Let's talk about repertoire...

[logdrum]

I disagree that you don't have a repertoire based on what you wrote. You probably have more than you think.

The word usually means the range of skills you have. If you did TAB before then getting that back will enable you to play a big body of work - but the amount music is not repertoire, it is your ability to play them, so maybe it will include many styles, genres etc. Earlier some folks were on my case because I do not like TABs, but notation is how I learned.

So if you can read TABS on say funk. rock, folk - then you're repertoire stylistically already covers those genres.

Just get back to it.

 

[Ric5]

In my previous bass life before an 8 year hiatus, I learned the instrument purely through songs and TAB. I had a pretty huge repertoire. Of course I didn't understand anything, but I could bust out a lot of songs!

Since my return, I have focused on theory, and its application on the instrument. However, lately I have been feeling like I have no real repertoire, and most of the songs I knew inside out I can barely remember now. I plan on trying to balance the two aspects of playing, so I thought I would start a discussion on what people think about building a repertoire, how much time people spend on it etc...

Any thoughts welcome!

find some other musicians to play music with

 

[WrapRough]

find some other musicians to play music with

Yeah this is the elephant in the room for sure

 

[Bassquest]

I'm an ears 'n feel guy, don't read or study theory. Heck, I haven't even bothered to figure out what that 'circle of fifths' is all about. But I know I can play circles around a lot of guys who have taken music theory. Once you're on stage you want to fit in to the music like you're supposed to. I do keep set lists from different bands I've been in and go over them. Basically I practice here and there throughout the day (retired) with whatever comes to mind. I'm only interested in keeping my callouses thick so I dont suffer after a 3-4 hour gig.

 

[WrapRough]

I disagree that you don't have a repertoire based on what you wrote. You probably have more than you think.

The word usually means the range of skills you have. If you did TAB before then getting that back will enable you to play a big body of work - but the amount music is not repertoire, it is your ability to play them, so maybe it will include many styles, genres etc. Earlier some folks were on my case because I do not like TABs, but notation is how I learned.

So if you can read TABS on say funk. rock, folk - then you're repertoire stylistically already covers those genres.

Just get back to it.

Yeah I could just use TAB, but I promised myself I wouldn't use it anymore. So now I learn by ear, read the sheet, or just don't learn it. As I'm a bedroom player it's fine

 

[SteveCS]

...
...
The word usually means the range of skills you have.
...
...the amount music is not repertoire, it is your ability to play them, so maybe it will include many styles, genres etc. ... repertoire stylistically already covers
...

I guess that is an interpretation, but it is not a commonly understood meaning. Generally speaking, in music, repertoire is understood to be the 'collective' for all of the pieces you or your band can play. 'Can play' generally means something for which you have an arrangement that has been performed or rehearsed to a 'performance' standard. Having wide-ranging technique can expand your potential repertoire and will reduce the time from selection through rehearsal to performance but in isolation does not automatically add all music that requires those techniques or skills to your repertoire. IMHO.

 

[WrapRough]

I guess that is an interpretation, but it is not a commonly understood meaning. Generally speaking, in music, repertoire is understood to be the 'collective' for all of the pieces you or your band can play. 'Can play' generally means something for which you have an arrangement that has been performed or rehearsed to a 'performance' standard. Having wide-ranging technique can expand your potential repertoire and will reduce the time from selection through rehearsal to performance but in isolation does not automatically add all music that requires those techniques or skills to your repertoire. IMHO.

That's certainly how I use the term.

 

[SteveCS]

Getting back on topic, the question seems to be about trying to draw a rock/pop parallel with the established classical repertoire. It's a great question!!

Generally speaking, the classical repertoire is organised by instrument or ensemble type - string quartet, symphony orchestra, piano, 'cello and so on. The boundaries are long established and quite clearly defined.

For such a 'non-classical' repertoire there will be as many answers as there are bands - we all make the best selections and we all have the best set lists, right? We will all have different ideas based on genre, era, chart performance (which chart?), instrumentation, personal taste, and so on...

