From "Player" to "Musician"

[dbsfgyd1]

I'd like to move from being a "player" to a "musician" which, to me, means understanding what I'm playing and why it works. Every time I've tried to dip my toes into the waters of musical notation, theory, scales, modes, etc., I find that my hands just end up going back to memorized patterns and I'm not internalizing the knowledge.

I've been playing bass and guitar for about 35 years, mostly rock. I grew up learning songs by ear, then supplemented by tab when it became readily accessible (and they really should vet those before allowing Joe Public to post 'em...some are just plain terrible). Through this I've found shapes and patterns to speed up the learning process and taken what was pleasing to my ears to write lines.

I'm considering ponying up for Scott's Bass Lessons, but am open to your advice based on experience.

Thanks, in advance, for your kind counsel and suggestions.

I know this may be considered upsetting on this site, but there is a whole lot more to music than the lowest notes on a staff. Finding a good music theory class is a big plus, be they online or in a classroom, and a better bang for your buck than an instrument specific course. It may take you more than one course to get you to where you want to be. Once you get the "Music" thing down, then do an instrument specific study.

 

[Wasnex]

Multitasking is not something human brains can do. You can switch mental tasks very quickly, giving the effect of being able perform multiple functions simultaneously but we all only have one CPU.

I don't agree with this. The brain is made up of component sections that work independently and together as required to perform a given task. I suggest you Google split brain studies and read about some of the extreme cases where the left and right brain hemispheres are completely cut off from each other.

IMHO technique and academic knowledge of music theory are separate brain functions that interact when we are playing music. You can study technique without studying academic theory. This teaches you intuitive theory such as playing by ear. You can also study academic theory without studying technique. Learning academic music theory involves grasping mental constructs that are used to describe and communicate music. It doesn't teach you to play an instrument, but it can be drawn upon to inform your playing.

The use of instrumental technique and academic music theory go hand in hand. Each requires discrete and shared mental resources. I believe you can maintain some degree of mental focus on both processes at the same time. The distribution of available mental focus shifts between these two processes as we play, rather than jumping from one process to the other.

IMHO separate mental processes are used to manage harmony, rhythm, and dynamic aspects of playing. Technique allows us to significantly integrate these processes, but the degree of focus required for each element tends to shift as we play. When our mental resources become overwhelmed by too many inputs we have to stop and work out a section of music. For example a complex line that involves a fast and challenging note pattern, an unusual rhythmic syncopation, and accents that follow a different rhythmic pattern than the notes. When this happens you may need to isolate and study various components individually before trying to integrate the separate elements into a homogeneous line.

When learning academic music theory, it is useful to temporarily put the instrument down so you have more of your total mental processes available to focus on a challenging task. Putting the instrument down could involve shifting all of your mental focus to thinking about academic theory, while wearing or holding the instrument. After you grasp a theoretical concept, you can shift your focus immediately to applying it to your instrument through technique. You will likely need to go through a process of slowly thinking and placing the notes until you integrate the theoretical knowledge with your technique. After that occurs, you may recognize a symbol and jump straight to execution using technique while bypassing or even forgetting the academic knowledge. It's desirable to maintain the academic knowledge as it provides utility for exploring musical ideas during composition or improvisation and it allows us to communicate and teach musical concepts.

 

[saabfender]

I don't agree with this. The brain is made up of component sections that work independently and together as required to perform a given task. I suggest you Google split brain studies and read about some of the extreme cases where the left and right brain hemispheres are completely cut off from each other.

Googled.

The Myth of Multitasking

Invalid Link Removed

Technology: Myth of Multitasking

 

[Badwater]

One option that can help is, become a song writer and play more than one instrument. This requires learning the critical aspects of drums, keys, bass, and guitar. And learn how to compose your music. If you learn to be a song writer, you'll learn theory, and all the other stuff in the process of making your own music. And the best part is, you take what patterns and skills you have and apply it to your music. And your music will reflect what you can do and what you know.

 

[Wasnex]

Googled.

The Myth of Multitasking

Invalid Link Removed

Technology: Myth of Multitasking

Regardless of the true mechanism, music requires extensive multi-tasking.

It doesn't matter if multi-tasking involves simultaneous thought processes or serial switching between discrete thought processes, because the switching occurs so fast that we perceive it as simultaneous. The more processes you try to multi-task simultaneously the more your performance will degrade on all of the them. But we can consciously manage which processes are prioritized. This is exactly what I was describing when I wrote, "Putting the instrument down could involve shifting all of your mental focus to thinking about academic theory, while wearing or holding the instrument."

From your third reference:
"Multitasking involves engaging in two tasks simultaneously. But here's the catch. It's only possible if two conditions are met: 1) at least one of the tasks is so well learned as to be automatic, meaning no focus or thought is necessary to engage in the task (e.g., walking or eating) and 2) they involve different types of brain processing."

