Yes that was an excellent answer. I play bass myself (Fender J bass) but I have never played a six-string or anything more than that. I played around on a five string once (a Peavey, supposedly a very underrated instrument) that I saw at a music shop and I liked the feel of it, the neck only seemed a little bit too big. I can’t imagine comfortably playing a 6-string and that 11-string that I linked to seems like way too much. I remember seeing an article on Foderas in a bass magazine a while ago (but forgetting the brand) and being struck by the exaggerated single cutaway design, then only recently saw the Benavente website and thought that those were the basses I had seen. The added neck support makes sense, but personally I think I’d rather have fewer notes and a slimmer neck.
sure, that’s understandable. i am not really comfortable on more than 8 myself, and really stick to 7’s (small hands).
the single cut 4’s and 5’s look real nice too, if they’er done well. otherwise, they can look like lollipops heh.
True enough. To be fair, I was painting with an admittedly wide brush, so nothing personal. I don’t know you or the music you play. I do know, however, that I’ve utterly failed to be entertained by anyone yet that was playing a 75 string bass or whatever. Yet. Not to say it won’t happen eventually, of course, but as long as those guys continue channeling Jaco on steroids, I don’t hold out much hope.
All that said, ignore me. I’m just a cantankerous bastard (but I’m glad you got a chuckle out of what was intended to be a (mostly) humorous post.) No hard feelings?
Welcome to the SDMB, by the way. I sincerely hope you stick around.
Yes, I hope you will stick around too John, the more musical expertise here the better!
Yeah, this site needs more of a bass player perspective 
no hard feelings definitely. i’ve been the butt of a lot of jokes before, seriously. heh. check this out - some good stuff…
http://www.bunnybass.com/e-zine/amusing/amusingbass15.shtml
i’ve had the distinct honor of being lampooned at bunnybass.com. that’s pretty cool, i think, although they’re not too creative with their slamming either. there’s a bunch more too, other places.
gotta have a thick skin, and like i said, i thought your geddy lee glasses post was hilarious.
as for jaco, not much to worry about there, i’m not much into him really. do dig geddy lee though. steve harris, chris squire and stanley clarke too. that’s about it for the channeling on my part, though. (all 4 string players too, go figure heh). in fact, one of the most common zingers sent my way from my fellow bassists upon seeing my gear is “jaco only needed 4 strings”, implying some kind of heresy on my part for deciding to stretch out a bit. in my experience the folks with the most vitriol to share about my instrument choice tend to be bassists, for some odd reason.
i do think i’ll stick around, pony up some dough. been looking at the other threads here, cool site. 
plus, the putz smilie rocks.
I’m glad you found your “fit”.
There are all sorts of subtleties to this argument. I know that there is a technical challenge to playing with more strings. I’ve considered adding another string to my violin, to get below G. It would make me vomit to hear someone go “oooo, and he plays a 5 string! he must be good!” because the two shouldn’t be linked. And while perhaps that’s not linked in your circle, I’ve definitely seen the More is More notion linked in others.
Your example was of chamber music written for an instrument that predates the virtuosic compositions to which I have been consistently referring to. It’s not nit picking.
Your statements still don’t address the substance of my post:
My position is not “ER string instruments are stupid” - My contention is that the most virtuosic music (western art) has been composed and performed on 4-string instruments, invalidating the notion (which I understand you don’t necessarily share) that “More means More”.
If you can prove that the music written for the baryton could be considered as technically difficult as the post-Pagannini/Lizt compositions for solo instruments, then perhaps you have a point.
Lastly, I wasn’t refering to Haydn as an abheration, I was refering to music composed for that instrument as an exception, and as a holdover from an earlier instrument - which (I say again) is the opposite of the phenomenon of ER Basses. It doesn’t really matter, however, since that’s not the music I’m talking about in my main point.
My father was a great guitarsmith. When the 36-fingered man arrived and asked my father to make him a special guitar, my father took the job. It took him more than a year to make. The 36-fingered man returned for the guitar, but at one tenth his promised price. My father refused. The 36-fingered man strummed a blase’ Rush power chord on the new instument that shattered my father’s heart…
Tell me, Inigo - what will you do when you find the 36-fingered man?
