• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Figuring out the best fingerings

Hi all! I am still relatively new to double bass, crossed over from electric awhile ago.

Would like to ask some of you pros, how do you figure out the best fingerings to play a particular phrase?

The considerations that you have when you have a melody in your head and how to approach translating it to the instrument.

A few things I can think of are
- which string to start on
- how many strings to use
- when to change positions etc.

Thank you!
 
I crossed over a couple of years ago. One thing I found immediately was how poor my knowledge of the first position was. With slab, if I'm going to play a low A, I usually go for the 5th fret of the E string, and basically spend a lot of time in frets 5-9, using open strings for pedal tones, octaves, and such. With the increased effort needed to stop a note on the double, I dedicated some effort to learning familiar runs using open strings and first position.

Now that my left hand strength has increased with playing time, I don't find stopping higher positions harder. In fact, given the ergonomics of moving to the first position, my hand can get less tired in the middle of the neck. So yeah, instead of forcing a particular position, I'm now looking at what the song calls for. I can slide up to an E on the A string and get a sound I can't obtain by stopping the E on the D string.

It should also be noted that in an orchestra, the lead chair generally dictates the fingering and bowing for their section. This tells me there can be any number of ways to do it, none necessarily incorrect, so it needs to be coordinated even among professionals.
 
Step 1. Forget everything about how you play bass guitar - do not try to translate, you are learning a new instrument. It shares a register and strings but it might as well be tuba.
Step 2. Work through a proven classical method like Simandl, the most common, with the bow and teacher.
Step 3. Work on various classical solos and jazz heads using a variety of fingerings for each one.
This helps build routes around the bass and you get to know how to deal with things like speed, tone, what the highest note is etc.
The luxury of written music is being able to decide exactly how you want to play it.
 

Yesterday I was reading the interesting preface of Joel Quarrington's book. He says he really disliked the Simandl method and fingerings and also advocates a totally different angle of the fingertips on the string (more on top of the string in the direction of the string on the string instead of the normal 90% angle). This is mainly to have a more free vibrato. Like violin and cello players.

Also he said that at workshops students who followed the Rabbath method where twice as fast at learning than students who had followed the Simandl method. It took Rabbath method followers three years to get to a certain level and Simandl followers six years.

He also stated that for other styles of music than classical it might be different. He is also not playing much across the strings but as much as possible on one string. I thought this is an interesting view and even a controversial one. I agree with everything above posters said about Simandl but it is good to know that there are different views. It might not work well for jazz though but it surely works for Joel Quarrington and others.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday I was reading the interesting preface of Joel Quarrington's book. He says he really disliked the Simandl method and fingerings and also advocates a totally different angle of the fingertips on the string (more on top of the string in the direction of the string on the string instead of the normal 90% angle). This is mainly to have a more free vibrato. Like violin and cello players.

Also he said that at workshops students who followed the Rabbath method where twice as fast at learning than students who had followed the Simandl method. It took Rabbath method followers three years to get to a certain level and Simandl followers six years.

He also stated that for other styles of music than classical it might be different. He is also not playing much across the strings but as much as possible on one string. I thought this is an interesting view and even a controversial one. I agree with everything above posters said about Simandl but it is good to know that there are different views. It might not work well for jazz though but it surely works for Joel Quarrington and others.
As a cellist and EB and (former) DB guy I found the first Simandl to be a good way to learn to play DB in the various key signatures, get proper intonation, and to get ready to play basic orchestral repetoire - so very valuable. It was not so useful for developing melodic chops, the etudes are practical more than anything else, but it is a beginners method. At the intermediate level, things like vibrato and left-hand finger angle (the never-ending slanted vs squared finger angle debate in cello-land) and pivoting ideas, alluded to by Les Fret, that transfer from the cello world seem natural to consider. A good classical-based teacher is of the essence. Agree that crossover to DB from EB is tricky at first and it can open up a player to injury. Again, find a good classical-based teacher, forget EB fingerings when playing DB.
 
At the intermediate level, things like vibrato and left-hand finger angle (the never-ending slanted vs squared finger angle debate in cello-land) and pivoting ideas, alluded to by Les Fret, that transfer from the cello world seem natural to consider.

I guess this is what JQ is talking about in his preface. The slanted fingering is the angled (violin like) placement as opposed to the non-angled (squared/traditional bass like) fingering?
I tried it and felt that with the slanted fingering you have to pivot a lot more to reach the notes. Especially on bass because of the greater distances (as opposed to violin and cello). Maybe it is easier for vibrato but it makes it harder to play fast passages than with the non-angled fingering. Also string crossings are more awkward with the angled placement.

