When musical pieces are written for a single instrument.... Like say, a bass?... Is it wanking then?

Bach must have been a wanker with all of his guitar solos.

No because thats how it`s written

Doesn`t mean i`ll like it though , but thats true with any song

But that's how some contempary music is written so, what's the difference?

Lets not forget Andres Segovia.

http://www.fransbrekelmans.nl/images/segovia.jpg

Didn`t I just say (I think this is the 9th time now) WHEN IT`S DETRIMENTAL TO THE SONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it`s written like that it can`t be detrimental because thats how it`s supposed to be played.

The difinition of "wank" is pure subjectiveness... Like playing with emotion, passion, feeling and all that stuff.

And didn`t I say something like 10 pages back my definition of wank is showing off when it`s not needed.

What's the differnece between Bach's solos and that?

One is written the other is made up on the spot most of the time.

Would I listen to either?

Probably not.

Well, when it is needed is all according to the songwriter, the listener just decides what they like and what they don't like... Whos to say a complex solo passage deviates from what the songwriter originally wanted?

Because it's made up on the spot it's worse? Bull shit

I kinda worked that out for myself

Where did I say it was worse?

Improvising isn't bad at all, it's a very energetic and exciting form of performance, not to mention its a very challenging but creative process... Also, a lot of rock n roll bands improvise then lie about it.

it was in reference to urban.

And urban, no, you did not directly say that. But did demean live guitar solos but didnt say anything about having a dislike for Bach's

You seem to be trying to argue a subjective point with logic and it`s not working.

You seem trying to get the point across that solos are a part of songs and that some songs are written primarily with one instrument in mind.... Well thats fine. I accept that they`re written in the context of the song.

But that doesn`t mean that I have to like them , just in the same way that i`d wouldn`t like just any song with no solos in them.You`re basically trying to paint it in black & white.By all means write a technical solo passage in a song.What i`m trying to say is i`ll judge it by the song , not the solo.If it fits the song then great.But if I think the song is rubbish then I won`t listen to it.Regardless of how great the solo is.

nikki is still the best

Fine, coffee anyone?

If you're deaf, maybe.

I agree. Solo's do not make or break a song they simply enhance them just like a good riff would. But that's the thing solo's do not make or break a song and, before you seemed to have implied that solos=bad and are just musicians showing off having big heads that I don't agree with. You don't have to like it, just see it as style that does have talent in it.

^ Word to yo motha.

I didn`t say solos = bad , and if I did i meant in the context of a live show with one instrument showing off on it`s own for 10/20 minutes.

I said meaningless showing off. You want an example of that i`ll give you one. We`ve already mentioned Oasis once ,Noel Gallagher once said of Be Here Now that he hated the album because he tried to hard on it.He tried to fill every space between the lyrics with extra guitars when it wasn`t needed just for the sake of having them there , to the point where it ruined the songs.His own words. Thats the sort of thing i`m talking about.

Fair enough to an extent I agree but, bass isn't worthless or pointless and if you still think that I lack a tremendous amount of respect for you.

I said bass players not bass :D

Well that's a shame because bassists who write well make something really wonderful. Just wondering but I assume when you listen to music you never really listen to individual parts just the music as a whole, right?

Well it depends , mostly yes but on some occasions individual parts grab me.
For example The Fall are probably one of the most amatuerish bands i`ve ever heard but Mark E Smiths songwriting , attitude & delivery of the songs make up for that.If it wasn`t for him I probably wouldn`t like them anywhere near as much as I do.

Nothing wrong with that just personality difference I suppose. I listen to the song as a whole the first couple of times and that's usually what I base on whether I like it or not but to me that's just the surface and from there I pick out every little part find things I like and dislike. What you like depends on how you listen to things so I figured there was a difference.

How are bass players pointless?

hate to interupt the flow, but i would say cliff burton and in a close 2nd would be flea. just imo.

I really enjoy Roger Waters bass playing with Pink Floyd, he may not be the best but his basslines are very enjoyable to play. Then we have Mike Watt and Peter Hook who I also extremely enjoy their playing. Lest I forget the likes of Paul Chambers, Bob Cranshaw, Scott LaFaro and Charles Mingus who were also very influencial and favourites of mine.

You know, David Gilmour also played bass on a few Floyd tracks.

The Narrow Way Parts 1-3.
Fat Old Sun.
Alans Pyschedelic Breakfest.
One Of The Days... Him and Waters both on bass)
Echoes... Fretless bass parts, Waters played the rest.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond.... Additional bass for part 6
Pigs (Three Different Ones)... The fretless bass parts, Waters played the rest.
Sheep.

Ironically, Waters dosen't even play most of the bass on The Wall, though he can play the parts perfectly live, Gilmour played bass on most tracks from The Wall, including.

Mother.
Goodbye Blue Sky.
Young Lust.
Don't Leave Me Now.
Hey You.
Nobody Home.
Vera.
Comfortably Numb... Some bass parts, not sure what and when, Waters plays most of it i'm sure.
Show Must Go On.
Run Like Hell.
Waiting For The Worms.
The Trial.

Waters played everything else.

So its obvious that Waters was lacking in the skill department, which is why he often required Gilmours help, he claims that he has a serious problem trying to sing and play at the same time, and of course he didn't sing very much on Floyds earlier work... Ironically despite being the bands sole bass player, he is the worst bassist who has ever played with Pink Floyd... Gilmour, Tony Levin and Guy Pratt are all better.

But yes, Waters still has some awesome basslines to his credit... Money especially... He isn't amazing, but he did his job perfectly.

Exactly, I love playing Money. It's easy but a great song to "jam" to.

My favorite bassist at the moment is Tony Levin (King Crimson).... Who has also played for practically every band that has ever existed. :laughing:

EDIT: Decided to add Tony to my avatar.

No, it's not Patrick Stewart with a mustache.

Because they`re totally humourless as this thread shows *




















*I wasn`t being serious , I was joking with MJ......ok?

Correct, however I do detest funk music.

Please spare me any long winded debate, I have hated it since I was 15 years old and I am a little long in the tooth for listening to something that I have detested for 17 years.

As for the bass, I am crazy about rockabilly stand-up bass and don't feel that it needs to follow any sort of formula. Electric bass to me is just ho hum and doesn't add much to the overall product, call me crazy but it just isn't a visually exciting instrument to watch someone play.

Stand-up bass however you can: Twirl, stand on, hump, lift behind head, light on fire.

Stand-up bass > Electric bass

That is all

So............. You're saying bass guitar sucks based on how the instrument looks... M'kay then.

One more thing Mr. Funk hater, Bootsy knows where you live. :mad:

This may be a narrow minded statement, but perhaps people here are just brillant with sarcasm, but it almost seems like some people here prefer image over well.... Music.

I am more hung up on live music than recorded music, 90% of the bands I listen to are bands that I have seen live. Furthermore, I have a very short attention span and if I spin a CD once and don't like it I will probably never touch it again.

Studio albums do not ROCK me, I am of the firm belief that it should not take 64 or 128 tracks to make a rock and roll record. Hence the reason why I would rather listen to the Stones than The Beatles.

Just the way I am: LESS IS MORE

I really don't know what this has to do with anything but it sounded reasonable in my head, I guess it is just a little insight into how I determine what I like

I reckon... Still, i found it pretty harsh when you made cheap shots about my taste in music.

Just being a jerk, I assure you it was not meant with any seriousness or animosity. It's a shame that sarcasm is so lost on the internet