Bass Note Reharmonization (ie, pissing off guitarists/pianists)

[HaVIC5]

Hey guys,

I just did a lesson on something near and dear to my heart - bass note reharmonization, which is basically the idea that if you play a different note than the root note on bass, the chord changes. For example, if you play an A underneath a pianist's C chord, it ends up sounding like Am7. From there, I go through a couple reharmonizations of pop songs using the technique. Check it out.



Have you guys used this idea before? How have you approached it?

Adam

 

[Kim Jong Funk]

Yes, I have.

I'm a huge fan of Thelonious Monk, so every note is b9. The other players love it.

But seriously, I normally don't do it often unless I'm leading the bass line somewhere with a planned resolution using it as a passing tone.. Otherwise, I usually end up making the chord a slash chord out of it, and it's usually a note already in the chord (like a progression of G-D/F#-E, for example).

It's cool in a more open/improv setting, but with a set song, I don't want to throw off everyone too much. I once pedaled Bb for an entire A section on "Rhythm Changes" once. It was trippy.

 

[joebar]

i use it all the time-
it carries power though so discretion and taste is a must.
it adds interest and colour to music.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Fun to play around with, but remember, if you are going in one direction, and the band another, it could be a train wreck. Unless the players are good enough players (and listeners) to follow, do it at rehearsal first.

 

[nzscott]

I think this technique is used by harp payers ,they call it cross harping . also john Frusciante from the RHCP also uses this technique on the song "Other Side " over the chorus part of the song

 

[AngelCrusher]

Easy example for rock is this can work great on choruses especially towards the end of the song. I do this a lot and usually play an octave up for a bit too. Works awesome on straight 8th type tunes that are rocking pretty hard.

 

[joebar]

It's a very good "tool" for the bass players, but use with CAUTION and "and taste is a must" as Joebar commented

to use this weapon effectively, an excellent knowledge of harmony and your fretboard is a must.

 

[mambo4]

P.S. Some parts from Neely's substitutes sounded bad to my ears and I would be "upset" if my bass player indiscriminately would decide to start adding those examples of bass note re-harmonization.

In my experience, arbitrarily replacing the root with other chord tones will usually called out a sounding "wrong" , regardless of how supported by theory it may be. It is not something to be done without consulting others.

 

[GastonD]

But we're not talking ARBITRARILY replacing, are we? It is more about the well though-out, appropriate choices.
Of course, it does require taste and is not something to be used all the time indiscriminately.
Personally, I will use it mostly if it makes the bass line smoother and leads to a solid resolution.

 

[Kim Jong Funk]

But we're not talking ARBITRARILY replacing, are we? It is more about the well though-out, appropriate choices.
Of course, it does require taste and is not something to be used all the time indiscriminately.
Personally, I will use it mostly if it makes the bass line smoother and leads to a solid resolution.

I don't think it's arbitrarily replacing notes, but being that the part of the goal is to piss off other members of the band, it seems that the notes must be unexpected. Sounds more of a case like:

(Guitarist): Dude, what the f@#$ were you doing up there? That was an E7!
(Bassist): Nah, man, it's legit. I just made it into a Gm7b9. It's all good.

 

[HaVIC5]

From Neely's video and his wordings, IT WAS, more or less, ARBITRARILY produced bass re-harmonization. There was NO EXPLANATION why he used it. Anyway, Neely's replacement of the tonic chord - MAJOR - to MINOR looked just CHILDISHLY SILLY to me.
Why do you think that COMPOSER clearly wrote the tonic chord as MAJOR?
Is the composer just uneducated semi-musician?
Anyway, I've started reacting to Neely's HUMOR.

Sir! I must object! The very implication within my musicianship and my pedagogy that there would even be a HINT of childish silliness is an affront to my dignity! That I would impune the SERIOUS nature of my craft with any sense of HUMOR is so utterly crass and offensive that I scarcely believe somebody would dare accuse me of it, and yet here we are. How ungentlemenly!

Anyway, yes, this technique can go horrendously awry if used without regard to taste, or other members of the band. It obviously will piss off guitarists and pianists, and everybody else for that matter, if done without restraint or intent. Being on the other side of things as a pianist, I have played with a bass player rather inexperienced at this technique, and it's certainly annoying if it's done without regard for the music.

That's why I dedicated the latter half of the video to explaining the importance of context, specifically in regard to the idea of the third chorus. In pop songs of a typical verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus form, the third chorus very often is treated as an "arrangers chorus" where there is something different included within the arrangement somewhere to heighten a sense of tension and climax. Since listeners have already heard the chorus twice before, there is a strong compositional reason for there to be development of the ideas. Often this means adding a "quiet chorus," which builds up tension for the final "loud chorus," or it could mean the lead singer riffs a higher descant over background singers (or overdubs) taking over the main chorus, or the drummer switching to half time (ala Locked Out of Heaven), or a whole bunch of other things. Bass note reharm, in my experience, is another arrangement technique that can work within that context.

The technique works well too within straight ahead small ensemble jazz, like Kim Jon Funk mentioned, although it usually manifests itself in the idea of pedal point (keeping a single note going while the harmony changes above it). If the ensemble and style of jazz is a little freer, changing the harmony on a whim makes more sense, but overall, just like in pop/rock contexts, it's a technique that requires a strong ear and sense of tension/release to get feeling right.

And, whousedtoplay, sure, it's fine to not like the musical choices I made in the video, and in a sense they are arbitrary in that I followed my ear in picking the notes that I did. I am not, however, doing so randomly, and I'm doing it with the expressed purpose of adding tension and interest to harmony. It can be a very powerful, and add a huge "wow" factor if placed properly.

 

[HaVIC5]

I, uh. I'm not sure what I did to offend you so much. But sorry?

 

[GastonD]

Btw, in cases of instructional material, I kinda expect the examples to be contrived to a degree and overdone, for the sake of demoing the possibilities, but necessarily demoing the personal aptitude for how much and how often the tool/technique/idea would be used.

But then again, I may be missing the point entirely...

 

[preside]

^^ wow this sounds like a boring band. The guys in my band know how to handle improve on the fly and many times we use reharms as inside jokes or signposts to let someone know when the solos over, to transition into another song ect. But as bass players it is our responsibility to dictate the root so it is wise to make sure your band leader is not too touchy about this kind of thing.

 

[MrLenny1]

I dig it.

 

[preside]

For better understanding about your statement and about your band, let's add some "shades"/parallels to what you said.
Let's imagine the following situations (and you can complete those short intros):

Pino says, "Hey, D'Angelo, you guys are playing the same chords for the same songs. I want to re-harm the bass on the fly..."

Darryl Jones says, "Hey, the Rolling Stones, you guys are playing the same chords for the same songs. I want to re-harm the bass on the fly..."

Numerous SUPERB bass players for Michael Jackson (R.I.P the Pop King) say, "Hey, Michael, you playing the same chords for the same songs. I want to re-harm the bass on the fly..."
Numerous wonderful bass players for Steely Dan say, "Hey, you Steely Dan guys, you are always playing the same chords for the same songs. I want to re-harm my bass on the fly..."

Should I continue?

Sorry, But I would not be all that interested in playing for ANY of those people, although they are all good they are POP and that does nothing for me. Try coming off as a little less strident and attacking in your comments and more people may feel comfortable engaging/playing with you. There is a wide variety of music out there and not all of it fits your seemingly narrow definitions .

 

[preside]

Thanks for your response.
We are not going to argue about our tastes in Music, what we like, what we don't like.
We are not going to talk about Pino's opinion on that "simple" D'Angelo's music,
and
we are not going to criticize Chuck Rainey about being proud of his POP bass-lines with POP-ish "Steely Dan".
Best Steely Dan bass performances: Steely Dan Sunday
"Kid Charlemagne (Chuck Rainey): Rainey has a feel for the groove like none other; he's latching right onto "Pretty" Purdie's funk strut while weaving around Don Grolnick's Rhodes and Paul Griffin's clavinet. "The energy on this song is great, and I remember playing everything I knew on that song, based on my 1-5-1 style," Rainey recollects about that session. "I walked out the studio that day with my chest stuck out." He has every damned right to be so proud."

My mentioning that POP music was due to Adam Neely's references to even more Pop-ish POP music in his video.
I hope you are not going to argue that ADELE is more "pop" then Steely Dan.


The concept of the bass playing other than the root notes is not a new one. Trust me on that.
It can be re-DISCOVERED by new bass players, but I think that concept was around way before your or even my time, and it's been used for years by numerous bass players in VARIOUS styles, including that "undesirable" Pop Music.
Also, I've used that "new" (but OLD) concept in my bass-lines more than enough times and probably because of that, I've listened, analyzed, discussed with other musicians about it, and established (crystallized) my opinion about that concept.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself.
It's a very good "tool" for the bass players, but use with CAUTION and "and taste is a must" as Joebar commented.

