More frets and/or more strings (and other things) -- the world of extended range bass

[_Sweet Willie_]

So, recently I found myself pondering extended range basses. Some of us like to go lower than the traditional E-A-D-G 4-string -- throw on a low B or even a low F# or put ourselves through various types of de-tuning. Some of us like to go higher -- add a high C, even a high F, or some other tunings for those strings.

 

I have a friend who received two custom 7-strings this past year. He strings them B-E-A-D-G-B-E. 24-fret neck. He is a composer and a bassist and also plays other instruments. He's quite a musician. He composes what he calls "avant classical" music for various combinations of instrumental groups, and sometimes these groups include extended range electric basses.

 

Last summer I got to play a Drozd 5-string w/ 28 frets. Playing the highest notes on the G string got me higher than if there were a sixth C string on a 21 or 22 fret instrument, and almost as high as a 24 fret instrument.

 

It seems to me that there are trade-offs involved as we widen and/or lengthen our fingerboards. Is there a balance point at which it makes sense to go no wider, but go longer or, relatedly, a point where it makes sense to go no longer, but go wider? And then we can experiment with different tunings that may extend the range of our instrument even further!

 

Anyway, I'd like to read people's thoughts about different ways to extend the range of our instruments and what we might gain or lose thru adding frets, adding strings, or altering our tunings.

 

Scale length, fanned frets, and other bits of craftmanship and design are obviously in play here as well.

 

Please note: This is not a thread for the discussion of why 18-strings suck or why 4-strings are for the simple-minded. This is a thread for bouncing ideas around about the ways in which we extend the range of our instrument and to reflect on what gains we might make or what losses we might suffer as we do so.

 

Peace.

--sweet'n'low

[zeronyne]

I've wondered the same thing myself before I actually tried to play bass. Extending the length of the neck certainly gets you to those high and/or low notes, but the extra string affords a great deal more practical flexibility when deciding which note to jump to next.

 

Then when you add polyphonic playing, I'd say that the multi string approach wins over the expanded fretboard in terms of chording.

 

And yet, to me, once you go past 5, I wonder if it shouldn't be called something else. I'm not saying that playing a 6 or 7 (or more) indicates a desire to play guitar, but I don't think it's the same as laying down a groove. I think it's something different...no value judgement here, I just think it's a different sort of innovation.

 

"Bass", to me, is defined by an almost singular focus on the pocket and the low end counterpoint/melody/line. Chording and soloing in the upper registers seems like something else. Again, it's not better or worse, just different.

 

Sorry for the veering off topic...but it sort of applies.

[DONUT]

www.knuckleguitarworks.com

[g.]

BASStard! - I've talked about this in so many different threads from so many different angles. Why, I'm tempted to USE SEARCH and just shotgun the thread with links ; }

 

My current limiting factors in extending range are SIX strings because the V-Bass 13-pin concept does that without having to multiplex single-string pickups - the polyphony is effectively six strings simultaneously, but if say an F# string and B string were run to one virtual string they could be used as long as not played at the same time.

 

Six string neck widths with 17 or 18 mm spacing also suit because that neck width is easy enough for my short fingers to deal with for an entire gig without feeling wrist stress. This means being able to move around and feel comfortable with rockin' the casbah; the weight of my instrument and the neck is not a problem then.

 

I'm pretty happy with a 24-fret neck length because with two magnetic pickups I still have plenty of hand tone area to work with, and because the V-Bass the way I am using it allows me to extend my pitch range a couple octaves up, I really don't want more physical real estate to play higher anyway.

 

But I do not like the downward shifting of the Virtual bass models much unless mixed in with the original signal, though the synth like ones sound fine soloed and shifted down a 4th, 5th or octave. So I can still have notes as low as my rig can reproduce, really. I could go for a low F# and drop the high C, but it's 34" scale, and I just don't think F# feels that playable or sounds that good on that short a scale...

