Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

[Ed Goode]

It's nice to see some on topic commentary
@ Pointbass. I don't know if you have caught the other thread going on here. Seems two of us started sharing Jeff's commentary here on TB at the same time.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f22/interesting-read-jeff-berlin-856715/
I think you may have missed some of Jeff's statements in regard to the different type of players/students , the varied semantics of & how he addressed them.
Jeff's primary commentary revolves around music lessons that are paid for.

""When somebody pays for a lesson then they ought to get some solid musical return for their investment. It really amazes me how many players just don't understand what a music lesson is about.

Then he asks after some question him:

""Could anybody explain to me what are the benefits to learning anything other than the good content that leads to a full understanding of harmony, melody, and rhythm that will make you a better player?""

"Here is a clear statement! Teachers that don't teach you music aren't teaching you anything worthy of your tuition. Teachers that don't assign homework of a purely academic type don't know enough about music to give this information to you. If you spend money anywhere, for any reason, to anybody, and you do not received academic musical content to help you to improve, you have thrown your money away. This is as clear as I can get! """

I am very aware of Mr Berlin's thoughts on this matter, and as I've previously stated, I generally agree in principle. But, step back for a second and look at the last paragraph in your quote...... I find that very harsh and easily misinterpreted by, likely, the significant majority of this board. I understand exactly what he stating, but disagree with his tone.

Realize that a huge percentage of TB have no idea about the basic mechanics of playing the bass, so they reach out to others to show them how to play the most basic stuff ..... Maybe as simple as "My Girl" ..... And they're willing to cough up some nickels to learn that. Where does Mr Berlin suggest they go for help? They won't be coming to me, cause I want no part of it, personally. But I would never tell someone they are going to a teacher that doesn't "know enough about music to give this information to you" ..... How does one gauge the satisfaction level between student and teacher if you aren't directly involved in the arrangement?

Again, at the risk of being too repetitious, I agree with him on many things, and Lord knows he is a seriously talented musician, but his interpersonal skills are, at times, lacking ....

 

[onosson]

bassmeknik - interesting comments on tab. I don't tend to use it much myself. I can see some use for it in some circumstances, although it's not really a proper substitute for notation in my opinion.

My own experiences are very different as regards the "employment opportunites", too. In over thirty years of playing paid gigs, I never did one that required me to read tab. Anyone else?

I've been gigging professionally for 20+ years, the past decade as a freelance sideman. I've only had standard notation come up a few times, tab exactly ZERO times, but nashville notation all over the place ~ as well as charts with the basic chord names (ex. G C D ...), that's usually singer-songwriters who give me those! And they're often wrong...

 

[onosson]

I am sitting at home tonight cramming 30 new songs for my recent/new pop rock band that has its first performance this coming Saturday night. Primarily I am playing along with the recording, mostly from you tube. They gave me a list and a CD with some of the songs on it and the rest comes from you tube. I find most of the songs I can learn most of in two or three listens, while the more complicated songs take a few more times through. Back to practice...

That's my standard modus operandi, too. Nothing beats just listening to the tune, IME.

 

[RWRLV]

I am very aware of Mr Berlin's thoughts on this matter, and as I've previously stated, I generally agree in principle. But, step back for a second and look at the last paragraph in your quote...... I find that very harsh and easily misinterpreted by, likely, the significant majority of this board. I understand exactly what he stating, but disagree with his tone.....

Ok! I understand & it's understood, but due to the fact I find a great deal of selective reading or lack of reading comprehension on the Net, & by format alone, intent is not easily conveyed nor sought out, I just wanted to point out to you & all who read your points, that some of them were addressed in other posts & that the keywords here are “paid for music lessons” being taken or sought out by electric bass guitarists. I, myself & as you have also stated, see through the tone & only focus on the facts but you are right that I did disregard that others do not or may not have this ability.

Realize that a huge percentage of TB have no idea about the basic mechanics of playing the bass, so they reach out to others to show them how to play the most basic stuff ..... Maybe as simple as "My Girl" ..... And they're willing to cough up some nickels to learn that. Where does Mr Berlin suggest they go for help?

