I just dont understand this?? Im a student at the University of North Texas and there are tons of bass players here.(around 60) The majority of these players have really low action and crank there amplifier, resulting in the worst tone ever.
My roomates, (both drummers) have delt with this tone and together we have named it: NTBTS North Texas Bass Tone Syndrome It sounds like a cat meowing in a cry for help.
Does anyone know why this is happening so much?? I know that with low action its much easier to play fast 8th notes and all of that, but come on!!!

Maybe im just come from the perspective that having great tone is much more important than playing real fast?? Who knows.



I have thought about this a lot and realized that recordings from the 50's and earlier have something that records from the 60's to present dont have. The bass swings so hard that it sounds like it is almost bouncing? Let me know if you know what im talking about. In the sixties the amplifier was introduced, and suddenly **** the bouncing stopped*** Imagine that!!! Perhaps these to occurances are related. who knows???


let me know what you think


Chris

That's happenning so much because they can't play and they don't want to learn how to play. Those cats in the '40's and '50's with their high action gut strings are proof you don't need low action to play fast. If you want to learn how to play, play a few gigs with no amplification. That will do wonders for your tone and technique.

I wonder how many of those guys at your school started out on electric bass.

Another development in the '60's was steel strings. Those
cats prior to that all had *the sound* because they were playing on gut. Now, with string's like Sprirocores and very low action, pizzed notes will sustain forever. But the abscence of any real discernable decay between the notes prohibits "the bounce" as you call it, it doesn't swing as well. It can't be as propulsive because the attack is not as distinguishable.

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes, but IMO, really low action and a lot of amplification is a crutch; it's the easy way. And for me, a crappy tone/sound can turn me off to a player before I even get a chance to hear whether or not he can really play.

I think "can't" play is a strong statement (too strong), but I hear what you're saying. But it also depends on context. Take Chris Wood for instance - I have heard him with both - the real smooth, low action, farty, easy tone, and with the thunderous high action swinging tone. He can play both, and uses them to achieve different sounds. So the key here is that its only lazy if it's a crutch. Some people really choose a certain setup tone that's different than your tastes.

That said, I like the thunder. I like Mingus on "Nobody Knows" (though I think that was both him AND Ron Carter).

--> Slim Gulnick

I wrote can't and lazy because we're refering to a bunch of college students who, according to the guy that brought it up, really on this sound w/ a lot of amplification and can't play otherwise. Although I've never paid Chris Wood any attention, you make a very valid point. I know personally many players that prefer lower (but not ridiculously low) action. But they can play without an amp; they have developed their tone and technique.

And BTW, I was thinking about Ming the whole time I was writing that other post; high action, plain gut, and bounce and still displayed a ton of technique and speed. I love the two solos on "Tensions".

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
Those cats in the '40's and '50's with their high action gut strings are proof you don't need low action to play fast. If you want to learn how to play, play a few gigs with no amplification. That will do wonders for your tone and technique.

Ya gotta be careful though, a lot of players have gone back to gut and high action only to find the main result was tendonitis :( Playing gigs acoustically only works when the whole band is sensitive to levels. I've done some gigs in a tiny bar with acoustic piano, drums and electric guitar through a small amp. I could not hear myself at all, but the pianist said he could hear me fine (his head was only about a foot away from the top of my bass!!!).

As far as the bouncing stopping, go blame Ron Carter :) He was the guy to my ears who really brought in that modern sustaining steel string sound.

I just can't blame Ron Carter for anything. And to take Ed's point to the next step, who's the bassist who's played on probably the most jazz records ever? Ron! Dammit, he's the man!

Chris,

doesn't Lynn Seaton teach at NT these days? I wonder what his his reaction is to all of this "bad tone", seeing as he's the king of bounce himself....I don't recall ever seeing him use a pickup, he always seems to have a mic. What (if anything) does he have to say about NTBTS?

I know this is a little off the subject, so let me know if I should be starting a thread. Anyway, what do y'all think of Charlie Haden, while we're slamming technique? I love his lack of conventionality AND his playing, but I would never have the guy teach me something. Like Steve Martin said on "A Wild and Crazy Guy": "may I mambo dogface to the banana patch?".

