• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Walking Bassline Theory Question

Can anyone lpease more clearly explain how a IV "functions" differently, in say a 12-bar blues, than a I ?

Is this a tension/release thing or ... ?

Also, what would be a clear path of study to being able to overstand what this thread is about?

I have done time in a blues band, and might have to fill in shortly on a gig of theirs as their bassist attends an emergency, and I've been of the "sound like I could play without really getting close to actually improvising/playing stuff I was hearing" school all along.

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

There are several different kinds of exercises to help work on hearing these chords and how they function, is that the kind of thing you're looking for?
Splain me more what you mean.
Mr. Fuqua -

Sorry for being so vague. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Exercises to help me more clearly hear each of these chords as distinct so that I can recognize them easier and to then be able to better understand a particular chord's role in a given context.

I'm also curious what you meant by hearing the harmony from those 4 part chords.

All -

With a min6 the 6 is not flat - theoretically and/or in your respective experiences then, does the 7 (when played here as a color tone) have a tendency to be flatted more often than not or does it solely depend on what else is going on around you?

And I know that "what's the difference?" is a pretty weak question but I'm also curious how you all distinguish between a min/maj7 and a dom7?

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by TJC
Mr. Fuqua -

Careful, if you start calling him that, his ego gets all inflated and he starts getting his head stuck in doorways and stuff. Just FYI...


And I know that "what's the difference?" is a pretty weak question but I'm also curious how you all distinguish between a min/maj7 and a dom7?


A mi/Ma7 chord is a minor triad with a Major 7th added. A Dominant 7 chord is a Major triad with a minor 7th added.
 
Careful, if you start calling him that, his ego gets all inflated and he starts getting his head stuck in doorways and stuff. Just FYI...
:eek: Sorry about the slip - that was careless of me...

-

And sorry about the typo, Chris. What I meant to ask was how one might distinguish between a min/maj7 and a min6 - a follow up related to the question just above it (to flat or not to flat the 7?). I know that it comes down to whether the 6 or 7 gets the chord tone. But if someone were playing a min6 and throwing in the 7 as a color tone couldn't it also be heard as a min/maj7 with a 6 thrown in? Or would that just be called a min/maj13 instead?


Is that what those durn extensions are for?
 
Originally posted by THC
:eek: Sorry about the slip - that was careless of me...

-

And sorry about the typo, Chris. What I meant to ask was how one might distinguish between a min/maj7 and a min6 - a follow up related to the question just above it (to flat or not to flat the 7?). I know that it comes down to whether the 6 or 7 gets the chord tone. But if someone were playing a min6 and throwing in the 7 as a color tone couldn't it also be heard as a min/maj7 with a 6 thrown in? Or would that just be called a min/maj13 instead?


Is that what those durn extensions are for?


Sort of. They can be used to show specific colors that would be difficult to describe otherwise. But you have to remember that all of these chord symbols that you typically see in chord charts are going to be interpreted differently by different players of chordal instruments (usually pianists and/or guitarists). Some will add color tones that are not shown in the chord symbol, while others will tend to strip down the thickness of the chords at times by removing some indicated color tones.

Most chord charts are designed to fit the particular melody that they harmonize, which means that any note that is in the melody during the duration of any particular chord is a candidate to make it into the chord symbol. But when improvising over the chord changes when the melody is not present, you don't have to always keep all of the extensions of all the chords that pertained to the melody. For instance, if I were to answer your question

"And sorry about the typo, Chris. What I meant to ask was how one might distinguish between a min/maj7 and a min6 - a follow up related to the question just above it (to flat or not to flat the 7?)."


as a jazz pianist (which I used to be before coming over to the dark side), I personally would substitute the 6th for the 7th when voicing a mi6 chord, and often while voicing a mi7 chord. If you play the 6th in the voicing, it leaves the choice of 7th to the soloist. But if one or the other of the possible 7ths was in the melody of the song, I'd want to know that and be able to play it if that was what I was hearing at the time. And if a chord symbol read "miMa7" and there was a Ma7th in the melody, I'd make damn sure I wouldn't play the b7 in the voicing during the melody. But in the solos, nothing's written in stone...you kind of start with the color you're looking at on the page, and then let your ears tell you what you want to paint with it.
 
