To keep the thread clean, I had suggested to me to find another spot for conversation, flaming, questions, etc.

I'm working on these in word and then posting them at TB and updating a semi-hidden page at my web site with the info at the same time. The web version, which should be more printer-friendly, can be found at: http://sun.he.net/~rparker/TheExorcises/

I just put up the 4th crossing, and will be putting up my fingerings for the C scale soon, as it raises some interesting TP issues that are not really noticable in the F scale. Then I plan a GP for some of the above-mentioned yakking/flaming/etc.

I'm really interested to see what you guys have to say about this stuff, as my only audience up to this point, other then brief demostrations, has been students.

If I end up flaming you over your fingerings, it'll take awhile - enough time for me to absorb all of this stuff! Just wanted to give the whole thread a thumbs up and say thanks for taking the time. Keep it coming.

Good stuff, Ray. I actually somehow stumbled across your page without realizing it was your work. I'm looking forward to applying next time I do some actual practice:rolleyes: . Nicely written, too.

...here we go. With the two scales that I have up now, there should be enough detail here to see what you guys think.

There are a million little things that I mention along the way when I'm showing this stuff to students, but I practiced as much self-control as I could so as not to notate every tiny detail. I'm expecting that I likely edited things that should have stayed, etc.

Let me know what you think.

Wow, Ray, you sure have put a lot of that into it.

I have a couple of comments, first, renaming the fingers for thumb position is a hassle and leads to confusion. I think it's a lot simpler to keep the index finger as one, middle finger as two, etc., and simply add T to indicate thumb. It doesn't require any change in thought, 1 is always the same 1, 2 is always the same 2. Renaming the fingers is an even bigger complication should one get into using the thumb below the traditional 12th semitone. I've played music where I've fingered A on the D string with my thumb and E on the G string with 1. Explaining that fingering, for example, is a lot easier using T-1 than 1-2 and explaining the the thumb is now 1.

Secondly, you seemed to avoid a common thumb position fingering that covers an entire tetrachord under one hand position, requiring only one shift to play an entire octave. Your fingerings appear to be similar to some of those in John Hood's _Three Octave Tune-up_, but I'm wondering why you excluded this possibility when you seem to have covered every other logical possibility?

Oh, forget that question, I just remembered you wrote one finger per semitone in thumb position. But why be limited to that when it's very easy to cover a whole step between fingers in thumb position?

Regarding the use of thumb pivots in the very low positions (1,1-4; A, Bb-C on the G string), I've found that to be very inaccurate and requiring much more practice than a simple shift. I think in that example F was played with 4 on the D string, why not play 2-1-4 then on the G? The A is already under the 2, and the shift is a very simple whole step shift. It also necessitates maintence of "proper" hand position (shape) which is less strenuous then breaking the shape for the reach and pivot.

Shifting or rolling could be left to personal preference, but when you take the application of melodic tools into consideration then rolling is the only way to achieve any speed. As an example, go through the entire F scale, play the neighboring tone below, the neighboring tone above, and then the note. (By neighboring tones I'm referring to a half-step below the note and a scale step above) I think you'll find that when you start really covering four-fretted ideas with any speed that shifting becomes incredibly cumbersome, and this is why I have my students learn to roll on the thumb once pretty early on.

As far as my renumbering of the fingers, this is pretty central to the way that I approach the bass. Remember that I propose keeping to the Slab-type, or four fingered (or fretted) fingerings. Using the old 'T-1-2-3' makes a confusing mess out of keeping your self in scale position by having your 1st finger on 1, 3, and 6 of the scale. It would also cause a lot of hassle if you were to take any literature up or down an octave, where if the finger-numbering is consistent you have no problem. Color printing, like I'm using, or the handy ol' asterisk, would differentiate between TP and Not TP pretty easily. (Just waiting for the punsters)

As far as limiting myself 'when whole steps are easily reached', this goes back again to staying in scale position and minimal muscle-memory training to get the job done. I'll have to write out an example line that I might play as an example to preview where I'm heading.

I had an interesting conversation with a bassist friend of mine who comes out of the classical thing and his comment was that because of the very diatonic nature of a lot of the literature played on that side of the fence that my approach would cause unnecessary shifting as you wouldn't need access to all that 'my way' gets you. I would have no problem conceding this. It's left up to the individual whether shifting or working out the intonation for all of the extra fingerings is less expensive. Ultimately you have to do what works for you for a given situation.

I been uning some of your fingerings and some of the fingerings from Dr. Mark Morton (http://www.asodb.com). When he gets into thump position he calls the thumb 1. So, it not to hard to follow your exorcises and his fingering. He also advocates the 4 finger approach to bass and yes it is hard if not impossiable befor 4 position. Keep up the good work.

Joe

Wow! I'm very excited to see what Morton is up to. It looks like he's gone the same way that I have, but from the classical end of the universe. I've contacted him and look forward to meeting up with him on all of this business...

