I am curious..

[Andy Mopley]

if a double bass method were to be written today (and I know some of you may say why re-invent the wheel) how would you make it different from the "classics" - eg would you include references to music software that help? Would you have more extracts from classical pieces and less "regimented" type material? Would you leave out fingering methods altogether?

Thanks for reading!

[MartinBorgen]

Doubtful, but depending on intended age for the student; inlcude stuff they recognize. For a kid, it's a lot more fun if they can play stuff they recognize (or at least will like after hearing it) instead of a bunch of etudes.

[mcnaire2004]

Bass methods are being written all the time. Some I buy into and some I don’t. They are written by the most accomplished players and the ones who think they are accomplished. Many teachers from a specific lineage may follow a similar method. But, I’ve noticed, that from teacher to teacher you can find enough to information to have another method book. Or, at the very least, enough to heavily revise one.

[David Potts]

I would write a companion book. The tools we use are simple, there is a lot of repertoire, there is a big body of pedagogy. Most of the methods are big on notes, positions, bowings, etc but leave so much missing for teachers to infill. How do you write a book that helps the student but does not replace or subvert the important role of face-to-face teacher. Duncan McTier has written "Tips and Tricks"(that I haven't read) and Knut Guettler has written "Advanced Techniques....." that come close to what I would do.

DP

[chicagodoubler]

One thing that most of them are missing- advice on how to overcome the challenges of essential excerpts and solo pieces. Every major excerpt is a major excerpt because it has a specific challenge. IMO, we don't address and fix these specific challenges early enough, or adequately in many cases. For example, Beethoven 7- can you play dotted rhythms consistently... Mozart 40- string crossing and Viennese stylings/ bow stroke. Fantastique- shoe shine. Heldenleben- awkward arpeggios.

Our pedagogy is (to my knowledge) lacking a comprehensive set of etudes or condensed methodology to address these technical challenges in respect to the major passages in question. At the end of the day, if an orchestral career is your goal, you should be dealing with these problems every time you practice.

[neilG]

Chicagodoubler:
I disagree. If you use a wide range of etude books you will encounter most of the things you will find in excerpts. Or you can just use the excerpts as etudes. IMO, everything you need to know is out there. It's not going to be in one book. And, just asking, aren't ALL arpeggios on the bass awkward?

[Tom Gale]

[quote=Andy Mopley;13588415]if a double bass method were to be written today (and I know some of you may say why re-invent the wheel) how would you make it different from the "classics" - eg would you include references to music software that help? Would you have more extracts from classical pieces and less "regimented" type material? Would you leave out fingering methods altogether?

It all depends when any method is written. Let me explain. Many years ago (when I started playing), The bass was equipped with gut G and D strings and metal wound gut A and Es. The vibrating string had a much higher oscillation pattern than today's strings so, to avoid the dreaded string on the fingerboard "buzz", the nut and bridge had to be much higher than the modern bass setup. This is why the best fingering of day was 1,2,4. It avoided injury. Along came the 1960's. I remember the first time I bought metal G and D and put them on. I thought I almost cut off my left hand fingers! Of course, I hadn't bothered to lower the action on the bass!
After 3 trips to my luthier, I got the action correct and was amazed at the new possibilities! Now, you could still depend on the old standby of 1,2,4 BUT you could also work in a 1,2,3,4 to solve a nasty passage OR the thumb position was now playable BELOW the octave to meet a musical problem. Amazing! So, if a method was written prior to, say, 1950 or 1960, expect to to be almost or all the standard 1,2,4 because anything else HURT! HOORAH FOR TODAY!!!
Tom Gale
ASODB.org

[chicagodoubler]

Neil-

Much of the stuff is out there but it is not consolidated, and the student must infer the relevance of the etude. And no, the g major arpeggio is amazingly easy, all the way up the board.

[basso obscura]

With the vast amount of etude books at are disposal you can find many etudes that correlate to orchestral passages. If you have a library with a good sheet music selection near you, you may be able to find books that link orchestra parts with bass technique more directly, like: Issaiah Bille's, 12 Studies in Different Styles; Edouard Nanny's, 24 Pieces in the Form of Etudes on Passage Work from Symphonies; or Armand Gouffe's, 45 Etudes Selected from the Classics. Another good book which doesn't necessarily deal with standard audition pieces is Lucas Drew's, 77 Baroque Basslines.

[chicagodoubler]

Basso-

My point precisely. The information is not consolidated. The primary issue with presenting a method which directly provides preparatory material for major excerpts is that the cost of licensing would be exorbitant.

If the end goal of an orchestral student is to land a job with an orchestra, then priming for precise execution of the major excerpts should be the supreme focus of the pedagogy. Everything else (besides the requisite solo work) is secondary, in my opinion.