Talk:Bass guitar/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 7

Addition of Bassists and Bands

Hi again, this post is about the tendency of each subsection of this article to grow due to the addition of examples of bassists and their bands. For example, in a section on bass guitar bodies, editors will add that " 'Bassist X', who performed in 'Band Z' and 'Group Q' (including on the influential 'ZZZ' album, used a bass with this body shape throughout the mid-1980s." This addition attracts other references to bassists (along with the bands they performed in and some well-known tracks) from other styles. The result is that 2 paragraphs on the development of bass body shapes morphs into a 5 paragraph section that is defocused by the interpolation of all of the bass player examples. It can be argued that this desire to discuss bassists in many different sections of the "Bass Guitar" article stems from the lack of a proper "Bass Guitarists" article. If there was a well-structured "Bass Guitarists" article, it would provide editors with a good location to discuss bass players, their bands, and well-known albums.NatMor 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cut a few more bassists, including Geddy Lee who I've never heard as being known for tapping but who might be relevant in the history/Rickenbacker section. I agree, an article on bassists, the musical role and/or history of it would be a good idea. --Howdybob 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen Geddy Lee do tapping sometimes... -- 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Novel Historical Interpretations

Hi, This page attracts a good amount of POV (Point of View) historical interpretations. That is, an editor believes that that "X" brand of bass was designed and produced to meet "Y" need of the music market, or that the "Z" bass helped to create the "Q" form of music. For example, recently claims were made that the 1960 Jazz Bass was designed to be sold to Jazz Fusion bassists. This appears to be a novel historical interpretation on the part of the author, because Jazz Fusion didn't start until about 1968 (e.g. Miles in the Sky with Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, and Tony Williams). Another editor added a few sentences on the Mustang short scale bass which claimed that the short scale instrument was designed for players who couldn't manage the larger instrument. While this claim might be logical, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a place for posting new interpretations or theories. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia ... not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.....It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible...Novel historical interpretations and theories, though, are welcome on the Talk Page or on bass chat sites. : )NatMor 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the above comments. The whole section on Nomenclature falls into "novel historical interpretations". Read the manuals and tags that come with the instrument from the manufacturer. Whoever re-wrote the nomenclature section to push the "bass guitar" POV simply has their facts wrong. "Electric bass" was the original term used when the instrument was first manufactured and presented to the public. The vernacular term "bass guitar" came much later and is seen more in the retailers' literature and popular press. I have owned 6 electric basses (still have 3) and have read manuals from Fender, Gibson, Washburn and many other prominent and lesser known manufacturers - they do not refer to an electric bass as a bass guitar. Electric bass manuals are available for download from sites such as Fender - a verifiable, authoritive, publicly accessible source for this article.

So why don't I edit the nomenclature section? Because I know that within minutes someone pushing the "bass guitar" bandwagon will change it back. This is why I haven't been near Wikipedia for almost a year. And in this visit I notice the bass guitar POV has gotten worse. Whoever changed the reference to Tutmarc's Model #736 got it wrong - it was not listed as an electric "double bass". I won't even go near some of the other opinions expressed as fact.The lack of scholarship, scant attempt at accuracy and the hijacking of articles to push a POV have rendered hollow the goals of Wikipedia.

It is no wonder that educational institutions such as universities and high schools specifically rule out Wikipedia as a creditable reference for research assignments and literature reviews. Wikipedia cannot be regarded as an encyclopedia - especially this article. It is simply a collection of opinions.Ozbass 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone here have a look at Zon Basses and tell me if the subject has any claim to notability? A quick google suggests no, but google is fickle for such things. Thanks. --W(t) 17:52, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I think Zon Guitars (the official name of the company) might be deserving of an entry - they're a fairly influential bass manufacturer. However, that article is short, misleading (Michael Manring is not their lead designer or only customer!) and inadequate as it stands! Basswulf 11:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added some content about Zon. --Kenliu 8 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Strings and Tuning

I've been watching as this section gets bloated with more and more specific details. Recently, it seems to have become encumbered with lots of names of specific artists and is starting to sound less like an encylopedia article and more like a series of eulogies for X, Y and Z. I've substantially shortened the section, as well as adding notes on alternative tunings for open chords and extended range.

If you feel the need to illustrate and expand (although hopefully not with debateable statements like "X and Y are the only 11 string bassists as of August 2005") how about starting a separate article on Extended Range Basses. Otherwise someone who's unfamiliar with the subject may not realise that the majority of basses are four-stringed with a substantial number of five stringed instruments and increasingly small quantities as the number of strings increases. Basswulf 10:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good edit. It would bear mentioning that five and six string basses are the most common variations, :though. --Kenliu 14:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a long post on Village Pump (assistance) which probably belongs here, as follows:
I think that's a bit long for this page. However, I fully agree with the points that Garry Goodman made about POV. Hopefully, future visitors can be better informed about the contributions he and the other players have mentioned on their own dedicated pages. BTW, I've tried to indicate that five and six string basses are the most common extended range options by breaking the list into 5, 6 and 7+ options (and then the multiple courses of strings). I still think an Extended Range Basses page might be the way to go, although it should still be without unsubstantiated claims about this or that playing being the best, the first or the most prolific. Basswulf 11:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Priority on 7-, 9- and 11-string basses

encyclopedia or one reporter's opinion?

To anyone at Wikipedia,

I was told about this page: , re:Strings and tuning

I don't know about you,but I find it to be a sad day when folks want to try and rewrite history with their version.

I don't know who wrote this article and where this writer got his/her information from , but it reads as an opinion and an advertisement as opposed to facts in an Encyclopedia.

