Talk:Bass guitar

Earlier talk is archived at

• Talk:Bassguitar/Archive1
• Talk:Bassguitar/Archive2

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)

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)

I have seen Geddy Lee do tapping sometimes... --71.252.147.232 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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 ...is ... 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)

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)

Zon Basses

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)

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)

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)

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

encyclopedia or one reporter's opinion?

To anyone at Wikipedia,

I was told about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar , 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 ninestring@yahoo.com

---

• 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)

Contradictions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 68.104.204.85 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Kaj

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.

Etymology

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)

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

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:

http://www.thebouffants.com/members/us0d0169062-001.png http://www.thebouffants.com/members/us0d0169062-002.png http://www.thebouffants.com/members/us0d0187001-001.png --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.171.68.130 (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Effects

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)

Go for it! Basswulf 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Why isn't a good article tag placed on here? -69.113.78.75 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (I'm User:EdGl but I'm too lazy to sign in)

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)

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)

Introduction

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)

History/Variations

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 tunemybass.com. 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)

Picture

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 www.bassic.ch/ 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: http://www.stratcollector.com/newsdesk/archives/000103.html. 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)

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)

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.190.21.231.95 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NO BASS ARTICLE IS COMPLETE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO HUEY MCDONALD OF BON JOVI !!!!!!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Deafness from bass playing

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

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)

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)

Hi, here is some stuff I cut-and-pasted from http://www.american-hearing.org/name/noise_induced.htmlon 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 time...like long rehearsals with a band...my solution when playing in bar bands was to use earplugs...you 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)

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)

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)

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

Whats the use of Bass guitars

hello i am wonderin what bass guitars are actually used for....

They are generally used for playing the bass line (ie the low notes) in popular forms of music such as pop, jazz, rock, reggae, metal etc. THey help to create the beat and usually help in defining the harmony. They are essential to some bands. You could always ask a music teacher if this does not explain it.--Light current 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Bass guitars replace the big stand up basses. They are electronically driven so they have 1000 times the output of stand-ups. They are much more portable. And they play the bass clef register, down to E42. When driven through an amplification they do create a beat, or a percussive blow to the music, either complementing the bass drum of the trap set, or replacing the drums completely. Magi Media 03:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

I wouldnt say they replace the drums completely! Neither would any drummer!. 8-)--Light current 05:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The bass could replace the drums, but its not always the best idea to do that.--24.119.143.87 (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Bass guitar?

Shouldn't this article be under 'Electic_bass' or 'Bass_(instrument)'? 063006 06:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

why? is the term "electric bass" more common or technically correct? "bass" is not the proper name of any instrument that i know of and is extremely inappropiate for this article. 67.172.61.222 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The full name of the instrument is "electric bass guitar." "Bass" is not complete enough because there are several instruments called "bass," and "electric bass" is a vernacular name that doesn't describe its shape. Since so few people spell out "electric bass guitar," "bass guitar" was arrived at as the most common, descriptive shorthand name of the instrument, as a bass instrument modeled on the shape of the guitar (though this article focuses primarily on its electric rather than the acoustic version). Badagnani 10:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have the guitar tag? I mean when someone says 'Electric bass' do they mean anything else besides an instrument based on what Fender designed in the 1950's? After all, it is not a type of guitar (compared to Electric guitar and Acoustic guitar). I could also argue that few people spell out John of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden but the article is there although I don't advocate renaming the article 'Electic bass guitar' because that would be redundant. 063006 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I play an electric bass. Its an upright stick bass (EUB) that has the same scale as a BG. But its not a BG. Its electric - its a bass. Its not a bass guitar. OK?--Light current 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not "electric bass guitar," it's electric bass. A bass guitar is not actuaally a guitar, it is a viol. This article should be named Electric Bass. Or, if that is too vague, Electric Double Bass. Gopherbassist 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

it most definitely is not a "viol" or a "double bass". if it were an electric double bass, it would be six feet tall and played vertically. a bass guitar is an electric guitar with four strings that are tuned lower. it has absolutely nothing in common with those instruments you mentioned.67.172.61.222 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN? Well, at least you're adding the new angle of claiming it's a viol... Since two of the defining features of the viol are that it is played upright (like a cello) and that it is usually (or at least often) played with a bow, this assertion is clearly false. The instrument described on this page is shaped in a way that makes both of those very awkward. It is shaped like a guitar, constructed like a guitar, held or worn with a strap like a guitar, played with fingers or picks like a guitar, but is longer and plays an octave lower. Hence, "bass guitar". As for "electric double bass", that's a different instrument, see the wiki article on Electric upright bass.

It is a viol. Saying that two things are the same because they use similar technology is false logic. That is like saying a clock and a toy car are the same thing because they both have gears and springs, and must be would up to function in the intended way. Electric basses are used to replace standing double basses because they used to be hard to amplify and are hard to transport. Instruments, as far as I can tell, are not grouped into the family of what other instruments they are most like, but the ones they are intended to replace or evolve from. Gopherbassist 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be false logic, so it's a good thing I didn't say that; my point was that except for their size, they're virtually identical. That's clearly not true of clocks and cars, so that's not a great analogy. I note as well that you have not responded to the point that two crucial parts of the definition of "viol" do not apply to this instrument. And your last statement shows that you haven't studied this subject at all. Instruments are classified, at least in traditional western musicology, by how they are constructed and how they produce sound, not what they "replace". You can replace a string bass with a synthesizer. Would you say that the synthesizer is a bass? (More on that below.) I'll also point out that the bass guitar clearly did evolve from the electric guitar, so even if your last statement were true, "electric bass guitar" would still be a legitimate term. (If you're going to re-write the rules of musicology, at least be consistent.) 65.204.170.66 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was made to replace the double bass, but don't forget that its similarity in design to the guitar facilitated its adoption by guitarists who couldn't necessarily play the double bass. It's a hybrid. Badagnani 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT made to replace a Double Bass, but an alternative instrument for bass players. I don't see too many string sections of orchestras with electric basses instead of double basses. Plenty of jazz combos, folk, blues, country and bluegrass bands can happily include both EB and DB options. And then came along the Electric Upright Bass - another alternative for BASSISTS. Convergent design does not make the electric bass a guitar - whether or not guitarists found an Electric Bass easier to play than a Double Bass. Consider this - BASSISTS also found the EB easier to play. Who determined it was a hybrid? Please cite your sources. The original manufacturers (ref. Tutmarc, Kaufman, Fullerton/Fender) all labelled the instrument an electric bass. The form of the instrument does not change its function, role or voice. In the same way that double basses over the centuries have sometimes taken the form of a large violin rather than viol, I find the "look" or "shape" argument baseless. A barnacle may look like a mollusc in its sedentary protective exterior - but it is still a crustacean. Likewise the electric bass and the electric upright bass are not guitars nor a version of a stick guitar. Or should we be calling the stick and travel guitars "soprano six string basses" because many of us were aware of the stick bass before the travel guitar and we don't play guitar anyway? The origin of the vernacular term "bass guitar" did not come from bassists or the major manufacturers. There are plenty of retailers and non-bassists and non-musicians that use the term because of what they see but have not studied nor fully appreciate the instrument's role. Ozbass 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The instrument's "role" is completely irrelevant to naming it. Instruments are not named by their "role", they are named by the range and/or key they play in, and how they are constructed and how they produce sound. A drum that plays in the bass range is called a "bass drum". A trombone that plays in the bass range is a "bass trombone". A saxophone that plays in the bass range is a "bass saxophone". So why is an electric guitar that plays in the bass range some sort of exeception to this? (Hint: it isn't.) Again, I'll ask about the synthesizer. It can produce almost exactly the same sound and serve in the same role as a bass viol, but you wouldn't say that it is one, would you? Of course not, no one would, because it's constructed differently and produces sound in a different way, and that's how instruments are named and classified. "Role" doesn't enter into it. Bass drums and snare drums serve very different roles, and have very different playing techniques, but they are both drums because of their shared structure and operating principles. The same is true for the "bass" version of any instrument. This one is no different, however offensive you may find that idea.

Further, if you insist that you play not an "electric bass guitar" but an "electric bass", I have to ask, "electric bass what"? "Bass" as a noun by itself is ambiguous; in context, it can be understood to mean a bass viol, a tuba, a bass drum, or even a bass vocalist. They are all often called simply as "the bass", but that is only casual usage. Strictly speaking "bass" is a range, not an instrument, which is why all of those have a full name used when clarification is necessary. So... you play an electric bass what?

Your arguments on bass trombone, bass saxophone and so on would suggest that the role is very important. An electric guitar playing in the bass range is an electric baritone guitar (six strings usually) isn't it? But different role and voice.

Bass by itself does cover a range of instruments with overlapping roles between instruments. Guitar and bass viol can both be important for rhythm along with a brass section and drums. So why discount the role? Look at the whole picture - design, function, voice and role. I don't think anyone would confuse an electric bass (or even double bass) with a keyboard bass, synthesizer, lower register of a piano forte, tuba, bass drum or basso bufo or basso profundo. Electronic drums are so named. Having double basses and electric basses in the one room and on the one stage has never confused anyone I have ever met. What I do to get avoid possible confusion in that situation is use the full name of the instrument. I am sure many other bassists do the same. I have never had to resort to saying "bass guitar" because no-one understood electric bass versus double bass. In calling myself a bass player - no one has ever asked me "bass what" thinking of a tuba, synthesizer, drum or vocalist.

The first instrument produced as an electric bass is the subject of this article. Conventions of nomenclature would recognise that. Ozbass 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One last point: your analogy with the barnacle is off the mark. There are a number of significant anatomical and physiological differences between barnacles and mollusks. The only inherent physical difference between an electric guitar and an electric bass guitar is the size. In the world of musical instrument nomenclature, that isn't enough. 65.204.170.66 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And inherent physical differences do not include size, strings and other design specifications? By which authority does the role, voice and function of an instrument not matter in the "world of musical instrument nomenclature" Ozbass 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the earliest models made by the major manufacturers were indeed marketed as "bass guitar" and sources showing very early promotional material with this name have been provided for this in earlier discussion; did you not click through to look at those at the time? This is one of them. And this one and this one. I should have said "replace the double bass for popular and country bands who chose not to use the double bass," as it's clear it wasn't intended to replace the double bass in all instances. It's also clear that its strong modeling on the electric guitar is no accident, thus opening up the instrument to musicians (including guitarists) who were not previously double bassists. Badagnani 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you not click through the links? Where is the promotional material or marketing evidence you refer to? You have linked to one patent registered by a trained accountant / self-taught electrical engineer. This man could not play bass, could not play guitar, could not read a note of music and did not design the body or shape of the instrument. The patent refers to "bass guitar" on one page and on another simply "guitar" (not even bass!). Either way it is irrelevant because the patent is NOT a MARKETING document as you claim. It is not a tag, not a label and not a manual. The instrument described in that patent was MANUFACTURED, LABELLED and MARKETED as an Electric Bass. I own two Fender basses and another two electric basses(Danelectro and Kasuga) with original documentation - nowhere is the term "bass guitar" used! Ozbass 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, not very relevant. The vibrato arm has been MANUFACTURED, LABELLED and MARKETED as a "tremolo arm". That doesn't prove it produces tremolo, does it? 65.204.170.66 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

65.204.170.66 are you claiming the tremolo (AKA vibrato/whammy/Bigsby) bar is a musical instrument provided for "tremolo" players as an electric alternative to their "acoustic tremolo"? It may be an interesting discussion on the implication of different brands of accessories or effects and whether they actually produce pulsating notes or variations in pitch whether it be very fast (vibrato) or not (shaky or tremulous - tremolo) - but not here. The point I am making is that the correct term used should match the whole equation - the design intent as an instrument for bassists, not guitarists, as well as the voice, function and role rather than a name suggested by superficial aspects of the form only. Hold a cello sideways and play it that way. Is that now an acoustic bass guitar? Try changing the tuning to fourths - is it an acoustic bass guitar yet? Easier yet - get a double bass on its side. Is that an acoustic bass guitar? If the standard three-quarter double bass is difficult to play on it's side - get a half or quarter size double bass. Using the "bass guitar" argument that is now an ABG (with a deep body for that full bass sound). Have you ever seen country fiddlers pluck intervals and chords on their violins held at the waist? It that instrument now a piccolo 4 string guitar? Your tremolo reference is confusing - Are you proposing that the instrument should be called a bass guitar because when played it "doesn't prove it produces" bass but instead fulfills the role of a guitar? Ozbass 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be Bass guitar. A quick search on google reveals there are 2.270.000 hits for "bass guitar", but only 1.790.000 for the term "electric bass" and 317.000 for "electric bass guitar" Furthermore, most bass players refer to it as bass guitar, as does John Entwistle an many others for whom I have no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.223.130.112 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So you proved a lot of people get it wrong - including some bass players and contributors to this discussion, but mainly non-musicians, guitarists who think they can play bass, & music store sales people. Carol Kay and Jaco Pastorius called it an electric bass as well as every professional bassist I know. So where does that argument get us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.180.223 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Innocent Question

I have never played guitar, but does anyone here know the best place to buy one?

