Are there any private lesson teachers in Houston Tx that...

[Blazemourne]

teaches bass tuned in 5ths? Or am I going to have to settle for Bass teachers that play in 4ths?

[PaulCannon]

If you can't play a bass tuned in fourths, you shouldn't be trying to learn it in fifths. Even Quarrington wouldn't start a new player off in fifths.

[kontrabass]

Most teachers in fourths should be willing to teach you in fifths. Just know that you are most likely going to have to make all fingering options yourself.

Technique is technique, no matter how an instrument is tuned.

Like Paul said, you should simultaneously be studying the bass in fourths. Closing doors too early isn't too good, especially if conservatory is a possibility.

[Johnny L]

Originally Posted by Blazemourne

teaches bass tuned in 5ths? Or am I going to have to settle for Bass teachers that play in 4ths?

Yeah 5ths tuning still seems to be pretty rare for doublebass.

But hey I found a method book I didn't know about before:
http://www.dennismasuzzo.com/methodbook.htm

[damonsmith]

I think a lot of these ideas such as 4 finger techniques, Rabbath, fifth tuning, etc are better learned after going through a traditional method first.
None of the great players using these methods started out that way.
Knowing the "old way" really helps to find exactly when, if, and how much alternate techniques are better.
Quarrington is great, and I couldn't be a bigger fan of Red Mitchell, so I have nothing against fifths, I would just get grounded in traditional playing first.

[jheise]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

I think a lot of these ideas such as 4 finger techniques, Rabbath, fifth tuning, etc are better learned after going through a traditional method first.
None of the great players using these methods started out that way.
Knowing the "old way" really helps to find exactly when, if, and how much alternate techniques are better.
Quarrington is great, and I couldn't be a bigger fan of Red Mitchell, so I have nothing against fifths, I would just get grounded in traditional playing first.

But why? If I see the double bass as a member of the strings in an orchestra wouldn't it probably be better to start with fifths in the first place? What is traditional technique anyway if you look at history? 4-finger technique was common in the old days, too. And Bille and Simandl differ in what finger to use (3<->2). My Simandl-Book has an appendix with extended fingerings. I think it is more important to have a solid foundation from the start and not try to mix to many different things. But I think fourth-tuning is not very important in that regard. It's just where you find the notes.

[damonsmith]

We all have our opinons. I rememeber a few years into playing when I felt I had a clear enough understanding of the fingerboard to make alternate fingering choices and I think I could figure out fingerings for fifth tuning at this point if I worked on it. I studied Simandl, I use a variety of other fingering concepts now, I feel like the Simandl basis helps know when to say when for alternate choices.

Unless you can get around a master player tuned in fifths, I personaly do not feel it is a great idea.
Maybe taking bass and 'cello lessons at the same time would be a good idea. A lot of bassists have worked with the 'cello, Mingus, Fernando Grillo, Alan Silvla, Marcio Mattos, Kent Carter, Torsten Mueller, David Holland, Ray Brown, Oscar Pettiford, on and on..

Not only that, if you are interested in orchestral playing won't that limit your choices?
I am guessing much of the early work available the principal will want you tuned in fourths. I could be wrong about that, however.

[jheise]

Damon,

first a disclaimer: I'm a jazz player who only recently started to seriously shed on classical stuff, too. So my experience is limited.

I'm not thinking of 5ths tuning as another choice besides orchestral 4ths, solo 4ths or viennese tuning to choose from in regard to the piece I'm going to play. So if you have to depend on your principal, I guess you'll never change to 5ths tuning. 5ths tuning for me gives no serious disadvantages in regard to 4ths when I'm playing jazz. Some intervals are more problematic, but others get easier. Some lines become harder to play, others get easier. With the classical stuff I conquered so far, the same rules applied. So I have the range of a 5 string bass that sings like a solo-tuned instrument in the high register. That's what I like: an instrument that sounds the way I want it to sound. Especially when I take up the bow, fingerings, for me, come in at the end of the equation, not at the start. So I can't see that you have any problems starting out with 5ths if you work with a solid fingering concept and solid shifting concept right from the beginning - I can't see a difference to 4ths tuning here.

Did you try 5ths at all or are your thoughts only based on theory?


Jan

[Blazemourne]

Well I have played cello with private lessons for about 6 years now. I am also quite capable of playing in treble and tenor clef.

[lug]

I live in Houston and would be willing to drink a 5th before trying to teach anything. Would that do?

[Blazemourne]

Did you try 5ths at all or are your thoughts only based on theory?

I have practiced with a bass tuned in 5ths for about 2 months now. As for a bass tuned in 4ths, I have played one for about a year. I am going 5ths and I am not going back to 4ths. I want to learn how to master 5ths tuning instead of 4ths. As for the private lesson, a bass teacher that plays in 4ths should be fine?

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by jheise

Damon,


Did you try 5ths at all or are your thoughts only based on theory?


Jan

I am fine with 4ths for my own playing, but I do deal with all kinds of extended technique and other modern options. I am still strongly in favor of a basic method and basic way of playing before adding advanced options.
LIke I said I am a 100% in favor of people using the tuning, just not for
learning.

Originally Posted by Blazemourne

<i>Did you try 5ths at all or are your thoughts only based on theory?</i>

I have practiced with a bass tuned in 5ths for about 2 months now. As for a bass tuned in 4ths, I have played one for about a year. Even if I know how to play a bass in 4ths, I want to have a private lesson teacher for 5ths tuning. So I guess a teacher that plays in 4ths should be fine?

