I’ve noticed that a lot of bassists love basses with five or six strings. I personally think it is unnecessary. I play a Fender J-bass and would not want to play any other kind of bass (well, I might also consider a hollow-body 335-style bass at some point.) I’ve played five and sixers before and it was kind of a fun novelty to have the extra strings, but overall found them uncomfortable and would not want to own one.
I don’t think a bass needs to have more than four strings. Whenever I get into this with people, I always tell them that Jaco Pastorius played a regular Fender bass just like mine, and look what he could do with it.
Of course, it’s totally up to the musician what he chooses to play and it’s not like I honestly think less of someone that has an extended-range bass, but I personally think it’s unneeded. What’s your take on them? Do you like them or do you prefer four strings?
Aside, I played a Warwick Streamer today - what is the big deal over these instruments? Warwick gets SO much hype. I didn’t find the tone to be that unique, and I didn’t like the feel of the instrument either.
I think a 5-string is reasonable, but anything beyond that seems a bit silly to me. I had a bassist friend who was a bit of a gearhead, and among his collection of about a dozen or so basses, he had a seven-string, which really just made no sense to me. Get a friggin’ guitar if you want that many strings.
Four or five is okay by me. Once you get to six, it’s masturbation territory for me (with rare exceptions.)
edit: I should add, I’m not a bassist myself, but I do think the extra low “B” string with a 5-string could come in handy, especially when a lot of guitar/rock tunes are in E, and it’s nice to be able to come down a fourth from the E string.
I have a new 5-string J-bass (MIM), and I don’t like it at all. The neck feels awkward and the low B just sounds like mush anyway (both with the original strings and the Rotosound tape-wounds I replaced them with). OTOH, I have a MIJ fretless J-bass from the '90s that is my favorite bass that I’ve ever played.
I’ve never owned a 5-string, but I think a B string can be useful when you want to give a sense of a note being different and really deep. There’s bass, and then there’s bass; anything below the E just sounds different to me.
I don’t think the 6-string is useful for regular bass playing, but some people have made good use of them, like Les Claypool of Primus. Visually I kind of like the symmetry of a 6 more than a 5. 7-strings and more aren’t useful for regular bass playing, but more for novelty things like this:
I think, like most things musical, it’s a matter of personal preference. Some bassists take advantage of the extra range available, some just want to look cool.
For myself, I would give up my 3/4 scale generic P.O.S. for a (decent) fretless before I started adding strings. But I’m a drummer, not a bass player.
As for Warwick, I’ve never known anyone state an opinion one way or the other. Something to keep in mind; some players use whatever they can get for free. (And some take what’s given and modify the hell out of it.)
I know that’s not really helpful, I really only posted to point out that Jaco didn’t play “a regular Fender bass just like mine” unless you are also playing a beat-to-shit fretless.
If you want to sound a note somewhere within a 4th down from the low E in a bass line, how are you going to do that on a 4 string?
Five string basses are going to give you different (not better or worse) sonic possibilities. I played in a band once where my bass player used a Yamaha 5 string to great effect, giving a lot of nice smooth low end to our sort of contemporary jazz-ish sound. In the rock band I’m in now, lower notes like that would probably get lost in the mix.
I don’t really see the need. But there is alot of metal bassist who like to have the b string.
I’ve played a 6string before and it was fun for a while as a novelty but it got unfortable fast.
I built a couple five strings for local players in the early '70s,apparently there weren’t any commercial makers.Fender and others had made 6 strings in the 60’s,so during the consult I had to ask why not obtain one of them.Both players were after the low note and not the piccolo portion.
You could check these out,The new tradition in bass and guitar hardware. – Hipshot Products and keep your regular axe.
Arguments that basses should only have four strings are like saying keyboards should only be pianos.Music gets made on everything,including washtub basses.Hey,you thought fretless was hard!
[shameless name-drop]Uncle John seemed to get on pretty good with a five-stringer, although that’s like saying Paganini could whip up a storm on a one-string fiddle. [/sn-d]
Malacandra - I think you meant to type “four” stringer - that’s his 4-string custom-made Alembic.
The real question is: what kind of bass are you playing? Lead bass? Fine - have as many strings as you want. Holding down the bottom end and playing rhythm, the traditional job of a bass? 4 strings is more than enough.
My bass player - who has a '62 P-Bass (custom color! Too cool) - says “more than 4 strings is a wanker” (yes, he’s British, so he gets to use that word, the wanker! ).
As a band member, my bias is to agree with my bass player - more than 4 strings tells me you don’t necessarily want to fulfill your role holding down the bottom end - that you’d rather put yourself first, or at the very least, dazzle us with your pop-slap brilliance at the expense of how the BAND sounds. Obviously, that is a harsh generalization and can be proven countless times to be wrong - but bottom line, are you doing your job in the band? That goes for every player…in terms of bass players, I would ask: does having more strings increase the likelihood that you may not do your job? If so, forget it…
I mean, look at Entwhistle - for the first few minutes of that link posted above, he is *doing his job * - yeah, he plays it as only Ox can, but he is holding it down and only doing little bursts of technique. About six and a half minutes in, he cuts loose a bit more. So for all of his reputation as a lead bassist, he knows his job, too. Gotta respect the man.
I just tried to search, but couldn’t find it - there was a thread where someone posted a picture of a double-necked bass that had, like, eleventy-twelve strings on it total. The post was basically “wtf?” but a Guest Doper chimed in as either the guy featured in the picture/video, or someone who has the exact same bass. He did a good, thoughtful job explaining his POV, IIRC.
That’s a silly looking geetar, but that’s a really fun and proficient performance. That made my day more than the other clips (Entwhistle doesn’t count)
Well, uncle-in-law. Or to be really picky, he used to be married to my wife’s auntie, though they were divorced by the time I met Mrs M. I met him about once, but the Mrs had some guitar tuition from him as a kid and spent many holidays at his Cotswold pile, and mother-in-law knew him before he was famous.
Now I must go and get new glasses, or learn to count up to five, or both. :smack:
**puly ** - I hear you; to me it is more of a mindset thing. Frankly, a twelve-string bass is just fine, as long as (within a band context) the bassist is doing their job.
What I find is that if a player has a fancy toy, they tend to want to focus on their fancy toy and less on their job. So while an additional low string sounds great in concept, there is the possibility that it will get overused - or, at least, be something that the bassist is thinking about more than they should and more than doing their job.
No different than a keyboardist with a new synth, a guitarist with a new effect or whammy bar (or pretty much anything - guitarists are funny that way), etc…