Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Is there a reason tenor clef is used for thumb position?
- Thread starter Andy Mopley
- Start date
To me it's very confusing. The bass already is a transposed instrument since we play in the bass clef down one octave.
In the second octave we are reaching cello so it should be noted as a plain bass clef.
Accept that it isn't. So you are arguing with a lot of people who are already dead as well as cutting off access to a huge amount of historical work that is fun to play.
I accept it and I find it to be confusing at the same time. I've no interest whatsoever in reinventing the wheel.
It should be noted that tenor clef doesn't just show up in solo pieces, you find it in orchestral works, too. If you don't play either, then don't bother learning tenor clef. If you do, you have to learn it. It isn't that difficult.
Agreed, but, it is also a great tool for understanding the history of the instrument! It lies in a nice sweet spot for the bass as well. So, it is inconvenient to learn a new clef, but, there is a logic to it. The basic solo range of the instrument lays in that range pretty well.
Once you can read three clefs, things like octave transposing and other reading issues kind of disappear. Clearly right now, practicing is more primary than playing, I take that attitude in general.
So, if you want a lot of nice music to play that relates to history of our instrument (lots of beautiful transcriptions are part of it) it is a really nice thing to get out of the way.
I feel like I see tenor clef in just about everything I play or study. Maybe I’m just using older materials. I will echo damonsmith here, it is very important to have a historical appreciation for the instrument/the art. Often times the way forward is found by looking backward (Bach for example). Not say that tenor clef doesn’t trip me up at times.
Reading some of the posts on this thread remind me of some English-speakers who do not see the value of being truly fluent at reading and writing in the English language (with all of its weird spellings, inconsistent grammatical structures, and wildly arcane traditions). But it's their choice, and they can live their life the way they want to. The difference between proponents of auditory/oral transmission of music and the English-speakers who prefer the same emphasis of transmission, is that the English-speakers would probably never say that the mastery of reading and writing is unimportant and/or obsolete, and they would certainly never tell someone who can read that they will be a better communicator if they learn it "by ear."
Continuing with the language metaphor and tenor clef, just think of tenor clef as Elizabethan English. It's still English, and if you read it enough, it becomes just as normal as English that we read today.
Continuing with the language metaphor and tenor clef, just think of tenor clef as Elizabethan English. It's still English, and if you read it enough, it becomes just as normal as English that we read today.
What an illuminating thread this has been. Step back and think about this thread and how the humble tenor clef is such a touchstone for broader debate in the bass community about musicianship and technique. In cello world we simply accept that tenor clef is something you learn to play the music. But, we are mainly going to play classical. No one questions it. What I read here is steady input from bassists looking to advance their technique but are probably playing in non-classical genres so, reasonably, wonder “what does tenor clef mean for me?” Unless you transcribe it, you’ll find no pop/jazz standard charts in tenor clef, right? There have been many good replies as to why learning it is useful, regardless of genre. Perhaps this thread underscores the general open-mindedness and curiosity of bassists, and the instrument’s broader application in types of music, but the time constraint in improving chops and exploring the historical canon. I can always (could) get more paying gigs on bass than cello, lol.
Again, you are arguing a point that hasn't been made. One dimensional, either/or thinking is particularly bad for this instrument. Anonymous posters like yourself shouldn't really be taken seriously, especially when their information so rarely pans out.
The ear and the eyes are equally important in studying the double bass. What makes this particular post in this particular context even more short-sighted than your usual average is this: To learn material that has originally been preserved in tenor clef by ear is trust trust another person's interpretation of that material.
In accepting that notation is only part of the story, we each to need have our way of bringing it to life. You recently made another uninformed comment about pre-written material being inherently less creative than more open music and I do not think that is case at all.
All music is brought to life by the sound and the details. Whether I select the pitch or Bach does, the creativity of the musician can be endless.
Edicson Ruiz playing Bach is every bit as open, free and creative as me playing free music.
Having said that, it is also the very reason that you should consult a score and not his version by ear to learn that music.