For twenty years I have studied power chords and pulp music: Abba, Rush, Asia, Loverboy…So that when I finally meet the 36-fingered man I will go up to him with my $24.99 Wal*Mart 6-string and say, " 'ello. My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die."
:: Applause ::
lol. do you play electric guitar? just curious. 
how would your first postulate invaldiate the notion that more is more? all it would prove, if it were true, would be that “the most virtuosic music” of that particular genre (however that would be defined) was composed for instruments with 4 strings. the absense of something (in this case music of greater virtuosity specifically composed for baryton) does not disprove its existence nor does it disprove its possible existence - just because such music might not have been composed yet does not mean it can not be composed.
here’s a point, along these lines. play a post-pagannini composition properly on a baryton, or one of those norse violins with 8 strings. there. that’s going to be much more difficult than the proper performance of the same piece on a violin due to the technical difficulties of the instrument. -shrug-. isn’t the internet grand? it’s the only place where such a thing would warrant conversation.
more strings add more range. that’s it. there are increased technical demands inherent in dealing with such instruments, but otherwise, a rose is a rose. it’s the player that makes it special.
I play a lot of things - guitar is by no means my best nor my primary. . .
First of all, my assertion is based on the repertoire. If you’re suggesting that this is not true (you said: “if it were true”), then I want a cite: show me a statistically significant body of virtuosic music written for classical “ER” instruments. If it’s chamber music, I want a real argument about why it’s virtuosic.
Sure, the “absence” (hey, we can both snark about spelling! ) does not disprove its existence, but it can render it statistically unimportant.
And as for it being possible to write the modern equivalent of the Paganini variations for 8-string Norse Fiddle - well, call me when it happens. We’ll buy each other our poison of choice, evaluate the popular reaction, and revisit the argument. But to date . . .
I’ll grant that, assuming a very flat radius and certain string-spacing, it could be almost impossible to play (for example) one of the virtuoso violin concertos on an 8-string. Which implies that in order to play faster/better/more, virtuosos need fewer strings. Assuming some hypothetical virtuoso who could: I couln’t argue with their technical competence, but that’s only a part of the question of whether or not they’re “good”.
The other point I’ve been making is that the “classical ER instruments” cannot really be compared to modern ER instruments. The common impression is that modern ER instruments exist to overcome the limitations of their “parents”. Barytons and other viol offshoots had >4 strings because the instruments they derived from had >4 strings. And it satisfies Occam to say that the reason early instruments had more strings was not because the musicians were better than their successors, but because the pedology evolved from one that relied on a single hand-position and multiple strings for range, to one with multiple hand positions and fewer strings. As the composition and performance becomes more challenging (though I’ll grant lazy luthiers might factor in, too) we move from more strings-> fewer strings. (well, except pianos, but that’s another story).
Agreed - absolutely. This brings us back to what I feel is the root question, “Does the ER bassist is play an ER instrument for artistic reasons, or as wankery”. In your experience, the former. I’m a lot more cynical, since in my experience there’s a LOT of wankery and a lot of gear-envy. However, I am forced to spend a fair amount of time around the amateur set, which may skew my perceptions.
The flip side to this root question is “what’s the perception of the “audience”” - are they awed by an ER player over a trad player, and is this awe necessarily warranted. Though you clearly don’t think so, I see many people overawed by the size of the stick - so fighting ignorance in this situation is to point out that greatness and string-number are not linked.
That is fundamentally the point - john turner (welcome and do please stay, by the way) makes a solid case that he plays a >4 string bass for artistic reasons.
With instruments there is always going to be someone else’s point of view. You play a Fender Strat - what are you, just an SRV/Hendrix/Clapton wannabee? You play a Renaissance flute - what are you some snobby purist? Or whatever.
What it comes down to is investing enough time with your music and what you want to accomplish to get to a place where you know what’s best for you. It may be a Fender Strat - but you have made it *your *Fender Strat.
Over-the-top handcrafted instruments that look super fancy can beg the question of whether the player cares more about looks or the music - but hopefully their playing answers the question. Same with >4 string basses - either the music speaks to you or it doesn’t.
