Fingering (Discussion)

[Pete G]

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

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

[damonsmith]

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).

[anonymous0726]

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.

[damonsmith]

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.

[anonymous0726]

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.

[damonsmith]

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.

[anonymous0726]

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

[damonsmith]

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.

[Ed Fuqua]

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.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

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.

[damonsmith]

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...

[Anonymous75966]

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.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by philly

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.

[philly]

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.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by philly

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.

[__C_c_]

Neither of the links in this thread seem to work. Is there a more current link to the printable version of The Exorcises?

[Ed Fuqua]

Prolly not, but Ray's got a website and you may want to contact him directly. He's a nice cat and a great player.