Why Play Bass
Wecan do it
pitied member of a musical group, depending on the genre.
Because of the wide range of music types that utilize the
bass, and the varying amount of talent required to be
successful within each, bass is a highly desirable instrument
for players of all levels. Alongside drummers, bassists are
often the most accomplished musicians within a band, or an
unemployment benefits queue.
from
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Why%3F:Play_Bass%3F
Who says guitar playing chicks get all the chicks.
People don't think twice when they see the bassist lurking
near the rear of the stage, behind the singer or guitarist. Or
drummer. In fact, no one thinks twice when there's no sign of
a bassist, because he's expertly camouflaged himself to blend
in with the wall draping. For a bassist, its not only socially
acceptable to be a wallflower, but in some situations-it's
downright encouraged. One less ego makes for a lot more room
on the front stage. However, backstage - after the show - you
can still tell the girls you're "with the band" and cross your
fingers.{{tip|right|Watch out for lame roadies borrowing your
equipment and pretending to be "with the band" in order to
score with the groupies. Your chances are slim enough without
the extra competition.}Interesting note: In the Rolling Stones
bassist Bill Wyman banged more chicks than all the rest of the
band put together. Know why? That's right bassist...}
peace
dawg
Sir Lurksalot
Why play bass?
Why not play bass?
:-)
Phil W
> Why play bass?
>
> Why not play bass?
>
> :-)
Why would one prefer to play guitar, if you can play bass? ;-)
Monkey Pi
Benj
For me playing bass is better because my ass is too big for leather
pants...
js
"Wecan do it" <WeCa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GZmdnYvSO722RCLX...@earthlink.com...
Sir Lurksalot
"Phil W" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:h9pbk1$jst$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
Bass is so much easier than guitar, especially for country and rock. You
normally only play one note at a time. Mostly you're playing the root note
or the fifth with an occasional third thrown in for variety. You don't have
to learn all those confusing chords.
Drums are even easier than bass, because the drummer doesn't even have to
know what key the song is in. :-)
eadg
--
SR
"Wecan do it" <WeCa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GZmdnYvSO722RCLX...@earthlink.com...
Tim
>}Interesting note: In the Rolling Stones
> bassist Bill Wyman banged more chicks than all the rest of the
> band put together. Know why? That's right bassist...}
>
> peace
> dawg
But then again. Look at the rest of the band. He HAD to be cuter than
Mick . Anything wold be cuter than Mick!
MegaSwing
I, for one, am intoxicated by the power of the musical low note.
I totally appreciate how I can completely change the feel of a song,
or just a moment in a song, and still make it feel good.
I enjoy the fact that musicians with much more training and experience
rely on me to establish the pocket, because 'It don't mean a thing if
it ain't got that swing.'
People think they are dancing to the drummer, but they are really
dancing to the bass player. Bass is what gives a drumbeat sex appeal.
More than any other instrument, if the bass player totally gets the
structure and groove of a song, he/she can pull everybody else through
and the song will work, regardless of where the other players are with
it. Unlike the bass player, they can opt to lay out.
A low note is all that's left of the 'Big Bang'. It's a B-flat.
Edward G,
Baltimore, MD
The Sicker Vicar
> A bassist or bass player is either the most revered or most
> pitied member of a musical group, depending on the genre.
> Because of the wide range of music types that utilize the
> bass, and the varying amount of talent required to be
> successful within each, bass is a highly desirable instrument
> for players of all levels. Alongside drummers, bassists are
> often the most accomplished musicians within a band, or an
> unemployment benefits queue.
>
>
> Who says guitar playing chicks get all the chicks.