-> Slim Gulag

No, my point was that his technique mambo'd dogface to the banana patch, not his heart, his music, his intention, or his end result. Don't get me wrong, I respect and admire all of his work more than almost any DB player out there, especially the ones who are simply slaves to the technical.

Also, maybe Steve Martin had a deeper philosophical point there, so maybe Charlie DOES mambo dogface. In my odd little world, absurdity, the intentional disruption of preconceived logic, and the insertion of ritual into the everyday is what music and especially bass is all about....if that makes sense.

You deliberateley miss MY point - the whole discussion is about TECHNIQUE and my comment was clearly in that context. PLUS I started out by proclaiming how much I like and admire the guy, so I think its quite obvious that I was talking about having him "teach" in the technical sense. I also don't understand why you are being condescending to me.

Excuse me, but did I just hear Ed Fuqua defending someone with unusual or questionable technique on the grounds that the person with unusual technique was "in touch with their own individual musical voice"? (insert appropriate Warner Bros. cartoon double take, complete with sound effects by Mel Blanc, right... about.....HERE!). I just might have to print that post and frame it....by the way, Ed, I couldn't agree more - the guy has something very pure and honest about his playing, and I learn a bunch from him every time I hear him play. Also, I'm still jealous about that master class....how did you manage to stumble into that situation?

Durrl

[Edited by Chris Fitzgerald on 11-29-2000 at 06:41 AM]

lermgalieu,
(sorry, missed your last post)

Whenever Ed gets that way with me, I think of a poem my mother used to recite to me when I was a wee child. This poem, she claims, has been passed down through her family from generation to generation, and has instructed many of her ancestors on the lesson of how to take the high road when you feel (rightly or wrongly) that someone is dissing you or grossly mispronouncing your name on purpose. It goes something like this:

"When bassplayer Ed Fumanchuqua
Takes aim with his verbal bazookqua
Some folks might take offense
When his barbs seem intense
But most find him harmless...
Don't youqua?"

You know, for the first 30 or so years she recited that poem, I thought that it made no sense whatsoever, and it is only recently that I have come to understand what she meant by it. And I find that, as with so many of my mom's old family sayings, that if I will only only wait long enough, they will magically transform themselves from gibberish into prophecy. Moms are kinda funny that way... :cool:

thanks, sorry.

ED: Someday, we'll sit down with a couple of beers and I'll explain why Charlie Haden is one of my unfavorite bassists.
I'm not about to go into this here, as my exposition is longer than is appropriate for this forum. My estimation of your musical intellect is that you would understand my position without taking it as a personal affront, but rather a difference in taste, albeit based on substantial thought. Suffice to say I am no less inclined to will you all of my basses when I die.

I read a lot of stuff about how great Rufus Reid is as a bass player and how he is in demand a lot; but I picked up a few 70s/80s records that he plays on and I find that the bass tone is very strange to my ears - nothing like some of the classic records of the past.

Where does Rufus fit into this debate about "tone" does he use low/high action and does he amplify or not?

Don:

I most certainly concur!!!!!!!!!!!

Bruce: Rufus is another of many fine bassists. Two answers to your experience are:
1. Over time, players use different strings and pickups. Every pickup alters the tone we hear, one way or another.
2. The recording engineers are much like newspaper editors; they have great power to shape the information (tone) we receive (hear) from the same set of facts (instrument). Record labels have been known to decide that a particular sound is hip and will sell more records.
The sound you get on a recording will rarely be what you would hear sitting 20 feet from the bass in a club.
As for his action, there are people I can ask who would know, and yes, Rufus amplifies. At one point, I know he was using the same Barbera that I use.

Tim: You concur that I should will all my basses to Ed?

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski

If you want to learn how to play, play a few gigs with no amplification. That will do wonders for your tone and technique.