A music shop?--Light current 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all about the little guy, so if you can find a good bass (this is the bass page, so i'm gonna say bass) for not very much money (sub $400 or so), go for it. Try not to give in and get a squire, they suck. If your willing to spend a penny or two i would advise getting something like a Fender Jass (which has provided me with many years of satisfactory service). If all else fails, locate a Guitar Center.... Yes, they are the Wal-mart of guitars, you can't argue with thier selection... and i hate to say it... price. 209.23.174.34 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you can definitely argue with their prices. Usually if you can find a local shop that deals specifically in one or two brands you can get prices that are sometimes a few hundred dollars less then Guitar Center. I got my Ibanez SR900 for $180 less then Guitar Center was quoting me! I find it's a good idea to find a guitar brand/model you like at Guitar Center and see if you can find a smaller dealer to get you a better price

External links

This article probably has too many external links. Please review the links in this article and trim any which are not absolutely necessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It does have too many external links and out of compliance with WP:EL. I have not expertise in the subject, so I can't weed out the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps other editors can help clean this up? --mtz206 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a professional bass player & active wiki editor! I weeded out all the junk that does not meet WP:EL standards. --EmmSeeMusic 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone reverted your edits. I agree that there are some superfluous links that don't add much to the article. Not sure why that guy thinks it's "censorship"; clearly he hasn't read WP:EL. Personally, I think the only relevent link there is to The Bottom Line, simply because it's been around a long time. The only other pertinent links I could think of that should go there would be to the Bass section of Harmony Central, Bass Player Magazine and the other Bass magazine that I can't recall the name of. I'm gonna re-trim the list and anyone who's got a problem, don't revert; read WP:EL and then discuss here any links you want to add. -- Davetron5000 14:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So, longer = better? Secondly, Bass Player and Harmony Central (Owned by Musician's Friend) are about as corporate as it gets. I'm a pro bassist too... so? Does that mean my opinion on what's meeting the WP:EL guidelines is any better than another? What's the spirit of Wiki? Or maybe I should offer Fender, Ibanez, and Gibson as the Only options? It's a disservice to bass players - to only give them 'heavy-hitter' links... they could find that on their own. In fact, the heavy-hitters spend good cash to make sure they're found. Now, the smaller, obscure sites... they may be Never found without the free info philosophy of Wiki. I guess what I'm saying as an artist is: I'd rather have more (including possibly questionable 'WP:EL' jargon) than risking Less options by rightous opinion... hence, censorship. C'mon - you guys are bassists, presumably artists too... do you want your music options to be limited to what's on MTV or just things that have been around a long time? BASSIST TOO

By your logic there should be no external links since you can just search and find anything you want. Wiki wants the established heavy hitters to be listed, those are the sites with the most content directly relating to what the article is about. Like Davetron5000 said, if you have any suggestions for links, present them here. EmmSeeMusic 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've once again trimmed some links from this section. Both were online bass lessons, which I don't think are very relevant. If anyone disagrees, we should discuss and then find the most notable online bass lessons. I'm somewhat tempted to remove the link about bass samples, but it does seem somewhat notable to have ONE link to what the instrument sounds like (though ideally it should, per WP:EL, show up somewhere in the article) As per "BASSIST TOO" (above), WP:EL says, to me, that relevant links should be in the context of body text in the article, and not just thrown at the end. There are better websites to keep lists of bass guitar-related links. -- Davetron5000 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks, I added this information to the article. --Howdybob 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

how is that more representative of the subject of the article?67.172.61.222 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It isnt! So change it if you wish. Frankly, I dont give a damn 8-)--Light current 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Soloistic

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)

Frequencies

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)

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)

Bottom E is 41.20344 Hz to be more precise!--Light current 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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:
   Main article: Bass instrument amplification

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

OK Ill leave it for other editors to comment.8-)--Light current 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have modified your edit now to correct some errors.--Light current 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I invite you to look at your edit (that reverted my "really bad edit") here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bass_guitar&diff=68315105&oldid=68269308>

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)

I wont be wasting any more time discussing this THanks!--Light current 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

a

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)

I found a great sit for this http://www.sweetwater.com/shop/bass-guitars/bass-guitars/buying-guide.php

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)

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)

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 http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0136200332 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)

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)

external link "Wheats Bass Book"

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

Wheat's Bass Book

70.184.110.254 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)russjman

5 string guitar pic?

Why is there a 5 string guitar when the average bass has only 4? User:Cheezwizzle 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What difference does it really make? --Mperry (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

5 string basses are very common. In fact, I play one. Ibanez SR305DX is my 5. And Jean Baudin plays an 11 string bass.--24.119.143.87 (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

The bass is not a guitar

This article has a misleading title. The proper name is bass, not 'bass guitar,' therefore this article should be renamed.

71.197.5.27 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this your opinion? Or do you have a source to back up your assertion that "bass guitar" is not a proper term? --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It´s called a bass guitar, just listen to John Entwistle, who was one of the greatest bassists of all time. "He was lightyears ahead of anybody", as said by Jeff Baxter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.223.130.112 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the original poster is right. I've read that the correct name is "electric bass" and that "bass guitar" is a misnomer. I read it in one of my guitar books, but don't know where. Bubba73 (talk), 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling the instrument a 'bass', as the original poster suggested, is incorrect - bass is a modifier for an instrument family name, such as 'bass clarinet' - on its own 'bass' is meaningless. 'Electric bass' is better, as most people will understand what is meant, but it is still ambiguous - 'Electric bass' what?

The correct term should probably be 'bass electric guitar' as this clearly indicates that it is part of the electric guitar family and indicates its evolutionary path (directly from electric guitar). As a horizontally played fretted instrument originally designed guitar makers, bass guitar or electric bass guitar are the commonly used names which make most sense.

Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the name, bass guitar and electric bass are commonly recognised names for the instrument, so the original posters premise that the article title is misleading is incorrect. Dinobass 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The acoustic version of the instrument, the acoustic bass guitar, has "guitar" in its name and is abbreviated "ABG." The first ABG was modeled on the Mexican guitarrón, as the first electric bass guitars were modeled on electric guitars. Badagnani 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a reference now: The Guitar Book, by Tom Wheeler calls them "electric bass". On page 73 It talks about the Gibson EB-1 (Electric Bass) introduced in 1953. On page 101-2, it talks about the P-bass "... and he developed an electric bass (often misamed 'bass guitar') ... ". So there's a source for the correct name being "electric bass". Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the earliest models made by the major manufacturers were indeed marketed as "bass guitar" and sources showing very early promotional material with this name have been provided for this in earlier discussion. This is one of them. And this one and this one. It clear that the solid-body electric bass guitar's strong modeling on the electric guitar is no accident, thus opening up the instrument to musicians (including guitarists) who were not previously double bassists. Badagnani 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Bass Guitar Magazine. Badagnani 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The book above clearly states that "bass guitar" is a misnomer. Bubba73 (talk), 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fender's bass guitar was a year earlier, in 1952. Badagnani 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image: 1952 Fender advertisement notes the instrument's guitar shape and repeatedly refers to the instrument's similarity in shape and playing technique to a guitar (evidently appealing to musicians who already played the guitar). Badagnani 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the ad is hard for me to read, but I don't see "bass guitar" in there anywhere. Anyhow, the issue is not what it is commonly called. I started playing the instrument in 1970 and sometimes I call it "bass guitar". The issue is what is the correct term, and the book clearly states that it is "electric bass" instead of "bass guitar". Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes just implemented were made without consensus (and against evidence presented above), and are POV, favoring the work of only one author as "the truth." Please discuss and develop consensus before implementing such controversial changes. Badagnani 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes are referenced to a Reliable source, and are definitely not POV. Another reference is Guitars, by Tom and Mary Anne Evans, page 342. And "what evidence presented above"? You say that it is similar to a guitar - no one disputes that. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are really overstating your case and willfully ignoring the evidence from sources other than the ones you seem to favor. We've seen this mode of editing here before, if you will read through the earlier comments. The instrument, as shown in the 1952 patents, was called a guitar, modeled on the pre-existing solid-body electric guitar (shape exactly like a Fender electric guitar), contemporaneous sources show it was described as just like a guitar in shape and playing technique, could easily be picked up by guitarists, etc. I.e., an "electric bass guitar." "Electric bass," though the term should be mentioned in the article, does not specify electric bass *what* and thus does not merit use as the article's title. At the same time, "bass guitar" is very clearly not a "misnomer" in any way. Badagnani 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Finding a single published book which states a particular point of view does not make that point of view correct - especially when so many other published sources disagree. For example, in "How the Fender Bass changed the World" by Jim Roberts, probably the most definitive history of the instrument so far, the term 'bass guitar' is used throughout the book from the first page onwards. Dinobass 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are more than a single source for this. And read the last paragraph of the article under "1950s-

1960s". The cited source specifically says "misnamed". To me that is the same thing as a "misnomer", but I'll change it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the first sentence in the Grove Dictionary of Music (the most reputable general musical resource in the English-speaking world), "online" version, under the entry "Electric Bass Guitar":

"An Electric guitar, usually with four heavy strings tuned E'–A'–D–G."

So Grove 1) calls the instrument an electric bass guitar and then 2) defines it as a kind of electric guitar . That would seem to me to settle the matter. TheScotch (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the oft-quoted "How The Fender Bass Changed The World" (page 16 or 17) says that electric instrument is an the "electric bass" (no "guitar"), and is part of the "bass guitar" family. Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be page 17, Chapter 1, which starts "We think of the bass guitar as a new instrument...". Throughout the book Jim uses the terms 'electric bass' and 'bass guitar' synonymously (for example, the first paragraph of chapter 1 uses each twice), he does however seem to use 'bass guitar' slightly more often. Both terms are in common use and the main wiki article reflects that correctly. The forward to Jim Robert's book by Marcus Miller captures the issue well by explaining how when he was young he 'called it "bass" not "bass guitar", because-to be honest-we didn't know any other kind of bass existed' and then ends the forward with "Check out the story of the bass guitar, the coolest instrument in the band". Dinobass (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A bass drum is a drum. A bass clarinet is a clarinet. A "bass guitar" is not a guitar. As Fender said in their early advertisements, it is held similarly to a guitar and played similarly to a guitar. But Fender named it the "Precision Bass" so bass players could play with precision (due to the frets). In the family tree of musical instruments, it is descended from the upright bass, not the guitar. Bubba73 (talk), 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Using your logic, bass clarinets are not clarinets either. They are very similar to each other...but bass clarinets have different keys and need a different air flow. Therefore, they are played similarly to a clarinet and called clarinets because a clarinetist could easily figure out what the differences are and how to play it. Also, if the bass is a descendant of the double bass, then why can't you use a bow on it? It wouldn't have been too hard to create an electric bass instrument with frets that could be bowed. In fact, some exist and the only thing they have in common with the bass guitar is the tuning arrangement and that they're both string instruments. Bass guitars are called bass guitars because they are a bass version of a guitar- they are shaped the same way and you strum or pluck (not bow) the strings to get a sound. The main differences between the two being it's not as easy to play chords on a bass guitar and there's (usually) only four strings...but those changes aren't major enough for it to not be related to the guitar. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "On the other hand, the oft-quoted 'How The Fender Bass Changed The World'....":

Sorry, "Bubba", this piece of pop ephemera is not in any way comparable to Grove. There is no "other hand" here. TheScotch (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "In the family tree of musical instruments, it is descended from the upright bass, not the guitar.":

As if Fender had been known for its bass violins rather than its electric guitars, I suppose. No, "Bubba", the bass guitar has a function analogous to that of the bass violin in jazz, rock, and pop, but it "descended from" the (and is a kind of) electric guitar. TheScotch (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, Carol Kaye (bassist and very good jazz guitarist as well) and Jaco Pastorius always called it an electric bass - go to their albums and books to verify this.

Bass guitar makes no sense - a guitar is a guitar and a bass (double or electric) is a bass. They are different instruments.

If you refer to early marketing material please link to them. You linked to patent designs for a 4 stringed "Guitar" that once produced was marketed as an electric bass.

Just goes to show that lots of people get it wrong and others, such as this magazine publisher, will cash in on a popular term. This is not restricted to music. Have you ever seen a magazine with CAR in the title? but what is the correct name for that vehicle?

Fender never produced a Bass Guitar. Read the labels and manuals (not sales catalogues) they have always been electric basses.

Yes, That settles it it - The Grove Dictionary of Music is not infallible. They should go back to the manufacturers' labels and manuals before comitting erroneous definitions like that to paper and publishing. There was a time when everyone thought the earth was flat and the sun rotated around the earth. It was in all the reputable reference texts in the English (and Latin) speaking world.

Says who? Certainly not Fender or Fullarton, Kaufman or Gibson because they all labelled it an electric bass. I have original labels and manuals - no bass guitar mentioned at all. So using TheScotch logic - therefore the electric guitar is descended from (and "is" a kind of) electric bass.

