The mark of a truly great bassist is his willingness to buy beer for the section.
great wisdom
.
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 Top 5 Orchestral Bassists
- Thread starter BrianMcAnally
- Start date
great wisdom
.
Calvin's last post has cemented Hal among the greatest orchestral bassists ever...
The mark of a truly great bassist is his willingness to buy beer for the section.
Beer AND Dinner. (There were about 12 people at the table as well), and most of them weren't even bass players.
Has anyone worked with Klaus Stoll? I hear he is a brilliant orchestral bassist!!
I forgot to add THIS link!!!!
Invalid Link Removed
"Preview" Klaus Stoll DVD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE....This man is UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
Invalid Link Removed
"Preview" Klaus Stoll DVD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE....This man is UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
There's a theory in economics (I think the guy who devised won the Nobel a few years ago), that, as it was popularly explained goes something like this:
On a given basketball team (for example) you've got Michael Jordan on one end of the bench pulling down $20 million a year + endorsements, and you've got the guy at the other end of the bench making 1/2 a million and happy just to be in the pros. In between is where you have your problems: there are some guys who are as good as Jordan and who will jump ship if another club offers them the chance to sit at the top of the bench; there are guys with Jordan's ego, but not his chops, who will make everybody's life miserable, etc; and guys who, playing under Jordan's talent and inspiration, will either play up to his level, or,realizing they'll never be that good - coast.
The economic issue is to evaluate the "value" of Jordan to the team, fans, etc - not just to Jordan's own bank account.
Was Jordan one of the "top 5" bassists, er, basketball players, in the world - Probably yes, not just because of his skills and his Nikes, but because he made the entire team play better under Phil Jackson management style.
Given that theory (as badly as I've expressed it) it's only recently that Kobe Bryant (post Shaquille) has become one of the top 5 players (again) because he's assumed a leadership position (again under Jackson's aegis) that's made his team play better (which wasn't always the case here in LA). The economic theory states that, in the long run, the better playing team is of greater "value" than the overpaid star(s). For proof, just look to the Knicks (sorry my NY friends).
So - top five - do they bring value to the team? Trembly & Hanulik here in LA and Robinson etc certainly do, not only by their teaching, coaching and playing, but also by their leadership and example.
louis
On a given basketball team (for example) you've got Michael Jordan on one end of the bench pulling down $20 million a year + endorsements, and you've got the guy at the other end of the bench making 1/2 a million and happy just to be in the pros. In between is where you have your problems: there are some guys who are as good as Jordan and who will jump ship if another club offers them the chance to sit at the top of the bench; there are guys with Jordan's ego, but not his chops, who will make everybody's life miserable, etc; and guys who, playing under Jordan's talent and inspiration, will either play up to his level, or,realizing they'll never be that good - coast.
The economic issue is to evaluate the "value" of Jordan to the team, fans, etc - not just to Jordan's own bank account.
Was Jordan one of the "top 5" bassists, er, basketball players, in the world - Probably yes, not just because of his skills and his Nikes, but because he made the entire team play better under Phil Jackson management style.
Given that theory (as badly as I've expressed it) it's only recently that Kobe Bryant (post Shaquille) has become one of the top 5 players (again) because he's assumed a leadership position (again under Jackson's aegis) that's made his team play better (which wasn't always the case here in LA). The economic theory states that, in the long run, the better playing team is of greater "value" than the overpaid star(s). For proof, just look to the Knicks (sorry my NY friends).
So - top five - do they bring value to the team? Trembly & Hanulik here in LA and Robinson etc certainly do, not only by their teaching, coaching and playing, but also by their leadership and example.
louis
I finally had a chance (and fast enough internet connection) to look at Rinat Ibragimov. Frankly, I didn't know what to expect. Some said he was "very rough and out of tune". Another defended his playing by saying he was only 'reading' Beethoven's 9th, so he wasn't at his best.
IMO, his playing was really fantastic - great sound, fantastic articulation, nice judicious use of vibrato. I really have no complaints whatsoever. But maybe I'm just not picky enough - after all, I'm not a conservatory student. BTW, he definitely wasn't reading the part - if he were reading it, I can only wish to read that well.
I also looked at Colin Corner's video. The man's sound in the lowest registers is like depth charges!
When I said quoted Francois Rabbath as saying that half-position was the hardest to play in another thread, this is partially what I think he meant - it is incredibly difficult to get a sharp, articulate, and powerful sound like Mr. Corner gets down there. Bravo!
As for the rest of Mr. Corner's playing - simply fantastic. Great sense of timing - patient and no rushing -, very articulate, and superb sound in the other registers as well.
IMO, his playing was really fantastic - great sound, fantastic articulation, nice judicious use of vibrato. I really have no complaints whatsoever. But maybe I'm just not picky enough - after all, I'm not a conservatory student. BTW, he definitely wasn't reading the part - if he were reading it, I can only wish to read that well.
