Double Bass The Illusion of an Instrument

[bassist1962]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought it interesting. We all have said 'the sound is in your hands'. What is discussed and is done here proves that statement.

Hal Galper's Master Class - The Illusion of An Instrument - YouTube

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I don't think it's in your hands as much as it is in your head. There's a great post form about a million years ago, where Ray Parker talks about me falling by a gig of his and sitting in on his bass; he said "after about two tunes , it started souding like your bass..."

 

[bassist1962]

I don't think it's in your hands as much as it is in your head.

That is pretty much the gist of this.

 

[catty]

Great discussion--thanks for that

 

[SVT4001]

As Ed and others often say: "It's the EAR, not the GEAR."

 

[Herbie 80's]

Wrong forum side, strat hater.

 

[anonymous122511]

The starting point that the instrument is an illusion implies this illusion is to be justified somehow to something more tangible.
There isn't anything more tangible.

 

[John Crosley]

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f4/master-makes-so-so-gear-sound-great-815623/

 

[MLysh]

But remember, Grasshopper:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

Philip K Dick

 

[drurb]

There is absolutely no doubt that the essential part of the performance issues from the brain and the hands of the player. After all, the instrument does not play itself. On the other hand, the player cannot produce the sound without the physical instrument. It is not an illusion at all. It's fun to say radical things like this, along with the other unsubstantiated striking things that Hal says that grab people's attention. For example, no one has "proved" that you play what you hear. The premise that you can and do play whatever you hear is, IMO, nonsense.

Take a person who has never played the DB. Now, let that person listen to Ray Brown. Give that person a DB and ask him to make that sound. Of course, something quite different will come out. Now, do you really believe that what comes out is exactly what the novice heard when he listened to Ray Brown? I sure don't.

Ah, some of you will say that Hal shouldn't be taken so literally. Sorry, but he speaks it literally. Of course, what we, as players, produce is very much affected by what we hear in the sense that it is affected by how we analyze, integrate, and incorporate what we hear. No doubt, that's true. To say, however, that anyone is wrong who claims that he has trouble playing what he hears is hyperbole.

I really don't find sweeping, extreme points of view helpful in teaching. The truth is that performance is a human endeavor. The instrument does matter to the extent that it, as a physical device, allows the player to easily and effectively express his creativity. You can't have one without the other.

I also agree with the sentiment that many make too much of the particular choice of instrument, strings, etc. While one should be cognizant of the dominating role of the "human aspect," to eschew the influence of the physical apparatus completely is folly.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I would argue that the novice in your example is not really "hearing" Ray Brown in the same way I'm not seeing what a painter sees when s/he puts brush to canvas.

 

[brndn123]

Great series. This has been posted on tb a few times. Proably one of the more useful instructional clinics I've seen posted on the tube

 

[Huy Nguyen]

What Hal is talking about is really all about fluency. Fluent in being able to imagine sound and make the noises using the voicebox. Beginners have zero fluency. When I talk in english, I don't think about the words I'm going to use, the grammar or how I'm going to manipulate my vocal chords muscularly. There is relatively zero attention given to the technique to make conversation possible. I just focus on the meaning and what I'm trying to convey.

If you can't hear or can't imagine in that language, you can't compose or converse - that is a nonstarter. If you're tied up in the technique of conversion, your conversations will be stilted and broken.

Using this as an analogy, the instrument is the voicebox. The goal is to get beyond the technique, get to the point where the technical aspects are no longer a barrier to the realizing of sound that comes from the imagination/mind. Just substitute any language for the world "jazz", and the meaning of what he's talking about is obvious.

 

[drurb]

I would argue that the novice in your example is not really "hearing" Ray Brown in the same way I'm not seeing what a painter sees when s/he puts brush to canvas.

I agree, but that's not really the essence of my point. After all, I said essentially what you are saying:

...Of course, what we, as players, produce is very much affected by what we hear in the sense that it is affected by how we analyze, integrate, and incorporate what we hear. No doubt, that's true.

The novice, however, will not be playing what he hears. I think that applies to more experienced players as well. They may, indeed, have trouble playing what they hear because of a shortcoming in technique. Hal dismisses this notion on its face in the video. I think that's an extreme position that is consistent with the point-of-view that the instrument is an "illusion." All-or-nothing type of statements are rarely valid.

What Hal is talking about is really all about fluency. Fluent in being able to imagine sound and make the noises using the voicebox. Beginners have zero fluency. When I talk in english, I don't think about the words I'm going to use, the grammar or how I'm going to manipulate my vocal chords muscularly. There is relatively zero attention given to the technique to make conversation possible. I just focus on the meaning and what I'm trying to convey.

If you can't hear or can't imagine in that language, you can't compose or converse - that is a nonstarter. If you're tied up in the technique of conversion, your conversations will be stilted and broken.

Using this as an analogy, the instrument is the voicebox. The goal is to get beyond the technique, get to the point where the technical aspects are no longer a barrier to the realizing of sound that comes from the imagination/mind. Just substitute any language for the world "jazz", and the meaning of what he's talking about is obvious.

I agree with you completely about what he is discussing. I think some of the statements he makes in conveying it are, however, over the top and not really correct or sensible.

 

[Marc Piane]

I agree with you completely about what he is discussing. I think some of the statements he makes in conveying it are, however, over the top and not really correct or sensible.

For an old guy (like you, or less so I that might be true. It does sound awfully dogmatic at points BUT my friends that had him as a teacher in college when they were smooshy and pliable can't stop talking about what a great educator and mentor he is.

It's all context. I think part of my goal as educator is to guide a student to their answer not by necessarily agreeing with me but by arriving at their own answer by thinking critically. By that, the fact that we are talking about this right now is achieving that goal.

 

[Marcus Johnson]

smooshy and pliable

I'm moderately old. I try to be both of those things even now

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I agree, but that's not really the essence of my point. After all, I said essentially what you are saying:

Oh.

 

[anonymous122511]

I think some of the statements he makes in conveying it are, however, over the top and not really correct or sensible.

From where you're standing some of his statements may well be "over the top and not really correct or sensible". The fallacious assumption you're making is that from where you're standing you can see everything Hal sees from where he's standing. Looking at the journey he's taken to get to where he is I'm willing to entertain the idea that Hal could possibly be able to see things you can't. What is it that keeps you from entertaining that idea?

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Pray tell, what exactly does Hal Galper say that's over the top? The Dizzy/Mr. Rogers thing? Strong "brain signal"? It all sounds pretty sensible to me.

Sounds to me like you're trying to split hairs that aren't really there.

 

[John Crosley]

I also agree with the sentiment that many make too much of the particular choice of instrument, strings, etc. While one should be cognizant of the dominating role of the "human aspect," to eschew the influence of the physical apparatus completely is folly.

This is the point I have tried to make to many people. I used to play with a guy that was of the opinion that if you were going to buy a Fender guitar, buy American, not the Mexican, and certainly not a POS Squier. We were together for eight months before he realized I played a Squier.

I don't feel that I nessecerally have to use Spiros, but it is my string of choice at the moment. I could use Helicore or Evahs, or guts. I would still sound like me. I may have the core tone of Ray Brown or Danny Thompson due to the Spiros, but I sound nothing like them.