• 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.

Fretless-Lined or unlined?

spade2you said:
When you own many fretli, you can call them what you wan. Fretlessesses has too many esses.

:-)
I would argue that it would be far more appropriate to use fretless as both singular and plural...
But I cannot argue with the premise that one is free to call their basses anything they want. Is there a threshold? I have three... I'd like to call them Rita, Sue and Deirdre.;-)
 
This is Deirdre, by the way, flanked by two friends:

IMAG1133.gif
 
Perhaps this has been answered already, but what would be recommended for someone that regularly switches between electric fretted, double bass, and fretless electric? Jumping from the double bass to an electric fretless (and back) concerns me a bit...in terms of muscle memory/scale length (as was mentioned before)...

Thoughts?
 
Dudes, you will find some times where Jaco was looking at the neck, no doubt.

But are you arguing that he relied on this?

If so, I wonder what he did when he was hired to sight read complex passages. I have been hired for this and I personally guarantee you that Pastorius did what I did...use my ears, forget the whole lined vs unlined debate. Otherwise, he was cut out of a lot of work. It's happened to me. I learned.

I guess for those of you who believe the lines, dots, etc are necessary and it is worth arguing about whether it should be lined or not, I wonder why this is necessary for us bassists and not for the huge majority of the millions of musicians of other instruments who don't need these crutches?

Are we really handicapped because we are bassists? Only bassists need this because we are somehow inferior?

Ladies and gents, the whole lined vs unlined debate would be seriously laughed at in the general fretless community of musicians.

I'd hate to argue that we need to argue about this because we are bassists. I would be even more uncomfortable arguing that some of our greatest bass musicians needed lines or dots or whatever.

What was Pastorius missing that all these millions of other orchestral musicians had? How come hundreds of thousands trombone players can play their instrument in tune without dots, lines whatever and Pastorius was unable? He was somehow inferior to all these guys? He chose the bass because he couldn't have cut it on the 'bone?

Yes, you will find some pros looking at their lines or dots or whatever sometimes. However, if that is what they need to do what they do, they are cutting themselves out of a lot of work. Perhaps it's ok. But the average working bassist can't afford that.

That is why I would argue that serious musicians who need music to survive find the whole lined vs unlined debate pretty funny. It's simply not usable at a certain level. Common sense will tell you that. And most fretless instruments in the world don't offer it. It really should tell us something.

Unless we are arguing that because we are bassists, we need this. Which is really rather embarassing. We are often looked upon as lesser than by other musicians, I would hate for us to actively advocate for this in front of all the other fretless musicians who play their non bass instruments without all this paint.

Come on. We are able, let's stop selling ourselves and our role short. We are as good, if not better, we just need to move away from these entertaining but slightly embarassing lined vs unlined debates.

John

I missed this post before. Your note that common sense would dictate it's no longer useful at a certain level is flat-out false- just look at the massive number of top-tier musicians who still rely quite a bit on either visual cues or flat-out watch their hands the whole time. So is the notion that those who use visual cues are getting cut out of a lot of work. If you think Edgar Meyer, Jimmy Haslip, Gary Willis, and countless others are losing out on gigs that you're getting because you don't look and they do, well- sorry. They can do the job while still looking.

Oh, and most trombone players (and many other non-fretted/precise note instruments) don't play in tune. At least not the way bassists do. They play a note and then slide into tune- it's become part of the sound and you hear nearly every trombone player do it, along with a lot of double bassists. Other fretless instruments use a ton of vibrato that can cover the small intonation issues. Bassists are typically expected to play a note in tune the first time, without requiring vibrato or sliding into tune once you hear it's off. Not to mention the physical way in which we hold our instruments make lines a far more viable tool than instrument where you look down the neck/body rather than across it, which would include most other non-guitar instrument types.

The end goal is to play in tune. Whether you take years to study hand placement so you don't rely on any visual cues or not really doesn't matter- if you're playing in tune, you're doing it right, whether you look or not. Simply because there is a long history of doing something does not make it the best or smartest way to do it, particularly when attempting to apply those ideas onto different instruments.

