• 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 When (if ever) is it OK to "fake it"?

Sep 24, 2011
1,335
318
When faced with a difficult passage, (not a solo piece) where the measure(s) are overpowered by other instruments? And even then limit yourself to playing as many notes in the passage as relevant / your ability permits? Or shoud you attempt to play everything, as best you can, and within time?

Does it depend on what level of professionalism / amateurism you play at? Would a professional EVER not play a passage as written, no matter how difficult?

For mine, at the amateur level, I alway at least attempt to play as much as I can, in time and in tune but I question, when faced with difficult passages, if I should consider sacrificing quantity (number of notes) for quality (fewer notes capturing the essence) to match my own ability.

Look forward to your comments.
 
There are some sections of pieces that I can think of that I've even seen professional orchestra sections fake. The "Storm" section from Beethoven 6 is an example (though some people argue that it's supposed to be "for effect" anyways). While there is nothing in the repertoire that I would ever call "impossible" because of the rising expectations and abilities of players, there are also some sections in Nielsen symphonies for example that are really, really hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spaldo
I play in an amateur community orchestra (In fact the name of it is THE REALLY TERRIBLE ORCHESTRA OF THE TRIANGLE, OR RTOOT for short). We have our concert tonight, as a matter of fact.

Obviously, with a name like that, the orchestra is meant for people to 'have fun'. Many, like me, last played classical music decades ago in college.

During rehearsals I tried to 'nail' as many passages as I can, but tonight for the concert, there are several brief sections with 16th notes that I have never 'hit', so I play the beginning, dominant note of each 16th group as a quarter note. By coincidence, that is exactly what the tuba part calls for so we end up playing exactly the same thing. It works, at least on that passage, and I'm convinced that it sounds a lot better than scrambling and hitting a whole bunch of out of tune notes. If this were a higher caliber orchestra I'd have to get in the wood shed, but hey, I'm just doing this for fun.
 
Last edited:
I think it's dangerous to try and delineate what is acceptable faking material early on in your career. It is wise to make those decisions in consultation with an experienced professional who can tell you if something is actually playable or impossible. I started my playing career looking to cut those corners at times, and as I have advanced I have come to realize that I just maintained unnecessarily lax standards for myself early on. It's important to really put the time in and try to work out those licks in advance of the rehearsals. You may ultimately be trying hard and worried about the clarity, but you'd be surprised at how it comes across to someone else and how much more profile your "faking" has when you know which notes you're missing and which you're nailing.
 
It depends on your personal ability and context, and hopefully those two things align. If you are playing in an amateur/community orchestra, the music being created is typically held to a different standard than if you where playing in one of the best orchestras in the nation. While most music directors will select music that is within the reach of their orchestra, invariably that is not always the case. This could be because you are on the lower end of the spectrum of abilities within the orchestra, or it could be because that particular repertoire is significantly more challenging for your instrument than the others. Mozart at the tempos some orchestras decide to take comes to mind. His work is typically seen as relatively scalar and "simple" compared to other composers, but there are some extremely challenging bass parts as a result of passing lines from the violins to the basses and back again.

While it can be great for your bass playing and your understanding of music in general to learn all of these parts even if they are under tempo, sometimes you have to make realistic judgement calls. Accepting defeat too early when more diligent practice could make something within your reach is a bad habit to get into, but if your orchestra has decided to play Der Fliegende Holländer and it just isn't going to happen, a backup plan is usually a good idea.

In those situations I agree with in tune and in time, and leaving enough space for the players who are going to make it happen. That could mean the first note of the subdivisions, that could mean the first and third notes of 16th passages, that could mean a well timed cough that conveniently takes you out of the running for the bar in question. Most of the time those passages are few and far between so your contribution to the rest of the piece far outweighs that particular moment.

Professional orchestras are a bit of a different ball game. Many of the "impossible" passages are on the audition list as excerpts, and few professionals would admit to playing the storm less than admirably. If it is in the standard repertoire, then it is expected to be played. Some of the particularly challenging works don't come up very often, but they can also be extremely rewarding if you do conquer them. Modern works, world premieres, and really non-standard repertoire can be different. Some composers write things that just don't or shouldn't happen on the double bass. Depending on the amount of rehearsal time allocated to it and how long you have the part for it is expected that you bring your A game, but sometimes conductors/colleagues will look the other way.

Keep in mind that an extremely musical audience with an eye and ear for what the bass section is doing at all times with an intimate knowledge of the repertoire are the exception to the rule. Sometimes what they don't know doesn't hurt them.

Edited to say: I sat assistant to a fantastic principal bassist who pointed out the difference between our professional concertmaster and the amateur second desk. Game face. Learn to ditch the deer in headlights look, and especially the "well that was a disaster" look of defeat before and after challenging passages. To reiterate, what they don't know doesn't hurt them. Don't make it obvious when it doesn't need to be.
 
I think there are very few things in the standard repertoire which are totally unplayable when given an appropriate tempo. There might be a thing or two in Beethoven 9 I would rather gloss over, but there are people who can play it all just fine.

Modern music can get much more complicated, although I think generally people in this field are too quick to write something off as unplayable. Very often, the issue has less to do with technical possibility and more to do with practical concerns.

Sometimes a composer might throw in a note or two which require severe calisthenics to hit. If the failure rate for such a maneuver is close to 100%, I might try to find a way to cheat or otherwise re-write the passage. I'm usually not interested in hurting myself or my instrument just for music's sake. That's especially true if I know it won't be heard no matter what I do.

