How Do I Play/Count This?

[Dbassmon]

Octave below Low F, Dingwall or no, that's more seismic activity than audible note. Safe to say this isn't a pop tune.

 

[Mushroo]

I have to admit that was my first reaction. But then I got thinking. At that tempo and that pitch, the string won't even make 9 cycles per 16th note. If we assume the first 2 are lost to the relatively pitchless initial attack and the last two at least are lost to the time our OP's finger/pick is on the string cuing up the next note, that leaves just over 4 cycles for the string to produce a note with discernable pitch - so more like damped tuned percussion. I think the key characteristic of this part is not pitch or even the (inevitably percussive) flurries of the 'notes', but getting crisp well defined rests.

150bpm =150/60 = 2.5 bps
1 beat = 1/2.5 = 0.4s
F=21.8125Hz
21.8125 x 0.4=8.725

So true.

Often with the low tunings, it is more about the overtones than the fundamental.

In this example, we don't get much 21Hz fundamental, but check it out (I rounded up/down to whole numbers for clarity):

1st harmonic = octave = 44Hz = F
2nd harmonic = octave + 5th = 62Hz = C
3rd harmonic = 2 octaves = 87Hz = F

That's a root-5th-octave power chord, right in the "wheelhouse" frequencies 40-80Hz!

These harmonics are why drop tunings sound so thick and powerful. It almost sounds like you're playing a big, fat power chord an octave higher on a standard-tuned bass.

 

[Drucifer]

I've always wondered whether the goal of some bassists is to increase their plucking speed and decrease the frequency of the lowest note until the two meet somewhere around 15-20Hz.

15 Hz plucking speed would be quite fast, 900 BPM? In the example, 16th notes at 150 BPM is 10 Hz? (my math may be off).

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

...but maybe we can try to stick to the original point.

When someone gives wrong or misleading advice it should be corrected.

 

[Drucifer]

but maybe we can try to stick to the original point.

This is TalkBass, not GiveSuccinctAnswersBass

 

[RicPlaya]

I agree it's a lot like marching band snare drum patterns

That being said start tapping these out on your knee. Add the notes once you get the patterns.

Also see if there is a drum track available, that would do you wonders to lock into something.

 

[EarnestTBass]

Don't let sixteenths at 150 bpm scare you. If the sixteenths were quarter notes at 75 bpm, it would be easy, right?

Start with a slow tempo. Give each sixteenth note one beat, allow for sixteen beats each measure. Accept that this is kinda tedious at first and not musical. Trust the process.

Increase tempo slowly. When you are comfortable, maintain speed, but count in cut time.

Keep at it until you get back to 4/4 at 150 bpm.

 

[erhovey]

So am I to understand that you're going to play a rapid fire 16th pattern on a B string tuned down to an F? Well... alrighty then. Better you than me, I'm guessing! ;-)

 

[ktedrow]

+1 on notation being legible

16th notes at 150bpm?! I just tried it. Man that's fast. Even with a lot of work I don't think I could hit that speed just playing continuous 16ths. And the rhythm as notated? Fuhggetaboutit. Also, I couldn't really hear the individual notes, sounded more like a continuous rumble. Maybe a pick is needed?

Anyway, if you can pull it off it could be a really cool effect. Good luck.

 

[CharlieMac]

Have the guitar player sing this rhythm to you. In my experience, this always works best

 

[Obese Chess]

I'd send it back and tell him to write a proper part in proper notation.

...or at the very least tell him to re-read the chapter on beam groupings in his notation software manual.

I have a BA in music, took music theory nearly every semester, and there really isn't a problem with how the notes are grouped. They are grouped for each quarter note. No rhythm here breaks the boundaries of the quarter in which it lives. This rhythm is perfectly readable. It's a little uncommon to write so many ledger lines down, but I've seen worse in professional, licensed music scores. Your guitar friend knows exactly what rhythm he wants you to play, and gave you exactly what you need to learn that rhythm: a line written in valid Western music notation. This isn't an improper part, and there are no problems with beam groupings, and to say so is misinformation.

You can practice this one quarter note at a time. First measure I would count: 1e&e (2)e&a (3)e& (4)e-a , similar to what Acoop also suggested. It is in 4/4, so you can count it in 4 with standard 16th note subdivisions. Take it slow until you get the feel, practice it somewhere between 50 and 75 bpm until you can do it perfectly. It definitely feels kind of like an 80's synth part, reminds of like a Pretty Hate Machine NIN synth line. I like rashrader's suggestion of using a sequencer because once you hear it, you will get it.

I'm LOL'ing that the arranger found it necessary to include the TAB!

Hello all!

Just as a quick note about how this got on your screens in the first place, in the case of this song, our guitarist wrote the song with synth bass and a very basic drum part. I took the synth bass for the intro of the song, which mirrors the rhythm of the rhythm guitar and kick drum, as a midi and plugged it into GP7, and this is what it spat out for the notation.

So, I can hear it and know how it sounds, my question was more involved with how I would count this, especially in a live setting. The answer seems to be, as always, just slow it down and practice it.

I am sincerely loving the discussion that popped up around this! And no, it's definitely not a pop song, though the rest of the tune is pretty catchy. We're a progressive metal band, this part of this song in particular is reminiscent of the beginning of Periphery's "Insomnia."

 

[DanAleks]

For clarity it could be written up an octave and noted '8vb'. The rests would be next to the notes and easier to see.
The placement of the rests in relation to the note heads & beams is visually squirrely.

 

[JimmyM]

...or at the very least tell him to re-read the chapter on beam groupings in his notation software manual.

