Fingering 1 -2 - 4 or Finger Per Fret?

[Andrew Jones]

Funny you should mention that; I saw a band a couple months ago where the bassist got up on stage with a walker, sat down the entire gig, and totally nailed it too.

I saw Sagovia play in his last days......

The man hobbled out with some one carrying his guitar,sat down and BURNED.


Another thing to consider in this topic is tone. Playing like Rocco (wich nobodys talking about but is very valid) will get you a certain thing 124 another OFPF yet another.




Aj

 

[EADG mx]

I realized by watching talented bassists both famous and local that using 1-4 for playing songs with alot of octave parts made more sense and was easier. I found this to be true for slapping octaves as well as playing octaves fingerstyle.

I wonder why that might be...

 

[Michael Case]

5 pages and still going. You guys need some gigs.

 

[J. Crawford]

5 pages and still going. You guys need some gigs.

I lol'd.

Its all preference, no right or wrong way.

[/thread]

 

[tplyons]

What on EARTH is 1 - 2 - 4???

It's using your index, middle, and pinky fingers for three simultaneous frets.

It's mostly a carryover from upright bass, especially if you were taught using the Simandl method, which is the most common.

 

[Ayliffe]

i dont really see the point in 1 2 4 other than to strengthen your 4th, you have 4 fingers why not use all 4?

 

[HaVIC5]

With respect to you both, I disagree. I don't think that's really the crux of it at all.

Perhaps I'm coming at it from a different angle (not wrist angle, mental angle ). To me it's about this: Some folks are arguing that you should avoiding using one of your LH fingers (25% of your total supply) almost everywhere in the "money" area of the neck, whereas others are saying that it's worthwhile to practice being able to use all of your fingers equally well, or as equally as is feasible, all over the neck. The latter seems like a much more sensible idea to me.

Well, we can frame the question in any sort of way to make the answer "obvious", but that isn't really answering the broader question. You notice I fell for the same trap also. That said, let me pose a rhetorical question. We have 4 fingers (5, actually), on our right hand. Why don't we use all 4? The vast majority of people are using just 50 percent of their total supply. Think of how much better everybody would be playing if they used all four.

One idea that seems to be getting lost here--and that is at the basis of tF's misunderstanding--is that learning OFPF is much more about inculcating the ability to do something than it is about mandating that a given fret interval always be fingered a certain way. IOW, OFPFers are not saying that if you want to go from, say, F to G, on the low E, you must always finger it 1-3. They're saying that you practice doing it that way so you have the ability to do it should you ever need or want to. They're saying that you're better off if fingering it 1-4 is not the only way you are able to do it. There are plenty of times when an OFPF player might elect to use 1-4 for that sequence, depending on what came before and what will come after. I do that kind of thing all the time, and so do others. I also do it as 1-3 when that's called for. I know I've said this before, but watch a good classical guitarist. That's OFPF (actually sometimes more than one fret per finger) in practical application.

No, that's not OFPF in action, thats a more nuanced approach that takes aspects of OFPF and 124 and synthesizes it into a more complex system. If you want to call it OFPF, fine, but I'd like you to direct me to a definitive source (book, dvd, whatever) that explains to me that system in detail - when to shift positions, when to pivot, when to use 1-4 fingering for the "box" and when not to, etc.

You see, the argument thusfar has been on the most simplistic of terms, because the fingering systems for bass guitar are (at this point in time anyway) described in the most simplistic of terms. People assume OFPF and 124 to be literal descriptions of all possible scenarios. On other instruments, like classical guitar and double bass, they're overarching systems with specific patterns developed in positional playing that govern how to shift, what fingers to use, etc. When you try to approach bass in exactly the same fashion as guitar or upright, however, there is lost in translation. That's why I keep referencing the fifth fret as a point to shift mindsets from upright bass to guitar - because that's approximately where the guitar fingerboard starts, and also approximately where people start using all four fingers on upright. I have my own idiosyncracies, but I'm not so bold as to develop it into a "system".

The argument from safety strikes me as dubious. I see no reason to believe that 1-2-4 is any safer on the BG than 1-2-3-4 (again, understanding that OFPF is not to be applied in the kind of rigid gridlike manner suggested in an earlier post). I see no difference in wrist angle at all. However appropriate sticking to 1-2-4 fingering may be for the DB, I see no reason why that should automatically make it preferable for the BG. The ergonomic issues are not the same.

