass man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
>
> > I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one of
> > the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of Bass
> > Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive four
> > string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
> > Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
> > extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the minority.
>
> HasSadowskyever pretended to be anything else? The key
> innovation of Fender, really, was the solid ash or alder body
> with a bolt-on maple neck. This construction generates
> non-harmonic overtones that give the characteristic
> percussive sound of Fender basses and it is not hard
> for others to duplicate. Years ago I remember laughing
> when I read an article saying that a lot of "luthiers" were
> starting to go to bolt-on necks instead of the neck-through
> constrction, belatedly discovering what Leo Fender had
> figured out decades earlier.
>
> - Gary Rosen
I think the difference is that Leo used a bolt-on neck for the economy
of manufacturing an affordable instrument. I use a bolt-on because I
like the way they sound better. But Leo's work has certainly stood
the test of time. I am only trying to expand upon it.
Roger
On May 10, 11:29 pm, "Gary Rosen" <garymro...@comcast,net > wrote:
> "bass man86" <bass man86.396...@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
>
> news:bass man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
>
> > I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one of
> > the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of Bass
> > Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive four
> > string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
> > Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
> > extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the minority.
>
> HasSadowskyever pretended to be anything else? The key
> innovation of Fender, really, was the solid ash or alder body
> with a bolt-on maple neck. This construction generates
> non-harmonic overtones that give the characteristic
> percussive sound of Fender basses and it is not hard
> for others to duplicate. Years ago I remember laughing
> when I read an article saying that a lot of "luthiers" were
> starting to go to bolt-on necks instead of the neck-through
> constrction, belatedly discovering what Leo Fender had
> figured out decades earlier.
>
> - Gary Rosen
I think the difference is that Leo used a bolt-on neck for the economy
of manufacturing an affordable instrument. I use a bolt-on because I
like the way they sound better. But Leo's work has certainly stood
the test of time. I am only trying to expand upon it.
Roger
Re: Basses that changed history
Gary Rosen;256483 Wrote:
> "bass_man86" <bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
> news:bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
>
> > I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one
> of
> > the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of
> Bass
> > Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive
> four
> > string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
> > Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
> > extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the
> minority.
>
> Has Sadowsky ever pretended to be anything else? The key
> innovation of Fender, really, was the solid ash or alder body
> with a bolt-on maple neck. This construction generates
> non-harmonic overtones that give the characteristic
> percussive sound of Fender basses and it is not hard
> for others to duplicate. Years ago I remember laughing
> when I read an article saying that a lot of "luthiers" were
> starting to go to bolt-on necks instead of the neck-through
> constrction, belatedly discovering what Leo Fender had
> figured out decades earlier.
>
> - Gary Rosen
You know Gary, in the end it all comes back to Leo. I remember reading
an interview with Paul McCartney once that the only reason that he
bought an Hofner was because he could not find a left handed Precision.
The possibilities are mind boggling. :D
--
bass_man86
Gary Rosen;256483 Wrote:
> "bass_man86" <bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
> news:bass_man86.396k30@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
>
> > I cannot agree the rest because they are not that widely used; one
> of
> > the things that routinely strikes me when I look at the covers of
> Bass
> > Player magazine is how many of those guys are still using passive
> four
> > string basses. True you have your Sadowski players but in my book
> > Sasowskis are expensives Fender clones. The high rollers that use
> > extended range basses with the fancy electronics are in the
> minority.
>
> Has Sadowsky ever pretended to be anything else? The key
> innovation of Fender, really, was the solid ash or alder body
> with a bolt-on maple neck. This construction generates
> non-harmonic overtones that give the characteristic
> percussive sound of Fender basses and it is not hard
> for others to duplicate. Years ago I remember laughing
> when I read an article saying that a lot of "luthiers" were
> starting to go to bolt-on necks instead of the neck-through
> constrction, belatedly discovering what Leo Fender had
> figured out decades earlier.
>
> - Gary Rosen
You know Gary, in the end it all comes back to Leo. I remember reading
an interview with Paul McCartney once that the only reason that he
bought an Hofner was because he could not find a left handed Precision.
The possibilities are mind boggling. :D
--
bass_man86
Re: Basses that changed history
bass_man86 <bass_man86.39doby@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote:
> You know Gary, in the end it all comes back to Leo.
> I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney once that the only
> reason that he bought an Hofner was because he could not find a left
> handed Precision.The possibilities are mind boggling.
Here's an actual quote - which is somewhat different.
"Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
Fenders?
