Lately I have been paying a lot of attention to the solos of players like Matt Garrison, Oteil Burbridge, Dominique Di Piazza, Vic Wooten, etc, and I can't help but notice how different their solos sound from my own. Their solos and improv are so melodic and jazzy they sound just like jazz piano or trumpet solos rather than the usual "bass solo" sound. So I was wondering how to make your solos more melodic and really "jazzy" like these guys. I have somewhat begun by getting/transcribing some piano and sax lines to help practice my over all sense of melody and soloing, but is very hard work, so if you guys have any tips, please lay em on me. Thanks a lot

Yes, this is probably the biggest issue on my mind as well. I don't think I have any large amounts of comprehensive advise for this at the moment. What I do know is that what makes things jazzy and melodic in my opinion is playing something that feels purposely off key. The key is purposely. I think you could have come to that conclusion anyway, but it doesn't really help much. You have to know in what way to purposely change the key and I would need some examples.

I have a tip...keep doing what you're doing with studying transcribed and recorded solos from other instruments, then take what you've learned from them and incorporate them into your own playing. It's a lengthy process, but if it was easy, everyone would do it.

Daniel, you are partially right. But you have to be able to go off key in a way that totally relates to the key. It's not enough to just go out of key. When you go off, you have to know how to yank yourself right back into it and make it sound like music.

Yes, all of these concepts are what I am working on now, and hopefully they will eventually pay off. Plus I am about to start transcribing some coltrane solos so that should keep me busy for quite some time

dont worry so much about what your playing, just stop with the bass for a minute. listen to the backing behind your solo, and hum something. just sing a melody, pretend your using a sax or piano or whatever you want. when you get a good melody stuck in your head that fits, play it on your bass. then you can start your solo with that as your main idea, and embellish it a bit, do some runs and change things around, then when your getting to the end of your solo section, fall back to the original idea. itll make a very clear statement, and people will get it stuck in their heads. youll also have a bit to show off your chops a little bit in the middle. once you get good at it, you dont even have to work at it, you can just play along as your humming once you know your bass well enough. good luck, God bless.

When I learn a tune, I always get the melody under my fingers. When a bass solo comes around, I structure my solo around the melody, and referencing it. This helps me play much more melodically than I did when I all I had were bass lines going through my head all the time.

I'm gonna answer this from a totally different angle. You're already trying to transcribe different stuff. That will help a lot.

Now, practice tapping out solos rhythmically WITHOUT YOUR BASS. Practice this. It sounds ridiculous, maybe, but it will help a lot with your phrasing. It will teach you to start with a simple idea and build a story out of it. If you can make it rhythmically interesting, the specific notes will be a lot less important in a solo. Keep in mind, a GOOD solo is not about showing off chops, it's about telling a story. Listen to any good soloist, and the rhythm will tell a story even if you play it all as one note.

Another thing about transcribing. Getting the notes and rhythm down is only the beginning of learning a solo. If you want to play a sax solo, make your bass sound as much like a sax as you can. Figure out how to get all the sounds, feels, slurs, slides, noises, etc. that the sax does. This will again help your phrasing and your feel tremendously.

There is no quick way to learn any of this stuff. You'll spend your whole life doing it and still have tons to learn.

The note choices , IME, are the least important part of most solos.

:confused: :confused: :confused:
SB

I stand by that statement. If you can make the rhythm tell a story, you can put random notes there and it will still sound good. Of course the notes matter, but the rhythm is more important. PERIOD.

If you have the time, and you're really serious about better improv/soloing, check this thread out:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=174890

Prior to this thread, my solos sounded really "blah". Mike gave me some great advice in this thread. It's worth checking out. I spent several weeks on this tune. I learned the bassline, the chords, the melody, and how to solo over it. I even composed a little introduction and ending for my recording.

I was serious about playing better and I thought that recording my playing would keep me "on task". Here is the recording that resulted from this thread:

http://www.michaeldimin.com/joebossa.mp3

Right click and select, "save target as...". The file is about 3.5MB. Let me know what you think.

Joe

rhythmic vocabulary is every bit as important as melodic or harmonic vocabulary. Listen to ANY good solo - in any genre, and tell me the rhythmic part of it isn't damned good. I don't care if you're talking Red Mitchell, Miles Davis, Jaco, or the guitar hero guy in your local bar band.

If you place the rhythmic content anywhere but number one on your checklist, I probably will find your solos (and playing in general) not to my liking.

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the notes. I'm saying it STARTS from the rhythm.

I stand by that statement. If you can make the rhythm tell a story, you can put random notes there and it will still sound good. Of course the notes matter, but the rhythm is more important. PERIOD.