PB, My interpretation of his answer to your question is this: Use your ear & the recording & figure it out for yourself. Why pay for it is the question. I get it because this is how I did it, then later I had music in high school & later still I joined H.S. jazz band & received instruction. Along the way I received some 5 minute tips from a neighbor guy or a friend who played a guitar for a few years before me but most of it was needle to record, humming & sweat equity at that point. I learned to slap, pop tap, pick, pluck etc. all on my own, flying blind or going to a library. Today's younger players have all kinds of options & visual aides but will usually pick the path of least resistance or effort in favor of instant gratification hence pay for something they most likely could have figured out on their own with a little effort. I'm sure you know the old give a fish, teach to fish & eat analogy? I guess that's why I get what he is saying & wish others would.

They won't be coming to me, cause I want no part of it, personally. But I would never tell someone they are going to a teacher that doesn't "know enough about music to give this information to you" ..... How does one gauge the satisfaction level between student and teacher if you aren't directly involved in the arrangement?

I guess unlike you I'm a fool. I have taken some time to check out local music instruction. I have spoken with many private or music store teachers & have even donated my time to tutor some students of & found that Jeff is right. These folks have paid for lessons & in return don't know anything of music content but they sure know a ton of licks tricks & how to read tab. I'm sorry but I find this sad.

Some assuming based on experience has to take place but if my teenage son told me he went to a five star restaurant , a famous chef prepared his meal & he was satisfied with his meal that cost him 150.00 bucks. I would have to ask him, What did you have? If he then told me a (insert fancy word) . I would have to ask, Whats that? If he told me a Snickers bar with turkey gravy & a slice of pineapple on it, I would have to tell him he was had whether he was satisfied or not.

Again, at the risk of being too repetitious, I agree with him on many things, and Lord knows he is a seriously talented musician, but his interpersonal skills are, at times, lacking ....

Here on the internet & in magazines in writing form I could agree it would seem that way, on video & in person I have found it to be different.

 

[BassyBill]

I've been gigging professionally for 20+ years, the past decade as a freelance sideman. I've only had standard notation come up a few times, tab exactly ZERO times, but nashville notation all over the place ~ as well as charts with the basic chord names (ex. G C D ...), that's usually singer-songwriters who give me those! And they're often wrong...

Most (but not all) of the gigs I've done since 1978 have required me to read standard notation. Maybe 65-70%.

With what I'm doing at present, my two main bands play from charts when we add a new number to the pad, even though subsequently I'll get to the stage where I can play without reading. My two "side projects" don't need much in the way of reading, but I couldn't do those gigs without some basic theory, such as being able to spell chords from symbols and so on.

Just for info and comparison purposes.

 

[Russell L]

Last time I done Maths permatations of 3 = 6 so for C triad that gives me

CEG -CGE -EGC -ECG -GCE -GEC

So with major + minor + diminish + augmented = 24 permutation or inversions....But maybe it because I am using metric LOL

Like i I said


Maybe I should have said "permutations including inversions"
"permutations with inversions" , but if it caused anyone any confusion I apologise.
It was not a point on inversions, but to show how a simple idea can be expanded from one premise to make learning easier.

But there are still only three ways: root position, first inversion, and second inversion. For instance, CEG and CGE are the same thing, still root position. EGC and DCG are still both first inversion. And GCE and GEC are still second inversion. It all has to do with what is on the bottom.

 

[Russell L]

Have you ever noticed that as long as you keep reading you never learn it? Not always, LOL, but it seems that way sometimes to me. I've always tried to wean myself off reading in some bands, if possible, but as soon as I don't have that chart up there I suddenly feel vulnerable. Some charts I've read for years and could not necessarily play the tune right without that dang chart. But, other times I've MADE myself just memorize some things. I really don't like to have to have a book in front of me all the time. But, it's always been there because it's so much easier to just read than try to know everybody's stuff so much. Of course, I'm usually the one who has to write the chart to start with. I always have it in my mind to use it only until I can remember it, but instead I often become dependent on the chart. Right now, though, I don't have any reading gigs, and I'm trying hard not to have to write anything down, except for some original stuff.

