ilovefuzz.com

jeez, don't get your knickers in a twist. the OP asked specifically how guitarists usually fail to sound like bassists when playing bass. i don't recall anyone, myself included, saying that people had to play in a particular way. if you want to go the full Peter Hook--or the full Les Claypool if you must--be my guest...ain't nothing wrong with that.

Lol, that was a complete tangent and really had no bearing on playing bass. It was more about my distaste for folk music. I totally get what everybody has said about playing bass. I just like to play Devil's Advocate and debate needless things for the fun of it. Intellectual discussion is fun no matter how arbitrary the topic. Isn't that why we're all here?

I'm adding my typical forum disclaimer now.

nah man, we's here for the fuzz (and effectslove)

snipelfritz wrote:Yes, it's about the interplay between multiple rhythms aka not the simple boom chick boom chick boom chick boom of folk music. It's not necessarily about density, it's about the willingness of the musicians to work outside the framework of a predetermined genre rather than staying deeply rooted in the same rhythms and chord progressions. That conversation was specifically about folk music, and you didn't win; I decided you were a lost cause

By avowing yourself to simplicity, you are limiting the conceptual framework that is allowed. Simplicity built up is no longer simplicity. Putting two simple, different, complementary rhythms over one another enters the realm of complexity. A single note is the most simple thing in music and every song is a group of built up single notes(with the exception of 4:33), but that doesn't mean every song is simple. A house is not a brick.

EDIT: also, there is a difference between simplicity and subtlety.

you're just saying that because you know i'm right no rebuttle = no points against what i've said =you lose. thats how internet arguments work

but anyways, thats not what its about either. its making music GOOD.

simplicity built up is still simplicity. patterns are still a repetition of a single unit, what makes complexity is how complex that single unit is, and the variety of interplay between the repetitions upon either itself or other single unit patterns.

it doesn't, but the best songs usually are simple.

a house can be a brick. thats what those adobe houses carved into rock are. shelter is as simple as a hole in the wall.

but yeah. i'll abide by your signature because you're wrong in this instance

or i'll just circle it back to whats been said about guitarists playing too many notes.

.. and wang bar!

Having never played bass I did however notice one thing that is elementary to groove and as such is to bass more important than to guitar. It's not only where the sound begins but also where it ends. Pluck and stop at the right time. And don't let the drummer kill you with an axe.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vLewIZEsOw[/youtube]

Guitarists usually play bass better than bassists, at least when it comes to Guitar Center contests. But then in a band situation it's usually best to rely on a bassist's inherent lameness to make the song sound good.

I'm a bassist and I openly admit this. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule of course, but these are my findings.

I only read the first page, but noodling on a bass is what I try not to do... because it sounds terrible and wonky.

And if someone plays slap bass in my house I tell them to get out.

nad wrote:Guitarists usually play bass better than bassists, at least when it comes to Guitar Center contests. But then when it comes to a band situation it's usually best to rely on a bassist's inherent lameness to make the song sound good.

I'm a bassist and I openly admit this. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule of course, but these are my findings.

i don't see the logic.

guitar center contest = shredfest. with a pick on guitar, slapping on bass. and most guitar center shredders can't slap for shit

the only crossover for the "omg so impressive" techniques is tapping, and unless you're on a 6-string the shapes for guitar tapping are way different than bass tapping, imo.

but personally i just find the most feedback-y guitar, and just go all Fred Frith until the shredders leave.

theory >>>>>>>> technique

wait so you all hate slap?

..how can you hate this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXImi2etl7I[/youtube]

I don't hate slap at all. I just think a lot of people (myself included) do it poorly. If you're good at it, then by all means.

Gearmond wrote:simplicity built up is still simplicity. patterns are still a repetition of a single unit, what makes complexity is how complex that single unit is, and the variety of interplay between the repetitions upon either itself or other single unit patterns.

