But both you and you mum would be classified under the same surname/as part of the family unit though.
But still. Bass guitar it is.
It has more in common with guitar than an old upright bass.
Its even played the same as a guitar as it is a guitar with thicker strings that are tuned like a guitar only an octave lower.
It has frets like a guitar.
You dont get those with the upright double bass.
You could take em of a bass' neck and fill the gaps, and it'd sound like a fretless, but it'd be a fretless bass guitar...
Here just in case the word of someone who has taught guitar and bass guitar for almost 15 years isn't enough, heres some wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar
Originally posted by jaden101
my mum's in my family...she's still not me though
You're not making any sense.
By that example, there are no other exceptions.
A bass is a guitar. Had the author of the thread been more specific and said something along the lines of "no bass guitars" then you'd have an argument but, seeing as how their is no said basis, you've none.
Originally posted by geshien
You're not making any sense.By that example, there are no other exceptions.
A bass is a guitar. Had the author of the thread been more specific and said something along the lines of "no bass guitars" then you'd have an argument but, seeing as how their is no said basis, you've none.
a guitar is just called a guitar...if the thread starter wanted bass guitarists then i'm sure they would've said best guitarists and bassists
regardless...Les Claypool is a damn good bassist...
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not always. But mostly.Some types are an upright or double bass and arent even remotely guitar like.
A Bass guitar is a Bass guitar however.....
*Head explodes after having said "Bass Guitar" 15 times too many* 😛
That is what I mean. I simply wasn't being specific because I didn't think anyone would be confused on which instrument I was referring to.
Originally posted by jaden101
a guitar is just called a guitar...if the thread starter wanted bass guitarists then i'm sure they would've said best guitarists and bassistsregardless...Les Claypool is a damn good bassist...
Yet every guitar can be categorized. Guitars are not simply guitars. I.E. you wouldn't confuse a (prime) acoustic with an electric guitar like an Ibanez Universe but, you'd recognize them both as a part of the guitar family. Be mindful that their are a variety of differences that separate specific guitars. The bass guitar is not an exception. It's still a guitar, my friend.
And yes, Les Claypool is a beast.
Originally posted by geshien
That is what I mean. I simply wasn't being specific because I didn't think anyone would be confused on which instrument I was referring to.Yet every guitar can be categorized. Guitars are not simply guitars. I.E. you wouldn't confuse a (prime) acoustic with an electric guitar like an Ibanez Universe but, you'd recognize them both as a part of the guitar family. Be mindful that their are a variety of differences that separate specific guitars. The bass guitar is not an exception. It's still a guitar, my friend.
And yes, Les Claypool is a beast.
regardless of catagories of guitars (and by that i don't mean bass guitars as well) they all serve the same purpose...play the melody in either rythym or lead.
the bass is more to compliment the percussion and keep the tempo of the rest of the band...so in that sense it's nothing like the guitar
it's like saying a glockenspiel is the same as the drums cause you hit both with sticks...
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, that's what jaden is saying, isn't it.
Originally posted by jaden101
regardless of catagories of guitars (and by that i don't mean bass guitars as well) they all serve the same purpose...play the melody in either rythym or lead.the bass is more to compliment the percussion and keep the tempo of the rest of the band...so in that sense it's nothing like the guitar
it's like saying a glockenspiel is the same as the drums cause you hit both with sticks...
P-possibly.
Originally posted by jaden101
regardless of catagories of guitars (and by that i don't mean bass guitars as well) they all serve the same purpose...play the melody in either rythym or lead.
If that were the case, a banjo would be considered a guitar.
"and by that i don't mean bass guitars as well"
And why not?
You could play a melody in either rhythm or lead with a bass guitar.
Originally posted by jaden101
the bass is more to compliment the percussion and keep the tempo of the rest of the band...so in that sense it's nothing like the guitar
That still doesn't make it any less of a guitar. And by that standard, if I were playing an acoustic guitar and only playing two notes to create a tempo would you say I was playing it incorrectly? No. Is a bass better suited, of course but, these elements don't make either instrument any less of a guitar. And as I stated before, their are different categories of guitars. All designed to suit a particular style of playing. The bass guitar, despite what you may think, isn't an exception.
Originally posted by jaden101
it's like saying a glockenspiel is the same as the drums cause you hit both with sticks...
No, no it's not. A banjo isn't a guitar (while there is a banjo guitar hybrid) while a bass guitar is a guitar.
You're arguing that a "lead" guitar and a bass guitar are different. That I can agree with but, as far as categorizing is concerned, the bass guitar, is a type of guitar, in which your argument that a bass guitar is not a guitar, would be wrong. Your conception of what is appropriate for this thread is of no consequence. The thread starter wasn't specific about what kind of guitar players qualify.
