Originally posted by geshien
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.
And yet a bassist is a guitarist. Your logic is faulty.
That bassist is a bass guitarist, unless they also play guitar.
In which case they'd be both a Guitarist and a Bass Guitarist.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
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.
Yep. I should have used that point. Thanks. They are similar, but clearly different. Different enough for their own magazine and word, but apparently not thread.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
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.
Yeah. Why have you just asked a question and then answered it yourself? He used a guitar effect, thus it was of interest to them. What has that got to do with mentioning bassists in a guitarists thread and pretending it's within the obvious meaning of the thread?
Or did you just want to mention FNM and it came out as a random series of words and points.
Yep its a grey area alright. I can see that much confusion has arisen.
I wasnt asking a question. I was showing how the bass was a standard feature in Guitar mags back then. And that there was a real diversity of features in them back then. It doesnt seem to be that way.
(A vocalist being featured for use of rackmounts was the most extreme I could think of. )
I am starting to see at this:
True that "bass guitar" is and will always be known at just that, despite is shortnened name of just "bass"
also true:
That while bassists do play essentially a big fat guitar with thicker strings on it, that a seperate thread would be appropriate.. as their could result into mixed lists and that would just be weird, goddamnit.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think the whole point is; we all know what is meant by "Guitarist". Don't we?Gesh obviously has issues with figuring that out and has incorrectly named bassists where they were not asked for.
It needn't go further.
-AC
Unless, of course, he genuinely though, prior to posting that Les Claypool was actually a guitarist and not a bassist.
Yep its a grey area alright. I can see that much confusion has arisen.
It's not really though is it?...guitarists are guitarists....bassists are bassists....it really doesn't get much more black and white than that.
VVD, you can drop the facade by attempting to speak of me as if you know what goes through my mind, declaring that I am either proud, a rebel and/or an idiot. I may disagree with people and feel that they might be foolish but, I see no reason to call people on it because it doesn't help anyone and it's uncalled for. I don't appreciate being insulted. I disagree and I've my points. I request that you speak with me a little more common courtesy.
Now...
A bassist guitarist is a type of guitarist, just as a bass guitar is a type of guitar.
The word "bassist" helps define the type of guitarist they are. It doesn't mean they aren't a guitarist.
If we're all in agreement that a bass guitar is indeed a guitar, why does playing one not make you a type of guitarist?
People want to separate bass guitarist with the typical lead guitarist do so because it simplifies. The role of a bassist is different from that of a lead. This however doesn't make the player a non-guitarist.
People who want to use the notion and say that the term "bassist" distinctively separates them from "guitarist" are the ones who are deluded.
A bassist (who uses a bass guitar) is simply a specific type of guitarist.
The black n' white comparisons between a typical lead guitar and a bass guitar are apparent but, both are still considered guitars, hence making the players guitarists. What separates one guitarist from another is the instrument themselves, hence dictating their roles; lead, rhythm and bass.
I cannot help the words that are made to help label the players themselves but, it's obvious that the bass guitar is a guitar and that playing one makes you a particular guitarist.
I know bass guitarist aren't considered or looked at as the traditional ideal (or in some cases not at all) of a guitarist but, by all technical standards, a bass guitarist is still a type of guitarist. (hence why I said to think outside the box) And I've yet to read an argument that is a sound defense that a bassist is not a guitarist. To say that bass guitarist are called "bassists" isn't an argument. Nor is the word "bassist" ambiguous. It just means that one plays bass. In this case we're talking about bass guitar, and I'm beating a dead horse. C'mon.
Also, just because the bass guitar garners it's own magazine and is often excluded in "guitar" magazines doesn't mean that it suddenly excludes it of being a guitar or that those who play it aren't a type of guitarist. In defense, my explanation on why the bass guitar has it's own separate mags, is because it's geared toward a specific demography.
On that note. If you were to check guitar world magazines or the site itself, they have bass guitars covered in articles and are available for sale.
What part of "Bassist = Bassist, Guitarist = Guitarist" are you having problems with?
Forget the argument as to whether or not a bass is a kind of guitar, that's irrelevant. We're not TALKING about what kind of instrument it is, we're talking about the players. Stop arguing the case of "It's a kind of guitar.", because that's not relevant.
The thread specifies guitarists, and guitarist quite clearly means someone who plays the guitar, not the bass. That is what has been accepted forever. Guitarist = someone playing the acoustic or electric guitar, not bass. That's what everyone knows, refers to it as, understands it as. Why could you not just say guitarists as they were meant in this thread, by implication?
If they wanted bassists mentioned, they'd have said so. Everybody understands to what "Guitarist" refers. It refers to someone playing the electric guitar, not a bass. As said, if you wrote to Guitar World about a bassist, they'd ignore you, because it's not about the guitar family, it's about the guitar in the sense of lead/rhythm electric guitars and guitar playing.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Nobody is referring to, nor asking for, bassists in this thread. A bassist is a bassist, that is what they are known as by everyone in the waking world. Guitarist refers to someone playing the electric/acoustic guitar, that's known to everyone.
Why can you not understand that and leave bassists out? Nobody said "Who is your favourite musician that plays a stringed instrument and/or member of the guitar family?". It was a very simple question:
"Who is your favourite guitarist?".
Everybody understands that except for you. Bassists have no place here.
"B-but they are a kind of guitarist!", no. Stop. This thread is aimed at guitarists in the sense of the word that society, history and anyone interested in music with a shred of sense would understand; someone playing the electric or acoustic guitar, not bass. End. Leave bassists out of it.
If Les Claypool saw this thread, he wouldn't start naming bassists. Let's just stop debating it, and you can accept that bassists have no place in this thread. The debate isn't necessary. This is about electric guitarists/acoustic guitarists, ok? Lovely. Move on.
-AC
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And as I play both, where does that leave me on "the bassists and guitarists being exclusively different things" front...?True, anyone can see the differences, but not everyone it seems is in the position to see the equally obvious similarities...
Ahhh well. Ive set up a bassist thread.
you'd be known the same as Paul McCartney is known as...a **** 😆
i jest of course.