I also looked at Colin Corner's video. The man's sound in the lowest registers is like depth charges!
When I said quoted Francois Rabbath as saying that half-position was the hardest to play in another thread, this is partially what I think he meant - it is incredibly difficult to get a sharp, articulate, and powerful sound like Mr. Corner gets down there. Bravo!As for the rest of Mr. Corner's playing - simply fantastic. Great sense of timing - patient and no rushing -, very articulate, and superb sound in the other registers as well.
Great post LouisF. I have been thinking about this thread a bit, and I'm not so set on this model. I think ranking the top 5 soloists is fine. However, the end goal of being an orchestral bassist is to have the section/orchestra sound as good/together et al. as possible. Since the best orchestral players unify the section, and in effect unify the orchestra, is it fair for us to rank the players individually? This seems a bit futile.
^ Individually? This thread was pretty useless to begin with if we did that. So I agree with your - a section is only as good as its bassists together.
As for LouisF's post:
It's really not much different - pro sports teams and bass sections. The team and section is only as good as the players or bassists make it together.
But otherwise, the NBA analogy is only good if you know squat about the NBA or are only a casual follower. I follow the NBA quite religiously. Over the years, salaries (also in the MLB) have become quite ridiculous - 'star' players being paid $15 million plus per year. It has become so bad, that some truly awful players are making $5 million a year for doing almost literally nothing (I'm looking at you, Jerome James).
The problem is not just that players are being paid ridiculously - they're being vastly overvalued based on their statistical production. On the one hand, you have your Michael Jordans, your younger Shaqs, your Tim Duncans, your Kobe Bryants, your Kevin Garnetts. These are the players you build your championship teams around, because that's what they are - championship team foundations. Then you have your Rashard Lewises, your Corey Maggetes, your Elton Brands, your Andre Iguodalas of the world - guys with very good statistical production, but not championship team foundation material who are being paid championship money.
How do you know championship team foundation material? By actually watching the players and how they play with the team in games. And nowadays, there are more arcane and sophisticated basketball statistics around now that may help, but you have to look at them carefully and with a slightly jaundiced eye because they're all still relatively unproven (or in some cases, not that good at all).
After you get that championship player, you simply build a team around him made up with a couple of star players who aren't exactly championship material, some good role players who know what to do, and a great coach (like Phil Jackson, whom I feel is underrated in what he does to bring teams together and win). But the key part to winning a championship is the championship player, with some exceptions of course (2004 Detroit Pistons)
Luckily for us, after years of overvaluing players, shelling out big bucks for everything from all-star players who aren't championship foundations to purely mediocre players, team owners and GMs are starting to feel their wallets tightening in today's economy. Not much different than other things in the market, like real estate. You have to be more careful nowadays on whom you spend your money on.
As for the Knicks - everybody who knew something about the NBA knew they weren't championship contenders, or even a playoff bound team. For a while, you had the Steve Francis and Jalen rose making a collective $30 million a year simply to suck. You had Stephon Marbury and his non-leadership abilities making $17 million. You had, count them, eight players making between $5-8 millon, each, who were all mediocre to some degree. It was a expensive team built to implode.
But in some ways, the comparison between bass sections and NBA teams doesn't hold water. Who exactly would be the 'championship player' for a bass section? And if there were a 'championship player' bassist, how exactly does he make his section great?
To me, a bass section is made up of many star players, some better than others. But they are generally all very good at what they do. And IMO, a bass section can only be as good as the individual players make it together as a section. It means that the players have to play very similarly together. Perhaps the principal would be the 'championship player', as the other bassists in the section would have to follow his style of playing.
So does that mean we're not so much ranking the 'Top 5 orchestral bassists', but rather the 'Top 5 orchestral sections'? I'm confusing myself at this point.
As for LouisF's post:
It's really not much different - pro sports teams and bass sections. The team and section is only as good as the players or bassists make it together.
But otherwise, the NBA analogy is only good if you know squat about the NBA or are only a casual follower. I follow the NBA quite religiously. Over the years, salaries (also in the MLB) have become quite ridiculous - 'star' players being paid $15 million plus per year. It has become so bad, that some truly awful players are making $5 million a year for doing almost literally nothing (I'm looking at you, Jerome James).
The problem is not just that players are being paid ridiculously - they're being vastly overvalued based on their statistical production. On the one hand, you have your Michael Jordans, your younger Shaqs, your Tim Duncans, your Kobe Bryants, your Kevin Garnetts. These are the players you build your championship teams around, because that's what they are - championship team foundations. Then you have your Rashard Lewises, your Corey Maggetes, your Elton Brands, your Andre Iguodalas of the world - guys with very good statistical production, but not championship team foundation material who are being paid championship money.