The section in the article about" Strings and tuning" is somewhat "shaded' and excludes real,well know facts. I know Bill Dickens,I consider him a friend and a great bassist. However, is it a fact that he is the most prolific 7-string bass guitar session bassist? No. I had a 7-string bass guitar( widely accepted in the bass community as the very first one) custom made in 1987.It is documented.It wasn't until five years later that Conklin made 7 string basses commercially available.I have done hundreds of recording sessions with my 7 string bass since the 1980's.The contracts are on file at the Musician's Union.I have been playing 7 string bass longer than anyone.How does the writer know how many seesions Bill or I ,or any other 7-string bassist has done?

So this sentence: "

"The most prolific 7 string player is session man Bill "Buddah" Dickens. " is not accurate. Nothing against Bill,but it just is an opinion. How can anyone in their right mind make a statement like this?

Here is another example: "The 9 and 11 string basses are played by virtuoso Jean Baudin, best known for his work with metal band Nuclear Rabbit." Wrong

Bill Dickens may have been the first with a 9 string bass. Who is qualified to label Jean Baudin a "virtuoso"? As of today,none of his 11-strings (none of which are in his possesion yet) have strings on them yet. How can someone write that he is a virtuoso 11-string player? He really hasn't played one for any length of time. Jean is a nice guy and has some great concepts going on.There are many good 7-9 string players.Why not mention them? The word virtuoso does not proceed the othe player's names mentioned on this page,some of who are indeed virtuosos.

Please consider these well known facts:

The 11-string bass guitar was first built by Mike Adler in 2004 and,I own it and I am the first 11-string bass player. The first 7-string bass was a custom order made by me to Tobias guitars in winter 1986. There are many 9-string bass players, like Al Caldwell who plays for Vanessa Williams. Al also has an 11-string. I commisioned Adler Guitars to build the first single string,12-string bass with 92 notes ,7-1/2 octave range in 2003.It is the first of it's kind.It has a greater range than an 88 note piano.It was completed this year. Bassist Jauqo III-X conceived of a 17 hz low C# string and with S.I.T. strings,made it a reality. Jauqo is the first with the 3x5 15-string bass The original tuning of the 7-string bass is B-E-A-D-G-C-F. The original 6-string bass tuning was E-A-D-G-B-E Thanks to a new string I've developed ,the 4x3 12 string basses can now have 3 octaves. Why doesn't the writer of this article know this?

I have been playing bass for 40 years.When someone does a search on-line for extended range basses and "Wikipedia" pops up,they may read this article and actullay think it's all factual. It's not,it's incomplete,and very opinionated.I don't care if my name is mentioned in an encyclopedia,just facts. I attempted to edit it this,and found it was restored to how I found it. For example,I changed "The most prolific 7 string player is session man Bill "Buddah" Dickens. " to "A prolific 7 string player is session man Bill "Buddah" Dickens. "

What does it take replace opinion with fact on Wikipedia?

Thanks Garry Goodman

  • Garry, it's a collaborative effort, and as such is only going to be as good as the collaborators' knowledge can make it. It would be good if you could rewrite the section yourself as you clearly know a great deal about it.
I agree with your point about people adding their opinions as fact, and there are many editors who spend a great deal of time trying to ensure that articles retain a neutral point of view. Replacing opinion with fact is always worthwhile. You could help with that too.
Paul Tracy|\talk

Garry, I heartily endorse the call to correct opinions with facts. Please include a verifiable source external to wikipedia when you do so. Ozbass 09:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Obvious Contradiction: "Other innovations by Alembic included the world’s first graphite neck bass and the first production 5 string bass with a low B string - both in 1976. / The first low B string on a bass appeared in 1975, when Fodera collaborated with Anthony Jackson to create a new six-string electric bass." Might want to get that fixed.

You might want to fix it ;-) ... I do have a feeling that you can read the history section and tell which kinds of bass the different authors own - for example, I bet whoever wrote the above has at least one Alembic in their collection! Has somebody got some authorative references to hand to knock the whole section into a slightly more neutral shape? Basswulf 10:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Playing Styles

I think that this section is getting unwieldy as people try to work the names of their own favourite bassists into the text. For example, we've ended up with a large paragraph about two-handed tapping. While it's certainly a valid playing style (and one I use myself) I think this is a disproportionate amount of space; I think the size is largely due to the attempt to shoehorn in the names of various people who use that approach from time to time.

I haven't got time to do anything about it today but I'd suggest removing all names from the section and referring instead to the list of bass guitarists. Any other thoughts on the matter? Basswulf 10:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would vote against removing all the names. Although the section is a little wordy in its current state, I think it's a pretty good summary of playing styles and influential bassists who use(d) those styles. If I was learning about bass for the first time, I'd certainly want to see a summary like this instead of trying to filter through the huge list of bass guitarists. I don't think three sentences about two-handed tapping is too much, either. (I'd suggest getting rid of the bit about the Ebow, though).