I invite you again to watch my video where I compared wrist angles. If you disagree that the 90 degree angle in the hand is bad news, that's an argument for another thread (and a physician). If you can show me how to do it safely without pivoting, I'd love to see that, but I'm pretty thoroughly convinced it can't be done.

Now, one concessions. JimmyM mentioned he wears his bass relatively low, so I can see how, if the neck were angled up enough, OFPF could be implemented safely. That, however, requires you to somehow be lifting the neck up - whether with your forearm of your opposite hand against the body or with your fretting hand's thumb/palm, unless you have a bass that somehow stays up at that angle naturally. That really isn't ideal if you want to be jumping up and down the neck or doing anything fancy, but I guess if it works for you, fine.

 

[totallyfrozen]

Sure looks that way from the highlighted stuff. But whereas he's saying it as a reason not to do OFPF, I'm saying it as a reason TO do OFPF. That's the difference.

Oh, I see that now. Thanks.

I guess my opinion on it in regard to the OP is that 1-2-4 should be considered an advanced technique--meaning that it's available AFTER a student learns and practices OFPF. That's just my opinion mostly because that's what I was taught by my teacher. Granted, my teacher was primarily a guitarist but he also studied and played bass and has a degree from Berkley so I value his opinions and guidance. OFPF has worked for me for the most part. There are times when I use a 1-2-4, especially if I've been at it for awhile and my hand starts to get tired.
When I first started, that happened often over time my hands became stronger and I am able to maintain the OFPF for much longer now (up to hours). I think OFPF is good for students to learn because, among other things, it helps them to develop the much needed hand strength to play bass.

just my opinion on it. Obviously there here are many who disagree.

 

[JimmyM]

I wonder why that might be...

Octave playing really should be done with the 1-2-4. But you are totally misunderstanding the point of this conversation. The point is not to use a strict OFPF or 5-fret reach for every single little thing you do, but to be able to do it when you need it. Those who learn it and work it are much better off for harder parts that require stretches like that than those who aren't. Otherwise, nobody would teach it.

 

[totallyfrozen]

...I invite you again to watch my video where I compared wrist angles...

I watched your vid. Aside form you being nervous and bouncing on your happy feet
it was a good vid.

The issue/question I have with what you seem to be trying to say in the vid is that OFPF offers a poor angle for playing; however, you didn't PLAY anything in that video. Sure, holding your fingers steady OFPF with ALL 4 fingers on the fretboard at the same time makes it look unsafe, difficult, and ridiculous but no one plays that way. You wouldn't play a guitar that way either. No matter what method you use, you wouldn't want to lock your body into any rigid position. As a person plays, they are going to pivot and/or slide small distances as necessary.

My whole point in this thread is that a player should learn OFPF and develop the finger strength to be able to play with the ring and pinky fingers because being ABLE to do so will allow a player to play faster and more relaxed.

I doubt that you even play a line using the 1-2-4 and don't pivot, slide, or move your wrist at least SOME.

I see what you were trying to say in the vid but a static demonstration of something that, in practice, would move dynamically is not a fair demo, IMHO.

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

I've been following this thread and I didn't want to post anything else aside from the video I pointed to since I think this is a matter of strict opinion based on the way all of us have been trained, but anyway, here's mine:

IMO, OFPF is something that any bass player must have within his/her toolbox from the very beginning, but not something that MUST be used at all times. I think it's absurd to play a root-fifth line on the first position using OFPF. It is much more logical and practical to use index-pinky in such situation. Same for octaves in that area, and specially when playing typical octave-based slap riffs.

But if I'm playing a regular fingerstyle line in the middle-upper register of the instrument, most likely I'll use 2-4 to play octaves there. My point is, I'm a true OFPF follower (and I'd like you to check Invalid Link Removed to verify it), but I have so clear that there are some situations in which it is very impractical to apply it.

 

[Lulz]

There's a time for both, I happen to have 5 1/2 inch hands, and I have no problem doing OFPF in the lower positions, WITHOUT the wrist curve.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

That said, let me pose a rhetorical question. We have 4 fingers (5, actually), on our right hand. Why don't we use all 4? The vast majority of people are using just 50 percent of their total supply. Think of how much better everybody would be playing if they used all four.

