Double Bass Walking Bassline Theory Question

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by GUMMYJIZZ

The scaler way of thinking was a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about.

From Todd Coolman's The Bottom Line, on the subject of the use of scales and chords in bass line construction:


"CHAPTER 3: FUNDAMENTALS OF BASS LINE CONSTRUCTION

The three essential components of bass lines are derived from scales, chromatic passing tones, and chord tones. These subjects are discussed later in Chapters 5, 6, and 8. However, whether you are a beginning, intermediate, or advanced level bassist, the fundamental purpose of the bass line in all styles of music is to define root motion."


"CHAPTER 5: SCALAR BASS LINES

Before you begin this chapter, you should be reminded that a complete understanding of common jazz chord/scale relationships is essential.

Scales are just one element of good bass line construction and by no means the only one, as we will see in the later chapters. However, scales are very useful because their stepwise motion results in a graceful, flowing line. Learning to incorporate scales into the bass line is therefore important."


You may want to contact Todd and let him know that a major portion of his approach to bass line construction is "a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about". His email address can be found on his website at: http://www.toddcoolman.com/ . After all the years of work and study he's put in, I expect he'll be devastated to hear this news, so be a sport and break it to him easy, willya?

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally posted by Jimmyjazz

Dave, I would say the more traditional bass lines derived from the standards of the 40s,50s,60s played by the great bassists Chambers, Brown, Carter et al may have been linear but they were all firmly based on the chords and not scales. The scaler way of thinking was a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about.

That can't be true for something like "Kind of BLue" or other Modal Jazz records of the late 50s/early 60s - as on many pieces there were no chords and only modes or scales specified.

So Chambers' lines on KoB have to be scalar!!

 

[Damon Rondeau]

I took a little advice from the board over the weekend and transcribed some Paul Chambers stuff. You only have to listen to the first 8 bars of "Four" to hear scalar stuff, arpegiatted stuff, and the use of passing/connecting tones.

This scales versus chords thing is getting old.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by FLAMIN' FONDUE

This scales versus chords thing is getting old.

Word. It's like asking, "What's more important if you want to be a professional football player: Strong arms, or strong legs?" Unless you're a kicker, the answer is obvious.

I took a little advice from the board over the weekend and transcribed some Paul Chambers stuff. You only have to listen to the first 8 bars of "Four" to hear scalar stuff, arpegiatted stuff, and the use of passing/connecting tones.

That's what I'm saying, too. You need all of this stuff - arms AND legs.

 

[Dave Irwin]

Forgive me for beating the dead horse but my old teacher is a big scalar guy and he learned it from Oscar Petiford.

The whole anti-scale vibe is starting to sound like
the anti-peavey movement


Dave

 

[Dave Irwin]

I totally agree that any way the student makes it happen is cool. I think I said that too many posts ago.
By the way, I have a rare T-40 autographed by Oscar I'll sell you cheap. It was his favorite axe.

Dave

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Bump.

 

[PlattsADA]

First off, allways play the chord tones on beat 1 and 3 (well almost allways)

and second off, play somthing else between them.

If it's in the key and not the scale for the chord (you can think of each chord as being it's own key change), that's cool, it sounds a little more "in" while appearing "out".
Do whatever makes you happy.

Listen listen listen.

 

[kiwlm]

bump.

This is one of the threads, where after the 2nd page, I couldn't remember what the original question is, and after the 3rd page, I couldn't remember if everyone have agreed on an answer!

Example: If I'm in the key of F and I'm playing a C chord, would a "scale approach" include a natural B (as in a C scale) or a flattened B (as in an F scale)?

Since there are opposing views (Chords vs Scales), would it help if a poll is created for this?

 

[PlattsADA]

bump.
Since there are opposing views (Chords vs Scales), would it help if a poll is created for this?

Well in the example given, it doesn't matter.

What is C functioning as? IF you really really really are in the key of F, then C is functioning as V, so the Bb can be used to approach the C root, OR you can use Bb as a chord tone, and then use B natural as an approach tone. they are both correct.

Because jazz tends to modulate really quickly, I find that it's easier to think in terms of Chords than scales. The scales you should know the shapes of and the note names for every chord, for every mode. Usually when you play minor, you play dorian, although aolian sounds hip too with the b13... er flat six... And V is Mixo, and I is Ionian. you could play any minor mode over a minor chord, if you are using the tones in that chord to approach the next chord tone. (And of course each scale tone is really a chord tone as well, 2=9, 4=11, 6=13)

So really, just LISTEN. What sounds good IS good. That's becuase you're trying to make music. Keep that in mind.

 

[bwulf]

So really, just LISTEN. What sounds good IS good. That's becuase you're trying to make music. Keep that in mind.