How are you defining "Simplicity built up" because the way I'm reading that you're contradicting yourself. Simple patterns with complex interplay is complex, right? Building up a complex interplay made up of simple patterns is still complex, right? Building up using simple patterns isn't necessarily complex, but once the interplay develops beyond a very basic single cadence, it's no longer simple. If I have a drummer playing a rock beat and a tambourine playing on two and four, that's simple. If the tambourine starts playing something syncopated like a clave rhythm, it becomes complex and is no longer blander than a Styrofoam sandwich. Simplicity for simplicities sake is called boring and devoid of creativity. Simplicity appropriate to the framework of a piece is called subtlety. However, there is little point in being subtle if you don't give the listener something that contrasts with it.

As for the adobe house comment, touche, sir. touche.

lol, I don't even remember what the point we were arguing actually was anymore. I simply find it my mission in life to expose folk music for how shitty and uninspired it is.

Gearmond wrote:i don't see the logic.

I try not to use it online.

ashdown wrote:wait so you all hate slap?

..how can you hate this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXImi2etl7I[/youtube]

That's easy.

nathan hughes is different.

i think we're all thinking the guys that sit down with a warwick (ALWAYS A WARWICK. no offence warwick.hoy and the other guy whose username i forget.) and either a GK or an Ampeg with TEH SKOOPT MIDZ, both pickups full blast doing mark king's machinegune OMG 2/3 OF THE NOTES ARE MUTED NON-SOUNDS BUT THE LAST ONE ISN'T SO ITS FAST, GAIZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBML2wNDsI

@snipelfritz: simplicity built up != simple patterns interacting in a complex way. simplicity for simplicity's sake isn't necessarily that at all, haha. like i said in the discussion before. some/most songs don't need to be complex to be effective. think of it like cooking, dude.

bahaha! thats not subtlety dude. i refer you to a previous point where i predicted you'd try to shift around the meaning of simple to suit your needs, which you just did there. like i said before, its like cooking. a well cooked chicken breast on it's ownsimple and appropriate for the framework isn't the same as a smoked rib with barbecue sauce. the interplay between the barely noticable smoke flavor, and the different ingredients in the sauce that upon first tasting is taken as a whole, but slowly the separate flavors reveal themselves. THAT would be subtlety. and ALSO like i said before, subtlety and simplicity go hand in hand more often than not. subtlety is not "simplicity appropriate to the framework" its subtlety. slight noticeable things that add to the song like extra layers to add to a chord, timbre or volume changes, introducing a future theme in a canon early in a fugue-al overture. oftentimes bells and whistles.

contrast is not a necessity for a piece to be interesting.

and if you're going to write off an entire genre for bullshit reasons that i've 1.) debunked 2.) shown how you make exceptions to your own rule (beyond the totally false "exception that proves the rule" caveat) and you've 3.) upheld based on false premises (your definition of subtlety) and 4.) seemingly come to with very little exposure to the genre as you 5.) seem to be clearly thinking of anglo balladeer style folk.

and to that i reply:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd6YG2gLoBc[/youtube]

Yeah, I definitely have a relatively specific spectrum of folk in mind. I'm just not sure how to classify it. It's just so goddamn boring and lacking in any innovation whatsoever.

I don't see how I'm changing a definition of simple. I think you're using it too inclusively. Simplicity, while sometimes an appropriate tool, is a self-imposed constriction. It is intentionally limiting yourself to elementary concepts and practices. Anything more than that, isn't simple.

I still have no idea whatsoever as to what you mean by "simplicity built up"

simple(adj):
1. Easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty.
Obvious. However, subjective which is a part of our disagreement.

2. Composed of a single element; not compound
More of a scientific definition, but I think appropriate. If you're building things up, you are using various elements to create a greater compound sound.

3. Of or characteristic of low rank or status; humble and unpretentious.
Yuuuup

4. Of low or abnormally low intelligence.
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup

Derivatives: Simpleness, Simpleton

Point being, simplicity, while appreciable in the proper context, is inherently stupid. Fact. I win, and I have the biggest penis ever.