This debate is about the correct term for the instrument. No one is disputing that people commonly call it other things, or that companies have marketed the instrument as other things. This does not change the correct name for the instrument - after all, even though many people call their guitar or bass their 'axe' the instrument does not miraculously become a suitable tool for chopping wood. The pitch changing arm on guitars has been manufactured, labelled and marketed as a "tremolo arm" even though what it does is create a vibrato effect - vibrato controls on amplifiers are similarly mislabelled. As has been pointed out far too many times "Electric Bass" is not the 'correct name' for the instrument as "Bass" is not a type or family of instrument. Bass is a modifier used in conjunction with an instrument family name.

Dinobass (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "So using TheScotch logic - therefore the electric guitar is descended from (and "is" a kind of) electric bass.":

Please don't put words in my mouth. This is your "logic" and no one else's. "Using [my] logic", the electric guitar was invented well before the bass guitar--and I think I've made this very clear. (I've taken the liberty of putting your remarks where they belong in the discussion chronologically. Please do not interpolate them--especially if you can't be bothered to sign in.) TheScotch (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure to what TheScotch refers by "interpolation" but to understand their context the above comments (signed or unsigned) requires the reader go into the history section and retrieve 10 April 2008. I question any individual's assumption of authority to move other people's comments around to suit one's own POV. I recommend theScotch put the comments back (where they belong) so this increasingly vibrant discussion does not get overly confusing. Ozbass (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinobass, you are presenting an argument that the correct name is therefore "Electric Double Bass", or Tutmarc's original label "Electric Bass Fiddle"! Ozbass (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm am presenting an argument that the name of instrument is 'electric bass guitar' or possibly 'bass electric guitar'. Regardless of whether or not Tutmarc called his invention an electronic bass fiddle, that would not be an appropriate for a whole raft of reasons - not least of which being that it has no relation to the 'fiddle' or 'violin' whatsoever. Plenty of people call their upright basses bass fiddles - that doesn't make them fiddles. Electric double bass, or electric upright bass, refers to another instrument entirely - an instrument that predates the electric bass guitar by a fair margin. Dinobass (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I am not sure to what TheScotch refers by "interpolation" but to understand their context the above comments (signed or unsigned) requires the reader go into the history section and retrieve 10 April 2008. I question any individual's assumption of authority to move other people's comments around to suit one's own POV.":

Interspersing comments within a section distorts and does violence to the remarks already made. It is effectively rewriting the remarks of others. This obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with my "POV". It is the writer's responsibility to establish his context without disrupting the flow of discussion. TheScotch (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

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)

Jaco Fretless Date

Jaco's own retellings of the story of his famous fretless differ, he claims to have removed them with pliers or a putty knife and in at least one printed interview (guitar player magazine, august 1984) he states "When I got the bass, the cat who had it had taken the frets out himself, and he did a really bad job of it" - he says he bought this bass 13 years earlier, so it would be around 1971 that the frets were removed according to that article. In light of this I suppose it will be impossible to say definitively when it happened. All indications point to the early 1970's, which would correspond with the period when Fender released their fretless Precision (1970) - which could have been the inspiration for Jaco, or the other cat, to pull the frets from that bass. Dinobass 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, go ahead and add that info so there's at least a vague idea of the date. I'd always heard Jaco was the first to make a fretted into a fretless, so I'm surprised that this wasn't the case! Badagnani 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaco did not invent the fretless bass, but he does seem to have popularized it, and I think the article might point this out. TheScotch (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough documentary evidence to put this in this article as a fact? As you say yourself he 'seems' to have popularised it, just like how for many years people believed (and many still do) that he invented it. There were plenty of fretless players before Jaco, and influential players such as Mick Karn and Percy Jones who were not themselves influenced by Jaco (or had even heard of him when they started playing fretless bass). I feel there should be some actual evidence for this, rather than hearsay, before it is stated as fact in the article. The article already has 'considered by many etc'. next to his entry - that is a more appropriate place for point of view comments than the main article. Dinobass (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant, "If indeed Jaco popularized it, the article might point this out." We can discuss whether he did or didn't here first. (He seems to have to me, and by this I mean according to my personal recollection of events--which, although not amounting to wikipedia "actual evidence", is still different from "hearsay"). TheScotch (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My recollection of events are that I'd heard Mick Karn, Percy Jones, Dill Katz, Bill Wyman, Pino Palladino, Rick Danko and Sting playing fretless bass, some of them live, before I'd ever heard the name Jaco Pastorius - in fact I owned a fretless bass before I knew who Jaco was. Of those musicians only Pino lists Jaco as an influence - hardly surprising as several are recorded playing fretless before Jaco. As far as I can tell there was a whole generation of musicians discovering the fretless bass at that time, and enough of them played on bigger hits with greater exposure than weather report. My feeling is that the fretless bass was becoming popular anyway and Jaco's influence was more an approach to bass playing as a whole than a popularisation of the fretless bass per se. Dinobass (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your mention of Sting arouses my suspicion here. Unless you're from Sting's home town, you couldn't possibly have heard him play fretless bass--or anything else--before I heard Jaco. You can't have a recollection of events that took place before you were around.

I would certainly agree that "Jaco's influence" wasn't limited to popularizing the fretless and that popularizing the fretless wasn't the most significant part of his influence, but that doesn't mean he didn't, and it isn't necessary for him to be the first to have played the fretless for him to have popularized it. TheScotch (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'd might as well comment about the others now: Like Sting's, Palladino's career is subsequent to Jaco's fame. My impression is that Wyman and Danko (and Sting as well) only used the fretless occasionally and incidentally--correct it if wrong. I've never heard of Karn and Katz--who are they?. I've heard of Jones only in connection with Brand X, a group I always considered fairly obscure. TheScotch (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I lived in Britain at the time. So from the point of view of myself and most of my peers 'weather report' were an obscure american jazz ensemble - unless one actually listened to jazz specifically they wouldn't have been part of ones consciousness. Jaco really started to make it in 1976 with his solo album and work with weather report and Joni Mitchell - although I didn't actually become aware of him until maybe 1980 when weather report toured england by which time I was already playing fretless bass. However let us assume that “1976/77 is realistically the time when he could have started having an influence beyond a limited jazz audience. At that time Sting was forming the police (and playing/recording fretless on those hits), Brand X had already been playing since 1974, Japan formed in 1978 and Mick Karn took up fretless without ever having heard of Jaco. Freebo played fretless exclusively from the late 1960's until fairly recently, Bill Wyman played fretless exclusively on those early Stones hits (he only had the one bass). Rick Danko played fretless on the first 'The Band' recordings from 1968. The point is that there were many players taking up fretless bass in styles as diverse as country, pop and rock, on both sides of the atlantic independent of and at approximately the same time as Jaco. Most of these people were playing commercially available fretless basses. The groundswell of popularity for the instrument was clearly already well in place at the time Jaco hit the scene in the mid 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobass (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem my recollection of Pino was slightly astray, his hits with Paul Jones were much later than I remembered, in 1983. Dinobass (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't buy the Sting argument. I first heard Jaco in 1976 on Joni Mitchell's Hejira (and saw him in concert with Weather Report some years later). He began to have a big-time impact in 1974. The Police released their first album in November (late in the year) of 1978. Sting played in jazz and fusion groups before he joined the Police (which, incidentally, was formed by Stewart Copeland, not by Sting). In the early to middle seventies fusion was very far from obscure, and Jaco was always fusion, never straight jazz.

As for the rest, the differences in our recollections may have to do with our nationalities (I'm U.S.) or individual circumstances or maybe Jaco popularized the fretless more in the public imagination than he had in this respect a direct influence on bassists themselves. The bass player in the group I was in around the time the Police hit it big in the states, was certainly influenced by Jaco to play fretless. Like Jaco, he removed the frets from a fretted instrument. He played Jaco solos (from the 1974 record) at the audition. TheScotch (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your premise appears to be that any bass player who achieved fame after Jaco a) must have been aware of him and b) must have been influenced by him either stylistically or in their choice of instrument. Neither of which needs to be the case. You say you don't buy the sting argument because you didn't hear their first hit until 1978 - however you also point out that he played in other bands before the police - and he was also a trained upright bass player. It seems far more likely that his decision to play fretless was the same as all the other musicians who were playing fretless in the 1970's - so many people were taking up this instrument in such diverse musical forms it is unlikely that any individual musician is responsible for this. Certainly there are players who took up the fretless after hearing Jaco - there are also many - especially during the 70's - who did so for their own reasons without ever knowing of Jaco. Incidentally, both the wiki article on the police and on sting suggest that stewart copeland formed the band *with* Sting. Also there is evidence, most particularly interviews with Jaco himself, which state that the frets had already been removed from the bass before Jaco purchased it - which is more evidence that fretless bass was a generally happening thing at the time. Wasn't Miroslav Vitous playing fretless bass in weather report well before Jaco? Alphonso Johnson certainly played fretless with Weather Report. Fretless bass guitars had been commercially available for ten years before 1976 when Jaco started to have the possibility of influencing people and Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker all offered fretless models. There was clearly already a market for the instrument at this time. John Paul Jones was playing fretless live on stage with Led Zeppelin in 1972. Please don't suggest that a) you haven't heard of him, b) Led Zeppelin are obscure and uninfluential or c) it is likely he was influenced by Jaco's fretless playing at that time. The more I research this the more convincing the evidence becomes that the fretless bass was already solidly on the scene well before Jaco. Dinobass (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Your premise appears to be that any bass player who achieved fame after Jaco a) must have been aware of him and b) must have been influenced by him either stylistically or in their choice of instrument.":

Obviously, that is not my premise, nor should it "appear" to be to anyone. My premise is that the circumstance that, as you say, you "heard...Sting playing fretless bass...before [you'd] ever heard the name Jaco Pastorius" is irrelevant--except to the extent it may suggest your "recollection" of events is skewed.

Re: "You say you don't buy the sting argument because you didn't hear their first hit until 1978...":

I do not say that. I didn't hear the Police until 1980. The point, rather, is that virtually no one could have heard the Police or Sting until after November 1978.

Re:"...however you also point out that he played in other bands before the police...":

The groups he played in before the Police were all local groups. Only his fellow locals would have heard any of these. They included a jazz big band, a Dixieland band, and a fusion group modeled on Chick Corea's Return to Forever.

Re: "...and he was also a trained upright bass player.":

Sting's autobiography describes no formal musical training at all and suggests he had none (unless you count grade school choir). As far as I know he did not attempt the double bass publicly until his first solo record in 1985--on which he plays a very minimal double bass part on one song only. (There is no mention whatsoever of the double bass in Sting's autobiography--which explains that he started on guitar and went directly from the guitar to the bass guitar.)

I don't know whether Sting was influenced by Jaco to play fretless or not, but he certainly could easily have been, given his timeline and interests--and he cannot reasonably be used as evidence that Jaco did not popularize the fretless.

Re: "Incidentally, both the wiki article on the police and on sting suggest that stewart copeland formed the band *with* Sting.":

A wikipedia article is not a valid source for another wikipedia article or anything else. Stewart Copeland came up with the idea for the Police and the name before he'd ever known of Sting's existence. Copeland was playing in a big-time group called Curved Air at the time. He discovered Sting playing in an obscure local group and invited and invited him to London to try out. This is well-documented, and Sting himself corroborates it. TheScotch (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "John Paul Jones was playing fretless live on stage with Led Zeppelin in 1972. Please don't suggest that a) you haven't heard of him, b) Led Zeppelin are obscure and uninfluential or c) it is likely he was influenced by Jaco's fretless playing at that time. The more I research this the more convincing the evidence becomes that the fretless bass was already solidly on the scene well before Jaco.:

Yes, I've heard of John Paul Jones. I saw him playing live with Zeppelin in the spring of 1973. I have no recollection of him playing a fretless then, and until you just told me I didn't know he'd ever played a fretless. (I did notice Jimmy Page playing a double-neck on "Stairway to Heaven" and bowing his guitar on "Dazed and Confused".) Was Zeppelin "obscure"? No. Was John Paul Jones an "influential" bass player? Not to my knowledge. The group as a whole made much less of an impression on me than King Crimson, whom I saw the next day. Anyway, the fretless certainly existed before Jaco, but I didn't know of it until I first heard Jaco in 1976. Nothing in my "research" so far contradicts my original impression that Jaco made the fretless much more popular than it had been. TheScotch (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the crux of it. You, and it seems many others also, remember hearing Jaco for the first time as being the first time they heard fretless bass. And yet, those same people certainly heard the rolling stones - and if you listen to those old stones tracks again it's obvious that the bass is fretless on many of them. We have pre Jaco players in bands as diverse as 'The Rolling Stones', 'The Band', Freebo (with Bonnie Raitt) all playing fretless bass, and yet there's still this idea that Jaco was the start of it all. Now, here's a thought. You mention King Crimson as being influential to you in 1973. Their bass player up to and for part of 1973 was Boz Burrell - who left them to join Bad Company, where he played an ampeg fretless bass. It's possible he'd heard of Jaco in 1973, but is it likely or even relavent? Jaco certainly popularised a particular, and easily recognisable, style of playing - both of fretless and fretted bass. However, there were loads of fretless players before Jaco, some playing on major popular hits, and the mere fact of having a career that started post Jaco doesn't imply of necessity that the player was influenced by, or had even heard of him. The groundswell of fretless players was already unstoppable by the mid 70's and that this would have continued regardless of Jaco.

