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.
Separating the pros from the amateurs; a list
- Thread starter matthewbrown
- Start date
as with just about everything in life, there isn't one shoe that fits all sizes and I don't see the point in trying to make one.
I like to think that useful advice about my playing came potentially come from pretty much anyone.
Other bassists , whether "worse" than me or not, other musicians, even ignorant muggles who know nothing about music.
I owe it to myself to reflect objectively on any input.
That said, my own knee jerk reaction against being told how/ what to play by elitist know-it-alls and uneducated hacks took a long time to master
still working on it, really.
Other bassists , whether "worse" than me or not, other musicians, even ignorant muggles who know nothing about music.
I owe it to myself to reflect objectively on any input.
That said, my own knee jerk reaction against being told how/ what to play by elitist know-it-alls and uneducated hacks took a long time to master
still working on it, really.
Thank you for this thread. I know how difficult is to talk about "setting standards for oneself as a professional."
Remember, there are a lot of people who always only see what we want to see and hear what they want to hear.
I think a lot of correspondents would like you to clarify your statement, "Play more notes than necessary"
Let's take Nils Landgren's (the funk-ist trombonist/vocal) "Greenfields" from his "Eternal Beauty" CD and listen to the bass part. (What a beautiful album!)
Now, let's take the same PRO Nils Landgren and listen to
Nils Landgren & Maceo Parker-Simple Life,The Chicken.
Do you think the bass player is too "busy"?
Could you revise your statement about "Playing more notes than necessary?"
P.S. Your statement about "non-playing behavior -- being a team player, showing up on time, etc. - is right on the money.
Thanks for your post -- BTW, I love these two cuts! Thanks for introducing me to Landgren, whom I'd not heard before.
"Playing more notes than necessary" doesn't mean not playing LOTS of notes sometimes! On The Chicken, there are times in the tune when AS MANY NOTES AS POSSIBLE might just about do it, IMHO. So no, he's not too busy.
This is a great comment, and I was thinking along similar lines, specifically regarding Jack Bruce, who I think is a great musician (John McLaughlin and a lot of others agree!). I think it's possible to be really a very good and original, creative musician, but not have the technical chops to cut some types of gigs, or even to pull off what you've come up with yourself. But that isn't really what I was trying to get at. I really think I phrased it wrong, which is why mambo's comment was so helpful. But I'd restrict what I was trying to say even more: professional-level performance was what I think I was trying to focus on. And I think that the criteria will differ for different styles of music. Really pro-level bluegrass bands have to be very tight indeed -- precision is key to a successful performance (just listen to Flatt and Scruggs). Likewise for some metal and prog-rock, I think. But a blues band can be pretty loose and still come up with a very professional performance, as can a good jazz combo. Still, certain things cross styles, and some things don't.
I am trying to pin down what works in my own performances of small-group jazz, playing standards, which is what I am most often called on to do. But my recent experience was performing rock and blues with other musicians without rehearsal at a benefit, playing tunes that I'd learned of youtube. I think we made a pretty good job of it -- not perfect, by any means -- and was thinking why what we had done had in fact worked well enough, very well, given so little rehearsal. And I think it came down to the professionalism of all the people involved.
My OP, in retrospect, could have been a lot better written. Perhaps I should focus a little more effort there!
Yup, this is SO important. I recently got a gig in a band full of people who are MUCH better musicians than I am because I showed up for my audition on time, brought my own gear, bass was tuned up and ready to play, I knew all the songs I was supposed to learn, and they liked hanging out with me. It was not the first time I had been granted a gig based on these factors alone.
Thanks for the clarity. Backing out the idea of "professional" and "amateur," methinks you and the others were able to make the scene because you're musicians. Result: "professional-level" performance.
Never heard of the guy. Idk what the op's intent was, thus I said speculate. Its seems logical enough that he was probably referring to being to busy for a given piece of music or genre. I could see that. Just because an individual can play technically brilliant pieces dosnt make them professional....they still have potential to be complete A$$holesThat would be Rocco Prestia b/c he's got busy lines going on ballads.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Even Rocco said that he found a way to put a lot of notes in a ballad. Eddie Gomez plays a lot of notes too.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
This list is fine, it just doesn't really say anything useful (some call these "truisms"). Many of the responses posted haven't actually responded to the precise wording of the statement.