 

But I am going to put a Hipshot extender on the low B string so I can reach low G or A occasionally without any shifting, because layering the magnetics with the Virtual bass and synth models makes so many more performance things possible in terms of layering tones and effects and doing tonal morphs and layered distorted guitars and clean bass pitch tricks. All hands-on too, bay-bee! Very sensual and direct.

 

This also allows me to keep the C string, which allows better chording and double or triple stops, and pedal-point (use of open strings with fretted strings) tricks. And with shifting I can sound like an electric guitar reaching even a C above the highest C#, D, or E a gutar can muster.

 

That's pretty extended. I tried fifths tunings for awhile to extend the Six, but it makes typical rock / boogy / etc lines require more position shifting and also would be a lot better using fanned fret necks IMO; at some point those string tensions are just WRONG otherwise.

 

Anyway, that's the way I'm doing it - a combination of a couple more strings and some good DSP stuff that also allows one to get the layering as if several rigs were in use at one time without actually having to schlep the extra cabs and heads.

[Jay Pierce]

Good subject for a thread. I like extended ranges. I like to experiment with different tunings, too.

[_Sweet Willie_]

Originally posted by   :

BASStard! - I've talked about this in so many different threads from so many different angles. Why, I'm tempted to USE SEARCH and just shotgun the thread with links ; }

 

Tee-hee!

 

Feel free to add scatter shot some links from prior threads!

 

I guess I just wanted to pull some of those various conversations all under one roof, so to speak. And also try to do it in such a way that it doesn't become some kind of conflict based on absolutes of good and bad related to numbers of strings or frets.

 

I will post my own opinions later about all this when I have more time to really type something out.

 

Generally, I think being able to extend the range of our instrument of choice is good, and often we don't discuss other ways to do it besides adding more strings.

 

TBFKAGB, your comments regarding the way electronics can do this are really good, and something I had overlooked in my thread opener.

 

Peace.

--SW the BASStard

[getz out]

I agree with 0-9.

 

For my applications, I don't see much benefit past 6 strings. Actually, in practice, I don't see much benefit past 5 strings.

 

However, I don't solo and all the chording I do can be easily handled on a 5 string.

 

Soloists and more "active" players, go for it! As many as you can handle.

 

For now, I'll stick with my 5 string.

[GeorgeR]

Good timing for this thread.

 

I don't have my 5 string anymore - not since the summer - and I'm finding I'm having to drop the tuning on my 4 string to meet the needs of the songs, the majority of which drop below the low "E".

 

So today I just up and restrung it with a leftover 5 pack from when I had a 5 string. Strung and tuned B-E-A-D.

 

Had to file the nut slightly for the wider strings but that's ok.

[g.]

SUU,

 

I consider ClatterAmy an extended-range bassist as well - though she seems to be using only four string basses. I feel that because of the way she uses equipment electronics/routing. It's integral to her approach, and not just "effects".

 

I also feel that zeronyne as a keyboardist should probably think about instruments with more string courses as capable of functioning somewhat like RIGHT and LEFT hands on the ivories. It's possible to groove on the lower strings and get flourishes, chords, and fills in on the upper strings.

 

It's really just an extension of the way some people have already used the bass for slapping and popping anyway... with the low string usually supplying something "on the one" - well, anyway, supplying basic figures and the "calls" - while there are popping segments an octave and more above doing fills and "responses".

 

The other analogy for this approach toward extended range might be the the drum kit: using the lower-pitched strings to groove as kick drum, interjecting or layering higher-pitched strings as other drums and cymbals. That too relates to "slapping", at least in one of its originator's thoughts. When Larry Graham started slapping it was a response to his thoughts about drums and on the bass.

[ClarkW]

I play a 5-string (BEADG) with 24-frets.

 

I like the 24 frets for a sort of simpleton's reason: Two octaves from the open string is a lot easier reference point for my brain when I'm up in those registers. I've never played with more frets than that, so no comment there, but I never was comfortable with my 21-fret instrument (that I don't play anymore).

 

I like the 5th string not so much for the extended range it affords (I certainly don't sit on the low B very often), but moreso for the fact that I can play a riff at the 5th fret if I want to, and still have quick access to E-G# without shifting. I guess I just prefer to move across the fretboard rather than up and down it.