FWIW, it is a little silly that a discussion of playing styles has a lot of verbiage about hand positioning and fancy tricks and not so much about harmony and bass line selection. I guess that sort of thing is more difficult to discuss in an encyclopedia article. --Kenliu 14:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the section name to "Playing Techniques" which describes it better. The musical role of the bass can be discussed elsewhere. --Howdybob 07:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feeling is that most of the stuff about playing styles would be better moved over to the Wikibook about playing bass - that will give room to explain each technique in more detail and cite some suitable examples of each style:
I feel the present version lauds individual players in a way that doesn't accurately reflect either them or their peers. For example, take "Chris Squire of Yes took the instrument one step further in the early 1970s, combining McCartney's melodicism with Entwistle's energy and employing an aggressive, overdriven tone that expanded even further the bass's role as rhythmic and harmonic foundation." I've no problem with the fact that he has a distinctive tone and has been widely influential but plenty of other bassists also did that (for example, Geddy Lee, who gets his namecheck in the next sentence for different achievements, could be described in the same terms).
The wikibook needs a lot of work so may some of the energy spent promoting individual players here could instead be diverted into making that a much more useful resource for someone learning the instrument? Basswulf 15:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, the description of influential players/styles needs to be rewritten to be a little more focused, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think information about playing styles and influential players has a broader audience than people who are just learning how to play the instrument, it also includes readers who just want to learn about the instrument itself. For example, if I want to learn about the drums I'm going to want to learn more than just what pieces make up a kit - I would want to learn to know about different drumming styles, and the best way to learn that is to listen to the players whose playing best represents those styles. I don't think it's about name-checking. The fact that some people want to include their favorite players in the article doesn't mean that the information isn't valuable.
Unfortunately, if you take a quick survey of the musical instruments represented on wikipedia, you'll notice that most of them have a link to a long list of players instead of listing a few very influential players. IMHO, this is a problem with wikipedia itself; the content tends to lean towards being too comprehensive rather than providing small, more usable articles. This does a disservice to the reader.
Anyway, there's really no reason why this kind of information can't be in both the wikipedia and the wikibook - again, they're for different audiences. --Kenliu 14:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section describes plectra, two fingered picking, and even strumming, but what about 3 or 4 fingered picking? I use 3-4 fingers, I have bass friends who use more than two, and I've also noticed Flea of RHCP using 3 to 4 on fast songs. Just a consideration 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) KajReply[reply]

I think it's factually inaccurate to describe JJ Burnel of The Stranglers as a slap bass player. Burnel usually uses a plectrum and I've read interviews in which he stated that he couldn't do slap bass. Also, I can't believe that a section on slap / pop style doesn't mention Mark King.


This sentence -

The industry standard Fender Jazz and Precision basses have always been labelled "electric bass", as is the custom of the majority of musical instrument manufacturers.

is untrue. [1] [2]

I'm not sure about the accuracy of this one either:

The original electric bass (pronounced "base") was labelled a "bass fiddle" due to its design function as an alternative to the double bass.

I don't know if anyone ever referred to the original electric bass as a "bass fiddle" but I have heard old geezers in Louisiana and Tennessee refer to the double bass (acoustic) as a "bass fiddle" and a "bull fiddle". I don't know whether this usage predates the invention of the electric bass but it seems likely.

Paul Tracy|\talk 21:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reinstated an earlier version that I think is clearer and more accurate. Basswulf 10:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link referring to bass guitars looks like it is not from a genuine Fender page, but an amateur review site. Certainly not the manufacturer's site. The linked Fender USA page has no reference to bass guitar that I could find. I would defer to the manufacturer for the correct label, not amateur enthusiasts. The article covers the fact of popular usage. Therefore I believe the statement

The industry standard Fender Jazz and Precision basses have always been labelled "electric bass", as is the custom of the majority of musical instrument manufacturers.

is true and there is no need to delete it.

Leo Fender's original patents for the Precision bass used the terms "guitar" and "bass guitar". The term "Electric Bass" was not in either of them, and the first one did not even contain the word "bass". Here are links to the original patents: --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

The original patent for Tutmarc's electric bass states very clearly "bass fiddle" It is on display in the Experience Music Project, Seattle, along with a surviving example of the original electric bass.

I suggest the etymology section revert back to reflect these facts. Ozbass 11:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you looking at the same section I'm looking at (or the same version)? There's a link to the Wikipedia article on Fender, which I think is the appropriate first choice... and no mention of a Tutmarc bass fiddle / electric bass. I think the current version of the Etyomology section is short, sweet and upholds the NPV standard. Basswulf 12:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both links I posted above are to official Fender sites; one American and one European. Thus the sentence "Fender Jazz and Precision basses have always been labelled "electric bass"" is untrue. Paul Tracy|\talk 23:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul may be correct in a site being official, but The Fender GB and Ireland site is not the manufacturer's, more likely the distributor's. This is another example of salespeople using the vernacular and not the manufacturer's label. I maintain the statement "The industry standard Fender Jazz and Precision basses have always been labelled "electric bass", as is the custom of the majority of musical instrument manufacturers" is true.

I would not take the wikipedia article on Fender as authoritative. That article needs corrections as well.

As regards the Tutmarc electric bass which predates Fender by over a decade, there is no reason to assume an article on Fender would refer to Tutmarc's design. The statement 'The original electric bass was labelled a "bass fiddle" ' is easily verified.Ozbass 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose of this section of the article is to explain why it is called 'bass guitar' rather than 'electric bass', which has been a hotly debated topic in the past. The current version is kept short, with each section having a clear purpose:
[There is a debate in which people often take partisan positions] There is much debate among musicians and fans of the instrument about what to call the instrument. While "bass guitar" (pronounced "base") is a common term others prefer "electric bass guitar," "electric bass," or simply "bass". Many are happy to use the terms interchangeably but some express a strong preference for one or other of them.
[Point of interest - 'Fender Bass' was once often seen as the name of the instrument] Fender's early dominance in the market for mass produced bass guitars led to the instrument frequently being called the "Fender bass" although, with the plethora of alternative manufacturers producing similar instruments, this term has fallen out of fashion.
[Although we're calling it bass guitar here, it has definitely evolved to an instrument in it's own right]] Modern bass playing draws on both guitar and double bass for inspiration as well as an increasing vernacular of its own.