A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
still are better instruments. But, for me, it was a matter of expense,
That's all it was."
He goes on to explain that he was in Germany at the time, where Hofners
are made, and they were cheap there. His father had brought him up to
keep out of debt, so he bought what he could afford. Also "And the
other thing was that the Hofner was violin shaped and symmetrical, so
being left-handed didn't look so stupid".
As it was, by the time he could afford a Fender the Hofner had become a
bit of a trade mark - and then he was given the Rickenbacker, and that
recorded better than the Hofner.
So, it seems Paul can afford to play any bass he likes - he owns but is
never? seen playing a Fender - and he seems to like free basses best
(his main non-Hofner basses being the Rickenbacker, which he was given
by the Rickenbacker folks, and a Wal, given to him by Linda as a
birthday present - I wouldn't be surprised to find that his current
hofner wasn't a compo as well).
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
bass_man86 <bass_man86.39doby@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote:
> You know Gary, in the end it all comes back to Leo.
> I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney once that the only
> reason that he bought an Hofner was because he could not find a left
> handed Precision.The possibilities are mind boggling.
Here's an actual quote - which is somewhat different.
"Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
Fenders?
A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
still are better instruments. But, for me, it was a matter of expense,
That's all it was."
He goes on to explain that he was in Germany at the time, where Hofners
are made, and they were cheap there. His father had brought him up to
keep out of debt, so he bought what he could afford. Also "And the
other thing was that the Hofner was violin shaped and symmetrical, so
being left-handed didn't look so stupid".
As it was, by the time he could afford a Fender the Hofner had become a
bit of a trade mark - and then he was given the Rickenbacker, and that
recorded better than the Hofner.
So, it seems Paul can afford to play any bass he likes - he owns but is
never? seen playing a Fender - and he seems to like free basses best
(his main non-Hofner basses being the Rickenbacker, which he was given
by the Rickenbacker folks, and a Wal, given to him by Linda as a
birthday present - I wouldn't be surprised to find that his current
hofner wasn't a compo as well).
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Re: Basses that changed history
Derek Tearne;257338 Wrote:
> "Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
> Fenders?
> A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
> still are better instruments. But, for me, it was a matter of
> expense,
> That's all it was."
Can't forget cheap, I am all about cheap, especially since I don't have
the cojones that it takes to tell my wife that I spent two grand and
change on a bass. :D
Ironically if you try to buy an Hofner these days they are stupid
expensive; a friend of mine used to own one, he let me try it and it
was hate at first touch. The neck felt like a broomstick and it was too
short for my taste; I would never trade my 4001 for one of those things.
--
bass_man86
Derek Tearne;257338 Wrote:
> "Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
> Fenders?
> A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
> still are better instruments. But, for me, it was a matter of
> expense,
> That's all it was."
Can't forget cheap, I am all about cheap, especially since I don't have
the cojones that it takes to tell my wife that I spent two grand and
change on a bass. :D
Ironically if you try to buy an Hofner these days they are stupid
expensive; a friend of mine used to own one, he let me try it and it
was hate at first touch. The neck felt like a broomstick and it was too
short for my taste; I would never trade my 4001 for one of those things.
--
bass_man86
Re: Basses that changed history
"bass_man86" <bass_man86.39ejty@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
news:bass_man86.39ejty@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
>
> Derek Tearne;257338 Wrote:
> > "Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
> > Fenders?
> > A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
> > still are better instruments. But, for me, it was a matter of
> > expense,
> > That's all it was."
>
> Can't forget cheap, I am all about cheap, especially since I don't have
> the cojones that it takes to tell my wife that I spent two grand and
> change on a bass. :D
>
> Ironically if you try to buy an Hofner these days they are stupid
> expensive; a friend of mine used to own one, he let me try it and it
> was hate at first touch. The neck felt like a broomstick and it was too
> short for my taste; I would never trade my 4001 for one of those things.
>
I owned a '71 Hofner for a few months in the '80s. It was okay, but not
useful enough to hang onto. Got back about what I spent, minus the
consignment fee at the store. About $450. Since then, the prices have
definitely gotten stupid.
--
--Llarry Amrose
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice, there is.
-- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
"bass_man86" <bass_man86.39ejty@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote in message
news:bass_man86.39ejty@ebassist.no.spam,com ...
>
> Derek Tearne;257338 Wrote:
> > "Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
> > Fenders?
> > A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
> > still are better instruments. But, for me, it was a matter of
> > expense,
> > That's all it was."