Ray,

I was checking out some of your music over at mp3.com. Nice stuff, you should cut one of their DAM CD's just so I could buy a copy ;-)

Joe

I kind of lost some motivation on the MP3.com thing. Maybe I'll find some energy for that again at some point. Alternatively, it's not unknown to snail-mail MD's and cassettes back and forth between TB members.

I can dig your point about improvising in thumb position.

Originally posted by Ray Parker
but when you take the application of melodic tools into consideration then rolling is the only way to achieve any speed.

This kinda harkens back to the Simandl+ thread, there's a time and a place. Sure, for anything shorter than a quarter note when the tempo is approaching quarter=300, you can't shift, but traditional fingering/shifting works fine for just about anything else, including playing the F scale the way you suggested.

Another thing I have to ask you about is your assertion that shifting is unmusical or non-melodic and your fingerings are melodic. How can a fingering be one or the other? You hear a melody in your head, grab the notes and play them. But in all honesty, I think I play more melodically when I shift up or down the same string than when I play across the strings.

There is nothing about fingering that is melodic or otherwise. I speak of access to melodic tools. Technique should allow you to have your instrument out of your way so that you can spend your energy on music.

Pardon me now if I vent a little frustration. I seem to be failing to get my basic tenet across.

The basic point from which I start is how harmony lays on the instrument and how best to wring out of The Monster whatever it is that you are trying to play. If you can play everything that you play using whatever technique that you use, even if that method involves a single string and a C-clamp, then don't let me get in your way. If you, as many bass players do, find the instrument a difficult one on which to achieve agility, then you may want to consider what I propose. I've taken very modest natural physical ability and managed to achieve considerable mobility and have with my achievement generated some interest.

My approach is purely pragmatic and if there is any beauty, it is purely in function. I'm a zero-BS kinda guy with some innate mechanical engineering skills, and I do not propose what I propose for the sake of anything but to erase, as much as possible, The Bass from standing between the player and the music.

I believe, that between the 'Fingering' thread and the HTML post (http://www.bassmuse.com/TheExorcises.html) at my web site, I have laid out pretty clearly, but perhaps not in minute detail, the problems that I have with some of the more popular traditional left-hand methods. If the old ways satisfy you, then I again offer that you not let me cause you grief.

Originally posted by Ray Parker
Technique should allow you to have your instrument out of your way so that you can spend your energy on music.

If the old ways satisfy you, then I again offer that you not let me cause you grief.

Ray, I absolutely agree with the first statement.

As for the second, you're not causing me any grief. You started this thread in what appeared to be an effort to promote some discussion about your fingering technique. I'm just taking part, expressing some questions and thoughts, which IMO, were legit. I thought that your effort to lay all of this out here at least deserved some thought and a critical response, not just a slap on the back or a blow off. And frankly I'm suprised there haven't been more questions or comments. Afterall, you laid this on at least a few of us who've been playing a long time and should be well acquainted with Simandl (or other), it's limitations, and how to beat them.

Cool. I guess where I was getting frustrated is that what I'm trying to get to is larger than whether shifting is better than rolling on the thumb and the like. Certain things like that are going to be personal and also depend on speed, etc.

The powerful idea that I'm trying to get across is that traditional western harmony lays on the neck in a four-note-width pattern and that to achieve the melodic agility that a horn player or piano player has you need to maximize your ability to get all of the melodic tools under your hands.

The two big limiting factors of the bass, technically, are range and string length. The range limitation can be softened by knowing how a key lays on the bass and how to access what you want when you want it, and string length can only be defeated by hijinx and mojo -- at least where you can't actually reach things with all four fingers.

What I'm doing on this front is transposing a four-fingered approach to three fingers where four fingered fingering is impossible. Playing four fingers when it can be reached when speed is required, or three fingered if you have time to move around like that, and re-assessing completely the way that TP has traditionally been approached. Traditional bass technique seems to me to be engineered much the way that the English are famous for being designed -- things are added as they are needed -- which leads to an overall poor design. (I love English cars, don't get me wrong, but I offer as an example a '59 Jag that my dad had. You had to pull out a frame cross-member to get the oil filter off) As bass has progressed from a novelty into a 'real' instrument, it seems that no one has gone back and considered how to play the thing and rather have just continued to pass on bad habits and narrow thinking. (Narrow in that bass has been approached as a utility instrument.)

So, if you are doing a lot of orchestral work and there are TP passages that can only be played with some kind of extended fingering, then only a fool would not use it. I'm a jazz guy, which has some similar and some different requirements from the classical thing. If you're a straight orchestral sort, then a lot of what I'm trying to open up on the bass may not be needed for what you do. I haven't had a chance to really dig into the Morton stuff that Joe Taylor turned me onto, but from what I've seen of it so far, it looks like he's on to the same things that I've been working on.