IMO, if you study with the best teacher you can find in Houston on a bass tuned in fourths in 3 or 4 years however decide you tune will not be an issue.

If it is super important to you, move to Canada and go study with Quarrington.

[JoeyNaeger]

All the teachers I know in the Houston area teach fourths, and would probably only be willing to teach fourths. A lot of the teachers use Rabbath which won't be benificial in fifths probably(atleast the way its presented in the method books). For example, in book 3, there are over a hundred fingerings per each scale that would be completley obsolete on a fifths tuned bass. Not saying that playing in fifths is a bad idea, but not many people do it.

[PaulCannon]

I think the answer to your question is probably not. To my knowledge, there are no teachers in Houston who teach fifths tuning.

Unless you can find someone who is capable and willing to teach it, I would strongly encourage you to go back to learning in fourths for the time being. While there may be historical arguments for this and that, the fact is that fourths tuning is the gold standard today, and is generally the easiest way to learn bass technique. Relearning the fingerboard to tune in fifths would only be a small part of playing the instrument, and I think it ought to come later when the rest of your playing is up to snuff.

But if you'd prefer to be stubborn and teach yourself, good luck. Hey, it worked for Rabbath.

[BMason]

The battle between fifths and fourths could very well spread, thus becoming similiar to the battle between French and German bow hold. A common piece of advice in the bass world is "hey, whatever works for you".

I, for one, believe that fifths tuning is a bit too much on an instrument of this stature. Finger spacings would only be semi-logical to those with at least moderately sized hands (or huge Michael Jordan/Jeff Bradetich hands). I know plenty of people with small hands that are very good at fourths tuning and, if fifths tuning were set as the modern standard, these people would not be able to produce well due to the physical demands the tuning proposes.

Also, since the bass has generally been tuned in fourths for a couple of centuries now, composers write to accomodate this. Concertos and orchestral parts would all be just that more challenging due to the harmonic difference in tuning. I can not imagine 90% of the standard orchestral or solo repetoire being easier, let alone the same in difficulty.

Yes, of course you could overcome these obstacles, but why? You could probably do fine if you were raised by wolves from birth and lived in the woods, but you're better off in society where everything is organized to fit prime, healthy living conditions.

--Brandon (who tunes in fourths).

[jheise]

I just want to add a few things:

Who else tried/plays 5ths tuning in this discussion? Or played cello? I agree that a strong foundation is most important and that the tuning is probably the smallest part in learning. But why complicate things? I have a hard time right now to wrap my head into 5ths tuning because of old habits. But for a single voice instrument, tuning in 5ths actually gives a lot more symmetry over the fingerboard. And how is this dependent on the size of your hands? A wholestep is still the same distance away. The only intervals that are significantly different are major and minor thirds in the low positions, because you can't play them as easily over two strings as in 4ths tuning.

My teacher is playing in 4ths. He was not very fond of me converting to 5ths a few weeks ago. But so what? The same principles still apply and it's music I want to make. My teacher still teaches me.

[BMason]

The comment about hand size was referring to the fact that all orchestral and most solo pieces were written for a fourths tuned bass, so tuning in fifths would require more work to play the same music.

Like I said, do "whatever works for you". I was just making my argument. Neither tuning is right or wrong, I just find fourths much more sensible.

[jheise]

Originally Posted by BMason

The comment about hand size was referring to the fact that all orchestral and most solo pieces were written for a fourths tuned bass, so tuning in fifths would require more work to play the same music.

Interesting fact. So all those unison lines between cello and bass were written for 4ths tuned bass and the celli had to adapt? I don't think so... And how about all those solo pieces that have been adapted from other members of the string family? I think you are generalizing too much. I'm playing in 5ths and not everything became harder to play - so at least I am talking from experience. Please keep in mind that I don't tell you that everything became more easy instead. No flamewar intended.

Edit: And btw.: I missed some posts in between, so don't take my comment "so at least I am talking from experience" to serious. I won't edit it out because I don't think I should edit what I had written.

[kontrabass]

To historically document what jheise is saying, here are some excerpts from a Red Mitchell interview (http://www.joelquarrington.com/index...45&Itemid=27):

"The 'normal' tuning today, which is causing this war between the bass players and all the other string players in the symphony orchestras-every symphony orchestra-is this difference in tuning. The 'normal' tuning of bass is fourths. It was a catastrophic mistake...bass originally had only three strings, tuned exactly as I have them tuned, from the top clown, A D G.

"They couldn't make a C string in those days without its being as thick as your thumb, because they used only gut. They didn't have wrapped strings. So the low note was G, a seventh above the lowest note on the piano, which is an A. It's that G. Then a fifth up to D,and then a fifth up to A. That's the way the bass started. Then some smart-asses- I think Bottesini was one of them-found that if they lowered the top string a whole tone, from A to G, they could do finger tricks across the strings and play faster, because speed was a problem on an instrument that big. For a long time the bass was tuned G D G. It was a fifth on the bottom and fourth on top."

Many of the symphonic warhorses were written for the bass in fifths. Pull out your excerpts book. You'll see what I mean.
Why does it matter that the bass is no longer in fifths? Red Mitchell explicates later in the interview..I won't quote it, though, as this post seems to already be dangerously long.
Like BMason said, do what's best. No tuning is perfect.

[jheise]

Originally Posted by kontrabass

Like BMason said, do what's best.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. And I know that with all those options and possibilities (and I think having all those is a good thing) it's sometimes hard to find out what works best for you.