Re: Sting and upright basses - My understanding is that Sting played upright bass in the Newcastle big band. Even if that is not the case he also played upright bass in the pre (or parallel with the start of) Police group 'Strontium 90' - which is where Copeland, Sting and Summers first played together. He recorded several of the police songs including 'every breath you take' using double bass (possibly the electric upright) doubled with electric bass. He is well known for playing an electric upright bass on tour with the police. Upright bass is certainly not something he started playing post The Police. Dinobass (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

At fretlessbass.com a number of famous bass players answer the question, “What influenced you to play fretless?” Here are some of the responses:

Victor Wooten: Jaco, of course. Will Lee: Of course, the incredible Jaco Pastorius. Michael Manring: Like so many people, I was totally blown away by hearing Jaco Pastorius. I first heard him when Pat Metheny's Bright Size Life came out and then on his solo record on the Epic label, which was released shortly thereafter. I started saving my pennies for a fretless right away! Marcus Miller: I had begun to play a lot of straight ahead jazz and wanted an instrument that sounded closer to an acoustic bass. I had heard Jaco on "Speak Like A Child" on his first album. There were some tones there that really sounded like an upright. I thought it would be nice to try. Tony Franklin: After hearing Jaco Pastorius (on record). He expanded the possibilities of bass playing and the bass players' role to a whole new level. Yves Carbonne: Listening to Jaco Pastorius, and later Alain Caron. Lorenzo Feliciati: As 85% of fretless players the first time I saw Jaco playing (with Weather Report, it was the last tour he did with the band and one of my first live concerts) I decided to play bass and…a fretless one!!! But then I discovered great fretless players like Mick Karn of Japan and Pino Palladino on the Gary Numan record “I Assassin”…and then Percy Jones, Sting… Mark Egan: I was always interested in the sound of an acoustic bass. Sam Samole, a guitarist and great friend who I went to music school with at the University of Miami [where, he goes on to explain, he studied with Jaco] had a Fender Precision Fretless Bass that didn't have any fret markers. I loved the sustained sound of it. It sounded like a hybrid acoustic bass, but more like a bass guitar and I liked the expression you could get by having infinite spaces between the notes. Franc O'Shea: I was listening to players like Mick Karn with Japan and John Giblin on John Martyn's 'Grace and Danger' album. I loved the sound of the wood, it was very lyrical and mysterious to me. Then I heard Jaco on 'Heavy Weather' and that just clinched it for me. I had to get rid of those frets and a guitarist friend of mine helped me get the frets out, then after that I was in heaven! Joseph Patrick Moore: We'll I always wanted to, I just didn't have enough cash at the time to get a fretless bass. I was listening to a lot of jaco, Sting, Tony Franklin and I really wanted to experiment with it.

Some others (like Mark Egan above) say the double bass as played by various jazz musicians (for these the admonition "So from the point of view of myself and most of my peers 'weather report' were an obscure american jazz ensemble - unless one actually listened to jazz specifically they wouldn't have been part of ones consciousness" wouldn't apply). Some of the younger ones mention neither the double bass nor Jaco--presumably by the time they came around the fretless would have been established. TheScotch (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you have a list of 9 players, 2 of whom discovered fretless via other means, one was looking for that sound anyway and happened to also have heard Jaco. Elsewhere in this discussion I've listed a similar number of players who came to the fretless bass via other routes entirely - several of whom pre-dated Jaco. Certainly many bass players, both fretted and fretless, have been influenced by Jaco Pastorius. However, the fretless bass was already happening, and would have continued to happen regardless. Dinobass (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly two, but I think the circumstance that Egan's teacher at the time was Jaco may be significant. The other says that Jaco's influence was decisive, which means his knowing of the existence of the fretless before is not really relevant, nor should it necessarily be at all in the case of popularization. Lee's and Wooten's "of course" needs to be taken into account, as well as Felaciati's "85%". Of the player's you've listed, you haven't given any evidence other than "pre-dating" for the "several" that they "came to the fretless bass via other routes entirely" or in most cases that their fretless playing was anything other than incidental and occasional. TheScotch (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are vanishingly few bass players who played exclusively, or even predominantly fretless bass for their entire careers. Even Jaco played a fair amount of fretted bass both live and on recordings. However, Freebo (who played with Bonnie Raitt and others), did play mostly (perhaps exclusively) fretless during the late 60's and early 70's - well unless you count his tuba playing. Mick Karn played exclusively fretless and has stated in interviews that he'd never heard Jaco (in fact, as a response to the inevitable comparisons to Jaco in the press he made a point of never listening to Jaco - only finally doing so many years later). Percy Jones was playing mostly fretless from around 1970. I've already listed these players before - what about Bunny Brunel? - pre-dates Jaco, played mostly fretless and started because somehow who's name he can't recall said he'd taken the frets out of his bass and Bunny decided to do the same. There are also players like Tony Levin who play a fair amount of fretless, and started in the early 1970's - Tony has stated that Jaco is not influential to his style of playing. If it required Jaco to popularise the intrument, why were there so many players already playing fretless, and so many basses already with the frets removed (not to mention commercially available instruments), well before he started having an influence? Dinobass (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing loose ends on Dinobass's talk page--if anyone's interested. TheScotch (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removals

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

Removals 2

Why have the corrections to historical assumptions been removed as well as images of Tutmarc, the electric bass fiddle and Jazz Bass headstock in this edit [[3]]. Tutmarc was already in the article. All the points were covered in the discussion page. Please voice any objections before removal of absolutely every contribution within an edit. Specifically Badagnani justify for each individual image why it was removed immediately, why you removed the application of bold font on electric bass as per your suggestion, and if the other amendments are either major corrections or factually incorrect. Also explain your authority in such instant and repeated total obliteration of all of these contributions. Ozbass (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer as to why they were removed, possibly copyright issues (which is usually why images are removed) - however, there are no images on the Paul Tutmarc page - so assuming you have copyright permission for those images, why not put them there? Dinobass (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My vote for "Electric Bass"

Isn't it interesting that users of the term "bass guitar" will also say "Bassist" ?

Wouldn't a true bass guitar have 6 strings as opposed to most basses having 4 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.155.196 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would - and probably would be a detuned baritone guitar. I think all people who insist on the term "bass guitar" and play the instrument should also call themselve "bass guitarists" and definitely not bassists. For added clarification they should state if they are "rhythm bass guitarists" or "lead bass guitarists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.180.223 (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In this context, the term bass is quite obviously an abbreviation of bass guitar. (In other contexts, it can be short for double bass or even bass clarinet. Trumpet players commonly

call piccolo trumpets pics. In context there is no confusion with the instrument flautists typically double on.) No, a "true bass guitar" would not need to have six strings--for the simple and obvious reason that the vast majority of "true" bass guitars have four strings only and always have had four strings only. TheScotch (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the section title: Wikipedia is not governed by "votes". Edits backed up by reputable sources eventually win out. Again, the most reputable music source in the English-speaking world is the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, and it's worth quoting it again (this time at greater length) here:

"Electric bass guitar [bass guitar].

An Electric guitar, usually with four heavy strings tuned E'–A'–D–G. The electric bass guitar was invented by Leo Fender and was first marketed as the Fender Precision Bass in 1951 (see Fender). The instrument was introduced to meet the needs of musicians playing the bass part in small dance bands in the USA: they wanted not only a more easily portable instrument than the double bass, but one that could match the volume of the increasingly popular solid-bodied electric guitar, and could be played with greater precision than their large, fretless, acoustic instruments. Fender's electric bass guitar answered all these requirements. It was based on his already successful Broadcaster (later named Telecaster) six-string electric guitar, with a similar solid body of ash and neck of maple. The four strings were tuned to the same notes as the double bass (an octave below the bottom four of the six-string electric guitar), and a single pickup fed controls for volume and tone; the fretted fingerboard offered players the precision they wanted." TheScotch (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in regard to my first point above, here is how Grove defines the term bass:

"Bass (iv).

A contraction of Double bass or Electric bass guitar." TheScotch (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

TheScotch has provided irrefutable proof that the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is flawed and cannot be regarded as a reputable source.

1. Leo Fender did not invent anything - he was a self-taught audio electrician who could not play a musical instrument and relied on luthiers & musicians in his team to fashion music instruments.

2. The solid body, fretted, electric 4 string bass instrument held horizontally was first designed (or invented) by Paul Tutmarc many years before Fender's team first designed and issued the Precision Bass. Go to the Experience Music Project in Seattle for proof. You will note that this instrument was designed as an electric version of the "Bass Fiddle" - a popular term for Double Bass and not guitar.

3. The Fender musical instrument company (in all its versions) has never made an "electric bass guitar", they have always manufactured and sold electric basses. Go to their website and download the manuals. This is consistent with every other leading "reputable" instrument manufacturer. Gibson, Rickenbacker, Washburn, Hofner, G&L and every leading instrument maker of USA, Europe, Japan and Australia I have researched all made electric basses and electric guitars and never "electric bass guitars" The definition offered by the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians can only be viewed as a perpetuation of the mythology surrounding Leo Fender combined with lazy scholarship relying on anecdote and vernacular rather than research and the original terminology as is academic practice.

TheScotch also incorrectly assumes his opinion is "obvious" to support his argument for "bass guitar". Why is "bass".. "obviously a contraction for bass guitar". Certainly not in the professional music community within which I have worked. Depending on your milieu and instrument at hand, "bass" could refer to an electric bass or double bass - but never a "bass guitar".

As a University post-graduate trained in research and the principle to differentiate opinion from facts, I must repeat my conclusion that Wikipedia is definitely not an encylopedia. It is a collection of opinions with the most persistent & ferocious editors winning by a war of attrition.

Every point I have made above can be verified by independent research. I suggest every visitor to this article do their own research by going to original sources as I have done. Ozbass (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:" TheScotch has provided irrefutable proof that the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is flawed and cannot be regarded as a reputable source.":

It is not necessary that you like everything Grove says; it is only necessary that you recognize that your disliking what it says invalidates neither the dictionary nor any of its contents.

Re: "1. Leo Fender did not invent anything....":

Whether Mr. Fender invented the bass guitar single-handedly and whether Grove means to differentiate the man himself and his company is obviously quite irrelevant to the argument, and your bringing this matter up here is a red herring--a diversionary attempt at obfuscation.

Re: "2. The solid body, fretted, electric 4 string bass instrument held horizontally was first designed (or invented) by Paul Tutmarc....":

Another diversionary attempt at obfuscation. Tutmarc's instrument did not catch on. The bass guitar as we know it was invented and first manufactured and sold by Fender and the Fender company.

Re: "3. The Fender musical instrument company (in all its versions) has never made an "electric bass guitar", they have always manufactured and sold electric basses.":

You'd might as well maintain that it never made an electric guitar on the ground that the name "Stratocaster" doesn't include the phrase electric guitar.

Re: " TheScotch also incorrectly assumes his opinion is "obvious" to support his argument for 'bass guitar'.:

It isn't "[my] opinion", and it should be obvious to every impartial native speaker of English who bothers to give the matter a moment's honest consideration.

Re: "Why is 'bass'.. 'obviously a contraction for bass guitar'.":

It's obviously an abbreviation of bass guitar in this context. In other contexts it can be an abbreviation of bass clarinet, bass saxophone, bass trombone, bass violin, bass recorder, bass singer--and so on--, or it can modify the noun clef. The term bass is an adjective, and it means low. The obvious question is "low what"?

Re: "Certainly not in the professional music community within which I have worked. Depending on your milieu and instrument at hand, 'bass' could refer to an electric bass or double bass - but never a 'bass guitar'.":

Do you really expect anyone here to believe that you've never heard the term bass guitar and you don't know to what it refers and that no one with whom you hang about has or does either? In any case, the term electric bass is itself an abbreviation of electric bass guitar--or at least we can reasonably assume this is what you mean by the term here: There are also electric double basses with just as much right to call themselves "electric basses" as the bass guitar. It is important that this article be immediately clear about which instrument it purports to discuss.

Re: "As a University post-graduate trained in research and the principle to differentiate opinion from facts...":

Were you sufficiently "trained" you might appreciate that argumentum ex cathedra is a material fallacy of presumption and that Wikipedia is not one jot interested in your self-valuation. In future please don't waste our time with such irrelevancies.

