Exercise I've never seen

[EADG mx]

But why should any choice be involved? What's wrong with practicing two different patterns? I've been playing for 40 years, and I can assure you that I've used both fingerings many times over the years. At the very least, practicing a different pattern may help cut you free of the idea that a scale must always start with your 2 finger (which IME is something that folks can get hung up on if they only practice a pattern one way).

My point was that it's impractical in comparison given that much information. Of course one should practice scales in many positions to get the most out of them, Scale A isn't one I'd use. I would rather start at V position to play the tonic and then shift up to VII to continue the scale (now in my stock Dorian mode pattern).

One advantage of practicing pattern A is that it allows you to go into an A scale from V position rather than having to start in IV. If you're already in V when you are called on to play a scalar passage, this is an advantage.

Of course but position V to IV is just a quick shift away, too. In this case I would consider where I am coming from and where I am going, whether it's feasible to make a shift down to IV and if so, how long I will be staying there, what my next shift will be.

I am not a big fan of applying Simandl lock-stock-and-barrel to the EBG, because it seems unnecessary to me. There's no particular reason why a technique devised for one instrument has to be applied to a different one. I admit I do often use 1-2-4 in low positions, but virtually never in higher ones, and I never, in any position, feel the need to reinforce the little finger with the ring finger. It just seems needlessly restrictive. But then, I come from classical guitar (many moons ago).

Well the consensus with electric guys using Simandl is that past the 5th or 7th fret (roughly), it can go out the window. I do not like using OFPT in the lower registers because it feels uncomfortable to me and it's rarely necessary but I will if I have to.

In any position I think you need to be considering the span of your hands vs. the spacing of the frets. My idea of a practical fingering can differ from someone else's in that I will sacrifice the "proper" textbook fingering for something less practical, but more comfortable.

 

[onlyclave]

Simandl is great for the 44" or so scale of the double bass. Chop 10" or so inches off that and the REASONS for Simandl start to be less important. I do find I use 1 2 4 in the first postion or sometime second position on fretless often, and occasionally on the fretted. But up above that, with one's hand in the position commonly taught as "proper" for electric bass with the thumb behind the neck and the fingers spread, there's no real advantage to the double bass fingering.

jte

Simandl fingerings (1 2 4) are just as legitimate for electric bass, regardless of scale length. The Bille double bass method teaches 1 2 3 4 in all positions but for beginners it is difficult to play in tune. The two different methods teach ways of interpreting and realizing MUSIC, not the easiest way to finger a scale.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

My point was that it's impractical in comparison given that much information. Of course one should practice scales in many positions to get the most out of them, Scale A isn't one I'd use. I would rather start at V position to play the tonic and then shift up to VII to continue the scale (now in my stock Dorian mode pattern).

But part of the reason for practicing scales in different positions and different fingerings is precisely to get away from reliance on "stock" patterns. It's to improve your chances of getting to where you need to go from wherever you happen to be. To give you more options, IOW. How could that possibly be a problem for anyone? That's what I don't get. There's nothing in the least impractical about this (or any other) fingering if it it works out to be the most useful way of doing what you want to do.

Of course but position V to IV is just a quick shift away, too.

True, but why should you shift at all if you don't need to? Suppose my index finger is on the low A at the 5th. I have to play a scalar passage, then come back to putting my index on the same A. If I can do all that in position V, which I can, why should I shift at all? Of course you can shift to IV or VII if you like, but why would that be an argument for NOT knowing how to do it from V?

Well the consensus with electric guys using Simandl is that past the 5th or 7th fret (roughly), it can go out the window. I do not like using OFPT in the lower registers because it feels uncomfortable to me and it's rarely necessary but I will if I have to.

I don't use 1-2-4 after the 2nd, as a rule. Sometimes on the 3rd, depending.

In any position I think you need to be considering the span of your hands vs. the spacing of the frets. My idea of a practical fingering can differ from someone else's in that I will sacrifice the "proper" textbook fingering for something less practical, but more comfortable.

I would say that comfort is a part of practicality. A more comfortable fingering, all else being equal, would also tend to be a more practical one.

