Double Bass third finger?

[jheise]

I think I'll stop discussing this further after this post, my own personal experiences go in a different direction. Sorry, if I state the obvious again below.

Any jazz player should have the same experience for anything not pre-given as well as any pro reading down music they don't love.

With unknown music - playing a Standard I never played before, sight reading in the orchestra - for me, it always helps my intonation and makes it more musical if I pre-hear or vocalize what's about to happen.
When I play free improvised music, same result. I got the feedback from the audience that it was obvious. Having me ears not trained in those areas as much as you have, my results tend to be a lot more basic than what you do.

Those are musical decision to be made at a later date.

When? When you can play a 3 octave C-Maj Scale with all possible fingerings on all strings at maximum tempo perfectly to the recorded piano?
When is the objectively perceived point to move on to make music?

One of the things about improvised music intonation is the the tuning of the more common extended techniques, for example, a saxophone multi-phonic become part of the collective music, in addition to the pitches needed to harmonize with it.

I'd like to point out, that you tell on me about things that from your point of view can be decided later. And here you rise a point to help state your view where I can clearly say: this is so advanced, nobody who thinks about incorporating the 3rd finger into his playing will need this info.

To bring it back on topic, practicing the western tuning is just about being precise

To bring it back on topic: to be precise about an interval, you have to clearly be able to hear it first. Which finger you use to hit it is secondary as long as you make it precise and repeatable and works for you in the musical context you're in.

Your position is backed on where you are musically and I respect that.

 

[jheise]

Sorry, I can't help it ;-)

I have an early CD of Rabbath about his technique (it sadly no longer works on my computers).
He shows a 3 octave scale with pivots and crab technique. It's clearly a little out of tune at points but a musical statement in itself.
Why did he not choose to record it again until the intonation was correct? I don't think it's because he does not hear it or because he can't.
I'd guess it's because he wanted to show that his technique can help you make better musical statements by solving some "technical" issues.

Do you think he should not have published this CD because it's not perfect in every way?

I do not incorporate anything from Rabbath in my playing because it does not work for me but I think I can still see the value to other people.

 

[Co.]

One of the things about improvised music intonation is the the tuning of the more common extended techniques, for example, a saxophone multi-phonic become part of the collective music, in addition to the pitches needed to harmonize with it.

Exactly this stuff can benefit enourmously from using your third finger in a mix of playing Simandl and italian fingering while using the unused fingers for quarter tones. In Simandl, the 3rd finger can give you a very reliable quarter tone. So does the 2nd finger in italian fingering.

 

[David Potts]

Circling back to the OP's question, yes, I do use my third finger. From stiffening my hand laterally too much to make the stretch when I began using 1234 I now place greater importance on keeping fingers arched and use semi-pivots. Having adopted this semi-pivot I also have to be very careful with intonation in the lower positions. My bete noir is A flat on the E string.

My simplistic approach to practicing is to describe all my head-full of knowledge plus all the current distractions as a "great wall of gently seething porridge" from which I can only highlight two things. One is always Intonation and the other is ........ (something). Just as Pinocchio has Jimminy Cricket as his conscience I have a little intonation monkey sitting on my shoulder saying Nah when I am out. This is how I focus best. My quiet little monkey is as grey-haired as I am after 50 years.

 

[Co.]

I never find the "musical" argument a to be a good one. For me, the music I want to make is very clear and being musical" is not something to worry about in the practice room.
For technical practice, it is about being able to carry out these basic tasks and in many ways, creativity is not needed. That is one of the best things about it. Bass technique is something I can just get on with each day no matter how I feel!
Also, the phenomenon you are talking about, the power of music over human beings is very real. However, it isn't so dependable. The first melody I learned on the double bass was Good Bye Porkpie Hat in the original key of Eb minor. I loved it, I heard it, I was able to get it played. It took years before I could play an equally complex line in Eb on the double bass.