Learning to play involves mastering discrete types of knowledge and physical motions, and learning to integrate them through effective multi-tasking. With sufficient practice and study, certain musical tasks become essentially automatic like breathing. But there are limits to how far we can automate the process...sometimes we have to stop, think, and figure out how to automate playing over a certain section. Typically this involves studying the problem, developing a solution, and rote practice.


Here's some articles related specifically to musicians.

Musicians Are Better Multitaskers

Invalid Link Removed

 

[AlexBassMP]

Maybe not but a writer writes differently with a pencil than a typewriter and one mode will be his preferred method. It seems analogous to play 4-string versus 5-string. Saying "put the bass down and just learn music from a book" is like "speak into a tape recorder to compose your story rather than writing it down." This is also illusory because it is still an instrument that you are using and will require mastery. You'll also need to transcribe it with something. That's not without merit but, as I pointed out before, is an extra step.

I can't quite put my finger on it but this somehow speaks to the illusion of multitasking. Multitasking is not something human brains can do. You can switch mental tasks very quickly, giving the effect of being able perform multiple functions simultaneously but we all only have one CPU.

Anybody who tries to maintain their playing multiple instruments knows this sad fact: concentrate on one and the others suffer (Adam Neely mentioned this on a film I watched last night - come to think of it, Dave Grohl said something about this also). It's so difficult to maintain proficiency on several instrument or musical tasks.

I love being able to perform multiple musical tasks. It's one my identifying features as a person. As long as I have been doing this, I don't think you are less of a musician because you internalize music through a single, monophonic instrument.

Reading the last paragraph, I realize distinction of "player vs. musician" is part of the false narrative often used to run down bass players. "Oh, he's just the bass player and not a real musician like a guitarist or pianist. Probably only knows the songs 'cause the guitar player learned him his parts." Don't buy into it. It's not doing any of us any favors.

Bass player = musician

We have different conceptions about a musician is...Not a bad thing .. for me disagreeing with someone is a learning experience.

Through my life I've found people more interested in mastering the technical side of the instrument (whatever it is) rather than understanding music as a whole. That's the people I describe as players. And it's fine if being a bass virtuoso is he thing you want to be.

Then I've found people technicaly less skilled but with a wide understanding of how music works and are more interested in playing good songs rather than being a fretboard wanker. People who can imagine a musical part outside his own instrument ...no matter if they can't play it (I can't play piano) somene els will play it ...

You can be a great musician playing a single instrument? Of course.. Michael Manring, Jeff Berlin, Victor Wooten... Playing some different instruments (no matter if you're a master of not) gives you a wider concept of music and IMO, this makes the difference.

Jaco was drummer before bass player and he wrote some marimba parts for his own music, Marcus Miller plays bass clarinet and bass and produced Miles Davis, Richard Bona ..well ..What can I say about a guy who plays bass and 7 more instruments and sing?

 

[Rimshot]

One option that can help is, become a song writer and play more than one instrument. This requires learning the critical aspects of drums, keys, bass, and guitar. And learn how to compose your music. If you learn to be a song writer, you'll learn theory, and all the other stuff in the process of making your own music. And the best part is, you take what patterns and skills you have and apply it to your music. And your music will reflect what you can do and what you know.

Ive written a couple of album's worth of original material over the years. I'm good enough at guitar to play on stage and I've taught myself the first half of Bohemian Rhapsody and a few other tunes on piano.

 

[Drgonzonm]

...

You can be a great musician playing a single instrument? Of course.. Michael Manring, Jeff Berlin, Victor Wooten... Playing some different instruments (no matter if you're a master of not) gives you a wider concept of music and IMO, this makes the difference.

...

wasnt jeffberlin a fiddle player before he took up bass?

 

[Rimshot]

Happy Friday all!

So, I did spring for the 1 year SBL membership. Someone above asked that I comment on it, and I thought I'd give you updates in case it helps somebody decide if it's for them and to share my own journey with anyone who, for whatever reason, is interested.

Things I've learned so far:

1. Phil Mann is an excellent educator
2. How major and minor scales are constructed (i.e., the formula, not the shapes)
3. What they mean when they say "the Nashville numbering system"
4. How to identify the key of a written piece of music by counting the sharps or flats

And that's without memorizing anything new. (Your mileage may vary)

 

[Old P Bass Guy]

Happy Friday all!

So, I did spring for the 1 year SBL membership. Someone above asked that I comment on it, and I thought I'd give you updates in case it helps somebody decide if it's for them and to share my own journey with anyone who, for whatever reason, is interested.

Things I've learned so far:

1. Phil Mann is an excellent educator
2. How major and minor scales are constructed (i.e., the formula, not the shapes)
3. What they mean when they say "the Nashville numbering system"
4. How to identify the key of a written piece of music by counting the sharps or flats

And that's without memorizing anything new. (Your mileage may vary)

Thanks!