I have to agree. It actually doesn't matter which notes you play as long as you play them in time and they sound good. Remember, the BASS DETERMINES THE CHORD AND ITS FUNCTION. It's an awesome responsibility. If you listen to the great players, it's sometimes hard to tell what note they are playing and it doesn't matter because it sounds good.
As far as the "correct" notes to play, that depends on the tonal center established by the ii-V-I sequence. It also depends on the function of the chord. For example, C7 can be the V of C major or C minor depending on the tonal center established in this case by the ii chord. It can be a secondary dominant in Bb, where it functions as the V of V temporarily tonicizing the V of Bb. It can be a IV chord in a G blues. If your in the key of C and you play a C7 it usually means your going to F because the b7th is not in the key of C, so the C7 in the key of C functions as the V to move the tonal center to F.
Most Western harmony, for the last 400-500 years, has to do with the half step movement of 3rds and 7ths. For example, in the key of C, the 7th(F) of the V(G7) moves a half step down to the 3rd(E) of the tonic(C). It's that old tension and release thing.

 

[PlattsADA]

Most Western harmony, for the last 400-500 years, has to do with the half step movement of 3rds and 7ths. For example, in the key of C, the 7th(F) of the V(G7) moves a half step down to the 3rd(E) of the tonic(C). It's that old tension and release thing.

This is true, and it's where the tonal justifications for some really cool changes come from. Not all changes are strictly V I relationships, but there is often some sort of tonic relation ship in there. Like mediants for example. If you move by a third, the five of three is the 5^ (^ meaning scale degree) of I, so there's a sort of V/I in a mediant relationship.

Alot of Jazz changes come from Impressionist music. Art Tatum is a good example of a jazzer who dug imprerssionists and helped to shift the direction of jazz.

if you study Debussy's "sunken cathedral" most of the mediant relationships involve a V/I in the bass, with the completion of the voicings fo the chords in the right hand being of a chromatic mediant relationship.

Somthing used even in bach's time is indirect resolution, or "deceptive cadence" which usually means going to vi. However, you can use a combination of a minor ii V i with a chromatic mediant relation ship to go to a half diminished vi (six on the major instead of natural minor six). Alot of times you'll hear jazz tunes end with a ii V7 I7, ii V7 I7, ii V7 IV13, or somthing like that as well, which is basically the same thing. Extended tertain harmony allows you to voice two chords simultaneously, while adding a whole new world of color.

Study chord relationships, and this will allow you to improvise on a set of changes given to you, not just within the changes, but to reharmonize as you go.

As a bassist you can end a cheesy soudning ii V I sound cooler by going to IV in the bass, while the rest of the band, unawares will go to I7, combining to make a IV13 in incomplete voicing, which is very cool. I figured this out on accident during a jam. It's a pretty standard reharm ending thing too, so try and find new ones for sure!

I'm still getting used to this right now, so those two are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head (and the only two I've had work on a gig, and both were on accident, but I was listening so I kept it, and then did the theory AFTER... okay well I did a little theory right on the spot, but I didn't figure out why it worked, just what the change i'd created was by playing what I had against the change given.)

The other thing is tritone substitutions. These are way cool, and while they sound more "out" than the extended tertain stuff (to me anyways), I think they are way easier to think about because you can isolatie them from the other changes and just play without having to thinking vertically. Tritone subs are really cool. They tend to be tritone subs for V7, built on b2, but coltrane did alot of stuff with them, changing the standard
I, iv, ii, V7, I into I biii, biv, bII7, I, as well as tons of other stuff that I have no idea about yet. They work really well for circle of fifth progressions, which is why you so often see those descending changes, like in the C section of Autumn Leaves... that tree that goes down by step is a iii7, V7/ii (or VI), ii7, V7 with tritone subs on every other chord.

Tritone subs are all based around the 7th and 3rd, which in a Dominant chord are a tritone apart, and which are the two common tones between tritone substitution and chord for which the substitution is being used. You still have the " ti do" relationship in the V/I, but the ti is really the 7th of the tritone sub, and the 3rd of the sub is the 7th of the V which goes down by step. Clear as mud? Sit down and play a V7 and then a V7 a tritone away, and see which notes you keep in common, and how voiceleading works for both of them and you'll get the idea.

So yeah, the reason any of this theory is around is just ways to justify and rationalize the use of sounds that players and composers have used. What it really all boils down to is music as heard, so LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN.

 

[kiwlm]

So really, just LISTEN. What sounds good IS good. That's becuase you're trying to make music. Keep that in mind.

I thought the whole point of theory is to understand why a piece sounds good and not? No?

We can play 8 notes ascending and think, hmm this sounds good! And later found out that this is called the Major scale. Then after that, we learned that if we stick to the notes in the Major scale, we will sound good. Well, that's a pretty rough example.

I guess sometimes the "what sounds good" technique is more for the professional players than the beginner players (like myself), where what sounds good to myself might not even be music at all in the professional's ears. And if something sounds good in everyone's ear, it must be in some sort of "standard" right?