I'm going to try to get up, maybe later this week, some examples of where all of this leads ultimately. This is so much easier to show in person as all I have to do is play some for you to show you how it works. A demonstration is worth a thousand words, eh?

It nice to see the ball being tossed around. We all need to pay attention to what Ran and Doc Morton have to say. The faster the music and the futher up the scale it the more you need good fingerings. In the past before I got side tracked I used to played in two orchestras one university orcherstr and (a real long time ago) an all state symphony so I have seen a few bass parts I can tell you this if you have to do a lot of shifting you wont get all the notes! In Tch's 4th symphony you get to play in G cleff and the same in Shostocovich (sp?) 5 there is a lot of G cleff as with many others I can testify to you that going across the strings to catch the notes is easier than shifting like crazy. here is an example of what I am saying start with C on the G string play CDCDACACD (141414141
) all 16th notes, presto, if you have to shift for the A you wont catch the the rest of the passage where if you stick you pinkie out and hit the A on the D string it is easy. And, the odds of being in tune go way up. If you all want some real fun grap a gig where you are playing the Cello part and try to play it in the right register you will be so far up the finger board you'll need an oxygen mask. And, they have 32nd notes to play I did not know a base player could read much less play 32nds can you say lighting fingers.

Also, there is one other little thing when you are playing with 5 to 10 other bassests and they all are going across strings for notes you look real dumb shifting like a mad man. Which may bring the wrath of the section leader down on you or the conductor asking questions like why don't you play it like the section leader--not good if you want to keep you job past the next try outs. You don't want to go there trust me on this one.

There is no better way to learn where all the notes are on the bass than by playing lots of scales. Using all the fingering patters you can think of.

Joe

Originally posted by Ray Parker
Technique should allow you to have your instrument out of your way so that you can spend your energy on music.

I've never heard a truer statement.

The basic point from which I start is how harmony lays on the instrument and how best to wring out of The Monster whatever it is that you are trying to play.

My approach is purely pragmatic... and I do not propose what I propose for the sake of anything but to erase, as much as possible, The Bass from standing between the player and the music.

I think that what we're all ultimately after is the idea of the music dictating the technique and flowing through it. I like most of the ideas you've descibed (although I've done some of those things as what many have called the "Bad Habit" of transferring Plank techniques to the doghouse), and use a lot of the same middle position fingerings. But I notice that when I'm soloing, I rarely if ever think of scales, so I end up going for a particular sound - which determines a large part of the "along vs. across" issue.

I very much like the part about all fingerings being equal...I almost always hear them as intervals rather than as note names. Coming from the piano, I find the ability to play in this manner quite liberating on CASA DE FIDO, since there is a flat and even playing field on the latter.

I believe, that between the 'Fingering' thread and the HTML post (http://www.bassmuse.com/TheExorcises.html) at my web site, I have laid out pretty clearly, but perhaps not in minute detail, the problems that I have with some of the more popular traditional left-hand methods. If the old ways satisfy you, then I again offer that you not let me cause you grief.


I doubt that anything you write about fingerings will cause anybody grief. In BG? Possible. Even likely...but here?

Nah. Never happen....:D

As a follow up, I played a (sightreading) Big Band gig this weekend where every other tune was in Ab or Db. The type of fingerings in Ray's thread are perfect for situations like this, and came in really handy as a way to keep awkward crossings at bay.

Some edits:

The parenthetical in the sentence before "Arithmetic Can Be Your Friend" should read "(toward the ceiling)."

You might want to get rid of the "#" signs when indicating nos, as these can be confused with sharps.

Further points:

Failing to mark the thumb positions with "T-1-2-3" notation obscures the point you're trying to make re: entering the thumb position early. To cite an example, in C no. 2.4, the 1-2-4 for the E-F-G on the G-string could be read either as TP or traditional fingering.

For me, a good fingering isn't necessarily the same up as it is down. My intonation is better when I stick to 1-1 upward shifts and 4-4 downward shifts.

I'm also an advocate of covering whole steps--and more--between fingers in TP. Maintaining a one-finger-per-half-step all the time seems unnecessarily "bass-guitaristic" and causes my intonation to suffer. (In fact, I don't do this on BG, either.) Whole intervals lie between the fingers much more easily than half steps in TP.

Some edits:

The parenthetical in the sentence before "Arithmetic Can Be Your Friend" should read "(toward the ceiling)."

You might want to get rid of the "#" signs when indicating nos, as these can be confused with sharps.


Thanks for the points. I'll see what I can do to clean these up.


Further points:

Failing to mark the thumb positions with "T-1-2-3" notation obscures the point you're trying to make re: entering the thumb position early. To cite an example, in C no. 2.4, the 1-2-4 for the E-F-G on the G-string could be read either as TP or traditional fingering.