>
> Can't forget cheap, I am all about cheap, especially since I don't have
> the cojones that it takes to tell my wife that I spent two grand and
> change on a bass. :D
>
> Ironically if you try to buy an Hofner these days they are stupid
> expensive; a friend of mine used to own one, he let me try it and it
> was hate at first touch. The neck felt like a broomstick and it was too
> short for my taste; I would never trade my 4001 for one of those things.
>
I owned a '71 Hofner for a few months in the '80s. It was okay, but not
useful enough to hang onto. Got back about what I spent, minus the
consignment fee at the store. About $450. Since then, the prices have
definitely gotten stupid.
--
--Llarry Amrose
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice, there is.
-- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
Re: Basses that changed history
On May 13, 10:42=EF=BF=BDpm, de...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:
> bass_man86 <bass_man86.39d...@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote:
> > You know Gary, in the end it all comes back to Leo.
> > I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney once that the only
> > reason that he bought an Hofner was because he could not find a left
> > handed Precision.The possibilities are mind boggling.
>
> Here's an actual quote - which is somewhat different.
>
> "Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
> Fenders?
> A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
> still are better instruments. =EF=BF=BDBut, for me, it was a matter of exp=
ense,
> That's all it was."
>
> He goes on to explain that he was in Germany at the time, where Hofners
> are made, and they were cheap there. =EF=BF=BDHis father had brought him u=
p to
> keep out of debt, so he bought what he could afford. =EF=BF=BDAlso "And th=
e
> other thing was that the Hofner was violin shaped and symmetrical, so
> being left-handed didn't look so stupid".
>
> As it was, by the time he could afford a Fender the Hofner had become a
> bit of a trade mark - and then he was given the Rickenbacker, and that
> recorded better than the Hofner.
>
> So, it seems Paul can afford to play any bass he likes - he owns but is
> never? seen playing a Fender - and he seems to like free basses best
> (his main non-Hofner basses being the Rickenbacker, which he was given
> by the Rickenbacker folks, and a Wal, given to him by Linda as a
> birthday present - I wouldn't be surprised to find that his current
> hofner wasn't a compo as well).
>
> --- Derek
His current Hofner is the same one given to him in 1963. He does own
a more recent one, too, but it is just a backup for live shows (I only
know this because I sat near the guitar rack at a show in 2002 and got
a clear look at it).
Paul has said that companies always give him free basses and he just
plays the ones he likes. The only bass he ever bought was his first
Hofner.
There is no record of him ever using a Fender live, but several later
Beatle songs and a number of solo recordings (including the entire
"Band on the Run" album) were recorded on Fenders, some of them right
handed. A lefty Jazz was his backup on the 75/76 Wings tour, but it
appears that it was never used.
On May 13, 10:42=EF=BF=BDpm, de...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:
> bass_man86 <bass_man86.39d...@ebassist.no.spam,com > wrote:
> > You know Gary, in the end it all comes back to Leo.
> > I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney once that the only
> > reason that he bought an Hofner was because he could not find a left
> > handed Precision.The possibilities are mind boggling.
>
> Here's an actual quote - which is somewhat different.
>
> "Q: You used a Hofner, even though most bassists in the U.S. had
> Fenders?
> A: Yeah, most of the players were using Fenders in England too,. They
> still are better instruments. =EF=BF=BDBut, for me, it was a matter of exp=
ense,
> That's all it was."
>
> He goes on to explain that he was in Germany at the time, where Hofners
> are made, and they were cheap there. =EF=BF=BDHis father had brought him u=
p to
> keep out of debt, so he bought what he could afford. =EF=BF=BDAlso "And th=
e
> other thing was that the Hofner was violin shaped and symmetrical, so
> being left-handed didn't look so stupid".
>
> As it was, by the time he could afford a Fender the Hofner had become a
> bit of a trade mark - and then he was given the Rickenbacker, and that
> recorded better than the Hofner.
>
> So, it seems Paul can afford to play any bass he likes - he owns but is
> never? seen playing a Fender - and he seems to like free basses best
> (his main non-Hofner basses being the Rickenbacker, which he was given
> by the Rickenbacker folks, and a Wal, given to him by Linda as a
> birthday present - I wouldn't be surprised to find that his current
> hofner wasn't a compo as well).
>
> --- Derek
His current Hofner is the same one given to him in 1963. He does own
a more recent one, too, but it is just a backup for live shows (I only
know this because I sat near the guitar rack at a show in 2002 and got
a clear look at it).