 

[PlattsADA]

I thought the whole point of theory is to understand why a piece sounds good and not? No?

That's absoloutly correct, and is great for use when alalyzing solos and charts and stuff. YOu can steal alot of licks or cool changes that way. But it's dangerous to approach music from a theory standpoint instead of a hearing standpoint-- when composing, and *especially* when playing. It's really easy to force music using theory, and it often will sound exactly that-- forced.

We can play 8 notes ascending and think, hmm this sounds good! And later found out that this is called the Major scale. Then after that, we learned that if we stick to the notes in the Major scale, we will sound good. Well, that's a pretty rough example.

I guess sometimes the "what sounds good" technique is more for the professional players than the beginner players (like myself), where what sounds good to myself might not even be music at all in the professional's ears. And if something sounds good in everyone's ear, it must be in some sort of "standard" right?

Well, growing up and listening to the music around you gives you an idea of what sounds good... it's a process of enculturation. In south america, traditional musicians-- they don't think of high notes as being vertically higher and vertically lower. They also don't think that minor sounds sad. They use tempo to specify the emotional quality (all their music is in minor modes).

Indian music uses alot of really weird scales that can change depending on teh direction you are playing them, and the chineese even have scales with many more than 12 chromatic pitches, with tones inbetween the pitches we know of in western music. I'm sure that this isn't anything new to you. What sounds good in traditional chineese song sounds HORRIBLE to me.

While using theory can be a great leaping point for a starting player, and is definatly an aid that everybody should have under their belt (I wouldn't be able to play alot of what I do without it) it can also be a huge stumbling block when you start playing with the theory that you know instead of listening and discovering new musical thoughts that are outside your bubble of music theory (which work out in theory just as well, but you probably wouldn't have thought to use if you weren't listening instead of thinking theory).

 

[lemur821]

I guess sometimes the "what sounds good" technique is more for the professional players than the beginner players (like myself), where what sounds good to myself might not even be music at all in the professional's ears.

It's not going to happen that you'll play something you like and not have it be good. It doesn't mean a person knows what's good better than you do, just because they have more theory or experience under their belt than you. That just helps them know how to play something good, not to know something good when they've got it. Maybe it could be played better, but that's a technical problem, not a problem with the music itself. You have to trust your ears over all else.

And if something sounds good in everyone's ear, it must be in some sort of "standard" right?

Well, yeah, but I don't believe that there's any Universal Good Sound. There's always someone who won't like a particular tune, but you're the one playing, not them. Why don't they get out their bass? There's nothing wrong with playing to your audience, but chances are, you'll enjoy the same sounds they will, and so you'll play something they like.

 

[PlattsADA]

Well, yeah, but I don't believe that there's any Universal Good Sound.

Totally! Not everybody likes Ornette Colman, or Charlie Hayden, or Coltrane, or George Russel, or whoever.

Differnt people all have differnt sounds.

 

[PIZZAcato]

Thought I'd add this [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] video. I think It's a nice little basic video that we can take something away from.

P.S. I know more complicated things have been discussed in this forum but i thought it might be of some use.

 

[Plato]

A C7 has at least two chord-scales that come to mind, a keyless scale, and three pentatonics, ..., depending on its function. I won't tell ya, though -- you either know the answer or will have to do some homework.

Actually, if you are playing a walking line, the chord tones are going to be the same no matter what scale you are using. The purpose of the scale is to connect the chord tones. For instance, it really doesn't matter if you throw in a #4 on a C Major chord in the key of C if you place it in the right part of the measure. When you are first learning, it is perfectly acceptable to always use a C major scale on a Cmajor 7 chord and always use a b7 (mixolydian, if you will)scale on a C7 chord and a b3 and b7 on a Cminor 7. Is there more to it than that? Sure. However, you will find that an amazing number of good musicians will never notice much what you do as long as the chord tones are right. So get the basics down and you will be ready to get the fancy stuff.

Rob
http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/robreck

 

[Kickin'Fruit]

Wow - I get the feeling this has been made to look a lot more complicated that it needs to be. For a walking bass line, the scale you use should be based on the chord, not the key of the tune. Simple as that.

The key signature is only useful for reading a written melody, and has nothing to do with walking a bass line or improvising over chord changes.

For example, a C7 chord will always have the same notes and the same chord scale associated with it, no matter what key the tune is written in.

Functional analysis will certainly help, but the short answer is: ignore the key signature when you're soloing or walking a bass line. Follow the chords.

Would these chord changes be something along the lines (not pun intended) of say like Chorus, Bridge etc.?

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Would these chord changes be something along the lines (not pun intended) of say like Chorus, Bridge etc.?

Most common (besides Blues) is 32 bars AABA - so 3 lots of A - 8 bars with slight variations and then a "contrasting", "Middle" 8 or "bridge".

Of course there are many other forms - 2 X 16 bars etc. etc.