I dunno, maybe they would be. I use 3 of the 4 myself, the way classical guitarists do. (Or rather, 4 of the 5, counting the thumb.) The main reason classical guitarists don't use the RH pinky much is that it's typically a lot shorter and hard to make work, But I don't see what that has to do with LH technique--especially since those same classical guitarists most definitely use all four of their LH fingers.

No, that's not OFPF in action, thats a more nuanced approach that takes aspects of OFPF and 124 and synthesizes it into a more complex system. If you want to call it OFPF, fine, but I'd like you to direct me to a definitive source (book, dvd, whatever) that explains to me that system in detail - when to shift positions, when to pivot, when to use 1-4 fingering for the "box" and when not to, etc.

Well, yeah, I do call that OFPF. A system that's not nuanced enough to take reality into account isn't worth arguing on behalf of. As for backup, I would point you at any classical guitar book. There really isn't that big a difference. But why should I be the only one expected to provide proof? Can you point me to a definitive reference that says that OFPF on the bass guitar is generally agreed to be as rigid a thing as you and tranceFusion have made it out to be? I've never seen such a reference, and I doubt that a good one exists. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. If no such reference exists, then my interpretation of OFPF is no more unreasonable or atypical than anyone else's. Also, I think you're asking for an unreasonable level of detail for a fingering system. All of those questions you ask have multiple answers, not one, and I don't think they can be answered so schematically. You shift positions when doing so gets you a result you want or need; you don't when it doesn't. You use 1-4 fingering for the box when you want or need to; you don't when you don't.

You see, the argument thusfar has been on the most simplistic of terms, because the fingering systems for bass guitar are (at this point in time anyway) described in the most simplistic of terms. People assume OFPF and 124 to be literal descriptions of all possible scenarios. On other instruments, like classical guitar and double bass, they're overarching systems with specific patterns developed in positional playing that govern how to shift, what fingers to use, etc. When you try to approach bass in exactly the same fashion as guitar or upright, however, there is lost in translation. That's why I keep referencing the fifth fret as a point to shift mindsets from upright bass to guitar - because that's approximately where the guitar fingerboard starts, and also approximately where people start using all four fingers on upright. I have my own idiosyncracies, but I'm not so bold as to develop it into a "system".

But wait, I thought my take on it was "nuanced"? How can it be simplistic too?

My whole point was precisely that in this particular post, a couple of folks--by no means everyone--were understanding OFPF in far too simplistic a way. But I'm not sure I'd conclude from this that the bulk of the bass-playing world understands OFPF this way, and that this understanding is therefore what is generally meant whenever the term OFPF is used. Again, I'd like to see a reference that says that. I really doubt that most good teachers who use the OFPF system ever meant it to be deployed as rigidly as, for example, tF described it in an earlier post. (tF, buddy, I truly don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, it's just that you provided a particularly concrete example, which is always useful in these rather fuzzy discussions.)

I invite you again to watch my video where I compared wrist angles. If you disagree that the 90 degree angle in the hand is bad news, that's an argument for another thread (and a physician). If you can show me how to do it safely without pivoting, I'd love to see that, but I'm pretty thoroughly convinced it can't be done.

With all respect--and I do respect you greatly as a poster--I don't have any need to look at your video when I can look at my very own left hand, as I have been doing on a daily basis for rather a long time now. There's nothing your video could show me that would outweigh what I see in my own left hand, and what I see is that whatever else changes, wrist angle doesn't. I'm not assuming that everyone plays exactly like me, but if an average guy like me, who has average hands and no special joint elasticity, can do it, then I have to assume that a lot of other people could do it as well as or better than I. So, unless I see strong evidence to the contrary, I assume that I'm not atypical.

Now, one concessions. JimmyM mentioned he wears his bass relatively low, so I can see how, if the neck were angled up enough, OFPF could be implemented safely. That, however, requires you to somehow be lifting the neck up - whether with your forearm of your opposite hand against the body or with your fretting hand's thumb/palm, unless you have a bass that somehow stays up at that angle naturally. That really isn't ideal if you want to be jumping up and down the neck or doing anything fancy, but I guess if it works for you, fine.

I do angle my neck up. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but why do you think that would hinder "jumping up and down the neck or doing anything fancy"? I don't really think that's got much to do with it. Watch John Patitucci, or again, almost any classical guitarist, who typically angle their necks. Then watch a flamenco guitarist, who typically doesn't. I just don't think that's something you can pronounce on so definitively. Of course, a DB has far more of a vertical angle than a BG, and it's certainly possible to fly all over the neck and do fancy stuff on a DB....

