Even though I don't play real bass, yet, I wanted to post this question on this side of the board as it applies more commonly to concepts applied by double bassists.

I feel confident of my ability to create melodic and interesting bass lines over multiple chord changes. When the chord changes to a song are once a bar, or more, I enjoy making the transition to the next bar. I feel very comfortable of my ability to anticipate the next chord and create something that flows.

My problem comes when one chord is repeated over several bars. Take for instance even the common 12-bar blues. If you have the I on the first four bars, after two bars I feel like I'm out of ideas. Because I don't have a new chord to move to I feel like the bass line can become stale or stagnated. There's a powerful Tori Amos-esque song my band is working on now that has a wonderful chord structure and is wonderfully melodic. I want to keep the bass line moving and interesting, and strong, as the piece is very strong, but there are two instances in the song where the chord sits on Ebmin. for 4 bars.

Beyond just that last example, can anyone give me some tips on how to keep bass lines moving, original, and melodic under those circumstances?

Are you recording the rehersals? Listening back is the for me the most powerful tool in getting over a hump like you describe.

To strip away everything that does not serve the song and try to put in enough that does I ask myself questions like:
What can I steal that will work?
What can I leave out?
How does what I play relate to the other instruments including every piece of the drum kit?
How does it relate to the ensemble as a whole.
Are the notes appropriate? Is the rhythm?
What chances can I take?
Am I really playing what I hear in my head?
Does what I'm playing serve the song?

I do record all rehearsals. But the problem also exists with independant practice.

Let's say there's a progressions that starts with 4 bars of Cmaj7. I have no problem with an ostinato line, but to keep something moving, and original, I get stumped. Rhythmically, there's no problems. I think my question is more, what note selection, or approach to selecting notes, can be implemented over 4 bars of the same chord? If we say that there are 4 notes to Cmaj7, within one octave at least, I could easily use up those 4 notes, with some scale notes and chromatic additions very quickly, and run out of ideas. I may not be asking this question very well.

Ed's gonna chime in here in a minute and tell you to take this up with your teacher (which is sage advice), or, if you don't have one, he'll convince you to get one with a careful mixture of unassailable logic, meticulously spelled colloquial pronunciations, and sheer force of personality. But until that happens, I have a few tips.

First tip: unless you're playing a very "old school" jazz blues or "Johnny B. Goode", there's a good chance that many more modern 12-bar blues will have a built-in IV chord in the second bar. But that's not important...let's take the bull by the frog and look at a modal example like "So What" instead.

Changes:

.D minor - 8 bars
.D minor - 8 bars
Eb minor - 8 bars
.D minor - 8 bars

Now there's a set of changes that won't write your line for you. Eventually, as mentioned in other threads, you'll want to hear a melodic line and play it. But there are some things you can practice until then. The first thing NOT to do in general in a situation like this is to try to play the root on the down beat of every bar. This will make you sound a little like Fieldy, and annoy any jazzers you might happen to be playing with. The key to "opening up" the harmony in a modal setting is often to use the root of the tonality you're in as a "home bass" that you check in with every once in a while but don't squat on too often. Some exercises to help with this.

1) play the root only every other bar on the down beat, and try to create a melodic line leading from one root to the next. You'll find that the line will stay more melodically centered (esp. if you are playing with nonprofessionals) if you play SOME chord tone on each downbeat, but this isn't a hard and fast rule or anything.

2) as above, only play the root on the downbeat only once every four bars.

3) ditto, but now only every 8 bars. This is difficult to make sound good unless two conditions are fulfilled: you are adept at spontaneously creating long and interesting melodic lines in a modal context, and; you are completely confident that the other folks you are playing with won't think you are lost and/or get lost themselves.

Most important, if you have a question like this about any tune, find a recording of that tune in which the bass line played on the recording strikes you as being THE SH*T, then listen to that recording ceaselessly. If you do this, the melodic line concept from the recording will begin to seep into your subconscious like drunken rednecks into a strip club. Or something like that...and then you can go about the business of making the parts of that concept that appeal to you your own. If you really wanted to dissect what's going on, you could transcribe it.

I could go on, but I feel that I'm rapidly entering the "yaddayaddablahblahblah" zone, so I'll stop here.

Good luck.

Well, Chris, I wish you wouldn't have stopped. Please, go on!

Thank you a million. Sage advice.

I did bring this question up with my teacher. He never gave me an answer I was comfortable with. I'm in the process of starting with a new teacher and we're just working out scheduling right now. You can bet I'll be working on this tonight.

So What is an excellent example because I feel so lost. After two bars I'm stressing to get back to the I and every instinct I have tells me not to do that. I especially like the tip about listening to songs that have great bass lines under those circumstances and analyzing those. I think to start with I'll really look over PC's bass on So What.

God I love that cat playing bass!

Another good place to start is from written transcriptions which are readily available from various sources that supply jazz educational materials (Jamey Aebersold and Lemur come to mind). I have about 6 or 7 books of transcribed lines from the Aebersold play alongs, many of which contains transcriptions of songs/ exercises which have long sections of static harmony. If you'd like, I'd be happy to copy a few choice ones from the Ron Carter, Rufus Reid, or Tyrone Wheeler volumes and send them to you via snail mail. Just send me your address in an email if you want to follow up on this. It might take a while for me to get to it, but I'd be happy to help when I can.

About the cat pic, thanks, and you can thank JT for turning me on to that. I'm a cat nut anyway, and when I saw that pic, I knew I had to do something with it...

Originally posted by jazzbo
I think to start with I'll really look over PC's bass on So What.

God I love that cat playing bass!

DOH! I may be guilty of a rather silly FAUX PAS (down here in the bluegrass, that's pronounced, " Fox Pass" ). Did you mean my member photo, or PC himself? Sorry if I misunderstood!

Originally posted by jazzbo
I think my question is more, what note selection, or approach to selecting notes, can be implemented over 4 bars of the same chord?

What are yer choices? Pound the root. Arpeggiate. Invert the chord. Imply harmonic motion. Add harmonic motion. Lay out. Lock rhythmically and or harmonically with another part. Counter another part harmonically and or rhythmically. Any combination of the above and whatever else you can think of. You're having difficulty with a Tori Amos-esque song? Do you think you really understand the style you are trying to fit? What other styles can you fuse? Chris's (oops) advise is really good. How is the So What example gonna translate to your song? Making those kinds of connections is important.

Chris:

I was referring to your picture.

Ed:

A little over my head! One of my biggest problems is my ear. I hate to admit it, but I don't recognize quickly enough what everyone else is doing. I mean, sure if the pianist is sitting on a second inversion of the chord, okay, I'm cool with that. If the soloist is stuck on a particular chord I can swing with that, but when you say that the pianist is cruising down the whole tone scale, and the sax stuck on A, I'm thinking, "Man, I can't pick that up and tailor my line to it. Too much." Now, I certainly know that that is something that I have to work on. But let me see if we're on the same page:

So, let's use So What as an example. If the pianist is just voicing the chords, that gives me more room to roam, right? If the pianist is playing more melody, than my approach might be more minimal. And is it a given to say that we want to move in the same direction. Is there too much tension if we don't? Also, what if the soloist, let's say sax, is flying all around the scale, or mode, how do I use what they're doing along with what the pianist is doing, to create something harmonic? What are some of the beginning steps to establishing those rich harmonies?

I know I know, really basic questions, but it's a major hurdle for me right now! Thanks guys.

jazz. I don't know the extent of your exposure to harmonic theory, but you have to get it somehow - community school, private lessons, whatever you can find. Access to a piano is important, so you can immerse yourself in a chord and experiment with different scales housing a particular triad. On another bass forum, Carole Kaye is adamantly opposed to thinking of scales, and I think she does alot of damage with it. My studies with Michael Moore are all about scales. Another overlooked point - Moore insists that I write music incorporating principles discussed. Nothing fancy, the blues or a head on some standard. There's something about grappling with harmony as a writer that seems to help with "owning" the principle involved.
Bob Brookmeyer has a website in which he has discussed understanding harmony in down to earth terms.
I have a style which breaks most of the accepted rules unconsciously, (Chris, this is why I didn't join your theory thread.) and I don't know how to explain it, but it satisfies the other players. Brookmeyer once described his best playing as "finding the right wrong notes." Once, while jamming with Michael playing piano, he expressed his disapproval of my playing by saying "you sound like a bass player." He wants to hear that I'm thinking like Lee Konitz.
Finally, there's the matter of left-brain/right-brain. Too much for this post.

Originally posted by Don Higdon

I have a style which breaks most of the accepted rules unconsciously, (Chris, this is why I didn't join your theory thread.) and I don't know how to explain it, but it satisfies the other players.



Good lord, I hope nobody thought that thread (or that approach) was about establishing more rules...It was really just an attempt at finding a very intuitive and user-friendly "jumping off point". Once you're airborne, the only rules are what Zappa described in the quote I used from him. When I'm playing my best, I couldn't begin to tell you where it comes from, or what (if any) rules apply.

But true as these things are, it is not difficult to remember a time (waaaay back when the world was still in black and white and my father and I used to put on our bearskins and go hunting brontosaurs after all the clan rituals) when I was in a situation similar to jazzbo's and needed some new structures/concepts to explore when I would get in a rut.

I had a wonderful composition teacher back in college who taught 16th century counterpoint from two perspectives: one was the concept of writing 2, 3, and 4 part counterpoint by simply, as he put it, "putting on your Palestrina ears and going where they take you"; The other was systematic and analytical, the way counterpoint is usually taught. His idea was that the first way almost always produced better music, but it occasionally left you neck deep in quicksand of one sort or another. The second approach then became the rope that pulled you out. He believed that knowing you had a safety net to fall back on would make you a more fearless explorer, and I think he was right. If you wrote a "stylistically correct" piece by the first method in this class, then you had to go back and analyze what you did. This almost always ended up being the same thing as your "safety net" theory that was your backup plan, but finding it on your own made it sink in so much better. This guy was a major influence on my musical life, and I'm guessing no one will be too surprised to find out that he was also a jazzer as well as a "serious" composer.

I'm again in YADDAYADDA territory, but the point I'm trying to make is that theory isn't a bad thing if it's understood that it's only a crutch, or "training wheels" if you will, to help get you up on the bike and moving forward. After that you learn to find your own balance by falling down a lot and getting back on.

I definitely appreciate the concept of abandoning the rules and allowing your creativity to flow, but I can't abandon rules until I fully understand something. I would love to learn some of the things that speak of Don, but I definitely feel that right now I'm building more of a foundation in these concepts. I think a better understanding of these concepts is critical to finding my identity and sound, which I'm still very much developing, on bass, or in music in general.

jazzbo
You're interpreting my remarks exactly the way I intended. Your mind-set is just right.

P.S. I had to come back to edit this. I just scrolled back to the top. jazzbo's first words (with capitals by me) were: "Even though I don't play REAL bass yet..."
A BIG round of applause, please.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



Good lord, I hope nobody thought that thread (or that approach) was about establishing more rules...
Not at all. I was responding to Ed's quote of Carter's comment about having four choices on beat one, four on two, etc., and as you well know, I haven't mastered qoutes and bold face yet.

I'm at a point where I can't even agree with Carter as quoted, but my reasons take alot of explaining, and they provoke the semantic hair-splitting that bogs things down, as in "What do you feel when you play".

I'll post this now and see if I loused up the screen. To be continued...

By the way, did I tell you I got my AI Contra last night, 10 days early?

Proud of our new amp, are we? Do tell...

:cool:

Originally posted by Don Higdon
On another bass forum, Carole Kaye is adamantly opposed to thinking of scales, and I think she does alot of damage with it. My studies with Michael Moore are all about scales.

Damage? How so? Her perspective is just another way to view and hear music and her playing bears out the validity of her way.

I haven't practiced the bass guitar much for a number of years but this morning (on the eve so to speak of it becoming my main instrument for several months) I picked it up and ran through some arpeggiated ideas. After a while it occurred to me that I was thinking very differently playing this bass than I do on the acoustic. Tuning is not an issue and that of getting around the neck is greatly eased with the shorter scale and by the frets. As I arpeggiated through a harmonized major scale it seemed natural and more "guitaristic" to think in terms of related and interwoven chords than in terms of scales.

Kaye was a guitarist before a bass guitarist and this chordal kind of thinking makes sense given that context. Note she doesn't say don't learn scales just that thinking in terms of them may not be as musical as thinking in terms of the chords related to them. How can this cause damage? The logistics of getting around on the big bass make the close referencing of scales much safer and for my limited ability essential but even so arpeggiated ideas vs scalar ideas in general sound more musical to my ears.

Another overlooked point - Moore insists that I write music incorporating principles discussed.

David Friesen did the same for me. Incorporating this into my daily routine has taken my playing to a new level. By writing, ideas that could otherwise be dry, abstract concepts emmediately take on flesh and become meaniful, useful and more deeply understood.

Probably somebody by now is telling Carole Kaye I'm dissing her, so I'll say the following:
My 'damage' comment is in response to advice I've seen her post at times.
What I do with Michael Moore is in fundamental disagreement with this advice.
I haven't disputed it, but I'll say here that I'll accept that she's the very best studio/recording bass guitarist alive, or top 10, whatever.
That has no bearing on what I said.
The players that know me say I'm playing better than I ever have.
I ignore her advice and follow Michael's teachings.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Probably somebody by now is telling Carole Kaye I'm dissing her

Oh well.

The players that know me say I'm playing better than I ever have.
I ignore her advice and follow Michael's teachings.

I have studied with someone who studied with him so I am familiar with his ideas and I'd study with Michael waaaaaay before I would with Miss Kaye. In general though I do believe thinking chords before scales makes my playing more "to the point". I still don't see the damage in this view. If there is something specific she's said that you believe is wrong that's what you should attack rather than a general idea that can not rightly be though of as correct or not. You've said what you said in an advise giving role but so far you haven't defended it with any substance. Sh*t or get off the pot Don.

If you understood my prior post, you'll see that I was reluctant to put my views in Chris' theory thread because my style "breaks most of the rules unconsciously," and that "my reasons take alot of explaining and they provoke the semantic hair splitting that bogs things down..." Duh, look where we are now. Duh, that means I didn't want to be in an advice-giving role while espousing an unconventional, or controversial, (or whatever adjective you want) position. OK, you want to say the difference between advice and opinion is meaningless, here's the deal: you don't like my opinion, reject it. I have no intention of defending it to you. Don't expect me to argue with you, or "prove" myself to your satisfaction.
Off-line, I have said to Chris that I could not explain my theory ideas without prior discussion of several concepts that I listed for him. Since you "have studied with someone that studied with him" (Moore) and you are "familiar with his ideas," you already know what the concepts are. Maybe something will be worked out, maybe not. I'm not the one best suited to answer jazzbo's question now, much as I'd like to.

"Sh*t or get off the pot Don" ????

Classy.

jeffbonny,

Chords before scales...yaddayadda.....scales before chords....blahblah...chicken before egg....blahyadda....egg before chicken....yadda blah.

I think we're all agreed that you have to practice both, since chord tones are the skeleton of the animal and scales are the flesh and blood that fill it out and make it whole. I don't hear anyone arguing that one or the other is better.

But the bottom line is, if you're thinking about either one instead of thinking of melody, you're missing the boat. What I really hear here is different people standing on the same spot and agreeing that it's the place to be. If this is the case, why argue about which path leading to this "spot" is the best? I hear chord tones as stepping stones within scales, generally as the the sonic "resolution tones" in the "tension/resolution" game. You may find it easier to approach the same topic from a chordal perspective, i.e. staying on the footstones being the focus. But we're both trying to play melodically, right? Each player has to find his/her own way in the end.

1.The first two bars of "Let's Get Lost":

Melody: A--G/Bb---
Chord: BbM7/A7-9
Moore scales: Fmaj/Dharmonic minor

2. Conventional scales are 7 notes, then the octave.
Moore also teaches scales that are 8 notes , then the octave, on a system other than the conventional circle of 2 whole steps, 1 half step, 3whole steps, 1 half step

3. There's more material for making melody in a scale than in an arpeggio.

Jeezuz youse guys, Chicken/Egg yada-yada was never the issue and I'm not pursuing this simply for the sake of argument. I am genuinely interested in learning from those who think differently than I do (and considering there's no dearth of those I oughta be smarter than I am, eh?). Don H. said, "Carole Kaye is adamantly opposed to thinking of scales, and I think she does a lot of damage with it." I was asking a very simple how? and for an answer I got "Michael sez scales..."
Yada indeed.

Saying "sh*t or get off the pot" may lack class but then so does taking a dump and not flushing Don. I may be blunt but I am also completely sincere in asking what damage you think Kaye does by not teaching scales? Simple. Or is getting snotty and pissed off what's easiest? (yeah I caught the edits). I 'got' what you've said so far but it hasn't answered my question. I'm beginning to think you regurgitated someone else's idea without understanding it very well.
Ooops.

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Jeezuz youse guys, Chicken/Egg yada-yada was never the issue and I'm not pursuing this simply for the sake of argument. I am genuinely interested in learning from those who think differently than I do (and considering there's no dearth of those I oughta be smarter than I am, eh?).

Yada indeed.



Jeff,

I was starting to get annoyed at the fact that everytime I want to simply say "peace" in the middle of a budding flame war I end up trying to expound....and every time do, I end up throwing gasoline on a fire. I was getting annoyed with both of us, in fact, until I got to the Yada indeed part....at which point I got a fit of the giggles. That was a good one.

At the risk of adding other hazardous materials to the blaze, here's what happend: my "robocop answering service" alerted my email that you had responded to this thread. I took the link to get here, and read your post. I felt at that point that we - all of us - were starting to get bogged down in a downward semantic spiral of the sort that is so easy to fall into when we can't really see each other here in cyberspace... so I posted (addressed to no one in particular at that point), hoping that maybe we could focus on the big picture concepts that we all seem to agree on rather than argue about the details. When my post was posted, I noticed that Don had posted after you on the next page (which I didn't realize existed), and my reply was geared toward the previous spot in the thread. Which meant I had to either rewrite my post entirely or make a reference to the spot for which it was intended. The easiest way to do that was to address it to the previous poster. When I did that, I had a vague feeling that it wasn't so bright somehow & might seem harsh, so I tried to "soften it" (duh! on my part) by adding the last bit addressed to you. In doing so I ended up seeming to voice my displeasure with where the whole thread was going in general at you in particular. Dumb move. My fault.

Peace,
Chris

Don,

I can't tell you how happy it makes me to see someone else besides me (much less someone at Moore's level) talk about 8 tone "scales", and that one in particular. If I understood your post right, the scale you mentioned would be spelled:

D E F G A Bb C C# D.....right?

If not, then I'm an idiot and you may disregard the rest of this post.

I've been using that as a teaching tool for about the last 3-4 years whenever somebody asks about blanket scales for minor iimi7b5 - V7+9 - i progressions. For lack of a better name, I've been calling it "bebop" minor - which sounds kind of stupid, but it's the relative minor to what some people call a "bebop" major scale (F G A Bb C C# D E F). Many of my students who work with this scale say it does more to help them understand how to play organic sounding melodies over a minor ii-V-i than any other approach they've ever tried. It was the sound my ears instinctively went for when I was learning to play, and when I finally stopped to figured out what to call it, I noticed that it makes perfect theoretical sense as well, since the notes of the scale are simply an amalgamation of all chord tones involved in minor ii-V situations (and, not coincidentally, of the first two chords of "Let's get Lost") . Of course, I have gotten into several almost heated arguments with guys at the camp who think that minor is always hipper when it's dorian, but they can do it the way they want and I can disagree and do it the way I want....ain't it wonderful to live in America? Since I live in this beautiful country, I am free to believe that raising the 6th of a tonic minor scale is a coloristic choice and not an organic one. It's a beautiful color, but it's a reharm just the same.

Anyway, now it appears that I'm the one doing all the yadda yadda here, so I'll sign off. Good to see that scale being thought of/used by someone waaaay over my head....it lets me know I'm not completely insane. Unless, of course, I misunderstood the scale you were referring to when you wrote "Fma/Dharmonic minor".....it which case my sanity would still be in question.

Chris:
I noticed that 2AM post time. Just got home from your Sunday night gig, right?
Re 8 note scales, as they say in the commercial, "not exactly," but that's OK. Let's back up. The D harmonic minor scale would be a 7 note scale; it was offered as a source of more interesting melodic choices than a D major scale. The scale would be spelled A Bb C# D E F G (this is an example of why I try to think of scales as circles, rather than straight lines), as opposed to a knee-jerk A B C# D E F# G.

The point of the F scale behind a BbM7 is to give an E natural to the scale (please, nit-pickers, I'm deliberately not using mode names). Some like the sound of the 4th raised against a M7 chord.

The 8 note scales are unrelated to the Let's Get Lost example. As opposed to the conventional scale of 2 whole, 1 half, 3 whole, 1 half, a scale is constructed with alternating whole and half steps: whole, half, whole, half, etc., or half, whole, half, whole, etc.

C C# D# E F# G A A#(Bb) or

D Eb F Gb(F#) Ab Bbb(A) Cb(B) Db(C#) or
D E F G Ab Bb B(Cb) C

Does your head hurt yet?
I'll discuss the possibilities with you later.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Chris:
I noticed that 2AM post time. Just got home from your Sunday night gig, right?



Actually, no...but I had late gigs on the previous three nights (getting home around 1:30-2:00) and my system is still on gig time...in other words, I had a bad case of "Gig Lag", and couldn't sleep. When this happens, I notice that thinking about theory usually makes me tired, so I tried writing a theory post. Guess what? After posting that, I was able to nod off in about 2 minutes.

Yes, I'm aware of both versions of the "diminished scale" (WHWHWHWH or HWHWHWHW) you mention, but would be interested in hearing about some of the ways Moore has you exploring them if you have the time and inclination. I've always found that a very fascinating but somewhat "inorganic" sound, and I use it mostly to bridge the gaps between "inside" and "outside" playing. But that's another story.

I agree wholeheartedly about the E natural in the first chord of "Let's get Lost", by the way, and also about not remaining rootbound when thinking of tonal centers. We are actually approaching the harmony in much the same way on that one since the "blanket scale" I mentioned contains the notes of both Fma and D harmonic minor - the only difference is that it adds a passing tone (C# added to the Bb ma #4 chord, and C natural added to the D harmonic minor) to both chord scales so that they may be thought of as one instead of two.

As much as the inherent confusion/miscommunication involved in discussing these things can be a real pain in the ass at times, I have to say I am finding all of this very interesting and enlightening, and hope we can all continue to have these discussions in spite of the built in drawbacks of "cyber-theory" limitations.

Peace everyone,
Chris

anybody:

I edited my prior post to show 2 scales based on the principle, both starting on D

I'll use the analogy of language. Someone wants you to write a story. If you're chord driven, your alphabet has half the number of letters as when you're scale driven. Which will give you a bigger vocabulary? That's just an illustration. Let's not beat it to death, please

Bigger vocabulary? Like Deficate or get off the recepticle?

Originally posted by Don Higdon
I'll use the analogy of language. Someone wants you to write a story. If you're chord driven, your alphabet has half the number of letters as when you're scale driven. Which will give you a bigger vocabulary? That's just an illustration. Let's not beat it to death, please

I don't think we're beating it to death I think we're coming to the point of being able to constructively discuss it. The analogy of language and letters is excellent in one way and inaccurate in another and I hope you can indulge me while I run with it a little?

Playing the 20 fret bass guitar that precipitated my initial response had me absolutely reveling its limitations. Now I know most of us are trying to rid ourselves of limitations but my in experience being forced (or choosing) to work within them often brings out creativity that might otherwise remain dormant. Working with chords can be limiting. John Steinbeck wrote beautiful, moving prose in very few words.

Where the analogy falls away is in the assumption that one only considers the chord written in front of him, a Cmaj for example.
C E G B but when one considers a Dmin triad with it
_D F A one has all the notes of the scale to work with. It is all the same notes and perspective is the only difference. This is the most simple and rudimentary example and on its own is incomplete. Pat Martino's system of "parent" chords takes this logic (if not the exact concept) a whole lot further starting with a Dim7 chord and deriving 7th chords and "converting" to minor chords.

A chord derived from a scale compared to a scale has fewer notes and therefor fewer choices and as I said there is a certain appeal for me in that sparseness. However, when most folks talk about thinking in terms of chords they are talking about a system of thought that ultimately includes all twelve notes. The only difference is vertical spacing and that ain't gonna damage anyone.

This all being said (and said and said) you, Chris & Don, have written some interesting things in the last couple of posts and I'm going away to consider and absorb them. Thanks.

Originally posted by jeffbonny


Working with chords can be limiting. John Steinbeck wrote beautiful, moving prose in very few words.



I have one thing to add, and I'm not trying to start a flame or be a last word monger, I promise! And perhaps I'm beating a dead horse, but: Steinbeck certainly could write beautiful, moving prose in very few words. But he did that by limiting the number of words he used, and choosing his words very carefully, not by eliminating certain letters of the alphabet beforehand.