I think the middle paragraph could go, although it's an interesting historical footnote. I believe the link to the wikipedia page on Fender is appropriate - if that's not authoritative, please correct it! The Tutmarc bass might deserve a mention on this page but definitely not in the NPOV section aimed at cooling down debate on what to call the instrument. Basswulf 12:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just wondering if we should add in that a *lot* of metal and heavy rock bands use distorted bass - the article makes it sound like distorted or overdriven bass is unusual, whereas it's quite common in some genres Graphia 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it! Basswulf 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of note locations

The current size of this picture is useless. If its not increased in size I will delete it.--Light current 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is a thumbnail linked to Image:Notesonbass.jpg, the original file has a horizontal rez of some 1400 px. I've changed the thumb size from 1000px (ridiculous and unsightly) to 550px (less so) per Wikipedia:Image use policy. --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK Now I can see it and read it. I accept current size!--Light current 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I began editing articles on electric bass and double bass before learning about the community/discussion pages. Please forgive my clumsy intrusion into the community -- however, it was done in the spririt of improving the articles. Do people normally discuss a proposed change on these pages before making a change? NatMor (Canada)

Featured Article?

I think this page is now almost good enough to be considered as a featured article. Any comments?--Light current 15:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not yet, but soon. There are a lot of minor grammatical and spelling errors, and the writing needs to be tightened up quite a bit in many places. BTW, good work on the recent edits, Light current. --Kenliu 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Kenliu!--Light current 02:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why isn't a good article tag placed on here? - 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (I'm User:EdGl but I'm too lazy to sign in)Reply[reply]

Shortened list of manufacturers

I went ahead and trimmed down the list of manufacturers. I tried to represent the best known manufacturers, leaning towards those used by the most well-known players. I also leaned awy from those manufacturers like Jackson which are mostly known for their guitars. Yes, there are lots of other companies that make great basses, but let's not make this into another massive list. I think the current list is a reasonable length (about 2 dozen) and is fairly representative of the industry, both past and present. Let's try to keep it short from here on out. --Kenliu 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musical Role

Hi,Thanks to the contributor who provided the paragraph on the negative stigma attached to the bass.It was an element that was missing from the article, and it is great that this issue was raised.I have tried to improve upon this paragraph by re-doing it in a more encyclopedia-type style (more formal-sounding), adding in the point that there is stigma associated with other instruments that often have an accompaniment role (e.g. the viola in classical music), and most importantly, putting in an argument that this stigma has largely been washed away by the new, up-front virtuoso melodic/soloing role played by a number of bassists. P.S. my goal in contributing is to try and improve the article, so please discuss and debate and let's talk on the talk pageNatMor 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, there was a relatively new addition to the intro, in which a contributor listed the different speaker sizes in speaker cabinets. I propose that this be moved to a section further down on amps and speakers. The introduction section is supposed to be a short overview of the topic. Since the topic here is the electric bass, it can be argued that the existing coverage of amps and speakers (which described combo amps, separate amplifiers, separate cabinets in various configurations) is enough of an overview for the introduction. :As well, I propose that the reference by the contributor to all of the speaker configurations being "common" was not desirable, because some of the configurations, such as 6X8, 8X8 and 2X15 are arguably specialty set-ups that you see sometimes, not commonly. :Some people may even argue that there should be no references to amps and speakers in the intro, using the argument that "it is an article about the electric bass, not the accessories." However, I argue that the electric bass is typically thought of as an instrument that is partnered with an amp and speaker, so there should be a brief overview of the amp and speaker approaches used to amplify the bass.: Final point of interest for the community, is that I believe that the electric bass article should be interesting and helpful to all readers, not just musicians and bassists, and so contributors should not assume that readers know about the bass or its musical role --- please let's discuss on the talk pageNatMor 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If someone has the info, could they add sections about Chapman Sticks, 12 string basses, Latino/Spanish Basses, and there is also a large Oud-style bass that I do not know the name of. Also info on string types can be found at The development of the moogbass sound and its application via a synth-pedal would also be valuable, as well as links to inlfuential players. And also the use of pads in electronic music such as drum and bass -how bassists have reacted or been influenced by this.

I think you mean a balalaika.Gnome

Bass players

This is a different subject from bass guitar. I propose moving this para to another page soon--Light current 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why was the picture changed from the more generic Fender Precision? Gnome

Because I was getting tired of it and I wanted to put a picture of my bass there instead.(Looks better) 8-)--Light current 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your bass does look nicer, but don't you think it's a bit more encyclopedic to include the Fender (especially as yours is short scale - right?)? Or perhaps we could check the copyright for that Audiovox ugly thing so we could have the very first bass. Just checking with the veterans first. Gnome

No its not a short scale- its 34 inches. I think there may be room for two different pics: one original and one other more modern one (like mine maybe)--Light current 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Especially if the other one's the very first electric bass. It makes sense to have the very first one, and then a modern one. It looks small, maybe because my bass is a 35 scale 5 string. Nice bass though. Gnome

Well I know were not supposed to advertise, but Im getting rid of it. Need the cash!--Light current 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol, no luck there. I'm from Mexico (if the bass doesn't get lost or broken in the mail, the money would). Gnome

Any way when i do get rid of it, it will be nice to know I can look at it again at any time on WP and remember! Ahhh!--Light current 02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah looking at it again, the photo makes it look short. Its a perspective effect of the camera! It needs putting thro photoshop to correct it. 8-)--Light current 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the photo of that first Audiovox bass, but it's in a language (I'm guessing German) I can't understand so I can't look for the copyright status. If anybody can help, the page is Gnome

Yes, it is in German. I can read German relatively well but wouldn't know where to look for the copyright status. I did a quick google on the Audiovox and it came up with the same picture on a different site: From what I can see, it is copywright to EMT publishing. However, you might want to check as I am wrong quite a lot :) --SomethingWittyHere 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a Jazz pic in the History section. I think it's better than the black Precision Bass which isn't the original P anyway. There are collages on that and the Jazz Bass pages but they look like reisuues. An orignal 1951 P pic would be nice somewhere. I also moved the note chart because it was making a long, thin column of text. --Howdybob 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, it wouldn't hurt to crop the pic of the 5-string player so the thumb will show more detail without being too big.