 

[Richard Lindsey]

IMO, OFPF is something that any bass player must have within his/her toolbox from the very beginning, but not something that MUST be used at all times. I think it's absurd to play a root-fifth line on the first position using OFPF. It is much more logical and practical to use index-pinky in such situation. Same for octaves in that area, and specially when playing typical octave-based slap riffs.

Of course! That doesn't violate the idea of OFPF at all. By the same token, if you had to play root-5th-octave root in quick succession, you'd probably use the ring finger to play the 5th, not the pinky. And if you had to stick a 5th in between the two notes of that octave you're fingering 1-4, you'd probably have to use 3 for that.

 

[JimmyM]

I invite you again to watch my video where I compared wrist angles. If you disagree that the 90 degree angle in the hand is bad news, that's an argument for another thread (and a physician). If you can show me how to do it safely without pivoting, I'd love to see that, but I'm pretty thoroughly convinced it can't be done.

Now, one concessions. JimmyM mentioned he wears his bass relatively low, so I can see how, if the neck were angled up enough, OFPF could be implemented safely. That, however, requires you to somehow be lifting the neck up - whether with your forearm of your opposite hand against the body or with your fretting hand's thumb/palm, unless you have a bass that somehow stays up at that angle naturally. That really isn't ideal if you want to be jumping up and down the neck or doing anything fancy, but I guess if it works for you, fine.

Dude, I left a comment on your video page, but bottom line is that your demonstration was a gross manipulation and distortion of the facts to prove your point. You made it look dangerous, but you went far out of your way to make it look dangerous. Nobody holds their hands like that while they're playing. It's unnatural.

As for me, wearing your bass low actually makes it tougher to do OFPF. So when I need it, I do angle the neck up a little more. It affects the weight distribution not even a little bit to do so, not on any bass I own that isn't neck heavy (it does a little on my Beatle bass but it's neck heavy).

Again, the bottom line is that if it were dangerous, the major music schools wouldn't teach it, and dudes with superior technique like Vic and LaRue and Manring and whoever wouldn't use it or teach it. If you don't want to use it, you absolutely don't have to, but let's not resort to distortions and manipulation to make a point, huh?

 

[sirero]

There's no danger as to using OFPF, and really This should be looked at as where the two 150+ year old instruments, that Bass combines, techniques collide.

On one hand we have Classical guitar, representing the epitome of Classical fretted instruments. And the speed and dexterity it imparts, but I have never seen a slow violinist.

On the other hand we have the Double Bass representing ALL fretless bowed instruments, even the Violin and Cello. The reason 124 is preferred on fretless instruments is because the increased fingerstrength required to maintain an in-tune 4 on the Double Bass requires ALL four fingers pressing down, with the 2+3 in the same spot.

I personally play with a 124 at all times because I play my Double bass and my Fender Jazz the same amount, and I play the same songs so I have the progressions memorised that specific way. I personally see no point to using the OFPF in my case because I have gotten used to walking through my bass lines (thanks 12-bar Blues) and know the patterns, and not necessarily handforms.

 

[HaVIC5]

Dude, I left a comment on your video page, but bottom line is that your demonstration was a gross manipulation and distortion of the facts to prove your point. You made it look dangerous, but you went far out of your way to make it look dangerous. Nobody holds their hands like that while they're playing. It's unnatural.

Alvaro just posted this video of him playing in a position very similar to the one I put my hand in in my video. I wouldn't say "nobody". You can see his wrist is bent pretty severely. All I know is I would never do that to my own body, nor would I teach that to my students.

As for me, wearing your bass low actually makes it tougher to do OFPF. So when I need it, I do angle the neck up a little more. It affects the weight distribution not even a little bit to do so, not on any bass I own that isn't neck heavy (it does a little on my Beatle bass but it's neck heavy).

Again, the bottom line is that if it were dangerous, the major music schools wouldn't teach it, and dudes with superior technique like Vic and LaRue and Manring and whoever wouldn't use it or teach it. If you don't want to use it, you absolutely don't have to, but let's not resort to distortions and manipulation to make a point, huh?

I don't know, I find it a lot easier with the upward neck angle. I can do it pretty decent (with pivots) on my upright, actually.