 

I see myself as trying out a 6-string in the future, perhaps within a year. It will give me that much more space to move in the direction I like, I think.

[g.]

Ironically, we've lately touched on two simple ways to extend the range of the bass lately - both of them tonally.

 

One was in whatever that latest reggae thread was. Simply stated, to sound deep, use contrast: ie get rid of clanky highs and upper mids. It's amazing how a note that's got that freq curve that's quite a few frets up on the E or A strings can seem deeper than a note on the B that's got a lot of upper mids and treble.

 

This relates directly to what 09 has said in this thread about playing higher not really filling the bass role, and which another recent thread talked about : on how to get the G string filling a bass function even when played way up the neck. This will somewhat beef up a high C string as well.

 

Neither of these EQing skills really extends the range of notes one can accesss, but it DOES allow one to function as a BASS instrument more effectively over the entire range of the neck when desired. That way the drums don't have to be depended on for a mix to not feel naked in the low end.

[SteveC]

I find myself playing on "extended range" instruments exclusively these days. Like others have said, I don't spend a lot of time on the B string, but I like the fingering and position possibilities it opens up for me. I also like to go down low sometimes. I don't solo or chord that much on a fretted instrument, so 5 seems to be enough for me...although there are some nice Carvin 6ers on eBay lately.

 

My Carvin fretless is a 6. I do use the C string for soloing. Also for some melodic playing when covering songs by the "Yellowjackets" and groups like that. I also like to be able to play the "heads" up in that range when I'm playing in a jazz combo.

 

My 5 is strung BEADG and the 6 is BEADGC. Both are 24 fret. I'm pretty happy with them. I think more strings is better than more frets. Seems more logical to go across the fingerboard than up and down.

[jeremy c]

If you add a low B string, you get 5 extra notes. That's all.

 

If you add a high C string to a 24 fret bass, you get 5 more notes at the top.

 

So adding more frets is going to eliminate the need for more strings on the top end.

 

If we could add more frets at the bottom, we could eliminate the need for the low B string.

 

There is a company making "D necks" and "C necks" which extend the fingerboard lower. I'm not remembering the name of the company at the moment.

 

I'm actually relearning the things I learned on my piccolo bass and playing them on the top frets of a six string bass. Now I can play everything I need on one instrument.

 

Michael Manring's hyperbass (which doesn't have frets) goes up to the third octave, the equivalent of 36 frets. And of course he has hipshot detuners on all the pegs and the bridge so that he gets even more of a range.

 

I actually prefer 20 or 21 frets, partly because I'm used to it, partly because it's easier to see where I'm going (again because I'm used to it) and mostly because I like to slap just past the end of the fingerboard.

 

Alternate tunings are another way to extend the range of the bass in one direction or another.

 

And as they say,

It's all good in the hood.

[Nicklab]

I feel like I have something pertinent to say on this particular subject. One of my most influential teachers was a devotee of 6 string bass. And his influence was so strong, that I made the leap from 4 string to 6 string within about of year of when I started playing. So, for most (almost all) of my playing career, I've used extended range instruments.

 

6 string became so engrained in my conciousness, that at one point I owned 3 6 strings, 2 fretted, one fretless. It was great to have all of those notes at my disposal in a single position. Literally, in first position (index finger anchored on the first fret), I had 2+ octaves of range available without needing to shift up the neck. It also made chording easier, too, as there were more options available for that as well.

 

Gradually, I've been moving away from 6 string. I'm down to 2 of the 4 I have owned in the past. I'm even thinking of selling my Tobias 6, too. I just play much more 5 string now, as well as a lot more 4 string. The reason why? The music I've been playing doesn't call for me to have that high C string at my disposal. Occassionally I break out my Zon 6, but it's pretty rare these days. But this is just me. I'm going for different sounds, and musically I don't need that much range. As for how many frets are on my fingerboards, I can't remember the last time I played much higher than the 16th fret for much of anything.

