Hey folks, I'm going thru each of the standard bluegrass instruments on my blog, the Key of Bluegrass. Here is a link for the article on bluegrass bass. Love to hear any feedback from talkbass members. Key of Bluegrass: Wallowing in Root-Five with the Bluegrass Bass thanks, Jeff
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 Key of Bluegrass Blog
- Thread starter Jeffwes
- Start date
Jake deVilliers
Commercial User
- May 24, 2006
- 6,349
- 607
- Disclosures
- Owner of The Bass Spa, String Repairman at Long & McQuade Vancouver
Jake deVilliers
Commercial User
- May 24, 2006
- 6,349
- 607
- Disclosures
- Owner of The Bass Spa, String Repairman at Long & McQuade Vancouver
Hey Jeff, I picked with you a bit at Jamie's camp at Wenatchee last year! Friday night, maybe... Good times.
That's a pretty good article Jeff, though I completely disagree about incorporating melody notes into the note choices on the bass. Both Gene Libbea and Barry Bales play WAY more than a regimented Root/Five and that's why we love them!
Notice how often Barry Bales hangs on the root in the video above.
Mike Bubb and Viktor Krauss do a lot of this too, especially preceding a chord change, then catching a fifth, octave, or third on the way to the IV, for instance, avoiding the too-frequently heard monotony of a root/fifth bass pattern through the bulk of a bluegrass tune.
Mike Bubb and Viktor Krauss do a lot of this too, especially preceding a chord change, then catching a fifth, octave, or third on the way to the IV, for instance, avoiding the too-frequently heard monotony of a root/fifth bass pattern through the bulk of a bluegrass tune.
Jake - good to hear from you. Yep I remember that jam. Fun times!
Great discussion... However, I stand by my assertion that root five in traditional and contemporary bluegrass should be used (approximately) 90% of the time. Maybe it is 80 or 85%... but it is a high percentage. And the 10% (or maybe 20%) that is not root-five should consist of bass runs and other devices that generally move the song along from chord to chord and thru other transitions. The music becomes way too cluttered otherwise and I see this all the time with overzealous bassists.
Barry Bales playing octave (etc) in the above video is absolutely tasteful and doesn't at all clutter the music. It humbles me just to hear him play, the man is a bass-God. I think what he is demonstrating meets the spirit of what root-five accomplishes in bluegrass and he always seems to have the taste and discretion to make the music sound great. It doesn't sound busy, it doesn't attract unneeded attention, and it complements what is going on. Strictly root-five? No, but it meets the intent of root-five and adds value to what is going on in the song as well.
Likewise for the other two bassists mentioned... Mike Bubb and Viktor Krauss - they are absolutely fantastic and I am humbled when I hear them as well. Anything they play is going to be magical... And if they want to deviate from root five it is probably going to sound great even if they do it more than 10%. We perform that exact song (Blue Train) in my band and I have to admit, although I am no Viktor Krauss, or Gene Libbea for that matter, I do deviate quite a bit from root-five as it seems to fit the piece. I do view this as an exception tho and I try to stay basically root-five for other more traditional sounding songs.
I also mentioned Tom Gray in the article as another important exception. Repeating what I wrote: "Tom Gray did some outstanding and very tasteful work with the Seldom Scene, much of the time deviating from root-five. But generally speaking, bluegrass music is already chock-full of busyness and a simplified bass line really helps bring some order to the situation".
Just my opinion I suppose.
Great discussion... However, I stand by my assertion that root five in traditional and contemporary bluegrass should be used (approximately) 90% of the time. Maybe it is 80 or 85%... but it is a high percentage. And the 10% (or maybe 20%) that is not root-five should consist of bass runs and other devices that generally move the song along from chord to chord and thru other transitions. The music becomes way too cluttered otherwise and I see this all the time with overzealous bassists.
Barry Bales playing octave (etc) in the above video is absolutely tasteful and doesn't at all clutter the music. It humbles me just to hear him play, the man is a bass-God. I think what he is demonstrating meets the spirit of what root-five accomplishes in bluegrass and he always seems to have the taste and discretion to make the music sound great. It doesn't sound busy, it doesn't attract unneeded attention, and it complements what is going on. Strictly root-five? No, but it meets the intent of root-five and adds value to what is going on in the song as well.
Likewise for the other two bassists mentioned... Mike Bubb and Viktor Krauss - they are absolutely fantastic and I am humbled when I hear them as well. Anything they play is going to be magical... And if they want to deviate from root five it is probably going to sound great even if they do it more than 10%. We perform that exact song (Blue Train) in my band and I have to admit, although I am no Viktor Krauss, or Gene Libbea for that matter, I do deviate quite a bit from root-five as it seems to fit the piece. I do view this as an exception tho and I try to stay basically root-five for other more traditional sounding songs.
I also mentioned Tom Gray in the article as another important exception. Repeating what I wrote: "Tom Gray did some outstanding and very tasteful work with the Seldom Scene, much of the time deviating from root-five. But generally speaking, bluegrass music is already chock-full of busyness and a simplified bass line really helps bring some order to the situation".
Just my opinion I suppose.
Last edited:
I liked the section on soloing...it made me smile.
Its so true, bass solos I have done nearly always are accompanied by gasps and admiration.
Its so true, bass solos I have done nearly always are accompanied by gasps and admiration.
I also agree with the 90% R-5 for bluegrass. I play in an old time band, and some of our stuff is straight bluegrass/traditional. Bass thumps on 1-3, guitar or mando on 2-4. That is the rhythm section while fiddle and banjo take the glory. It serves the song/music. It's a conversation with your instruments. Of course there are exceptions, but those are exceptions duh! I find minor keys to be part of the exceptions. I walk quite a bit in minor keys playing traditional music, but still accenting the key beats as I do.