Nice reply. We are pretty much on the same page. There is little to argue with in your post. PS. I don't discount or belittle Pop music anyone that can't appreciate the skill of Steely Dan or Adele needs to transcribe some of the music.

 

[Groove Master]

Hey guys,

I just did a lesson on something near and dear to my heart - bass note reharmonization, which is basically the idea that if you play a different note than the root note on bass, the chord changes. For example, if you play an A underneath a pianist's C chord, it ends up sounding like Am7. From there, I go through a couple reharmonizations of pop songs using the technique. Check it out.



Have you guys used this idea before? How have you approached it?

Adam

Sounds good to me.

It is a very good tool for bass players to enhance a groove in a jazz/fusion setting. I do that a lot and I love it.

Also it is a great tool for remixes !!! Think also Dirty Loops which is a master lesson at reharmonizing a melody. Also Paul Anka Rock Swings is another great example at reharmonizing Pop songs in a jazzy way.

Also as a record producer, I did use that approach to reharmonize the chords from an artist that wanted to stretched out his versions of his own songs.

As an example the note C can be at least part of 20+ chords instead of the root of a C5

 

[Jhengsman]

Today's lesson learned. Hold on to it until the third chorus or an extended instrumental break

 

[HaVIC5]

Once again, from my amateur bass player's perspective, I took it as some kind of, Stephen Colbert's take on politics.



Here is another point from my amateur bass player's experience that involved being around talented musicians and arrangers.

(It's all about the genre!)

Yes, you are correct about that "third chorus", but as you said, a that time a lot of other musicians - guitar/keyboard/sax/etc... or singers are DEVELOPING (or ready to develop) "new ideas"(improvising) with "built-in" tensions that must be built on a solid foundation.
Yes, it's quite possible for the bass player to loosen up but with clearly defined song's architectural structure.
Let's say, during that "third chorus" the keyboard/guitar player is adding some "interesting" chord substitutes, but...
Those substitutes/variations are based on the EXISTING bass note.
Let's say the main band's attraction - the LEAD SINGER - is also adding some "new ideas" but suddenly the SINGER loses the "ground" - the bass foundation.

I would compare it with some mountain climbing - "higher and higher".
Yes, you can climb it higher but you must always check the foundation/ground - the bass.
Of course, it's quite possible that some other instruments could pick up a bass-line - an organ point or some ostinato riff - that could leave the bass player capable of adding some embellishments, but with very careful attention to the overall sound of the song/band.

What's going to happen if ALL MUSICIANS and ALL SINGERS decide to develop "new ideas" because of
that "Third Chorus"?

But here is my MAIN POINT.
I'm not afraid of the bass player adding some (or even a lot of ) "embellishments."

I'm afraid of the bass player COMPLETELY changing (without consideration with the band/arranger/composer) the song's HARMONIC foundation, like the tonic C major chord (More soundly energetic) becomes Aminor7 (less energetic ) at the song's end.
Could it happen?
YES, BUT...
It must be carefully crafted, planned and arranged in advance.

I'm really not sure what point you're making in this whole thread, because it sounds like you're really against what I said. I never suggested that a bass player just go off the rails - it obviously requires either extensive premeditation, or the kind of ensemble that understands what you're doing, how you're doing it, and what to play alongside it. It's the same sort of thing with drummers that play metric modulation fills - it can throw a huge monkey wrench in the works if you don't understand what's going on and if it's not the right sort of musical context for that particular musical element. But it still can be a really cool device nonetheless if the musical situation calls for it.

In the video, I used a couple of pop songs as examples because they are widely relatable to all musicians, and the musical context is clear and concise. If I did a video where I was reharmonizing Juju-era Wayne Shorter melodies, it would have been far more academic to the majority of people watching, and less relatable. It sounds like the issue you have was that I was doing it to pop songs, and somehow you came up with the idea that I though pop songs were boring or not worthy of musicianship, or something along those lines. I didn't say or remotely imply anything to that effect, so please don't put words in my mouth.

For what it's worth, I'm a composer first, bass player second. Like you mentioned, this technique is as old as dirt, so it's not exactly something radical that I'm proposing.