I don't know what music schools you've attended, but I do know you like to name drop Dave LaRue a lot, who graduated from Berklee. I just graduated from Berklee myself, and after taking lessons/classes with Bruce Gertz, Dave Buda, Joe Santerre, Dave Clark and Oscar Stagnaro, I can safely say not one of them told me a) to use OFPF or b) to strictly alternate. I know for a fact that Joe Santerre (taught John Myung) rakes - he had me doing raking exercises a couple lessons to sixteenth note funk grooves. But thats besides the point, lets get back to OFPF...

As a person plays, they are going to pivot and/or slide small distances as necessary.

But isn't this against the ethos of one finger per fret? Aren't you trying to stay in one position as much as possible to avoid shifts/pivots? I've already long conceded that with the pivots, one-finger-per-fret works just dandy wherever on the bass - I do it all the time - but maybe I'm missing something.

I think a lot of us are actually the same page, but what I'm arguing against is the style of playing that Alvaro showed in his video that low in the register. That stiff a wrist is, in my experience, not ideal.

Of course! That doesn't violate the idea of OFPF at all. By the same token, if you had to play root-5th-octave root in quick succession, you'd probably use the ring finger to play the 5th, not the pinky. And if you had to stick a 5th in between the two notes of that octave you're fingering 1-4, you'd probably have to use 3 for that.

Personally, I'd use 1-4-4 for root, fifth, octave, just because on fretless that kind of fingering doesn't fly. It's good practice to do that if you've never worked on pressure rolls for your left hand getting from string to string. It's not the same as barring, if you're wondering. Ed Friedland I think explains it in his Hal Leonard bass method, and its an oft-neglected technical aspect that many players don't. A good tune to practice it on is Freedom Jazz Dance.

I dunno, maybe they would be. I use 3 of the 4 myself, the way classical guitarists do. (Or rather, 4 of the 5, counting the thumb.) The main reason classical guitarists don't use the RH pinky much is that it's typically a lot shorter and hard to make work, But I don't see what that has to do with LH technique--especially since those same classical guitarists most definitely use all four of their LH fingers.

Well, the parallel is obvious. You were making the claim that OFPF was better just purely on the numerics - you're using 25% more fingers. It definitely isn't the same on the other hand (there's a lot more going into the equation besides just the number of fingers you're using), so why should it automatically be the same on the fretting hand?

I do angle my neck up. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but why do you think that would hinder "jumping up and down the neck or doing anything fancy"? I don't really think that's got much to do with it. Watch John Patitucci, or again, almost any classical guitarist, who typically angle their necks. Then watch a flamenco guitarist, who typically doesn't. I just don't think that's something you can pronounce on so definitively. Of course, a DB has far more of a vertical angle than a BG, and it's certainly possible to fly all over the neck and do fancy stuff on a DB....

I'm talking about the issue of neck dive, mainly, which is a problem on many an instrument. There are a lot of ways to get around it, but I've seen a lot of people simply hold their necks up, which isn't a good thing. Depending on the bass, you can get it angled pretty nicely high, which is something I've never been able to do (unfortunately) on my electric. Bunny Brunell has a good solution to this - he puts one end of the strap over his basses' top so it holds down the body so the neck gets a really nice, high angle. Some straps work better than others. Classical guitarists play seated on the left leg with a footstool, so there instrument is naturally angled upwards without any effort. The point I was trying to make is that physical effort to keep the neck angled upwards is wasteful.

 

[JimmyM]

???

I don't know, I find it a lot easier with the upward neck angle. I can do it pretty decent (with pivots) on my upright, actually.

I don't know what music schools you've attended, but I do know you like to name drop Dave LaRue a lot, who graduated from Berklee. I just graduated from Berklee myself, and after taking lessons/classes with Bruce Gertz, Dave Buda, Joe Santerre, Dave Clark and Oscar Stagnaro, I can safely say not one of them told me a) to use OFPF or b) to strictly alternate. I know for a fact that Joe Santerre (taught John Myung) rakes - he had me doing raking exercises a couple lessons to sixteenth note funk grooves. But thats besides the point, lets get back to OFPF...