And really, who's laughing at Edgar Meyer?
 
Great thread - but nobody has mentioned microtones. Basically, they are the notes IN BETWEEN notes.

A major third with a bluesy sound to it is somewhere between a minor third and a major third (slightly sharp of min 3rd for a sadder feel, or slightly flat of a major third for effect in a more major/happier sounding song).


Then we get into Tempered scales (12 notes don't actually fit into an octave, so they 'squash' them in).
Even-Tempered Scale: equal distance mathematically between notes. Fretted guitars and basses are pretty much all set to this.
Well-Tempered Scale: commonly played keys like C are favored (C->G perfect 5th spacing = greatest consonance), uncommon keys are not (C#->G# perfect 5th has greatest dissonance). A concert grand piano will be tuned this way. Some musos describe each chord as having it's own color.

So how does this affect Fretless bass?
When you play C root on a C chord, then hold the C while the music moves to an F chord, all of a sudden you are slightly flat. Why? This is because of the Tempered Scale. Just ask any symphony orchestra player!!

So even if you play exactly where the fretline or marker is, you can sometimes be in tune or out of tune. Confusing isn't it!! Solution: realize that you can actually be in better tune than a Fretted bass, and learn when to adjust accordingly.


Stretch tuning (now this really bothers people!!):
The lowest notes on a piano need to be tuned 'slightly flat' according to you tuner to actually sound 'in tune' to the human ear. Also, the highest notes on a piano keyboard need to be tuned 'slightly sharp' to sound right to the human ear. So don't believe your fretlines/markers or your tuner.

Rolling Stones albums had the bass tuned 'slightly sharp' deliberately (psychoacoustically it creates tension, angst, or 'edge' as we prefer to call it now).


So, play whatever marking system (fretlines, dot markers, no markers) that allows you to play the most accurately and the most musically.
 
Bryan's post from a few months back was well said.

For my part, I gave up on the intonation thing some months back after reading a thread on the double bass side of the forums in which the posting folks were busy ripping Scott LaFaro's intonation to shreds. After that, I decided anything goes on TB. Really. That pretty much said it all for me. YMMV.
 
I missed this post before. Your note that common sense would dictate it's no longer useful at a certain level is flat-out false- .

Brian, I admire your work on youtube and other places. And I appreciate your tireless moderating here. However, it seems we are living in a parallel universe. It seems clear to me that a bassist is cutting himself out of a lot of work if he needs his eyes to play to in tune. It surprises me that you don't see that.

It's amazing to me that the idea of playing without using paint as reference is such a controversial topic in the bass community.

I guess we are lucky to be bassists because on every other fretless instrument in the world, we would be in deep trouble if we needed our eyes. I-need-points-of-references-to-play-in-tune is simply not an option on so many instruments.

These things always bring me down because honestly, I feel it reinforces the stereotype of the bassist as someone with less ability than the rest of the band or orchestra. Somehow, in an orchestra of three hundred people, the only person who could not perform written music in tune without his eyes would be the fretless bassist? That doesn't improve our standing in the musical community. I would not want to be the only guy in three hundred to stand up and say "Sorry, I know I was hired to do this but we have to cancel the show because I can't play this music you have given us because I can't read and play in tune at the same time. You know, it's not just me. Most fretless bassists can't play in tune and read at the same time, including some of the greatest bassists of all time". Somehow, I don't think that would heighten our community to the rest of the musicians. It makes us look like idiots. That's why most working bassists don't do this. This make it work. They don't use lines, paint and all that stuff. They make it work. They...use their ears. Billions of musicians have done it throughout time.

Unbelievably, the idea of frets or paint or whatever has been an option for bass oriented musicians for a relatively small time. For countless entire centuries, millions of musicans have played bass oriented instruments without frets or paint. This idea of "I need frets or paint" would not cut it during the 99% of the history of bass oriented instruments.

The real question is: "Did all these millions of musicians play out of tune all this time?". If I listen to many of you here, I'd have to say, yes, I guess they did. I guess we are looking at around 20 centuries of out of tune bass oriented music.

It must have been a major pain to the rest of the dudes in the band, man!

John
 
I missed this post before. Your note that common sense would dictate it's no longer useful at a certain level is flat-out false- ......

And really, who's laughing at Edgar Meyer?

Hi. I'm a double bassist who's sort of stumbled in here, so I apologize for not reading the whole thread. I can't speak to those other guys you mentioned, who I don't know, but Edgar Meyer played all over the bass, fantastically in tune, for years before ever putting dots on his fingerboard. There's a record called "Skip, Hop, and Wobble" that's astonishing. No dots. If you read the interviews with him over the years since he got the dots put on his new fingerboard, it becomes apparent that he had it done for aesthetics, and maybe a little humour, not musical help. And in recent years he's stated that he somewhat regrets having it done now, as the dots can be distracting or misleading, since they don't move when the pitches do ("in tune" is not just one thing, and instruments change over time).

Your statement about trombone players just shows a lack of awareness of the level trombone players have to play at. Maybe you've never heard a good trombone player. Here are a couple:
Invalid Link Removed
(she starts to play at 3:39, but leads up to it with some talk of intonation...)

JJ Johnson - Coffee Pot - YouTube

Not a lot of vibrato in either of those recordings.

I play electric bass, but my main instrument is double bass. So I get up every day and play 40 minutes of scales and arpeggios *before* I start practicing. That's just what it takes. Even on a 42 1/2" scale, rolling my finger one way or the other changes the pitch, and some of pitch is context, so lines get you in the ballpark, but if you truly care about pitch, it won't be good enough. Lined or unlined, electric bass or some other axe, you can always tell when a player cares about pitch, and can control his instrument well enough to execute what he's hearing.

Last but not least, can you imagine this if the player had to use lines to find the notes?
Invalid Link Removed

Nothing against anyone who wants to use lines, not at all. But it only gets you halfway there.
 
Brian, I admire your work on youtube and other places. And I appreciate your tireless moderating here. However, it seems we are living in a parallel universe. It seems clear to me that a bassist is cutting himself out of a lot of work if he needs his eyes to play to in tune. It surprises me that you don't see that.

It's amazing to me that the idea of playing without using paint as reference is such a controversial topic in the bass community.

I guess we are lucky to be bassists because on every other fretless instrument in the world, we would be in deep trouble if we needed our eyes. I-need-points-of-references-to-play-in-tune is simply not an option on so many instruments.

These things always bring me down because honestly, I feel it reinforces the stereotype of the bassist as someone with less ability than the rest of the band or orchestra. Somehow, in an orchestra of three hundred people, the only person who could not perform written music in tune without his eyes would be the fretless bassist? That doesn't improve our standing in the musical community. I would not want to be the only guy in three hundred to stand up and say "Sorry, I know I was hired to do this but we have to cancel the show because I can't play this music you have given us because I can't read and play in tune at the same time. You know, it's not just me. Most fretless bassists can't play in tune and read at the same time, including some of the greatest bassists of all time". Somehow, I don't think that would heighten our community to the rest of the musicians. It makes us look like idiots. That's why most working bassists don't do this. This make it work. They don't use lines, paint and all that stuff. They make it work. They...use their ears. Billions of musicians have done it throughout time.

Unbelievably, the idea of frets or paint or whatever has been an option for bass oriented musicians for a relatively small time. For countless entire centuries, millions of musicans have played bass oriented instruments without frets or paint. This idea of "I need frets or paint" would not cut it during the 99% of the history of bass oriented instruments.

The real question is: "Did all these millions of musicians play out of tune all this time?". If I listen to many of you here, I'd have to say, yes, I guess they did. I guess we are looking at around 20 centuries of out of tune bass oriented music.

It must have been a major pain to the rest of the dudes in the band, man!

John

You've got quite a few misled notions here. I'll try to break down all that I see.
1. Other fretless instruments do use references, both visual and tactile, that electric basses do not have. We have a long smooth neck with no tactile reminders or repeatable hand positions that can show the exact placement available on a short neck. What other people do on their instrument over the years has nothing to do with what we do on our instrument. Half of the orchestra doesn't need a bow to make their instrument loud enough to hear when playing stacatto notes- does that mean violinists just need to man up and play pizzicato on stacatto notes? Of course not. Music isn't a contest.