I think there should be two pics: one JB or PB because they best represent electric basses in general, and one Hofner 500/1, which was (as far as I know) the very first electric bass. 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well can somebody please change the first picture? I know it's probably a nice bass but the lighting and setting are terrible and it isn't a good start to the page! I could put a picture of mine up but it's a Fender Jazz not a P Joe Dull (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Influential Players

Does anybody else think this is turning into the list of bass players we had before (which was removed because it was getting to long and including more than the most essential players)? If we want this as a featured article ever it's gonna need some trimming, and this looks like a candidate section. Perhaps we cold merge it with playing styles, and just include one or two players per style like it was before.

Yes I propose removing all bassplayers to another page. THen there is no problem of who to include or exclude.8-|

--Light current 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought about that, but then I thought an electric bass page probably wouldn't be complete without the name of Jaco Pastorius (in my opinion the only one needed), but if only his name was there other people might consider other bassists and important and add them, and the list gets started again.

Yes well thats the problem. Its your POV or someone eleses as to who to include! So best not include anyone at all! BTW dont forget to sign your posts by typing 4 tildes ~~~~--Light current 03:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, sorry, that was me. So, should we remove all bass players for definate? Gnome

I vote yes! 8-))--Light current 03:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I went ahead and did it. If anybody doesn't like it, please bring it up in the talk page first. The section on playing styles is fair enough right now, but especially with the edit I just did it might become a problem. Let's just keep it under monitor so it doesn't become too big. Gnome

Hi, I don't like either of the two extremes (no section on bass players OR a huge, disorganized list of 100's of bass players from every style). The new "list of bass players" page doesn't help non-musicians sort out the prolific, widely-recorded, influential innovators from the smaller, lesser-known players. I believe that a crisply-written three paragraphs tracing a history of the most important players from 1950 to present would be helpful for readers. Perhaps just three from each major genres (Motown, Rock, Funk, Fusion, etc.), and written in a narrative style. It might include Jamerson, McCartney, Entwistle, Jaco, Clarke. : )NatMor 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead an write them and we can give it a try and just delete it if other people start to increase the list again (this has happened a few times already). An alternative is to edit the List of bass players and make the big players more distinguishable. This might work better because your idea has already been proved not to work (although I'm thinking it might work this time if we urge people to ask in the Talk page before editing). Gnome

Hi Gnome, thanks for your reply. Perhaps to prevent the proposed short, crisp narrative history of bass players from growing again to include everyone's uncle who plays in a bar band that once opened for Sting, their aunt who has a fusion cover band that toured the US, etc (!!!), there can be A) a limit of three players per genre B) a limit of, say ten genres (some would have to be combined, such as "country/folk" or "metal/punk/alternative"), and C) the requirement that a bass player who is proposed be widely recognized as influential, innovative (regarding musical expression or technique), and prolific (regarding either recordings/ performances/books or videos on bass technique by reasonably independent sources (music critics, bass player magazines, music press, major bass teachers/performers, etc). Then there could be a debate (respectful and friendly !!) on the talk page, and we could vote proposed additions or deletions in or out. The proposed requirements for inclusion set out above are wide enough to allow brilliant virtuoso performers, widely-influential pedagogues, and "sidemen" or "sidewomen" in bands who had a huge influence on bass playing by performing in ensembles (as opposed to as soloists).NatMor 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Zero tolerance

I think a zero tolerance policy is the only one that'll work. Otherwise the will be repeated attempts to expand the lists: all with very plusible arguments, but ultimately someone's particular POV! 8-(--Light current 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Light current, What about the proposed requirements for the players to be influential, innovative, and prolific. I think it is OK if the actual names on the page keep changing, because it is the same in all writing of history. We keep re-writing history to suit our current interests. The debates could also be interesting, if people chose to work things out in the Talk pages for the bass players section. Of course, the potential for POV-filled additions (people's friends, the bass player in their fave band when they were in high school, themselves, etc) is a problem!!NatMor 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes in theory its a good idea. But who decides if somone is influential or innovative?. Proliferation is another matter as it should be a verifiable quantity. But are you going to list someone just because they have produced three milion crap records? As I say reluctantly, the only safe courses IMO are complete excising of all names. Put them on the list of bass players by all means and let the argument rage there!--Light current 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the names of extremely virtuosic and/or influential players could simply be mentioned in the text rather than in the lists, which now have their own article(s). Badagnani 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes but exactly who are the 'extremely virtuosic and/or influential players'. And would everyone agree with you?--Light current 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC) rmvd from page--Light current 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's a problem. Every article is edited this way, by consensus of the editors, who have expertise in the subject. I think most people knowledgeable of the instrument can qualitatively determine who the best players are, as most here seem to have selected Jaco as the "best player ever" of the instrument. I think we could probably agree that some of the "second rung" players in their particular genres could include Victor Wooten, Stanley Clarke, Bootsy Collins, James Jamerson, etc. If the names are integrated into the text it will steer people in the right direction to find more information about the most prominent bassists (as agreed upon by consensus) for each style. Badagnani 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, OK but dont say I didnt warn of problems! 8-|--Light current 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upright Bass' Comeback

The upright bass began making a modest comeback in popular music in the mid-1980s, in part due to a renewed interest in earlier forms of rock and country music. The rockabilly revival led by the chart-topping Stray Cats made upright basses "hip" again. In the 1990s, improvements in pickups and amplifier designs for electro-acoustic horizontal and upright basses made it easier for bassists to get a good, clear amplified tone from an acoustic instrument. Popular bands such as Barenaked Ladies and Soul Coughing decided to anchor their sound with an upright bass instead of an electric bass. A trend for "unplugged" performances further helped to enhance the public's interest in the upright bass and acoustic bass guitars. Even in the early 2000s, the upright bass continued its comeback, with punk/"psychobilly" groups such as Tiger Army, The Living End and the HellRazors using the upright bass.

To what is this in reference? TheScotch 08:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neck taper

Does anyone know exactly why the strings (and fingerboard) are 'fanned out' from a width of about 1.5" at the nut to about 2" (or more) at the bridge. Or is this a stupid question? On a spanish guitar, the neck is not tapered appreciably. On a Double Bass of course you need room for the bow. But on a BG why aren't the strings at the same spacing all the way down? Also bear in mind that the Fender P bass guitar is not as fanned as the Fender Jazz bass (the jazz is much narrower at the nut than the P) Why? 8-? --Light current 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Most stringed instruments taper. The sideways displacement of a vibrating string is at a maximum halfway along its length so the string needs more space at the halfway point (12th fret on fretted instruments) than anywhere else. Also: to fret notes in any position your fingers need to move from string to string (ie across the fretboard) and also from fret to fret (along the fretboard). In lower positions (near the nut) your fingers have to stretch quite a long way along the fretboard so it's helpful to have the strings closer together. In higher positions the frets are closer together, the strings can be further apart to give you a bit of room to work. Paul Tracy|\talk 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes thats a reasonable explanation: ie you can stretch further along if you dont have to stretch as much across? I cant think of anything better myself... except do the strings on a BG (say) need to be as far apart as they are near the pickups? I wonder if there is some underlying reason. 8-?--Light current 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not as far as I know, but it might have some benefits for the pickup designer. Paul Tracy|\talk

But as you said, this has been done for hundreds of years on violins etc, before pickups were invented.--Light current 12:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Clearly. That's why I didn't sat that the need for a pickup was the reason for the amount of string separation. But if you wanted (say) four separate pickups, one per string, then you would get better signal separation the further apart they were. So you might want to increase the already existing separation at the bridge end. All this is speculation however; I neither know nor care much whether any manufacturers do this, or if they would want to. Paul Tracy|\talk
String seperation is done from a playablility point of view, IE a wider string spacing makes easier to articulate the strings cleanly (either pick or fingerstyle) with the right hand. String spacing on a BG also has to take in to account the fact that because the string are of a much higher mass than other stringed instruments, that the player has to put more effort into stiking them (generally). However spacing at the bridge has to be counterbalanced against spacing at the nut, where (again, generally) a narrower spacing assists fingering with the left hand.
The Jazz is more fanned than the Precision because Fender narrowed the nut for the Jazz to make for a thinner neck, not because they widened it at the bridge.
The constant spacing on a spanish guitar is more of an exception, almost every other stringed instrument that I can think of has some sort of fanning, although prior to the invention of adjustable briges (for electric guitars?) the strings could only be fanned a certain amount before the combination of a straight bridge and fanning led to different string lengths, which creates problems with scale lengths. I suspect that the spanish makers used constant spacing (and a flat fretboard) to avoid the scale length problems, because being a fretted instrument, a player would be unable to compensate for differing scale lengths across the strings like they can on a fretless instrument like a violin. It would also mean that the fretts are all of the same size, making neck manufacture easier.
Hope this helps. --Lowman 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it does help! I think your explanation makes good sense and concurs with my own opinion. But why did Fender narrow the nut on the JB? Was it to make it faster to play?--Light current 03:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ostensibly it was to improve the playabilty, either faster or easier. Although at the end of the day a lot of these decisions come down to the fact that Fender (or any other manufacturer) makes money by selling guitars, and if having a thinner neck at the nut makes it more likely that Joe Sixpack will pony up the extra $50 that the Jazz cost over the Precision, then the Jazz gets a thinner neck. --Lowman 05:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indenting comments

The standard indenting method is to use a colon  : , not asterisks. Changing indentation does not change content and is therefore not considered as editing others comments: see refactoring--Light current 12:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deafness from bass playing

copied from talk:Double bass by --Light current 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im trying to find out if its safer playing bass than other insts regarding hearing loss (ie are lower frequencies less harmful to the ears). Does anyone have refs?--Light current 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always found that frequency is not the issue, but volume. So you can play flute or piccolo or oboe or anything high as well as low, but if you play them at a safe voluem, you should be fine.

Yeah but whats a safe volume with amplified bass? - it always sounds louder further away you get from the speaker and people always say youre too loud when you can only just hear yourself! 8-( --Light current 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no idea on either issue, but I'll ask my teacher on my next class and let you know. Gnome