Then, once you are hearing what Ed is talking about you know what tools you can use. But, the only way to hear what Ed is talking about it to practice those tools. Pick the chicken or the egg. In your practice room.

A lot of times, what people are playing over a particular chord (usually a progression, not just a chord) comes from the mode from which the it was born. Other times, they are feathering over it a parrallel idea, other times they are substituting something completely different. Sometimes they're just lost. There's only one way to get through all of this and that's to use your ears.

When you hear things going on and you recognize what is happening, then you have more choices than when you don't know what is happening, in which case it's best to play safe and let the folks do whatever it is that they're doing. When you do recognize what is going on, the immature tendency is to follow along, which in a lot of cases may wreck the soloist's idea, so you have to learn when and when not to not follow along too closely with your lines.

Go forth, Grasshopper.
 
Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

'which scale might work superimposed over which chord...'

Well, I've typed relentlessly over my problems with this approach, you are taking your ear and your intent out of the picture whenever you decide before hand what notes you are going to play....


I've only been using that approach as a guide, but I am also understanding how limiting such a 'closed' approach could be...

Whatchoo talkin bout, Willis? Umm, you understand about how chords are built and how they function, right? The 7th has a tendency to be flatted on those chords that it's flatted in, but not in those that it doesn't. I'm not sure what you are trying to ask here.

I was talking about situations where the 7th is not part of the chord - as in a min6 - and is being used as a color tone. It was another way of asking about the whole modes superimposed over chords thing. I think that I understand. There are no such things as theoretical tendencies in that situation, because that would imply a closed (or strictly academic) system, right? Everything does depend on everything else.
 
Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
DURRL - and a fine article it is, too.

Thank you, good sir. It has been brought to my attention that I promised a second chapter at the end of that one. It'll happen, but don't anybody hold your breath...

TJC - yes, everything does depend on everything else. But it mostly depends on what you are hearing. So if you are looking (for instance) at a C-6 chord (C Eb G A), in what instance (you ask) will you play either a Bb or a B? Well, where ya been and where ya going? What do you hear happening? What does your quarter note melody sound like?
It's not so much that an intellectual distinction is made (this approach is academic) as it is practical, you choose the notes you choose because that's what you hear when you are playing a specific tune with a specific group of people.

To take that a step further (or is it a step backward?), remember that in minor, the 6th and the 7th are actually variables most of the time during solos. One guy may choose to play a miMa7 kind of thing over minor, the next guy might go modal with it, the next guy might skip over the 6th and/or 7th entirely in his line. Or the same guy might do all three things on different choruses. Questions like this come down to COLORS of minor (or dominant, or major, locrian, etc...) in which there are many possible colors that could be played at any given time, and you have to kind of feel your way through it to find the right one. Sometimes you nail it, sometimes you don't. Oh well...tomorrow is another day. As long as you are keeping your ears open when you play, and your mind and ears open when you review the results of your playing, you'll be fine. UNLESS you wake up one day and decide that you've arrived, and don't have to work on it anymore - at that point, you're ****ed.

Most of the time I see a minor6 chord, it's in some older music/early standard/show tune kinda thing. And, most of the time, that progression is a C-6 to D7 to Gmin (generally tonic minor). So if you put on your Berklee glasses for a second, doesn't C-6 (C Eb G A) kinda look like Amin7b5 (A C Eb G) in 3rd inversion? So you're looking at a minor ii V?

Excellent point. The terms "min7b5" and "half-diminished" are newer than the music itself, and they used to be called things like, "man....you know...that C-6 with the 6th in the bass?". There's a translation that needs to be made there, and often the gist of the translation gets lost. Bottom line is that when you read changes, you always have to interpret what you see to make it better line up with what you're hearing. Sometimes the symbols you are looking at do a poor job of describing what the harmony should actually be for any given tune.

So put up the 8 bar phrase that this example came out of, everybody is gonna be able to be more concrete if we know exactly what we're looking at.


Good call.
 
Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

So put up the 8 bar phrase that this example came out of, everybody is gonna be able to be more concrete if we know exactly what we're looking at.



Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Good call.

:eek: Ya got me. The question really didn't come from anything specific that I had heard - just a hypothetical situation. Now I guess I'll have to go find something so that we can get more into this...
 