 

Would I like to own more 6 strings? Sure. I'd like to own a lot of instruments. DO I care for 7 strings? In my opinion, I think it's overkill, but if it works for someone else, who am I to say anything? But for the purposes of the music I've been playing live and in the studio, 4 and 5 string have suited my purposes really well. I may find a 6 string down the line that I really like, and it might have the tonal qualities that I look for. But for now I'm getting along fine with 4 & 5 being my workhorses.

[g.]

Most of the people I'm familiar with using extended range instruments are actually writing material or taking non-conventional arranging approaches so to really use their instuments.

That may start with taking a bass-with-rhythm-guitar approach to three-piece band playing, or it may be about having some additional solo range.

 

Concept and tools to execute go hand in hand.

[g.]

Some of the story is sitting right here at 12StringBass.net - and it goes back farther than Cheap Trick, really. People were using eight-string basses with four courses comprised of octaves, like Noel Redding's and Jimi Hendrix's Hagstroms way back in the late sixties to fill space and get a different tonality.

 

So far that's been taken to fifteen strings: 5 courses each having a low string with two strings an octave above, tuned E-A-D-G-C:

 

http://12stringbass.net/jauqo1x.jpg

[_Sweet Willie_]

I also think about some of the physical and construction challenges of extended range instruments.

 

As you add strings a wider neck and more tuners, and thus larger headstock, become necessary -- especially when you go past six strings to seven, eight, and nine. As this happens, the bass overall is getting bigger and heavier, and potentially neck heavier, unless extra weight happens in the body to help balance. Now, I'm sure some luthiers building 7+ string instruments are finding ways to alleviate some of these weight challenges. I'm curious to know how.

 

Additionally, the wider the neck becomes, the more challenging fingering becomes. What would a neck profile need to be like to make an 8-string instrument more manageable? It can't simply have to do with slimming down a neck which has to bear more tension from more strings, can it? Graphite necks, graphite reinforcement, multilam, dual truss rods, etc. -- what are the strategies to help produce a playable neck that can also handle the extra string tension?

 

And then, taking the approach of adding additional frets up higher starts to affect choices for pickup placement, especially if you're interested in a two pickup bass. If you want some space between the end of the fingerboard and the pickup to make slapping a bit more comfortable, this also is a concern.

 

Anyway, I guess I'm curious about how both luthiers and players work with the design of their instruments to make more strings and/or more frets work -- in terms of both playability/comfort and reliable, solid construction.

 

Peace.

--SW

[g.]

Just think of a 9-string bass neck as a five-string neck and a four-string neck sitting side by side. Then it becomes obvious you don't need more depth or mass per string, or especially any more reinforcement than lam'ing and the usual one or two truss rods and maybe a couple graphite/composite bars would provide.

 

http://www.otheroom.com/namm99/images/warrior.jpg

 

Weight? Some of them are using light woods, thinner bodies, longer horns. Some aren't. But

I guess that Adler I linked here right after the NAMM show is a little more fun to play when sitting down though - there's only so much you can do with wood alone* to get lighter ; }

 

 

* maybe balsa wood will make a comeback and cub scouts won't be the main market for it anymore ; }

[doc taz]

Thanks to my BP 200, I can usually just pitch shift when needed. I can go higher or lower without hacking my basses to bits. I also drop tune the 4th or 5th strings of my basses one full note when needed.

 

Saves me from having wide necked basses I can't possibly play physically without wrecking my hands. A duo of sixes would be most welcome, though (one fretted, one fretless). If I wanted an extended range physically, I'd consider getting a good used Chapman Stick 12 string, and studying the mechanics of that for six months.

[Max Valentino]

I know quite a few players of 6, 7 and 9 string basses...and my feeling is, and has always been, that if you can make "music" on the instrument, with all of the passion, intensity, and neccessity needed to make music, then more power to ya!

Tho, I personally play a five with a high C, well....at least it usually tuned to C (I go thru quite a few different tunings..) and it is fretless. But, with only the equivelent range of 21 frets. Why? I play a lot of solo gigs, and so the high string gives me additional notes in postion across the fingerboard, and extends the viable "melodic range" of the instrument. I also feel that up high on the neck notes on a bass can sometimes sound a bit forced and choked.