1) A pro never plays more notes than necessary. EVER. This is true. A pro knows how many are necessary, and plays that (unless they're having an off day). That could be a billion notes a minute - if necessary. So, the statement is true, but silly. A more useful statement may have been "A pro knows how many notes are necessary at all times".
2) Fair enough. I'd almost say though, that this statement is a generalisation of all of the others, so is not entirely necessary.
3) Same as #1.... yep, a pro will ALWAYS have a reason..... Your point? We could have argued about how often changing register is necessary/unnecessary, etc, but with the qualifier "for no reason" - well - yeah. In fact, a complete n00b doesn't change for no reason - usually the reason is cause he/she thinks it's cool. They may be wrong, or their reasoning invalid, but it's still a reason.
4) See 2. Fair point though.
5) Not completely certain what this was eluding to, if it meant "fail to articulate notes" (full stop) then yep, that's a beginner error, if it meant "always plays the really important notes", I'd say a pro plays the important and unimportant notes with equal conviction and value. Well, I guess I'd say there are NO unimportant notes
6) Yes, a pro should always play with rhythmic accuracy. I'd say that was an instrumental basic. Like saying a good cook never overdoes a steak. Seems pretty obvious
So people, no need to get out your chop-defense-guns, there was no direct value judgement in this list, other than those relating to unquestionably essential elements of playing (time/technique).
Just had to respond..... "there's no need to play a lot of grace notes that step all over what the soloist is doing" - but sometimes it's nice to play a lot of grace notes which interact with and enhance the solo. Don't leave that poor fella out on his own! (I play horn a lot, and there's nothing worse than a rhythm player who goes into backing-track mode for the solo on a ballad).
Just teasin' ya. I'm quite certain you didn't mean to exclude the above situation
This list is fine, it just doesn't really say anything useful (some call these "truisms"). Many of the responses posted haven't actually responded to the precise wording of the statement.
1) A pro never plays more notes than necessary. EVER. This is true. A pro knows how many are necessary, and plays that (unless they're having an off day). That could be a billion notes a minute - if necessary. So, the statement is true, but silly. A more useful statement may have been "A pro knows how many notes are necessary at all times".
2) Fair enough. I'd almost say though, that this statement is a generalisation of all of the others, so is not entirely necessary.
3) Same as #1.... yep, a pro will ALWAYS have a reason..... Your point? We could have argued about how often changing register is necessary/unnecessary, etc, but with the qualifier "for no reason" - well - yeah. In fact, a complete n00b doesn't change for no reason - usually the reason is cause he/she thinks it's cool. They may be wrong, or their reasoning invalid, but it's still a reason.
4) See 2. Fair point though.
5) Not completely certain what this was eluding to, if it meant "fail to articulate notes" (full stop) then yep, that's a beginner error, if it meant "always plays the really important notes", I'd say a pro plays the important and unimportant notes with equal conviction and value. Well, I guess I'd say there are NO unimportant notes
6) Yes, a pro should always play with rhythmic accuracy. I'd say that was an instrumental basic. Like saying a good cook never overdoes a steak. Seems pretty obvious
So people, no need to get out your chop-defense-guns, there was no direct value judgement in this list, other than those relating to unquestionably essential elements of playing (time/technique).
Just had to respond..... "there's no need to play a lot of grace notes that step all over what the soloist is doing" - but sometimes it's nice to play a lot of grace notes which interact with and enhance the solo. Don't leave that poor fella out on his own! (I play horn a lot, and there's nothing worse than a rhythm player who goes into backing-track mode for the solo on a ballad).
Just teasin' ya. I'm quite certain you didn't mean to exclude the above situation
Thanks for an interesting post!