THanks!--Light current 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, here is some stuff I cut-and-pasted from deafness: "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also cause hearing loss. The most damaging type of sound is in the high-frequencies." Many experts agree that continual exposure to more than 85 decibels may become dangerous (as a point of reference, 90 dB is the sound level produced by a gas lawnmower or workshop tools)
"In addition, the duration (how long you are exposed to a noise) can affect the extent of noise indeed hearing loss. The longer you are exposed to a loud noise, the more damaging it may be."///////////////////The upshot is that loud sounds that are high-pitched harm your ears worse than lower-pitched sounds, but low-pitched sounds will still harm your hearing if they are too loud (over 85 dB) and you are exposed for enough long rehearsals with a solution when playing in bar bands was to use have to try a few types before you find one that cuts the volume, yet still allows you to hear the sounds of the ride cymbal, quiet vocals, etc. NatMor 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes thats very useful and tends to agree with my research findings. What I would really like to know tho' is: if 85 dBSPL is OK for all frequencies, and high freqs are more harmful than low, how much louder can a bass go before it too is cosidered harmful? 10dB, 20dB? Apparently 85 dBSPL is like someone shouting about 2m away from you( but different people shout at different volumes). I dont think I ve got serious loss yet, but my ears feel stufeed up after listening to 'average volume' music. PS dont tell me to go to the doctor. THeyre useless on this and just tell you to stop exposing yourself (to loud sounds)!! --Light current 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having visited the nice nurse (against my own previous advice), we think now it might be a sinus problem. But anyway Ive been using plugs the last few gigs/rehearsals/concerts and I do find that the music is actually a lot more pleasant when its not hurting your ears! Surprise! The plugs Im using attenuate quite evenly across the band, so you can still hear cymbals, vocals, even people talking- just at a more pleasant, quiter level. I do not know the attenuation of the plugs Im using, but I would guess somewhere between 10 -20dB (depends how hard I push em in!.--Light current 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you considered simply turning down the volume? TheScotch 08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Split

Article is becoming rather long. I suggest splitting all the amplification stuff to a new page called Bass instrument amplification Any comments?--Light current 14:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done it. I now propose to remove the copied material on amps and effects from this page.--Light current 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done it! --Light current 00:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a DEP bassist?

In the links is the phrase "DEP bassist". What the hell is a DEP bassist? --Howdybob 10:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derived from "deputy," apparently, as in "stand-in" or "sub." A dep bassist fills-in for a regular bassist who is, for some reason, unavailable to make the gig. Seems to be chiefly British English.--mumkin 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I added this information to the article. --Howdybob 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lyric "bass" as a social/musical meme

This is a completely serious question, but a bit of a strange one (I wasn't sure where to post it): around the late '80s/early '90s, I remember people, when acting "cool" or what have you, shouting the single word "Bass!" in a deep/punctuated voice, as though alluding to a lyric (from what I always presumed to be a rap song). Can anyone explain the source of this behavior? J21 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It probably has something to do with the importance of extremely loud bass in hip hop music (as one can often hear emanating from certain well-equipped automobiles in traffic). Maybe they liked hearing such heavy bass, or wanted more of it. I don't know of any particular lyric that says "bass" in that way. Badagnani 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect it stems from Public Enemy's "Bring The Noise", which has the phrase "Bass! How low can you go", which has also been used in numerous other tracks. Motormind 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be from the funk song "Shaky Ground". I don't know who the author is because I'm listening to a cover, but it has the phrase "Bass! Get ready to roll." Gnome 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the main bass shown a Martin?

Seems odd. Shouldn't it be a Fender bass, as they are by far the most widely recognized bass guitar/electric bass/whatever? I think it even used to be, not sure why it was changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davetron5000 (talkcontribs) .

Maybe that's the only "free use" photo that could be found so far. You're right, though. Badagnani 12:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put the pic of my Martin there because I thought it looked nice and was a change from the boring old Fender P that most people have seen. 8-)--Light current 13:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
how is that more representative of the subject of the article? 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isnt! So change it if you wish. Frankly, I dont give a damn 8-)--Light current 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


OK its a word. Its just a word I dont like and one thats not used here! (AFAIK)--Light current 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article reads that the low E on a standard BG vibrates at a frequency of 41.3Hz or so. Is this correct? shouldn´t it be around 88Hz?

I don't know, but the A string above that on an electric bass is 55 Hz (being 3 octaves below A-440). So 41.3 Hz sounds correct. Badagnani 03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No the article is correct. Bass (guitar) bottom E is around 41 Hz. Youre thinking of the E on a normal guitar which is an octave higher at about 82 Hz. 8-|--Light current 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bottom E is 41.20344 Hz to be more precise!--Light current 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My "very bad edits"

Please provide a little more justification when you rv and give that message. My edit was three things:

  1. Removing "Les Claypool plays a Rainbow bass" Doesn't contribute much to the article; put it in Les Claypool if it's so important, as it's more notable for him than it is for bass guitar
  2. Reworded the downstroke thing as it was pretty badly written and full of weasel words
  3. Changed the ref to Bass instrument amplification to the more wikipedia-compliant method of:

I really don't see the problem with any of those edits. --Davetron5000 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK Ill leave it for other editors to comment.8-)--Light current 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have modified your edit now to correct some errors.--Light current 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous bit about downstrokes (which I would be fine just omitting; I didn't write it) was seriously POV and not very well written, IMO. You should leave the personal attacks out of your edit comments. And yes, I play the BG, and will happily fax you my Offical Bass Guitar Player Membership Certificate. It may not excuse my misspellling of "While", but maybe it'll cut me some slack -- Davetron5000 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean the factual statement that it was a bed edit or the question about whether you play the BG. I see no personal attacks!--Light current 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You implied that my ability at playing bass guitar somehow had something to do with my ability to edit Wikipedia. There is (and shouldn'ty be) any correlation). I could make a stink about your above "bed edit" typo, but really, why not just fix things that are wrong and be done with it? It's clear neither of us can type things 100% perfectly and that's why Wikipedia works as it does. Fix things, don't revert them next time. --Davetron5000 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made no such implication. I was asking if you played BG so I could determine whether or not you were guessing on this artilce. Overall the edit was bad which is why I reverted it. You should take more care! Also spelling on talk pages is not important. It would be as well not to advise people how to edit till you have a bit more experience at it yourself . Thanks--Light current 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I invite you to look at your edit (that reverted my "really bad edit") here: <>
You put back in a useless statement about Les Claypool, and two incorrectly formatted references to other articles. Additionally, you replaced my description of downstroke picking with the original POV and poorly written section on the subject. I honestly fail to see how my edit was bad much less really bad. The only objectively bad part of the edit was a misspelling of the word "While". I suppose it's debatable that downstroke picking is "extreme", but I don't think it's de-facto obvious that associating the technique with two example players constitutes a "really bad edit" worthy of an outright revert. I don't mind the ref to them being taken out (as I said, I don't know that the concept adds much to the article, but someone added it, so it might as well be worded properly). The question of my bass playing prowess is largely irrelevant. I didn't write the section, I re-worded it to make more sense. As it happens, downstroke picking is is technique for pick playing, so it's not just totally made up. Your removal of refs to Dee Dee Ramone make it look more made up, but whatever; someone can add them back in if they care. All I ask is that you look at the edits you make and possibly try to imporve things before resorting to a revert. Your revert was more "really bad" than mine as it put back in text that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. What you should have done (and eventually did do) was to modify the page based on your concerns. I think the article reads fine now, but Wikipedia isn't grammar school for you to criticize people's edits. Fix it and save the commentary for your blog or something. --Davetron5000 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wont be wasting any more time discussing this THanks!--Light current 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cliff Burton: Slap/Pop & Lead Bass?