The idea is to condition ourselves so that we can hit these pitches no matter what. While I personally don't perform music I am not invested in artistically, many, many pro bassists do.
I like to think about the great symphony bassist who love classical music but have to play some utter drivel for a pops concert with Chris Botti or a soundtrack to a movie they don't care for.
They still have to get the line played well.

So, a fingering system is about having a reliable system of getting around the bass whether the music is striking us or not.

Also, all of us need to be able to play very musical "primary" material, other times we need to be able to play material related to structure that actually might benefit from being played in a more "matter of fact" way.

It is kind of obviously to say that it will be "better" when played musically. There is at least one LP that proves you can be one the most musical bassists that has ever lived, but, without an efficient fingering concept, you are going to get left behind when Dewey Redman and Paul Motian are ready to really get going!!

To me it seems pretty naive, to pratice something purely technical at home and expect it to come out musical in performance. Unless you are blessed with a lot of talent or expect a large degree of randomness in your performance.

To me it seems, "musical" is confused with "emotional".
Musical means, to connect the notes in a meaningful way via rhythm, dynamics, colour, direction, articulation,... Relations to the notes played before, by you or by others. This can be practiced.
Dancers don't practice purely technical. Neither do Actors.
The emotion or any other word you prefer can come on stage or not, but your stuff has to be there first.

 

[damonsmith]

To me it seems pretty naive, to pratice something purely technical at home and expect it to come out musical in performance. Unless you are blessed with a lot of talent or expect a large degree of randomness in your performance.

I wouldn't recommend practicing anything you are actually going to perform without trying to being musical. I think there are fundamentals the benefit from being played as clear as possible such as scales and etudes. Also, there is a lot of music we don't know until it is performed and my point is more that we need to be prepared for that.

To bring it back on topic: to be precise about an interval, you have to clearly be able to hear it first. Which finger you use to hit it is secondary as long as you make it precise and repeatable and works for you in the musical context you're in.
Your position is backed on where you are musically and I respect that.

I think you are arguing the old "fingering system vs. ear argument". I am sorry, that is a bad argument. If you can't hear the music you won't be able to play it. This is obvious, and isn't related to the discussion.
If a person hears well enough to want to play the double bass, they are hearing in an advanced way to start with. Clearly, if you are not hearing the music a fingering system will not save you. This is obvious. One is not the answer over the other. They are both the answer.
When a person approaches the double bass the least natural actions are the in the hands and body. So, that is why they need to prioritized - not in any way because they are more important than the ear.

Sorry, I can't help it ;-)

I have an early CD of Rabbath about his technique (it sadly no longer works on my computers).
He shows a 3 octave scale with pivots and crab technique. It's clearly a little out of tune at points but a musical statement in itself.
Why did he not choose to record it again until the intonation was correct? I don't think it's because he does not hear it or because he can't.
I'd guess it's because he wanted to show that his technique can help you make better musical statements by solving some "technical" issues.

Do you think he should not have published this CD because it's not perfect in every way?

I do not incorporate anything from Rabbath in my playing because it does not work for me but I think I can still see the value to other people.

When a pitch isn't the pitch we want, there are usually two reasons:
1. We didn't hear it well enough
2. Our body did not get us from preceding pitch to the next
In Rabbath's case, if I were guessing, there is a lot of evidence that he hears pitch well, clearly better than most of us. Since he was working on revolutionary fingering systems, the guess would be that the fingering system let him down.

Do I think he shouldn't have published the CD? Well, probably not! A CD for a bass method should probably not have such mistakes.
A CD of a performance is a whole other situation and has to be evaluated in a number of artistic ways, a musical statement in the case of a performance is going to rate much higher than perfection for many of us.

 

[jheise]

I think you are arguing the old "fingering system vs. ear argument".

No. Read my posts again.

This is obvious, [...]

Sorry, I apologize again that I bothered you, again.

One is not the answer over the other. They are both the answer.

