I have recently taken over a bunch of students from an older teacher and I discovered that they all rely on the 1-3-4 fingering technique instead of the more common 1-2-4. After doing some research I can't see how they would benefit from this technique, especially since they have smaller hands. Is there any reason I shouldn't convince them to change their left hand? What are you teaching your students?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass 1-3-4 vs 1-2-4 with beginners
- Thread starter Mupathan
- Start date
I do a combination of both. I find that adjusting between the two combinations helps with intonation, flexibility, and retention of strength in the hand.
When I started I was trained to only use 1-2-4, and seriously feel that that was some of the worst advice that I’ve ever received.
Ultimately you need to teach what you know. Did you talk to their previous teacher about this? What were his reasons?
When I started I was trained to only use 1-2-4, and seriously feel that that was some of the worst advice that I’ve ever received.
Ultimately you need to teach what you know. Did you talk to their previous teacher about this? What were his reasons?
I've always felt 1-2-(3)4 is more logical than 1-(2)3-4 because the third and fourth fingers are stronger as a pair than the fourth finger by itself.
I teach both, and it is contextual. Eventually I encourage consistency, which is the only "rule" of fingering in my book.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1-3-4 fingering. There are many fine bassists using it around the world with no ill effects. Especially in Italy.
Thats exactly why the 1,2,4 is the better choice than the 1,3,4. Of course, that changes if you also add the 1,2,3,4. Then, the 1,2,4 plus the 1,2,3,4 is workable.
TG
ASODB.com
I'm especially interested in the benefits of the 1,3,4 system. I'm all for an open approach to fingering technique and I feel that technique in general is always a very personal thing but I'm not experienced with the 1,3,4 fingering so I'm not sure why you would want to use it.
- Aug 1, 2005
- 3,546
- 1,421
- Disclosures
- Private Inventor - Bass Capos
I side with the 1,2,4 Simandl fingering. Sort of like German bow, I think it's easier to learn in the beginning. My only experience with 1,3,4 was an adult student who came to me who was mainly a slab player, but owned an upright, and had incredibly bad left hand technique on both instruments. He played 1,3,4 on the upright. I asked him to try to play some scales using 1,2,4 and his left hand form was instantly better. I think 1,2,4 is more intuitive and ergonomic, but to each his own.
With 1-2-4, your beginners will play more consistently in tune in the lower positions. 1-3-4 may have historical roots, but most likely, your new students' ex-teacher was an electric bassist transferring 1-3-4 EB fingering either out of convenience, ignorance, or both. 1-3-4 works fine on EB because of the frets.
1-3-4 always felt more natural to me (being self-taught) and I had to actually watch myself playing to understand why. I'm originally an EB player, and in order to keep to the "one fret/one finger" technique, I'd often let my middle finger creep up the neck and assist the ring finger. Viola! Actually, it's like the middle and ring fingers operate together as one big finger. Since the spread isn't too great, even with my smaller hands, the technique bled over in to my DB playing. I guess it just felt more natural to let a stronger and more independent finger (middle) assist the weaker finger (ring) than to let the weaker and less independent finger (ring) assist the stronger (pinky).
My technique would probably give a trained bassist nightmares! But my intonation and speed are usually pretty good, and it fits the type of music I play with the DB (folk/acoustic rock/alternative).
My technique would probably give a trained bassist nightmares! But my intonation and speed are usually pretty good, and it fits the type of music I play with the DB (folk/acoustic rock/alternative).
In my honest opinion, I think 1-3-4 is outdated. If it works for you, then that is good. But it simply goes against the structure of the hand. The index and middle finger are naturally farther apart. you should try to teach those students 1-2-4 and after a year of doing so if they still like 1-3-4 then let them pick.
To the best of my knoweldge 134 is used primarily by franco petracchi and his devotees, im not exactly sure how it came to be but if you look through any of the bille method books the fingers are 134. I use 124 primarily because thats how I was taught, but if you look at the mechanics of it the stretch between 1 and 2 much more comfortable and and the fingers are much more independent than the stretch between 3 and 4. That being said, franco petracchi is arguable the best player alive today, and 134 seems to work for him and his students.
Yeah, I play Bille' etudes a lot, and he marks fingerings 1-3-4. I use 1-2-4 almost 100% of the time though, so I just read the 3's as 2's. 1-3-4 may work for some people, but to me, it would be very difficult to keep the half step between 1 and 3 in tune. Seems to me like the natural spacing between 1 and 3 would cause the 3 to be sharp compared to the 1. 1-2-4 just seems like a more physically natural shape for the hand. The only times I ever use 3 are for whole steps between 1 and 3 higher up the neck, like before thumb position. But even here, I usually just use 1-2-4 and pivot.
134 is the italian system that also today most classical d.bssist learn in Italy.
In my opinion both approaches are valid (i use 124 because i was taught like that)
134 plus: more relaxed hand
minus: 3 and 4 share common tendons, so they are less indpendent from each other than 2 and 4
In my opinion both approaches are valid (i use 124 because i was taught like that)
134 plus: more relaxed hand
minus: 3 and 4 share common tendons, so they are less indpendent from each other than 2 and 4
In talking to Tom Martin about 1-3-4 years ago he said he never understood it until he worked himself through Bottesini's method. Evidently Bottesini used to bunch up all four fingers for a half tone then use all four fingers for a tone. If he passed through a half tone to another note (eg slurring chromatically) he would use 1-3-4 in a rolling motion.
Has anyone else heard this explanation?
I have always understood that the ring finger and pinkie ligaments somehow come together to make individual separated movements rather stiff and slow. How the hell do pianists do it so well? When tapping my fingers on a tabletop any combination of fingers is free of tension, fast and even except ring and pinkie, which is tragic!!
I use 1-2-3-4 all over the neck in a part rolling action but do trills only 1-2 or 1-3
DP
Has anyone else heard this explanation?
I have always understood that the ring finger and pinkie ligaments somehow come together to make individual separated movements rather stiff and slow. How the hell do pianists do it so well? When tapping my fingers on a tabletop any combination of fingers is free of tension, fast and even except ring and pinkie, which is tragic!!
I use 1-2-3-4 all over the neck in a part rolling action but do trills only 1-2 or 1-3
DP
use both!
the same way 2 to 4 is a stronger movement, 1 to 3 is a stronger movement then 1 to 2.
Chromatically I'd say 1-2-4 is strongest. There's an intelligent way to combine the 2 systems depending on CONTEXT. This method is employed by the great Joel Quarrington;
It's ALL about context, and context should be the deciding factor of which fingers to use, not mechanized position oriented playing!
the same way 2 to 4 is a stronger movement, 1 to 3 is a stronger movement then 1 to 2.
Chromatically I'd say 1-2-4 is strongest. There's an intelligent way to combine the 2 systems depending on CONTEXT. This method is employed by the great Joel Quarrington;
It's ALL about context, and context should be the deciding factor of which fingers to use, not mechanized position oriented playing!
