after spending a month of soul searching regarding my stance :confused: (no really, i have been losing sleep over this) i have come to some conclusions.

first here is what i have been up to.
i did some research:

- went to three prominent teachers in as many weeks to get their thoughts
- read every post i could find on here regarding this issue (thanks guys)
- bought and studied videos by Gary Karr, Dave Holland, Ray Brown, Francious Rabbath, and John Clayton.
- went to see as many bass players playing around my local area (London)

a lot of time and a fair bit of expense.

my gut feeling is that stance is a bit of a compromise. anyone who tells you "this is the correct way", without it really making sense - i am immediately suspicious of. sure there are very important general principles (me and my body kind of found out the hard way) but i think the compromise idea still holds (or is it stands ;) ).

take Gary Karrs stance. with the bass positioned upright the body is not having the carry the weight of this very big instrument. also the bass can be used to lean into the left hand fingers for the thumb position. handy. weight is distributed on both legs evenly with the bass being stopped from spinning by the left leg/knee. all good.
except i realised that he hardly ever plays on the E string. this is a bread and butter area for my walking lines and community orchestra bowing techique/role. indeed when i tried bowing on the E string with the Karr stance my right hip seems to be always getting in the way. :eek:

recently i have been using David Kaczorowski stance that he mentioned in a post here:
"I have the back edge of the upper bout in my lower gut around my belly button."

this stance seems to keep the body out of the way when bowing the E string and has all the advantges of the Karr approach. EXCEPT I can't use my left leg to stop the bass spinning and that worrys me a bit. it doesn't seem to affect my playing noticably so maybe it will become more steady as i continue. also the bass is moved slightly by the stomach when breathing. whatmore i aint gonna get any slimmer in my old beer drinking age!

so is there something i am not doing when i bow on the E string using the Karr stance that would fix this minor flaw in an otherwise completely sensical approach?

or have i found my stance with this diagnal approach and will become more accostomed to the balance on my stomach. and maybe get down the gym!

really really really appreciate any thoughts.

thanks so much guys, i couldn't have got thru this month without this site.

cheers

have you tried playing seated? I know there are a lot of players here who will tell you that using a stool is bad, but there are a lot of great bassists who do. I think it can be helpful when you're playing a lot of orchestra stuff that uses the lower strings, because it really opens up your ability to play around the istrument without having to worry about balancing or supporting it. Especially if you have a large or funky shaped bass. Anyway, try it for a while. If nothing else it might give you some insight into what you can do to improve your standing position.

I personally have found that either standing or sitting, I like to have my instrument as close to vertical as possible. I find that this allows me to have the bass much lower, which makes things easier on my left hand. It also allows me to draw my bow straighter, and I feel like the instrument is a lot more stable so I can 'dig in' more with less energy. Hope this helps...

here are some suggestions:

-your stance is not a fixed thing, when you play you should move, it takes a long time to figure out how to do that, if it is really freaking you out I would encourage study of the Alexander technique.

-that being said, you do need a starting point.
It sounds like you are dealing with the where should the weight of my bass go? question

I would first ask myself where does the "weight" of my bass come from?

It is obviously a large instrument, but when balanced properly does not need to be overwhelming.

A lot of people have an issues with the weight being on their thumb. I get around this with a bent endpin sometimes or other times I hold my bass nu conventionally low, with the nut about equal to my nose.

I put the upper corner of the bass into my side, where my leg meets my torso. This adds a lot of stability. I also angle the bass slightly away from my head, so the endpin is right of center, and the neck moves out as the pitch gets lower.

There is a really good article in one of the isb magazines in a section called body and bass that might really help out. they have some of that stuff online.

good luck. feel free to ask questions if I wasn't clear enough.