I still think we actually might be less far away from each than it seems. I addressed that the mechanical should follow the musical which might lead to a non conventional fingering and you come off as a dogmatic the other way around. And when I point this out, you reply that what I'm writing is totally obvious and need not be discussed. I get a couple of likes so I might think that I'm on a good path here and others can understand me. You will point out that nobody wants to hear the naked truth and that you're not here to get likes.

I still respect what you write because you're a serious artist but I will stop posting in this thread now because you never ever give the impression that somebody can teach you something new or your position could be revised a little.

 

[damonsmith]

[QUOTE="jheise, post: 24034234, member: 45213]
I still think we actually might be less far away from each than it seems. I addressed that the mechanical should follow the musical which might lead to a non conventional fingering and you come off as a dogmatic the other way around. [/QUOTE]

You are right, I misunderstood, but, I also made that point as well, I totally agree. If there were a music that demanded it, it would be something to work out. I mean, people should even check it out now, and see how it works.
I have yet to find a situation where just one extra note was enough, whether in jazz, or classical solo rep. (which I work on at home) Or any of the many new music / creative music scores I've had to tackle.
In my experience, when I need more notes a shift can't be escaped. Since shifting is a given, a more stable position is a better priority than reach, which I feel Petracchi proved in the upper positions.
When I have needed more reach (in this case in a double stop), as in when I worked on one of the Scelsi solos, I certainly did use the the third finger in the context of a low thumb position! T123 is more stable than 1234.

 

[damonsmith]

I addressed that the mechanical should follow the musical which might lead to a non conventional fingering and you come off as a dogmatic the other way around. And when I point this out, you reply that what I'm writing is totally obvious and need not be discussed.

To further clarify: I think we are starting from the same place! However, I am dismissing it on the very same basis you are arguing for it!
I don't think there are real musical reasons for 1234 technique, and that is more about music jocks proving a point. You are saying there could be a musical application, and therefore it should be considered. I am sure there is truth in both positions.

 

[Co.]

I wouldn't recommend practicing anything you are actually going to perform without trying to being musical. I think there are fundamentals the benefit from being played as clear as possible such as scales and etudes. Also, there is a lot of music we don't know until it is performed and my point is more that we need to be prepared for that.

I agree. I just think, that I'll be more prepared to play music, I don't know, if I try a lot of different things (repeated notes, drones, scales, arpeggios, harmonics, multiphonics,...) with a lot different variations (tempo, rhythm, colour, posture,...) in a way that sounds musical to me. And what I accept as a musical sound is almost anything. I even like your stuff.

 

[damonsmith]

I agree. I just think, that I'll be more prepared to play music, I don't know, if I try a lot of different things (repeated notes, drones, scales, arpeggios, harmonics, multiphonics,...) with a lot different variations (tempo, rhythm, colour, posture,...) in a way that sounds musical to me. And what I accept as a musical sound is almost anything. I even like your stuff.

Yes, of course that is far more pleasurable and less tedious!
When playing music, I think we are trying to make things more presentable, sort of like dressing the music up nicely.
In practice or a bass lesson, there is an important place for the naked truth. Like going to the doctor or popping a pimple in the mirror. We want to get the fundamental sound as clear and unadorned as possible to see what we really have. Throughout the course of our practice there is another place for our musical aesthetics to come into play. As you point out, that can be a wide range.

 

[BrandonL]

So I wanted to ask: does anyone use the third finger in lower positions, how, and why?
Thanks!

Really big disclaimer: I'm a novice with much more curiosity than skill.

BUT, this topic of third finger came up in my last lesson and was new to me - not a 1-2-3-4 approach as I understand it, but selectively exchanging 3 for 2 during ascent at times for more reliable intonation and less hand stress, especially in the lowest positions. The attached article provides a description of one way of thinking about integration of the third finger that the author describes as a 'hybrid' approach. I found it very interesting, though I'm not sure exactly what to do with the information just yet...

 

[BrandonL]

I don’t use any four finger stuff, but I actually really like 1-3-4. The intonation seems much better.