You can definitely work out of the scale for that key. If you have one bar each
C-7 | F7 | Bb-7 | Eb7
You can work out of Ab major to cover it all. Makes for an interesting effect.

I hate to lay another book on you but if you can, check out Cornell Wiley's "Book to Understand the Book of Electric Bass"

Don't be put off by the title. Cornell is the best scaler player I ever heard.

He was a student of Petiford and really took it to the limts. It seems as though he works out of a scale for days.

Let me know if you need more info.
Dave
 
If you are a beginner to jazz and walking I would suggest you stay away from the scaler/modal approach to walking and concentrate on developing your chordal approach. This will help develop you ears to the sound of the particular chords and the harmonic cycles of the tunes. In my opinion walking lines and solos based on scales/modes tend to be boring and unimaginative. The chordal approach will develop your ear and take you away from thinking about what scale to use over which chord. You will hear how the chords function within tunes. Then you can start looking at chordal substitutions, cycling, extended triads etc.

In a nutshell - learn the chords and the chordal progressions forget about the scale/mode approach..
 
Chris is right about the execution making the difference. My point in the previous post was that you can, in many situations, cover sets of changes with a single scale. I think this is contrary to the idea that you'd be thinking in terms of what scale to play over each chord.
The short of it is, if a player dislikes one approach or the other, it's probably because they are personally uncomfortable with it.
I have heard fantastic players who play chordal, fantastic players who play scaler, and fantastic players who mix and match.

I assume Bach's ears were pretty well developed

Its all good. Explore and experience.

Dave
 
The statement I made was aimed at the beginner to walking and soloing. Its far more useful to the development of a beginner to approach things in a chordal rather than a scaler manner.

The chordal approach leads to ear development and internalization of the music thereby allowing you to express youself, your soul and your emotions...rather than running a note scale when you see a particular chord or group of chords(sic)
Of course thats not to say that the notes your soul/emotions/lifestyle/history/education/heart etc. decides to spew forth wont be a scale of some sort!!!
 
Sorry Jimmy but I don't think chords necessarilly develop your ears any better. Beginner or not.
To me, a scaler approach is not about running scales. It is about selecting notes from a scale.
The player has all the freedom in the world to change the pattern including skipping notes (producing chord arpeggios)

For the sake of soloing, a scale is realy no more than a chord (or part of a chord) that includes suggested passing tones.

I really think developing the ear is more about listening then anything else.

Dave
 
Originally posted by Dave Irwin
To me, a scaler approach is not about running scales. It is about selecting notes from a scale.
The player has all the freedom in the world to change the pattern including skipping notes (producing chord arpeggios).


For the sake of soloing, a scale is realy no more than a chord (or part of a chord) that includes suggested passing tones.



DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!!!!

Thanks Dave - that last statement was beautifully and pithily put. I'll be using that very statement with improv students from now on. Where should I send the royalties?
 
Well, here's a little something to throw into the mix. I was reading a Red Rodney interview the other day (from just before he died), in which he swears that Bird didn't know chords. Talking with a tenor-playing buddy the other day, he was doing a "compare and contrast" with Pres and Coleman Hawkins. He figures that Pres probably didn't know half the chords that were going on either. Maybe he's out to lunch, I don't know.

What both Red and my buddy were trying to say is that Pres and Bird thought melodically. They were not merely selecting tones from a pallette of scale and chord tones. They were saying something that made sense to them. The harmony suggests things that might be said, and provides a context against which they are said, but it doesn't dictate what you say.
 
Not to belabor the point - since FLOG EDHORSE and I have been through this whole "scale vs. chords" dance before - but whenever I hear a chord in the context of a piece of music, I'm also trying to hear what notes (almost always stepwise notes) fit in between the chord tones. Sometimes I use theory to help with this, but mostly I use my ears. The reason I like to be aware of what fits in the spaces is that, to me, MELODY consists of both chord tones and non chord tones. Granted, the chord tones are what make the non-chord tones sound the way they do in terms of tension and color, but I don't think I would ever play a walking line or a solo that consisted of ONLY chord tones or non-chord tones. Melodies almost ALWAYS contain both, so I feel it's important to be aware of both when improvising.


Also, I believe that the last paragraph of MAKIN' WHOOPEEAU's last post bears repeating, as it makes an excellent point.