Sorry, I think this is obviously untrue. As but one example, you can find plenty of examples of music where the rhythmic variation is minor or nearly nonexistent--I'm thinking, for example, of a Bach prelude that is almost totally in 16th notes from measure 3 to the 3rd measure from the end--yet is still great music. I would have a harder time thinking of a great solo on a pitched instrument that is melodically and harmonically humdrum yet elevated to greatness by rhythmic invention alone. Certainly I can't think offhand of any Parker solos that are like that.

This isn't to say that rhythm isn't vital. Just that it's not #1.

I don't know what Parker & Coltrane would think of that?
They'd spend their entire life on reinventing the jazz vocabulary and perfectionning their melodic art.

The original poster was asking what whould make is solos more melodic.
It is the choice of notes that define the style of improvisation of a player.
A blues played by Jaco,Bird,Sco or Miles is gonna sound different each time because of their choice of notes.

But yes,good notes played without feel or out of time are meanless.

I think we would agree that a great solo is build on notes,rhythms,phrasing and inspiration.

SB

fair enough. Let's just say I am obsessed with rhythm these days...

And for what it's worth, one of my projects right now is transcribing a Cannonball Adderly solo. Believe it or not, I'm putting the notes in, too!!

Sorry, I think this is obviously untrue. As but one example, you can find plenty of examples of music where the rhythmic variation is minor or nearly nonexistent--I'm thinking, for example, of a Bach prelude that is almost totally in 16th notes from measure 3 to the 3rd measure from the end--yet is still great music.
It's not necessarily all in the note choice or all in the rhythm. Since phrasing is about the synthesis of the two, it follows reason that both would contribute in some way. In my opinion, you can make a good solo with random notes or random rhythms -- as long as the other half is well constructed -- but you can probably make a better solo if you choose both elements of your solo wisely.

It's not necessarily all in the note choice or all in the rhythm. Since phrasing is about the synthesis of the two, it follows reason that both would contribute in some way. In my opinion, you can make a good solo with random notes or random rhythms -- as long as the other half is well constructed -- but you can probably make a better solo if you choose both elements of your solo wisely.

I dunno, for my tastes I don't think you can really depend on being able to make a great solo with random pitches on a pitched instrument. I don't think I've ever heard it done. But then, I don't think I've heard a great solo with random rhythm either. Plenty with flexible or rubato rhythm, but none I'd call random, in the sense of being completely uncontrolled or unintended. I think you need both, in varying proportions, pretty much all the time.

I never having a problem with giving rhythm an important place. I just won't make it numero uno. I don't make anything else numero uno either.;)

Lately I have been paying a lot of attention to the solos of players like Matt Garrison, Oteil Burbridge, Dominique Di Piazza, Vic Wooten, etc, and I can't help but notice how different their solos sound from my own. Their solos and improv are so melodic and jazzy they sound just like jazz piano or trumpet solos rather than the usual "bass solo" sound. So I was wondering how to make your solos more melodic and really "jazzy" like these guys. I have somewhat begun by getting/transcribing some piano and sax lines to help practice my over all sense of melody and soloing, but is very hard work, so if you guys have any tips, please lay em on me. Thanks a lot

Classical Thump,

Have you had a chance to visit that Mike Dimin thread yet? If so, what did you think? Early in the thread, Mike had us using bits of the melody to create melodic sequences. The melody of the tune we were working on is almost entirely made up of a melodic sequence.

Have you ever noticed how some of the most beautiful melodies are so simple? It's fun to take a melody and embellish it in different ways. It's kind of like language; you can explain the same thing in several different ways. You can get right to the point with what you are saying, or you can be colorful and creative in the way you say something. I find music and language very similar.

I hope this perspective is helpful. If you get an opportunity to visit the link, please let me know if it helped out.

Joe

Can we play nice or I'll close the thread?


Chris A. :rolleyes: :bassist:

Sorry, I think this is obviously untrue. As but one example, you can find plenty of examples of music where the rhythmic variation is minor or nearly nonexistent--I'm thinking, for example, of a Bach prelude that is almost totally in 16th notes from measure 3 to the 3rd measure from the end--yet is still great music. I would have a harder time thinking of a great solo on a pitched instrument that is melodically and harmonically humdrum yet elevated to greatness by rhythmic invention alone. Certainly I can't think offhand of any Parker solos that are like that.

This isn't to say that rhythm isn't vital. Just that it's not #1.

If it was done in whole notes how do you think it would be different? Additionally the instrumentation used will make a huge difference. String instruments versus brass versus reeds, they all bring a certain emotional quality to the music.