 

So why not a 6? I really have had no reason to go to a low B (changing tuning has alwys worked for me if I need to get lower), and the exponential increase in neccessary power to reproduce those few lower notes negates the neccessity to play them (at least for me).

 

And what of 7 and 9 string (and above) basses? I have yet to find one which suits me. Truth be told, there are only a few 6's which have captured my attention (Fodera AJ; Modulus OB6 to name 2). But, this all very subjective and quite a matter of personal taste. I know quite a few Warrior and Conklin players who get great sounds, yet those basses never felt "right" in my hands. Not to mention 25 years of sessions and gigs have taken their toll on my back; anything over 8 lbs is simply not a peasurable experience!

 

Although I am mostly using my fretless 5 of late, I also quite enjoy the challenge of the playing solo with the limitations of a fretted four string, with 20 or 21 frets. Just as is my choice with fx and processing, I much prefer to embrace the technical limitations,having few "options" at my disposal but knowing those quite well and working within that framework than to have myriad options and accompanying anxieties. The challenge of being musical and creative with the limiations of a four string are inspiring (add to this a fretted four string, 20 frets, with nylon core strings and piezo PU...).

 

In short, it really is not the gear (nor the bass) but rather the player and his/her experiences, creativity, knowledge, spirit, inspiration, and (for lack of a better term) "chutzpah" which makes the muusic (regardless of style or genre). There are some great players using multi-string and extended range basses...yet I am still floored whenever I hear a sentir..or Mark Sandman's two string slide bass playing...and, I do recall once seeing Tony Levin playing a three string.

and.....I am reminded of a story of violinist Itzhak Perlman performing an entire violin concerto at Carnegie Hall on three strings after breaking one on the open notes of the piece....hmmm make you think, eh?

 

Max

 

Max

[alexclaber]

Ok, I'll bite!

 

I'd probably be best described as a 'Stealth Extended Range Bassist' - my basses are both of the 4-string 24 fret(-less) variety...

 

Anyway, as TBFKAGB wisely pointed out, tone is a big issue when it comes to 'extended range'. An active 4-string with roundwounds pretty much covers the entire audible spectrum, though ordinarily there's not much energy up top. However armed with powerful EQ (I find onboard EQ to be much more practical as it can be twiddled on the fly) the bass can sound like it's playing much higher or lower than it really is, and then you can throw effects in the mixing pot and cover even more ground. For truely going lower or higher the Unibass gives me a whole octave above, and the Deep Impact gives me an octave below (though neither are traditional bass sounds) and then there's all the other distortions, modulations and filters to fill up the upper midrange that the guitar normally occupies.

 

For example, last night I was writing a song with this singer/songwriter (by the name of Steve)... We kicked things off by programming a cool drum loop on Reason and I came out with a simple fat bassline to loop (well I say loop but I just played the one bar riff over and over and recorded it full length) along with it. I then pulled out the pick, and started playing a 16th note funk guitar part, with the bass and low mids cut and treble boosted, and we recorded that over the top. I doubt many listeners would realise it was a bass playing that part. We then replaced the original bass line with a driving slap line with more harmonic movement, which really filled up the middle of the spectrum, and then Steve decided to add a keyboard part playing a slow moving melody over the top. Whilst he was searching for the right sound, I plugged in my pedalboard, turned on the Unibass (set to clean octave up), the Big Muff (for sustain and toned down fuzz), then the BassIQ (for attack delay) but decided the Volume Pedal would work better to swell in the notes, and then for the final colour brought in the Boss Flanger set to a slow relatively shallow sweep... At which point Steve said "it seems like I'm pretty redundant, your bass and effects can do everything!" so I laid down the melody line with the bass. It's great working with a writer that's not an instrumentalist so he's completely unprejudiced regarding the roles each instrument should play. (I'm pleased to say that Steve then came up with a wicked vocal melody which completes this as a verse and I'm aiming to develop the other parts of the song before we meet again).

