Double Bass If Simandl were alive today......

[David Potts]

......and he was writing his method how would it be different?

There haven't been a huge number of attempts to improve on Simandl, the best of which might be considered to be Rabbath. We seem to all feel frustrated to some extent with the 100 years + method even though Zimmerman, Drew and Sankey have all had a go at updating it. There is obviously a lot more material available for teaching young or beginner students. I believe that many teachers have put together valuable but unpublished teaching material, even complete methods, which should see the light of day.

Look at how differently we can set the bass up, with a choice of string heights and string materials, bridges and height adjusters, a range of low C extensions vs 5 strings, etc. And the ways that bows have evolved, etc, etc. All these things, plus technical demands placed on us by composers like Richard Strauss, have enabled us to lift the profile of the bass and potentially reach very high technical proficiency.

Think about all the teaching and learning aids we now have such as tuners, sound and video recorders, CDs, DVDs, Skype, Youtube and Google (now all availabe through smart phones!!)

Also consider the various genres of music that have evolved, many or most of them in America.

How would these changes influence Simandl's thinking as he wrote or edited his works for the bass we play today? Like Rabbath, would he put out DVDs and CDs?

What do you see as the shortcomings of Simandl's Tutor Book 1 and how would you go about improving on it? Would you write a companion book (or books, with Cds and DVDs) that fleshed out his work or would you start over again?

 

[Tom Gale]

He'd be too old to play bass. He would have to play the cello.....

TG.

 

[PaulCannon]

If Freud were alive today, would he still smoke cigars?

 

[Andy Mopley]

Aren't Suzuki and Vance's methods an advancement / variation on Simandl, David? Eg, inclusion of CD, for example. But also, would the aids you mention lead to better teaching practices / better students? Assuming that this is ultimately the aim...

 

[Simandl Fan]

I'd like to think that he'd add update his section on harmonics and their notation. Other than that, his book is the leafy green vegetables of the bass world; no muss, no fuss, just solid content; nothing fancy; no bells or whistles.

 

[David Potts]

Was Simandl always considered the best Tutor?

Back then (or perhaps a little later) there were methods by Josef Hrabe, Otto Langley, W.Hause and Adolf Lotter, then a very simple one by A.C.White in 1934 and one by Hegner. Each is different in their journey from beginning to end and there looks like some very interesting exercises and studies. Despite its brevity the A.C. White book has excellent descriptions and photographs of the French bow hold and Left Hand finger shapes and note spacings.

Where would Simandl be today if he had not been championed by Fred Zimmerman and published by Carl Fischer in the US? In their own countries Nanny, Bille and Streicher are probably held in the same esteem.

In pulling out and looking at all these methods side by side I am starting to think that the Sankey edition (IMC) of Simandl is the best of the bunch that I have but could perhaps be improved in some ways -

* Somehow lighten up on the forests of fingerings in his Positions 3, 6 and 8
* Use more pictures and diagrams in the text to break up the use of only notes and
writing, eg changes of hand shape as you transition from the neck positions towards thumb position.
* A description of shifting technique, with photos and diagrams.
* Some exercises, perhaps only in simpler keys, that introduce slurs while learning positions, not suddenly on Page 73.
* There is no mention of Harmonic minor scales.

I am enjoying going through the pile of very old music that I have inherited from old timers.

Cheers,
DP

 

[PaulCannon]

I mentioned Freud earlier because I think his contributions to his field are somewhat analogous to Simandl and his ideas on bass playing.

Freud was pioneer in many ways, but most of his methods, conclusions and theories have been either discredited or vastly improved upon by modern psychologists. Similarly, 19th century doctors and surgeons made many significant advances in medicine, but I doubt anyone today would be willing to use 19th century surgical methods.

Simandl was a pioneer in his field. His method was also one of many in a long line of pioneering bass methods. So many advances have been made in the last 100 years both pedagogically and technologically. Steels strings, longer and less cambered fingerboards, adjustable bridges, etc. We have far more knowledge about anatomy, conditioning and performance psychology. We understand more about how people learn, and our basic mentality regarding the education of children has shifted dramatically.