Re: "I must repeat my conclusion that Wikipedia is definitely not an encylopedia. It is a collection of opinions with the most persistent & ferocious editors winning by a war of attrition.":

The difference between Wikipedia and an encyclopedia (or "dictionary" as it calls itself) like Grove is that Wikipedia tolerates persons such as yourself. The hope is that the truth will nevertheless eventually out. The hope is that you will eventually either come to respect reputable sources and logical argument or else simply leave.TheScotch (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See Bass Guitar Magazine. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: this claim: "3. The Fender musical instrument company (in all its versions) has never made an 'electric bass guitar'," here are Fender's patents:

• http://www.thebouffants.com/members/us0d0169062-001.png *:::http://www.thebouffants.com/members/us0d0169062-002.png *:::http://www.thebouffants.com/members/us0d0187001-001.png

Badagnani (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the patents are "electric bass guitar", nor were any of the instruments manufactured ever labeled or sold or described in any accompanying documentation such as the manuals as an "electric bass guitar" they were always an "electric bass". Ozbass (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoah--what does it say here, in blue? Badagnani (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see the artwork, but I will bet that the graphic artist is not the manufacturer and this is not the label or documentation accompanying the instrument. No-one has ever argued that the term "bass guitar" is not used in vernacular, and commonly appears in advertising and music shop catalogues, it is whether it is the correct term or not.Ozbass (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And here is a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, its "Fender, Leo" entry: "Clarence Leo Fender American inventor and manufacturer of electronic musical instruments....In 1951 the Fender Precision Bass, the world's first electric bass guitar [my emphasis], was unveiled...." TheScotch (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "electric bass" is presented as an alternate name in the very first sentence of this article. Should we put in bold or italics (or a different color) to make it stand out even more? Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts of history have invalidated both references provided by TheScotch and again prove that good scholarship and independent research will allow the truth to be discovered and revealed. Refer to the arguments presented as historical fact and if you disagree prove their non-existence. Clinging to other references against the irrefutable presence of an earlier electric bass than that offered by Fender and the documentation provided by Fender and other major companies only adds weight to the necessity that any reference proclaiming to be an encyclopedia or dictionary needs to update and correct its entries in the same way a medical text of 50 years ago would differ from a recent release based on the latest scientific discoveries. It has been noted elsewhere that the common wisdom was that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. I am sure no-one agrees with the "reputable sources" that once published those "facts".

I suggest that contributors to this discussion do not confuse historical fact with TheScotch' attempt to discredit by citing of argumentum ex cathedra. Facts are facts and a conclusion with the disclaimer of being personal opinion challenging Wikipedia's claim to be an authoritative encyclopedia is just that - a personal conclusion, in this case on a discussion page and not in the article itself.

Contributors are also encouraged to understand ad hominem arguments and attacks and decide if TheScotch' response and tenor of his language falls within that category.Ozbass (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Clinging to other references against the irrefutable presence of an earlier electric bass than that offered by Fender and the documentation provided by Fender":

I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out that Tutmarc's instrument is an obscure footnote to history that made not a dent in historical continuity before it sinks into your head, but, in any case, he didn't call it an "electric bass"; he called it an "electronic bass fiddle". Is that what you want this article to call the bass guitar? You don't seem to.

The only "documentation provided by Fender" anyone's actually cited here as far as I can make out are Fender's patents, which clearly show he considered the instrument a kind of guitar and called it a bass guitar. (Grove and Britannica clearly know about the Precision Bass and refer to it by name. Presumably they understand "Precision Bass" as the name of a particular model of electric bass guitar just as you presumably understand "Stratocaster" as the name of a particular model of electric guitar. I've said this before, and I shouldn't have to continue to repeat it.)

Let's sum up the case:

I. Reputable sources: 1) The 2001 edition of the most prestigious and reputable music source in the English-speaking world says that the instrument is a kind of guitar, is properly called a bass guitar or electric bass guitar, and that the term bass used alone in this sense is an abbreviation of bass guitar or electric bass guitar. 2) The most recent edition of the most famous and prestigious general encyclopedia in the English-speaking world concurs: The instrument is properly called an electric bass guitar and is a kind of guitar. 3) The patents of the inventor of the instrument clearly refer to it as a kind of guitar and as a "bass guitar".

II. Language and linguistic logic: 1) The term bass is an adjective meaning low which modifies a noun (expressed or understood). Hence bass trombone, bass clarinet, bass drum, bass saxophone, bass recorder, bass singer, bass violin, bass clef, bass guitar. 2) The instrument has been commonly called a bass guitar throughout its history, more commonly than any other name and is still commonly called a bass guitar, still more commonly than any other name.

How do you respond? You respond by disparaging Grove, by disparaging Encyclopedia Britannica, by disparaging Leo Fender (and this, by the way, is argumentum ad hominem), by disparaging Wikipedia, by alluding vaguely to "facts" you never cite and "research" you urge us to undertake on your behalf, and by comparing yourself to Copernicus. I don't call that an argument; I call it a waste of Wikipedia's time and memory storage. TheScotch (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument tries to create confusion where none exists. When referring to a double bass, I don't think I would expect the question "Double Bass what?"Ozbass (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, buy a Fender (or Gibson, Rickenbacker or other leading manufacturer's electric bass) or go to their website and download the manual. Ignoring these documents does not advance your argument. I have directed readers to a surviving example of the original electric bass, and maybe "Electric Bass Fiddle" is probably more correct than "bass guitar". The inconsistent nomenclature of the Fender patents is self-evident, is outside the argument of the labels, manuals and documentation accompanying the instrument once manufactured and is not related to the original electric bass. Go back through the discussion and note this has been dealt with.

A challenge to convention or common belief and citing facts that any reader can source and verify themselves is not disparaging and occurs regularly in the advancement of knowledge. The existing example of Tutmarc's bass and catalogue have been overlooked in your quoted sources and therefore the sources need updating, no matter what reputation they may enjoy.

At no time has Fender (the man or company) been disparaged but the mythology surrounding the man has been debunked citing facts and existing evidence from leading manufacturers and on public (and internet) display at the Experience Music Project, Seattle. The rebuttable of mythology and challenge to unsubstantiated novel re-interpretations of history are definitely not ad hominem.

I referred to belief in a "flat earth" and don't recall a comparison with Copernicus (I would not necessarily call that an ad hominem accusation from TheScotch, more a diversionary distortion), but I can appreciate in a small way what Copernicus must have experienced! Ozbass (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "When referring to a double bass, I don't think I would expect the question 'Double Bass what?' "

Whether or not you would expect the question, the answer is "violin".

Re: "...go to their website and download the manual...":

No. You cite here what you think in the manual is relevant to the argument. If you can't do that, we can reasonably assume you to be blowing smoke.

Re: "maybe "Electric Bass Fiddle" is probably more correct than "bass guitar".:

It's electronic bass fiddle, and don't "maybe" us. Either advocate electronic bass fiddle and leave off with the "electric bass" or else drop Tutmarc already.

Re: "The existing example of Tutmarc's bass and catalogue have been overlooked in your quoted sources and therefore the sources need updating, no matter what reputation they may enjoy.":

It has not been overlooked; it has been and is judged insignificant.

Re: "At no time has Fender (the man or company) been disparaged....":

These are your words verbatim:

"You have linked to one patent registered by a trained accountant / self-taught electrical engineer. This man could not play bass, could not play guitar, could not read a note of music...."

None of this has any bearing on the argument and all of it is ad hominem.

Re: "I can appreciate in a small way what Copernicus must have experienced!":

From the Wikipedia "Crank" article: "The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1998 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts....

In addition, many cranks....

3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility...."TheScotch (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'Double Bass what?' The answer is not simply "violin". The Double Bass is an hybrid of violin in construction elements and viole (particularly violone) in its sloping shoulders. Either way it is not guitar, and as such its electric alternatives, the electric bass and electric upright bass (or stick bass), are not guitars.

Manual: http://www.fender.com/support/manuals/pdfs/instr_owners/FenderGuitarsAndBasses2003.pdf Electric guitars and basses - no "bass guitars"

also Gibson: http://www.gibson.com/Products/GibsonElectric/ no "bass guitars" in their product list. Even Hofner http://www.hofner.com/gab/en/phpshop/43/page,shop.category/category_id,10/ refer to a semi-acoustic bass or violin bass, but never bass guitar.

Electric Bass Fiddle: article and photos here: http://www.bassic.ch/i_his_av.asp

and http://www.empsfm.org/flash/guitbass/index.html Click on the image of the electric bass fiddle (third from left), click on gallery and read the original advertisement from Paul Tutmarc Studios. Therefore Electric NOT Electronic, and furthermore fiddle would therefore be more correct than guitar. As always, I urge contributors to a so-called encylopedia to go back to the earliest source as possible. With regard to the instrument category that is now commonplace, the custom of all the leading manufacturers from the early 50's to today is to call it an Electric Bass no matter what currency the term Bass Guitar may have.

A statement of facts is not ad hominem. I don't regard formal training in accounting or achievement resulting from self-education disparaging, nor is it disparaging to acknowledge an inability to be able to read or play music. Diversionary attempts to distort or obfuscate or even shoot the messenger will not remove historical fact.

A reference to, or appreciation of, an historical figure is a long stretch from personal comparison. TheScotch raised Copernicus, not I, and now he brings in Galileo. If I refer to the well established and universally accepted system of taxonomy will TheScotch then accuse me of comparing myself to Carl Linnaeus? Go to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines , ref: Behaviour that is unacceptable - Misrepresentation

TheScotch has provided the humourous Cranks definition and "Crackpot Index". While entertaining, TheScotch unfortunately does not connect this directly to arguments presented in this discussion page.

Readers may note TheScotch' actions in re-arranging other's contributions taking them out of context, presenting personal opinions as fact such as "it has been and is judged insignificant.", incorrect accusations of ad hominem arguments, accusations of personal comparisons where none exist, and the use of language and phrases such as "...or else simply leave...", "...before it sinks into your head" and "...we can reasonably assume you to be blowing smoke".

Readers and would-be contributors may also care to compare this style of response with the characteristic of "overestimat(ing) their own knowledge and ability" from the Cranks and Crackpot definitions TheScotch has provided, as well as how this fits with Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines, and definitions of civility and harassment. Ozbass (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The sites you give above call the instrument an "electric bass guitar." It's clear that we can't discuss rationally with you because you selectively disregard any source that gives this name--even if it's a source you yourself provide. Badagnani (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Up until this point in this discussion the position held by 'Ozbass' has been that Fender and Gibson refer to the instrument as 'electric bass'. The two examples given both use the term 'bass' and 'guitar', but not 'electric bass'. As far as I can tell neither Fender or Gibson have ever used the term 'electric bass' in their patents or product descriptions. Fender has consistently used bass guitar or bass and most commonly in the early days 'Fender Bass'. I'm sure no one, including Fender, would suggest that the proper generic name for the instrument should be 'Fender Bass'.

It should be noted that the full title of the Gibson site described above is 'Gibson Guitar: Electric and acoustic guitars, bass guitars, baldwin pianos and slingerland drums, online lesson, stories and news'. To navigate to the page cited by Ozbass one follows the links 'Guitars->Electric Guitars' - it's quite clear that 'bass' is used here in the context of 'guitars'. If one goes to the front page of the Fender website and clicks on 'basses' in the navigation the title graphic clearly says 'Fender Bass Guitars'. So, it seems all the evidence provided by people on both side of this debate demonstrates that the largest manufacturers and purveyors of bass guitars clearly consider them to be guitars. Dinobass (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some points absolutely clear. We are arguing over the correct term for the instrument. I have never denied the popularity of the term "bass guitar", nor its use in marketing in retail sales catalogues and websites. A website would include a popular term for search engine optimisation hence the appearance of this term in the upper levels of the websites linked. But then you selectively ignore the manufacturer's actual category the instrument falls within and the accompanying documentation. There is no mention of "Bass Guitar" in the list of models. I provided links to documentation that accompanies the instrument. They refer to electric guitars and basses (no bass guitars). The adjective "electric" applies to basses as well as guitars. I do not see guitars applying to basses otherwise it would be "guitars basses"

I am not alone in thinking the correct term is Electric Bass. refer to volumes such as

Victor Wooten Style Electric Bass,

Electric Bass - Flea on Funk,

Harmonics for Electric Bass by Adam Novick,

Dan Dean - Electric Bass (six book series),

Jaco Pastorius - Modern Electric Bass,

Electric Bass by John Patitucci,

Carol Kaye's series on Electric Bass, and I quote from the liner of her DVD course: "Carole Kaye, legendary pioneer Studio Elec. Bassist and Educator." BTW - Carole Kaye is accomplished on jazz guitar so she has every right to use the term "guitarist" as well.

and to FINALLY dispel ANY argument that Fender never used the term ELECTRIC BASS please look closely at this image, right next to the Fender Logo and below JAZZ BASS [[4]]

So rationally, the onus is now on Badagnani, Dinobass and TheScotch to explain why so many leading practioners past and present of the electric bass call it so, and more importantly find a headstock from a leading manufacturer with the label "Bass Guitar" or "Electric Bass Guitar" as well as a manual included with such an instrument using either of these phrases. Otherwise accept the popular vernacular for what it is, recognition by retailers and marketing people of its popularity only, and by convention use the leading manufacturers' term for the correct decription Ozbass (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "A statement of facts is not ad hominem. I don't regard formal training in accounting or achievement resulting from self-education disparaging, nor is it disparaging to acknowledge an inability to be able to read or play music.":

It makes no difference whether the "statement" is "fact" or innuendo. You stated these putative "facts" (having to do with the man, homo, not the argument) with the obvious intention of disparaging and thus (illogically) discrediting the evidence in Fender's patent applications.