 

[EADG mx]

But part of the reason for practicing scales in different positions and different fingerings is precisely to get away from reliance on "stock" patterns. It's to improve your chances of getting to where you need to go from wherever you happen to be. To give you more options, IOW. How could that possibly be a problem for anyone? That's what I don't get. There's nothing in the least impractical about this (or any other) fingering if it it works out to be the most useful way of doing what you want to do.

I see your point, but like I said I don't see the need for this particular pattern. I would practice my A major scale in IV position, and VII position (with a shift up from V). These make the most sense to me.

The A major scale in V position with no shift could have it's place and thus would be practical, but until I see an instance where one would necessitate it I'm not really convinced - I certainly can't think of one.

True, but why should you shift at all if you don't need to? Suppose my index finger is on the low A at the 5th. I have to play a scalar passage, then come back to putting my index on the same A. If I can do all that in position V, which I can, why should I shift at all? Of course you can shift to IV or VII if you like, but why would that be an argument for NOT knowing how to do it from V?

I would rather shift to IV and use Scale B than stay at V and play Scale A.

Technically the scale OP posted requires multiple shifts anyway.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

The A major scale in V position with no shift could have it's place and thus would be practical, but until I see an instance where one would necessitate it I'm not really convinced - I certainly can't think of one.

As I said, I've seen such instances many times for years. The fact that the OP's teacher even gave him the exercise in the first place suggests that he, or his sources, have too.

And it's not really about "necessitating" it anyway. After all, what really necessitates you playing it in IV or VII position either? It's about having possibilities, options. It's about being as little restricted as possible in terms of fingering choices. For example, you could also practice the A scale starting in II position. I've had occasion to use this quite often as well. One of the most valuable things any teacher ever taught me was that it can be useful to try fingering things as many different ways as possible. This guy used to make me practice the same scale in as many different positions as I could. I didn't exactly enjoy it at the time, but it taught me a lot.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with an exercise that expects you to stretch your fingers a bit. The OP may need to do that someday, and he can't practice a skill he hasn't acquired.

 

[Jim Nazium]

Seems to me I have a book around with all sorts of these extended type patterns in it. I'll have to look and see whose it is...

Is it "Fretboard Alchemy"? That book has a lot of extended scale fingerings like this.

 

[EADG mx]

As I said, I've seen such instances many times for years.

Could you maybe share one? I would be interested to see it.

And it's not really about "necessitating" it anyway. After all, what really necessitates you playing it in IV or VII position either?

I would play this scale in IV and VII position because it makes the most sense (to me) and I know that they contain efficient and comfortable fingerings. I am not ruling out other fingerings but I am placing less emphasis on them.

It's about having possibilities, options. It's about being as little restricted as possible in terms of fingering choices. For example, you could also practice the A scale starting in II position. I've had occasion to use this quite often as well. One of the most valuable things any teacher ever taught me was that it can be useful to try fingering things as many different ways as possible. This guy used to make me practice the same scale in as many different positions as I could. I didn't exactly enjoy it at the time, but it taught me a lot.

Well I would recommend practicing every scale in every position, but keeping in mind that is a hierarchy. Some fingerings work better than others for different instruments and different people.

Bad analogies ahead, but when you practice do you place the same emphasis on the Double Harmonic Minor scale as you would on Ionian? The same emphasis on 13/8 as 4/4 and 3/4? Harmonics and sightreading? I don't think anyone would disagree that this is not efficient practicing for most people. I think that you need to devise a method of practicing that will enable you to get what you want out of the instrument. This definition changes from person to person.

This is my mindset and I understand if others don't share it.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Could you maybe share one? I would be interested to see it.

I probably shouldn't have said "seen," because that implies it was necessarily encountered in a written setting. "Encountered" would have been better. I have had to do this when reading other people's charts, but honestly, I'm not gonna go looking for specific examples. I've had to do it so many times in my life in improvised or semi-improvised or head-arrangement settings that I couldn't begin to tell you where. You can take the word of somebody who's been doing this for decades, or you can elect not to.

I would play this scale in IV and VII position because it makes the most sense (to me) and I know that they contain efficient and comfortable fingerings. I am not ruling out other fingerings but I am placing less emphasis on them.