No written music is going to help anyone who doesn't have sharp ears play better. Still, I've yet to meet a double bassist who's ears are behind their physical technique or reading ability.
Hearing the double bass well enough in the first place to want to play already suggests better than average sensitivity to music.
Another perspective:
I should say that I have my own philosophies around the use of notation in small groups that involve improvisation. My basic stance is that we should find musicians to play with who have a deeper understanding of their instruments and where to put their material than we do. Basically, I don't play with people I feel the need to tell what and when to play. I think of it as bringing a specialist, if I ask a trombonist to play, they show up with the trombone and orchestrate themselves.
The written music I do like is music the musician seeks out and chooses, in the classical tradition. Rather than an alto player handing a great bassist a half-baked one chord vamp!
So, I too firmly believe it gets down to the ear when it is time to make music. Still, to think Edicson isn't hearing his way through Bach at as high a level as any great improvisor is a huge mistake.
*This is a long post, checked for typos. There still may be some. I am against closing posts to editing after just an hour and wish they would revise that policy
Last edited:
There is a concept I have, which is noting when people are being an @$$@0(3 to the music! I get tired of hearing what a "nice guy" some Brooklyn drummer might be when everything they do is profoundly disrespectful to the music.
Posting so much misinformation and constantly advocating half measures without showing how it is actually working for you is not very respectful to the community! So, it may seem like I am being impolite to when compared to the tone of your posts, I feel I am on the money in regard to your content here.
Last edited:
I saw that band a lot in the '90s. Great trio. Unless we are talking about the nuts and bolts of free improvisation, most of my posts are just re-stating or defending the centuries of tradition around the instrument. So, again. I'd turn this back on you. It is convenient to think you are arguing with me, but, you are really arguing with the most basic and common pedagogical approaches to the instrument. The party line, so to speak.
Without your music to to show otherwise, your posts tend to advocate a very lazy approach to the instrument.
Without your music to to show otherwise, your posts tend to advocate a very lazy approach to the instrument.
I always think of this song when reading your posts:
[moderator hat]
With all due respect to everyone, Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Seriously, the back and forth snark fest isn't helping anything here, and is also not in line with the site's TOS. Please either give it a rest or take it to PM. We should also all keep in mind that while this is an American site that uses our own North American version of the English language, not all members of the site have English - let alone American English - as their native tongue. Let's try to be a little kinder and more tolerant of each other in these situations, please.
[/moderator hat]
This is a very slippery slope that we will want to be very careful with. Does a person need to post recordings of themselves playing jazz at a high level to weigh in on jazz topics? Do they have to post recordings of themselves playing classical excerpts at a professional level to weigh in on classical topics? Based on this logic, few people would be allowed to post opinions about much at all. It can be argued that people who have shared these sorts of recordings might gain some level of credibility based on their level of playing in these styles, but beyond that the answer to the above questions here is no.
Back to the original topic, while I understand why the C clefs exist and how they developed, I still don't care for them in our modern times. Like @jj.833 , I think that our clef would be better expressed with the 8ve notation beneath the clef. I also prefer to read concert scores because it's easier to hear the pitches intended without the transpositions; and in this age of notation software, when my students write for their projects or ensembles, I ask them to provide me a concert score. Back when I played French Horn in the youth orchestra in high school, the transposition drove me insane because the note I was looking at was not the note I was hearing when I played what was written. Again, I understand how it came to be, but I still don't care for it.
I get the analogy, but I'll provide a counter analogy. I don't think of it as Elizabethan English, because the sound when you play it is no different than if it had been written in bass or treble clef. I think of it as more akin to regular language handwritten in Shakespearian font (otherwise known as "secretary hand"), as though from Shakespeare's original editions:
It's a neat historical artifact, but if I were reading a part from one of the plays in modern times, I'll take Times New Roman, please!
Seriously, as @neilG said above, if you don't play solo pieces or orchestral repertoire, there's no real reason to learn it. To that I would add that if you can find an edition that doesn't use it or offers both options (like the Henle urtext edition of the cello suites), you can choose to play the music from the bass clef version.