While Cliff Burton may have been a user of the Slap/Pop style, he would certainly not be in anyone's "Top 5 Bass Players known for Slapping and Popping". I can't recall a single Metallica song that featured that technique in the same way the other listed players music so features it.

As for "lead bass", the term was coined by Peter Hook, and again, I cannot think of a Metallica song (other than "(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth", which is a bass solo) that features anything remotely considered lead bass.

I'm not trying to devalue Cliff's abilities as a bass player, but I don't think it's very accurate to list him as someone known for two techniques he very rarely used on record; personally I think he's more notable as a metal bass players that uses his fingers. Furthermore, I don't think it adds anything to the article to increase the size of the list of example players. I think if there's someone more known than someone in the list, a replacement could be done, but please do not add players to these lists without at least discussing it here -- Davetron5000 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to remove that myself but when I read it again I noticed that Cliff Burton wasn't mentioned in the slap/pop paragraph but in the tapping paragraph...which he was certainly known for. So as for inclusion as a "tapper"..he probably earned a mention there. Lead bass is a bit more vague. Aside from "Teeth" I can can think of 2-3 other tracks where he plays, what could be considered, a bit of a lead.(For Whom The Bell Tolls, Damage Inc, "Ktulu") And he has an extended solo in Orion. Whether that is enough to merit "Lead bass" I won't judge. But inclusion for his 2-hand tapping is probably warranted(probably has citations too) I won't add him in myself...I knew him and that makes my opinion slightly biased. Whatever regular editors come up with for a

concensus is OK be me. Cheers! Anger22 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC) aReply[reply]

> , I cannot think of a Metallica song (other than "(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth", which is a bass solo) that features anything remotely considered lead bass.

he plays "lead bass" in songs like "king nothing" and "the god that failed"

Cliff died before those recordings. King nothing and The god that failed were done by replacement Jason Newsted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Types of Wood Used

I think there should be a section on each type of wood used in the body, neck, and fretboard and what effect each has on a bass guitar's tone. This might be vague but for example:

Maple Body - a more round tone, less punchy.... I'm just saying that, I have no idea

So maybe someone could do that; that would be pretty cool. I don't know anything about the effects of using different woods in construction. brian.david.grady 10:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a great sit for this
I might put it in wikipedia but if someone else wants to do it, go for it brian.david.grady 10:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learning to Play

Can anyone recommend any links to any online resources for learning to play bass, recommended makes and models etc.?

Radical AdZ

wrong link

under "refrences" theres the wrong link for John Paul Jones. instead of going to the bassist of led zeppelin (like it should due to the context of the paragraph) it goes to the revolutionary war hero john paul jones. i would fix it but i cant find it on the edit page. --Col.VonPastry 23:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fender Jazz Bass picture on article page

The main article picture has been replaced with a Fender Jazz bass image, which I think is an appropriate image for the article.

Unfortunately it has been taken from the Fender website, one presumes without permission and certainly without copyright attribution.

It is the image from rotated through 90 degrees.

Could someone take a decent photograph of their own Fender Bass, preferably a Precision and upload it, or revert to the previous image.

Dinobass 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictures removed?

why were the pictures of Patitucci playing his 6-string removed? It was in the section about 4+ string basses, and Patitucci is one of the greatest bassists ever, so why the delete? Also, the front pic NEEDS to be a fender jazz - what better example? I have some pics of my roommates', so i'll add soon.

The pictures of Patitucci and the Fender bass were taken from other websites without either permission or the correct copyright attribution. Images without the correct copyright statements/permission are automatically removed by wikibots, which is what happened to the patitucci pics. This is all explained in various wiki help documents and there were warnings that this would happen on the pictures for a week before it happened. I replaced the main picture before the bots got round to it rather than leave the page without a main pic.
If you choose to put up pictures of your room mates bass make sure you a) have permission from the copyright holder (usually the person who took or commissioned the photo) b) enter the correct information into the uploaded image page and c) make sure it is a good quality image. Dinobass 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

external link "Wheats Bass Book"

Just wanted to contribute an instructional site that ive used extensively over the years

Wheat's Bass Book 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)russjmanReply[reply]

Removed an advertisement

Video examples of slap and pop needn't be given. And Wikipedia doesn't advertise websites that can do so. FinalDeity 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Editor Nazamo, your work is greatly appreciated but I'll ask that you please discuss here before making extensive deletions from the article's text, as you have done. Badagnani 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why was "solid body" and horizontal playing technique just removed in this edit? Badagnani (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]