Yeah, but...
That's how I played in the 60's. Duet and trio with unamped bass and unamped Gibson L-5 guitar. I had strength, but suffered alot of ripped skin.
Our concept of dynamic balance has changed significantly; rock and the Fender did that.
I played unamped with the same group recently, but the guitar was amped. It worked out OK, but absolutely I soloed differently. There's really 2 sounds from an ampped bass: the amp and the bass itself. There's a happy balance that I strive for, because the bass acoustic sound is a visceral throb that can be felt as much as heard. I've found that in situations where I have to crank up the amp, all the visceral sound disappears. That's why, except as a favor, I have no interest in working in a band where everybody has a rig the size of a refrigerator. I don't think it's a coincidence that people who want to blow the barn doors off have not had the 50's-60's jazz club experience.
When Gerry Mulligan came out with the piano-less quartet, which was in the days of un- or under-amped bass, he insisted that the group play at the dynamic level of the bass (Carson Smith). This notion would not occur to anyone today.
Amps give me the ability to express myself in a way that was not possible 35 years ago. For me, the key is finding the balance point.

[Edited by Don Higdon on 11-29-2000 at 10:42 AM]

As of last summer, Rufus was using the Barbera pickup in conjunction with a movable mic on a gooseneck, blended together using I know not what, and run through a WW head plus whatever cabinet he could get his hands on. After talking to him at length on the subject of amplification, I discovered that he is sort of a gearhead only insofar as he has and will continue to try anything to better produce THE SOUND - i.e., an amplified version of what his bass sounds like acoustically. His advice has always been: work on your acoustic sound, practice and learn to play without an amp, and then, when you need to use amplification, try to remain as true to that sound as possible. Each summer for the past few years I have been fortunate enough to sit right (10 ft. or so) in front of him while he does a trio set at the camps (I also got to play - (on piano) - in a faculty combo with him for a week, and I must say he's also a great teacher. He schooled me, but in a very nice and gentle and positive way, and he continues to be a positive influence every time I see/hear him), and his acoustic sound, in my opinion, is not only tremendous but also very real and,... dare I say it?...BOUNCY when he wants it to be. FWIW

I think the interaction of the group is better when everyone is forced to pay attention to dynamic levels. I've also noticed that with amped groups dynamics only go one way, crescendo.

A nice thing happened last week at the Tuesday night jam session at Ortlieb's in Philly. The power went out. I didn't play that night, but I had the pleasure of listening to everyone unamped/unmiked. Everyone was very sensitive.
All of the instruments sounded much better. It also forced
the folks not playing to shut up.

Dave K: A power failure was the reason the trio I mentioned was acoustic. The guitarist was at Baker's Keyboard in Detroit opposite Kenny Burrell when the power went out. He made the decision on the spot that he'd no longer be dependent on electricity to make a living. Out came the Gibson L-5. What a fabulous instrument! Not long thereafter, bossa nova hit, and we were sailing. Rock ended all that.
At this year's JazzFest a quartet played in a 900 seat auditorium with no mics. Everybody loved it.

Wow - lots of feedback. Any recommendations for good records to hear what Rufus Reid really sounds like - I doubt I will ever be in the privileged position described by previous posters. The CD I can remember is the Art Farmer Quintet - "Blame it on my Youth". On this, the bass sounds closer to an electric upright to my ears, than acoustic bass, but is probably down to the engineer as mentioned. Another one I have heard sound a bit like this is Curtis Lundy .....

This is an interesting debate - I go along to my local Jazz club each week in Brighton UK and it is a fairly small smoky club that gets some great musicians and I am always amazed at how good the upright bass players are. You might know Dave Green, Chris Laurence etc? Anyway, the sound is always really good acoustically and many times I have noticed the band playing without any amplification - although most bass players do use a small amp - GK is the most popular. But it is interesting to note the different approaches and actions, as you can get very close to the players and I usually have a chat and buy the bass players a drink after or during the interval.


What I have noticed is that it seems to go with "generations" - there is a slightly older generation who are more into standards or the sort of Paul Desmond, Lee Konitz era of very melodic playing and more "song" based tunes who have bass players with higher action and a concentration on tone being everything.

Then there is a slightly younger generation who are into mostly original compositions which are "tricky" - odd time signatures, careful arrangements, barnstorming virtuosity and fast exciting changes. The bass players with these groups tend to go for a lower action and sacrifice tone for fluent soloing and lightning fast playing.

This is a very broad generalisation and there are exceptions, but this is just what I've noticed on our side of the pond!