All I care about is whether the player knows what they are looking for. I just found my dream guitar after experimenting for over 20 years with a variety of guitars. I never would have guessed at the start that I’d end up where I did and don’t care what anyone else things about what I found - I just know it’s mine.
Enjoy your bass, john
Nicely put WordMan -
that’s just me being a wiseass. sorry. heh
provide your definition of virtuosic, please. those haydn solos, duos and trios may very well fall within the bounds. is it based on notes per minute, or difficulty of stretches, or…? i mean, if a piece has a 4+ octave range, performing it on a 4 string instrument is by definition going to require some virtuoso talents.
please excuse me if i get a bit snarky (great word) with this topic, but in the circles i frequent, arguing about the notes-per-minute and physical difficulty of a musical piece tends to be the purview of the guitarist otherwise uninterested in creating or listening to good music - in other words, a musical olympiad. it’s folks like that who tend to perpetuate the whole “if you have extended range instruments, you must fashion yourself a badass” crap that i’ve dealt with the past 14+ years that i’ve been playing 7+ string instruments, so i tend to be a bit acerbic with such folks.
all of this is sorta skew to the point, anyway. your original post implied that better players don’t need extended range because they know how to play their instruments. some of my basses, as well as the 11 string in the op’s post, have a range lower than a piano, some have a upper range that exceeds a guitar, all while providing the core few octaves expected from a bass guitar. no amount of elbow grease or jaco-pastorian vituosity is going to squeeze that out of a 4 string.
as an aside, i guarantee that every modern symphony you go to see will have, in its double bass section, either 5 string instruments or string extenders to open up to the section notes below low e (extending their range). anyone who wants to play the beethoven symphonies is going to need it.
that’s a slippery slope, don’t you think? i mean, statistics can be used to disprove all kinds of things that common sense clearly shows to be true, especially with regard to music. for instance, a similar argument can be made to invalidate the purpose or validity of an oboe, due to the lean pickins in the classical repertoire of pieces written for the instrument.
pieces have always been written as commissions, by and large, and as such had to satisfy the demands of the consumer, as well as the muse of the composer. citing the lack of virtuosic pieces for extended range viols points more toward the tastes of the folks paying the bills in europe over the past 4 centuries than it does the credibility of the instrument.
don’t write new ones, play the originals - grab a norse fiddle and play the existing pieces. a guitarist i used to play with phrased my point thusly - playing one of my basses was like driving an 18-wheeler. unless he was taught how to do it, even a.j. foyt would have a problem driving one around the track at indy. i was primarily using that point to illustrate the inherent difficulties in playing the instruments above the limits of the more popular 4 string versions, all other things being equal.
interesting point. while i don’t know the history of the instruments well enough to refute or confirm your postulates, they seem reasonable enough to me, although i would also note that the range of the barytons and viols with the greater string count exceeded the range of the more common 4 string equivalents. like i said earlier, no amount of hand-position-shifting is going facilitate notes that are not there on the instrument to start with. heritage aside, some composers focused on these differences and wrote pieces with them in mind specifically.
good summation of the points. i would like to add one thing - i have never in all my years of playing extended range basses seen a performer suck on a 6+ string bass. i’ve seen many -many- suck on 4 string, just fail to provide the required fundamental function of bassist, but never with the big instruments. these instruments are expensive, rare, and difficult to play, difficult in all the unglamourous ways that don’t impress folks at a party. wankers don’t do well with them in the long run, ime.
the perception of the audience is also great point to make. i feel that as a performer i have failed if someone walks away from one of my gigs and remembers primarily the instrument i played. in a sense, i am left with a more difficult task, selling my music, because while the initial “what the hell is that thing” factor helps to get folks to pay attention, it serves to counter what i am really selling - the music. i need the range and i use the range, and i certainly enjoy playing my bass, but i am not interested in any gunslinger syndrome/musical olympics type stuff, and if a listener just comes away with “wow that’s a big bass” or “wow that’s a great bass player” then i’ve failed.
oddly enough, the strongest impression from folks that i get is almost invariably one of disdain when they see my instruments for the first time, before they hear me play, as opposed to any kind of awe or any other favorable first impression. rarely do i get “you must rock” but rather “you must have something to prove”.
john turner - clearly you are enjoying your discussion with MLC which is cool - but, c’mon - no love for my advocacy of your position?! 
