Dissonance In The Low End: How the Electric Bass Divided Jazz

[McHaven]

The title of this thread is the working title of an article I'm working on for college. I'm working on documenting how the development of the electric bass changed and created new sub-genres of jazz.

I'm looking for stories, anecdotes, experiences that any of you may have with this. Jazz elitism, division between upright and electric bassists, etc etc. How jazz double bassists feel about the electric bass, the role of electric/double bass in a jazz setting? Anyone have stories, book recommendations or anything of the like to help me out?

[AMJBASS]

I think if you search around you will find some good information here on TB. One player you should look into is Steve Swallow though. He made the conversion from Double Bass to Electric bass, and he has several good interviews out there where he discusses this and what other musicians thought of his playing the electric bass. He is a fantastic musician and one of my favorite bass players(and I am primarily a double bassist...).

[Marcus Johnson]

Did the electric bass actually divide jazz?

[chuck3]

Originally Posted by Marcus Johnson

Did the electric bass actually divide jazz?

In a sense, yes. Not necessarily in a bad way. But "Bitches Brew" is pretty different from "Kind of Blue," and bass guitar based jazz went in different directions from there. All good, IMO, but some very different styles evoving.

[Sam Sherry]

I suspect that Marcus and I see eye to eye. From here, it looks like use and adoption of the electric bass in jazz was a reflection of other trends in popular music generally with jazz bringing up the rear. Jazz divided (again again again) and usage of the electric bass was one of many symptoms, not the cause. Players and band-leaders taking up the bass-guitar was the tail, not the dog.

A broader, deeper exploration of the underlying phenomena might be, "Arhythmia On The Stand: How the Straight Eighth-Note Divided Jazz." But of course that title doesn't swing as hard as McH's proposal.

+ + +

"Please write my paper for me" threads get right up my nose. McH's approach in this particular thread seems more appropriate than most. Good luck with your project, Mac.

[hdiddy]

meh. I get far more comments about how DB is better than EB from non-bass players and general audience. IMO, there's no elitism from the bassists themselves - we all know our limitations. Generally, EB doesn't have the tone and DB doesn't have the speed and clarity (vs. fretted EB) for most people. It's a tradeoff. I love EB when done well (Steve Swallow, Victor Wooten, etc. etc.) Take Ron Carter and Ray Brown for instance: they both took on EB at some point in their lives and abandoned it cuz it wasn't for them. There's no hate - it's all about taste and sonic palette.

There's no divide here - just bias/opinion from the audience. If there's any bias it's because there are lots of EB players who aren't "serious" about music. To play DB, you have to pretty serious just to buy the damn thing.

Monk Montgomery is another name to look up.

Also check out John Pattitucci, Christian McBride, Brian Bromberg, and Stanley Clarke. They all double on both instruments.

[Thunderthumbs73]

Originally Posted by McHaven

The title of this thread is the working title of an article I'm working on for college. I'm working on documenting how the development of the electric bass changed and created new sub-genres of jazz.

I'm looking for stories, anecdotes, experiences that any of you may have with this. Jazz elitism, division between upright and electric bassists, etc etc. How jazz double bassists feel about the electric bass, the role of electric/double bass in a jazz setting? Anyone have stories, book recommendations or anything of the like to help me out?

Glad it's a working title, because that can be changed. But I think the focus is mis-directed, to be honest. We (or you really can't point to the instrument, completely, or even truthfully. If I may use the example of Miles Davis: I don't think we look at the basses that were used on some of those albums as "divisive" nor do I really think we can honestly look at the players who played those basses on those albums and call them "divisive". I think it is further "up the chain" to Miles, himself, who wanted different sounds which contained influences of (at the time) contemporary rock and roll music which, at that time had the punch of an electric bass. So IMO, no, we can't really honestly say electric bass divided jazz. It is an interesting thought, but I think the notion is going to be difficult to form a (convincing) paper around.

In the end, write your paper how you like but I hate to see this paper (or notions like it) where the existence of intrument x, y, or z as being put up on the fire pit as the instrument that destroyed, negated, divded, etc, etc, etc... I'm sure there are a few upright bass true blue-bloods in jazz who would love your paper as posited, and STILL see the existence and continuation of an electric bass thread in jazz as an abomination, but I am not one of them.

Let me not "complain" without offering a possible change, fix, or solution:
Something that I think works better, and gives you a lot more flexibility as a writer, and opens up sources for you would be to write about the confluence of rock and jazz, focusing perhaps on the electric bass, or from that viewpoint.

Yes, bass (whatever kind) is important, but to distill down very complex trends and developments to a single instrument (for bad AND good) is going to be problematic.

The bottom line is whether the teacher who is grading the paper will understand your paper on a basic level, and secondly do you have the mechanics as a writer and researcher to make this paper technically correct. Did you REALLY answer the questions you posed and notions you put forth????

Good luck with it.

[Marcus Johnson]

Well, I don't know if EBs "divided jazz" or not. I'm not even really sure what that means. But putting it in the title, and then asking for input from the public seems to be backwards somehow. It's sort of like writing a paper entitled "Meatloaf Makes Me Wanna Barf", and then asking a bunch of people "what do you think of meatloaf?"

[Thunderthumbs73]

Originally Posted by Marcus Johnson

Well, I don't know if EBs "divided jazz" or not. I'm not even really sure what that means. But putting it in the title, and then asking for input from the public seems to be backwards somehow. It's sort of like writing a paper entitled "Meatloaf Makes Me Wanna Barf", and then asking a bunch of people "what do you think of meatloaf?"

+1.

[drurb]

In other words, first ask if actual players buy into your premise. I think the answer is a pretty resounding "No".