>
> People don't think twice when they see the bassist lurking
> near the rear of the stage, behind the singer or guitarist. Or
> drummer. In fact, no one thinks twice when there's no sign of
> a bassist, because he's expertly camouflaged himself to blend
> in with the wall draping. For a bassist, its not only socially
> acceptable to be a wallflower, but in some situations-it's
> downright encouraged. One less ego makes for a lot more room
> on the front stage. However, backstage - after the show - you
> can still tell the girls you're "with the band" and cross your
> fingers.{{tip|right|Watch out for lame roadies borrowing your
> equipment and pretending to be "with the band" in order to
> score with the groupies. Your chances are slim enough without
> the extra competition.}Interesting note: In the Rolling Stones
> bassist Bill Wyman banged more chicks than all the rest of the
> band put together. Know why? That's right bassist...}
>
> peace
> dawg
"lame roadies"
If I had someone hauling my amp, I'd LET him have the groupies.
Oci-One Kanubi
Or, uhhh, because he didn't have a Marianne Faithfull or a supermodel
waiting at home, as Mick had, or an Italian actress, as Keith had, or
a stable home and wife, as Charlie had, or every drug known to man, as
Brian had? (And by all accounts, whenever he was straight enough to
get it up Brian did a lot better wif the babes than Bill did.)
I read Wyman's autobiography, "Stone Alone", and all he does is whine
for 400 pages about the fact that The Glimmer Twins made a bunch more
money than Charlie (a good drummer) and he (a pretty farkin' average
bassist) made, and brag about the babes he scored while his wife
waited for him to bring home a dose. I mean, if you come off looking
like a jerk in yer own autobiography...
A also read a good biography of Keith, and Keith is not painted with a
gilded brush, but nowhere is he quoted as saying a bad word about
Wyman.
MegaSwing
>
> I read Wyman's autobiography, "Stone Alone", and all he does is whine
> for 400 pages about the fact that The Glimmer Twins made a bunch more
> money than Charlie (a good drummer) and he (a pretty farkin' average
> bassist) made, and brag about the babes he scored while his wife
> waited for him to bring home a dose. I mean, if you come off looking
> like a jerk in yer own autobiography...
>
> A also read a good biography of Keith, and Keith is not painted with a
> gilded brush, but nowhere is he quoted as saying a bad word about
> Wyman.
Bill Wyman is definitely in the running for the title of 'Luckiest Man
Ever In Show Business'. He ought to shut up and keep counting his
money.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
Les Cargill
Dunno how lucky he was - the Stones never actually
*replaced* him. Him and Charlie Watts are one of the best
rhythm sections ever put together.
--
Les Cargill
MegaSwing
>
> - Show quoted text -
His skills were ordinary. He had zero charisma. He was very
fortunate.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
Les Cargill
I have spent some time in care understanding what he actually did.
It's not obvious. The Stones hired an ostensible top line pro
to "replace" him and it did not work. Either Mick and Keef just decided
"we're the Stones, it doesn't matter" or they don't know the difference.
Or they just realized it was stiff upper lip time.
There is a note placement thing certain players have that's hard
to describe. Bill Wyman had it in spades.
Go play "Paint It Black". It's one of the most singularly difficult
things I've ever had to do. And that is just one.
--
Les Cargill
MegaSwing
I never said he was without merit, incompetent, or even a hamfist,
just lucky. He was there and got the gig. Can't beat him on that
front.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
The Sicker Vicar
Bill Wyman has always been in my Top 10 of Bass. Sympathy for the
Devil is a smokin' bass line, for one.
iarwain
My guess would be because he was the horniest.
Oci-One Kanubi
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe Wyman's playing shows subtleties I'm not equipped to perceive,
but I'd rather listen, any day, to the Stones playing with Daryll
Jones. They oughta make that guy a full member. To my ear Jones
lights a fire under the Stones whereas Wyman simply filled out the
sonic spectrum in a fairly humdrum way. I love it when Keith does
that rock-star-face-to-face-playing thing with Jones, 'cause it seems
to be the only time Jones ever gets any recognition from the band.
Who was the "top line pro" who didn't click with the Stones,
Palladino?
Oci-One Kanubi
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the bio I read of Keith, in the chapters discussing replacing Brian
Jones by Mick Taylor and later by Ron Wood, there is a lot made about
the fact that Mick and Keith felt that the Stones were "a British
band", specifically "a London band", and that they refused to consider
any non-London guitarists, including some Americans whom they greatly
admired otherwise.