There is so much source material to splice and dice that trying to develop a single meaningful repertoire on which the majority of bands might agree is mind-boggling.

For my current band we started with a 'democratic' process. At the start we each (3) made a list of 30 songs we would like to play. Anything that appeared on all 3 lists was in. The rest were subject of discussion. As it happened the 3/3 sift gave us a really strong list of about 15 or so to get us going. We now have over 100 songs in the 'repertoire'. There is a mix of genre from pure pop to fusion, post-punk, rock and EDM, anywhere from 1962 to 2015, mostly top 30 with a handful of 'deep cuts'.

There is a thread here which started out with a similar idea, but it already seems to have stalled without really getting out of the blocks...

"The Hymnal" of cover songs

For the player not in a band it becomes even more difficult. Maybe it does come back to a 'repertoire' of skills/techniques needed for the music you imagine yourself playing and setting that against some notional 'standards' that should support development of those skills/techniques for whatever the genre/style might be.

YMMV

 

[WrapRough]

Getting back on topic, the question seems to be about trying to draw a rock/pop parallel with the established classical repertoire. It's a great question!!

Generally speaking, the classical repertoire is organised by instrument or ensemble type - string quartet, symphony orchestra, piano, 'cello and so on. The boundaries are long established and quite clearly defined.

For such a 'non-classical' repertoire there will be as many answers as there are bands - we all make the best selections and we all have the best set lists, right? We will all have different ideas based on genre, era, chart performance (which chart?), instrumentation, personal taste, and so on...

There is so much source material to splice and dice that trying to develop a single meaningful repertoire on which the majority of bands might agree is mind-boggling.

For my current band we started with a 'democratic' process. At the start we each (3) made a list of 30 songs we would like to play. Anything that appeared on all 3 lists was in. The rest were subject of discussion. As it happened the 3/3 sift gave us a really strong list of about 15 or so to get us going. We now have over 100 songs in the 'repertoire'. There is a mix of genre from pure pop to fusion, post-punk, rock and EDM, anywhere from 1962 to 2015, mostly top 30 with a handful of 'deep cuts'.

There is a thread here which started out with a similar idea, but it already seems to have stalled without really getting out of the blocks...

"The Hymnal" of cover songs

For the player not in a band it becomes even more difficult. Maybe it does come back to a 'repertoire' of skills/techniques needed for the music you imagine yourself playing and setting that against some notional 'standards' that should support development of those skills/techniques for whatever the genre/style might be.

YMMV

Yeah, as someone who played piano when I was younger, there are just pieces every pianist knows.... some Mozart, some Chopin, Some Satie etc.. They're the "classics", as it were

On bass, I guess there are also such songs- things that anyone would expect a bassist to play. Songs like Another One Bites the Dust spring to mind. So, yes, there is that element. But also, i just used to know loads of songs, as that was all I did. I never did technical stuff, scales, arpeggios etc.. I just picked up bass and played songs. All the time. Just songs. Everything from Led Zeppelin to Jamiroquai, from Blondie to Jaco - if it has a nice line, I learnt it. Over the years that built up like crazy, and I have a good memory for remembering songs!

I guess I just need to balance it out a bit more to build that repertoire back up, but I think the important thing here is that repertoire for bassists seems to mainly come from playing in a band! So I need to find a band that plays covers

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I guess that is an interpretation, but it is not a commonly understood meaning. Generally speaking, in music, repertoire is understood to be the 'collective' for all of the pieces you or your band can play.

Invalid Link Removed

1. all the works that a performing company or artist is prepared to present.
2. the entire stock of works in a particular artistic field: the theatrical repertoire.
3. the skills, techniques, etc., used in a particular field or occupation.

 

[Goatrope]

The catalyst for expanding my repertoire has been to offer myself up as a substitute bassist more often.

I’m in a steadily gigging covers band, and we keep between 120-140 songs in constant rotation, or drop old/add new regularly.