[Edited by Bruce Lindfield on 11-29-2000 at 12:01 PM]

EDDIE, I think I was precise, not to brag but I have a master's in english literature, and looking back on what I wrote, the context is extremely clear to me. However, know that I have been playing bass for 15 years and have been very undisciplined on a technical level (playing by ear, without music or theory, but playing very complex orignal stuff) until recently (2.5 years ago, when I started playing DB), so within that larger context I think its very easy to see why I would love to see Charlie play live, would love to talk to him, play with him, learn from him, but wouldn't want to have him teach me his technique. I think that in reading the thread that the context of *technique* is REALLY clear (its the name of the thread). Oh well. If I wasn't being clear then, I am now.

Ah Ed, you are misquoting me. I most emphatically DID NOT say I didn't want to 'learn' from him, I said I wouldn't want him to 'teach' me 'something'. I admit the 'something' should have been 'technique,' but 'teach' implies ACTIVE pedagogy, which implies instruction in technique and theory. A 'teacher' means more, obviously, and a teacher can act as a sage, someone who guides and instructs in all pertinent aspects. I would venture to say I have already 'learned' volumes from the man, so this is why I make this distinction.

Moreover, you are harping on one sentence, but ignoring the MANY MANY other sentences, even in that same post, where I praised his playing and made it OBVIOUS that I would love to learn from him, and have.

sorry misread you a little - you didn't say I said I didn't want to 'learn' from him, but my distinction above still holds very true.

lermgalieu,

to be fair (and hopefully nip any negative stuff in the bud), I had to read your original post several times to be sure of what you meant, and even then I could have seen it both ways. I figured that you seem like an intelligent guy, and intelligent guys don't generally walk around slamming Charlie Haden in any comprehensive way. (Don H. - I thought your response was well measured and very clear, BTW). The reason I'm even bothering to write this is that I've been sort of following several threads on the BG side (one is called "musical ephiany", and the other "Respect") which have threatened to turn into flame wars at times, and I am much relieved to say that I don't see much of that over here on the DB side. I don't think anybody over here meant any harm, or that any was done, but it is not impossible to see how that post could be misconstrued.
Also, our DB backgrounds are kind of similar in some ways, in that we are both somewhat self taught. It would be easy for either of us to get offended when one of the "trained" guys reminds us that we have not paid certain dues that they have, but when you really get down to it, they do have a point. The bottom line, of course, is "how good do you sound when you play?", but since few of us have gotten to hear each other, I feel obligated to show a little deference to those who have been studying with a great teacher for years, or, for instance, those who make their living playing jazz gigs in New York City....Which doesn't mean that I don't enjoy poking fun of them every so often when they ask for it... :cool:

Bruce - gimme a couple of days to sort through my CD's, and I can hopefully recommend one that actually contains the recorded Rufus sounding like the live Rufus.

Kama Suqua - mom says hi, and adds that she knew you would show up sooner or later...any time you wanna expound on the whole Charlie Haden experience, feel free, whether it be on the board or off. I'd be all ears for that.

I think the problem is that I had no idea Ed was buddies or with Charlie, and that he took what I said way to personally. That one sentence was truly a bit vague, but I followed up with what I thought was a really nice endorsement and praise of the man, and that's when I REALLY got shot down, and then punched in the stomach for only playing DB for 2.5 years. I'll go back now to listening to a certain Charlie Hunter song which I won't name for fear of REALLY getting trampled on.

ok my last word - I said you're "harping" because I feel you ignored the context of the orignal message (you know the words and thoughts I had around it) and chose to use that sentence as the only aspect of what I said that you responded to or cared about. Meaning is ALWAYS contextual, but a bass player knows that.

Peace man, I love to argue, and I love to harp. When I say you're harping it doesn't mean I'm not. To quote Fugazi (which it would be cool if you had heard of): "we're all guilty". But especially me. At risk of repeating myself, peace and love.

ok now I just give up, cuz you definitely have read nothing I typed other than one sentence. WHEN DID I SAY I DIDN'T LIKE CHARLIE HADEN'S PLAYING? Good lord man. Nevermind. Screw the subtext, just read the words to begin with. I get and agree to your personal knowledge and experience, but give my words that ARE there some credit.