With this I purposefully disagree. One of the real points that I'm making with this approach is how harmony lays on the instrument and how to get this under your fingers. I make no distinction between different parts of the bass other than we are woefully short a finger at the bottom of the neck. For print, I differentiate where TP starts using color. Later, when you start working on the melodic tool embedded in the scale, then thinking about, much less listing, all of the fingerings with the mixed nomenclature would be intractible.


For me, a good fingering isn't necessarily the same up as it is down. My intonation is better when I stick to 1-1 upward shifts and 4-4 downward shifts.


This is something you could fix in about a week of slow, diligent practice.


I'm also an advocate of covering whole steps--and more--between fingers in TP. Maintaining a one-finger-per-half-step all the time seems unnecessarily "bass-guitaristic" and causes my intonation to suffer. (In fact, I don't do this on BG, either.) Whole intervals lie between the fingers much more easily than half steps in TP.

If you're running up and down scales, then this is fine, I guess. Orchestral folks would have more use for this than the rest.

The only things that could cause you intontation problems with any fingering system would be:

Overstretching, or too many hand shapes to memorize -- two things I try to get rid of with this stuff.
Too many shifts or too many concurrent shifts, which I minimize by playing across the strings rather that staying on one or two strings. Edgar talked about this in his master class the other day as well.
Not spending the time in the woodshed fixing hand/ear/instrument shortfalls/bad habits.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
As a follow up, I played a (sightreading) Big Band gig this weekend where every other tune was in Ab or Db. The type of fingerings in Ray's thread are perfect for situations like this, and came in really handy as a way to keep awkward crossings at bay.
That’s the problem I have..Ab Db . I can "play" with no problem in these keys but when I "read" in these keys, it’s a different story. If I try to stay positioned on the Ab - my reading suffers (my brain is slow to transfer the notation to the board in this position)...if I stay in first position my reading is up to speed but I am shifting like crazy. I am currently working on reading in the Ab position so I must ask... which is the correct position to play these keys?

(my brain is slow to transfer the notation to the board in this position)...

That is exactly what is hanging you up. It's because you don't know the scale well enough 'in position', or it could be that you've not had as much time in those keys (kinda the same thing), and you are killing yourself 'translating' things that could be naturally under your fingers. Just spend a bunch of your practice time on these keys and the problem will go away.

Originally posted by farmerdude

That’s the problem I have..Ab Db . I can "play" with no problem in these keys but when I "read" in these keys, it’s a different story. If I try to stay positioned on the Ab - my reading suffers (my brain is slow to transfer the notation to the board in this position)...if I stay in first position my reading is up to speed but I am shifting like crazy. I am currently working on reading in the Ab position so I must ask... which is the correct position to play these keys?

I have no earthly idea what is "correct", but I read and play intervallically (how the $#@^ are you supposed to spell that??) most of the time, so Ray's system pretty much matches up with what my natural tendencies are in this instance. My vote on what would be the most "correct" position to play is whatever allows you to get the music out as close to the way you're hearing it as possible in each situation.

Bump.

Ray:

I just checked out your link to "Exorcises" and read through the posts on this thread. I printed the sheets and plan to begin running through the exercises (or exorcises) tonight. I've been working my way through Rufus Reid's book - the Essential Bassist, which I may put on hold for a little while as I check this stuff out. The idea I really like about your approach is the harmony under the fingerboard that goes along with a method of learning to play the whole fingerboard.

You've written some posts that began to describe the harmony that ties in to fingering positions, and I wonder if you are working on the harmony sections to add to the fingering and crossing exercises you've already done. As I see it, your method helps develop an understanding of the fingerboard so that no matter where you play on the fingerboard your fingers are in such a position as to allow you to "know" the proximity of all scale tones around that position (ie. under your four fingers). It also allows you to transpose ideas easily to any key.

I'm a mechanical engineer, so maybe I default to a slightly mathematical and form related approach to learning music, but in the end my intention is to be able to know the instrument and make it say what I want it to say and to read music like I read a book.

Have you written an outline for the entire instruction method?

As I look through the material I'll try to add any useful comments, but so far the only comment is: I hope this isn't the end.

Thank you! I am really excited by your reply. I have no formal outline for what I'm doing. I'm just interested in showing what it is that I do. Certainly stay in touch with me on this and let me know your questions and comments!

Ray:

I began working through some of the material and do have a few questions/comments. I hope the feedback is helpful; its a great opportunity for me. How often do you get to ask the author of a study method to explain or elaborate on something?

As mentioned, I'm an engineer, so I'm going to number these things.
1. The importance of the crossing exercises seems to be to:
a. Demonstrate fingering positions moving up and down the fingerboard.
b. Begin a framework for understanding the whole fingerboard, since once you reach a crossing, the patterns repeat from that point (tonic).
c. The section you've written covers the fingerings themselves (technique). Perhaps this section or another can elaborate on some of the musical or harmonic aspects of these patterns. I've read some posts where you described some of those relationships really well.

2. The exercises cover keys of F and C (I'm still working on F). Are these just examples, or are there variations to learn for each key? I know that the notes will obviously be different for each key, but I haven't figured out yet whether the fingering approach you're presenting makes it easy to figure out the correct fingering technique for each key, or if they need to be written out and learned.
3. It would be great to have an entire section on the harmony relationships "under your fingers" in any position. This would be totally separate from the crosssings, which move up and down the fingerboard as well as across the strings. It would discuss just the relationships across the strings in any position.
4. What I've seen so far looks really good, and hopefully is just a part of a larger chapter on fingering that might look something like this:
a. Introduction & Basic Techniques
b. Across the strings - Fingering
c. Crossing Exorcises - Fingering
d. Harmony across the strings
e. Tieing it all together

Just some ideas. Thanks for the effort so far.

Wow! I love the engineering mind! I have a touch of it, as it runs in the family, but I've never formally trained it.

Let's see where to start (in no particular order):


Only two or three keys really need to be written out. The whole idea is that this is an approach rather than some kind of mantra. Once it's understood how to find the fingerings then it's better to show them to yourself.
Overall, this is just an approach. In reality you'll end up doing all kinds of different things, depending on innummerable circumstances.
One place where there will certainly be a lot of variation is the break where the neck meets the body, for obvious physical reasons.
Coming up, the next couple of steps that I would write out would be one more scale that brings up some interesting topics, namely the Eb scale, as Eb lays poorly on the bass and so exposes a few spots on the neck that are a great study. After that I would then start on what I call 'melodic tools', which would be neighboring tones and the like. Keep in touch with me on this and I'll stay ahead of you.
The chapter layout that you suggest is good, but I don't know that the method needs to be written out that far. As I stated at the beginning of this list, once the concept is understood, you can apply it as you need. Studying with a pianist or horn player will give you all of the material that you need to apply this stuff; you will need this stuff to be able to play what they give you.
Another feature that I would like to add is some photo or video examples. If I ever near press with this thing, then that would a wish of mine to get this kind of thing on an accompanying CD or something.
Another thing that I've noticed, and having a student rooming with me right now really helps with this, is that this is a lifelong study. I am constantly running into new things that needs to be isolated and studied. I find that applying my basic ideas always solves the problem.
One more note: My study over the last year has been very centered on the Stick'O Pain (I will conquer this beast!) from the classical perpective, which brings up issues that aren't generally met with the pizz perspective from which I developed these ideas, such as strings crossing v. phrasing / bowing, etc. I believe that my work on the other side of bass is still beneficial for what I'm doing now as the time spent on more 'unusual' parts of the neck are comfortable when I need to finger things for the bow.


When learning new musical ideas, it is usually the first three keys that are the most difficult. Learning it in the first key is painstaking. Learning it in the second key starts seeming tractable, and the third key starts the seem familiar. Then four through twelve seems like it's just a matter to get it under your fingers.

I'm really excited to have you looking at this stuff. Like I said above, keep in touch with me and I'll stay ahead of you as far as having it printed out. I'd also love to hear what things that you learn and variations that you find work for you.

Thanks!

Ray:

Just adding an update. I'm still working the fingering study into my practice time; I'm not sure whether I have much to add at this time. Thanks for the responses to my last post, they were helpful in my approach to the Exorcises.

I played the patterns a little on BG as well as URB as suggested. You mentioned the main idea of the method is to provide an approach that can be modified. Well, I'm finding that on URB I want to stop around what would be the 17th fret on BG. Your exorcises work all the way to what would be the 29th fret - so I'm leaving a lot out. Let me know if you think it is very important to work the patterns all the way through. What I really noticed is my unwrapped gut strings (D and G) make a very weak sound when I get beyond the point I mentioned, especially with the high action I use in my setup. From a musical sense it doesn't seem to be a problem for me because I don't ever find myself that far into thumb position with the swing tunes and other music I'm playing.

If you think my modification to the approach makes sense for me, then I'm about ready to move into the Eb scale fingerings if you have them. If not, then I still have quite a bit of work to do.
By the way, I am beginning to see how the patterns work so that after another key example or two I may really be able to continue the process myself.

It all sounds very good. One of the reasons that I don't mess with gut is for the reason that you mention, in that it makes big regions of the bass impractical. Just don't hurt yourself playing in TP with a mean setup. Listen to your body and you'll be just fine.

As far as 'how far to go', I'd only recommend practicing a little bit higher than you really see yourself trying to use. This puts all of your usable range well within where you are familiar. You may find that over time your ears will start to hear parts of the bass that you're not using right now. After and about at the '17th fret' I don't use the E or A strings that much myself. They sound a bit too much like a cheap tuning fork in that part of the instrument, anyhow. I'm sure that you could find applications, though.

Another note. I recently became aware of an older thread by Chris Fitzgerald. He talks about 'Blanket Scales' as a good starting point into the world of improvisation. That and this fit very well together and you may want to check that out as well.