Re: "TheScotch has provided the humourous Cranks definition and "Crackpot Index". While entertaining, TheScotch unfortunately does not connect this directly to arguments presented in this discussion page.":

The argument was over long ago: you lost it. The relevance of your repeatedly (three times) comparing yourself to such persons as Copernicus--or Columbus, if you prefer--has to do with your response to evidence.

Re: "So rationally, the onus is now on Badagnani, Dinobass and TheScotch to explain why so many leading practioners past and present of the electric bass call it so":

Of course it is not. We are arguing that "electric bass" is not, as you maintain, the one true and proper name for the instrument, not that no one has ever called it this. I (possibly B. and D. as well, but I don't want to presume to speak for them) am arguing, in addition, that the instrument derived from the electric guitar and is, in fact, a kind of guitar. The onus on me was only to provide at least one reputable source for this, and I have done so long, long ago. The sources I have provided are the best possible sources (although B.'s patent applications are very good too), and they say this clearly and unequivocally. That ought to be the end of it. You need to cease ranting and find a more productive use for your time.

In any case, it seems to me quite obvious that most persons using the term "electric bass" are simply abbreviating. It's possible, I suppose, that at least one person is using the term as a euphemism because he has some sort of wierd psychological hang-up about the instrument's association with the guitar, but this is only speculation, and I only proffer it because you've pressed me to. As far as the argument goes, and as far as this article goes, it doesn't matter. TheScotch (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The instrument was quickly picked up by musicians in the 1950s, particularly by session musicians in Nashville, New York, L.A., etc. because it is so convenient to play and transport, because its design was modeled on the guitar rather than the double bass (with the difference in the number of strings). The fact that it looks almost exactly like a solid-body Fender electric guitar (though a few inches longer and a bit heavier) should be a tip-off. This even allowed session guitarists to double on the instrument with little difficulty. The vernacular/shorthand term "electric bass" seems to be mentioned not only in the first paragraph of our article, but in the first sentence. Might I ask again, should we put that name in a different color, or perhaps flashing, so that readers might see it more clearly? Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fender headstock with 'electric bass'. So, it seems there is finally some evidence that Fender actually used the term electric bass at one point in time - this doesn't, of course, change the correct name for the instrument. After all, the absence or presence of the word 'guitar' on a stratocaster doesn't make it anything other than an electric guitar. Furthermore their brief flirtation with and then abandonment of the term tends to weaken the already poor argument that 'electric bass' is the correct name for the instrument.

In the 1950's Fender patents designs marked 'guitar' (original precision bass) and 'bass guitar' (version 2 precision bass). At this point it is clear that Fender considered the instrument to be a 'bass guitar' and used that term, or the contraction 'bass' in its promotion. Searching for Fender Bass headstocks shows that the early 1960's models of the jazz bass had 'electric bass' on the headstock. From the late 1960's onwards the term 'electric bass' no longer appears on jazz bass headstocks. Consider how Fender describe their current American Deluxe Jazz Bass: 'Our upgraded American Deluxe Jazz Bass guitar captures the spirit of Fender innovation...'. In fact, the descriptions of every jazz or precision bass on their website uses the term 'bass guitar' or 'guitar' in the description - usually in the first sentence. eg. American Standard: 'Fender hit a giant bass home run in 1960 by introducing its deluxe-model four-string instrument—the Jazz Bass guitar. ' Here, from the description of the american standard bass V: 'Fender invented the electric bass guitar, introducing the Precision Bass in 1951.' So. It seems that although Fender briefly used the marketing term 'Electric Bass' in the mid 1960's they currently align themselves to the terms 'bass guitar' and 'electric bass guitar'. At no point has anyone argued that 'electric bass' is not a term in common usage - showing that the term has been used does not, therefore, demonstrate that it is the correct name for the instrument. Dinobass (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And now COLUMBUS (!) and "...he has some sort of wierd psychological hang-up..." The thread is quite clear on who raised the comparisons, continues with ad hominen attacks, and who sticks to the arguments based on fact. The reputable sources TheScotch quoted have been shown to be fallible. There is no proof that "Electric Bass" is an abbreviataion, because no one has provided proof of one instrument labeled an "electric bass guitar". On the contrary, proof of an instrument labeled "ELECTRIC BASS" has been provided and so far selectively disregarded by the "bass guitar" protagonists.

The "names" on the patent applications are inconsistent within themselves ("guitar", "bass guitar" but no "electric" or "electronic" anything.) Besides, the purpose of patents is to document unique design features, in this case of what was finally brought to market as an "electric bass" - an easily portable, amplifiable alternative to the double bass. The electric bass certainly shares many construction elements with a solid body electric guitar, which is most likely why the popular term of "bass guitar" arose - people confusing morphology over lineage, function, voice and purpose. This was a common mistake within Geographic Societies and scientific communities up until the early 20th century. In taxonomy, nomenclature based on morphology is universally discredited.

The bonus for session guitarists to double on bass, assuming they understand the approach to playing good bass lines (and I have heard some bad bass playing from good guitarists) is an irrelevant diversion. The same inference applies to a violinist being able to play a mandolin easily - it does not make a violin a mandolin or vice versa, even if violins and mandolins along with most stringed instruments share many similar construction and design elements.

Fender (the man or company) clearly moved on after lodging the patents - note the headstock clearly stating "ELECTRIC BASS" in the linked image. [[5]]This name on the headstock and documents accompanying the instrument is why bassists have used the term Electric Bass for over half a century. Refer to my list of bassists above. Anyone who disagrees, please provide a headstock or manual, or instrument catalogue from the 50's or 60's to prove one model was labeled an "electric bass guitar" or "bass guitar". Gibson, consistently used model series codes based on full descriptive terms. ES for Electro-Spanish, SG for Solid Guitar and EB for Electric Bass. Contrary to what some have presented here, it is the term "bass guitar" has increased in popularity since the 70's and particularly over the last decade.

I agree with Badagnani that the term Electric Bass be put in bold as one step towards recognition of the use of this term even if we disagree on which is the correct term. An early reference in the article to the controversy over the name would be salient as well. Further, I would appreciate it if B. please fix the "electronic bass fiddle" & "electronic bass" references.

The claim that "electric bass" replaced "Fender bass" in the late 60's is deceptive. Electric Bass was there from the beginning and references to "Fender bass" have simply fallen out of fashion. In the late 60's the Musicians' Union reverting to listing "Electric Bass" was recognition that "Fender Bass" was a popular term due to the dominence of that brand in studios and the market and not a true generic label for the instrument. If musicians (especially bassists) thought it was a "bass guitar" why wasn't that term used by their union? In the late 60's to early 70's Fender Bass was still the popular term in studios to distinguish the electric instrument from a traditional acoustic (double) bass. This is very similar to a popular term in the Netherlands for instant coffee being "Nescafe", or the French refering to a ballpoint pen as a "Bic", and now "Google" is used for web-search. Everyone understands the terms, but that does not make them correct.

Dinobass, the term Electric Bass is hardly a brief flirtation, it was in the manuals and stamped on the instrument! I purchased a new Fender Jazz Bass in 1974 (my third electric bass). I still have the tags - no mention of bass guitar at all. The descriptions that have entered the Fender website recently - and by that I mean within the past months (not years) only support the increasing popularity of the term "bass guitar" - not its original usage. This also underlines my consistent recognition that the term "bass guitar" is often used in retail. But to advance your argument please provide the headstock and manual (or tags) that clearly state "bass guitar" or "electric bass guitar". You will note that the owners manual linked on the retail description page does not mention "bass guitar" or "electric bass guitar".

It is "bass guitar" that is replacing "electric bass" in vernacular and has less validity in describing this category of instrument than "Fender bass". Ozbass (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If the instrument weren't actually a guitar, or called as such by the companies from the early 1950s on, the above would have some validity. Nevertheless, the alternate vernacular name is mentioned in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are relying on an assumption to deny validity of an opposing argument. Where is the proof such as headstock stating "bass guitar", owners manual refering to "bass guitar" or even a label or swing tag displaying "bass guitar"? The only proof provided so far of an actual instrument as manufactured is the Fender Jazz Bass headstock clearly stating ELECTRIC BASS (which you immediately deleted from the article).

Also please respond to Removals 2 (above) Ozbass (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little thought experiment for us all. How many guitars - electric, acoustic, bass, baritone, actually have the word 'guitar' on the headstock? I've got something like 11 stringed instruments within easy reach, ranging from mandolins to electric upright bass. Not one of them has the family name of the instrument on the headstock. I've also scoured the interwebs for Fender headstocks - their electric guitars say things like 'Fender Stratocaster' and 'Fender Telecaster', their basses say "Precision Bass" and "Jazz Bass" and "Coronado Bass II". The one exception seems to be Fender Jazz Basses from the mid 1960's which also say 'Electric Bass'. It's pretty clear to anyone who's played an instrument that they very rarely have the name of the instrument printed on them anywhere. Do any of those instruments somehow stop being whatever they are due to the presence or absence of the instrument family name? Do we see a clarinet and say "Oh, that can't be a clarinet, it doesn't say clarinet anywhere on it!" Of course not. So why should this be the case for the bass guitar? Dinobass (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits contained the change of several mentions of the instrument to the vernacular name "electric bass" against consensus, as well as a deletion of a reference to the instrument being modeled with guitar features, thus the edits needed to be reverted. It's clear given the current discussion that changes should be made in a less sweeping manner, and that such edits as I describe not be attempted to be interspersed among many other uncontroversial edits. Badagnani (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The changes proffered to the Wikipedia community steer the article towards Neutral Point of View (NPOV). There is no consensus on which term is vernacular but both sides agree that "Electric Bass" is usable as either an abbreviation or the correct term. I have established the terminology of Tumarc's "electronic" bass was incorrect. The Gibson bass requires a citation from the designers and manufacturers before the claim "relied heavily on existing guitar design" can be made - hence the change to "sharing similar design" - again NPOV.