For methods, we have Rabbath, [Invalid or Expired Link Removed], Bradetich, Yoan Goïlav, Hal Robinson, George Vance, [Invalid or Expired Link Removed], and so on. [Edit: Not to mention all kinds of published and unpublished material from David Moore, Eugene Levinson, Bozo Paradzik, Etienne Lafrance, Al Lazslo, Paul Ellison, Catalin Rotaru, etc. etc. etc.]

Of our finest players today, how many of them are using a strict Simandl system? I don't think any of them are. Renaud Garcia-Fons is employing a modified Rabbath system at a very high level. Edgar Meyer, who studied with Stuart Sankey and I'm sure is very familiar with Simandl, isn't really doing any of it at this point. In his classes he talks about finger and thumb independence in a way I'm sure Simandl would frown upon. I'm not even sure what you would call Scodanibbio's school of technique.

I studied Simandl when I was younger and I definitely learned some things. But I've studied many other things since then, and from that perspective I fail to see why so many teachers continue to use his method and nothing else.

 

[benharrisfan]

I feel that Simandl is not well understood in today's context. When he was writing his method in the 1880's (probably started a decade before its first publication when he began teaching at the Vienna Conservatory) there were still serious variations on the double bass: three, four, or (the new Wagnerian) five strings and how the strings were tuned was still an issue. The bow that Simandl used changed over his lifetime from the meat cleaver underhand style bow to the modern German bow. Looking at what we know about the technique some bassists were using the 19th century, it's clear that fingerings were not standardized. Some bassists just used 1 and 4 and opened and closed the hand accordingly. Others used three fingers, sometimes 1-3-4, sometimes 1-2-4, and sometimes bassists used all four. Simplification was still an issue in Simandl's life - take a look at Berlioz's mention of it in his treatise on orchestration. But Simandl says okay this is how it is: four strings, tuned E-A-D-G, and you use 1-2-4 in low positions. This type of standardization of playing came about largely because of how it was disseminated through Simandl and his school.

Simandl was also interested in having pedagogical tools to use with students, such as an abundance of etudes and pieces written for the double bass. His multi-volume collection of music for the double bass had not only pieces that he wrote and arranged but by contemporaries such as Madenski, Laska, Noskowski, and Dauthage. His arrangements of works for two or more basses must have been valuable pedagogical tools for him to teach bassists how to play together. His work in writing etudes was to give the double bass what violinists have in their abundance of technical studies. Keep in mind that before Simandl there is simply not that much left in terms of methods or etudes. Methods like Bille and Nanny come after Simandl. There were no methods left during the era of the Viennese bass. The Dragonetti method that he wrote was lost. Perhaps the only large method that predates it by about ten years is the Bottesini, and that was written for a three string bass.

So Simandl is interesting in how it standardizes things we take for granted today. However, his etudes are also seriously challenging and are under utilized by bass teachers. Playing through Gradus ad Parnassum makes playing the contemporary music of Simandl's day seem easy - and maybe this was the point. Whether or not to teach the method is the individual teacher's call.

 

[David Potts]

Thanks, Paul and benharrisfan, for your insights above.

In my pile of old music I have lots of evidence about how prolific was the association between Simandl and Cefes (his publisher). Unfortunately there are gaps in some of the books of solos that he compiled but there are piano accompaniments for a lot of his etudes.

DP

Does anyone know the chronological order of Hrabe, Lotter, Langley and Hause methods in relation to Simandl?

 

[benharrisfan]

Hause's method is from around 1810. I'm not sure about the date of the Hrabe etudes, but they must predate Simandl since Hrabe was Simandl's teacher in Prague. As for Langey and Lotter, I'm not familiar with their works, but would be interested in learning more. It looks like the Langey was published around 1890 with Lotter coming decades later.

So Hause - Hrabe - Simandl - Langey - Lotter, as far as I know.

 

[David Potts]

Lotter's method was copyrighted in 1933 in the US. This would sort of fit in with his composition, "Ragtime Bass Player", for solo bass and piano with small orchestra. I have an incomplete set of the old parts.