Again, I see your point - chord study is certainly important....god knows I've done a lot of it, and will do a lot more. I could say the same for scale study. But both are only the raw materials for melody, and melody always involves both (unless you are blowing the valveless trumpet at military funerals or at the start of horse races - but I never wanted either of those gigs anyway). We're all trying to find ways to be more melodic players. What works for one might not work for another. I watch Walt Weiskopf do his spiel on triad pairs each year at the camps, and I find his playing of this concept always interesting and occasionally brilliant, but it doesn't work for me in my playing. For comping, maybe, but for soloing not so much. What does that all mean? It means that I think of melody as primarily a linear concept with leaps available whenever I want to use them, and Walt thinks of melody as a primarily chordal concept with non-chord tones available to connect the dots. I'd like to be able to pull off some of the things he does, but I'm not wired that way. In the end, it's all just different ways to get to the same place. Anything that helps you is good, anything that hinders you is bad, and to each his own...

I think what Chris said about - soloing vs comping is important here - OK if you stick to chord tones and occasional chromatic notes you can limit your self and come up with elegantly simple solutions.

But if you're looking at this from the perspective of a sax player who might be playing a solo over 5 or 6 choruses of the same sequence, then they are going to want more choices and the different scales give the soloist more material to work with and transform the sequence into something else.

I can go along to my local Jazz club and hear the same standard being played, but of course the soloists will make something very different out of that basic material and as bass players, why not have the same freedom as a sax player - shouldn't we really be aspiring to play solos in the same way?

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield

But if you're looking at this from the perspective of a sax player who might be playing a solo over 5 or 6 choruses of the same sequence, then they are going to want more choices and the different scales give the soloist more material to work with and transform the sequence into something else.


When you think chords you have access to the same notes as when you think scales you simply arrive via a different (and more lithe) route. Maybe it's less confusing to say "chords with passing notes"?
Just how thin can we split this hair?

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
JASSBEAUX - the idea of balance is a great way to start. If the soloist is playing the upper extensions and the piano player is going outside, that's a pretty good time to play simply. When the piano player is feeding voicings to the soloist who is playing more diatonically, then open up a little more beneath him, point out other directions. If the soloist is playing a static figure (or is playing the same approach this chorus as last chorus) changing your harmonic underpinning is gonna change the SOUND of what's going on.

This is great for me. Too often I get stuck thinking what I'm going to be doing next, it get's to the point to where I'm concentrating so much on what I'm doing, that I don't hear everyone else. I've really developed an ear for the drummer, but too many times I've adopted the feeling that "Hey, I'm rhythm section, let them soloists do what they want to!" I think this might stem a little from recently playing in a jazz trio with a guitarist who was a little too fond of Phish.

But ya gotta spend some time working on this stuff in the shed, it's not just gonna magically happen on the stand.

Yeah, tell me about it. I need to lock myself in the shed for two weeks. It has become so hard in my everyday life, with a hectic schedule, to get the time to really FOCUS on my practice to make progress. Three months ago I spent a week on vacation in an isolated cabin on the central Oregon coast with my girlfriend (who is very musician-supportive, yep, she's a keeper!). Talk about progress. I really attacked my scales and chords and really focused on developing that. I came out of that week making real strides. I think I need to get back to the shed, big time!

As BONNYJEFEBONNIE says (sorta) if yer playing quarter notes on SO WHAT and you arpeggiate the first chord through all of it's inversions, that's four bars right there. If you mix in scalar movement with arpeggiation, mix in chromatic approaches, hell mix in doing the arpeggiations in both open and closed positions, you got at least 3 choruses of different sh*t to play right there.

Such a wonderful starting point, and I just never thought of it.

The exercise I use for arpeggios has two parts. The chords are played in the following order:
maj6, min6, diminished, maj7, dom7, min7, min7b5(halfdiminished), min/maj7(tonic minor) augmented maj7 (mediant) and augmented (dom7).

For the first part you pick a key center and go through all of the chords in root position, then first inversion, then second inversion, finally third inversion. All with the nome at 60bpm in quarter notes. So the first exercise in C would look like:
C E G A C Eb G A C Eb Gb A C E G B C E G Bb C Eb G Bb C Eb Gb Bb C Eb G B C E G# B C E G# Bb E G A C Eb G A C etc.

The second part you pick a key center and (with the same order of chords as above) play root, first , second and third inversion, then the next chordetc. as follows:
C E G A E G A C G A C E A C E G C Eb G A Eb G A C G A C Eb A C Eb G etc.

Move the key centers around at random so you don't have a "fixed" way of hearing this. You also want to be able to come at it from the opposite direction, having somebody say "A C Eb Gb" and being able to say (with no hesitation) "That's a C diminished chord in 3rd inversion and also an A diminished chord in root position".

I love this drill. Unfortunately, a lot of my chord work has been off of maj7, min7, aug, dim triads, as simple as that. I haven't worked enough with 6th chords or other more involved chords. I really think this drill will be great for me, especially my ear. And I like the part about mixing up the order so my ear doesn't get fixed onto one pattern.

I'm really new to playing jazz. I've only played on a casual basis with other musicians who are just really getting into jazz too. I've really been digging into Mark Levine's Jazz Theory book, and trying to establish a good jazz foundation. Thanks for all the advice, it's definitely been invaluable.

What I'd really like to do, is get the lot of you together in one room, give you all a bass, a dry-erase board, and a piano, and let you argue/discuss this point more often. Maybe I'll leave a bottle of Johnnie Black in the center of the room and see if we can really set things off that way. All the while, I'll have a video camera to record the whole darn thing, ask questions every time something doesn't make sense to me, which should equate to once every 13 seconds, and see how much doesn't float over my head.

It would probably be the most educational day of my life.

Still, there were many points brought up in the later discussion that just didn't make sense to me.

Let me start with one of the scales that was written out, and I hope I get this right. I remember seeing,

A B C# D E F# G

Now, I always understood this to be A Mixolydian. (What chord might I see this as?) But then I saw this other scale:

A Bb C C# D E F G

This looks to me to be s-t-s-s-t-s-t-t. Okay, so wonderful, it looks like harmonic minor to me, with the added C, which confuses me. It looks like a chromatic tone has been added. How does the C fall into place? What, harmonically, does it do to the context of the scale? When might this be used?

These questions may have already been answered, but I just didn't understand!

Quote from Ed Fugua's Active Bass Lesson 1
The first consideration should be "proximity" i.e. rather than root to seventh arpeggiation, one should strive to find solutions using root, first, second, and third inversions so that fingerings are close. By way of example: // D-7 G7/ CMaj7// will be written/played as root position (D F A G)second inversion (D F G B) root position (C E G B).

Stupid question. If you should consider proximity, then from the D-7 from root position (D F A G), why not move to G7 third inversion (F G B D), as the move from G to F is closer than the move from G to D, as you have it written. Is it because we're talking about a major 2nd lower vs. a perfect 5th lower?

Originally posted by jazzbo


Let me start with one of the scales that was written out, and I hope I get this right. I remember seeing,

A B C# D E F# G

Now, I always understood this to be A Mixolydian. (What chord might I see this as?) But then I saw this other scale:

A Bb C C# D E F G

This looks to me to be s-t-s-s-t-s-t-t. Okay, so wonderful, it looks like harmonic minor to me, with the added C, which confuses me. It looks like a chromatic tone has been added. How does the C fall into place? What, harmonically, does it do to the context of the scale? When might this be used?


As regards the first scale, the chord that goes with that is normally A7.

As far as the second one, yes, it's D harmonic minor spelled from A to A with a C natural passing tone thrown in. Native Americans on anglo-saxon margarine commercials call that scale "Maize". I call it "bebop minor". I don't know if it's an "Official " scale or not, but I use it as an organic starting point for playing in minor key harmonic centers. I say "organic" because the scale is simply a conglomeration of the notes of the chords commonly found in minor-key progressions. Let's use D minor as an example:

A ii-7b5..... V7#9 (#5)...... i-7 in D minor contains the following chords: E-7b5,...A7#9,...D-7

Typical piano voicings for each (from the bottom up) are:

E-7b5.......G....Bb.....D.....E

A7#9.......G.....C......C#...F

D-7..........F......A......C.....E

Try this at the piano and add roots in your left hand. The result is your basic garden variety minor ii-V.