When I do sub gigs, I find I enjoy learning songs outside of my band’s genre even more than performing them. There’s something about the process that I enjoy. Maybe it’s the spark of urgency, or panic, knowing I need to be holding up my end in a new situation. Then the affirmation of a job well done via call-backs.

Nothing better cements a song in my mind, and expands my personal repertoire than prepping for a sub gig.

 

[SteveCS]

Invalid Link Removed

1. all the works that a performing company or artist is prepared to present.
2. the entire stock of works in a particular artistic field: the theatrical repertoire.
3. the skills, techniques, etc., used in a particular field or occupation.

Fair point! That last definition appears to be unique to US English and does not appear in my Oxford (British) English dictionary, so another case of being separated by a common language!

 

[Whousedtoplay]

another case of being separated by a common language!

Separated by common language, UNITED BY COMMON MUSIC!
LOL

 

[Whousedtoplay]

In the wake of some "uncalled-for" confusion about that Latin/French word, "Repertoire", here is my interpretation of the OP's comment.

I learned the instrument purely through songs and TAB. I had a pretty huge repertoire.

1. all the works that a performing artist is prepared to present.

Of course I didn't understand anything

Not enough skills - Repertoire as
3. the skills, techniques, etc., used in a particular field or occupation.

I plan on trying to balance the two aspects of playing

As in "I plan on trying to balance the two aspects of "repertoire" -
(a)"learning the songs" and
(b) "working on the skills, techniques, etc..."

 

[WrapRough]

In the wake of some "uncalled-for" confusion about that Latin/French word, "Repertoire", here is my interpretation of the OP's comment.



1. all the works that a performing artist is prepared to present.



Not enough skills - Repertoire as
3. the skills, techniques, etc., used in a particular field or occupation.





As in "I plan on trying to balance the two aspects of "repertoire" -
(a)"learning the songs" and
(b) "working on the skills, techniques, etc..."

Well, yeah...

What I meant was:

I knew loads of songs

I didn't know any theory

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Well, yeah...

What I meant was:

I knew loads of songs

I didn't know any theory

Could you elaborate your statement about "I didn't know any theory", please?

Songs consist of chords - major/minor/dim/etc... - and chord changes.
In order to play any song, you must know, at least, the root note of this/that chord - it's THEORY.

 

[sean_on_bass]

In my previous bass life before an 8 year hiatus, I learned the instrument purely through songs and TAB. I had a pretty huge repertoire. Of course I didn't understand anything, but I could bust out a lot of songs!

Since my return, I have focused on theory, and its application on the instrument. However, lately I have been feeling like I have no real repertoire, and most of the songs I knew inside out I can barely remember now. I plan on trying to balance the two aspects of playing, so I thought I would start a discussion on what people think about building a repertoire, how much time people spend on it etc...

Any thoughts welcome!

Learning to play lots of songs is something you literally HAVE to do to become a great bassist. All those songs will help you understand how the bass works in music. It's also usually the most enjoyable part of playing an instrument. So yes, definitely make time to learn new material and practice it alongside your theory work.

 

[sean_on_bass]

Learning to read is probably the best way to learn songs since that's the way every other instrument (piano, cello, trumpet, etc.) is taught in a formal setting. Remembering them is easier because you bring in the visual element as well as the aural element.

I'm gonna say that reading is a helpful skill, but learning songs by ear as well is a MUST have skill and arguably more important in the bass guitar world. The fact is that in most situations a chart or sheet music will not be provided.

 

[WrapRough]

Could you elaborate your statement about "I didn't know any theory", please?

Songs consist of chords - major/minor/dim/etc... - and chord changes.
In order to play any song, you must know, at least, the root note of this/that chord - it's THEORY.

Dude trust me, when you learn solely from TAB and only play songs, you are just putting your fingers on the numbers it tells you to.

Also, when I say "any", I meant very, very little theory as applied to the bass.