To be alive, we must move. You can't play a note unless you do. Position, stance, et al, are dynamic and fluid, not rigid. So if you have to turn out in order to play on the E, turn out like the rest of us. Remember, for a long time the DB was a 3 string instrument, strings, bridges, and bows were different, etc.
Basses and people vary in size and shape. What works for one may not work for you.
No instrument, let alone DB, was designed with ergonomics as top priority.
As for stools, what I've said here is not that playing on a stool is "bad" per se, only that many of the bassists I've observed using a stool use themselves dysfunctionally.
What matters more than our position is our use of ourselves. This is a phrase from the Alexander Technique, which Alex mentioned; I'm studying for certification as a teacher of it. In fact, AT started in London, and some fine teachers are there today. AT is not a condition-specific therapy. However, therapeutic benefits invariably accrue. Stress is revieved, "posture" improves, and much, much more. It is best known in the performing arts, but its priciples apply to every human being. If you want to know more, contact me.
Meanwhile, consider these thoughts:
First, understand that your own kinesthetic sense has been debauched. What seems right is most likely wrong use; what is good use will feel wrong.
Second, more important than any specific "position" is the fluid balance of head, neck and the rest of the spine (But this is the beginning of a long discussion of AT).
In order to reach higher notes, try lowering the bass, as did Alex, instead of raising it. This allows you to hinge at the pelvis to lean forward instead of rounding your spine and neck or contacting your trapezius muscles.
Watch yourself in a full length mirror. Compromises might be required, e.g., lowering the bass for your back might put your bow on the string further from the bridge than you want.
I know Alexander can fix all of this, but it requires time and money, and absolutely cannot be self-taught.
Check out www.isbworldoffice.com
There's a section called Body and Bass with some helpful info. Unfortunately, it doesn't have most of the superb articles that have appeared in its magazine.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
To be alive, we must move. You can't play a note unless you do. Position, stance, et al, are dynamic and fluid, not rigid. So if you have to turn out in order to play on the E, turn out like the rest of us. Remember, for a long time the DB was a 3 string instrument, strings, bridges, and bows were different, etc.
Basses and people vary in size and shape. What works for one may not work for you.
No instrument, let alone DB, was designed with ergonomics as top priority.
As for stools, what I've said here is not that playing on a stool is "bad" per se, only that many of the bassists I've observed using a stool use themselves dysfunctionally.
What matters more than our position is our use of ourselves. This is a phrase from the Alexander Technique, which Alex mentioned; I'm studying for certification as a teacher of it. In fact, AT started in London, and some fine teachers are there today. AT is not a condition-specific therapy. However, therapeutic benefits invariably accrue. Stress is revieved, "posture" improves, and much, much more. It is best known in the performing arts, but its priciples apply to every human being. If you want to know more, contact me.
Meanwhile, consider these thoughts:
First, understand that your own kinesthetic sense has been debauched. What seems right is most likely wrong use; what is good use will feel wrong.
Second, more important than any specific "position" is the fluid balance of head, neck and the rest of the spine (But this is the beginning of a long discussion of AT).
In order to reach higher notes, try lowering the bass, as did Alex, instead of raising it. This allows you to hinge at the pelvis to lean forward instead of rounding your spine and neck or contacting your trapezius muscles.
Watch yourself in a full length mirror. Compromises might be required, e.g., lowering the bass for your back might put your bow on the string further from the bridge than you want.
I know Alexander can fix all of this, but it requires time and money, and absolutely cannot be self-taught.
Check out www.isbworldoffice.com
There's a section called Body and Bass with some helpful info. Unfortunately, it doesn't have most of the superb articles that have appeared in its magazine.



Far Side Caption: In his 1606th post, DONOSAUR used more words than in the previous 1605 combined.



Which to me means that this Alexander technique must be some pretty interesting stuff...

Unfortunately, it doesn't have most of the superb articles that have appeared in its magazine.

Not too hard to get past that obstacle, and it's worth every penny for me. My better half has been trying to get me to take a hit of her Pilates roll, and I just might do it now...

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Far Side Caption: In his 1606th post, DONOSAUR used more words than in the previous 1605 combined.
This forum isn't big enough for both Bruce Lindfield and me.
Which to me means that this Alexander technique must be some pretty interesting stuff...
In contrast to other disciplines I have experienced, the Alexander Technique forever changed the course of my life.

Originally posted by Johnny L
My better half has been trying to get me to take a hit of her Pilates roll, and I just might do it now...
Pilates is a good complement to, but not a substitute for, Alexander. They teach different things.

Pilates is a good complement to, but not a substitute

Like Margarine?

Remember also that Gary Karr and Francois Rabbath have entirely different builds and are polar opposites of body and hand size - their positions accomodate their unique physiologies. While you are right in observing the strengths of Karr's body position, ultimately he uses it to accomodate his shorter arms and smaller hands, being a person of somewhat smaller stature. Francois "the Gorilla" Rabbath has all the reach in the world and would be rather cramped by holding the instrument in the same method as Karr, just as Karr couldn't reach the end of the fingerboard holding the bass as Rabbath does.