But the thing is, playing scales is not really about playing scales. I mean, who cares about playing scales in and of itself? That's not music, it's an exercise. Playing scales is about preparation to play other things--namely, actual music. So the emphasis should not be on how to play scales as such, but on how best to practice scales to prepare you to play music. What my own experience tells me is that practicing in such a way that you learn to make stretches like this, and find notes from this position, can be highly valuable for playing music.

Well I would recommend practicing every scale in every position, but keeping in mind that is a hierarchy. Some fingerings work better than others for different instruments and different people.

Who sets the hierarchy? And what is it, exactly? Does IV come before VII, or is it the other way around? I don't mean to be snide, truly, but I think you're assuming things not in evidence. And even if some fingerings do work better than others for some people, how could any of us here know that the stretchy fingering couldn't work well for the OP's friend?

Bad analogies ahead, but when you practice do you place the same emphasis on the Double Harmonic Minor scale as you would on Ionian? The same emphasis on 13/8 as 4/4 and 3/4? Harmonics and sightreading? I don't think anyone would disagree that this is not efficient practicing for most people. I think that you need to devise a method of practicing that will enable you to get what you want out of the instrument. This definition changes from person to person.

This is my mindset and I understand if others don't share it.

Well, you're right, not really a good analogy. The fingering described in the first post is not nearly as arcane in relation to the ones you prefer as 13/8 is to 4/4. If we were talking about playing all the notes of the scale on one string, that would be a closer comparison, in that it would rarely be needed but might still have its occasional uses.

I agree that people need a way of practicing that will help them get what they want out of the instrument. But beginners often don't exactly know what that is. And I don't think it does them any favors to shut off their options ahead of time, for instance by telling them not to learn another way of fingering the major scale. (Which, remember, was the start of this whole thread: the OP's friend's teacher gave him a perfectly legitimate exercise to do, and the OP took it on himself to tell his friend to stop doing it. That, all by itself, tells me the friend is probably better off listening to his teacher than to the OP.)

Understand: I'm not saying that the OP's friend HAS to learn this "stretchy" fingering. I'm saying it's perfectly OK to do so, that it's not a waste of time, that it's a perfectly legitimate exercise for a teacher to give a student, and that it's something IMO and IME that is likely to turn out to be quite useful. I'm also saying that recommending that the OP's friend NOT learn this fingering, as if it would be a bad or useless thing to know, use, or practice, are IMO misguided.

 

[EADG mx]

But the thing is, playing scales is not really about playing scales. I mean, who cares about playing scales in and of itself? That's not music, it's an exercise. Playing scales is about preparation to play other things--namely, actual music. So the emphasis should not be on how to play scales as such, but on how best to practice scales to prepare you to play music. What my own experience tells me is that practicing in such a way that you learn to make stretches like this, and find notes from this position, can be highly valuable for playing music.

Yes and I agree, but my point was that most of the actual music I play fits nicely into one position, and music that doesn't I account for by use of (what I consider) methodical and practical shifts. Like I said one's choice in fingering comes from a variety of factors - where you're coming from, where you're going, what you're familiar with (yes), what's most comfortable for you, and also often what timbre you're going for.

Who sets the hierarchy? And what is it, exactly? Does IV come before VII, or is it the other way around? I don't mean to be snide, truly, but I think you're assuming things not in evidence. And even if some fingerings do work better than others for some people, how could any of us here know that the stretchy fingering couldn't work well for the OP's friend?

My point was that we all set our own hierarchy, in what we want to be able to do and the method in which we attain our ability. I am just sharing my viewpoint and anyone here is free to disagree (as always).

Well, you're right, not really a good analogy. The fingering described in the first post is not nearly as arcane in relation to the ones you prefer as 13/8 is to 4/4. If we were talking about playing all the notes of the scale on one string, that would be a closer comparison, in that it would rarely be needed but might still have its occasional uses.

The point I was trying to make was not to liken "Scale A vs. Scale B" to "13/8 vs. 4/4" because I know it's not a fair or accurate comparison. The point is that some things are just more worthwhile to practice than others. One's definition of "worthwhile" of course will vary.