I repeat, peace and love. And I am done with the flaming. Sorry, everyone.

Bruce: If you can imagine, there's a CD of Rufus and Michael Moore playing bass duets. In 1995, the owner of Zinno's booked this double bass duet for 4 consecutive Sundays. (Is this a great city, or what?) It was S.R.O. each night. They recorded a CD for Double-Time Records, c/o Jamey Aebersold, P.O. Box 1244 New Albany, IN 47151-1244 (USA, of course). Title is Doublebass Delights. Catalog # is DTRCD-117. I doubt you'll find it in any store, we being a small, elite audience. There's a good CD of a Stan Getz concert; I'll look it up tonight. Kenny Barron on piano.

[Edited by Don Higdon on 11-29-2000 at 02:33 PM]

Oh yeah, you think so?
I hate KORN. KORN sucks. In fact, I hate KORN so much that I feel the need to advertise my hatred of them, their mothers, their grandmothers, and everything their entire familes ever stood for, ALL OVER THE INTERNET. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I can feel the power of my frustrated insecurity surging through my veins! I am powerfully insecure!...I am a master of unsolicited derision!...I AM FLEA, HEAR ME ROAR!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Peace and Love, fellow DBers:it could be worse.....:)

And I think to myself...What a Wonderful World! :)

Back to the Rufus Reed type thread - someone mentioned the necessity of having some little bit of the un-amplified tone shine through in the live context, but wouldn't ya say that's (especially in a pretty large club) mostly for you and your band to feel and engage with and that with a really good mic you can get pretty darn close to how your bass actually sounds? Or is that heretical? I've heard some pretty darn lusty amped DBs.

Yes, Don. I concur Ed deserves all your basses, but now!!! He can't wait for another ice age for you bass dinosaurs to pass so he can scavenge your wealth.

And yes, Charlie's playing grates on me. There, I've said it.

I defer now to my self-gratifying, mucho novice bass stylings.

By the way, Charlie thinks I suck.

lerm: No. Yes. Maybe.
1. Yes, the group wants to hear the acoustic sound. If I can't, I'm miserable. But I also know that even if they can't articulate why, the audience reacts more positively when they can feel the acoustic sound.
2. The gig I hate most is the outdoor concert. There, essentially the entire sound is the amped sound. I have met one, only one, sound setup guy who knew how to amp/mic us outdoors. His father was a jazz musician.

As we all know from bitter experience, mics work great, but only at low volumes, which makes amps & pickups a necessary evil. But I still think it's important for both the band and the audience to be able to have at least some contact with the acoustic sound. I'm with Don on that one - the interplay in improvised music depends more than most people admit on the interaction of acoustic timbres.

But when you need to use an amp (which, for most gigs these days, is almost always), I think the key to getting a good sound is trying to hear what the sound of the amp is like out in the room, and not just on stage; the absolute worst sound you can hear from an amp is directly in front of the speakers. The further out you get, the more the amplified sound has a chance to diffuse and blend not only with the other instruments, but with the acoustic properties of the room itself, and what sounds terrible from 3 feet away might sound better from 6 or 10 or 15 feet away. Then again, it might not, but one thing is for sure, it's gonna sound different; and the sound from further away is closer to what it will sound like to the audience. How many times have you been stuck in a corner on a loud gig, miserable the entire time because you are convinced that your bass (and the entire band) sounds like muddy sh**, only to have someone whose opinion you trust come up and tell you later that the bass tone was great? It used to happen to me a lot, until I started putting distance between myself and the amp - now I always try to sit between 6-15 feet away when possible, which gives me not only a better mix (to my own ears) of acoustic and amplified sound, but also gives me a better perspective on what the amplified sound is really like (this makes me adjust all my EQ settings as well, and most agree for the better).
As with so many things, distance adds perspective.

The other possibility is for the sound person to use good ambient overhead mics to mic the stage acoustics. This is obviously tricky, and you can end up with just a reproduced version of amp sounds if stage volumes are high.

I was just thinking about this - has anyone here tried mixing two or more mics on their DB? I would think (tho I've never tried it) that it might let you have higher levels from the mics without feeding back, and a better sound in general.

