what's wrong with bass?

N

nickjc

New member
everybody in the place to be,

I've noticed lately that a lot (or all) of the discussions we have on songwriting centre around the creation of melody and chord prgressions. "well, duh" I hear you mumble at your screen, but we are forgetting a large part of whatr music is all about - the bass and rhythm section.

Western music - ie. "white music" is based almost always on melody first and rhythm second. Our laws on copyright are written to this effect - 90% melody, 10% rhythm. As such, funk artists from the sixties and seventies are still getting ripped off today without any recognition, financially or otherwise.

I have heard it said on this board that there are only 12 notes, and so we naturally repeat melodies, but it's ok if you add a different RHYTHM or feel, and make it your own - but what about stealing rhythms and bass-lines? is melody somehow more original than these elements, which are so fundamental to the music in front of them? example - the Funk Brothers, who backed more number one hits than the Beatles and Elvis put together, have only just been recognised in the movie Standing in the Shadows of Motown . granted, they didn't write their opwn music, but didn't they contribute hugely to the "feel" of the piece?

not reall a question, just a point for discussion. anyone got any thoughts?
 
There are many great songs that are defined by the bass line - as you pointed out, many of the Motown songs can be recognized by the bass line (or the rhythem section) without even hearing the lyrics or melody.

Normally, this is more of an arrangement issue than a "songwriting" issue. In theory, the songwriter(s) create the basic melody with lyrics and a basic feel (slow, fast, 3/4 time, etc) and then the arrangement begins.

But, your original point is well taken, there are numerous songs that have the same basic drum beat, bass line or rythem guitar riffs (many indeed taken from the Funk Brothers and other session cats) yet this is not subject to copywrite infringement.

I've always look at rhythem parts in the same way you referenced melody. Just as there are only 12 notes (which means melodies must eventually repeat) there are only so many ways to play a drum beat, guitar rhythem or bass line.

How many songs have shuffle beats and walking bass lines - someone originated those grooves, but due credit will never be given or received?
 
Just think if you could copyright drumbeats.....the entire genre of techno would have only one song and about a trillion lawsuits. The new music coming out today would have the most wacked out, fucked up drum beats you could imagine, so as not to infringe. Melody is way more versatile and complex than drumbeats and bass lines (although the bass is sometimes used to play the melody).
 
You're right inasmuch as nothing identifies a genre more strongly than its rythmic structure, but the concept of songwriting generally encompasses the lyrics, melody, and harmony. The parts that individual instruments play are more a question of arrangement.
For example, take the song "Take Me Home Country Roads" by John Denver, and compare it to the reggae version of the same song by Toots and the Maytays. The rhythms clearly suggest a folk song on one hand and a reggae song on the other, but the lyrics, melody, and harmony remain the same in both instances.

Aaron
www.aaroncheney.com
 
Aaron - you and the other posters who talk about arrangement are right, of course, but what if the song is written off the bass; i.e. a bass riff comes first and shapes everything else? Only asking because I've been experimenting with this. I think this is what nickjc may have been getting at.
 
The type of songs you are thinking of I like to call "riff songs"...songs that are based around an instrumental riff that doesn't translate well to a different instrument. For example, the intros to "Cat Scratch Fever" or "Smells LIke Teen Spirit" just don't sound the same on piano. I guess there could be some gray area there.

Still... you can't copyright a chord progression. YOu certainly can't copyright a rhythm.

For bass, a song that comes to mind as being driven by the bass line would be "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey. Even though that bass riff may have been the genesis of the song, I'd still argue that it's an arrangement choice. The song could still be conveyed without it by simply playing the chords that the instruments imply and singing the melody. I know that the songwriting process isn't always that cut and dry, but in relation to the topic of this thread I think it's the most apt answer.

BAsically, what you get in a "Fake Book"... just the chords, lyrics, and melody...that is the song. Anything else is the arrangement and can be tweaked and changed without changing the song itself.