Sometimes I get a freshly-written score two days before a performance. Even if I can see how the piece could be accomplished flawlessly, I simply don't have the time to prepare it that way. It's a shame when that happens, but all I can do is perform some meatball surgery on it and hope for the best. If I ever play it again, I'll know what to do.

And sometimes composers don't even expect you to play what they wrote, and get annoyed when you do it anyway. Certain "New Complexity" composers come to mind.
 
A propos of nothing: when I was a kid in high school I played (and was co-principal) in the Greater Boston youth symphony. In those days (1960s!) the orchestra would play with the Boston Pops (2 weekends, half the youth orchestra with half the BSO at a time). One year we did the 1812 and Arthur Fiedler chewed the hell out of us for making a mess of the chromatic runs that come after those little Marseilles-type fanfares. We busted our butts practicing that week in bass sectionals. When I got to Symphony Hall, I was seated next to George Molieux (sp?) who was quite ancient, but still principal (Koussevitsky had brought him over from Paris).

We start playing (I, of course, am terrified next to Molieux) and my left hand is racing up and down the fingerboard to get all the notes, when Molieux whacks me on the left arm with his bow (hit by a Satory? Tourte? Geez!), and looks at me like I'm an idiot.

He just takes his index finger and slides up the fingerboard for the chromatic runs and shrugs in a very Gallic way.

I follow suit.

Louis

From a different thread, but I can't help but wonder whether or not this might apply to the idea of "If something is suitably ridiculous and makes almost no sense to try and play it as it is, just do something to fake it somehow that still sounds alright."
 
From a different thread... 'He just takes his index finger and slides up the fingerboard for the chromatic runs...'"

Reminds me of a video of the Louisiana Phil bass section playing the Verdi Requiem. Advance to 1:46 and see the section applying the "Stanley Clarke" technique. My former IU classmate Dave Anderson is at the head of the line with his big Prescott bass:



Sounds good to me!
 
By coincidence, that is exactly what the tuba part calls for so we end up playing exactly the same thing. It works, at least on that passage, and I'm convinced that it sounds a lot better than scrambling and hitting a whole bunch of out of tune notes. If this were a higher caliber orchestra I'd have to get in the wood shed, but hey, I'm just doing this for fun.

No point doing it if it's not fun, love to hear you guys!

I've had my share of doubling tuba parts, which can help in those passages when there's not quite enough rosin on your bow or you're just that little bit out...but as I was told early on, there's no excuse for bad intonation!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rickwolff
It depends on your personal ability and context, and hopefully those two things align. If you are playing in an amateur/community orchestra, the music being created is typically held to a different standard than if you where playing in one of the best orchestras in the nation. While most music directors will select music that is within the reach of their orchestra, invariably that is not always the case. This could be because you are on the lower end of the spectrum of abilities within the orchestra, or it could be because that particular repertoire is significantly more challenging for your instrument than the others. Mozart at the tempos some orchestras decide to take comes to mind. His work is typically seen as relatively scalar and "simple" compared to other composers, but there are some extremely challenging bass parts as a result of passing lines from the violins to the basses and back again.

While it can be great for your bass playing and your understanding of music in general to learn all of these parts even if they are under tempo, sometimes you have to make realistic judgement calls. Accepting defeat too early when more diligent practice could make something within your reach is a bad habit to get into, but if your orchestra has decided to play Der Fliegende Holländer and it just isn't going to happen, a backup plan is usually a good idea.

In those situations I agree with in tune and in time, and leaving enough space for the players who are going to make it happen. That could mean the first note of the subdivisions, that could mean the first and third notes of 16th passages, that could mean a well timed cough that conveniently takes you out of the running for the bar in question. Most of the time those passages are few and far between so your contribution to the rest of the piece far outweighs that particular moment.

Professional orchestras are a bit of a different ball game. Many of the "impossible" passages are on the audition list as excerpts, and few professionals would admit to playing the storm less than admirably. If it is in the standard repertoire, then it is expected to be played. Some of the particularly challenging works don't come up very often, but they can also be extremely rewarding if you do conquer them. Modern works, world premieres, and really non-standard repertoire can be different. Some composers write things that just don't or shouldn't happen on the double bass. Depending on the amount of rehearsal time allocated to it and how long you have the part for it is expected that you bring your A game, but sometimes conductors/colleagues will look the other way.

Keep in mind that an extremely musical audience with an eye and ear for what the bass section is doing at all times with an intimate knowledge of the repertoire are the exception to the rule. Sometimes what they don't know doesn't hurt them.

Edited to say: I sat assistant to a fantastic principal bassist who pointed out the difference between our professional concertmaster and the amateur second desk. Game face. Learn to ditch the deer in headlights look, and especially the "well that was a disaster" look of defeat before and after challenging passages. To reiterate, what they don't know doesn't hurt them. Don't make it obvious when it doesn't need to be.

A great, thorough, and thought full post, Mike; and my nomination for 'post of the day'
 
I don't think it's okay to fake it, however I do think it's okay to simplify a part. If something is too fast like 16ths, play eighths and play the notes on the down beat. I remember there's a crazy part in mov 3 of Tan Duns water concerto that the section actually had to recompile because it was vertically unplayable. I don't think you should stop playing but simplifying the part makes the most sense.