I am pretty excited to do a open mic type situation (will be early next week) where it would be really uncool of me to show up with any amp at all. I'll just take an XLR out of my Blender, and see how I sound through the PA, using monitors for stage volume. "Psyched" because I have always been too militant about my electric sound to do that, but my DB probably sounds best before it hits the amp anyway (I don't HAVE a WW, sniff, sniff). Then I'll just use whatever ole electric rig they have there. If it sounds good, it opens up a new (light) realm for me...

BRUCE- There is a Rufus Reid trio recording called Perpetual Stroll that I remember enjoying. Unfortunately I can't find my copy at the moment. I also like the recordings he has done with Akira Tana(the band is called TanaReid-go figure). As far as the duet recording with Moore, I believe they released a second one. A video is also available of a concert they did for Bass Player magazine at bass day a few years back. I also own a video of Rufus plaing with Dexter. I think I ordered it through Abersold.

I forgot to mention that the recordings that Don mentioned with Stan Getz are called SERENITY and ANNIVERSARY. I believe they are from the same concert.

The Getz album I had in mind was Serenity. I did not pass it on because Rufus' tone on it was more electric than natural.

It's true, it almost sounds like they took a line off his amp. His playing on this album is still amazing, but not a good example of pure acoustic tone.

That's what I was thinking with the album's I've heard - I will try some of your recommendations, thanks.

I have been looking through the "millenium" edition of Rufus' book "evolving bassist" - as I am a long time electric bassist who is thinking of going upright, although my financial situation coming up to Christmas probably means I won't be able to consider this until next May! ;)

There is a lot of material in the book, which is very useful, but I was wondering if anyone has followed the advice on writing down walking lines in advance and then playing them. Although I can see the value of this for a complete beginner, I would imagine most people would just get on and play!

Bruce,

I teach a jazz theory course at a small university here, and I usually have students do two things regarding basslines:

1) analyze transcribed bass lines for content as regards the time honored "Target-Approach" tradition of walking lines - there are good transcriptions of standard basslines on some of the Aebersold playalongs, including the ones recorded by Ron Carter, Rufus, Todd Coolman, and Tyrone Wheeler. What's great about these is that you can use channel separation to hear only bass and drums, and then practice along with the recordings (using the transcription books) in an attempt to sort of "meld" with the featured bassplayer. The transcriptions are in general very accurate.

2) After you have analyzed a bass line on a note by note, chord by chord basis, try to develop a set of observations (or "rules", if you prefer) that explain why the player played what he did. This ranges from a very simple exercise (Ron Carter) to as difficult as you want to make it, depending on the player and the recording. Then, using your observations (rules...), write a series of basslines which do the same things as you observed in the transcription. What's good about the written aspect is that it comes from your mind without being filtered through what your fingers can & can't play...that way, when you try to play your written "extrapolated" basslines, you are learning something new physically as well as mentally.

After approaching transcribed basslines in this way, the next step is to start transcribing lines from your favorite bassplayers on your favorite records. Hope some of this stuff helps!

Chris

[Edited by Chris Fitzgerald on 12-04-2000 at 12:42 PM]

I think I come from a slightly different perspective from y'all in that on the one hand I agree about getting that pure reproduction of your bass' sound, which is actually my goal as well. However, I also enjoy certain really 'amped,' electric sounding double basses. One that springs to mind is the thunder broom on Beth Orton's debut (can't remember the name offhand), and I just heard another one that I can't recall in my coffee-less state. But I guess what I am saying is that some situations - usually more pop or rock oriented (with an electronic or heavy element - or even just very rhythymic, loopy stuff) - that electric tone is really gratifying to me. But in others (jazz), yeah it can be undesirable. I guess your tone is a representation of who you are as a player, but it also should fit the context. But I take it most of you are pretty jazz oriented players, so again, different strokes...

Chris - I agree about transcribing other people's lines being of value to all players; I'm just about more dubious about writing down my "own" walking lines in a Jazz context - as the Rufus Reid book promotes. I think it would make you more "hung up" about coming up with the perfect walking line, rather than just getting in there and playing, whether every line is perfect or not.