How do you know championship team foundation material? By actually watching the players and how they play with the team in games. And nowadays, there are more arcane and sophisticated basketball statistics around now that may help, but you have to look at them carefully and with a slightly jaundiced eye because they're all still relatively unproven (or in some cases, not that good at all).
After you get that championship player, you simply build a team around him made up with a couple of star players who aren't exactly championship material, some good role players who know what to do, and a great coach (like Phil Jackson, whom I feel is underrated in what he does to bring teams together and win). But the key part to winning a championship is the championship player, with some exceptions of course (2004 Detroit Pistons)
Luckily for us, after years of overvaluing players, shelling out big bucks for everything from all-star players who aren't championship foundations to purely mediocre players, team owners and GMs are starting to feel their wallets tightening in today's economy. Not much different than other things in the market, like real estate. You have to be more careful nowadays on whom you spend your money on.
As for the Knicks - everybody who knew something about the NBA knew they weren't championship contenders, or even a playoff bound team. For a while, you had the Steve Francis and Jalen rose making a collective $30 million a year simply to suck. You had Stephon Marbury and his non-leadership abilities making $17 million. You had, count them, eight players making between $5-8 millon, each, who were all mediocre to some degree. It was a expensive team built to implode.
But in some ways, the comparison between bass sections and NBA teams doesn't hold water. Who exactly would be the 'championship player' for a bass section? And if there were a 'championship player' bassist, how exactly does he make his section great?
To me, a bass section is made up of many star players, some better than others. But they are generally all very good at what they do. And IMO, a bass section can only be as good as the individual players make it together as a section. It means that the players have to play very similarly together. Perhaps the principal would be the 'championship player', as the other bassists in the section would have to follow his style of playing.
So does that mean we're not so much ranking the 'Top 5 orchestral bassists', but rather the 'Top 5 orchestral sections'? I'm confusing myself at this point.
Having grown up in Boston in the days when Bob Cousey, Bill Russell and John Havlicek (sp??) (among others) made up Red Auerbach's Celtics and having lived in LA in the "threepeat" days from Kareem, and Magic to Kobe and Shaq (and a few others), I think I know slightly more than squat about basketball. Actually, I'm sure I know more about it than I do about Nobel-level physics - and probably more about both than I really know about playing bass.
But...
I do think the problem of assessing "value", such as who or what is best - let alone the Platonic and Aristotelean issue of what is "good" - is a complex one.
Louis
But...
I do think the problem of assessing "value", such as who or what is best - let alone the Platonic and Aristotelean issue of what is "good" - is a complex one.
Louis
^ I know you were an NBA fan - anybody who knows that Phil Jackson had a lot more to do with the team than rolling out the balls during practice (a common misconception about head coaches for NBA know-nothings and NBA haters) is a true NBA fan in my book.
My points were buried somewhere deep within that whole mess of a post. I guess one of my points was that the analogy between bass section and NBA teams wasn't that great, at least as it relates to this thread. That's because I can't really think of principal bassists, as great as they are, on the same level of NBA championship foundation players - in the NBA, you either have the capability to be one, or you don't. Plus, there is no 'championship' when it comes to bass sections, so it's a bit hard to quantify.
And I guess another point I was making was on the 'value' put on players. I didn't state it explicitly or even implicitly, so here goes - NBA GMs and owners are for the most part, idiots. Sure, you have your RC Bufords, Joe Dumars, Rod Thorns, and Kevin Pritchards of the league - they're the smart ones around. But on the other side, you have your Billy Kings, Kevin McHales, Donald Sterlings, Jimmy Dolans, and Isiah Thomas' of the league - these are guys who are somehow in control of millions of dollars in payroll. Ah yes - don't forget about that moron from the Sonics who gave Jim McIlvaine that humungous contract in the late 90's when Shawn Kemp was being paid peanuts.
Are idiots around in the financial and business world? You bet. But they are usually phased out and eliminated before long. NBA GMs, on the other hand, seem to stick around forever despite their abysmal performance in evaluating players and/or appraising their true market values - the scapegoat for team failures usually lies with head coaches, fairly or unfairly. It's usually because owners are the only ones who can fire them, and they're usually pretty clueless as well - that's how Isiah Thomas stayed around as long as he did.
Another point I'll make now is this - sometimes, money and a simple collection of talent can triumph a solid, sensibly built team, although it usually doesn't. But it's more of an exception to the rule. The Knicks were a horrible example because they were an expensive team but talentless. But the early 2000's Blazers, on the other hand, are a very good example. If they hadn't blown a 15 point lead to the Lakers in the fourth quarter in the 2000 Western Conference Finals, they would have won the NBA championship, easily. But as I said, it's only an exception to the rule, and it never actually panned out.
But I agree with your final point - assessing 'value' is a very complex process in any situation (although it should be much easier in the NBA than those clowns for GMs make it seem). And like you, I know a lot more about the NBA more than bass playing as well.