Next, arrange the notes of all those chords in ascending order, and you get the following scale:
D...E...F...G...A...Bb...C...C#...D

I imagine your confusion stems from the presence of both the C and C#. That's typical of both traditional western and jazz harmony. In a minor key signature, the V chord would be a min7 unless you raise the 7th degree of the scale, in this case producing the C#. But the i chord, the III chord, and occasionally the VII (when it isn't being spelled as a vii dim. 7) chord from the same key signature use the C natural, so both are actually present in the tonality. The C# functions as a passing tone (or as a reference to melodic minor, or just as a cool sound...) over the D-7 and E-7b5 chords, and the C natural functions as the #9 (enharmonically spelled) of the A7#9 chord.

And thanks for the offer, but judging by the way this thread has been going, I'll pass....if you put the lot of us in a room with a bottle of booze and a piano.... man, if the previous posts are any indication, you'd better throw in a phone with the speed dial set for 911. :cool:

jazzbo:
you listed one scale that I posted, and a scale submitted by Chris. To be precise, I gave

1. A Bb C# D E F G These are the notes of a D harmonic minor scale, as opposed to
2. A B C# D E F# G These are the notes of a D major scale.

The point was that a one chord can come from more than one scale. All things are possible, but I can't square this with

Originally posted by jeffbonny


When you think chords you have access to the same notes as when you think scales...Just how thin can we split this hair?

Originally posted by Don Higdon
The point was that a one chord can come from more than one scale. All things are possible, but I can't square this with...

What I said about scales providing the same number of note choices as do scales.

One of the keys to success as a teacher besides inhuman (or in this case inhumane?) tenacity is the ability to say the same thing in different ways.
Here is another attempt at that:
How many notes of a scale do you as a bassist generally play at once? of a chord? The common answer I'm looking for is ONE. (Two sometimes if the leader is cool). Right? Since noone plays whole scales or whole chords it seems either is useful mainly as a tool for individual linear note selection. Right?

And so we enter the realm of philosophy.

This discussion seems centered around jazz tunes so for the sake of simplicity lets just stay there and say that they are chord based.
Right?
So lets take a CMaj7 chord: C E G B
Thinking scales gives you D F and A to work with also.
So does thinking chord mean ya can't play C F and A?
HECK NO!
All it means is that these notes are, depending on 1)circumstance, 2)neighbouring chords, 3)composer's intent and 4)personal taste, on equal footing with Db, Eb, F#, Ab and Bb. In this light given the above four criteria one can create an appropriate "scale" by adding ANY non-chord tones to the equation.

Another point: CMaj7 9 11 13 Vs. a C Maj scale?
They're both just philosophical contrivances for choosing notes that please YOUR ear. Right?

And Jazzbeaux, I'm flattered you think I have enough self control for an "in person." :D
Make it JW Blue and I'm there! Really though this was why I posted a thread asking about simple and cheap software to create treble and bass clef gifs and that would also give the option to play them as sound files. Such a thing would make discussions like this one easier.

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Originally posted by Don Higdon
The point was that a one chord can come from more than one scale. All things are possible, but I can't square this with...

What I said about scales providing the same number of note choices as do scales..

This discussion seems centered around jazz tunes so for the sake of simplicity lets just stay there and say that they are chord based.
Right?
So lets take a CMaj7 chord: C E G B
Thinking scales gives you D F and A to work with also.
So does thinking chord mean ya can't play C F and A?
HECK NO!
All it means is that these notes are, depending on 1)circumstance, 2)neighbouring chords, 3)composer's intent and 4)personal taste, on equal footing with Db, Eb, F#, Ab and Bb. In this light given the above four criteria one can create an appropriate "scale" by adding ANY non-chord tones to the equation.

Another point: CMaj7 9 11 13 Vs. a C Maj scale?
They're both just philosophical contrivances for choosing notes that please YOUR ear. Right?


I may just be really, really tired, but I'm not sure I understand any of this.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
I may just be really, really tired, but I'm not sure I understand any of this.

Get some rest and try to be more specific?

Originally posted by jeffbonny

This discussion seems centered around jazz tunes so for the sake of simplicity lets just stay there and say that they are chord based.
Right?
So lets take a CMaj7 chord: C E G B
Thinking scales gives you D F and A to work with also.
So does thinking chord mean ya can't play C F and A?
HECK NO!
All it means is that these notes are, depending on 1)circumstance, 2)neighbouring chords, 3)composer's intent and 4)personal taste, on equal footing with Db, Eb, F#, Ab and Bb. In this light given the above four criteria one can create an appropriate "scale" by adding ANY non-chord tones to the equation.



Okay, let's start with this. And before I do that, let me start with a disclaimer: I don't want this to turn into a flame war, and I don't care about who gets the last word. If we disagree, howsabout we agree to disagree?

If I understand the above correctly, you're saying that for a Cma7 chord, the "rightest" notes to play are those in the trunk of the tree, so to speak: C E G B. I suppose to my way of thinking, I would call those the more "stable notes" sound wise, the ones that you resolve to when you want to reslove. Semantics. No problem there.

But if you're saying that the remaining notes of the scale (we'll save trouble here and suppose that the tune is in CMa at this point) are "on equal footing" with the five notes which make up the remainder of the chromatic scale, I have a question for you: Who's your piano player? Arnold Schoenberg?

In most of the situations I play in, the pianist's job is to lay down chords/tonalities by interpreting the chord symbol as a tonality, and then voicing accordingly. So if a chord symbol in the key of C says "Cma7" , he/she may interpret that as "lay down voicings which suggest the tonality of C major". Advanced players commonly take the liberty of playing "4th based" voicings like "So What" voicings. Probably the most common "So What " voicing for a Cma7 chord, from bottom to top, reads like this: E...A...D...G...B. (bassist has the root). In most of the stuff I listen to/play, the "other notes" in a scale are freely interpreted by the chordal instrument as fodder for creative voicing structures. And in most of the situations I play in as a pianist, if I started playing Db, Eb, Ab, or Bb as part of my Cma7 voicings, I would either:

a) get fired before the first set was over, or
b) mysteriously not get asked to play with that band again.

There are circumstances where the F# could be an option (when you want to suggest a #11 tonality), but other than that, I cannot say that I would ever - as a pianist or bassist - consider Db, Eb, Ab, or Bb as notes "on equal footing" with D, F, and A over a Cma7 chord. These notes are so "outside" the tonality that it may be assumed that the composer would have specified they be included in the chord symbol if he wanted them there at all. to my way of thinking, this doesn't mean that you can't play them in a solo....rather, it means that if you DO play them, you will have to treat them very carefully since they are going to clash like a motherf**ker with the piano voicing. The same cannot be said of D, F, and A.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
But if you're saying that the remaining notes of the scale (we'll save trouble here and suppose that the tune is in CMa at this point) are "on equal footing" with the five notes which make up the remainder of the chromatic scale, I have a question for you: Who's your piano player? Arnold Schoenberg?

In most of the situations I play in...

Yeah, yeah, yeah me too but you're ignoring a fundamental part of what I said do I'll repeat and expand it:
"All it means is that these notes are, depending on 1)circumstance," This would be the tune, the specific personalities of the players, audience's taste, how much the gig paid :) etc.
"2)neighbouring chords," These will dictate to a large degree what notes sound 'right' and what don't.
"3)composer's intent" Did the composer intend dissonance? If not don't play Db over C
"and 4)personal taste," See points 1,2 & 3. Studying your instrument and music history for several years can be useful as can paying attention to the other events in yer life.

I would tend to agree with both of you. Chris is stating a fairly general "rule". But anyone that has listened to Monk would go "that note did not fit" and then after a few more times of listening to it go "man that's some good stuff".

Mmm, interesting thread - makes a change from the run-of-the-mill "Wots yur faverite culer?", or "Whose The Best Bassist in the Univerze?", or "Who agreez that Fieldy is Kewl?" type of dross that one usally has to wade though in order to find the gems - ah well, that's life! ...and there was I thinking that this would be only a 5 min argument, and it's been going on for nearly a week! Keep it up, chaps!

- Wil

PS: Chris, both my cats and I are incred jealous that you have a cool bass-playing cat!

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Originally posted by Don Higdon
The point was that a one chord can come from more than one scale. All things are possible, but I can't square this with...

What I said about scales providing the same number of note choices as do scales.
Well, what you said was "when you think chords you have access to the same notes as when you think scales."
you continue
"So let's take a CMaj7th chord: C E G B
Thinking scales gives you D F and A to work with also."