2. You're running with the notion that a bassist who wants to use lines is incapable of playing in tune without them. You're also alluding to the notion that your ears will be less developed when using a lined. These are both false notions. A lined bassist, when not looking at his instrument, is in the same boat as an unlined bassist. You can learn to use your ears on either lined or unlined. The only difference is that a lined can give you an additional reference if you need it. If you're using only your ears and have to correct for wrong notes, which you will eventually have to do, you're no better off than the musician who takes a moment to look down at their instrument to get their bearings. In fact, if they're peeking to get their hand in the right place before they hit a sour note and have to correct for it, then they're better off than you are. Having additional points of reference simply gives you a better chance of playing in tune.

3. The idea of having visual aids is not at all new. Fretless instrumentalists have been using them when training for centuries. Hell, the whole idea behind frets is to be able to play consistently in tune, and there are gut frets on fretless instruments going back forever. It's not some new issue that electric bassists came up with.

4. You're stating that the rest of the orchestra, band, etc. doesn't look, so it's shameful for the bassist to need to. Simply put- go watch some orchestras. Some jazz bands. People look- all the time. Not necessarily throughout the whole piece, but they still look. It's simply BS to say that no one else is looking so we shouldn't- it's also very easy to disprove. Go watch some videos of great musicians of all instrumental varities. Segovia, Hilary Hahn, John Coltrane, Herbie Hancock, Jaco Pastorius. Countless others. They look. And yet they somehow they haven't all been thrown by the wayside because there's an unwritten rule that good musicians aren't supposed to look.

5. You're not listening to 20 centuries of music played in tune ;) You've got a little over a hundred years of music to base your ideas off of, and how few of those fretless instruments play as an electric bassist is expected to. In tune immediately without sliding into tune, little to no vibrato, no orchestra to blend inconsistencies in with. There's in fact very little that is referential with what we do.

6. The idea that most working bassists don't use lines is simply false. Lined basses outsell unlined basses by a very large margin, and they're not just going to newbies while the pros are buying the unlined. Look at the who's who of fretless players, and the majority play lined.

Does that make lined basses better? Of course not. It's just another option and a possible additional tool to use. And making use of that tool by looking neither demeans us nor does it make us different from other musicians.


This whole conversation reminds me of the folks who say you're not a real musician if you can't read music or sight read. You can see these folks posting like this all day long here. Meanwhile, Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder are off making beautiful music despite what they say....
 
That is 180 degrees out contrary to what he emphatically explained to the Master Class that I attended.

It's also in opposition to other interviews I've read with him.

Thanks for those trombone clips. Still lots of minute sliding into pitch. Doesn't matter though- sounds great either way.
 
Yes, I know, that's the humor part. In his earliest interviews after having it done, he said things like, "I had dots put on my favorite notes." and other such cheeky comments. And at one time, Darrol Anger, who he was playing a lot with in those days, said that "he did it to start fistfights among the classical players" and "it was a bit of a joke." It was on his website, though it's gone now. So that is at least what Edgar was telling the bluegrass guys. Then for a while he was saying "well, it takes me from 90% to 93%" or some such. Maybe that's when you saw him. Even if you take that comment at face value, it doesn't mean as a substitute for learning the bass inside out, which he'd already obviously done. To tell the truth, I think he wants to see how many guys he can get to do it to their bass. But Bryan seemed to be suggesting that the marks could be used as a substitute for learning in your muscles and brain where the notes are.

Anyway, in recent masterclasses, he's been reported to have said the marks can sometimes be more distracting than helpful. Maybe what he says depends on his mood that day. But anyway, it certainly doesn't mean that you can just put lines/marks on a bass and then play in tune. Just listen to Edgar's recordings before the marks. He did the work, and though he looks at the board sometimes, he doesn't look often too, and sounds just the same. His intonation is the result of hard work and caring about being in tune.