I can appreciate you have to do both, but but my feeling is that nothing beats experience of playing with other people and that a lot of writing down, what are really supposed to be improvised lines, will mean less emphasis on a good feel and more on getting a line that is somehow "perfect" for the chord sequence.

Maybe it's just the angle I'm coming at it from and really I need a book that's aimed at the experienced bass guitar player coming to upright - but I just haven't found one yet! ;)

Bruce,

if there is such a book, I don't know what it is...I'm going to go ahead and reply to the other part of your post, but if any of the "old-timers" (senior members) have any objection to a theory discussion starting here (this thread was originally about tone), we might have to start a new thread. Thoughts on this, anyone?

As a jazz teacher working in both university and private situations, as well as in the summer camps, I think it is important to put in my two cents worth about what I think of as dispelling the "myth" about what improvisation really is.... a lot of people seem to think that it means spontaneous creation, but I tend to think of it more as spontaneous arranging. That might seem to be a thin distinction to some, but to me the fundamental difference between the two is that "arranging" has more to do with altering something which already exists, where as "composing/creating" has a certain implication of making something out of thin air. I believe very strongly that, when you improvise, you are playing things that you already know how to play 99.9% of the time; you just don't know exactly what you are going to play or when you are going to play it, or what spin you are going to put on it.

In short (I believe), you play what you practice, but when you play with others, you just play it spontaneously as it occurs to you. As a pianist, I know this to be true - if I don't practice new voicings, no new voicings are going to magically appear in just the right spot on the gig. As a bassist, if I don't practice different ways of walking certain chord progressions, I'm going to end up just doing the same old things, night after night, and pretty soon I either get a)bored with my playing; b)disgusted with my playing; or c) suicidal from being so bored and disgusted. The only remedy I know for this is to go back in the shed with a recording of a player who sounds really fresh to me at that time and try to cop some of their stuff (filtered through my own musical personality, of course...). Once this is added to the mix, it livens the whole thing up.

This may be a gross oversimplification, but in some ways, that's what life as an improvising musician is like a lot of the time. Your practice improves your playing by adding new elements, and your (eventual) dissatisfaction with your own playing sends you on a quest for the next thing you'd like to be able to do; once you find that thing, then you go practice it. Just my opinion, though.....

We play up to our technique, and no further. The obvious response is to work to improve technique, but that misses the point. Sitting at a piano and writing a line or a tune forces you to focus only on the music, and not on the playing. It permeates the brain and waits for your technique to call it out when it's ready. Unencumbered by your current technique, your mind expands to store the basis of a much wider range of expression. Most of my current study with Michael Moore (I'm a perpetual student) is jazz harmonic theory. The technique instruction is limited to the application of the theory. I'm expected to arrive at every lesson with a composition, either a blues or a head on a standard, that demonstrates hearing diminished scales inside seventh chords. (Not the scale you probably think). It works wonders. I might add, every classical lesson I have with Linda McKnight (faculty chair at Manhattan School of Music) has added to my ability to play jazz. You have to do it all.

I like that story about Miles trying to play an unplayable high note on his trumpet. He kind of 'halfway' made it there, and the struggle between conception and execution was so palpable that it was gripping. So I guess the morale is that it isn't always our expertise, but sometimes our limitations that form the unique character of our playing...

But I am in no way advocating not proacticing ;-)

Oops must rebut myself - that example was a little different because he was actually struggling against the limits of his instrument, not his technical ability. That said, I think everyone would agree that someone who loves Miles loves him because of his unique interpretation of material, not his pristine technique (at least I have heard people in the know say he didn't have impeccable technique, but I am no expert). In fact, I have heard it said that his lack of perfect technique allowed him to express himself more purely on a harmonic level in the context of the music, instead of being a riff-o-matic.... But this doesn't go against what has been said previously, because this just emphasizes the idea of concentrating on all aspects of your music...

Don,

Thanks for the last post. I couldn't have said it better myself...as a matter of fact, I tried and couldn't do it.