If they felt the same way after Wyman left, their choices were sharply
circumscribed. Perhaps that's part of the reason they have worked
with session men and a contract touring bassist since then. There's
also the fact that the remaining Stones were a tight-knit group with a
30-year history (3 of them) and a 20-years history (all 4 of them)
who had a huge investment in a business partnership that no newcomer
would have contributed to. And there was the fact that Mick and Keith
were in the position to dictate to their hired guns exactly how to
play, whereas a full partner needs to be given the freedom to express
his own voice.
IOW, there could be a variety of reasons not to take on a new fifth
member other than an inability to find another bass player whom they
liked (musically speaking) as much as Wyman. I wish they would make
Daryll Jones a full member, though.
Les Cargill
I'm not saying either is really better - just that
the Stones *with* Wyman was... the Stones, and now it's not. And
the "not" is in a very serious qualitative way. The Stones were
always a mutated thing anyway.... a big bad of countervailing
errors. That's one reason I was fascinated with them - "it's
so *wrong*, but it sounds *so good*". That's what got me started on
the subject of note placement, when it was identified as that
to me.
And this is just my opinion. But I always liked what Wyman
did. He pulled ahead a little, and Charlie played everything either
on or slightly behind the beat ( especially the snare ) and it,
with everything else sounded much larger that way. Really, really
funky.
It's kinda like having a Shakespearian guy do Three Stooges
stuff - the Shakespeare is probably a waste of time, and he's
probably not got the right timing for it. No high or low,
just "which fits better."
But when I hear Daryll Jones play for the Stones, it's just...
*wrong*. Daryll Jones is a trained pro, and Wyman just had
a weird style that helped hold that mess together. Then again,
you can see live footage of Wyman where it's like "why even
bother." The Stones are *those records*, y'know?
Hope that makes sense.
> I love it when Keith does
> that rock-star-face-to-face-playing thing with Jones, 'cause it seems
> to be the only time Jones ever gets any recognition from the band.
>
Yeah. That's gotta be tough. And he's a total pro about it.
> Who was the "top line pro" who didn't click with the Stones,
> Palladino?
>
Dunno. I imagine many would not.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Huh. INteresting. Wyman's book says nothing about it. FWIW, I
did not read Wyman's book as snarky. he's a very good writer ( he
went pro as a writer upon leaving the Stones ) and given the subject,
I kinda felt like he pulled his punches.
> If they felt the same way after Wyman left, their choices were sharply
> circumscribed. Perhaps that's part of the reason they have worked
> with session men and a contract touring bassist since then.
Nah. It's an established firm. They're essentially
a Stones tribute band, and they don't need another
partner.
> There's
> also the fact that the remaining Stones were a tight-knit group with a
> 30-year history (3 of them) and a 20-years history (all 4 of them)
> who had a huge investment in a business partnership that no newcomer
> would have contributed to.
Absolutely. And really - from '62 to 68 was a whale of a
lot of being a band together. They probably can't
really *replace* Wyman - you can't go back.
> And there was the fact that Mick and Keith
> were in the position to dictate to their hired guns exactly how to
> play, whereas a full partner needs to be given the freedom to express
> his own voice.
>
"His own voice" probably doesn't make any business or artistic
sense.
I'm not knocking Jones here - it's just impossible. You have
to find an identical mutant.
> IOW, there could be a variety of reasons not to take on a new fifth
> member other than an inability to find another bass player whom they
> liked (musically speaking) as much as Wyman. I wish they would make
> Daryll Jones a full member, though.
>
They probably should.
One of the great stories about replacement musicians is about Bob
Wootten, who replaced Luther Perkins (indirectly). Because of
transportation problems, only Cash and WS Holland were at a show in,
I think, Tulsa. Wootten say in, and played everything note perfect,
just as if Luther had done it.
Now, this was after Luther had died, and Cash was using another
guitar player. But Wootten actually is on the San Quentin
record, and I had no idea it wasn't Luther until I read about it.
Sounds *just like him*.
Luther Perkins is another one of those mutants, a stylist who was
very hard to replace.
--
Les Cargill