The essence of phrasing is rhythm and though the harmonic content is a part of it, you can still create very intersting things with a single note. There are plenty of basslines that use a single note and make a song come alive primarily because of the rhythm in which it is played.

I was at the Jazz Standard one evening and there was a Japanese Big Band playing. All of the horns fit together beautifully but he pieces were devoid of life and they had the full section there, 4 trumpets, saxes, trombones. Frank Fosters big band came on after them with half the personel and twice the sound needless to say they swang like a set of saloon doors.

I say rhythm is #1, especially if you're playing the wrong notes.

Improvising on bass, particularly UB, has it's unique set of challenges like any instrument. The melodic content of a saxaphone or trumpet solo will not have the same effect if played two or three octaves down on a Bass. While transcribing(for example)Parker can only help you in the long run and is something every jazz musician should do(even though you can go get an Omni Book now) actually puting it to application in solo form is another matter all together. Now the challenge a technical one, it is not easy to play melodic lines on a bass in a range that is particularly effective, especially in thumb position on an UB!!
I think alot of the debating here is due to different opinions of how to solo on bass. If you listen to many of the bassists from the Bop and Cool Jazz eras you may find more bassists playing solos that include melodically simplistic lines that are rythmically clever, it is also common to hear a bassist "walk" a solo, particulary when the tempos are up. Many bassists did not do much solo work at all, but if you listen closely you can begin to hear a transition. Bassist began to take a more melodically challenging approach....fast forward to John P. blasting Giant Steps at tempo in thumb position blowing everyones mind.
The fact is many consider what we do in the "trenches" more important than our ablility to solo, there was a time when bassists were not really expected to solo much at all, when I play I try to remind myself that I am improvising the whole night, a good walking bass line has to come from somewhere!!
Addressing the original question, you need to keep learning your improv and theory while gaining technical ability on you instrument, don't be afraid to skip a solo or "walk" a solo or two if you are playing in front of people, it is better than scuffling, IMO.

Can we play nice or I'll close the thread?


Chris A. :rolleyes: :bassist:

If I said anything snippy, I apologize. I thought we were just having a direct, open discussion. I was enjoying the replies to my seemingly unpopular opinion. I didn't take offense to any of it.

If it was done in whole notes how do you think it would be different? Additionally the instrumentation used will make a huge difference. String instruments versus brass versus reeds, they all bring a certain emotional quality to the music.

The essence of phrasing is rhythm and though the harmonic content is a part of it, you can still create very intersting things with a single note. There are plenty of basslines that use a single note and make a song come alive primarily because of the rhythm in which it is played.

I was at the Jazz Standard one evening and there was a Japanese Big Band playing. All of the horns fit together beautifully but he pieces were devoid of life and they had the full section there, 4 trumpets, saxes, trombones. Frank Fosters big band came on after them with half the personel and twice the sound needless to say they swang like a set of saloon doors.

I say rhythm is #1, especially if you're playing the wrong notes.

Well, for one thing, we were talking about solos, not accompanying parts. And even then, I don't know of many bass parts that use only one note or random notes and achieve their effect by rhythm alone. Not compared to the thousands and thousands that depend on intelligent note choice. So what's one great bass solo where the notes are meaningless but the rhythm makes it great? (And don't say Fieldy.;) )

What I really don't get is the whole issue of why any one component of a solo--whether it's rhythm, melody, harmony, tone, or whatever--has to be #1 at all. To me it seems pointless to think that way. We have a bunch of ingredients; the point is simply to use them to make something good. Why even worry about ranking? Everybody already knows that you want to have all the elements happening anyway.

What makes a great drum solo? What makes a great timbale solo? What makes a good conga solo? What makes a good bongo solo? Answer, rhythm.

What I really don't get is the whole issue of why any one component of a solo--whether it's rhythm, melody, harmony, tone, or whatever--has to be #1 at all. To me it seems pointless to think that way. We have a bunch of ingredients; the point is simply to use them to make something good. Why even worry about ranking? Everybody already knows that you want to have all the elements happening anyway.


hard to argue with this. BUT, if you had to rank them you've got to admit, the most important part of a solo, By far, is how cool you look while doing it. ;)

hard to argue with this. BUT, if you had to rank them you've got to admit, the most important part of a solo, By far, is how cool you look while doing it. ;)

Well, yeah, clearly.:D

What makes a great drum solo? What makes a great timbale solo? What makes a good conga solo? What makes a good bongo solo? Answer, rhythm.

Not really relevant. The original thread starter was talking about solos on a pitched instrument, namely bass.