Something wrong with it? Looks fine to me.

 

[DavetheDude]

Hello!

We are working on our second record and one of our guitarists, bless his heart, has sent me this rhythmic monstrosity.

View attachment 3211727

I cannot for the life of me begin to figure out how to pick this apart. Is this even in 4/4? There's another song we've written that I've found much more helpful to feel as bars of 6 - 5 - 6 - 7 - repeat, but that song is at 110, not 150. I can't begin to pick apart how to count this in an easy way. I could conceivably stumble through it live but want to make sure it's airtight and I'm wondering if there's any repeating pattern or motif that I'm not seeing. It doesn't sound that complicated in the demo track, but, again, I'm wondering if there's anything I'm missing or if I just need to buckle down and learn this full sixteen-bar motif the old fashioned way.

No comments on the insanely low tuning, please, I didn't buy this Dingwall for nothin'

Thanks!

I'd like to hear the Demo, please. Something djent-y i suppose?

 

[Bob_Ross]

I haven't seen this in practice in many years, and I've been reading music every day for 35 years. I've also read quite a bit about good notation practice, and never seen it. Do you have any sources?

Well, I just randomly pulled a few charts/scores off my bookshelf to see who else adheres to this convention. David Chesky and Don Sebesky do (or did; both charts are almost 30 years old), Igor Stravinsky and Arnold Schoenberg -- or whoever did their engraving -- don't/didn't. Perhaps interestingly, any of the examples of it I do find are either handwritten or computer-based; all of the examples that don't adhere to it are engraved.

I first learned my notation conventions from composer William Garbinsky in the mid-1970s, had them reinforced by David Mash and Andy McGee at Berklee in the late-1970s, and had them further reinforced by composer Lee Hyla when I studied composition and orchestration at the New England Conservatory [edit: early-1990s]. (I recall specifically addressing beam groupings with Hyla when discussing how to make parts more easily legible, since the an orchestral reading of one's work was always a time-crunched luxury.) Also fwiw I spent many a night discussing notation back in the late-1980s with Timothy Anderson, who was a professional music copyist, worked on Rupert Holmes' staff in that same capacity, and was an early beta-tester of Finale 1.0. Tim expressed a lot of frustration with early computer-based notation because at the time it wasn't able to do what the Broadway pit musicians were asking of him in terms of beaming conventions.

I'm honestly surprised no one else has encountered this.

I belive he meant like this, but it's still not good practice, and it's very uncommon.
View attachment 3212314

Ugh. That's almost the right concept, but a terrible execution imho. The secondary beam should be extending over the rest. I can definitely see how that example would only further confuse things.

 

[Febs]

For clarity it could be written up an octave and noted '8vb'. The rests would be next to the notes and easier to see.
The placement of the rests in relation to the note heads & beams is visually squirrely.

If I understand correctly the way he produced this part by using a synth bass recording, it should actually just be written an octave up, since electric bass is a transposing instrument and sounds an octave lower than written.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Well, I just randomly pulled a few charts/scores off my bookshelf to see who else adheres to this convention. David Chesky and Don Sebesky do (or did; both charts are almost 30 years old), Igor Stravinsky and Arnold Schoenberg -- or whoever did their engraving -- don't/didn't. Perhaps interestingly, any of the examples of it I do find are either handwritten or computer-based; all of the examples that don't adhere to it are engraved.

I first learned my notation conventions from composer William Garbinsky in the mid-1970s, had them reinforced by David Mash and Andy McGee at Berklee in the late-1970s, and had them further reinforced by composer Lee Hyla when I studied composition and orchestration at the New England Conservatory. (I recall specifically addressing beam groupings with Hyla when discussing how to make parts more easily legible, since the an orchestral reading of one's work was always a time-crunched luxury.) Also fwiw I spent many a night discussing notation back in the late-1980s with Timothy Anderson, who was a professional music copyist, worked on Rupert Holmes' staff in that same capacity, and was an early beta-tester of Finale 1.0. Tim expressed a lot of frustration with early computer-based notation because at the time it wasn't able to do what the Broadway pit musicians were asking of him in terms of beaming conventions.

I'm honestly surprised no one else has encountered this.



Ugh. That's almost the right concept, but a terrible execution imho. The secondary beam should be extending over the rest. I can definitely see how that example would only further confuse things.

I trust your experience and background. Here's the other option. Still haven't seen it in many years (mostly band/big band notation).

 

[bfields]

15 Hz plucking speed would be quite fast, 900 BPM? In the example, 16th notes at 150 BPM is 10 Hz? (my math may be off).

I'm mostly kidding, but look at threads like Demystifying Metal styles, how to make fingerstyle playing heard in Metal and you find people claiming that kind of thing (they may just be miscounting for all I know).

You could easily drum four fingers on a string at that kind of speed. It wouldn't sound like much of anything, but maybe it's possible to clean it up a little.

Anyway.

 

[Obese Chess]

I'd like to hear the Demo, please. Something djent-y i suppose?

A bit! We are trying to move away from being pigeonholed as a "djent" band but we do love aggressively palm-muting open strings. If/when I've got permission to start leaking stuff, I'll keep you in mind.

 

[Meghans Dad]

+1 on notation being legible

16th notes at 150bpm?! I just tried it. Man that's fast. Even with a lot of work I don't think I could hit that speed just playing continuous 16ths. And the rhythm as notated? Fuhggetaboutit. Also, I couldn't really hear the individual notes, sounded more like a continuous rumble. Maybe a pick is needed?

Anyway, if you can pull it off it could be a really cool effect. Good luck.

Dick Dale on bass?