Double Bass Questionare for development of the bass

[Heavystringsguy]

Please, feel free to answer any of these questions...

Would you say the double bass is a member of the Viol or Violin family?

Were there any notable advances in the construction of the double bass that had an impact on the performance of the instrument? If there were, what were they and what sort of an impact did the advancements have?

Just looking for info for a research paper. Thanks guys!

 

[JoeyNaeger]

http://www.stringemporium.com/double-bass-history-book.htm

 

[Schoolhouse]

The double bass started as the largest instrument in the viola da gamba family (violone). It evolved into the largest member of the violin family. The simple answer to your question is both.

 

[drurb]

For a research paper? Hmm... sure would be hard to cite TalkBass users in the references. Thankfully, there are still libraries and books out there. You would be best served by folks here leading you to references. The text Joey cited would be a good start.

 

[MikeCanada]

There is a lot of reading that can be done on the subject, and it is very interesting from an instrument making perspective as well. In one sense the bass came from the viol family and braced flat backs, outside rib linings, "gamba" corners, underhand bows and a few other physical characteristics scream viol. Other instruments with round backs, violin outlines and corners to name a few characteristics have definitely been influenced by the violin family, and you would be hard pressed to call them exclusively of violin family or viol family lineage.

As for construction changes/advances, those things are heavily tied to your first question of "where did it come from?" Depending on how far back you go or what you look at as a starting point, gut frets, 3-6 strings, tension pegs vs. tuning machines and their many variations, the evolution of the underhand bow and the invention of the overhand bow, the newer take on 3-5 strings, gut vs. synthetic vs. steel strings, methods of reaching low C or B, various tunings, change in neck angle to reflect higher tension, all the way up to things like removable necks/folding basses, the instrument has changed a lot, and continues to do so. The impact of those changes are not that easily defined, but they eliminated or significantly reduced many of the barriers and limitations of playing the instrument, and as a result the technical demands made of bassists are changing as well.

The Paul Brun book Joey mentioned is a fantastic resource, and it would be a disservice to write a paper about the history of double bass without using it as a resource. I agree with the good Dr. that citing forums and the information in them is not an easy thing to do, but there are good resources available. I am not sure of the length or depth of your assignment, but you may have to decide how far to go into the changing role of the double bass musically vs. its physical evolution.

Best of luck, and keep in mind there are plenty of people here who would enjoy reading it when you are done.

 

[drurb]

...I agree with the good Dr. that citing forums and the information in them is not an easy thing to do, but there are good resources available.

Indeed. What I was really hinting at is that within a real research paper, one could not cite "The folks at Talkbass."
I was trying to encourage the OP to ask for resources rather than answers.

 

[MikeCanada]

While I do agree that academia would take issue with a forum being cited as a resource, I would love to see that change. There are plenty of books with content that is questionably worth the paper it is written on, and there is a lot of knowledge out there that will never be written down in an academically recognized way. Talkbass and many of the bassists, luthiers, bow makers, and/or combination of the aforementioned who contribute here have studied extensively either at formal institutions or under the guidance of a "master" and are great sources of information.

There obviously needs to be a balance between "Some guy who's last name likely isn't "Canada" said this on the internet" and "you can't use anything from the internet that doesn't end in .gov or .edu" but I would like to see a little more openness to students conducting research, instead of relying on someone else's. We live in a time with unparalleled access to people who actually do the stuff we are studying, and has the potential to shine some light on things that were seldom deemed worthy of academic study.

For the sake of this paper and anything short of a thesis, I would stick almost exclusively with books and I mean no disrespect to the people who have written the few books on the double bass out there. I am merely airing my frustration that there are millions of books worth of information being shared daily around the world available at your fingertips, and it is largely deemed insignificant by academia.

 

[drurb]

I would not like to see that change at all. That is, I would not like to see citing a forum as acceptable. There's a basic reason that it is not, nor is it ever likely to be. It is simply that the credibility of the source cannot be examined and/or verified. Now, Mike, what, perhaps, could become more acceptable in some cases, say this case, is the citation of personal communication with a recognized expert. If that were done, then the credibility of the source could, in fact be examined and/or verified and the author of the research could even justify to the reader the inclusion of information from that source. Such methods are already practiced in academia so maybe there is less change needed and/or desired than you may think.

 

[MikeCanada]

I agree that there would be a challenge in determining/verifying the credibility of the source, particularly in anonymous or semi-anonymous situations such as talkbass. I would argue that the majority of the information presented here is accurate, and if there are differences of experience or opinion those topics are often the ones that result in very in depth discussions. Reaching the low notes is one of those discussions where if you dig through several of the threads that address the topic it becomes clear that there are personal and regional preferences, but there isn't one "best" way. If you were to look at orchestration texts, method books, or consult specific masters and schools, you are far more likely to encounter "my way is the best way". When I was doing my undergrad in 5ths, the orchestration professor refused to acknowledge that the double bass could be tuned that way. I am not suggesting he teach all of his students it is only tuned in 5ths, but when the topic comes up for discussion it should be presented as one of the options.

I do see that it would be best to verify the information with additional sources. The idea of being able to use personal communication with a recognized expert as a source is great, but it is also limiting. If you talk to one of the people who regularly posts here as a recognized expert, is everything that didn't come up in conversation but they've posted here inadmissible?

In our field, how does one recognize one's expertise? Is the student fresh off a PhD in jazz performance more of an expert than the jazz musician who has been gigging 6 nights a week for the last 50 years? Is the luthier who has cut a few hundred bridges or the bow maker that has done thousands of rehairs less of an expert than the guys that win VSA competitions? Is the classical chamber musician less than the section principal? What about the guy that leads the bluegrass jam every Tuesday night? At what point do you become an expert vs. professional vs. amateur vs. student? Our field like many others has a few relatively reliable measurements of success and skill, but it is far from linear.

If I was back in the academic world and writing papers about the double bass, I would draw from the resources found here. I would most likely reach out to some of the members that regularly contribute and if my paper was about their area of expertise, I would exchange messages as a start and depending on geography and personal preference exchange emails, phone calls or pay a visit. If it was verified that they were the person behind a talkbass account, I do not see the harm in supplementing the information from our discussions with the information they shared here.

There is much that I do not know about the inner workings of academia, and there is a very good chance that less change is needed.

 

[drurb]

What you are talking about is assembling information, opinions, and points of view from a community of players, luthiers, etc. I suppose one could document what is the typical and common understanding based on conversations. I suppose one could, somehow, cite the postings of a recognized expert. What I was objecting to is the vague reference to a forum. The writings of an individual is a different matter entirely. Still, one must be careful. The informal, unverified, unrefereed, information that is found in internet postings is often not authoritative at all. So much of what is on the internet is just plain wrong. Often, differences of opinion stem not from legitimate differences in interpretation but from misinformed individuals an erroneous information. That goes for Talkbass as well. Some of the information posted here is quite inaccurate. Again, if you're talking about using the writings of an individual expert, that's another matter. Now, back to what the OP asked. The OP should be looking for resources. The historical information he/she is seeking is available in a number of well-regarded texts. A scholarly approach would be to read a number of well-regarded sources and distill the information. That would help to guard against the reliance and/or acceptance of idiosyncratic views. IMO, the OP should do his/her homework.

 

[Schlyder]

Part of doing a research paper is that your professor wants you to learn how to properly do research through accepted citable sources, and compile it in a coherent, and comprehensive fashion that can be vetted.
This seems to be contrary to the spirit of that exercise.

 

[MikeCanada]

In the context of the OP's paper I agree that there are some pretty great texts out there that have been thoroughly researched and present accurate, reliable, well sourced, and that is where the historic information should come from. While there are many accounts on how and why the double bass came to be here, as well as differences between viol and violin family influences, how the two modern bows came to be etc. I am sure some of it is less than correct. There are forums out there where the discussion is rather academic and sources and references are provided, but this is not that place. While I try to remain impartial and make it clear when I am expressing an opinion over conventional/standard wisdom, we all could be called out for "information". I agree that forums are not the place to source history papers.

I do think that they have the potential to be carefully used as contemporary sources. From the perspective of players, there would be situations where "this is the agreed upon convention for x" could be useful, and although we tend to be quite American focused there are a number of international contributors as well to draw from. Similarly there has been some great discussion by luthiers about current build/repair methods, trends and common concerns they are seeing, and what to do in those situations. There isn't much information out there in books about removable necks for example, but there have been some really great discussions about them here.

Academically, I would view a forum in a similar fashion to any other crowd-sourced information. At face value it can be a great jumping off point, and often we plant the seed of "I should really look into this more" and I believe that we could agree on that. I like the idea of the postings of a recognized expert being potentially viable, although I do see the need for diligence in that regard. Given the relatively informal nature of talkbass I am sure that some of our experts have made contributions that were helpful and relevant, yet different from what they may have said if they were being published or asked for factual source material.

Back on track the Paul Brun book would be a great source for a paper. If OP is looking for more construction based information, the "Bass making resources" thread mentions many more texts that discuss construction at length, some of which talk about violin vs. viol issues as well.

 

[shwashwa]

i would definitely say that one construction advance that has contributed greatly to the explosion of virtuosity on the double bass is the development of steel strings as well as the modern synthetics (although i'm a gut player). if you need to you can call me on the phone and cite me as a source.