I agree that people need a way of practicing that will help them get what they want out of the instrument. But beginners often don't exactly know what that is. And I don't think it does them any favors to shut off their options ahead of time, for instance by telling them not to learn another way of fingering the major scale. (Which, remember, was the start of this whole thread: the OP's friend's teacher gave him a perfectly legitimate exercise to do, and the OP took it on himself to tell his friend to stop doing it. That, all by itself, tells me the friend is probably better off listening to his teacher than to the OP.)

It doesn't do a beginner any favor to limit them, but it also doesn't do them any favor to practice anything that's irrelevant or not worth their time (at least thus far).

You are probably better off listening to your teacher than a peer in most cases, but let's not forget that unfortunately there are poor teachers out there (not directed at OP's teacher at all). That said if I disagree with any teacher (including my own, which has happened) and if any of my students disagree with me (which I'm sure they have) that's fine. I don't think any one person's method will work objectively for everyone. Jeff Berlin and Simandl come to mind, but that's for another thread (of which we have no shortage).

Understand: I'm not saying that the OP's friend HAS to learn this "stretchy" fingering. I'm saying it's perfectly OK to do so, that it's not a waste of time, that it's a perfectly legitimate exercise for a teacher to give a student, and that it's something IMO and IME that is likely to turn out to be quite useful. I'm also saying that recommending that the OP's friend NOT learn this fingering, as if it would be a bad or useless thing to know, use, or practice, are IMO misguided.

I probably shouldn't have said "seen," because that implies it was necessarily encountered in a written setting. "Encountered" would have been better. I have had to do this when reading other people's charts, but honestly, I'm not gonna go looking for specific examples. I've had to do it so many times in my life in improvised or semi-improvised or head-arrangement settings that I couldn't begin to tell you where. You can take the word of somebody who's been doing this for decades, or you can elect not to.

That is your opinion and you're entitled to that, I wouldn't really advocate that particular fingering for my own usage or to a peer but I will also give you the benefit of the doubt because you've clearly been around the block a few more times than I have (I am being sincere).

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Yes and I agree, but my point was that most of the actual music I play fits nicely into one position, and music that doesn't I account for by use of (what I consider) methodical and practical shifts. Like I said one's choice in fingering comes from a variety of factors - where you're coming from, where you're going, what you're familiar with (yes), what's most comfortable for you, and also often what timbre you're going for.

My point was that we all set our own hierarchy, in what we want to be able to do and the method in which we attain our ability. I am just sharing my viewpoint and anyone here is free to disagree (as always).

The point I was trying to make was not to liken "Scale A vs. Scale B" to "13/8 vs. 4/4" because I know it's not a fair or accurate comparison. The point is that some things are just more worthwhile to practice than others. One's definition of "worthwhile" of course will vary.

It doesn't do a beginner any favor to limit them, but it also doesn't do them any favor to practice anything that's irrelevant or not worth their time (at least thus far).

You are probably better off listening to your teacher than a peer in most cases, but let's not forget that unfortunately there are poor teachers out there (not directed at OP's teacher at all). That said if I disagree with any teacher (including my own, which has happened) and if any of my students disagree with me (which I'm sure they have) that's fine. I don't think any one person's method will work objectively for everyone. Jeff Berlin and Simandl come to mind, but that's for another thread (of which we have no shortage).

That is your opinion and you're entitled to that, I wouldn't really advocate that particular fingering for my own usage or to a peer but I will also give you the benefit of the doubt because you've clearly been around the block a few more times than I have (I am being sincere).

 

[neatobassman]

I say learn as many fingerings of scales as possible. It has helped me out a lot. Being able to shift into any scale at any position is a great skill.

 

[JimmyM]

That is your opinion and you're entitled to that, I wouldn't really advocate that particular fingering for my own usage or to a peer but I will also give you the benefit of the doubt because you've clearly been around the block a few more times than I have (I am being sincere).