 

[onosson]

Most (but not all) of the gigs I've done since 1978 have required me to read standard notation. Maybe 65-70%.

With what I'm doing at present, my two main bands play from charts when we add a new number to the pad, even though subsequently I'll get to the stage where I can play without reading. My two "side projects" don't need much in the way of reading, but I couldn't do those gigs without some basic theory, such as being able to spell chords from symbols and so on.

Just for info and comparison purposes.

Yeah, absolutely ~ interesting to compare experiences. I never got into jazz after high school, at least not as a player although I listen to it all the time, so even though I can read, sightreading almost never comes up for me. Certainly, knowing theory is essential in any case!

 

[BassyBill]

For instance, CEG and CGE are the same thing, still root position.

You don't think moving the third up an octave to the 10th changes the sound at all?

 

[Roscoe East]

But there are still only three ways: root position, first inversion, and second inversion. For instance, CEG and CGE are the same thing, still root position. EGC and DCG are still both first inversion. And GCE and GEC are still second inversion. It all has to do with what is on the bottom.

It's adherance to inexplicable dogma such as this that explains why the integer model for pitch classification became so necessary in the early 20th Century! (I'm not busting your chops, Russell, just the pedagogues who teach Traditional Tonal Harmony this way.)

Anyone who thinks CEG and CGE sound the same is only listening to one particular quality of the sound! And even in a purely theoretical (sic) context one can't ignore how music sounds if one expects to be able to convey anything about what music "means".

I had a classmate in grad school who was so irrevocably trapped in the myopia of Traditional Tonal Harmony that she couldn't understand how a root-position G major triad had anything in common with a root-position E major triad! That's sort of the opposite problem as what Russell's talking about, but it's related to the same seemingly obvious (to me at least) oversight:

Interval structure is an important and very audible component of how chords sound, and hence how they function.

 

[Tupac]

I've noticed that most players who claim to not know theory severely downplay it. I remember I was watching a DVD of Flea giving lessons from about 92, and the whole time he would say that he didn't know theory and was playing with his feelings. Then occasionally he would go on to talk about jamming in different modes and techniques for playing in different chords. Load of malarkey.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

But there are still only three ways: *root position, first inversion, and second inversion. *For instance, CEG and CGE are the same thing, still root position. *EGC and DCG are still both first inversion. *And GCE and GEC are still second inversion. *It all has to do with what is on the bottom.

Well sort of.... but not always as it limits possibilites, it depends where you move the note to rather than its interval, but you have me dragging into the depths of my mind to try and order info I have not even thought about in over thirty years concerning "Figured Bass". Inversions In music are a multi- faceted subject depending on how much you know. For example the root note is not always used as the lowest note to be played first or last, the inversion of an interval will change it into something else etc etc. So much in music can be inverted with startling results.

But the point I was making in stating permutations and inversions is how to expand from a simple premise, again it was just an example to show how three notes can be viewed. That part is easy to grasp as inversions of a parent triad are only two, we treat the parent triad as already being present and it is not an inversion as such, it is the parent triad, so i used C and the intervals of 3 and 5 which relate to the 3rd ( E) and 5th (G) of C.

Now the bit I am trying to drag out of my depths is the of "Figured Bass" which I covered in my orchestral days, so that is where the permutations of numbers come in and are used with a single note, a sort of tab/standard notation system.
In this concept a single note was written in SN on the staff and a number or series of numbers written under it, so for a triad it would, look like a fraction 3/5, but all it tells me the inversion to be used or can be used, so 3/5 would be root from the written note with the 3rd and the 5th. Now this gave way to using inversions to change key from the same root, so 3/5 over the root would be major, but 5/3 over the same root would imply minor......maybe.
3/7 I think means a major 7th where as 7/11........ Well not sure now whether I am just inventing ideas out of the mists of time in my brain.

Now this is hazy for me, so anyone else feel free to step in and correct me on the subject of "Figured Bass" and it's use, if any to modern music.