[groooooove]

Originally Posted by Marcus Johnson

Well, I don't know if EBs "divided jazz" or not. I'm not even really sure what that means. But putting it in the title, and then asking for input from the public seems to be backwards somehow. It's sort of like writing a paper entitled "Meatloaf Makes Me Wanna Barf", and then asking a bunch of people "what do you think of meatloaf?"

yeah.

anyone whos been in a writing class will tell you (especially the teacher your writing this paper for) the thesis comes first- everything else refers back to it. that is, every other word in your paper, has a purpose- to defend, backup, proove, support, your thesis statement.

as for your topic, i think its pretty interesting actually. at first (me being moreso an electric player, and of course a jazz player, on both basses) my reaction was to defend the electric bass, but i think theres some substance to what youre saying. it definately to some extend draws the destinction between "modern jazz" or "fusion" and beebop or swing.

IMO you should probably research jaco pastorius a bit. hes pretty much "the" figure of electric bass in jazz, and youll find a lot of usefull stuff about peoples oppinions on him, the electric bass in jazz, ext.

[longfinger]

Good topic! It should be interesting. Music does evolve with the technology of music making instruments. It's been doing that for centuries... the electric bass and bass amplifier just being one such development.


Good luck!

[johnz]

You do have a wonderfully provocative title.

As an aside,...

If I were writing it, I'd modify the title slightly, "Dissonance In The Low End: How the Electric Bass Amplifier Divided Jazz". To my mind, that would be a lot easier to defend.

I had thought that the bass amp was prevalent in the 50's (the Fender Bassman came out in 52). But, my friends who were playing double bass at the time (hey, I'm old - but not that old!) tell me it was the early 60's when double bass players started getting amps (there might be a LOT of regional variation of which I'm not aware).

There were two specific effects of the advent of the bass amp that I can think of.

First, there were some players who lost work because their intonation problems became apparent once they could really be heard. You know, cats that could swing like a !@#$% but couldn't play a note in tune to save their lives. (Just a reminder: The "precision" in name "Fender Precision Bass" comes from the fact that it had frets, which allowed for "precision" intonation, at least relatively speaking )

Secondly, and, to my mind, much more importantly, the advent of the bass amplifier really altered (for want of a better term) the "balance of power" within the band. There are definite limits to how loud you can be when playing acoustically. Not so much with an amp. Think of the difference between Scott Lafaro and Paul Motian (where you can clearly hear the diner's conversations on some live tracks), verses Ron Carter and Tony Williams, (no problem with dinner conversation there - you have to be able to think to talk!). I'm sure other people could think of much better comparisons.

End of Aside...

I think you've got a full plate, defending your given thesis. There are way too many confounding effects for my little mind to handle: a new kind of bass, amplification, and major shifts in musical styles that were happening before during and after the shift to EB.

Lots of luck!

[Scottgun]

For a light anecdote, I got to go to a Sonny Rollins concert and talk to his bassist Bob Crenshaw (also long time bassist for Sesame Street of all things) who remarked that "I know that when I show up to a gig with an electric, some people go, "Oh S&@#!"

Also, while not really a jazz player, see if you can find some interviews with Anthony Jackson who has some very strong opinions in the upright vs. electric controversy.

And just as a side note, while there may be some electric hate in the Jazz world, it's way more accepted than the bluegrass genre.

[jtlownds]

You could take your research even earlier, and write "Dissonance between tuba and double bass : How the double bass divided jazz".

[Chris Symer]

My initial reaction here is first that the idea is a bit too bass centric. Sorry, but the bass you play is just not that important. The musical world does not revolve around us, it revolves around 10,000 self-centered and nerotic jazz singers. As stated earlier, the electric bass was just one component of a change in attitude and approach that for most people started around the time of Bitches Brew. But to argue that it was the electric bass that was at the center of it is to me like saying that attendance at Symphony Concerts is down because the bass section switched to steel strings.

The other thought I have is that there is something backwards with the idea that jazz was somehow divided around this time. It seems clear to me that jazz was not divided, but it was multiplied. Nothing was taken away from the music thats been played, no one arguing that Dizzy, Bird, Duke, Miles or Mingus now matter less. Divided implies that what was once one thing (which I don't think jazz ever was) is now something less. It seems to me like that would be a hard position to defend.

[Thunderthumbs73]

Originally Posted by Chris Symer

The other thought I have is that there is something backwards with the idea that jazz was somehow divided around this time. It seems clear to me that jazz was not divided, but it was multiplied. Nothing was taken away from the music thats been played, no one arguing that Dizzy, Bird, Duke, Miles or Mingus now matter less.

+1.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

A broader, deeper exploration of the underlying phenomena might be, "Arhythmia On The Stand: How the Straight Eighth-Note Divided Jazz." But of course that title doesn't swing as hard as McH's proposal.

Still, I think it would make for a great discussion. If you build it, I will come.

[MR PC]

Miles Davis was a pioneer in terms of unifying the music called jazz.....it would be interesting to make a list of the acoustic and electric bassists he recorded with for starters. Do an in depth analysis of his bands and how the music was changed by his choice of bass players.

[ZENBASSGUY]

just one ponit on "bitches brew" most tracks had two bassists one on electric and one on acoustic...i wouldn't really call that being "divided"

i totally agree with the idea of "play WELL and swing hard and it doesn't matter WHAT you play be it acoustic or electric bass, tuba , organ pedals, or 4 rubber bands on a 2X4 if it sounds good it should matter. do you think the music is thinking to its self "i wish this guy playing the bass lines would have brought an acoustic bass instead of an electric."