Calling someones remarks not intelligent and dumb because they have a different opinion than you is pedant and not really nice...
With all due respect to everyone, Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Seriously, the back and forth snark fest isn't helping anything here, and is also not in line with the site's TOS. Please either give it a rest or take it to PM. We should also all keep in mind that while this is an American site that uses our own North American version of the English language, not all members of the site have English - let alone American English - as their native tongue. Let's try to be a little kinder and more tolerant of each other in these situations, please.
[/moderator hat]
This is a very slippery slope that we will want to be very careful with. Does a person need to post recordings of themselves playing jazz at a high level to weigh in on jazz topics? Do they have to post recordings of themselves playing classical excerpts at a professional level to weigh in on classical topics? Based on this logic, few people would be allowed to post opinions about much at all. It can be argued that people who have shared these sorts of recordings might gain some level of credibility based on their level of playing in these styles, but beyond that the answer to the above questions here is no.
Back to the original topic, while I understand why the C clefs exist and how they developed, I still don't care for them in our modern times. Like @jj.833 , I think that our clef would be better expressed with the 8ve notation beneath the clef. I also prefer to read concert scores because it's easier to hear the pitches intended without the transpositions; and in this age of notation software, when my students write for their projects or ensembles, I ask them to provide me a concert score. Back when I played French Horn in the youth orchestra in high school, the transposition drove me insane because the note I was looking at was not the note I was hearing when I played what was written. Again, I understand how it came to be, but I still don't care for it.
I get the analogy, but I'll provide a counter analogy. I don't think of it as Elizabethan English, because the sound when you play it is no different than if it had been written in bass or treble clef. I think of it as more akin to regular language handwritten in Shakespearian font (otherwise known as "secretary hand"), as though from Shakespeare's original editions:
It's a neat historical artifact, but if I were reading a part from one of the plays in modern times, I'll take Times New Roman, please!
Seriously, as @neilG said above, if you don't play solo pieces or orchestral repertoire, there's no real reason to learn it. To that I would add that if you can find an edition that doesn't use it or offers both options (like the Henle urtext edition of the cello suites), you can choose to play the music from the bass clef version.
I don't think everyone needs to post recordings to be taken seriously. I think that when someone constantly recommends blowing off the traditional wisdom, at a certain point we need hear how it is actually working for them. When you yourself stand up and say you can learn be a jazz virtuoso without the bow, even I have to concede based on your playing. Les Fret has an axe to grind against the tradition, which is fine, but, put or shut up.
I pretty much agree we don't need to use it now, though if a composer wanted to use it in a contemporary bass solo score, I doubt it would cause any trouble.
Is there a less efficient clef for ease of displaying the upper-register of the Double Bass? Thumb Position (on the G string) BEGINS on the first ledger line. Da Fuq?
Someone please put the Tenor Clef out of my misery. Let's not be afraid to discard obsolete, inefficient traditions.
(Full Disclosure - I no longer ever need to read music written in this clef.)
Include me out.
Someone please put the Tenor Clef out of my misery. Let's not be afraid to discard obsolete, inefficient traditions.
(Full Disclosure - I no longer ever need to read music written in this clef.)
Include me out.
If I'd get a score by a contemporary composer with tenor clef, I'd ask him to rewrite it, unless it was just a small, uncomplicated thing or a handwritten score.
And I would tell him or her very politely (hopefully), that there is great tradition of tenor clef in bass and cello music, but today it couses more trouble than good.
Unfortunately many younger composers do things just because they have seen it in a score of Kagel (tenor clef!) or Ligeti (harmonics written an octave down). Some of that can really be questioned, since it has nothing to do with the actual music.
Written music is for getting a musical thought from one person to another in the most convenient and clear way. That is not easy, especially when using extended techniques or unusual ways, in that the music progresses. But getting a normal pitch to paper in one or the other clef that anybody can read easily, shouldn't be made more inconvenient than necessary.
In the scores in my collection, it seems to be used in a time when they didn't think we could do much TP! It seems to be used to contain the first octave of the G string!