Maybe, maybe not. There's a CM7th inside a G scale, which changes the F to F#. And there's a CM7th chord inside an E harmonic minor scale, which changes F to F# and D to D#.

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
But if you're saying that the remaining notes of the scale (we'll save trouble here and suppose that the tune is in CMa at this point) are "on equal footing" with the five notes which make up the remainder of the chromatic scale, I have a question for you: Who's your piano player? Arnold Schoenberg?

In most of the situations I play in...

[B]Yeah, yeah, yeah me too but you're ignoring a fundamental part of what I said do I'll repeat and expand it:

I'm not ignoring anything. You asked me to be more specific. I was being more specific.

"All it means is that these notes are, depending on 1)circumstance," This would be the tune, the specific personalities of the players, audience's taste, how much the gig paid :) etc.
"2)neighbouring chords," These will dictate to a large degree what notes sound 'right' and what don't.

The whole concept of "neighboring chords", or "tonal context" is exactly what the whole "Blanket Scale" concept is about. But again, since this argument started as a debate over whether it is more useful to think of chords or scales when practicing, you're biting your own tail here: any time you start adding non-chord tones to the mix, whether it be because of accepted theory or harmonic context, you are in effect creating a scale of some sort, even if the resulting scale is not one with a commonly recognized name.


"3)composer's intent" Did the composer intend dissonance? If not don't play Db over C

As long as we're being specific, how specifically are we divining the composer's intent on this point? If it ain't in the melody and it ain't in the chord symbol, what do we fall back on here?


"and 4)personal taste," See points 1,2 & 3. Studying your instrument and music history for several years can be useful as can paying attention to the other events in yer life.

This is a point I would never argue. But as soon as you say "personal taste" as a justification for anything, you have exited completely the realm of the objective and entered fully into the realm of the subjective. And on subjective matters, there is no room for debate. Which really, when you think about it, seems to be what we are debating here. If this is true, then we should just agree to disagree.

Peace,
Chris

1.So...study your cycle chords in patterns so you can jump to them without even thinking. That's what good jazz soloing is about, chords and chord changes.

2.You don't really need to "think" as you're playing.

3. NEVER practice scales...hurts your ears(and teaches your fingers the wrong notes to play).

Originally posted by Don Higdon
3. NEVER practice scales...hurts your ears(and teaches your fingers the wrong notes to play).

Stop! It hurts! My head is going to explode. Must...rebel....this...goes....against...everythin g.....I've.....been....taught....follow....the.... herd.....sheeple.....ahhhh.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
But as soon as you say "personal taste" as a justification for anything, you have exited completely the realm of the objective
(SNIP)
And on subjective matters, there is no room for debate. Which really, when you think about it, seems to be what we are debating here. If this is true, then we should just agree to disagree.

Understand it as a zen thing but I don't really disagree with using scales as a starting point so it's hard to agree to disagree but enough may still be enough, eh? I just think it is sometimes cumbersome to base thought from the scale as the starting point for justification of note choice. And sometimes it ain't; the "blanket scale" concept is something that works for me to solve some problems. So I'm not really "biting my tail" I don't think, just tryin' to think flexibly and learn from you at the same time. The example of Monk that was just posted is perfect and I guess after consideration of all this I'm even more clearly a believer that what works for me is to use theory to justify and further understand the music I create rather than to start there and attempt to derive music from it.

And if you think there's no room to debate the subjective I'd say that's exactly what we have been doing! and quite constructively too. You may be able to see more from your hill overlooking the ocean of sound but the view from mine is different. As your peer it behooves me to tell you the virtues of my view as much as it does to come look from yer hill. Debating the plastic is much more valuable to art than is debating the concrete.

Gotta go kill trees for a few days. Hope you enjoy the break.

I thought I'd provide a little update. My original problem was having problems creating flowing, melodic, and fresh bass lines over a repetitive chord structure. I started with a new instructor about 4 or 5 weeks ago, and off the bat let him know that this was a main concern, although not my only concern. Just to get a feel for each other he gave me Autumn Leaves the first week, and he was pretty happy with what I was able to do on that tune. So he decided that we jump right into So What. You can guess I was pretty excited about that. He's really been great. He's coached me to some great ideas, we do some basic jamming with him playing melody or chords, just to get some ideas in my head. So I've been sheddin So What and feel like just in two weeks I've made huge strides. While I know that I have a long way to go, he's really opened up my playing, and provided great answers to all my questions. Every time I walk out of a lesson I feel great! It's an awesome feeling. Great teacher. I've got a 4 week business trip coming up, and I'll be taking my bass. Talk about shedding! I'll be stranded in Houston and Phoenix with nothing to do but pluck away in my hotel room all night after work. With what I've been working on, and that time coming up, I feel great. Thanks for all the help guys.

Jazzbo et al, I learned 'et al' on the 2xbasslist.

Here's what I have my jazz students do.

I tell them to listen to the jazz of the 50's and 60's that has Paul Chambers, Ray Brown, and Ron Carter as the bassists. I tell them to do this for 3 months and not to listen to anybody else.

They'll hear what a bass line should sound like and eventually apply it to their playing. Special attention is given to Paul Chambers, this guy walked a mean line. Yes, you write out the lines and play them. Yes, you buy books with their lines and play them, too.

As far as bass lines over one chord for several measures is concerned, just listen to what PC does on Milestones and So What!. It's anything but dull.

Just listen and while you're listening you listen some more. Even if you're not listening you need to listen. Get it? Got it? Good.

OK, somebody is saying, "but I want to make up my own bass lines without being influenced by someone else". My answer is YOU'RE NUTS! I know because I'm a psycho.

Ya gotta have it in your head before you can play it. Kinda like these voices. Ya gotta walk before ya can run and these guys know how to walk.

The music of Bill Evans and his bassists is next. There will be a test.

You're welcome.

Relaxing at the Camarillo,
B.P.

Um...okay, then.

Chambers had impeccable time and regretable intonation. His walking lines used certain cliches over and over, to the extent that you should be able to recognize him within a few bars. Yes, he was hip, but hardly the ultimate bassist

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Chambers had impeccable time and regretable intonation. His walking lines used certain cliches over and over, to the extent that you should be able to recognize him within a few bars. Yes, he was hip, but hardly the ultimate bassist

That's cuz he was thinking scales, not chords! :D

:rolleyes:

Creating a bass line
Jazzbo et al, I learned 'et al' on the 2xbasslist.

Here's what I have my students do.

I tell them to listen to the KeWl MooZik that has Fieldy from Korn, MudVaYnE bassiZT RyKnow, and TimMy C from RaGe as the bassists. I tell them to do this for 3 months and not to listen to anybody else.

They'll hear what a bass line should sound like and eventually apply it to their playing. Special attention is given to FiElDy, this guy wacked a mean line. Yes, you write out the tab lines and play them. Yes, you buy books with their lines and play them, too.

As far as bass lines over one chord for several measures is concerned, just listen to what FiElDy does on any l33t KoRn album. It's anything but dull.

Just listen and while you're listening you listen some more. Even if you're not listening you need to listen. Get it? Got it? Good.

OK, somebody is saying, "but I want to make up my own bass lines without being influenced by someone else". My answer is YOU'RE NUTS! I know because I'm a psycho.

Ya gotta have it in your head before you can play it. Kinda like these voices. Ya gotta walk before ya can run and these guys know how to walk.

The music of Sam Rivers is next. There will be a test.






:rolleyes: sounds the same, huh? funny how the names end up being meaningless in these kinds of situations.

Jazzbo:
Good one, but I'm not sure who'll get it besides you and me.
And speaking of names, one of the hippest Latin bassists ever was also named Rodriguez: Bobby, from Tito's band.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Jazzbo:
Good one, but I'm not sure who'll get it besides you and me.
And speaking of names, one of the hippest Latin bassists ever was also named Rodriguez: Bobby, from Tito's band.

I like to think I decend from greatness, granted Rodriguez is the "Jones" of Hispanic culture.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Chambers
(snip)
was hip, but hardly the ultimate bassist

The advise to pay "special attention" hardly implies Chambers being "the ultimate".
Why the hell can't ya just say yer piece without slagging the guy, Don? He ain't the ultimate bassist 'cause it ain't possible to be the ultimate bassist.
Or am I wrong? Fieldy perhaps?
Jeez...
You'd think you guys could see past what may be a smidge of self-righteousness (like none of us have ever gone there) to the meat of what was basic, sound advise.