My points were buried somewhere deep within that whole mess of a post. I guess one of my points was that the analogy between bass section and NBA teams wasn't that great, at least as it relates to this thread. That's because I can't really think of principal bassists, as great as they are, on the same level of NBA championship foundation players - in the NBA, you either have the capability to be one, or you don't. Plus, there is no 'championship' when it comes to bass sections, so it's a bit hard to quantify.
And I guess another point I was making was on the 'value' put on players. I didn't state it explicitly or even implicitly, so here goes - NBA GMs and owners are for the most part, idiots. Sure, you have your RC Bufords, Joe Dumars, Rod Thorns, and Kevin Pritchards of the league - they're the smart ones around. But on the other side, you have your Billy Kings, Kevin McHales, Donald Sterlings, Jimmy Dolans, and Isiah Thomas' of the league - these are guys who are somehow in control of millions of dollars in payroll. Ah yes - don't forget about that moron from the Sonics who gave Jim McIlvaine that humungous contract in the late 90's when Shawn Kemp was being paid peanuts.
Are idiots around in the financial and business world? You bet. But they are usually phased out and eliminated before long. NBA GMs, on the other hand, seem to stick around forever despite their abysmal performance in evaluating players and/or appraising their true market values - the scapegoat for team failures usually lies with head coaches, fairly or unfairly. It's usually because owners are the only ones who can fire them, and they're usually pretty clueless as well - that's how Isiah Thomas stayed around as long as he did.
Another point I'll make now is this - sometimes, money and a simple collection of talent can triumph a solid, sensibly built team, although it usually doesn't. But it's more of an exception to the rule. The Knicks were a horrible example because they were an expensive team but talentless. But the early 2000's Blazers, on the other hand, are a very good example. If they hadn't blown a 15 point lead to the Lakers in the fourth quarter in the 2000 Western Conference Finals, they would have won the NBA championship, easily. But as I said, it's only an exception to the rule, and it never actually panned out.
But I agree with your final point - assessing 'value' is a very complex process in any situation (although it should be much easier in the NBA than those clowns for GMs make it seem). And like you, I know a lot more about the NBA more than bass playing as well.
This is a very odd coincidence. Before his recital this past Sunday, Ed Barker was referred to as the Larry Bird and Magic Johnson of bass.
I say we start fantasy five squads: Barker and Larry Wolfe in Celtic green; Trembly and Hanulik in Laker Gold; and in guys from Philly, NY, Chicago, etc and let 'em jump ball.
Drake, seriously, all good points. If only I could play 1/100th as any of those guys!
Louis
Drake, seriously, all good points. If only I could play 1/100th as any of those guys!
Louis
there's really no competition. these guys are all too busy counting their money to care about such trivial bullsh*t.
really. the guys at the top have nothing but respect for the other fellas in their orchestral tax bracket!
It is incredibly rare to hear a working top tier orchestral bassist speaking ill of another such player. Even if one criticizes a style another may endorse, you'll almost never IME get direct smack talking.
really. the guys at the top have nothing but respect for the other fellas in their orchestral tax bracket!
It is incredibly rare to hear a working top tier orchestral bassist speaking ill of another such player. Even if one criticizes a style another may endorse, you'll almost never IME get direct smack talking.
here: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
you can hear a orchestra principal player play some excerpts
robert meyer
"....Respectively a member of the London Philharmonic, London Symphony , Philharmonia and BBC Symphony Orchestras. (Conductors include Furtwängler, de Sabata, von Karajan, Klemperer, Giulini, Bruno Walter, Koussevitzky, Stokowski, Stravinsky, Khachaturian, etc.) ..."
he also has an intersting blog:
http://robertmeyer.wordpress.com/about-2/
you can hear a orchestra principal player play some excerpts
robert meyer
"....Respectively a member of the London Philharmonic, London Symphony , Philharmonia and BBC Symphony Orchestras. (Conductors include Furtwängler, de Sabata, von Karajan, Klemperer, Giulini, Bruno Walter, Koussevitzky, Stokowski, Stravinsky, Khachaturian, etc.) ..."
he also has an intersting blog:
http://robertmeyer.wordpress.com/about-2/
lol somebody already made the slinky joke.....
but that kid was actually pretty good for his age! maybe he will replace rinat ibragimov in 10 years?
MY COMMENT ABOUT SLINKY WAS NOT A JOKE. THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT HIS EXCELLENCE.
Do not disgrace Slinky's name with videos of such terrible players. Spongebob has a terrible sound, no sense of phrasing, and poor timing.
This is the only bass video on YouTube worth watching:
Do not disgrace Slinky's name with videos of such terrible players. Spongebob has a terrible sound, no sense of phrasing, and poor timing.
This is the only bass video on YouTube worth watching:
