Big band vs. Small Combo bass

[BassplayerBrian]

I was wondering about the differences in the roles played by bass in big band vs. small combo playing and what the priorities for each should be?

From recently listening and comparing both it's obviously different, but what about it makes it that way?

Any insights are greatly appreciated!

(PS. small combo for me is 2-4/5 players.)

[Eric Hochberg]

What is obviously different to you?

[Freddels]

I see more similarities than differences. Having played in a lot of big band and small group situations (having gone to NT) there isn't much difference. In big bands, the music is generally arranged and everything is planned out ahead of time. In small groups, generally the playing isn't written out and more improvisation for the group as a whole. There's probably more room for pull-offs, and triplet fills in a small group setting than in a big band (not that there isn't any of that in a big band setting).

[Pat Harris]

My own personal rule of thumb, is that the more players there are on a song, the more out of the way I get. That said, is there really that much difference in bass playing between supporting a solo spot in a big band and a solo spot in a combo? If you're playing in the context of the tune, probably not. Big bands arguably require some reading skills, or have imo "poorly" written basslines that I'll scrap unless they're actually an important part of the overall sound.

-Pat

[BassplayerBrian]

Hmm so is the difference in sound between the setting based solely on the fact that a small combo has less instrumentation and big band as more? It seems like it's a different feel in the bass, maybe that's just me?

[Eric Hochberg]

Originally Posted by BassplayerBrian

Hmm so is the difference in sound between the setting based solely on the fact that a small combo has less instrumentation and big band as more? It seems like it's a different feel in the bass, maybe that's just me?

Brian, if you listen to ten different bands with different bass players in both settings, you'll probably get a different feel on all performances. Feel is an attribute of playing style and concept, individual to all players, as is the interpretation musicians and bandleaders bring to the table. It's way too big a subject to put into a "big band vs. combo" debate. And yes, 15 musicians playing at once will sound different than 5 or 6, but the "feel" of the same bassist heard in both settings could very well be the same.

[Mark Perna]

I read a lot in big bands and hardly at in small bands. I solo a lot in small bands but rarely in big bands. My swing (or latin or whatever) feel is my swing (or whatever) feel whether I'm playing with 50 guys or 1 so that isn't any different.

I don't play in big bands all that often (maybe 4 or 5 gigs per year) but I have a lot of fun when I do. It is really good reading practice.

mark

[BassplayerBrian]

Originally Posted by ehochberg

Brian, if you listen to ten different bands with different bass players in both settings, you'll probably get a different feel on all performances. Feel is an attribute of playing style and concept, individual to all players, as is the interpretation musicians and bandleaders bring to the table. It's way too big a subject to put into a "big band vs. combo" debate. And yes, 15 musicians playing at once will sound different than 5 or 6, but the "feel" of the same bassist heard in both settings could very well be the same.

Hmm I see your point, perhaps I was over-analyzing. I think I'll chalk it up to what you've just pointed out about different bassists. Thanks guys!

[ZonGuy]

In addition to many good points above,

In big band, you have a lot of folks with their noses stuck in the sheet music, and the bass is traditionally looked to as the No. 1 enforcer for tempo control (shared role with drummer more or less). In the absence of a conductor, the horn section is looking for your thump metronome to prevent the universe from disintegrating into anarchy. Bass usually trumps drums, piano, guitar and horns in that order, unless their is an understanding to the contrary. Possible exceptions are star vocalists or the guy who is paying you.

With small combos, there is more flexibility if the players are good. Otherwise you hold time.

Wirh a good small combo, fewer folks means more controllability and the focus should be on listening across and responding rather than reading. Time becomes more organic and flexible and the time role is shared among all the players (although some drummers abdicate responsibility to play frou-frou). You listen across to what is happening at the moment and if appropriate, try to go where the collective conscious is going. Listen to Miles Davis's live "Funny Valentine" if you want an example.

My unexpurgated opinion.

[BassplayerBrian]

Thanks for that Zon, and I'll give it a listen!

[AZNBassist]

I used to think that Big Band playing and small combo playing were two different things. One being I sucked at playing in a big band (due to my poor sight reading skills) and I was better at small combo playing. When I finally realized that people wanted me to play in a big band just like I would play in a small combo, thats when my big band playing started to improve. The differences I see is that with a big band since there are so many parts happening at the same time as opposed to the traditional small combo head solo solo head, you have to play with as much intensity as you normally do in small combo, but with fewer notes.

Also, I found that like in small combo playing, reading off a page (realbook?) makes me less aware of whats going on around me and that memorizing the music gives me the freedom to be aware of whats going on musically with the entire band.

Also most solos in big bands (but not all) are limited and that you don't have as many choruses as you want to build up to something or say something (both accompanying a solo and soloing), and also you have less freedom to stray away from the original music (such as sudden time or key modulations)