You're a nut. Somebody posted virtually the same thing except he used names like Paul Chambers and Ray Brown. I bet you just took his brilliant teaching method and made it look like your own.

I'm telling the moderator.

Hey, are you the guy on the 3rd floor that came from Mars? He listens to Korn. I don't. I bet you play electric bass. I don't. You belong in the other forum. I don't. Do you see 1st Avenue from your window? I don't.

B.P.

:rolleyes:

Man, the moat is smelling FUNK - E these days...

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
:rolleyes:

Man, the moat is smelling FUNK - E these days...

Yeah, my bad. I had Mexican for lunch.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Chambers had impeccable time and regretable intonation. His walking lines used certain cliches over and over, to the extent that you should be able to recognize him within a few bars. Yes, he was hip, but hardly the ultimate bassist

With all due repsect, Don, I've never noticed an intonation problem with PC, no more so than anyone else. Jeez, have you heard The Tale of the Fingers? And if his lines have cliches, they're cliches because other cats were copying what he was doing.

The signature cliche was repetitive use of 1-2-4-2-1 in one position. No one else used it. In isolation, it's fine; if over used, it risks being like ah, um, er when speaking, keeping the sound going while thinking of what to really say next
With all due respect, I saw Chambers live many times, and I know what I heard. Almost all I have of him recorded is on lp's, and it's virtually impossible for me to give you recorded examples since my turntable was tossed out, but I'm not backing off. And I'll say the same thing about Mingus.

Originally posted by 1 Bass Psycho
You're a nut. Somebody posted virtually the same thing except he used names like Paul Chambers and Ray Brown. I bet you just took his brilliant teaching method and made it look like your own.

you tell people to listen to only 3 musicians, and you call that a brilliant teaching method? :rolleyes: if you were my teacher you would be giving me my money back after one lesson.


I'm telling the moderator.


:rolleyes:


Hey, are you the guy on the 3rd floor that came from Mars? He listens to Korn. I don't. I bet you play electric bass. I don't. You belong in the other forum. I don't.


the last time i checked, you don't make the decision as to what posts were acceptable in this forum. i do.

perhaps you could, if you find the time between your "shock treatments" and "lithium" :rolleyes: to research the concept of sarcasm. perhaps i should be blunt.

to suggest that there are 3 players to listen to, to the exclusion of all others, whether we're talking about contemporary pop metal or bop from 50 years ago, is both ignorant and potentially harmful to beginning players.

sounds like the same ole' poochy fan-worship crap that litters the BG side so often.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
I'm not backing off. And I'll say the same thing about Mingus.
And I'll say the same about David Friesen, Charlie Haden, Dave Holland and even me on the rare occasion. At a Ray Brown master class years ago someone made the comment that she was still trying to play in tune and Ray without missing a beat came back with "we all are". With the contributions that ALL of the players mentioned in this thread's recent gasp of life have made that they play out of tune garners a so what? from me. Especially within the context of the discussion.

Originally posted by jeffbonny


Why the hell can't ya just say yer piece without slagging the guy, Don?
I don't know what 'slagging' is, but I guess it isn't good.
For reasons posted just above by JT, my response was to counterbalance BP's post which was breezy, in-your-face, etc. That you would be exercised by anyone's manner of address is, oh, for now, let's say ironic.
And, just for the record, I enjoy listening to PC

1 Bassturbator Psycho -

Why do all trolls show up out of nowhere and immediately start posting bullsh*t?

Why do all trolls waste everybody's time trying to inflame people whose reason for participating in a forum is actually legitimate?

Why do all trolls hide behind idiotic usernames?

Why do trolls seem to have such a difficult time figuring out why - after posting pure spam and getting on everyone's last nerve - nobody cares to take their posts seriously?

If you were to drop off the face of the talkbass earth tomorrow, I bet we'd miss more than we could ever imagine. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try punishing us with your absence for a change?

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Why do trolls seem to have such a difficult time figuring out why - after posting pure spam and getting on everyone's last nerve - nobody cares to take their posts seriously?


I'm 100% with you Chris on not using yer real name being 100% lame. I'm not quite surewhat you mean by "spam" here though. Spam implies impersonal posts with the motive of personal gain doesn't it? Anoneemoosecrazybassboy's advise was, if presented abrasively, still good and in searching his posts I found nothing I would characterize as spam.

Am I the only other guy here who thinks complete immersion in the classic jazz recordings is the best way of learning to play great jazz bass?

Sorry, I guess I didn't realize that the term "SPAM" had such a specific meaning...I always thought it was just a cyber-euphamism for "Bulls**t". You learn something new every day.

About the complete immersion in the masters question: I guess I agree and/or disagree, depending on what you mean. I won't mention any specific names here, because it doesn't really affect the point I'm about to make, but.....

When people talk about the "masters", it means different things to different people, and I can't seem to accept the idea that just because someone is generally considered "great" that I should consider them great. When you get down to it, I respect anybody in the history of this music that is commonly called "jazz" who has made a significant contribution to the art form. There are a great number of such people that I am aware of, and I respect their contribution and effort even if I don't care for their playing or style. If someone gave me a list of bass players generally considered to be "masters" of the jazz idiom, I imagine that the number of those players whose playing I really like would be high, but not all inclusive. And then if I was asked to pick out which of that number I really wished to emulate as a player, I suspect that the result of that "narrowing down" would yield a much smaller sample of the original jazz "masters".

Those are the people whose playing I wish to immerse myself in. I don't see why I should waste my time on the others, and of course it is no disrespect to those who don't make it onto the "Elite" list - it's just my own feeling. Some of the people whose playing I don't care for might be (to others) the greatest bassplayers in the history of jazz. But if they don't speak to me (or, if they don't speak to me YET at this point in my life), I feel I would be better off spending my time studying the work of those whose playing touches me deeply.

To sum up, I think that complete immersion in the music that most moves you will make you a better musician. (caveat - I'm talking about life here and not school; in school, you need to eat what you're fed and take careful notes about whether you find it nourishing or not, which will better prepare you for life)

Originally posted by 1 Bass Psycho
Why do virtually all of the jazz bass giants include him in their list of influences? I can't think of one who didn't.

Why didn't Miles use you instead of monotonous and uninventive Paul Chambers?

Why didn't John Coltrane use you instead of monotonous and uninventive Paul Chambers?

Why weren't you on virtually every jazz album of the greats of the 50's and 60's instead of monotonous, uninventive Paul Chambers?

I'll bet we missed more than we can ever imagine.

B.P.

Why can't we all just get along? :)

Originally posted by jazzbo


Why can't we all just get along? :)

___________________________________________

After reading what I posted about what Don Higdon said about Paul Chambers playing I immediately decided to delete it. It wasn't how I intended to say it and could have been considered UGLY. I don't know but Don may very well be one of the finest bass players around and he has his reasons for saying what he said. He also likes PC...

But I will ask these questions.
If PC was so cliche' etc...

Why did Miles and Coltrane use him so much?

Why was he on so many recording dates with so many of the other greatest players in jazz history?

Why does jazzdom, meaning the guys we buy recordings for study and inspiration, consider him a great player?

Why do virtually all jazz bassists since 1960 include him in their list of greatest influences?

Why are there 6 state capitals west of Los Angeles?

B.P.

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Am I the only other guy here who thinks complete immersion in the classic jazz recordings is the best way of learning to play great jazz bass?
That's pretty much the way I learned, and it worked very well for awhile. By listening to everybody, I learned what I didn't like as well as what I did. But there came a point where I realized the unbeatable value of one-to-one study with a teacher.

Originally posted by john turner


the last time i checked, you don't make the decision as to what posts were acceptable in this forum. i do.

perhaps you could, if you find the time between your "shock treatments" and "lithium" :rolleyes: to research the concept of sarcasm. perhaps i should be blunt.

I thought what you said was hilarious. How did you misread me?

Originally posted by john turner
...
to suggest that there are 3 players to listen to, to the exclusion of all others, whether we're talking about contemporary pop metal or bop from 50 years ago, is both ignorant and potentially harmful to beginning players...

sounds like the same ole' poochy fan-worship crap that litters the BG side so often.
___________________________________________

It's not ignorant and potentially harmful. I said for 3 months and gave my reasons. It's not fan worship in any sense of the word. It's similar to a bass instructor using a certain methods book, whether Simandl, Montag, Bille, or whatever. They don't use that method for worship they use it to produce good bass players.