Dinobass has an interesting point with some merit. My double basses do not have "double bass" on the label stuck inside the body, the violins don't say "violin" but refer to the style of manufacture such as Antonius Stradovarius Cremonenfis Fieca bad Anno 1713. My Gibson ES-135 has no guitar on the headstock or label stuck inside. However, the documentation does refer to the instrument. The paperwork with the Double Bass certainly refers to model & 3/4 Double Bass and the Gibson definitely is accompanied with paperwork stating electric guitar. So in this "bass" context what do we see - electric bass or bass guitar?. The Fender bass is accompanied by an owner's manual with "electric" describing "bass" but no "bass" describing "guitar". The Gibson EB series is short for Electric Bass and no G for Guitar. One clear sign is Fender printing Electric Bass on the headstock of at least one series of its basses. Most importantly though, in going through my collection of bits and pieces I found a copy of the Fender Electrics Price List Summer 2005 (a total of 14 pages). Two categories from page 2 - 9 Electric Guitars, and at the top of page 10 is the next category Fender® Electric Basses ( a scan for your reference here [[6]] ). Definitely no mention of bass guitars in the category or the list of models. Gibson's current price list has a category of "Bass Series" and Epiphone "Bass" which includes the EB series and "El Segundo IV Acoustic/Electric Bass". The word guitar is completely absent in the list of basses. So as well as prominent bassists from the early 50's to present using the term "Electric Bass", we have proof that Fender used the term from at least the early 60's to this decade and once in production "bass guitar" has only been used by their retailers and advertising copywriters in more recent years. Is anyone still claiming Electric Bass has never been used by leading manufacturers or that it was just a brief flirtation? Ozbass (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I find it astonishing that someone can look at a Fender Telecaster and look at a 1951 Fender Precision and have any doubt whatsoever that the two instruments are related, and that they share clear design features in common. Similarly, can anyone in all honesty look at a Gibson SG 6 string guitar and an EB-0 bass guitar and not see that the similarity in design? An EB-1 , with the strange pull out upright bass like end pin is a little less clear cut, as are the two 1930's 'electric bass guitars' Gibson build - which, despite the name had more in common with electric upright basses than with guitars - but the original precision is clearly related by design to the telecaster - and the EB-1 to the gibson SG. This is trivially obvious to the most casual of observer - and this is also evident from the patent applications for 'guitar' and 'bass guitar' by Fender. It seems to me that the only reason that there is any controversy over this at all is that many bass players over the years have consistently chosen to dissociate themselves from guitarists. Now, this is quite interesting in its own right, and perhaps even deserves a section in the main article - but doesn't change the fact that the instrument evolved from the electric guitar and has more in common with the electric guitar than any other instrument. If the bass guitar is truly not a guitar, what, then are the essential differences that make it something other than a guitar? In the end the differences are number of strings and range. Range is covered by the modifier 'bass' and it is common for stringed instruments within a family to have different numbers of strings from each other and throughout time. The upright bass viol is a case in point, having commonly had between 3 and 5 strings over the last few centuries. As far as I can tell the only practical point of difference is that many bass players, including myself, like to distance ourselves from our thin string picking cousins. Yes, 'Electric Bass' is an important term commonly used to describe the instrument, and if it wasn't referenced in the article as such I'd be arguing strongly that it should. However, the instrument is a guitar, and it's only a familial schism that makes us argue so strongly that it is not - in the same way that fiddle players will argue strongly that they aren't violinists and vice versa even though the instruments are often indistinguishable and interchangeable. Dinobass (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Design features in common - yes, absolutely, no argument, and see my earlier comments on morphology confusing lineage, function, voice and purpose, as well as convergent evolution and long established conventions of taxonomy. The "bass guitar" argument is based solely on it looks like a big guitar so therefore it is a guitar. I've seen ukeleles that look like a small Flying V guitar, so is the Flying V now a big ukelele with six strings, or the uke is now a small 4 string guitar? Delving further, I think another sticking point is the assumption that the electric bass was inspired by guitars rather than the necessity for a portable, amplifiable alternative to the Double Bass. This is where Tutmarc was the pioneer and called it an electric bass fiddle, and probably why Leo Fender never continued with "bass guitar" past the patent because the playable electric instrument was designed by his musicians and luthiers for bassists, not guitarists. Speculation only but the luthiers and musicians working with the electrician may have reached a consensus to go with "electric bass". (...can we achieve that here?) And it is not just a matter of dissociation of bassists from guitarists. Essential differences? - more than just size, range and number of strings (on a standard bass) which are at least 3 differences to start with but also the function, purpose, approach and voice is not that of a guitar. One wag suggested above that "bass guitarists" should declare if they were the "lead bass guitarist" or "rhythm bass guitarist". That kind of illustrates my point. The bottom line is the instrument was brought to market as an "electric bass" which is why that original term should be acknowledged as correct and "bass guitar" as vernacular. "Electric Bass (a.k.a. Bass Guitar)" should be the title of the article. Ozbass (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument regarding similarity of morphology makes no sense, at least not to anyone who has studied either taxonomy or evolution. This is not a case of convergent evolution, this is a clear case of common parentage. If one was to invoke a phylogenetic/cladistic taxanomic approach, and in fact I urge that you do, it would be clear and unquestionable that the bass guitar is, indeed, a bass guitar. These are not features that are merely similar, they are design features which were developed by the same people using the same tools, techniques and principles in the same factory. There is no confusion of lineage. The scale length that Leo Fender and his helpers settled on is one which fits perfectly with their other guitars - a Fender Precision bass from the fifth fret up is exactly the same fret spacings as a strat - this would allow them to use the same fret templates across their entire range - this seems rather more than coincidental (a 35" or 33" scale length would not give this result). This puts the Fender bass scale length clearly in the guitar family. Upright bass scales are much longer and fit more closely with the viola de gamba family. The use of frets and a high radius (nearly flat) fingerboard are further guitar features. A different 'voice' in a taxanomic context certainly would not in any way change the family classification of an organism - the niches and behaviour of Lions, Tigers, Serval and domestic cat are quite different, as are the sizes of these animals - and yet they are closely related and share common ancestors. In taxanomic terms the role or niche which an organism inhabits are unimportant - it is the common ancestry and common inherited features that are important. In this case there is not one feature of the electric bass guitar that has not been inherited directly from its electric guitar parents. The lack of a couple of strings would not cause a taxonomist any grief whatsover - reduction of digits and limbs being commonplace among descendants. To use another musical example, a mandolin and a mandobass are undisputed members of the same family of instruments. The mandobass is significantly larger, has four single courses of strings (rather than the paired courses of the rest of the family) is usually tuned in fourths (rather than fifths for other mandolins). The arguments used above to try and cleave the electric bass guitar from its family connections would all apply more strongly to the mandobass - and yet the mandobass is unquestionably a mandolin. The mandobass was invented by mandolin makers specifically to fill the bass role in mandolin orchestras - and here lies the only essential difference between the subsequent histories of the mandobass and the bass guitar - the marketing strategy. Mandobasses were aimed clearly at a specific niche, whereas bass guitars were intended to fill a bass role in a wide variety of ensembles - and in that context marketing the bass guitar as simply 'Fender Bass' made a lot of sense. It allowed Fender to sell to both out of work guitarists ("See the beginning of chapter 3 of Jim Roberts Book, you have got that book? If not why not?") and to (eventually) upright bass players. It is pretty clear from the literature that Leo Fender intended his instrument to appeal particularly to guitarists, who had specifically stated that they needed such an instrument, and also to upright bassists, who initially resisted (and many still do). Electric bass seems to have come later as a marketing term - and no one is disputing that it is in common usage or has been used by companies in their marketing.

The bottom line is that the instrument is a bass guitar, developed quite intentionally using entirely techniques and features inherited from its electric guitar parents. It has been marketed as 'electric bass', 'bass' and these terms are in common usage - which is what the article name and opening paragraph (currently and correctly) make clear. Furthermore, it is pretty clear that the common popular usage is leaning towards 'bass guitar'. To propose 'electric bass' as the 'correct' name for the instrument in 2008 would seem antediluvian as well as pedantically incorrect. Dinobass (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinobass raised it, and urged me to invoke this approach so I offer the following. And before anyone jumps in, this is not an argumentum ex cathedra opinion expressed as fact but measured argument for discussion. So here goes and hopefully it is more than an entertaining diversion.

The design of the electric bass is clearly convergent evolution. Dinobass' argument would define instruments from the same designers, factory, tools, techniques and even source materials such as Gibson's range of banjo, mandolin and guitar as the same instrument. This argument runs counter to standard taxonomic approach. Take Dinobass argument to extremes: All life on earth is based on carbon molecules. We find one factory - Earth, the same designer - insert your own version of natural selection or intelligent design (I'm not touching that one, especially here), the same tools (solar and electromagnetic energy), the same materials (principally molecules of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) and the same motivating necessity to fill changing environmental pressures and niches. Conclusion: there are no different kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species of plants and animals, just words used as different adjectives for arrangements of carbon molecules based on the morphology of the total mass.

On the other hand, stringed instruments can be viewed as related at a class or order or family level. The genus and species level would split them further.

The references to cat family (Felidae) would parallel the family of mandolins, banjos and guitars. We even see hybrids (Liger and banjolin). Within the genus of guitars, using dichotomous keys to distinguish species, we may find Spanish, classical, parlour, jumbo, folk and Dreadnought and perhaps 12 string and 7 string subspecies. Regarding reduction of digits, vestigial organs or bones are important identifiers of lineage. In the electric alternative to the double bass there were no intermediary or vestigial 5th and 6th strings. The designers, Tutmarc before Fender company, went straight from double bass (4 strings) to electric bass (4 strings). Tailoring of dimensions to suit a factory (environmental pressures) is irrelevant to the lineage. The result parallels convergent evolution in different orders, perhaps even a different classes. For example, in spite of its morphology and habitat a porpoise is a mammal and not a large fish like a "whale shark" (Rhincodon typus). Regarding the latter, note the confusion of the common term combining a mammal with a fish based purely on morphology and size. Not dissimilar to "bass guitar". Here's a thought: As the whale shark achieves a higher profile and results in more people thinking it is a whale, should an encyclopedia accept is is actually a whale and present that as fact?

No-one is disputing marketing or spotting a way of making money, such as selling more units to guitarists as well as bassists. However, can someone provide some document from the early 50's marketing an instrument model listed in the manufacturers category of "bass guitar" to guitarists - perhaps an advertisment with a famous guitarist declaring his purchase of a "bass guitar" because this instrument was designed for guitarists and now enables him/her to double on bass in dance bands or small orchestras, removing the need for a bass player. The Wikipedia article and other articles all state the intention was to provide an amplifiable bass alternative for bassists. We have seen historical proof of the category "Electric Bass" and the instrument labelled thus. Please provide corporate documentation dating back to the early 50's from leading manufacturers that listed a range of models offered to the market under the category "Bass Guitar"?

With regard to the fashion in 2008 vs antediluvian, "electric bass" has been championed for more than a few months. Wikipedia claims to be an encylopedia so attention to detail and historical accuracy (pedantic maybe) is important. Ozbass (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy is all about inheritance, features that have been inherited from the parent family. If we break this down to first principles there are two relevant families of stringed instruments to be considered. The bowed violin/viol/viola de gamba family and the oud/lute/guitar family. There are features common to both families - strings, some form of sound box, some form of bridge, a neck and tuning pegs - convergent evolution if you like - however the two families have followed quite different paths. The earliest bowed strings originate from China and the forerunners of the guitar from europe and the middle east. Violin family instruments all have a rounded fingerboard and narrow cutaway waist to facilitate bowing, gambas and other family members were often partially fretted, with curved usually gut frets, but frets had been abandoned by upright bass players centuries ago. Violin family instruments also generally have high floating bridges held in place by string tension and also curved to further facilitate bowing. Larger members of the violin family usually also have some kind of end pin to facilitate upright playing. These are features that have been fairly standard for centuries. Oud/lute/guitar/mandolin family instruments on the other hand have fingerboards which are flat or almost flat, bridges which are typically glued to the flat top. Strings may be attached directly to the bridge assembly or to a tail piece - but in most cases string tension is not required to hold the bridge in place. Although the Oud was and is a fretless instrument, the development of lutes and guitars in Europe involves frets - originally gut but later brass. Guitars have been less clearly standardised than violin family instruments, but these features are extremely common. Carved top acoustic guitars did already exist in the 1950's - but they still have the flattened fretted fingerboard - and even those with floating bridges have much lower and flatter bridges than violin style instruments. There are also internal construction differences between violin and guitar family instruments that are quite distinctively different, but we can ignore those in a discussion of solid bodied electric guitars.

So, what features have bass guitars - and most importantly the first examples - inherited from the upright bass? As far as I can tell, nothing. There is no curved fingerboard to facilitate bowing, no narrow waist, no end pin. The essential defining characteristics of violin family instruments are completely missing from both Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender's first bass guitars. It is important to note, at this point, that "all" these features are present in the clear electric descendant of the viol family - the electric upright bass - a class of instrument which has existed since the early 1930's and which both Tutmarc and Fender were fully aware of.

So, what features have bass guitars got in common with other guitars. Let us consider the electric guitar first, lest anyone claim that it isn't a descendant of earlier acoustic guitars. The solid bodied electric guitar inherits the flat body, flattened fretted neck and shallow bridge solidly attached to the body - in the case of the telecaster this was a crudely adjustable compensating bridge - something that doesn't exist in the violin family. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that an electric guitar such as a telecaster is not related to a spanish style acoustic guitar. So. Now we've demonstrated that the features are indicative and uncontroversial, let us consider the bass guitar. The vast majority of electric bass guitars, and most tellingly both Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender's original designs, also exhibit these features. Most importantly both Paul and Leo's designs are clearly scaled up versions of their guitars - the shapes are the same, the bridge designs are the same, the fingerboards bridges and pickups are just slightly larger versions of the kind used on their guitars. Take a look at these two patents. http://vintageinternetpatents.com/Images/mu1313.jpg and http://vintageinternetpatents.com/Images/mu1314.jpg. Really, how can there be any doubt whatsoever that these are related instruments? Heck, they both say 'guitar' at the top.

Finally, you assert that Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender both went straight from upright bass to electric bass. There is no evidence that either designer modelled their instruments on the upright bass. Both designers were fully aware of full sized fretless electric upright basses with features clearly inherited from the double bass. These had been manufactured by Rickenbacker, Regal, Vega and Paul Tutmarc himself produced a bowable electric upright bass before he decided to try a guitar based approach. Leo Fender, as far as anyone can tell, never attempted to construct an electric upright bass of any kind - and went straight from treble guitar to bass guitar. It is clear that both designers consciously chose to abandon the fretless upright bass approach and follow a guitar centric solution to the issue of affordable transportable stringed bass. Yes, their clear and stated intention was to produce a replacement for the upright bass - as I've demonstrated this instrument was clearly and deliberately derived from the electric guitars both designers had already built. Dinobass (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good observations. Two corrections: bowed instruments probably arose among the horse cultures of Central Asia (traveling east into China and west into Europe and Africa), and the viol family derived, in the 15th century, from the plucked vihuela de mano of Spain (a new sort of bridge and cutaway waists to facilitate bowing). Badagnani (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "guitar" argument always avoids the most obvious. Lets compare guitar with double bass: The bass is larger, has four strings and a different range. Same with electric guitar and electric bass. Some more indicators: Paul Tutmarc named his electric bass a fiddle. The Fender company brought the instrument to market as an Electric Bass. They even labeled the Jazz Bass headstock as such and listed the models in that category (as have other manufacturers).