When we play swingier old timey stuff - then I walk, solo, embellish.
I'll steal a line from Chris Fitz's video series. The bass players priorities should be time, form, and groove. In bluegrass, all three are accomplished with R-5 90% of the time. Your job isn't melody or swing lol.
When we play swingier old timey stuff - then I walk, solo, embellish.
I'll steal a line from Chris Fitz's video series. The bass players priorities should be time, form, and groove. In bluegrass, all three are accomplished with R-5 90% of the time. Your job isn't melody or swing lol.
I'll steal a line from Chris Fitz's video series. The bass players priorities should be time, form, and groove. In bluegrass, all three are accomplished with R-5 90% of the time. Your job isn't melody or swing lol.[/QUOTE]
My priorities are the same (I think): time, intonation (form?), musicality (groove?), or at least similar. And in 30 years' playing in bluegrass settings, I accomplish all three without playing R-5 90% of the time. Probably 50%. I'm concerned anytime someone makes a sweeping generalization; I always think of the old adage "the only accurate generalization is the one that states 'generalizations are seldom accurate'." In a straight-ahead, I-IV-V, traditional song R-5 is the best choice behind the verse and instrumental break; but there is certainly a place for a more musical style behind the chorus. Step out of the traditional vein, but still bluegrass, and the opportunities expand. And that does not include playing the melody (we certainly agree on that).
But in the end, it's all subjective. What works for me may be heresy for another. The good news is we're both having fun. And our style probably supports the needs of the people we play with. I guess I've been fortunate in that the people I play with ask for, and appreciate, a different style of bass.
My priorities are the same (I think): time, intonation (form?), musicality (groove?), or at least similar. And in 30 years' playing in bluegrass settings, I accomplish all three without playing R-5 90% of the time. Probably 50%. I'm concerned anytime someone makes a sweeping generalization; I always think of the old adage "the only accurate generalization is the one that states 'generalizations are seldom accurate'." In a straight-ahead, I-IV-V, traditional song R-5 is the best choice behind the verse and instrumental break; but there is certainly a place for a more musical style behind the chorus. Step out of the traditional vein, but still bluegrass, and the opportunities expand. And that does not include playing the melody (we certainly agree on that).
But in the end, it's all subjective. What works for me may be heresy for another. The good news is we're both having fun. And our style probably supports the needs of the people we play with. I guess I've been fortunate in that the people I play with ask for, and appreciate, a different style of bass.
Traditional BG went thru its experimentation phases back in the day - several of the old Stanley recordings have a kind-of a wandering walking bass - not an organized 3 or a 6 walk as you might hear in a Ray Price song, but just lots of notes double timing. I can't remember the exact recordings but to me, the cluttered bass sounded just horrible and totally ruined an otherwise great recording. Seems to me that BG survived this experimentation phase (which also included accordions, electric chicken picked guitars and forward-mixed drums) and has since eliminated these less-desirable sounds and settled on a very specific format featuring a 1-5 bass, a mando chop on the offbeats and a banjo continuously rolling in the background to give the drive (on 90% of the song). To get this particular sound for (strictly) trad or contemporary BG, the bass really needs to conform to the 1-5 rule most of the time in my opinion. This is for those songs that are medium to fast tempo in 2/4 timing.
The cool thing about music, however, is it continuously evolves forward and we are currently in another experimentation phase in bluegrass / americana / newgrass or whatever you want to call it. Lots of people are taking the BG format and changing it - some with a more intricate bass line, others reducing or eliminating the continuous Scruggs rolling and adding a cello, etc. I am out here at Wintergrass in Seattle this weekend and if I look at the schedule, only one or two bands are strictly traditional or contemporary bluegrass. Literally all the other bands on the docket (including mine) are taking BG and breaking the rules in some form or another. And this is very cool... When we play our three sets on the stage out here, for trad or contemporary BG numbers, I will be playing 1-5 90% of the time with an occasional bass break and then totally violating the rule when we queue up a non-trad BG song.
The cool thing about music, however, is it continuously evolves forward and we are currently in another experimentation phase in bluegrass / americana / newgrass or whatever you want to call it. Lots of people are taking the BG format and changing it - some with a more intricate bass line, others reducing or eliminating the continuous Scruggs rolling and adding a cello, etc. I am out here at Wintergrass in Seattle this weekend and if I look at the schedule, only one or two bands are strictly traditional or contemporary bluegrass. Literally all the other bands on the docket (including mine) are taking BG and breaking the rules in some form or another. And this is very cool... When we play our three sets on the stage out here, for trad or contemporary BG numbers, I will be playing 1-5 90% of the time with an occasional bass break and then totally violating the rule when we queue up a non-trad BG song.
can i just say that i want to be barry bales?
i should have never started following him on twitter. he's either out in the woods hunting or playing behind the best bluegrassers in the world! and i think it's all because he does a perfect job of doing the root-5 when needed but playing so much more. he's just so musical with what he is doing and i guess that's why he gets to do what he does. a little jealous....luckily it makes me pick up my bass more than put it down like i did when i saw victor wooten for the first time 10 years ago.
i should have never started following him on twitter. he's either out in the woods hunting or playing behind the best bluegrassers in the world! and i think it's all because he does a perfect job of doing the root-5 when needed but playing so much more. he's just so musical with what he is doing and i guess that's why he gets to do what he does. a little jealous....luckily it makes me pick up my bass more than put it down like i did when i saw victor wooten for the first time 10 years ago.
We all want to be Barry.
I love that "Allison's Band" song, except when I envision singing it, it would be for Barry's part.
I love that "Allison's Band" song, except when I envision singing it, it would be for Barry's part.