In all seriousness, I agree with your basic position(s): the music comes first, play an instrument that enables to you best express your music, form follows function and leave 'em entertained for the right reason - the music.
…but I still think Clapton plays a Strat because he is a Hendrix wannabee. Now, granted, Hendrix played a Strat initially due to respect for Buddy Guy, but no one can deny that Hendrix took it to new places…
You should have ended with:
“… you killed my father, prepare to kiss the sky.”
And aaaawwwwaaayyyy we go!
: musing : This, and your comment below make me think that you are not necessarily a pure flower either when it comes to making assumptions…
Well, that is a respectable question - all I can say is that the challenge of playing baroque and classical period music generally resides in the subtleties - the “artistry” - not in the ability to actually execute the technical aspects of the music. I’m not saying that this pre-romantic music is easy, just that the challenges have to do with musicianship, not technical prowess. This is true for chamber music and solo music alike.
The romantic-and-post music, the stuff that I’m refering to as generally “virtuosic” can be extremely challenging technically. That may be because the tonal construction of the music leads it to places where the harmonies are unexpected, because of notes-per-minute, because of multiple techniques stacked, or because the techniques themselves are being applied in difficult ways.
For example: Brahms violin concerto, 1st movement, there’s a passage of minor 9th down, 2nd up, 9th down, 2nd up, 9th down, (small upwards arpeggio) 2nd down, 9th up, 2nd down, 9th up etc for about 8 measures or so. The basic outline of this, in an pre-romantic peice might just be kept in the same octave, but in this peice it’s jumping 3 octaves in eighth notes at quarter=90 (approx). Furthermore, the pedagogy has fast glissandos on the large leaps. There’s NOTHING like that kind of passage in anything before the Romantic. It’s a flashy passage that’s hard to execute (you either do, or do not - there is no try) - and displays a level of skill beyond what’s required to play a Haydn Sonata. And that statement doesn’t take into consideration any musicality. The passage can be played robotically and impress. Performed musically and it’s sublime.
I could also talk at length about the difference with bow technique - I can’t decide whether it’s germaine to this topic. . .
Ah yeah - the Yngwe Fuckstein proteges . Rest assured, I’m NOT one of those, though it becomes clear why you assumed that I was. What amuses me is that my impression of ER bass players (somewhat supported by your own comments) is that they too elevate the physical difficulty. I don’t. My “virtuoso” argument is a fight-fire-with-fire tactic - I personally think there’s more to be valued in an “easy” peice, expressively performed than a “hard” peice, performed accurately but without soul. FTM I could rattle off a few pre-paganini peices that I rank as harder to perform artistically, though they are not (too) challenging technically.
Yep - I can see how that would be, and I can see how I come across as having that opinion.
Well, yes and no. My original post did imply that - (actually, I think I was pretty baldface about declaring that) - but in my subsequent posts I’ve backed off that statement and reorganized my argument.
Every modern symphony will haul out those extenders for 4 strings, or pull in a 5 string because the repetoire of that particular concert involves music that goes below the bass’ low E. But they won’t be adding 2 more strings above the high G, they’ll just work up the neck.
So, just how much have you been reading the SDMB in the past week? That’s a pro’s argument - all “slippery slope” an’ shit. . .
It’s not a slippery slope: my original statement was self contained and factual:
You reply with a “You can’t prove a negative - you can’t prove that virtuosic music WASN’T written for barytons”. - true, but It doesn’t matter if virtuosic music could have been written for Barytons - it was written for 4-strings.
If someone were to discover a long-lost concerto composed by Tchaikovsky for solo bartyon, with the dedication “I bet you can’t play THAT, mutherf*cker”, it’s existence might undermine the precise wording of my argument, but doesn’t destroy the essence of my point.
That’s an interesting argument, but once more I’m not attacking the credibility of the baryton.
My comment about composing a new peice was aimed at your statement that “just because such music might not have been composed yet does not mean it can not be composed.” I address the “inherent difficulties” argument in the next paragraph where I concede that given radius and spacing. . . yadda yadda yadda.
