Warning to Bassists– You are Philosophically prone

December 27, 2019

Blog 2: Warning to Bassists– You are Philosophically Prone

Get out while you can, young one!

Ever thought about playing bass? Or perhaps you already do play bass. Either way, I must warn you: playing bass can lead to a lifelong struggle with philosophy. Of all the music practitioners (save for composers perhaps), bass playing can lead to becoming a philosopher, one of the most "useless" professions to pursue (even more than bass playing!).

Bassists are particularly prone to philosophy because it's considered a relatively simple affair. Many guitarists and drummers will say bass is the easiest of the band to play (usually in defense of their own instrument's superiority); and most of them probably pick up bass since it's "easy". But even if you ward off the external pressures and consider bass a good in itself (of course it is, you're a bassist!), the internal pressure can get to you. Your counterarguments pointing to "bass gods" (probably John Myung or Billy Sheehan or if you're really bass-ic– Flea) will lead to this thought that those players are really just guitarists in disguise. Maybe you'd start asking yourself "am I really just a guitarist?". Maybe you'll point to the virtuosos of bass before it morphed into a bass guitar (the double bass in classical music). More refined thought into this will lead you to realize "shit, I'm becoming a philosopher!". Am I leaving out Victor Wooten? Of course not! He's a philosopher himself, check out his Ted Talk.

He even dresses like a philosopher too!

What is the main function of the bass anyway? In classical music and in popular dubstep, the "bass drop" is meant to add depth, to stimulate the heart and to establish a greater sense of grounding with the music. Many times, a bass player plays whole notes, half notes or consistent repeated notes (or playing repeated bass lines); with such a simple part, bass players can get lost in thought which is another gateway into philosophy. Nowadays, modern bass players (compared to classical bassists) have the task of making their own bass lines! They have to synthesize their knowledge of bass in music to make new music, so where do they draw upon? Let's take Fleetwood Mac's famous song Dreams, bassist John McVie plays a relatively simple bass line, alternating the notes F and G. Some people may think it's just following the chords and playing the "root notes". And they are correct in one sense but rude and unimpressive in tone. 

But let's take their point: the bass' role is to mainly play the "root notes". Or perhaps we can call them "fundamental notes". All these terms: "root", "fundamental", "bass-ic", all point to the beginner. The thing about philosophy is that it is also a "beginner" subject. Putting aside the demeaning interpretation of "beginner" qua n00b, philosophers are the most radical. They challenge our colloquial notion of things by uprooting the ground of common understanding: concepts! 

While guitarists, pianists, drummers, violinists, flutists, clarinetists, etc. are focused on their "craft", the bassist is at the most risk of leaving their craft behind to unwittingly pursue philosophy. The bassist can certainly follow heed, practicing their scales, learning jazz, metal, or other "innovative" bass fields, but at the end of the day, there's a nagging pull of external and internal pressures of bass that leads bassists to have the most refined defenses of their instruments that go beyond ignorant "fastest note" punks to the more ideal understanding of how music functions. Let's tap into some of these defenses to show how they've (unknowingly) become philosophers.

1. Bassists are the ground for which other instruments build more complex ideas from, without it, it would just be a mess of notes.

Here we have the bassist reflecting on the philosophy of music. How do we normally recognize music? With an anchor point (and yes, most composers will probably be reacting to this common understanding by withholding this run-of-the-mill "plug-and-chug" formula; I see you 20th-century composer and neopostmodern composer punks). 

2. When a bassist makes a mistake everyone will notice it, they are thrown off, making the role of the bassist more important.

Beside the egotism of wanting to be the most important in music, this criticism makes a point similar to point 1. The foundation of music interpretation has certain expectations (the bass plays in time). Why does the bass have such a role?

3. The bass is the heart of the music, it's how you feel it. When the bass drops out, things feel empty and hollow.

This is just waxing philosophy poetics! If we agree with this, why should we associate lower pitch frequencies with "feeling" music any more than others? Continuing this train of thought leads one away from bass-craft and towards philosophy. 

Is Mayonnaise an instrument? Bassist-Philosopher Davie504 offers us his thoughts

Anyway, you get my point. People eventually learn to respect the bass player. They are wise in their execution of whole notes not as a joke but because they understand fundamentally that music need not have the pressure of complexity to be interesting but must start with common ground that listeners can interpret, which can then build on a bigger dialogue with complex/simple ideas to circulate in the mind.