Ultimately, you should learn to maintain integrity of the spine away from the instrument. When you are aware of proper alignment you'll know when you move out of it, with or without the instrument and can adjust yourself accordingly. Pilates to me looks like some strange cross of yoga (without the proper meditative aspects), aerobics, and toned-down gymnastics training. But such things have their benefits and if it works for you, who am I to judge? Personally, I just study ashtanga yoga and get the psychosomatic benefits as well as the alignment and exercise.

In addition to Alexander Technique, there are other kinetic reconditioning techniques available - Feldenkrais and Ortho-Bionomy to name two of them. Look for what's available to you.

Originally posted by Shlomobaruch
Remember also that Gary Karr and Francois Rabbath have entirely different builds and are polar opposites of body and hand size - their positions accomodate their unique physiologies. While you are right in observing the strengths of Karr's body position, ultimately he uses it to accomodate his shorter arms and smaller hands, being a person of somewhat smaller stature. Francois "the Gorilla" Rabbath has all the reach in the world and would be rather cramped by holding the instrument in the same method as Karr, just as Karr couldn't reach the end of the fingerboard holding the bass as Rabbath does.

Ultimately, you should learn to maintain integrity of the spine away from the instrument. When you are aware of proper alignment you'll know when you move out of it, with or without the instrument and can adjust yourself accordingly. Pilates to me looks like some strange cross of yoga (without the proper meditative aspects), aerobics, and toned-down gymnastics training. But such things have their benefits and if it works for you, who am I to judge? Personally, I just study ashtanga yoga and get the psychosomatic benefits as well as the alignment and exercise.

In addition to Alexander Technique, there are other kinetic reconditioning techniques available - Feldenkrais and Ortho-Bionomy to name two of them. Look for what's available to you.


Excellent post, especially the comments about differences in stature and how this affects playing position. In addition to Alexander and Yoga, there are also some forms of martial art which focus on centeredness and posture. Whenever I catch myself in bad posture when playing, I always go home and try to revisit my Aikido training and stretching exercises. Life is too short to spend it with a gnarled spine if you can avoid it.

Rabbath claims that to reach the end of his fingerboard he simply bends at the waist. Perhaps Gary Karr hasn't been paying attention?

ummm, no. You missed my point entirely. Rabbath has longer arms not only than Karr, but most folk. What gets him to the end of the fingerboard wouldn't get Karr there, or my 5'2" wife for example (who doesn't play bass, but if she did and people her size do). So if you're looking for insight into stance, look to someone basically built the same. A small, short person doesn't have much to learn about stance from watching Rabbath (we're not talking right/left hand technique, just stance) because his size accomdates things a smaller person couldn't do. And vice versa with Karr. What helps even better is to become as aware as possible of your own alignment so you can come to your own decisions.

If you bend at the waist, or anywhere other than the pelvis, you are misusing your spine, no matter who you are.
People and basses come in different sizes. Not everyone can play a particular bass without misusing one's body. There's a difference between merely being "able" to play and using the body properly, which includes efficiently, which ultimately means playing better.
In my case, I found that shortening the end pin allowed me to go over the instrument shoulder without distorting my own skeleton, and it allows me to reach the upper positions by bending at the pelvis. There are photos of this in past issues of the ISB MainLine.
There are beautiful sounding instruments out there that are unfit for playing by anyone. Instrument design has always been in a state of evolution and experiment within broad parameters, with only a perfunctory nod toward ergonomics.
For the record, Alexander is not a kinetic reconditioning technique.

To be fair, I think Rabbath's language more closely resembled "bringing the bust forward".

It may be that I'm in a real jam after all with this standing while playing business and seeking stance models to emulate, as I am of tall stature, possess no gorilla arms, nor do I know anything about Alexander technique.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
For the record, Alexander is not a kinetic reconditioning technique.

Really? Seeing as how kinetics deals with the use of force (in this case muscular) within and upon a system (the body), and it certainly involves reconditioning, I always thought of this as perfectly acceptable language to describe it.

I think I've got gorilla arms now!

Oops, my mistake. I was just bending over.