I'll get to work on Eb tonight.

Thanks for the input!

The attempts to reach an ergonomic approach to the instrument through tecnique are always praiseworthy, especially if the target is to play modern music with an "ancient tool" (our double bass).
I noticed that Ray's approach is similer to mine: I'm also trying to improve my rolling/shifting tecnique basically to reduce strains on fast tempos, but at the same time I'm trying to keep the four-fingers tecnique (where possible) also for the lower positions.

Now my questions for Ray. From your answers I could test the feasibility of your method in my case (I mean during a performance).

Let say that starting from the C root on the A string, I would have to finger "CMaj7th" and "Cm7(b5)" chords laying in the same measure and each of them has got a two-quarters duration value.
How would you suggest to do that ?

Thanks a lot Ray.

Other friends opinions about fingering in lower positions are welcome of course!

Please don't push, wait a moment!

Ray mentioned that his computer fried itself again so he may be scarce for a while.

I'm on a break from practicing at the moment. While practicing, I found myself thinking of this thread, as I kept shifting into Thumb Position lower down on the neck because of the music I was working on. At one point, I noticed that I was in TP as low as "D" on the G string, and found that I was able to cover a lot more ground with a lot more fluidity than in regular positions. I still find myself adjusting my TP reach to suit what ever melodic idea is trying to happen in the moment, but I don't mind as it seems to be working.

Good thread, I hope it gets going again now that Ray's computer is back up.

I'm still on a bit of a pause whilst I work on new stuff, and that being specifically what you were just mentioning...

Originally posted by Ray Parker
I'm still on a bit of a pause whilst I work on new stuff, and that being specifically what you were just mentioning...


You mean lower TP stuff? Man, can't wait to see what you come up with.

Related and unrelated: I'm finding that once the thumb is planted (no matter what "position") that I'm sticking to the basic Petracchi (sp?) fingerings on the "A" and "D" strings... but on the "G" string I am able to hit intervals like perfect 5ths and even Ma and mi 6ths in higher positions without too much intonation ****age. The thumb seems to be the key - if it stays put, the larger intervals feel safe for melodic shapes.

Obviously, this is not a speed-playing technique, but something that happens when you are hearing most of a line or melody in the basic range of the T. position you're in with the exception of the "crest" or "climax" of the line, which reaches higher and falls back. There's a certain kind of bridging shape that the hand can make between thumb and ring and middle fingers which feels safe for the larger reaches at slow and medium tempos. Do you do this, or do you almost always shift for these notes?

In case any newbies happen to be reading this now that it's been bumped back up top, the fingering ideas being discussed in this thread can be found here:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38912

I don't do a whole lot of stretching on average. I'd shift up, although the shift might start out as more of a stretch if what I'm going for is to be more legato.

Now, that said, I've been working on one of Bach violin sonatas, and there are some things that just plain require that you do some stretching. In this case a flatted seventh (the first E on the D string after the octave the the D on the G string).

The lower TP stuff works nicely right into my fingering scheme, but I just haven't managed to really be able to systemize how to get in and out of it as easily as I know it can be done. Every now and then I'll pull a move that is really slick, physically, and this will give me a clue. The part that is stumping me a bit is the first finger. Getting in and out at random is pretty easy with all of the other fingers. It's still a work in progress.

I read this last few posts with interest because started doing the lower thumb position thing about 3 years ago. Also over the last several months I've been examining the way I play in regular thumb position and have been changing the way I approach it.

First, in regular thumb position I used to use larger hand shapes, covering at least a third, often a fourth, and I would play as much as I could in a position without shifting. I now approach thumb position more like I do the lower positions. I'm shifting more but it's actually smoother and more in-tune (or should I say in tune more often). The position of my thumb helps me feel where I am, but I've been stopping fewer notes with it.

When I was first introduced to the lower tp thing I was given some Petracchi exercises and a thing called, "The Bloody Thumb." They helped get the feel into my hand, but it was playing music and solving fingering problems in the third Bach cello suite when I began to understand how lower tp can be used. Analysing my experience and how I play now it seems getting into and out of tp takes energy and is difficult to do as smoothly and in tune as a regular shift (I should qualify this by saying when imrpovising; when working on a written lick you obviously can practice it over and over with a planned strategy for the music, etc.) But doing it below the octave harmonic should be no different than getting in or out at the usual spot. The most practical application for me is when I'm already in thumb position and I want to grab a lower note I'll get it with my thumb instead of my 1st finger (eg. I'm playing in tp around G on the G string I might shift back and grab the note I want with my thumb instead of moving out then back into tp.)

None of the links that are posted seem to be coming up on my computer. Have they been moved? I'd really like to see what it is Ray is talking about. Thanks.

Dave K, is that available somewhere, online or for purchase?

Sounds almost as good as the "Venus Butterfly... ."