Full size upright (3/4 or 4/4?) vs horizontal solid body: The imperative behind the design has always been recognised to provide a smaller portable alternative to the double bass and NOT a heavy 5 or 6 foot long instrument. Why would Tutmarc, the team at Fender or any other manufacturer defeat the most important design specification by creating an unwieldy instrument twice the size required? Yet the "bass guitar" argument jumps straight to "derived from electric guitar" with no hard evidence supplied and on the assumption of shared common design elements. It is in the article - accept they recognised the need for an instrument for bassists and produced a bass instrument that met those needs. It doesn't matter if they used existing technologies and efficiencies at hand. I am sure you can think of luthiers that make a range of instruments - violins, guitars, mandolins, banjos and more all with the same tools and skills in the same factory. We already have agreed that common construction elements are shared across a wide range of instruments, not just guitars and basses, and the ukelele / guitar comparison has not been addressed.

The bowing & curved fretboard argument is irrelevant because that relates to the electric upright alternative designed and built for that purpose, and would then lead into why aren't basses used as rhythm bass guitars strumming six note chords and slap and pop techniques frequently used on treble electric guitars. Heck, Jimmy Page proved treble electric guitars can be used with a bow. I don't think anyone confused his Les Paul with a 6 string electric violin at the time.

Patents - take your argument to the logical end. Apparently, there is only one manufacturer / one person this debate appears hinge on. (Not a point I agree with). The original patent for the original models from the Fender company were labeled "guitar". Therefore there is no such thing as an electric bass, bass guitar, electric bass guitar, or electric guitar. Every other term is vernacular. The obligation now for "bass guitar" protagonists is to update the disambiguation page to explain no such instrument as a bass guitar or electric bass guitar truly exists, and shift the article to a chapter under guitar. I wonder what every other manufacturer that has produced electric basses thinks of that! Ozbass (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'bass guitar' argument is simple and clear. It is based on the many obvious features that the bass guitar has in common with other members of the guitar family (I'm not going to list them again as it is such a long list), and the complete lack of indicative common features shared with the upright bass family alone. Furthermore the defining characteristics of the viol family (fingerboard shape, body shape, type of bridge, fretless fingerboard) are completely absent.

The 'bass guitar' argument does not avoid anything, far from it. In fact it is the 'bass is not a guitar' argument that ignores the clear and obvious points in common with the guitar and focusses on the most trivial similarity between the bass guitar and the upright bass - the number of strings. Yes, they both typically have four strings - this is a number which is shared with other totally unrelated stringed bass instruments such as the mandobass, the gehu (bass erhu), bass tambura and the fretted upright bass like instrument from eastern europe the name of which I can never remember. For whatever reason stringed basses which don't have four strings are the unusual ones (bass balalaika, bajo sexto). So, if many clearly unrelated bass instruments also possess four strings and similar pitch ranges, these two features alone cannot sensibly be used to imply a family relationship between any two bass instruments.

Certainly both Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender (that's two designers, count them - the arguments apply equally well to both - so regardless of whether one considers it more important to be first, or more important to be successful the arguments still hold) had an intention to provide a portable bass instrument and hoped this would appeal to upright bass players - it doesn't follow that the replacement is, as a direct consequence, related to any instrument it replaces. After all, even though the steam tractor was designed to replace the heavy horse in agriculture no one in their right mind would call it an animal. A transistor is not a kind of a valve because it replaces valves in electronic applications. A whale is not a fish simply because it swims, a bat is not a bird merely because it flies. Birds have completely replaced the pterosaurs and their ilk - that doesn't make them reptiles. This is a completely spurious argument.

In the remaining thrust of your argument you suggest that the dramatic change to a horizontal fretted guitar format is somehow inevitable to satisfy the goal of portability. Consider this. Before he designed his bass guitar Paul Tutmarc had already created an electric upright bass which is described as 'cello sized'. This would make it about the same size as a modern Dean Pace. Modern cello sized electric upright basses (Dean Pace, Kydd) are extremely portable - perhaps even more so than a bass guitar. So, portability can and has been achieved without abandoning the defining features of an upright bass. Furthermore Paul had already demonstrated this and felt the need for completely different approach. A horizontal fretted bass guitar is not an inevitable consequence of adapting the electric upright for portability, it can only have arisen by the designer deliberately and consciously created a bass instrument with those features. Considering every aspect of both Tutmarc's and Fender's instruments are directly taken from their guitars the intent is clear.

As for the patent argument, what are you saying here? I truly don't understand. The patent argument is simple. Leo Fender, a purveyor of fine electric guitars, patented a new kind of guitar tuned in the bass register. I really can't see why this is a problem or why the disambiguation page or article needs changing because of it. In fact, having checked to see how bass members of other instrument families are handled (e.g. bass_clarinet) the opening of the bass guitar article should say 'The Bass Guitar is a musical instrument of the guitar family'. Dinobass (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Never marketed as “bass guitars”? Really?

Fender is using “bass guitar” in their current catalog (no, not just the artwork – try actually reading the text):

http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?section=basses&subcat=americandeluxe http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0190660705 http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?section=basses&subcat=americanvintage http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0257802321 http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?section=basses&subcat=highwayone http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?section=basses&subcat=standard

And it’s not just Fender. That Other Guitar Company is at it, too: http://www.gibson.com/en%2Dus/divisions/gibson%20usa/products/bass/sgreissuebass/

Is this embrace of the term “bass guitar” a new thing? Not exactly. Leo’s original patents have already been discussed, and dismissed because they are not marketing materials (and with an ad hominem attack on Leo). If you want marketing materials...

Here’s a Gibson ad from 1954. The instrument is called an “electric bass”, but note how the player in the photo is identified: http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/adDetails/55

From Guild, 1965: http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/adDetails/293

Selmer (representing Gibson, Hagstrom & Hofner) 1968: http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/adDetails/336

Here’s a Fender Precision ad from 1974 that uses the dreaded “G word”: http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/graphics/fenderprecision74.jpg

A Gibson ad from 1972: http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/adDetails/229

G&L, 1981 (Leo still hadn’t gotten the memo, apparently:) http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/adDetails/353

Here’s a page from from Rickenbacker’s 1975 catalog. Note the description of the model 4000: http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_poster_piece.asp?poster_piece=cf75-10.jpg

By 1981, the term also appeared in the description for the 4001: http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_poster_piece.asp?poster_piece=cf75x-10.jpg

Rickenbacker again, 1984: http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_poster_piece.asp?poster_piece=cf84-bass-4.jpg

“Electric bass” is more commonly used, no argument, but people who insist that the manufacturers never used the term “bass guitar” in their marketing are mistaken, and should actually do some research instead of making assumptions. I found the above material in just a few minutes using Google, so there’s really no excuse. 64.171.68.130 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Italics v. quotation marks

If you go to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_overvw.html, you will find that quotation marks are used only "to enclose direct quotations"--I'm quoting the source here--or "to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way". The example given to illustrate the first use is, "He asked, 'Will you be there?' 'Yes,' I answered, 'I'll look for you in the foyer.'" The example given to illustrate the second use is, "History is stained with blood spilled in the name of 'civilization.'"

Italics are used "to indicate titles of complete or major works such as magazines, books, newspapers, academic journals, films, television programs, long poems, plays of three or more acts", for "foreign words that are not commonly used in English", for "words used as words themselves", and for "words or phrases that you wish to emphasize". The given example for the penultimate (third) use is, "The English word nuance comes from a Middle French word meaning shades of color."

Or go to http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/italics.html, where you'll find this advice: "Italicize words used as words. Many people misuse the words bring and take by interchanging them."

Or go to http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/italics.htm, where you'll find this:

"Using Italics and Underlining....

Words as Words

Examples:

• The word basically is often unnecessary and should be removed.
• There were four and 's and one therefore in that last sentence. (Notice that the apostrophe-s, used to create the plural of the word-as-word and, is not italicized. See the section on Plurals for additional help.)
• She defines ambiguity in a positive way, as the ability of a word to mean more than one thing at the same time."

Here are two non-online sources:

1) The Elements of Grammar by Margaret Shertzer, p.119:

7. Use italics when a word is spoken of as a word.

The word gay now carries a different connotation from its meaning in Cornelia Otis Skinner's Our Hearts Were Young and Gay.

2) The Harbrace College Handbook, 8th edition, by John C. Hodges and Mary E. Whitten, pp. 94-95:

Words, letters, or figures spoken of as such or used as illustrations are usually underlined (italicized).

In no other language could a foreigner be tricked into pronouncing manslaughter as man's laughter. --MARIO PEI

The letters qu replaced cw in such words as queen, quoth, and quick.

--CHARLES C. FRIESTheScotch (talk)

• Comment - Absolutely not. Italics are used at Wikipedia for the titles of published works, as well as for foreign words. When featuring an English word, double quotation marks are used; italics would cause confusion with the two aforementioned uses. Badagnani (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NO. WORDS AS WORDS require italics as the many sources above clearly show. TheScotch (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia makes no such stipulation, and, due to the confusion that would be caused with the other common uses of italics at WP (foreign words and direct quotes), such an imposition is inadvisable. Badagnani (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Actually Wikipedia does make "such [a] stipulation". From the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

Words as words

Italics are used when mentioning a word or letter or a string of words up to a full sentence: "The term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787"; "The most commonly used letter in English is e".

2) I can say objectively and with impunity that this practice is not at all "inadvisable" (note that quotation marks here mean I'm quoting you) because the many sources I've cited above advise it, in fact. Moreover, I see no reason that the risk of confusion should be greater at Wikipedia than anywhere else, and the risk of confusion here, as elsewhere, is significantly smaller than the risk that quotation marks will be taken to imply that someone is being quoted (which is not to suggest that the latter risk is necessarily great either--depending on the context). TheScotch (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Carol Kaye

Re: "In the 1950s and 1960s, the bass guitar was often called the Fender bass, due to Fender's early dominance in the market for mass-produced bass guitars. The term electric bass began replacing Fender bass in the late 1960s, however, as evidenced by the title of Carol Kaye's popular bass instructional book in 1969 How to Play the Electric Bass[9]":

Because there were various terms for the instrument in use by this time, the circumstance that the term electric bass began to become popular in the late sixties does not necessarily mean it (in particular) began to replace the term Fender bass, and the passage above is misleading in this respect and needs to be reworked. Moreover, if we're going to give this much prominence to this particular book, it seems to me reasonable to point out in the text of the article itself that at least eleven other of Kaye's instructional works simply call the instrument "bass" (quotation marks because I'm quoting these works here). I don't have dates for these right now (if they are all later, then we might say--with respect to Kaye's works only--that bass subsequently replaced electric bass), and I suspect there may be more than eleven (I happen to own a Kaye "keyboard bass" work, but that's not really relevant in this context.) TheScotch (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that the text as it stands makes it appear as if Kaye's books were singlehandedly responsible for the shift in terminology. However, the new edit went too far in obscuring the fact of this shift, as the term "electric bass" (although not the "most correct" term for the instrument) did gradually achieve greater popularity vis-a-vis Fender bass during this period. A middle ground would be good. Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I never intended "the new edit" to be the final word (it came only a moment after my previous attempt; I was still experimenting). My main concern here, though is not whether Kaye is "singlehandedly responsible" (I suspect she may be largely responsible, but I really don't know); my main concern is that the article is maintaining that the term electric bass in contradistinction to the terms bass guitar and bass replaced the term Fender bass, and that contention, which is a statement of putative fact, would seem to me to require a citation. Without a citation, the article must say only what it knows: that the term Fender bass became much less common and that the term electric bass appeared (at least) by 1969. TheScotch (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of wikilink

Please restore the wikilink to contemporary classical music blanked three times in this edit. Contemporary classical music is a specific subgenre and the link should not have been blanked. Thank you kindly for this. Badagnani (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to go with Badagnani on this one. Classical music is called that because it's by definition old -- while "contemporary classical" is more like music that may eventually become it. A lot of it has more in common with avant-guard jazz than anything most people would think of think of with "classical", and in fact often what would be considered classical isn't really in the umbrella on so-called "contemporary classical" for stylistic reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to build conscensus, rather than edit warring, I support a link to contemporary classical music, as the section refers to the use of electric bass in post-1945 compositions. dissolve^talk 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to compromise by leaving "Contemporary" out of the heading, but restoring the wikilink. Badagnani (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Badagnani, the more specific “contemporary classical music” is better and should be retored. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more (though my above comments stand nonetheless) the fact that it was invented in the 50s means perhaps it isn't as big a deal, at least NOW (by which I mean, something that may change in 20-30-50 years). Still, the wikilink to contemporary classical music is certainly more fruitful a choice. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Misnomer in Article title

Calling it a bass guitar is a misnomer. It should be referred to as an Electric Bass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.236.240 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the name of the instrument - there is no misnomer. Please read the extensive discussions at various places on this page. Dinobass (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Electric bass" is one of the instrument's names and I believe it's given in the article's first sentence. Isn't it? Please check again. Badagnani (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary classical section

I strongly discourage the addition of huge amounts of new, extraneous data in the contemporary classical section. This article is about the instrument, and large amounts of background about the composers (that can be found at their own articles) clogs the section and makes it disproportionately long. Please return to the original version, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neck-body connections

Why isnt there a section describing the differences between set neck, neck thru, etc. Its a pretty important part of the sound, not as much as woods and electronics, but important nonetheless.  R a k h t æ l  03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)