Originally posted by Shlomobaruch


Really? Seeing as how kinetics deals with the use of force (in this case muscular) within and upon a system (the body), and it certainly involves reconditioning, I always thought of this as perfectly acceptable language to describe it.
AT is a psychophysical learning method, assuming, among other things, that mind and body are not separate components but are the same thing. It is about reaction to stimuli, conscious vs. unconscious behavior, objective and experiential learning, and foremost, primary control, which is the relationship of the spine and the head. It is not physical or mental therapy. Although most students come to it with physical problems they want solved, the therapeutic benefits which invariably come are indirect consequences which are never the point of the teaching. To an equal degree, changes occur in the thinking and emotional processes. The teaching changed the course of my life, not just the manner in which I play bass.
Alexander recognized the catch-22 of "explaining" the technique: the thing that is used to comprehend the technique is the very thing that must be changed.

I have done some minor work with a teacher of Alexander technique and have also read a book compiling Alexander's own descriptions and talks of it, so I am more or less aware of what it is and how it works, particularly in his own terms. My question was more of the pedantic matter of why it cannot or should not be termed kinetic reconditioning. Is it the missing psychological element? Or does the term imply something else to you that AT isn't? In other words, how did I get it wrong? It is rather pedantic, but I want to be sure I understand the matter properly, particularly with someone who has obviously studied the technique much further than I have.

Originally posted by Shlomobaruch
I have done some minor work with a teacher of Alexander technique and have also read a book compiling Alexander's own descriptions and talks of it, so I am more or less aware of what it is and how it works, particularly in his own terms.
If you have not had the experience of 6 months of lessons, I say you are not at all aware of what it is; and if you have, you only scratched the surface of what it is. Alexander himself repeatedly observes the futility of using words alone to obtain any understanding of the technique.
I doubt you have read more than I had between my 6th and 12th months of study, and the words brought me nowhere near the level of understanding I have reached after a year of training for certification, and I still regard myself now as just beginning to get it. The joke among Alexander people is you only have to buy one book: read it every 6 months and it will have all new meaning each time.
My question was more of the pedantic matter of why it cannot or should not be termed kinetic reconditioning.
Because that is not what it is. There is no way I or anyone else is going to satisfactorily explain the technique to you, because experiential learning is so essential to it.
Now this generally pisses off people with exceptional objective learning skills, but here it is: It's like discussing the color red with Ray Charles.
Our experiences are the grounds for choosing the words we use. If you haven't yet had the experience, how can you know what words to use? How can my words convey to you a sensory experience you haven't had? Which is my way of saying I'm not going to debate with you whether or not AT is "kinetic reconditioning."

Right. My apologies for intruding where I clearly don't belong.

Don't give up, my friend Shlomobaruch...all Donosaurus is requiring of us is to gain more experience with the elusive Alexander Technique.

Until then, we must remain content typing potentially incomprehensible words to each other whenever this topic is addressed.

LOL!!! Thank you, I needed that! It just annoys me to think that after years of yoga and studying other forms of psychophysical awareness that I couldn't *possibly* have a leg to stand on because I haven't followed a practicitioner of AT for a year or more. As if it alone were the key to heaven's gate. Which brings me to something else...

Originally posted by Don Higdon

I know Alexander can fix all of this, but it requires time and money, and absolutely cannot be self-taught.

Ummmm... dude, who taught F. Matthias Alexander? I'll quote from the preface of the book that I have.

Alexander, in fact encouraged self-instruction. "You can do what I do" he said "if you do what I did." In a late edition of one of his books, he even added a special preface addressed to "those who are anxious to teach themselves." ...In short, Alexander had no objection to people working on thir own who accepted and kept in view his major points about the technique.

Of course I have zero doubt that instruction would make the whole process immensely faster and easier, but it isn't necessary. You yourself said it costs time and money and you weren't wrong there. So those of us wanting for both are SOL? I ain't buying it. What we are discussing is an internal experience and the awareness of that experience is available to any who cultivate the sensitivity to it - regardless of whether or not they follow AT or for how long they do so.

Alexander, in fact encouraged self-instruction. "You can do what I do" he said "if you do what I did."

Tell us what he did.