Paul has said that companies always give him free basses and he just
plays the ones he likes. The only bass he ever bought was his first
Hofner.
There is no record of him ever using a Fender live, but several later
Beatle songs and a number of solo recordings (including the entire
"Band on the Run" album) were recorded on Fenders, some of them right
handed. A lefty Jazz was his backup on the 75/76 Wings tour, but it
appears that it was never used.
Re: Basses that changed history
Axtman wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
Taking this slightly astray, I'd say tablature, Internet, and digital
music together have had a profound effect on bassists. Now, let's
*please* avoid the merits of tab and merely acknowledge its effect, good
and bad.
I'm 42 years old. When I started playing, you had LPs and cassettes
widely available. CDs came a little later, but that was expensive. It
was tough assembling enough recordings to learn songs for your cover band.
Today for the cost of one CD per month my subscription to Napster gives
me access to over a million songs.
As for learning the songs, my computer and my MP3 player can make a
section loop repeatedly and even slow it down. That was a nightmare with
LPs and tapes. Back then it took a LOT more effort to hear the same riff
enough times to *really* learn it. These days it's so easy to hear the
section, I can spend a lot more energy actually learning it.
Back then finding bass music (rock/pop) was a bitch. Mostly you found
guitar chord charts (simple versions) and maybe an easy piano
arrangement. Of course, it was in a $20 book with 99 other songs you
didn't want. Single song sheet music was $5. You didn't get bass lines,
but sometimes the easy piano arrangement gave you a clue.
But even guitar/piano music was scarce. More often than not you weren't
going to find what you wanted unless it was a very, very popular tune.
It took forever for new tunes to come out.
Fast forward to today. In a matter of seconds the Internet will provide
you with *free* tablature to just about any song you want. Granted, it's
not 100% accurate, but it gets you a lot farther a lot faster than when
I was a kid.
And with Internet shopping, you can find a *lot* more books with
accurate bass music (most have tab and standard notation). I wish when I
was 17 my folks bought me the Led Zeppelin anthology. I remember giving
up on some of that stuff because it was just too hard at the time.
So, the effect on *me* has been to make me a better player. I developed
my ear over 20 years ago when that was the *only* way to learn a song.
Now, give me an MP3 player and some reasonably accurate tab, and I'll
learn a song note-for-note must faster than I could with an LP and just
my ears.
I can learn more songs more accurately these days. Sometimes when I'm in
the music store, I'll look at a music book for songs I already know.
Usually, I learned it right, but sometimes I'll stumble across one and
go, "Oh, *that's* what he was playing! Missed that. Cool!"
By the same token I think you have a lot of younger musicians who have
not taken the time to develop their ears. Instead of starting with
simple songs with obvious bass lines and progressing naturally, they
start with more complicated songs. Instead of learning the instrument,
they train their hands to play stuff.
In some ways it's like a parlor trick. They can do some really cool
stuff because they spend hours with their Bass Trainer and the
tablature. Some of them, though, never really understand what they
learned. It's just a bunch of finger movements.
I saw this first-hand at School of Bass. There were some guys sitting
around playing all these blinding fast slap things that made me say to
myself, "Damn, I wish *I* could do that. Don't know where I'd ever use
it, but it sure sounds cool."
Yet in one class we just had to play a pentatonic scale at a relatively
slow pace. Several of the guys couldn't do it without mistakes or
sounding like a student at his second lesson.
You really didn't see that 25 years ago because the shortcuts just
weren't available. So these days you have more guys who can only do
parlor tricks. You have more guys who are totally lost at an open jam.
But by the same token the truly devoted bassists can leverage these
tools to become really good really fast.
It's all in how you use it. Good or bad, it certainly has had an effect.
Axtman wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
Taking this slightly astray, I'd say tablature, Internet, and digital
music together have had a profound effect on bassists. Now, let's
*please* avoid the merits of tab and merely acknowledge its effect, good
and bad.
I'm 42 years old. When I started playing, you had LPs and cassettes
widely available. CDs came a little later, but that was expensive. It
was tough assembling enough recordings to learn songs for your cover band.
Today for the cost of one CD per month my subscription to Napster gives
me access to over a million songs.
As for learning the songs, my computer and my MP3 player can make a
section loop repeatedly and even slow it down. That was a nightmare with
LPs and tapes. Back then it took a LOT more effort to hear the same riff
enough times to *really* learn it. These days it's so easy to hear the
section, I can spend a lot more energy actually learning it.