Sounds solid, but what new information are you exactly presenting?
The thumb pos. stuff just sounds like Petracchi and the rest sounds like Rabbath/Dutch school with "roll the thumb" instead of pivot.
Maybe you just need a more exotic name (joking).

A way to percieve the bass in terms of music, instead of music in terms of the bass. The fingering bit is only the beginning, really.

So you don't think Simandl, Billie, Rabbath, Petracchi, Bottesinni, Striecher, Nanny and the others thought about music when they wrote their methods?
The point of those methods is that we don't have to spend 10 years re-inventing the wheel and we can get on with playing the music we wanted to in the first place, nobody picks up the bass to play bass methods.

I laid out my perspective and experience at the outset, and, no, what references that I had available at the time didn't allow me to play the exercises that my father was giving me. Which, BTW, is the same material he gives all of his students, regardless of instrument. As a multi-instrumentalist (at present the count is around 18 that he plays), his philosphy is that music is something that should be learned completely apart from the physicality of a particular axe.

That said, each instrument is bound to dictate what you are likely to play based on its limitations and these limitations need to be addressed on the practical side. For example, multi-octave arpeggiated flourishes are not likely to come out of your fiddle at any great speed, or very nimble (and audible) 32nd note runs at the bottom if the bass at a volume that will stick out above the rumble of inconsiderate band mates and audience members. What I propose doesn't address these issues directly as they are purely musical, practical and physics. Nothing will teach you that aside from careful consideration, experience and years.

Since I began my own path on hatching music from the unplayable behemoth I've had a pretty good look at a lot of the methods that you list. They all have some good ideas, and some inescapable corners as well. Like you mentioned somewhere else, the ultimate recipe for any of us is to grab what works from the choices and discoveries presented along the way. Which is what I've done.

I also dictated that what I do I had never considered notable outside of my teaching quarters, but in the demonstrating what I do to professionals (and great players) had mentioned to me that I ought to put down on paper where I'm coming from as they wish that they had this information as impressionable students.

I've said more than your seeming attack really warrants. If you'd like to discuss what I've typed up already or real life applications of this stuff I'd be more than happy. If it's only in your interested to question the presence of my work, I'm not really interested in a stupid rhetorical debate and I'll be happy to put your name in the dissenter's column and move on.

I am not trying to attack you, I just asked for specifics. I asked for specific differences between your method and the preexisting methods.
I am interested in any new developments anyone has.

Given your expertise on the other methods (as per other threads) I feel more comfortable turning it around and asking you the same question.

As I already stated the only difference I found was "roll the thumb" instead of "pivot".
Interesting that you feel comfortable wholly dismissing the other methods and you can't give me a solid answer about the specific differences between them and yours.
It would be great if I am missing something and you have some great new findings.
You have made some very bold and authoritative statments.
I do not find it unreasonable to ask you to back them up.

It might be convenient to find a more private place to urinate. If not for you, certainly for the rest of us.

Having said that, I know the depth of Ray's experience and as far as I can read in the totality of this thread he does not claim that Simandl, Bille et al are pikers, don't know what they are and that he, Ray Parker, is the only one true god. Neither does he claim that what he is talking about is wholly new; he does say that it is a refinement of a number of things and that some similiarities in approach, because of his viewpoint of a performing musician rather than that of an academician, he has gotten to in an attempt to serve the music, NOT to try to "learn how to play half steps in tune".
I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that Simandl came to the conclusions he did similarly, but the studies sure don't sound like it.

And, more to the point, they don't tend to be TAUGHT like it.

But if you guys need to continue the pissing contest, do it someplace else.

So you don't think Simandl, Billie, Rabbath, Petracchi, Bottesinni, Striecher, Nanny and the others thought about music when they wrote their methods? The point of those methods is that we don't have to spend 10 years re-inventing the wheel and we can get on with playing the music we wanted to in the first place, nobody picks up the bass to play bass methods.

Interesting that you feel comfortable wholly dismissing the other methods and you can't give me a solid answer about the specific differences between them and yours.
It would be great if I am missing something and you have some great new findings.
You have made some very bold and authoritative statments.
I do not find it unreasonable to ask you to back them up.



http://www.silvertipstea.com/images/store/decaf.gif

Combing musical method and technical method has it's dangers as well.
It implys that each musical style demands it's own double bass method, which in my IMO is not the case.
The absence of musical style is exactly what has made the older methods last and continues to make them applicable (with minor adjustments) to today's musical issues.
It is one of troubles with Rabbath, while he has some great insights much of his method is specific to his personal playing style, not a bad thing since he a beautiful player but it makes it less versatile.
I had a friend who studied with both Bertram Turetzky and Rabbath, when I asked him about the difference he said; "Rabbath tries to make you sound like him, Bert tries to make you a better bass player".
Bert uses Simandl amoung many other things...