A
www.aaroncheney.com
 
I hear what you're saying Aaron. I was about to wholeheartedly agree - starting with a bass riff you can still end up with a song that can be defined without it. But then a thought made the extremely short journey across my mind; would Lou Reed's Walk On The Wild Side or The Beatles' Come Together be anything without those distinctive bass lines?

(Just wondering if that's got my King out of check:))
 
First off... I laugh at those stupid penguins every dang time I see them! :D :D

Whenever I begin a songwriting class or whatever I always start by declaring it a B.F.Z. - Beatles Free Zone. I do it because no matter what rule you bring up, there's always a great Beatles tune that walks all over it.

At its heart, Come Together is just a IV, V, I tune. The cool intro carried by the bass and drums is one of those musical phrases that is an essential part of the song from a listener's point of view. It becomes impossible to imagine the song without it. That said... you could play that part with just two chords.

I do a guitar presentation at some grade schools in the area, and Come Together is one of the songs I do. I divide the kids up into four groups and get them to sing that rythm while I play the song. THe first group says: "shoopah", the next claps their hands twice, the third drums their legs and says "buddadada", and the fourth group does it again. It comes out somthing like:

"shoopa" clap-clap buddadada buddadada

The kids love it, but the teachers love it even more. It's usually one of the highlights of the assembly.

A
www.aaroncheney.com
 
Aaron Cheney said:
Still... you can't copyright a chord progression. YOu certainly can't copyright a rhythm.
[/url]
Click to expand...

but this is the point I'm kind trying to raise - that Western music/songwriting is defined by it's melody, whereas music from other cultures/places comes from a completely different place. you can't copyright a rhythm because the law says so . . .

not that I'm saying we should completely re-write the copyright books :p , but what about afro-beat music, which contains ONLY rhythms - in this case the "song" as it were becomes a liquid concept, but if you were to hear it again, you could concievably recognise it as the same thing.

all I'm saying is that the concept of a song as "melody and lyrics" is implicitly Western, and doesn't necessarily encompass all forms of song/music . . .
 
I see your point, and it's an interesting one. I think, though, that when you start breaking Western music down into subgenres, it's the rhythm that defines those genres more than the melodies. This may not be what you meant exactly, so bear with me if I overgeneralize here--by "Western music" I would assume that you mean rock/pop (with all it's offshoots), country (AND western!)...R&B (with all it's offshoots), etc. Obviously there are other broad categories, but anybody could deconstruct it into one of the big ones. (for that matter, you could probably throw it all into "pop" and get close.) But at some point, the rhythm dictates what section of the CD store you're going to find a band in. Pop and punk both owe a lot to I-IV-V, but not too many people could confuse the two styles thanks to the rhythms. Death metal, thrash metal, black metal, nu-metal, hair metal, cheese metal, progressive metal, what-have-you...it's the rhythm of it all that distinguishes these from each other. Rap, hip-hop, R&B, soul, funk, all the way towards pop/rock itself...even the various forms of techno, synth-pop, on up to industrial...yeah you get the point. You're right though--rhythm doesn't get the credit it deserves, especially considering that it probably really does define what kinds of music we like.
 
I, being primarily a bass player, write a lot from the bass line this tends to create unique rhythm schemes. doing it this way kinda dictates the whole rhythm feel, musically my best stuff is written this way. The down side is that I find it harder to develop the melody from here. I have have been experimenting with writing from the piano first but i'm having difficulty staying consistant with my genre (blues/rock)
 
you can still make a case for it if they copy the bass line and the drumline....if the rhythm is the most noticeable part of a song then a case can be made for copywrite infringement if you copy it.
 
Garry,
I've been out of the loop about 8 years now, went through a bad divorce and lost the ambition to write or even play, sold all my stuff but my '74 Rick 4001 (some things you just can never let go) I got remarried to a great lady and have been inspired to return to the world of music. I've just started recording about 3 months ago with my home studio and hope to have some pieces to upload by the end of June/July. I'll keep you up to date. I'm off to check out your song right now
Jeffry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top