I agree that this list included some obvious points. I was hoping I might get some less obvious ones as follow-ups. As far as using lots of notes goes, some people like lots of notes, even if they don't really accomplish much musically, because they like displays of technique. I mean, some bassists really think Stu Hamm's solo work is the bomb because of its technical demands. Sometimes I like displays of technique, too, but I prefer it when the technique is subservient to the musical requirements of the piece (this is such a truism it's in Quantz's work on how to play the flute, written in the 18th century). As for #3, I don't think that having a non-musical reason for doing something in a musical performance really passes muster (although I'll give Jimi Hendrix a pass for playing with the guitar behind his back, etc, on the basis of showmanship!).
I guess what really prompted me to write was my bafflement over why some very experienced players will somehow overlook the simple steps to expressing musical ideas effectively, and why they persist in doing so, even when it seems fairly clear that they are missing the mark. And why this persistence leads to performances that are, to my ears, so very unsatisfactory. Heaven knows, this includes some of my own performances when at times I have failed in my attempts at putting across musical ideas!
There is no question that there are endless subtleties to well-performed music, and we can discuss them endlessly, too, without ever really pinning them down satisfactorily. For instance, as much as I listen -- really carefully -- I can't really seem to understand why Keith Jarrett's live work, which is lionized in much of the jazz press, is really such a big deal. It leaves me cold. Yet others rave about it. And his playing is obviously very sophisticated, as is the work of his rhythm sections. Nor do I really appreciate Mingus' work, which has a lot of raw energy but seems really sloppy, badly planned and cranky. I think that points to why having a set of aesthetic criteria to apply to music (or art, or literature) is a good thing. Not because everyone is going to agree with your aesthetic criteria, but because they are signposts to what helps you develop as a musician, with your own voice.
As far as addressing the ensuing discussion (not the OP) goes, I feel a lot of the times a "pro" or more often semi-pro or amateur crosses the line into poor time/technique/execution/whatever are when they are reaching for something they see in a distant fog, and miss. They will still persist, though, because the times you do grasp whatever it is out there in the mist, it's glorious. Through practice, we demistify (not demystify, see what I did there) our surroundings, to the point that we almost never fail - but there will always be something more "out there" beyond our vision range.
Bringing in some of the other points made, I suppose a pro is somebody who has "grasped" enough that people are willing to pay to hear it, and perhaps also somebody who knows when it's appropriate to reach out for the uncertain, and when to play within the city walls. I.e., short studio session: play only what you know you can NAIL and get the job done. Longer session, try things out, if you nail them, you'll have some great stuff down on tape. Live shows have their moments where you will be forgiven for reaching and falling, and moments where you would be better served staying in safety. You bring up Keith and Mingus - two great examples of people who know their limit, and consciously decide when to push it and when to stay safe. They have a different concept of when it's acceptable to push than, say, Ornette Coleman, or Chris Botti, to name some extremes.
Hopefully this addresses the skill and money factors with enough detail to be useful, but enough ambiguity that I couldn't possibly be wrong
Bringing in some of the other points made, I suppose a pro is somebody who has "grasped" enough that people are willing to pay to hear it, and perhaps also somebody who knows when it's appropriate to reach out for the uncertain, and when to play within the city walls. I.e., short studio session: play only what you know you can NAIL and get the job done. Longer session, try things out, if you nail them, you'll have some great stuff down on tape. Live shows have their moments where you will be forgiven for reaching and falling, and moments where you would be better served staying in safety. You bring up Keith and Mingus - two great examples of people who know their limit, and consciously decide when to push it and when to stay safe. They have a different concept of when it's acceptable to push than, say, Ornette Coleman, or Chris Botti, to name some extremes.
Hopefully this addresses the skill and money factors with enough detail to be useful, but enough ambiguity that I couldn't possibly be wrong
oh. ya. Im horrible with names of players. Was never too much into them on a emotional level, intellectually I respect the playing, but dosnt do a damn thing for feel to me. I dont really have a dog in the fight per se, how many notes is necessary for any composition seems like a moving target to me. I could see though if a simple song with a band going for a straight ahead vibe was totally overplayed for the piece at hand, it could be construed as unprofessional. just as underplaying a very emotive passage for spite or something. Although that would strongly go in the dont be an jerk category in my book. Probably one of those things where its relative to the goal of the project and the people involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
