Jump to content

Science Says, "Bassists Are The Most Important Member of the Band"


Recommended Posts

  • Members

"Researchers have now determined that the bass is the backbone of any song. Turns out our brains can find the rhythm more easily when it is played in a lower tone. In other words, bassists are far more important to a song’s structure that previously thought."

 

Data is located here: "Superior time perception for lower musical pitch explains why bass-ranged instruments lay down musical rhythms" - http://www.pnas.org/content/111/28/10383

 

Article at https://www.simplemost.com/bassists-important-member-band-according-science/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Great example of journalistic hyperbole, as nowhere in the research is the conclusion reached that, "Bassists are the most important member of the band." Instead, the Conclusion section states, "these studies suggest that widespread musical practices of placing the most important melodic information in the highest-pitched voices, and carrying the most important rhythmic information in the lowest-pitched voices, might have their roots in basic properties of the auditory system that evolved for auditory-scene analysis."

 

Granted, the bass player's role in bands is often underestimated by the general public, so by all means, let's give credit where it's due; but let's not overstate the importance of bass either. After all, as the study implies, few people hum the bass lines of songs.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mike Mills of REM chose to play bass when he saw a school band play, and the bassist would hit certain notes that made the bleachers rattle. Les Claypool thought bass was a more masculine, sultry instrument than guitar.

 

I think bass is a very expressive instrument and I love playing it when I'm in the mood. When I was really bored of traditional guitar for a while, I played a lot more bass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I think bass is a very expressive instrument and I love playing it when I'm in the mood. When I was really bored of traditional guitar for a while' date=' I played a lot more bass.[/quote']

 

Don't know if it's the same for you, but when I play bass, it's very different from guitar. I think I became a good bass player only when I started playing with drum machines, and conversely, getting better at bass made me better at programming drum parts. Although I certainly love to play block chords or a nice lead line on guitar, it doesn't satisfy the same part of me that enjoys being part of a rhythm section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Don't know if it's the same for you, but when I play bass, it's very different from guitar. I think I became a good bass player only when I started playing with drum machines, and conversely, getting better at bass made me better at programming drum parts. Although I certainly love to play block chords or a nice lead line on guitar, it doesn't satisfy the same part of me that enjoys being part of a rhythm section.

 

I don't consider myself a good bass player at all. Coming up as a guitarist, I never played along to albums or played in bands much. My bass playing is the result of having to fill in space where there're no drums or vocals. I play it differently than guitar, but I don't model my playing on other bassists either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I had guitar lessons when I was young but taught myself to play bass. I much prefer playing bass these days. Any fool can play guitar but it takes a real musician to play bass properly...

 

My question about fools playing instruments is: which fool playing which instrument in what manor and at what level ? I saw Bela Fleck once (probably on Austin City Limits) playing music on some form of banjo with one of his band players on some odd percussion. It was completely new and innovative to my ears (it's probably been 20 years ago and I can't recall specifics). I heard the Incredible String Cheese Incident on TV once. As I recall, there was a guy playing an electric mandolin using some pedals, doing some soloing that hinted at Jimi Hendrix.

 

My thinking is that the problem isn't necessarily the instruments in question, it's the cliches played by the musicians using these instruments.

 

As for the research on peoples' perception of bass, melody and rhythm...the abstract mentions that "music is often polyphonic". I looked thru the article trying to find specific music used in the study and found no mention. Maybe I missed it. But it seems that would be important. I'm sometimes skeptical of scientists doing studies in disciplines they may know little about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think the science proves the bold claim really. Perhaps low frequency sounds are, in passing, the first to be perceived as music rather than noise. That doesn't necessarily mean that at any given time the bass is the most important instrument in a song, let alone any other form of music. Of course, Prince had a major hit with no bass at all.

 

Myself? I absolutely relish the point in writing when I come up with the bass line, whether that's early or late.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Of course, Prince had a major hit with no bass at all.

 

Technically, two hits -- "Kiss" didn't have a bass either. But on the other hand, both those songs did have bottom end that was covered by the drums. Though they didn't follow the harmonic root of the song, they filled in that part of the frequency spectrum that the ear expects the bass to reside in. A lot of hip-hop, especially the ones that use the heavy TR-808 sustaining kick drum sound, uses the same principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Technically, two hits -- "Kiss" didn't have a bass either. But on the other hand, both those songs did have bottom end that was covered by the drums. Though they didn't follow the harmonic root of the song, they filled in that part of the frequency spectrum that the ear expects the bass to reside in. A lot of hip-hop, especially the ones that use the heavy TR-808 sustaining kick drum sound, uses the same principle.