To be clear, I don't really care about lines vs no lines. I don't think Jaco sounded so in tune because of having lines, or that Pino sounded so in tune because of not having them. I think that both of those guys cared a lot about pitch, and took the time and effort to get it together. I don't want to mention names, but there are some guys out there who play pretty out of tune, on both kinds of boards, and I think that's just because they don't care about pitch enough.
 
Looking/no looking... lines/no lines.... when it comes to fretless instruments, the key to playing with good intonation is good ears, and knowing your fingerboard. Whether I am looking at my hands or not at any given moment doesn't really matter. I am using my ears.
When sightreading, your eyes are on the paper, not on your hands. Your ears are what get you thru. You need to be able to hear yourself, that your intonation is on or not. If your ears tell you your intonation is out, it is. :D ..there is no need to look.
 
Yes, I know, that's the humor part. In his earliest interviews after having it done, he said things like, "I had dots put on my favorite notes." and other such cheeky comments. And at one time, Darrol Anger, who he was playing a lot with in those days, said that "he did it to start fistfights among the classical players" and "it was a bit of a joke." It was on his website, though it's gone now. So that is at least what Edgar was telling the bluegrass guys. Then for a while he was saying "well, it takes me from 90% to 93%" or some such. Maybe that's when you saw him. Even if you take that comment at face value, it doesn't mean as a substitute for learning the bass inside out, which he'd already obviously done. To tell the truth, I think he wants to see how many guys he can get to do it to their bass. But Bryan seemed to be suggesting that the marks could be used as a substitute for learning in your muscles and brain where the notes are.

Anyway, in recent masterclasses, he's been reported to have said the marks can sometimes be more distracting than helpful. Maybe what he says depends on his mood that day. But anyway, it certainly doesn't mean that you can just put lines/marks on a bass and then play in tune. Just listen to Edgar's recordings before the marks. He did the work, and though he looks at the board sometimes, he doesn't look often too, and sounds just the same. His intonation is the result of hard work and caring about being in tune.

To be clear, I don't really care about lines vs no lines. I don't think Jaco sounded so in tune because of having lines, or that Pino sounded so in tune because of not having them. I think that both of those guys cared a lot about pitch, and took the time and effort to get it together. I don't want to mention names, but there are some guys out there who play pretty out of tune, on both kinds of boards, and I think that's just because they don't care about pitch enough.
This is just flat out not what was said at the Master Class I attended. Many top string players from the area were in attendance. The high school string instructor from my home town, who taught my son cello and daughter viola, asked Edgar if he could comment on the "non-standard" dots on the fingerboard, if he wouldn't mind. It was interesting because there was a slight collective sucking in of breath in the room, after which Edgar basically said, " no not at all; its a very good question. I put these markers on the fingerboard and I use them as an additional check. I'm not at all ashamed of it. In fact, I am interested in anything at all that I can do to make my playing better. We are up against enough challenges on the instrument not to be looking for every possible way to make the execution better." This after a conversation in which he asked the top MA student playing (Central Michigan) how many hours a day he was practicing. Answer was about 4 hours a day; to which Edgar said "Not nearly enough, not even close. If you want to perform at the highest levels, you must be thinking 12 hours a day." I also recall him chasing the sound check guy (he was about to perform the two Bottesini Concertos) out of the hall because teaching the Master Class was far more important. He spent a lot of time on the Q&A. The next day (though I could not be there) he showed up at Fred Reitz' Bass Shop with his Gabrielli, played his rear off; and Fred later told me the back was held on at the lower bout with masking tape. Edgar struck me as a phenomenally talented, but very regular guy who had worked very hard to get where he is.

So, your second hand info does not line up at all with anything I heard from the guy. Maybe, he just got tired of people pressing him about something he considered unimportant and said what they wanted to hear; I don't know.
 
Also, I will agree 100% that I could put dots all over my upright fingerboard, and that in itself would do little to improve my playing. Edgar was very clear on that point. Got to pay your dues, the way to Carnegie Hall etc etc. Nothing has changed.