You have to take into account that different instruments have different capabilities. Percussion instruments like drums and timbales are melodically limited in comparison with bass or sax or piano. Therefore, the greater part of the interest in any solo on these instruments *has* to come from rhythm, simply because the other options are so limited. Of course rhythm is the main thing for bongo solos--poor suckers haven't got much else to work with!

Conversely, no bassist can approach the rhythmic complexity of a great drummer. So melody and harmony would therefore play a greater role in a bass solo. Obviously, rhythm is essential, and no one is saying it's not. But the idea that you can have a great solo on a pitched instrument where the pitches don't vary or are random seems self-evidently wrong, if only because nobody seems to have any examples of such a thing.

To argue that rhythm is primary for all instruments, just because it may be for some, makes no sense. Again, show me a great *bass* solo, or more than one if you can, where the notes are meaningless but the rhythm makes it great.

Again, show me a great *bass* solo, or more than one if you can, where the notes are meaningless but the rhythm makes it great.Well it's not one or the other, rhythm or note choice, that makes for great playing, nobody would argue that note choice is meaningless or that one-note solos are terribly common. But, if the cake batter is rhythm, the notes on top are definitely just icing, particularly with the bass. You just can't get anything done without a solid rhythm, regardless of your note choice.

Well it's not one or the other, rhythm or note choice, that makes for great playing, nobody would argue that note choice is meaningless or that one-note solos are terribly common. But, if the cake batter is rhythm, the notes on top are definitely just icing, particularly with the bass. You just can't get anything done without a solid rhythm, regardless of your note choice.

You can't get anything done without good note choice either, regardless of rhythm. Notes are not just icing. They're every bit as essential as rhythm. If rhythm is sentence structure, notes are the words. Sentences are meaningless without both words and proper structure.

What you said is sorta like saying, you can't get any driving done without four working wheels, no matter what kind of car you drive. Well, yeah--but you also can't get any driving done without an engine, and the best wheels in the world won't help you without one.

And once again, we're talking about *bass solos* here. Again, show me even one great one-note or random-note bass solo. Then, if you find one, compare it with the vast numbers of bass solos in which the notes are not monotonous and random.

I do think that the notes and rhythm need to work well together. My belief is that it's possible to choose notes that fit any rhythm, and possible to find a rhythm to connect any set of notes. Probably there are some sequences that can't be kept from sounding like glitchy electronica, but there are people who listen to that stuff. I can't give you an example of a solo like that. I'm just going on my gut feeling, much as you are. I'm not saying using random rhythm or notes is a good approach -- judging by its rarity, its probably pretty hard. I just won't rule it out because I can't think of an example.

Let me try to rephrase my initial statement about rhythm that started this crazy hijacked tangent on this thread.

I would never try to argue that the notes don't matter. Of course they matter. What I was trying to suggest, is that one way to practice soloing, at least phrasing and telling coherent stories with your solos, is to separate the rhythm out first.

It is possible to work on solo ideas rhythmically, and I think it can be very helpful (it has been for me, at least). I wind up singing notes in my head, btw, when I do this, but I will tap out a solo idea without my bass, with or without musical accompaniment (if no music, I suggest a metronome). I find practicing this for a while before bringing my bass into it, helps me get more coherent ideas internalized. I try to sing solo ideas before I try to play them if it is something I am struggling with. Once I feel comfortable without my bass, than I bring the bass into it, and start adding the notes.

Separating out the rhythm is also a very good way to learn to use rests in your playing, which are very effective in building tension.

Of course, this method is not gonna work if the kind of solos you are interested in playing are just endless lines of blazing fast 16th notes.

Not sure if this explains any better, but this was really the point of my original post in this thread. Of course all of the different elements are important. I was suggesting that it is often helpful to seperate them from each other - thinking about all of this stuff at once can be really complicated while you are learning to play it - at least for me.

Let me try to rephrase my initial statement about rhythm that started this crazy hijacked tangent on this thread.

I would never try to argue that the notes don't matter. Of course they matter. What I was trying to suggest, is that one way to practice soloing, at least phrasing and telling coherent stories with your solos, is to separate the rhythm out first.

It is possible to work on solo ideas rhythmically, and I think it can be very helpful (it has been for me, at least). I wind up singing notes in my head, btw, when I do this, but I will tap out a solo idea without my bass, with or without musical accompaniment (if no music, I suggest a metronome). I find practicing this for a while before bringing my bass into it, helps me get more coherent ideas internalized. I try to sing solo ideas before I try to play them if it is something I am struggling with. Once I feel comfortable without my bass, than I bring the bass into it, and start adding the notes.

Separating out the rhythm is also a very good way to learn to use rests in your playing, which are very effective in building tension.