Although, "Top 5 Guitarist Ever" is not what this thread is. It's "who are your top five favorite?" but, that's besides the point.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, that's what jaden is saying, isn't it.
No. My response was to Sadako, who was knit picking that I was using the word "bass", in which he brought up the upright string instrument. I was being lazy and wasn't typing "guitar" after "bass".
Jaden is implying that a bass guitar isn't a guitar at all.
Originally posted by geshien
No. My response was to Sadako, who was knit picking that I was using the word "bass", in which he brought up the upright string instrument. I was being lazy and wasn't typing "guitar" after "bass".Jaden is implying that a bass guitar isn't a guitar at all.
He has said that, but he also said 'a guitar is just called a guitar...if the thread starter wanted bass guitarists then i'm sure they would've said best guitarists and bassists'.
That is completely true, and your post was silly. To assume that a thread called 'Top 5 Best Guitarists' includes bassists is wilfully stupid. A bass may technically be a guitar, but a guitarist isn't a bassist. A clue is the different names.
Although in another sense it seems the thread starter has just put random words in the title that aren't binding on the subject matter.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He has said that, but he also said 'a guitar is just called a guitar...if the thread starter wanted bass guitarists then i'm sure they would've said best guitarists and bassists'.That is completely true, and your post was silly. To assume that a thread called 'Top 5 Best Guitarists' includes bassists is wilfully stupid. A bass may technically be a guitar, but a guitarist isn't a bassist. A clue is the different names.
Although in another sense it seems the thread starter has just put random words in the title that aren't binding on the subject matter.
How is it stupid?
There's no stipulation that restricts posters to replying with answers concerning only "lead guitarist". Including bassists in the thread isn't breaking any rule or contradicting anything else for that matter.
I don't see why anyone would take issue with my including a bassist in this thread. And imo, it's narrow minded and altogether wrong, to think that a bass guitar isn't a guitar.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
A bass may technically be a guitar, but a guitarist isn't a bassist. A clue is the different names.
And yet a bassist is a guitarist. Your logic is faulty.
Way to think outside of the box.
I really don't get what the argument here is. People actually have a problem with including bassists in this thread and are arguing that they don't qualify as guitarists? 😕
Originally posted by geshien
How is it stupid?
Let's see.
Originally posted by geshien
There's no stipulation that restricts posters to replying with answers concerning only "lead guitarist". Including bassists in the thread isn't breaking any rule or contradicting anything else for that matter.
It's not breaking any rules, which I'm sure you're upset about seeing as you're a rebel. Are you honestly going to sit there and deny what is understood by the term 'guitarist'? If you think it includes the separate term (a clue) 'bassist' then you're either stupid, being wilfully ignorant to hang on to the ridiculous argument you now can't retract through pride, or both.
Originally posted by geshien
I don't see why anyone would take issue with my including a bassist in this thread. And imo, it's narrow minded and altogether wrong, to think that a bass guitar isn't a guitar.
I would take issue with it if I started this thread, because I would have clearly asked for five guitarists, under the obvious and widely understood meaning of the term. I would have, and do, agree that technically a bass is a type of guitar, and it would still be irrelevant to someone deciding to name a bassist in a guitarists thread.
Originally posted by geshien
And yet a bassist is a guitarist. Your logic is faulty.
Bassist = guitarist? Not quite right is it? Guitarist = guitarist. That's probably more accurate if we're getting into logic.
Nobody says guitarist to mean 'a person playing an instrument within the general family of instruments'. If you write a letter to Guitarworld about Geddy Lee, they'll ignore it. Do you know why? It's because everyone knows what is meant by guitarist, and it doesn't mean ( the amazingly differently spelled word) bassists, in addition to actual guitarists. They don't include bassists on technicalities. They are in bass magazines.
So here's 'my logic'. The thread asks for five guitarists. People know what guitarists are. People know what bassists are. They're not the same thing. Therefore replying with a bassist to a guitarist thread is incorrect. (In all honesty, why is someone arguing against this? Seriously, ask yourself)
Adding 'but not bass (guitar!) ists, you cheeky, leftfield technical nutcase' is not necessary.
Originally posted by geshien
Way to think outside of the box.
Why the **** would you be thinking outside the box in reply to a simple thread? Hmm, I wonder how I can answer this in an outside the box way. What this simple question requires is some blue-sky thinking. I'll answer this from a quirky angle. This'll confuse them, I'll name a bassist.