 

Regarding adding frets and/or strings the biggest challenge is the ergonomic one: On a 34" scale, a two octave fingerboard is 25.5" long; according to my vague measurements the hypotenuse between my outstretched arm and my waist is about 30", so with careful design on a 34" scale a three octave fingerboard is just about playable, though the upper frets would end up really cramped, especially for bassists' traditionally big hands! Personally I find the 25.5" reach of a two octave board almost challenging - with my Warwick the lowest frets are quite a stretch, whilst with my Frankenfretless the highest positions are a bit far across my body (the difference beween small bodied headed and large bodied headless ergonomics). Adding strings creates more difficulties for the over-worked fretting hand, especially when you want to groove down low and have to reach around the wide fingerboards of 6+ basses. And then there's the muting challenges...

 

Tonally, if you want to go lower (particularly below B) and get the same punch and articulation as on a 34" E-string, thicker strings just aren't good enough IMO. Longer scales lengths are a much better way of doing things, though that reduces the number of accessible frets. If you want to go higher, adding frets is all well and good but the strings act less and less like an ideal string and more like a resonating bar with all sorts of undesirable overtones and reduced sustain becoming dominant.

 

For the three octave-ish range of the standard bass the 34" scale, 4-string, 24 fret arrangement works very well IMO. If you want to go lower or higher just adding strings can be very compromising in terms of tone and playability and it takes a lot of fiddling to pull it off (like TBFKABG's dedicated string searching). I've yet to play a low-B that really gets me excited, they all seem lacking in punch and/or require a different touch to the other strings which too often requires the brain to get involved when it shouldn't. The best solution appears to be fanned frets, their only fall down being the somewhat confusing obliqueness of the higher frets which would take a lot of relearning and leave me decidedly confused when going back to playing chords on ye olde 4-string.

 

A popular plus point of multiple strings is the reduced shifting which helps out reading and/or sing bassists. Minor downside (though not that minor if you consider showmanship to be a critical part of the package) is they make bass playing look even more boring - it's fun watching a bassist whose left hand is constantly flying up and down the neck!

 

Extended range isn't really about the number of strings or frets, it's about what you hear in your head and thus the musical roles and sonic spectrum that you fill. Was Jaco an extended range bassist? I'd say yes.

 

Alex

[_Sweet Willie_]

Thanks all for your thoughtful and in some cases very detailed comments thus far. I'm feeling good about the direction of this thread!

 

Originally posted by C.Alexander Claber:

Was Jaco an extended range bassist? I'd say yes.

 

Your mention of Jaco brings to mind something else that we do as bassists to extend our treble range -- harmonics, natural and false. Compared to a regular g****r, it's easier (IMO) to play harmonics on the bass w/ its longer scale. Someone like Michael Manring (entered into this discussion initially by Jeremy regarding his really kewl Zon HyperBass), for example, demonstrates how effectively harmonics can be used in varied ways to really open up the soinc world for us as performers.

[Nicklab]

...And then there are those of us who use various octave pedals and such. That's another way of extending range on almost any instrument, regardless of the number of strings.

[g.]

If you want to go higher, adding frets is all well and good but the strings act less and less like an ideal string and more like a resonating bar with all sorts of undesirable overtones and reduced sustain becoming dominant.

...As Max noted too. But if the strings were lighter and thus for the same tuning had less tension, that limit would be moved further up, but on bass it's definitely noticeable in terms of sustain. It may be that with some pickup positions the non-harmonic overtones aren't a problem, but with some they will be, exacerbated by "stratitis" - the neck pickup magnetic field further subduividing the vibrating length unnaturally.

 

This too is easily fixed by a Novax-type neck.

[The Bear Jew]

FEILDY PLAYZ XTNDED BASS B/C HIS BASS IZZ SO KEWL THAT SOMETIMZ U CANT EVEN HERE THE NOTEZ U JUST FEEL THEM.

 

Whoo... OK.

 

Just had to get that out of my system.

 

Most of you guys know I'm not a big fan of five-string basses. That's just a personal preference for stage performances. I don't like the way they look, and I think the super low notes are annoying.