Back then finding bass music (rock/pop) was a bitch. Mostly you found
guitar chord charts (simple versions) and maybe an easy piano
arrangement. Of course, it was in a $20 book with 99 other songs you
didn't want. Single song sheet music was $5. You didn't get bass lines,
but sometimes the easy piano arrangement gave you a clue.
But even guitar/piano music was scarce. More often than not you weren't
going to find what you wanted unless it was a very, very popular tune.
It took forever for new tunes to come out.
Fast forward to today. In a matter of seconds the Internet will provide
you with *free* tablature to just about any song you want. Granted, it's
not 100% accurate, but it gets you a lot farther a lot faster than when
I was a kid.
And with Internet shopping, you can find a *lot* more books with
accurate bass music (most have tab and standard notation). I wish when I
was 17 my folks bought me the Led Zeppelin anthology. I remember giving
up on some of that stuff because it was just too hard at the time.
So, the effect on *me* has been to make me a better player. I developed
my ear over 20 years ago when that was the *only* way to learn a song.
Now, give me an MP3 player and some reasonably accurate tab, and I'll
learn a song note-for-note must faster than I could with an LP and just
my ears.
I can learn more songs more accurately these days. Sometimes when I'm in
the music store, I'll look at a music book for songs I already know.
Usually, I learned it right, but sometimes I'll stumble across one and
go, "Oh, *that's* what he was playing! Missed that. Cool!"
By the same token I think you have a lot of younger musicians who have
not taken the time to develop their ears. Instead of starting with
simple songs with obvious bass lines and progressing naturally, they
start with more complicated songs. Instead of learning the instrument,
they train their hands to play stuff.
In some ways it's like a parlor trick. They can do some really cool
stuff because they spend hours with their Bass Trainer and the
tablature. Some of them, though, never really understand what they
learned. It's just a bunch of finger movements.
I saw this first-hand at School of Bass. There were some guys sitting
around playing all these blinding fast slap things that made me say to
myself, "Damn, I wish *I* could do that. Don't know where I'd ever use
it, but it sure sounds cool."
Yet in one class we just had to play a pentatonic scale at a relatively
slow pace. Several of the guys couldn't do it without mistakes or
sounding like a student at his second lesson.
You really didn't see that 25 years ago because the shortcuts just
weren't available. So these days you have more guys who can only do
parlor tricks. You have more guys who are totally lost at an open jam.
But by the same token the truly devoted bassists can leverage these
tools to become really good really fast.
It's all in how you use it. Good or bad, it certainly has had an effect.
Re: Basses that changed history
On Fri, 9 May 2008 14:49:38 -0700, "Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom>
wrote:
>I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
>changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
>In sort of chronological order:
>
>Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
>Rickenbacker basses: This bass is not limited to the bottom
>
>Fretless basses: Just the opposite of why a "precision" bass was invented.
>
>Active electronics: Improved fidelity
>
>5 string basses: E is not longer the bottom
>
>Multi string basses: 8 or 12 for a fuller sound.
>
>Steinberger: Launched headless basses
>
>Electric Upright basses: Combo upright and electric
>
>So what does the future hold for basses?
A whole lot more innovations, most of which will be ignored by the
majority of bassists who will still buy Fender Precisions and Jazzes.
On Fri, 9 May 2008 14:49:38 -0700, "Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom>
wrote:
>I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
>changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
>In sort of chronological order:
>
>Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
>Rickenbacker basses: This bass is not limited to the bottom
>
>Fretless basses: Just the opposite of why a "precision" bass was invented.
>
>Active electronics: Improved fidelity
>
>5 string basses: E is not longer the bottom
>
>Multi string basses: 8 or 12 for a fuller sound.
>
>Steinberger: Launched headless basses
>
>Electric Upright basses: Combo upright and electric
>
>So what does the future hold for basses?
A whole lot more innovations, most of which will be ignored by the
majority of bassists who will still buy Fender Precisions and Jazzes.
Re: Basses that changed history
"Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote in message
news:P76dnRsmDqzeW7nVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@posted.palinacquisition...
>I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
>changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
>
> Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
There's a 1920s era stand up solid body Gibson electric bass at the Music
Experience Project in Seattle.
Bob Walker
"Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote in message
news:P76dnRsmDqzeW7nVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@posted.palinacquisition...
>I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
>changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
>
> Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
There's a 1920s era stand up solid body Gibson electric bass at the Music
Experience Project in Seattle.