 

Yes, quite right. I thought there was another this morning. How did you know which one I was referring to btw?

 

"Forever In My Life" also, though it wasn't a hit. Guess that's beyond the exception that makes the rule though. It sorta makes a point in fact. Bass in some cases can be replaced by a drum or 2 or 3.

 

Which reminds me of the old saying, "It had a good beat and I could dance to it." That about says it all as far as the majority of popular music for the last 5 or 6 decades I think. Especially if the criteria are limited to what catches a person's attention most readily as they're driving by-or in what register does the layman most readily notice errors.

 

All other things being equal, from my own perspective, and assuming both are as good as I could hope for-I'd rather the bass player called in sick than the drummer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes, quite right. I thought there was another this morning. How did you know which one I was referring to btw?

 

Aw come on, Look up "Hit song without a bassline" in the dictionary and you'll see "Prince,'When Doves Cry' (1984)" :)

 

All other things being equal, from my own perspective, and assuming both are as good as I could hope for-I'd rather the bass player called in sick than the drummer.

 

 

Actually, for those Prince songs, there was no drummer per se, but a Linn-LM1 drum machine (Who says 'Drum Machines Have No Soul'? :))

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Of course, Prince had a major hit with no bass at all.

 

Lately I've been doing a lot of pulling the bass out for a few measures (verse or whatever), and then putting it back in later. It adds the same kind of dramatic shift as pulling drums out for a few measures, but is a more subtle. When it comes back in preceded by a slide...yummy.

 

More and more, for me finishing a song is about taking things out, not adding overdubs. Bass applied selectively can have a huge affect on a song's emotional impact.

 

Music is just so effiing awesome. I could live to be a thousand years old and still not know anything about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Lately I've been doing a lot of pulling the bass out for a few measures (verse or whatever), and then putting it back in later. It adds the same kind of dramatic shift as pulling drums out for a few measures, but is a more subtle. When it comes back in preceded by a slide...yummy.

 

More and more, for me finishing a song is about taking things out, not adding overdubs. Bass applied selectively can have a huge affect on a song's emotional impact.

 

Music is just so effiing awesome. I could live to be a thousand years old and still not know anything about it.

 

I agree totally. Take it away, then give it back, refreshed, works such wonders.

 

I just can't agree with grandiose statements like the article's about what's most important.

 

Or ideas people have about what percentage of importance is this or that.

 

It's music. And it... depends.

 

There's flux involved. Interplay. And it doesn't suit the little boxes some people want to put things in so well, IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just can't agree with grandiose statements like the article's about what's most important.

 

Or ideas people have about what percentage of importance is this or that.

 

It's music. And it... depends.

 

There's flux involved. Interplay. And it doesn't suit the little boxes some people want to put things in so well, IMO.

 

I couldn't agree more. People keep thinking they've cracked the code about music, but they haven't. The experiments where a computer analyzed all of Bach's music (or was it Mozart?) and then created new music didn't cut it. It could only do variations on what came before, which is all it knew. A computer knows that 1 + 1 = 2. A musician knows that x + y = z, and you can do whatever you want with those variables.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I couldn't agree more. People keep thinking they've cracked the code about music, but they haven't. The experiments where a computer analyzed all of Bach's music (or was it Mozart?) and then created new music didn't cut it. It could only do variations on what came before, which is all it knew. A computer knows that 1 + 1 = 2. A musician knows that x + y = z, and you can do whatever you want with those variables.

 

You just take 1 cup of bass, 3/4 of a cup of drums, 1/2 cup of guitar and 1 half empty cup of lead singer...

 

I was shopping at Kroger's last night with the family. I must have heard at least a dozen songs I've heard many times before - Madonna, Stevie Wonder, The Supremes, etc. I couldn't make out much bass at all. Mostly just snare, vocals, some guitars, keys, guitar solo. Therefore bass isn't important! :D

 

They didn't play any Level 42 though.

 

What's the most important finger? What's the most important ingredient in a stew? What's more important, the bow or the arrow? What's the most important part of a car? :lol:

 

I think the science here has more bearing on why we hear a bear grunt over the bees buzzing, or war drums over the woman, and it doesn't say much about what instrument ultimately makes it to your heart, some other spot, or to your very soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...