He engaged in a thorough self-examination of his own behavior until he came to the realization about how he created his own behavior based on reactions to previous stimuli that if they were valid at any point, were no longer so. He found that decades of such misuse caused him to have an improper understanding of how to move correctly, as it does for most everyone. Changing this became a twofold process of inhibiting the improper reaction and allowing the natural, proper reaction to take its place despite the insistence of skeletomuscular history that the appropriateness of either was reversed. From the practice of this he also came to understand that the psychophysical awareness developed from such a practice was not something to be turned to only in times of crisis but rather was to be developed into a constant state of being. So the technique isn't so much of a solution, but an entire lifelong process by which certain problems will no longer be caused and thus have the appearance of being solved although they were not in any classical sense of the idea. Perhaps this is missing some details you would find crucial to a "proper" understanding. I don't care. It is my own and you yourself said you weren't in a position to enlighten me further, though I am sure that in this particular field you are certainly the wiser. I just refuse to accept your attitude that those of us without the time, money, or circumstance to study with someone "AT approved" are without hope for improving our psychophysical awareness and behavior and that we are incapable of ever having the kind of experience that AT provides.

My own revelation in this began with my neck posture. While practicing yoga I came from an inverted forward bend into standing, and after a moment felt an odd desire to stop sticking my head out in front of me. I then realized that I *was* in fact jutting my head out without being aware of it, and when I did stop doing it I realized the sheer amount of effort that I had put into doing it previously. I mentioned the yoga sequence because it exactly addresses that issue. Inverted poses are used to literally use the weight of the body to push the shoulders down the back away from the head and to lengthen the spine in general and the cervical spine in particular. So after much repetition of coming from one position to another my awareness of a particular behavior moved from unconscious to conscious. Which isn't to say that I've held my head perfectly ever since, it's more of a shifting of balance - the desire to hold it wrong becomes weaker and the natural way becomes more habitual. Through this I've since come to a deeper, visceral understanding of just how direct the mind-body connection is - how mental tensions and misalignments literally manifest themselves physically both instantaneously and over time, and how the body stores all the unresolved tensions of things within oneself that are unresolved. And the body also stores the good as well as the bad - the cardiovascular exercise that builds bigger, stronger blood vessels, proper nutrition, all of these things are behaviors that affect the body as all behaviors affect the body. It goes beyond "you are what you eat" - you are what you do both in physical and mental activity, and you do a lot more in both realms than you are aware of. Increasing that awareness is the discipline of disciplines.

There. Does that satisfy you that I do at least have a smattering of a clue of the truth? It doesn't matter. It's what I have and I can only go forward from here, though any hope of doing so by way of AT specifically is nil for the forseeable future, which is beyond my control and certainly beyond yours. I didn't type this for your approval. I typed this for your own edification so that you may understand why I thought your reply to my request for insight into a semantic matter was rude, elitist and uncalled-for. So that you may respond appropriately to those who seek the same self-knowledge you do albeit through other, equally valid means.

And how long did he need in order to do what he did?

It took him roughly six years, and your point is... ?

Nine years. My point? You use the quote, and no experience, to support an abstract truth, that instruction is not necessary. Fine. It's also abstractly true that the majority of TalkBass members could become brain surgeons.
Since quotes are what you're using in the absence of experience, here are two: from Alexander, "We can throw away the habit of a lifetime in a few minutes if we use our brains," and from Pedro DeAlcantara, "It is entirely true. The catch is that it takes us a lifetime to learn how to use our brains." That's my point.
This started with you defining the Alexander Technique incorrectly. My posts speak for themselves. By the third post was I blunt, but I cited my own experience with learning that I didn't know nearly as much as I thought I did when in a position much closer to yours. OK, here are two more quotes: from Alexander, "It doesn't alter a fact because you can't feel it," and from DeAlcantara, "We can expand the dictum to say it does not alter a fact because you cannot understand it, nor because you cannot accept it."
You have not said anything so far that supports your pronouncement that AT was a kinetic reconditioning technique.
Originally posted by Shlomobaruch
you yourself said you weren't in a position to enlighten me further, though I am sure that in this particular field you are certainly the wiser. I just refuse to accept your attitude that those of us without the time, money, or circumstance to study with someone "AT approved" are without hope for improving our psychophysical awareness and behavior and that we are incapable of ever having the kind of experience that AT provides.
You want it both ways: showing how reasonable you are to defer to me for having "studied the technique much further than I have," and for being in this field "certainly the wiser," and then being righteously indignant when I have the temerity to disagree with you:
There. Does that satisfy you that I do at least have a smattering of a clue of the truth? It doesn't matter...I didn't type this for your approval. I typed this for your own edification so that you may understand why I thought your reply to my request for insight into a semantic matter was rude, elitist and uncalled-for. So that you may respond appropriately to those who seek the same self-knowledge you do albeit through other, [i]equally valid means.
See what I mean?
To answer that question, the first paragraph (2nd post 9/12)convinces me that you can read and write, but I already knew that. Reread my posts. There's more to AT than reading. You haven't said you've had any number of lessons, and I'm left to assume your experience is minimal. Experiential learning is essential and cannot be replaced by objective learning. When you speak for yourself and not through other people's words, you don't convey understanding of AT. And when you presume to define it in a public forum, if I think you're wrong I'm going to say so.