Regarding the mixing of 1–2-4 and 1-3-4, I believe it is best to use 3rd finger for leading tones and 2nd finger for descending half steps. Half steps are irrational intervals, their size is not consistent. This fingering approach addresses this.

@Dogfightgiggle: I noticed you looked again at this thread - it looks to me that your comment specifically coincides with the article I read. I’d like to know if this is a technique you personally employ or have learned from a teacher at some point?

 

[Dogfightgiggle]

@BrandonL, My bass teacher would have a heart attack if I brought this up with him. Haha. At this point it’s something I play around with, but I’m not far enough along as a player to really commit to it.

I have been using the Italian fingering system for a few months and think it’s pretty cool that you have 2-3 centered in your hand giving you different 1/2 step options if you want them.

Really it’s not unlike the baroque flute which has different fingerings for A#/Bb, etc.

My version of what Dixon lays out in the article is to play 1-3 ascending up to E-F on the G string which I finger 1-2.

Descending I play 4-2 all the way down.

Pivots are all 1-2-4 ascending.

For a descending Phrygian type pivot (A, G, F# for ex.) I use 4-3-1.

Thanks for posting the article!

 

[Dogfightgiggle]

Just a quick correction to the above. The pivots, both ascending or descending, are fingered:

1-2-4 if whole/half
1-3-4 if half/whole
1-2-4 if whole/whole

 

[BrandonL]

Hmmm. I have no clue where/how the pivots fit in to this whole thing...I’ll leave that alone until I can chat about it with my teacher. I assume you’re referring to a pivot in the sense of the hand rotating up or down a half or whole step opposite of an anchored thumb?

 

[Les Fret]

Really big disclaimer: I'm a novice with much more curiosity than skill.

BUT, this topic of third finger came up in my last lesson and was new to me - not a 1-2-3-4 approach as I understand it, but selectively exchanging 3 for 2 during ascent at times for more reliable intonation and less hand stress, especially in the lowest positions. The attached article provides a description of one way of thinking about integration of the third finger that the author describes as a 'hybrid' approach. I found it very interesting, though I'm not sure exactly what to do with the information just yet...

Thanks. That is a well written article and thought out system. It sure makes some sense to play half steps in low positions with 1-3. I sometimes do the same in some passages. The 1-3 chromatic step in low position is more natural for the hand shape then 1-2. But I always felt guilty when doing that because we have been so ingrained with the Simandl 124 fingering. I think the best way to use this hybrid system is to use it whenever you feel it’s necessary or when it makes you play a certain passage easier or better intonated. But not use it as a rigid system.

In fact that is how I apply all fingering systems on all instruments that I play. Simandl, Rabbath, 4 finger. I all see them as flexible and I can mix them and use them whenever I want or when the music calls for it.

The thinking of chromatic and diatonic half steps and just intonation or playing ascending different then descending makes it overly complicated for me so I would not go that far with it. Also not all music is that strictly diatonic. And for some passages pivoting works better.

Thanks for sharing that article! I always like this out of the box thinking.

 

[BrandonL]

I think the best way to use this hybrid system is to use it whenever you feel it’s necessary or when it makes you play a certain passage easier or better intonated. But not use it as a rigid system.

Yeah, I think this was the intent of my teacher when he brought it up at our last lesson - he dropped the concept in a sort of intentionally casual way as something I could think about...or not...or maybe just a little now and more later...

 

[Les Fret]

Yeah, I think this was the intent of my teacher when he brought it up at our last lesson - he dropped the concept in a sort of intentionally casual way as something I could think about...or not...or maybe just a little now and more later...

Seems like you have a good teacher!

 

[kkenda11]

I have smallish hands and when in 1/2 position have to constantly fight the tendency to play the second finger notes (eg: A on the G string) flat. If I am not actively thinking abduction between 1 and 2 I play them quite flat.

I just experimented for a while with using Italian (1-3-4) fingering in 1/2 position, and lo and behold, at least for my hands, it is far easier to play all the half steps in tune with 1-3-4.

Hmm... definitely something to experiment with more.