The title of the method is Practical Tutor for the Double Bass (Professor Hrabe's Method) by Adolf Lotter L.R.A.M. On the back cover of the Boosey&Hawkes book is a list of 25 Langey Practical Tutors for all sorts of instruments.

I also have a very old Hawkes & Son edition of Tutor for the Four String Double Bass, selected, arranged and composed by Otto Langey, revised and re-edited by John Reynolds (price 4 Shillings). And a later edition, Practical Tutor for the Double Bass (with 3 strings) by Otto Langley (New edition revised and enlarged by John Reynolds).

Although they were both copyrighted they are not dated. A clue might come from the back covers which list prices of instruments. The older tutor boasts of Hawkes receiving a Gold Medal at the 1890 Edinburgh Exhibition and lists The Hawkes Panormo as 24 Guineas. The newer tutor says 36 Pounds.The very superior Pernambuco bow rose from 16 Shillings to 3 Pounds. In the mean time the address changed from Leicester Square to Denman Street, Picadilly Circus.

Eat your heart out!!

DP

 

[neilG]

The Library of Congress has a catalog record for the Langey 3-string method, and gives it a circa-1900 date. Langey lived 1851 - 1922
Link Removed

 

[damonsmith]

I studied Simandl when I was younger and I definitely learned some things. But I've studied many other things since then, and from that perspective I fail to see why so many teachers continue to use his method and nothing else.

It is one of the only bass methods I use as such in teaching. I tend to use the ideas of the modern methods to solve problems in actual solos. I think it still functions as basic exercise better than any other method.

Rabbath is beautiful, but not as beautiful as Bach. And that remains my issue with most other methods - too much of the author's musical identity but not as musical as actual music.

Simandl will not prepare you to play the instrument in this day and age, it just gives a solid foundation, so many musicians have taken the instrument so far, far beyond any method yet written, so we need to look at every innovative bassist for the path forward.

In terms of modern methods, you can pick up the concrete technical innovations pretty quickly and then decide how far you want to go into each great master's musical world.

 

[damonsmith]

Also, for all the talk of the differences between the instrument then and now, the basics still transfer. You will get an incredible, basic foundation with Simandl and if you stop there, your paying will remain basic.

 

[eerbrev]

......and he was writing his method how would it be different?

What do you see as the shortcomings of Simandl's Tutor Book 1 and how would you go about improving on it? Would you write a companion book (or books, with Cds and DVDs) that fleshed out his work or would you start over again?

If Simandls were writing his method today, I think that there would be some key differences, but i think that little of the main material would change. For one, Simandl wrote the method that worked for HIM, and technology notwithstanding, he was obviously pretty successful with it. Why change it when it works?

Some things I think he would change given todays technology and setups:

- continued use of lower strings further up the fingerboard, and probably an inclusion of an exercise similar to Robinson's Boardwalkin', though related in some way to his position system.

- Use of a minor third in the neck heel area of the bass. The notes are close enough that even most strict simandl folks i know do it on the downlow.

- Inclusion of a fingering system for extensions, and their inclusion in his exercises. I think he would likely advocate a capoed extension rather than a stenholm or a fingered one. Maybe I'm just transposing my thoughts onto it, but it just seems like a practical solution for someone who seemed to be a practical dude. He already included an advocation of the 5 string in his method, though it's only a little sidenote (pg 5 of the Drew edition)

- bigger section on bowing and better detail on how to play the orchestral strokes (different kinds of spiccato, etc)

Would he have DVDs and CDs? maybe, even likely (gotta get that youtube money, yo). he might even have some sort of code-accesible Dropbox for online content.

I think everyone's got a wishlist of what they'd like to see in a method, and everyone's got a list of things they'd scrap out of the simandl method that are either bad or unhealthy. As a Grad student who is constantly trying to min/max the way I learn and play, these are things I would scrap from the method:

Simandl Positions: They're obtuse, confusing in their naming system, and there are just plain too many of them. The Rabbath/Boardwalkin' system based on where the harmonics are is easy to learn, easy to find, easy to use, and there are only 6 positions. No fuss, no muss.

the playing position pictures: They're blurry and don't include any sitting variation. Take new ones including variations for both high and low stools. It would probably be beneficial to add in a variation for those who stand with a Laborie endpin.

everything else is pretty good information. there are things i would add, however:

Complete list of harmonics on the bass: Like the version available from the University of Miami Press. I forget exactly what it's called but it has to do with Ravel's orchestra music. Incredibly useful, highly functional, a great supplemental.