I am curious how this is discussed in the cello world and what is consider the best.
 
It's a great question that can be answered differently for and by different levels of players. In the traditional sense, there are fingering concepts that are pretty standard to the DB that it behooves everyone to learn. Different teachers have their own ways to get there, but they end up being largely built around the same basic concepts. Beyond these basics, the methods start to diverge. I'll detail three approaches below, all based on the notion that there are multiple ways to approach fingering most passages of music:

One way of looking at the issue ( mentioned earlier) takes string length into account as a primary component of fingering. The bass tends to sound fuller and more resonant when playing any given note on the longest possible string length, so from a "fullness of tone" point of view, this aspect is paramount. Classical bassists tend to finger from this perspective a lot to maximize the resonant sound they can pull from any passage. This explains why you see a lot of soloists shifting along the G string in lyrical passages so often.

Another way way of approaching the issue (also mentioned earlier) is ergonomics; which fingering is easiest to navigate for the left hand (here we are assuming that the right hand is up to the task)? As a component of that, what fingering minimizes shifting, thereby potentially minimizing possible intonation traps during performance? In this paradigm, it is often common to approach playing rangy passages across the strings as Damon mentions above. This is especially important for improvisers, since they are creating their lines on the fly and have little time to conceive of fingerings consciously in real time.

A third (and perhaps the most advanced) way of looking at the issue is in terms of the musical line itself: what fingering allows the line to speak as it was conceived musically, with the proper phrasing and articulation? A good example of this as a consideration would be any legato passage that has a descending 4th in it. A typical "bridge" fingering (i.e. 1-1, 2-2, 4-4) from the higher string to the lower tends to leave a small breath in the phrasing that is the result of the fingering not technically connecting the two sounds in an overlapping way, especially in pizzicato playing. In cases like this, I'll often use an unorthodox fingering to connect the two notes rather than leave a breath or break in the phrasing that the music doesn't really call for.

I think of this third way of phrasing as the highest/most advanced way of phrasing because it uses musical phrasing as the ultimate criteria for fingering choice, but have to remind students often that it is entirely dependent on the player having all options available to them technically at a high level. In other words, if you don't have the basic techniques down, it makes little sense to choose an advanced technique.
 
Quarrington is incredible. He is operating on a super human level in very specific solo rep. It is great to be aware of his work (I am), but it is an advanced option less useful for a direct beginner question like this.
The Rabbath method only gets those great results from serious Rabbath teachers, so it is best left for a teacher to recommend. Simandl is super basic and despite my earlier criticism, it is still the best place to start - ending there is where Simandl is an issue.

I guess this is what JQ is talking about in his preface. The slanted fingering is the angled (violin like) placement as opposed to the non-angled (squared/traditional bass like) fingering?
I tried it and felt that with the slanted fingering you have to pivot a lot more to reach the notes. Especially on bass because of the greater distances (as opposed to violin and cello). Maybe it is easier for vibrato but it makes it harder to play fast passages than with the non-angled fingering. Also string crossings are more awkward with the angled placement.

I am curious how this is discussed in the cello world and what is consider the best.
Yesterday I was reading the interesting preface of Joel Quarrington's book. He says he really disliked the Simandl method and fingerings and also advocates a totally different angle of the fingertips on the string (more on top of the string in the direction of the string on the string instead of the normal 90% angle). This is mainly to have a more free vibrato. Like violin and cello players.

Also he said that at workshops students who followed the Rabbath method where twice as fast at learning than students who had followed the Simandl method. It took Rabbath method followers three years to get to a certain level and Simandl followers six years.

He also stated that for other styles of music than classical it might be different. He is also not playing much across the strings but as much as possible on one string. I thought this is an interesting view and even a controversial one. I agree with everything above posters said about Simandl but it is good to know that there are different views. It might not work well for jazz though but it surely works for Joel Quarrington and others.
 
Yesterday I was reading the interesting preface of Joel Quarrington's book. He says he really disliked the Simandl method and fingerings and also advocates a totally different angle of the fingertips on the string (more on top of the string in the direction of the string on the string instead of the normal 90% angle). This is mainly to have a more free vibrato. Like violin and cello players.

And speaking of JQ, he also uses a lot of the pad of the finger on the string versus the tip, as exemplified in this video at about 1:30 by looking at his LH calluses:



For pizzicato playing, this produces a totally different tone (one that I happen to like quite a bit) but requires different leverage to really get the notes to speak. Can't really argue with JQ's tone with the bow, either, but I'm not sure about how much of that is his left hand and how much his right.
 