Sure. Perhaps some of why that is is because the modern family of string instruments could cover the entire range, with each instrument optimized for its range of the spectrum. . . But I won’t argue that limiting to 4 strings doesn’t reduce the range.
Your final paragraphs have given me pause. Seeing as there are some things that I’m trying to do in my music that open me up to similar comments, I can’t help but have some empathy.
I think that where my complete breakdown in understanding ER Bassists (and the more strings, the more this comes out) is in the function of the bass. My initial post exempted basses with added lower strings: Bass->Low->More Basser->More Lower->Good! But you describe basses that go ultra-low. . . and ultra high - a bass approaching subsonic AND messing around in the mid to high-mid.
How do you fulfill the fundamental function of the bass when playing in that range? Is it primarily there for the solos? IME of music with ER bassists, I hear loads of technical competence, but music like the low-end cousin of those speed-queen guitarists from earlier in the post: a lot of overplaying, a lot of stifled music (no air).
I think the reason why I assume (I admit) the “badass with something to prove” mentality from ER Bassists is that the music I attribute to ER players sounds like the bass player is overcompensating.
Now, what your presence in this thread has done is point out to me that my perception is more subjective than I was previously aware of - that what I’m hearing as music squashed under overplaying is another musician’s idea of perfect expression. That musician has also evaluated their role, their artistry, and the output is their sober expression, not the result of some kind of exuberant overcompensation. That probably sounds like a underhanded shot, but I’m sincere and not trying to offend.
The worst thing about this realization is I might have to swallow that comment about yngwe malmstein.
your whole reply warrants some great conversation, but i’ll focus on this last part.
how do i fullfill the function of the bass?
great question. i approach the job of “provide structure and foundation” as one more of function than frequency range. for instance, using ostinatos in any register provides structure and cohesion to music that in essence fills the bill. this technique has been used as a compositional tool forever - take an organ tocatta and fugue from bach. often the job of primary melody is being handled by the left hand, and the job of rhythmic reinforcement is handled by the right, only to have the roles reversed in a later passage to the more familliar orientation.
sure, the human ear is more drawn to higher frequencies, and as such they lend themselves more to conveying primary melody, but functional gender-bending like this makes the music very interesting to the ear, in my opinion, not to mention lending great power to the return to normalcy - when the bass range resumes the role of reinforcement from the higher frequency the power and impact is palpable.
i liken my preferred approach to the wheels of a train as opposed to the foundation of a house. the repetitive nature of the parts i play provide structure and locomotion, and while they are more powerful in the low frequency, even in the higher range they fulfill their purpose.
another relevant factor of erb’s that serves to expand the palette is the fact that the tonal difference between the strings is very prounounced. i can play the same register “a” on a string with .135" a .107" diameter, .078" diameter, .055" diameter, and .035" diameter. true, this is also available somewhat on a standard tuned bass, but not for more than a few notes, and not for multiple octaves like it is on an erb.
how is this relevant? well, the different string diameters are going to give the same note different tonal characteristics. the fat, meaty tone of the a on the .135" is going to sound like a completely different instrument than the a on the .035", and this tonal difference is going to directly contribute to the feel of the passage. it’s like having the choice between a tuba, trumpet, clarinet or harp all play the same passage. the compositional horizons this opens are very broad.
believe it or not, i play many passages laterally up the neck as opposed to longitudinally across the board for this very reason. the tonal consistency of playing the notes on strings of similar diameter - even passages spanning over an octave - lends cohesion to parts that i want to sit in a controlled manner in the mix with the other instruments. on the other hand, i sometimes play parts in the same register but at different positions on the neck, and that lends itself to changing the whole nature of the group tone and feel.
as for the bass overcompensating, well, in a lot of ways you’re right. the instrument has been so stunted for so long in its role in modern music that it has a bowler’s physique, or looks like kaiser wilhelm. some folks approach rectifying that by overcompensating (i’m sure that in some folks’ eyes i’m guilty of that, i know i am in the eyes of a few of the guitarists i’ve worked with in the past, but their objectivity is suspect at best). i’d like to think that instead of just swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, i’m sending it out on a different path all together, but that may just be hubris on my part.