I still have that old nylon stringed guitar with the paisley strap, and am not as yet too old to sit crosslegged while playing it. And while I actually detest the smell of patchouli, I'm not above splashing a bit of it on when the situation warrants, although I'm afraid the curly locks are long a thing of the past.

Am I striking fear into anyone's heart yet? :D

I didn't want it both ways. As in all things I have no doubt that instruction provides the easier and more expedient route and having the fortune to study as you do certainly puts you in a better position. My contention is that you leave those of us without that opportunity to live in misaligned misery without hope for recourse and to never understand what you know regardless of what we encounter through our own study and through other means. That's the arrogant, elitist part that pissed me off. AT itself is one thing, but there are other roads to the experiential knowledge that it cultivates. I never said that I knew more about AT than what a handful of sessions and a book could provide, because I don't. The presumption from this that I am unaware of the mind/body relationship it cultivates is something I won't stand for. I've spent years studying how I do everything and just flat refuse your discrediting of what I've learned simply because it didn't occur in the context of AT.

You have not said anything so far that supports your pronouncement that AT was a kinetic reconditioning technique.

Yes I did, and you even quoted it before. But to have at it again, "kinetics" would be the study of how applied force affects a system. "Conditioning" I was thinking of in the terms of learning or training. So kinetic reconditioning would be relearning the application of energy/force. While AT may have subleties that go beyond this, seeing as how I was looking for a simple description that would capture the gist of AT, Feldenkrais, and Ortho-Bionomy I think my words were well chosen. I just wanted to know your mind as to why I was wrong and instead got a song and dance about how I couldn't possibly understand without at least a year of dedicated study under my belt. As far as the collation, you I'm sure would contend that AT has nothing in common with such systems and trying to group it with them is an error betraying my ignorance of the matter. Bene. It's over and done and I've said my mind.

i thought i might step in here and give an update to the original thread.....

My computer has been down for a bit (care of one of those damn virus things) and have been busy at the "which posture for playing the double bass will i try today" game. got pretty sick of looking at my ugly face in the mirror, can tell you.

Finally my subconcious kind of clicked into thinking about a local player i saw quite a while ago who played jazz in a seated position. Also this clicked me into thinking about our Chris F saying he sat when playing as he couldn't find a comfortable position to stand and play in.

So i thought before i run around buying stools i would track down this local player who i had seen months ago and see if i could get a lesson. i managed to get his number and gave him a call. what a guy! he said he didn't give lessons as he is too busy running off touring but as i literally live in the next street (and i live in London!; ie. how bloody lucky is that!) i could come around for a cup of tea and a chat about these issues.

he was great. showed me how he sat - seemed pretty logical/ kind of how i imagined all the classical types do. seemed a bit perplexed that i was finding it a really different experience. i felt comfortable straight away. especially the left hand. it's all right in front of you! YIPPEEEE! kind of like the Rabbath thing but without the weight of the bass leaning on you and without the kind of boxed in feeling i got from playing in the lower positions. know what i mean?

now it balances just on my legs which are grounded on the floor. The entire fretboard is at my reach without needing any twisting (Karr) or leaning back for the lower notes (Rabbath). don't get me wrong, those guys kick so much bigger ass than i probably ever will, but these were my observations. so sitting it was.

only concerns i had were with the right hand.
i feel i might have sacrificed a bit of tone as my right arm is in a slightly less comfortable angle than when i was more side on; but this could just take getting used to. Was also worried i would have to swap from the German bow to the French but i seem to have sorted that one out as well.

all i can say is if there is anyone out there who is having problems in thumb position, or with gripping the neck/numbness in the left hand or with general posture issues - check out sitting it's underated!

ps. why do all the jazzers stand?