Discussion of how to get a minor 3rd into a handframe: It show up in classical music often enough that knowing how to do it without giving yourself tendonitis is a great asset. Whether you want to use pivots, or four finger technique, or some sort of slide/stretch combo to achieve that is up to whomever wrote the method and what they decide to advocate, but it needs to be in there.

Use of Thumb in lower positions: and when to do so in a way that makes musical sense.

I think I've written enough gobbledy-gouk here to get my thoughts across. For say, 4/5ths of orchestral playing, and 2/3s of solo playing, simandl is all you'll ever need.



For everything else... There's MasterCard.

 

[damonsmith]

This about covers it... Dresser's harmonic sheet is pretty cool, though!

If Simandls were writing his method today, I think that there would be some key differences, but i think that little of the main material would change. For one, Simandl wrote the method that worked for HIM, and technology notwithstanding, he was obviously pretty successful with it. Why change it when it works?

Some things I think he would change given todays technology and setups:

- continued use of lower strings further up the fingerboard, and probably an inclusion of an exercise similar to Robinson's Boardwalkin', though related in some way to his position system.

- Use of a minor third in the neck heel area of the bass. The notes are close enough that even most strict simandl folks i know do it on the downlow.

- Inclusion of a fingering system for extensions, and their inclusion in his exercises. I think he would likely advocate a capoed extension rather than a stenholm or a fingered one. Maybe I'm just transposing my thoughts onto it, but it just seems like a practical solution for someone who seemed to be a practical dude. He already included an advocation of the 5 string in his method, though it's only a little sidenote (pg 5 of the Drew edition)

- bigger section on bowing and better detail on how to play the orchestral strokes (different kinds of spiccato, etc)

Would he have DVDs and CDs? maybe, even likely (gotta get that youtube money, yo). he might even have some sort of code-accesible Dropbox for online content.

I think everyone's got a wishlist of what they'd like to see in a method, and everyone's got a list of things they'd scrap out of the simandl method that are either bad or unhealthy. As a Grad student who is constantly trying to min/max the way I learn and play, these are things I would scrap from the method:

Simandl Positions: They're obtuse, confusing in their naming system, and there are just plain too many of them. The Rabbath/Boardwalkin' system based on where the harmonics are is easy to learn, easy to find, easy to use, and there are only 6 positions. No fuss, no muss.

the playing position pictures: They're blurry and don't include any sitting variation. Take new ones including variations for both high and low stools. It would probably be beneficial to add in a variation for those who stand with a Laborie endpin.

everything else is pretty good information. there are things i would add, however:

Complete list of harmonics on the bass: Like the version available from the University of Miami Press. I forget exactly what it's called but it has to do with Ravel's orchestra music. Incredibly useful, highly functional, a great supplemental.

Discussion of how to get a minor 3rd into a handframe: It show up in classical music often enough that knowing how to do it without giving yourself tendonitis is a great asset. Whether you want to use pivots, or four finger technique, or some sort of slide/stretch combo to achieve that is up to whomever wrote the method and what they decide to advocate, but it needs to be in there.

Use of Thumb in lower positions: and when to do so in a way that makes musical sense.

I think I've written enough gobbledy-gouk here to get my thoughts across. For say, 4/5ths of orchestral playing, and 2/3s of solo playing, simandl is all you'll ever need.



For everything else... There's MasterCard.

 

[Bill Bentgen]

I worked through the Simandl books in 1962-63. About 20 years ago I acquired the Montag books. They are the Simandl method in tedious detail. Each position addresses the major and minor scales terminating in that position and includes the 3 basic triads of each key.

The 2 last books on thumb positions treats each semitone as a position the same as the 1st octave. The A & E string are used well up into the thumb position.

I don't have trouble imagining that this is how Simandl would have modified his method if he had a bass with a modern setup and metal strings.