There are a lot of players that can't walk a line to save their life. They're all screwed up because they listen to all these opinions but don't have a compass to guide them. They listen to players so great and intellectually superior that they can't pick up on the basics. They need to listen to a firm foundation.

They pay me money to learn how to do it so I give them this advice. 3 months is not very long. They can wait a while before listening to the awesome Gomez, Patitucci, or La Faro, or whoever, because they don't have a grasp of what G,P and L are really doing let alone themselves. They need to walk first.

I simply make it simple and give them 3 players I believe work well and are easy to find recordings and written bass lines. If they came to me with a Sam Jones I'd approve of it, but have you looked for a Sam Jones CD lately? The stores say 'WHO?' we'll have to order it. They need to learn NOW.

This has been my method for years and it works very well. If you don't like it that's your option. So far they're pleased and I haven't been asked for a refund.

B.P.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald

To sum up, I think that complete immersion in the music that most moves you will make you a better musician. (caveat - I'm talking about life here and not school; in school, you need to eat what you're fed and take careful notes about whether you find it nourishing or not, which will better prepare you for life)
___________________________________________

I don't disagree. I just think you need to do it one step at a time.

B.P.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
1 Bass**** Psycho -

Why do all trolls show up out of nowhere and immediately start posting bullsh*t?

Why would you call me names?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Why do all trolls waste everybody's time trying to inflame people whose reason for participating in a forum is actually legitimate? [/QUOTE]

I removed my 'inflamatory' remark after reading it. I found it very distasteful. I'm glad to say that this vulgar posting you made had no influence on me what so ever.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Why do all trolls hide behind idiotic usernames?
[/QUOTE]

To protect us from people like you. You sound violent and dangerous.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Why do trolls seem to have such a difficult time figuring out why - after posting pure spam and getting on everyone's last nerve - nobody cares to take their posts seriously? [/QUOTE]

You certainly found it important enough to reply. I find that very thoughtful and caring. It's not everyday you meet somebody you thoughtful, caring and possibly dangerous.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


If you were to drop off the face of the talkbass earth tomorrow, I bet we'd miss more than we could ever imagine. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

You'd miss me in a heart beat.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Why don't you try punishing us with your absence for a change? [/QUOTE]

Because I like you I plan on staying here a long, long time.

B.P.

Hey kids, yer personal quibble ain't helping anyone be a better bass player much less a better person so why don'y y'all take it to email or better still just pull the plug.

If you don't like what someone is saying the most powerful weapon you can use is to ignore; if ya don't like what's on the hook don't bite. God knows I don't mind a good debate but this usenet style crap is not what this forum is about.

jeffbonny -

which "kids" are you referring to? My last post was about the topic, as was Ed's and Don's. I believe someone else has posted four times since my last ON TOPIC post with "usenet crap", whatever that may be. And my whole point of trying to expose the idiot for what he really is in the first place is that listening to his stupid s**t is not why I joined this forum either.



NUTBASS (aka bassturbator, aka Basslix66, aka god, aka contrabasso spaghettio, aka bassturbasso, aka bass-to-pus, aka whatever the hell else you go by) -

Even though I'm mildly bugged at jeff at the moment for taking up for you - not to mention referring to the two of us (I think) in the same sentence - I think his advice on the matter is sound.

To all members of this forum who think this guy's a troll:

Whaddaya say we all decide to make like he simply doesn't exist, as in, "1 Bass Who???"

And when he starts pestering people on their personal emails as he is known to do, just press "Block this address" and "Delete".

All in favor, roll your eyes.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
And my whole point of trying to expose the idiot for what he really is in the first place is...

Dude, he's doing a much better job himself than you or anyone else could ever hope to.

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Dude, he's doing a much better job himself than you or anyone else could ever hope to.

Yeah, they usually do, don't they? Using a false username is no substitute for intelligence. ;)
Reed Ellenberger

This is a great place and John's a great moderator.

Anybody play any gigs tonight? I was on a gig with a guy that's an old friend of Doc Severnsons. Flugel (and trumpet), Piano, and Acoustic Bass. (I was on bass) He knew all the OLLLLLLLLLLLLD tunes. Lot's of fun! The piano player played with Bobby Vinton for a while.

How many Easter gigs are you guys playing? I've got rehearsals tomorrow. They use electric on a lot of the new stuff. Very sad. The string bass parts are rather slow but it pays cash money and that buys a bunch of cheap cheeseburgers and fries!!!

Here's the nurse. Gotta go.

B.P.

Guess I'm the only one that thought Psycho was hilarious...just get back on subject instead of ranting about a joke you didn't get....

Originally posted by Intrepid
Guess I'm the only one that thought Psycho was hilarious...just get back on subject instead of ranting about a joke you didn't get....

If you like his stuff, he pops up about once a week on the 2xbasslist (instructions on joining this list are on Bob G.'s page). I usually find him pretty funny.

Monte

I noticed early in this thread Don's reaction to the Ron Carter statement about seeing a chord and knowing he's got 4 note choices. Don replied that he disagreed:

"I was responding to Ed's quote of Carter's comment about having four choices on beat one, four on two, etc..."

I think we need to take Carter's statement with a grain of salt. I have been going through his book lately, and he actually is one of those players who tends to notate chord progressions in many different ways. Some are more detailed, notating tritone chords for chromatics and such, but some just don't take note whatsoever of chromatic or non-chord note choices. So I think what he's saying is kind of incomplete as it pertains to his approach. He's playing non-chord notes all the time, so I guess he's missing the end of the sentence - it should go something like this: "When I see a chord I know I have four possible note choices plus whatever other notes I hear, and heck, not even all four tones in the chord might be appropriate based on what everyone alse is doing and what the melody is." Heh.

Don, you say paul chambers used the 1-2-4-2-1 in one position--could you elaborate?

sounds like a chromatic up and down of 3 notes - but I am just an innocent bystander here.

Originally posted by meltsakana
Don, you say paul chambers used the 1-2-4-2-1 in one position--could you elaborate?

I'm not Don and don't play one on TV, but a classic Chambers-oid lick over bars 1-4 of C blues would be something like:

C C# D C# | C Bb A Ab | G A Bb G | Bb B C Gb

If you listen for the chromatic pattern you'll hear it often in PC's walking and soloing. Remember, though, that PC was reacting to the context not trying to force-fit a lick.

Bump.

Sorry to stoke this thread any higher. First off let me explain that I'm a guitar player. I learned everything from a scale based perspective initially. I am now in the process of forcingmy self to think about improvisation from the chordal point of view.

There is one post that chris made that is the perfect answer;

"Another point: CMaj7 9 11 13 Vs. a C Maj scale?
They're both just philosophical contrivances for choosing notes that please YOUR ear. Right?"

That's it. The benifit to being able to improvise from a chordal point of view is that you can switch keys more easily. The draw back is you have to spend ALOT more time in the shed to get this ingrained. Most guitar players can learn scales and start improvising in a few weeks. Learning to improvise with focus on chordal tones and extensions takes years. At the end of the day it boils down to this. If I'm trying to make melody I want to improvise with a chordal focus. If I'm preparing the crowd for lift I usually drop into a straight up scaler method of thinking.

Just to repeat what chris said one more time:
CMaj7 9 11 13 = C Maj scale?"

If you play a CMaj7 arp and include the 9 11 and 13 extensions you have the entire CMaj scale to choose from.
9=2 11=4 13=6

Cheers...and great forum by the way.

Try playing in the different modes of the key that would go with a chord. Say we have 12 bars of a Cmaj7 chord. You could play C major, D dorian, E phrygian, F lydian, G mixolydian, A Aeolian, B locrian. You can also try altering some of the chord tones to add some extra flavor.

I don't know if this has been discussed previously (hadn't noticed it anyway), but I figured I'd throw this in. The way I see it when there's one chord for several measures or I'm playing a modal tune, I start to think melodically rather than just harmonically (I think this way with more rapid chord changes too, but less so). You don't want to be so strong as to challenge a soloist, or confuse the harmony, but you can definately start to interact melodically with the soloist.
All that's not to say that you should think from a scalar point of view and throw harmony out the window, but rather than you could work within the intersection of the two. Use chromatic and scalar passing tones and the melodic/harmonic tensions within the key you are playing in. But I've definatly found that concentrating on creating a melodic, flowing line, will help create a lot more interest when a chord is held for several measures, rather than just thinking about triads and whatnot.