Originally posted by mike_odonovan

ps. why do all the jazzers stand?
One less thing to carry from joint to joint?
Actually, I play better and feel better standing.

Originally posted by PADDY_O'FURNITURE

only concerns i had were with the right hand.
i feel i might have sacrificed a bit of tone as my right arm is in a slightly less comfortable angle than when i was more side on; but this could just take getting used to.

I discovered exactly the opposite: by having the bass in a fixed position that is maintained by its own weight, I can generate a lot more force by using my entire shoulder/elbow/arm apparatus without worrying about any balance issues. As I reported in another thread, my biggest issue these days as regards R.H. technique is that when sitting in "neo 'Cello" position my right arm generates so much force without strain that I'm tearing my fingertips to shreds when I have four or five gig nights in a row. But I can live with that, and even this aspect is slowly getting better.

Also, I threw my back out again last week before one of the most important gigs of my life (aggravation of an old lifting injury), and discovered that the most comfortable place for me to be in that condition is (you guessed it) sitting on my bass stool with both feet up on the higher rungs. How fortuitous!


ps. why do all the jazzers stand?



They don't. :)

One less thing to carry from joint to joint?

That's my philosophy.

I think my right hand has a little more opportunity to keep the bass held up when doing pizz and keeping the thumb against the fingerboard. Easier for me than trying to hold it up with a bow, anyway.

Sitting is fine, and fine players sit. I put myself in neither camp right now, but maybe I'll get bored and have a seat sometime too.

I've gotten away from sitting because I'm not gigging much and have instead been teaching, and it is one less thing to deal with. When I go back to the realm of 2 1/2 hour rehearsals (hopefully next month) I have no doubt I'll be packing a place to park it. Hmmmm... maybe that *is* what's wrong with my playing these days...

Actually, learning a functional stance with the bass is a good idea, even if you decide to sit, and why I originally put the stool aside - I had completely forgotten how to play standing. Which isn't good, because sometimes your stool breaks or just isn't available and you still have to play. The less equipment you're 100% dependent on the better.

chris i'll chew up my fingers for better tone any day! i think i will just get used to the new feel of the right arm being more envolved.

as for all this "one less thing to carry" stuff, Jeez does that me we should force drummers, pianists, cellists etc. to learn to play standing as well just in case they forget their stool? don't buy this thinking ....

No one's forcing anyone to do anything, I'm just suggesting that even though sitting solves your dilemma (which is a valid solution and I'm glad you found it) you might still want to pursue getting comfortable standing for those times when the stool isn't available or is better left at home. I've been in pit orchestras where there wasn't enough room for me to sit.

There are major differences with the other instruments you mentioned. Drummers (as well as harpists, another sitting instrument which you didn't mention) are generally screwed for the amount of equipment that they have to carry, so a small stool isn't much of an addition. Or in both instances, their equipment, including stool, is provided at the site. Pianists aren't expected to carry their own instrument much less a stool. And all of those instruments require one to be seated because the feet have other things to do besides support one's weight. The cello is too small to be supported while standing, but doesn't require a special stool - any chair will do and the endpin can be adjusted accordingly. So the other instrumentalists either don't have to carry a seat or else carry so much more that the seat is a drop in the bucket. Also, standing isn't an option for any of them, it *is* one for the bass. Remember, a lot of jazz bassists also amplify - another problem not faced by your other instruments, so they are lugging their instrument plus an amplifier. Bringing a stool as well means four trips out to the car (two in, two out) no matter what, and that can be a pain in the ass.

The only thinking I or anyone is suggesting is to keep your options open and take advantage of any opportunity you can to make the gigs easier.

Originally posted by Shlomobaruch
Remember, a lot of jazz bassists also amplify - another problem not faced by your other instruments, so they are lugging their instrument plus an amplifier. Bringing a stool as well means four trips out to the car (two in, two out) no matter what...


Not so fast, senor - I use a folding dolly to roll both the amp & stool in on (it has built in bungee action), and just sling the bass over my shoulder with the shoulder strap.... so for most gigs, you can still one-trip it even with a stool if you set your mind to the problem.

Sweet! I never amplified enough to worry about that, so there you go. I do know someone who literally gave himself a hernia hauling his rig everywhere. I think he switched to a smaller amp after that...