Lerm,

I like the term "Proacticing", even if it was unintentional: it has not only a nice ring to it, but also a certain ironic justice that not many words - accidental or intentional - do. It's almost like that word is saying, "practice BEFORE you suck", instead of "practice BECAUSE you sucked". Understand, my appreciation for this word comes from the fact that I have in my lifetime done a great deal of Retroacticing, which is still positive, but not as positive as the other way. Nice word!

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


I like the term "Proacticing", even if it was unintentional: it has not only a nice ring to it, but also a certain ironic justice that not many words - accidental or intentional - do. It's almost like that word is saying, "practice BEFORE you suck", instead of "practice BECAUSE you sucked". Understand, my appreciation for this word comes from the fact that I have in my lifetime done a great deal of Retroacticing, which is still positive, but not as positive as the other way. Nice word!

I like that term too,Chris, but wouldn't pre-acticing be practicing before you suck and proacticing would be more like working towards a goal? :)

reedo,

Well, actually, yes....but considering it was probably just a typo, it amused me too much to change it. Ya gotta remember, it's the end of the semester and I'm giving finals and grading orchestration projects every day, and I'm a little slap-happy at the moment. At this point, I'll take my little amusements where and how I find them. :cool:

This a truly historic event: a Double Bass thread in its fourth page. Look, John Turner, no moderator!

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Unencumbered by your current technique, your mind expands to store the basis of a much wider range of expression. Most of my current study with Michael Moore (I'm a perpetual student) is jazz harmonic theory.

I like being a perpetual student! Learning is fun!

Thanks to Don and Chris for your comments. I think I may well re-visit this and you have probably made me think again about what I should be doing next. I often feel that I can make up things "on the fly" in Jazz, when playing electric bass, but that's usually when the mistakes creep in. I often wonder why a lot of the double bass players I admire seem so secure in their playing, although they appear to me, to be improvising. I guess they are rather "arranging" things they have played many times before, but not necessarily in that order! ;)

[Edited by Bruce Lindfield on 12-05-2000 at 08:41 AM]

Chris: TYPO? I never make mistakes, I am glad you like my new school of proactice base playing.

;-)

Eye luyk ett reel gud, tinks!

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
I was wondering if anyone has followed the advice on writing down walking lines in advance and then playing them. Although I can see the value of this for a complete beginner, I would imagine most people would just get on and play!

I haven't done it, but I don't think the point is to write out an original bassline to a tune for performance, but rather to get you thinking beyond what falls easily under the hand, or to get you thinking about the lines you play (what's good, what's junk?); to analyze your own playing, seeing it in a different light away from your axe.

Actually since writing that post, I have had a re-think and can see that this is probably the area where I could gain a lot of benefit and that just playing without much analysis has probably limited me in terms of what I can play as walking lines over changes and that I do get bored with playing a few stock lines; but I don't put enough time into thinking about what else I could play. I have determined to listen to/transcribe more walking lines from recordings and to think more about the possibilities away from the instrument.

I really enjoyed this discussion on Tone, I know this is an old thead but I really would like to know Don Higdon's thoughts on Charlie Haden. Charlie haden is one of my favotites bassists, a true inspiration, and I am simply curious. If you don't want to coment on the subject, I respect that, but I would be grateful if you share your thoughts with the rest of us. Thank you Don.

I think once a bass player learn enough music to get a gig, how he set his bass up is up to him,and his hand's size.Some people are bigger and have bigger hand's and are stronger then other's.I played bass with Art Blakey i had my string's much higher.I played Ray Brown's and Niels Pedersen and Ron Carter bass and their string's were very low and they still got that big sound he had in the 50's.I guess once a bass player get his sound it will stay with him not matter how the bass is set up because you will be hearing his voice on that instrument.It really depend on how good a bass player is .In the 40's 50's they didn't have a choice on this matter any way.Im sure if they did most of them would have set their instrument's up to suit their taste.It funny all the older guy's from the 40's & 50's that i know do not want to use a mike.They prefer to use a pick up on the gig.We younger guy's from the late 70's -up to know have a choice to do what we want as far as setting up our basses and choice of pick up's, they didn't.The music was alot softer back then also.They didn't use monitor's so drummer's and every one had to play softer.The sound system was smaller too.All i have to say is do what work for you.If you have a gig it's working for you:)

Amen to that, Lonnie.