Bob Walker
Re: Basses that changed history
Walker <walkerent@cox,net > wrote:
>
> There's a 1920s era stand up solid body Gibson electric bass at the Music
> Experience Project in Seattle.
http :// www .empsfm.org/flash/guitbass/index.html
This is an excellent resource as you can mouseover the instruments and
hear what they sounded like (played through modern amplification).
The enormous gibson 'electric bass guitar' from C.1938/1940 sounds a
whole lot better than then the 1953 gibson EB-3
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Walker <walkerent@cox,net > wrote:
>
> There's a 1920s era stand up solid body Gibson electric bass at the Music
> Experience Project in Seattle.
http :// www .empsfm.org/flash/guitbass/index.html
This is an excellent resource as you can mouseover the instruments and
hear what they sounded like (played through modern amplification).
The enormous gibson 'electric bass guitar' from C.1938/1940 sounds a
whole lot better than then the 1953 gibson EB-3
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Re: Basses that changed history
"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1igrzo6.paevr318kfftpN%derek@url.co.nz...
> Walker <walkerent@cox,net > wrote:
>
>>
>> There's a 1920s era stand up solid body Gibson electric bass at the Music
>> Experience Project in Seattle.
>
> http :// www .empsfm.org/flash/guitbass/index.html
>
> This is an excellent resource as you can mouseover the instruments and
> hear what they sounded like (played through modern amplification).
>
> The enormous gibson 'electric bass guitar' from C.1938/1940 sounds a
> whole lot better than then the 1953 gibson EB-3
So does a rubber band anchored by two clothespins. Sorry,
I'm being a little cruel here. Actually one of my first basses
was an EB-3. I loved the sound of it until I started playing
real gigs where I soon understood why nearly every working
bassist was using a Fender.
- Gary Rosen
"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1igrzo6.paevr318kfftpN%derek@url.co.nz...
> Walker <walkerent@cox,net > wrote:
>
>>
>> There's a 1920s era stand up solid body Gibson electric bass at the Music
>> Experience Project in Seattle.
>
> http :// www .empsfm.org/flash/guitbass/index.html
>
> This is an excellent resource as you can mouseover the instruments and
> hear what they sounded like (played through modern amplification).
>
> The enormous gibson 'electric bass guitar' from C.1938/1940 sounds a
> whole lot better than then the 1953 gibson EB-3
So does a rubber band anchored by two clothespins. Sorry,
I'm being a little cruel here. Actually one of my first basses
was an EB-3. I loved the sound of it until I started playing
real gigs where I soon understood why nearly every working
bassist was using a Fender.
- Gary Rosen
Re: Basses that changed history
On May 10, 5:49 am, "Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
> Basses that changed history?
Uh... when Aaron Burr broke Alexander Hamilton's skull with a Peavey
Dynabass?
When Alexander the Great said, "These Afghan losers have never even
seen a PJ, they shall layeth as doth wheat before a scythe?"
When Adolph Hitler was laughed off the stage after breaking his G
string trying to slap out Brick House in a Hamburg bar?
On May 10, 5:49 am, "Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
> Basses that changed history?
Uh... when Aaron Burr broke Alexander Hamilton's skull with a Peavey
Dynabass?
When Alexander the Great said, "These Afghan losers have never even
seen a PJ, they shall layeth as doth wheat before a scythe?"
When Adolph Hitler was laughed off the stage after breaking his G
string trying to slap out Brick House in a Hamburg bar?
Re: Basses that changed history
patpowersspam@gmail,com wrote:
> On May 10, 5:49 am, "Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
>> Basses that changed history?
>
> Uh... when Aaron Burr broke Alexander Hamilton's skull with a Peavey
> Dynabass?
>
> When Alexander the Great said, "These Afghan losers have never even
> seen a PJ, they shall layeth as doth wheat before a scythe?"
>
> When Adolph Hitler was laughed off the stage after breaking his G
> string trying to slap out Brick House in a Hamburg bar?
*lights lighter*
--
Les Cargill
patpowersspam@gmail,com wrote:
> On May 10, 5:49 am, "Axtman" <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
>> Basses that changed history?
>
> Uh... when Aaron Burr broke Alexander Hamilton's skull with a Peavey
> Dynabass?
>
> When Alexander the Great said, "These Afghan losers have never even
> seen a PJ, they shall layeth as doth wheat before a scythe?"
>
> When Adolph Hitler was laughed off the stage after breaking his G
> string trying to slap out Brick House in a Hamburg bar?
*lights lighter*
--
Les Cargill