Bassists, while you can get as "virtuosic" as other instrumentalists, your position as the foundation of whatever music you're playing in leads you to a couple of attitudes that is aligned with those who think philosophically: reflecting on the concepts of simple/complex in what is "beautiful"; being the typically understood "ground" of music, you will undoubtedly think about the function of music and its use and your role in it. Being bashed by other instruments you mainly play with (when in amateur settings primarily), you will come up with more thought-out defenses and tend to ponder more than others. The notes bass players play involve depth, which is a pre-requisite for philosophers: they need to recognize depth. 

Note: Ignore those posers who hear profound things and comment "wow that's deep". They are merely voicing their inability to tread in the pool of thought, preferring to stick with the "mainstream" shallow pool of unquestioned assumptions. 

So take this as a warning bassists. If you go any further in your bass journey, you will be exposed to a threat coming from seemingly out of nowhere. No one will lead you to philosophy, but you will feel a pull nevertheless. There's something about playing bass that will tempt most of you to shy away from practicing your craft (art) and focus too much on the philosophy of things (knowledge or "sophia"). For some reason, to be really good at the bass also involves becoming a philosopher, which is a lifetime worth of work on top of having to practice! If you don't work on philosophy (again, not the formal philosophy but the sense of carefully examining your assumptions/foundations), you'll end up a pseudo-philosopher and probably a pseudo-bassist (let those notes rippppp quick!– RIP). Really think about what you're getting yourself into when you pick up those four strings. Long before you know it you'll be thinking about Ethics, Aesthetics, Dogmatism, and German Idealism. Eyes will roll. Trust me, I'm a bassist too. 

-Elijah

P.S. no regrets though lol :P

On Love

December 21, 2019

Blog 1: On love?

On a very personal level, there is an explanatory gap in which I think about whether I love my significant other; and what I mean is on a philosophical level– that is, on the conceptual level. For I feel very strongly that I love her. But also I come to question whether I can?

Certainly I trust her, and when I'm with her I feel many feelings about her, which I interpret as positive and ecstatic. But the gap which I am noticing is that which is filled when the intentions I give are unmatched or unmet. The usual explanation that makes me fine with this gap is that "I love her" or that to love someone is to be understanding.

While I admit this is theoretical, and I say this because this doesn't affect my actions or feelings but certainly underlies the familiar ground on which I act, I am led to try and understand what love is more.

I have up to this point thought of love the way Iris Murdoch puts it– love is a special kind of looking (to see the good in the person). But I'm led to think about what makes me look at the beloved in such a way. There is a good love and a bad love. Reading Kierkegaard's philosophical fragments, he says there is a happy love and an unhappy love.

The unhappy love comes when the "king who loves the maiden" brings up the maiden to his castle and the maiden is eternally grateful– the maiden can't come to love the king because of the blinding elevation she got, the superman sweeping. The happy love comes from when the maiden loves the king as equal, which is analogous to the believer consummated with faith.

whereas having every slate wiped, it prevents redemption, it perturbs nature. What drives my love qua looking? The platonic good can only go so far as to promote transcendence. To go beyond what is human brings us to the unreal, but also the more real; we are brought to God. The floodgates are opened! Agape. The brotherly love for another. But the passion from the union of human lovers, how can that be called love?

I love my significant other's character and attributes, she is pleasant and she is useful. In decreasing order, this is the importance of kinds of friendship all joined into one. But this is friendship, wishing the good for the other because of their goodness. What leads to the love that makes marriage? or to go more with the times, an actual relationship? For I have my own faults too, faults that strain my relationship with her.

The explanatory gap perhaps is supplied by God's love, the source of the givenness, of believing in anything at all. I'm still at a loss and this is not an essay for sure. But I don't want to be the hyper-understanding person for I do get jealous, and I do get angry, i just try not to show it. This love is perhaps incomplete, despite that which love has filled. There is more to be done. And I really can't see anyone else in mind to express this kind of love to; am I delusional or is this really love? I can be wrong or I can be right but I don't care about that. For I care about good or bad.