Then why are you questioning it? Richard is 100% right, and he probably has been around the block more than you. I don't know if I have, but I can assure you that Dave LaRue has been around the block more than me and you put together, and if he teaches it, there's a reason. And this is it:

As far as Simandl fingerings on bass, I know some people do it and like it, but I think it's totally impractical and limiting on electric. A 5-fret stretch is nothing if you have good technique, and will not result in any pain or injury. Instead, what it will do is increase your versatility and keep you from being locked into one position and one way of doing things. Guys like Dave, who is a Berklee graduate, highly educated on the academic side of music, and a world-class bassist, wouldn't teach it if it wasn't useful. If that doesn't appeal to you, so be it, but in all honesty, you're a good guy but you're not qualified to comment on its usefulness or lack thereof. You're putting it down without having tried it. Not a good idea.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Although not the most practical at first glance, it does have it`s uses when you are either trying to break away from more common patterns, or if you are looking to move into a certain position while still having 'full' range of the scale.

It`s not bad at all for your friend, although I do hope the teacher will eventually show him the 'simpler' pattern.

 

[JimmyM]

Although not the most practical at first glance, it does have it`s uses when you are either trying to break away from more common patterns, or if you are looking to move into a certain position while still having 'full' range of the scale.

It`s not bad at all for your friend, although I do hope the teacher will eventually show him the 'simpler' pattern.

When his teacher starts getting him into two-octave scales, the reasons for that particular fingering become even more apparent.

 

[Anonymatt]

Yeah, managing a 5-fret spread comes in handy for much more than those "note group demonstrations" everyone seems to be practicing so often.

There are just a million things that can happen out there in that big musical world!

 

[EADG mx]

Then why are you questioning it?

Because I didn't see the use, so I felt the need to.

Richard is 100% right, and he probably has been around the block more than you.

By my own admission.

I don't know if I have, but I can assure you that Dave LaRue has been around the block more than me and you put together, and if he teaches it, there's a reason.

And this is it:

As far as Simandl fingerings on bass, I know some people do it and like it, but I think it's totally impractical and limiting on electric.

I don't. I don't really remember the last time I've ever thought "Gee, my fingering method is really impractical. I really wish I wasn't so limited". If I felt this way about Simandl I would use OFPF. Trust me, I've tried it. The purpose of Simandl goes far beyond scale length - it deals with the inadequate pinky finger and it's a comfort thing as well. Plenty of music really does lie nicely under the fingers in using it.

A 5-fret stretch is nothing if you have good technique, and will not result in any pain or injury.

No pain and injury, sure. Discomfort, likely. Whether it's practical - that depends on the situation.

You're putting it down without having tried it. Not a good idea.

How do you know that?

When his teacher starts getting him into two-octave scales, the reasons for that particular fingering become even more apparent.

There are other fingerings for two-octave scales as well, of course.

 

[JimmyM]

Of course there are other fingerings, but why limit yourself? And what's wrong with having a five fret reach whenever you need it? If you don't need the 5 fret reach in a song, then do Simandl (I'll even bunch my fingers up around two frets if the part I'm playing doesn't move much), but when you need it, it's better to have it than not have it. Scales are about building muscle memory as much as anything, so if you're used to a 5 fret reach, you can easily cop it when you need it. There's just no good reason not to do it..."I don't think it's practical" isn't much of a reason IMHO.

 

[Jojabeau]

Do them we spend that much time playing scales? Have you ever played a scale on a gig? The only time I play scales is to warm up, and then I run them on a single string .i.e. an A scale on the E string from top to the 15th fret. I transcribe a great deal and rarely run across a bass player or other musician playing a scale.

 

[JimmyM]

Again, it's not the scale...it's building the muscle memory to maintain a 5-fret reach when needed. You never want to run scales during a gig, but I can think of a lot of instances where a 5-fret reach comes in handy.

 

[sundaybender]

There's just no good reason not to do it..."I don't think it's practical" isn't much of a reason IMHO.

Hee hee - see your post above, where you yourself say...

As far as Simandl fingerings on bass, I know some people do it and like it, but I think it's totally impractical and limiting on electric.

I think at this point, it's fair enough to say, "To each his own."

When the same argument can be used both for and against a thing, the debate has failed.