 

But, believe it or not, I'm all for doing neat things with bass guitars in the studio as long as:

a) It sounds good.

c) It serves the music.

 

That last one is most important to me.

 

For example, a band I knew a few years had a simply amazing rhythm section... great drummer, sick, sick bassist. The bassist had a lovely six-string fretless bubinga Warwick, an assload of effects and a huge Trace-Elliot rig (600 watts, 4x10 & 15). This dude pretty much ruled the band. Every single tune featured tons of wacky bass stuff... he'd slap, tap, loop, etc. When they played, the people standing in front of his side of the stage were all bassists... who stood there slack-jawed. Then he'd pick up a Chapman Stick. It was nutty. His side of the stage looked like ground control at NASA. The guitarist's rig looked tame by comparison, even though he also had a huge rack of crap behind him. The guitarist tended to play a lot of spindly-fingered chords while the bass player went berzerk. The drummer was locked in with the bassist, and he was just as looney... lots of cymbal stuff and double-bass twiddling.

 

Here's the thing... this band was a "pop/rock" act with a vocalist. Whe vocals were almost always crushed under all the wacky bass stuff happening. So the singer wound up singing a lot of very extended notes because almost all of the polyrhythmic territory was filled with bass notes, drumbeats or some kind of guitar effect... The singer would always complain that he had no room to do his thing... and the band was VERY set on being a "funk/rock/pop" band. They definitely didn't want to be an instrumental act.

 

I guess my point here is that having an extended range instrument (whether through extra strings, effects or more frets), while exciting and interesting for sonic exploration, represents a huge responsibility. It is both a privilege and a weapon. That extra stuff is so easy to abuse, and far too many musicians are guilty.

 

Having said all this, I love doing experimental things to instrument tones -- especially bass. There are some melody lines on the Mean Ether CD that many listeners simply assume are guitar parts but are actually bass lines that have been EQed and effected to create a different "other" instrument sound. Sometimes it sounds like strings or cello parts... Other times they're harmony lines that back the vocals. But it's subtle... it doesn't step on the overall song.

 

So... yeah... I guess it's about balance and taste in the bigger picture...

[g.]

For the three octave-ish range of the standard bass the 34" scale, 4-string, 24 fret arrangement works very well IMO. If you want to go lower or higher just adding strings can be very compromising in terms of tone and playability and it takes a lot of fiddling to pull it off (like TBFKABG's dedicated string searching).

Well, that's more my nature to dig deep into experiments and check out things in detail. I like to really know what's going on, and so much of what I've heard from players (or read on forums) hasn't really seemed comprehensive or sometimes even smacked of WRONG.

 

But it's true that as you extend the courses, the limitations become more exposed. Thus, as you have noted: Novax ; } ...But I think you overstate how hard it would be to incorporate fanned neck use. My limited time trying one, and talking to players of it, it's not hard to use, and actually places thing under the hand in a very natural way.

 

A popular plus point of multiple strings is the reduced shifting which helps out reading and/or sing bassists. Minor downside (though not that minor if you consider showmanship to be a critical part of the package) is they make bass playing look even more boring - it's fun watching a bassist whose left hand is constantly flying up and down the neck!

Another non-issue for at least some players of more strings. During singing maybe more will lean on position playing. Given that, a lot of us are still going to be all over that neck because we didn't just want more range so that we could stay in a box - we wanted to fly too! I know that I'm no more locked into positions than I would be on 4 strings because I like the cool stuff one can do single-stringing, or doing roughly parallel chordal/arpeggiated things on several strings. I also like the tonal choices that you get, and the slides and the set-up it provides for grabbing notes that are way above the lower box I might have started the section in.

 

A lot of that is just feel though - it FEELS good to be playing the whole bass, comfortable with it, so when musically sensical, one will not just lock in to a box. The joy of driving!

 

I maybe made a mistake of introducing some other alternate elements into this thread because now everybody is an extended range bassist who ever used an effect, plucked a harmonic, or learned to use EQ changes. Which kind of detracts from the understanding of how CONCEPT goes hand in hand with the whole shmegola. I mentioned Amy because she FUNCTIONS differently than your typical bassist who may use effects and occasional harmonics. Perhaps Alex too is headed that way. Michael Manring has been living there forever it seems, but how many other bassists are involved with extending? Just using an octave pedal isn't that. Is it?

[g.]

I'd also add to that last bit of post, that I believe bassists who are pursuing solo or duo acts while presenting the bass (and bass+ ?) as an instrument capable of filling all the roles needed to make interesting and compelling music (there's Max and Steve Lawson ferinstance, and by way of Alex's new venture with singer - Alex too) are extending the way bass is percieved. They aren't just "holding down the bottom" - they are being colorists, rhythmatists, harmonists, melodicists in way that hasn't been commonly seen and heard much for the low instrument and its variants.

[_Sweet Willie_]

Originally posted by   :

I maybe made a mistake of introducing some other alternate elements into this thread because now everybody is an extended range bassist who ever used an effect, plucked a harmonic, or learned to use EQ changes. Which kind of detracts from the understanding of how CONCEPT goes hand in hand with the whole shmegola. I mentioned Amy because she FUNCTIONS differently than your typical bassist who may use effects and occasional harmonics. Perhaps Alex too is headed that way. Michael Manring has been living there forever it seems, but how many other bassists are involved with extending? Just using an octave pedal isn't that. Is it?

No, I don't think you were wrong to raise that issue. In the end, really, you've just expanded the discussion beyond the extended tonal range (i.e., lowest lows to highest highs) to the extended role that bassists can play in different contexts. (I'm a sociologist, thus I care about contexts! )

 

We could talk V-Bass all day (for example ), but the relevance of that discussion would lie in how it's used to change how we conceptualize and use our instruments.

 

Sure, I was most interested initially in the more contained issue of strings and frets, but that's only part of the puzzle.

 

Anyone who plays an octave pedal an "extended range" bassist? No, I don't think so. BUT, I think it could be a conditional designation related how that pedal is applied. Erik's description of how effects essentially altered the role of the bass when tracking for Mean Ether is telling in how the bass took on another or an additional role (or the example of what Amy does in Clatter or what Manring or Valentino may do as solo artists...).

 

Now, all that said (or typed as the case may be!), I don't want to lose completely the genesis of this thread around mo' strings and mo' frets, and the way our technique (e.g., chording) and tools (e.g., string gauges) may respond to physical changes to our instruments OR how our efforts at different techniques or our search for different sounds and roles affects the physical nature of our instruments.

 

Peace.

--SW (talkin' loud, sayin' nuthin'? )

 

PS: The mantra "WWLD?" would completely change the nature fo this discussion...

[Danzilla]

There was a guy who almost became our band's bassist (I'm glad he didn't as I'd rather play bass than guitar) who played a 6; said "why go from a 4 to a 5? You know eventually you're gonna get a 6, so just get it now bypass the 5." I like the 5 for more than the low notes, as CLarkW and several others have said; I play fairly high up on the neck on the lower strings for the tone and position. That said, I wouldn't mind playing six except for the comfort factor of my left hand. A good friend Freddy Louden plays a 7 and does more with it than I could; so I'll leave that to the masters. I've always like the Kubicki design of 4 strings with lever to extend to the low D; ownder if any 5 string manufacturer could finagle a way to do that on the B to make it an A?

And having never played through one, what about the sub-harmonizer functions of Ashdown and SWR amps, or the Maxx effect that gives a phantom note an octave lower? More ways to extend the range. Which leads to another question: For those who use an octave pedal or pitch shifter, do you more regularly use it to add a note above what you are fingering, or below? I think I know the answer, just curious. I used to use an octave below through my Yamaha REX50, but the really low registers just didn't quite seem in tune with my playing, so I stopped.

[Nicklab]

Okay, one thing seems curious to me: with a 24 fret 6 string bass, you effectively have 4 octaves of B and C at your disposal. Do you really need more range than that?