Originally posted by geshien
I really don't get what the argument here is. People actually have a problem with including bassists in this thread and are arguing that they don't qualify as guitarists? 😕
It's simple, isn't it? jaden said people understand what a guitarist is, and that it doesn't really include (the separate and distinct term) bassist, which is obviously something different.
Guitar magazines don't include bassists on technicalities. They are included in bass magazines, which feature bassists. Yes, they would have an issue with your editing their magazine and hilariously including a bassist because of technical distinctions. Why am I humouring this discussion? I shouldn't be crediting this stupid argument.
If you can't see your mistake in taking issue with the phrase 'if the thread starter wanted bass guitarists then i'm sure they would've said best guitarists and bassists', then to be frank, you're an idiot. Stop embarrassing yourself.
This is my last post on this issue regardless of silly attempts to save face. It's a pathetic argument and needs no further opposition.
Originally posted by jaden101
regardless of catagories of guitars (and by that i don't mean bass guitars as well) they all serve the same purpose...play the melody in either rythym or lead.the bass is more to compliment the percussion and keep the tempo of the rest of the band...so in that sense it's nothing like the guitar
it's like saying a glockenspiel is the same as the drums cause you hit both with sticks...
Someone forgot to tell Flea that middle bit.
The bass guitar is a lead instrument too sometimes.
Flea,
Cliff Burton,
Bootsy,
Stu Hamm,
Bill Gould..
Most Jazz bassists...
Lead bass is beautiful and recognised. Bass guitar in the modern age
goes way beyond "chug along with the kick drum".
Shit, the pedals I could show you that are designed with lead bass in mind....
The sheer amount of Bass overdrives and wahs are a good place to start your research, followed by Bass whammy pedals designed to drive the Bass Guitar into regular Guitar's range of octaves so you can play it like a guitar with string bending etc and sound like a regular guitar's voice... it is played the same as guitar in that respect.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Let's see.It's not breaking any rules, which I'm sure you're upset about seeing as you're a rebel. Are you honestly going to sit there and deny what is understood by the term 'guitarist'? If you think it includes the separate term (a clue) 'bassist' then you're either stupid, being wilfully ignorant to hang on to the ridiculous argument you now can't retract through pride, or both.
I would take issue with it if I started this thread, because I would have clearly asked for five guitarists, under the obvious and widely understood meaning of the term. I would have, and do, agree that technically a bass is a type of guitar, and it would still be irrelevant to someone deciding to name a bassist in a guitarists thread.
Bassist = guitarist? Not quite right is it? Guitarist = guitarist. That's probably more accurate if we're getting into logic.
Nobody says guitarist to mean 'a person playing an instrument within the general family of instruments'. If you write a letter to Guitarworld about Geddy Lee, they'll ignore it. Do you know why? It's because everyone knows what is meant by guitarist, and it doesn't mean ( the amazingly differently spelled word) bassists, in addition to actual guitarists. They don't include bassists on technicalities. They are in bass magazines.
So here's 'my logic'. The thread asks for five guitarists. People know what guitarists are. People know what bassists are. They're not the same thing. Therefore replying with a bassist to a guitarist thread is incorrect. (In all honesty, why is someone arguing against this? Seriously, ask yourself)
Adding 'but not bass (guitar!) ists, you cheeky, leftfield technical nutcase' is not necessary.
Why the **** would you be thinking outside the box in reply to a simple thread? Hmm, I wonder how I can answer this in an outside the box way. What this simple question requires is some blue-sky thinking. I'll answer this from a quirky angle. This'll confuse them, I'll name a bassist.
It's simple, isn't it? jaden said people understand what a guitarist is, and that it doesn't really include (the separate and distinct term) bassist, which is obviously something different.
Guitar magazines don't include bassists on technicalities. They are included in bass magazines, which feature bassists. Yes, they would have an issue with your editing their magazine and hilariously including a bassist because of technical distinctions. Why am I humouring this discussion? I shouldn't be crediting this stupid argument.
If you can't see your mistake in taking issue with the phrase 'if the thread starter wanted bass guitarists then i'm sure they would've said best guitarists and bassists', then to be frank, you're an idiot. Stop embarrassing yourself.
This is my last post on this issue regardless of silly attempts to save face. It's a pathetic argument and needs no further opposition.
Bass players used to have sections reviews in guitar mags in the 80s and 90s, then publishers recognised that there was more money to be made seling them at seperate magazines and thats when in the early nineties they started bass magazines.
As for appearances on technical distinctions...How about the 1991 or 1992 issue of Guitar for the practicing musician where they not only interviewed Jim Martin about the making of Angel Dust, but Mike Patton too....? Why would they do that in a guitar mag...? Because the man was using rackmount guitar FX processing on his vocals in both FNM and Mr.Bungle.