Of course, this method is not gonna work if the kind of solos you are interested in playing are just endless lines of blazing fast 16th notes.

Not sure if this explains any better, but this was really the point of my original post in this thread. Of course all of the different elements are important. I was suggesting that it is often helpful to seperate them from each other - thinking about all of this stuff at once can be really complicated while you are learning to play it - at least for me.

See, when you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense IMO. ;) It definitely makes sense to work on development of rhythmic ideas.

It was statements like this, on the other hand, that kicked off the tangent:

"If you can make the rhythm tell a story, you can put random notes there and it will still sound good. Of course the notes matter, but the rhythm is more important. PERIOD."

or

"The note choices , IME, are the least important part of most solos."

You're always gonna get an argument from somebody around here with that!

I still say the rhythm is what will make or break your solo. Where in time you put the notes, where you use tension where you use release makes a huge difference between whether or not people are feeling what your playing or not. Take a passage out a book and have two readers read it, pitch being equal, the reader with the better dynamic and rhythmic flow is going to captivate you more.

To the OP, what do you mean by Jazzy? Are you hearing more diminished ideas being played?

Take a passage out a book and have two readers read it, pitch being equal, the reader with the better dynamic and rhythmic flow is going to captivate you more.

Sure, but that doesn't prove your point. First, your statement works equally well if you turn the terms around. Dynamic and rhythmic flow being equal, the passage with better words and sentences is going to captivate you more. Does that mean that pitch is primary?

Second, you're rigging the argument by saying "pitch being equal." Of course if the notes are the same the more compelling rhythm wins. No one said differently. The point is, what if the pitches are not equal?

Imagine two readings done by two actors, one greater (say, Lord Laurence Olivier) and one lesser (say, Keanu Reeves, than whom few working movie actors are lesser). Keanu is reading, say, the conclusion of "Grapes of Wrath," or the Gettysburg Address, or a passage from the book of Job in the King James Bible, or some other superb example of written English. Lord Larry, on the other hand, is repeating the word "cheese," and only the word "cheese," 697 times.

Now, clearly Lord Larry can do more with 697 repetitions of the word "cheese" than most ordinary mortals could, and certainly more than Keanu could, but even his virtuosity can't make something that boring worth hearing (except maybe as a novelty, sort of a Dr. Demento kinda thing). However, even though Keanu can't shine Lord Larry's shoes as an actor, the quality of the prose he's reading is so good that there's something there, even if he can't do nearly as much with it as Olivier could have. You could actually sit still to hear the Gettysburg Address being read, even if you could imagine it being done better.

The best situation, obviously, would be to combine Olivier with the better prose passage. The least appealing would be to hear Keanu Reeves recite the word "cheese" 697 times.:eek:

I still say the rhythm is what will make or break your solo. Where in time you put the notes, where you use tension where you use release makes a huge difference between whether or not people are feeling what your playing or not. Take a passage out a book and have two readers read it, pitch being equal, the reader with the better dynamic and rhythmic flow is going to captivate you more.

Bieng that spoken word has no key centre I would buy this argument only if the listener was tone deaf(or completely deaf and they were just watching someone solo!). I WILL say, however, that rhythm is more important than note selection when walking a bass line!!

They are both very important, but not always.
Take some later Coltrane for example, he is showering down layers upon layers of notes, we've all heard the expression "sheets of sound". This approach did not depend on rhythm for tension or release, if you've even seen some of these solos transcibed and looked for bar lines you would agree.
To stick with "notey" examples someone like Oscar Peterson uses the ability to lay way back off the beat to get you hanging on just to see if he can finish his runs in time. His solos swing like crazy, add in all the 16th note triplets, a swinging rhymic bonanza!!
The better your rhythmic phrasing is and the better your theory knowledge is the better you are. From a jazz education standpoint theory and scale/note selection gets more attention because it is more complex and difficult to learn, not all agree, needless to say it is much easier to pick-up on your own through listening than jazz theory.

well, sorry to all for hijacking this thread with my poor choice of words, but I'm really enjoying reading this!!

Richard Lindsey, you're still trying to hold onto this concept of the single note to prove some point. :D

Sure, but that doesn't prove your point. First, your statement works equally well if you turn the terms around. Dynamic and rhythmic flow being equal, the passage with better words and sentences is going to captivate you more. Does that mean that pitch is primary?

The point I'm making is that you don't have to agree or be interested in the subject presented but still be totally captivated by the speaker because of the delivery i.e. the rhythm and the dynamics, the presentation if you will.

hey guys, thanks for all your advice. i just realized this thread had taken off, and found a lot of valuable info. i am checkin out the thread that was posted now, and hopefully i will be able to get to a point whre im happy.