I find it very hard to believe that you could get through Berklee without having to do exercises or scales that involved a 4 or 5-fret stretch. Dave had me doing them on my first day of lessons. So did my first bass teacher when I was 16...in 1977! As for raking, it's totally not germane to the discussion, though I have gotten a little looser about it after some of the discussions on here...however, I still fully believe that people should master SA and not use raking as a reason to blow it off. So try to keep on topic here

Listen, if you don't want to use OFPF or the 5-fret stretch, you go right ahead and don't use it. Just don't lie about the mechanics of it to dissuade people from doing it. You don't have to use an extreme wrist angle to do it. Your saying that you do is very wrong. I don't, and I know tons of bass players who use it daily and don't have an extreme wrist angle. And you're attempting to keep people from doing something that they could find very useful based on erroneous info.

So now you said your piece, and I've said mine...unless you can prove to me that the contorted angle in your video is the only way to do OFPF, we're done here.

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Alvaro just posted this video of him playing in a position very similar to the one I put my hand in in my video. I wouldn't say "nobody". You can see his wrist is bent pretty severely. All I know is I would never do that to my own body, nor would I teach that to my students.

To each his/her own, I think. I can tell for sure that I don't feel any kind of pain/discomfort/numbness.

EDIT: Jimmy, you beat me to it.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Personally, I'd use 1-4-4 for root, fifth, octave, just because on fretless that kind of fingering doesn't fly. It's good practice to do that if you've never worked on pressure rolls for your left hand getting from string to string. It's not the same as barring, if you're wondering. Ed Friedland I think explains it in his Hal Leonard bass method, and its an oft-neglected technical aspect that many players don't. A good tune to practice it on is Freedom Jazz Dance.

True, fretless imposes different demands, though even there I think it's a bit much to make a blanket statement that 1-3-4 "doesn't fly." Depends who you are, where you are, where you're coming from and where you're going. But I'll concede that I do finger things a little differently on fretless. No argument there.

However, this discussion isn't and shouldn't be just about fretless technique. Why should fretless technique be the standard, and why should a fretted player approach his/her instrument as if it were a fretless, when there is no particular advantage to doing so? Saying something might be preferred for fretless doesn't mean it's something all bassists should be doing. And in any case, I see no reason why the basic principle of OFPF, at least as I understand it (namely, as applying to capability and readiness rather than to rigid and schematic application), can't apply to fretless as well.

And no, I wasn't wondering; I know what a pressure roll is.

Well, the parallel is obvious. You were making the claim that OFPF was better just purely on the numerics - you're using 25% more fingers. It definitely isn't the same on the other hand (there's a lot more going into the equation besides just the number of fingers you're using), so why should it automatically be the same on the fretting hand?

For just about every string instrument you can think of except the double bass, what is generally considered good left hand technique typically involves using all four fingers. (And again, LH=LH, LH/=RH.) So yes, in the stringed instrument world there is an initial presumption that the ability to use all four LH fingers is better, and this presumption is IMO justified. More possibilities are always better than fewer. UNLESS there is a strong justification for an exception, a reason not to use all four. I'm not saying such an exception could never exist. As you and others have mentioned, it's often argued that such an exception does in fact exist in the case of the lower positions of the DB. Not being a DBist, I don't feel qualified to weigh in on that, though on the face of it, and from my own very brief and fleeting experience with the instrument, it certainly doesn't seem unreasonable. But the point is that the DB is exceptional among string instruments in this regard, not typical, and you don't generally use the exceptions as your starting point for how things should be done for other similar instruments.

IOW, even if the justification is valid for the DB, this is in no sense a valid argument that it should also apply to the BG, which is an entirely separate issue. The BG has to be addressed on its own. When I do that, I see no reason to avoid using the 3 to the extent recommended in some posts here. I believe that the presumption ought to be that the "DB exception" shouldn't apply to the BG, unless a good reason can be shown why it should. I haven't seen that reason, and my own years of experience argue against its necessity.

I'm talking about the issue of neck dive, mainly, which is a problem on many an instrument. There are a lot of ways to get around it, but I've seen a lot of people simply hold their necks up, which isn't a good thing. Depending on the bass, you can get it angled pretty nicely high, which is something I've never been able to do (unfortunately) on my electric. Bunny Brunell has a good solution to this - he puts one end of the strap over his basses' top so it holds down the body so the neck gets a really nice, high angle. Some straps work better than others. Classical guitarists play seated on the left leg with a footstool, so there instrument is naturally angled upwards without any effort. The point I was trying to make is that physical effort to keep the neck angled upwards is wasteful.

Fair enough, I agree.