I guess this is what JQ is talking about in his preface. The slanted fingering is the angled (violin like) placement as opposed to the non-angled (squared/traditional bass like) fingering?
I tried it and felt that with the slanted fingering you have to pivot a lot more to reach the notes. Especially on bass because of the greater distances (as opposed to violin and cello). Maybe it is easier for vibrato but it makes it harder to play fast passages than with the non-angled fingering. Also string crossings are more awkward with the angled placement.

I am curious how this is discussed in the cello world and what is consider the best.
I agree that going pretty slanted requires pivoting or a return to squared. Perhaps some of our many top DB players on TB have suggestions. There must be a thread or threads on TB. There are a number of videos on pros and cons of the various finger angles on cello if you google them. In cello world top players use both so there are strong opinions but no consensus, just what works best for you. For me a slight slant, not like vioin, for cello (or EB) vibrato digs in better and allows a flat to at pitch vibration that sounds better to me for my playing, not wobbly. But at the risk of not being exactly on the next note that squared gives me. So I have to be aware of it. Fast passages, the squared is best for me. So it is a synthesis I guess of both. My cello teacher is a squared fan and her playing is beautiful. Ultimately I suppose neither is best, it's what works. I can see DB being tougher for sure to slant it as you wrote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Les Fret
Quarrington is incredible. He is operating on a super human level in very specific solo rep. It is great to be aware of his work (I am), but it is an advanced option less useful for a direct beginner question like this.

Yes I agree. This is no beginners stuff. Simandl is a good base but I am getting tired of the same old answers like 'buy Simandl and get a teacher'. It is good advise but it is a discussion stopper. I think it is interesting to see that a player like JQ in his beginning years was frustrated by the Simandl way of playing and that it didn't bring him where he wanted to be. So even for a beginner it is good to know that Simandl is not the only way to learn the bass. It works for many people but there is more. Bass has evolved a lot since Simandl. Why not be aware of that right from the start?

And speaking of JQ, he also uses a lot of the pad of the finger on the string versus the tip, as exemplified in this video at about 1:30 by looking at his LH calluses:

Yes, that was exactly what I was talking about. That angled/slanted finger placement is completely different than what most bass players use.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: the_Ryan
The first issue is that people try to find a way around Simandl because it isn't easy - not because it doesn't work.
The second is that there are far fewer competent teachers using alternative methods and most of them, especially Rabbath, only yield great results with a great teacher.
Simandl is straight forward enough to benefit someone too stubborn or broke to take lessons. We would all love a world with broader choices but the online answers is still "Simandl" (and Petracchi for TP!).
If there were more specifics and someone knew a great Rabbath teacher nearby a person asking the question it is different story.
There is that thread about the Streicher method where I actually knew the teacher and could recommend that the student stick to it because it was a rare opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Basically, it is a long life. I don't really respect anyone blowing off Simandl without spending some time with it. It is the most common method, everyone knows it works. Even if you studied another method, just get a copy (you can DL it). If you can't play the Simandl etudes then it really is the method for you.
I have checked out most methods. I play some Simandl and Petracchi every day.

The main thing: don't look for inspiration in a bass method. Don't worry about how any bass method sounds. Worry about whether it prepares you to play the music you want to play.
 
the OP is from a beginner, advice should be kept in that perspective IMHO. I'm a relative beginner too, dealing w/3 fingers, rudimentary shifts, duple fingering advocated by Simandl are all good solid skills to work on. Add onto this the demanding physical approach, developing muscle memory, ear training and some bow work a beginner can get swamped. Keeping it simple is a good teaching approach for beginnrs
 
Last edited:
I guess this is what JQ is talking about in his preface. The slanted fingering is the angled (violin like) placement as opposed to the non-angled (squared/traditional bass like) fingering?
I tried it and felt that with the slanted fingering you have to pivot a lot more to reach the notes. Especially on bass because of the greater distances (as opposed to violin and cello). Maybe it is easier for vibrato but it makes it harder to play fast passages than with the non-angled fingering. Also string crossings are more awkward with the angled placement.

I am curious how this is discussed in the cello world and what is consider the best.
With Joel's fingering system the idea is that to change notes you keep your hand in the same shape and rotate your wrist. I like this because it takes the movement/weight transfer out of the fingers.

My caveat is that when I'm walking I'm not really doing a whole lot of this: my default positions tend to be Simandl-esque with maybe a half step pivot.
 

Latest posts