I was assisting an chamber orchestra recording session when I lived in Victoria a few years ago when I noticed that the lone bass player was somebody I'd never seen before. Unusually for the west coast, he was also playing French bow on a 5-string, and, in fact, he was the best bass player I'd ever seen in Victoria.

At the break I say to the guy, hey, who are you? Turns out it was luthier Dustin Art Williams, doing an apprenticeship with Jim Ham. Who knows how he got roped into the session. So I ask him if he'd give me a lesson or two and he's like: no, too busy, can't do it.

I asked him who he studied bass with (David Murray IIRC), and I was probably whining about how my technique (classic Toronto: French stick, Italian fingering) stuck out on the coast and how I couldn't find a teacher I was happy with, when he said something like:

<texan>
Yep, everybody's got their own technique, it's funny. This is Gary Karr, right, "strict" Gary Karr: [stands the bass upright, plays "Othello" or something with one finger and heavy vibrato] ... my teacher David Murray would play more like this: [plays the excerpt again] ... now this is Rabbath, right - [leans the bass way back, plays the excerpt in some kind of foofy French style] ...
</texan>

So, this was both funny and impressive - coz the dude totally changed his fingering and stance, did recognizable cribs of these other players, and still played well and in tune. Which also made the point quite well - technique is just the process toward mastery of the instrument. It's not an end in itself, and there's no one right way to do it. Yes boys and girls, I had learned something about the bass, and something about life (yeah, right).

[If Dustin's on this board somewhere, hope I didn't make him say anything he didn't say.]

Got another one for you - I was at a master class with pianist Hilario Duran, who is technically and musically an absolute mother****er. One of the pianists in the room asks:

Q: What kind of exercises do you use to practice technique?
A: I practice Hanon.
Q: [in disbelief] Hanon?!?
A: Yeah, but I change it to make it more difficult.

Which is to say, don't underestimate the value of an old method given a creative approach.

I love all this talk of "danger" in messing with the establishment in any art form. As one who appreciates comntemorary art, Damon, you should know that innovation in technique has very often gone hand in hand with innovations of a more aesthetic and philosphical nature. Being tied to traditional techniques in painting doesn't get us to Cy twombly, for instance, someone who you list as an ifluence. Sure he's studied those techniques,maybe even copied them for a while, but eventually Twombly, like Rabbath, stars tweaking and molding the technique in tandem with his devoloping aesthetic. This is a constant, ongoing process. The two things inform each other. Ray has done exactly the same. Over the years he pushed and pulled this material, and found ways to sound more and more like he wants to sound. That guy who studied with Rabbath shouldn't have been annoyed that Rabbath was teaching him to play like Rabbath, what else could a great artist do? It's the student's responibility to take the next step and make that information HIS. Making himself a better player is his deal, ultimately. When artists of all stripes start seeing danger in shaking things up we're all lesser for it. I mean really, Damon, what other function do they have?

- I would say basing your painting technique on Twombly or your bass technique on my playing would be "dangerous".
I am not advocating that anyone play Simandl etudes on gigs - that is about as boring as contemporary figure drawing, although I am sure someone could make either interesting.
Where the visual art analogy breaks down is that for the most part visual arts are solitary and music is collaborative. The foundational methods for all instruments address common meeting points of most music, the stylistic dialects must be addressed case by case.
Also, I am not interested in me or my students being limited by my artistic choices and I want them to be just that, choices.

well damon,

While I agree that the visual arts analogy does in fact break down (as all analogies, I guess), I don't think it's in relation to the solitary/collaborative thing. Learning to play the bass is, at least in great part, a very solitary endeavor. The collaborative part has to do with MUSIC, not the techniques or pedagogy of the bass. A piano player doesn't care if I'm using simandl, bille or the Ray Parker concept. In fact, one would most likely be given a blank stare those subject were brought up. The music thing is really about getting over those pedagogical constructs used to learn our own particular instrument to get at the something more universal. Just like making a painting, which though made in solitude has to touch on something more universally perceived to have any power outside the studio. The mechanics of making the painting are very important to this perception, and contribute greatly to it, but it isn't ultimately very important to those who aren't painters themselves.

It seems, to me anyway, that technique in any artform is never stylistically neutral. It always carries some remnants of its developers concept of that artforms' possibilities. So I guess all I'm saying is that finding new possibilities, sometimes, but not always, requires us to look beyond the orthodox.

well damon,

It seems, to me anyway, that technique in any artform is never stylistically neutral. It always carries some remnants of its developers concept of that artforms' possibilities. So I guess all I'm saying is that finding new possibilities, sometimes, but not always, requires us to look beyond the orthodox.

I agree with this 100%, Clicking on my links will quickly establish my interest and use of many extended and unorthodox techniques.
However, I don't think we need to re-invent the wheel to make orthodox sounds.
I also try to make my extended techniques as controlled as possible and I try to be able to move fluidly between pitch based traditional bass playing and the complex sound world the bass is capable of.