I believe in some figured bass notation the idea was to allow the player to choose what combinations they could play from a given note by the use of numbers under the note hence the name "Figured Bass.... so it was prudent to learn all permutations of any given triad. ( I will use the word permutations so as not to be bogged down in the Symantec's of words and meanings as seems to be happening )m

Now I could google " Figured Bass" and see what comes up but I will just for my own reasons try and figure out what it was all about, like I said its over thirty years ago, and it would be interesting to see if any others have come across it, which I'm sure there will be amongst those that have studied Baroque music will testify to.
Strange I was going to write" orchestral music" but then the idea it was a Baroque thing came to me, so that puts me to thinking JS Bach for sure, Vivaldi, and Purcell as composers that would have used it.....depends when it was fashionable.

And now we have expanded to yet another idea, of valid, all from the one concept...which was what my original post was about. But in Figured bass you will need a foundation in more than just inversions of triads, you will,as I think about it, need to draw on your own ideas and experience....as sort of improvisation, but not free...more guided, but still open to interpretation by the player to influence the outcome of how it may sound and play.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I had a classmate in grad school who was so irrevocably trapped in the myopia of Traditional Tonal Harmony that she couldn't understand how a root-position G major triad had anything in common with a root-position E major triad! That's sort of the opposite problem as what Russell's talking about, but it's related to the same seemingly obvious (to me at least) oversight:

Interval structure is an important and very audible component of how chords sound, and hence how they function.

G major triad = G, B ,D
E major triad = E, G#, B

They only have B in common !

Also when I went to college, when they explained triad and chords ... CEG or CGE go under the same chord. Classical musician if they see CEG or GEC or ECG for them it just screams C major, they down care of the voicing. It is more important that you can say it is C major than anything else.

Same think in jazz, how you put the notes of the chords isn't as important as having all the notes that tells you it is C major.

 

[baileyboy]

Knowing theory doesn't get in the way of expressing yourself, it helps with it, in the same way that having a good vocabulary can help you be a more expressive writer.

Well said!

 

[Clef_de_fa]

Well sort of.... but not always as it limits possibilites, it depends where you move the note to rather than its interval, but you have me dragging into the depths of my mind to try and order info I have not even thought about in over thirty years concerning "Figured Bass". Inversions In music are a multi- faceted subject depending on how much you know. For example the root note is not always used as the lowest note to be played first or last, the inversion of an interval will change it into something else etc etc. So much in music can be inverted with startling results.

But the point I was making in stating permutations and inversions is how to expand from a simple premise, again it was just an example to show how three notes can be viewed. That part is easy to grasp as inversions of a parent triad are only two, we treat the parent triad as already being present and it is not an inversion as such, it is the parent triad, so i used C and the intervals of 3 and 5 which relate to the 3rd ( E) and 5th (G) of C.

Now the bit I am trying to drag out of my depths is the of "Figured Bass" which I covered in my orchestral days, so that is where the permutations of numbers come in and are used with a single note, a sort of tab/standard notation system.
In this concept a single note was written in SN on the staff and a number or series of numbers written under it, so for a triad it would, look like a fraction 3/5, but all it tells me the inversion to be used or can be used, so 3/5 would be root from the written note with the 3rd and the 5th. Now this gave way to using inversions to change key from the same root, so 3/5 over the root would be major, but 5/3 over the same root would imply minor......maybe.
3/7 I think means a major 7th where as 7/11........ Well not sure now whether I am just inventing ideas out of the mists of time in my brain.

Now this is hazy for me, so anyone else feel free to step in and correct me on the subject of "Figured Bass" and it's use, if any to modern music.

I believe in some figured bass notation the idea was to allow the player to choose what combinations they could play from a given note by the use of numbers under the note hence the name "Figured Bass.... so it was prudent to learn all permutations of any given triad. ( I will use the word permutations so as not to be bogged down in the Symantec's of words and meanings as seems to be happening )m

Now I could google " Figured Bass" and see what comes up but I will just for my own reasons try and figure out what it was all about, like I said its over thirty years ago, and it would be interesting to see if any others have come across it, which I'm sure there will be amongst those that have studied Baroque music will testify to.
Strange I was going to write" orchestral music" but then the idea it was a Baroque thing came to me, so that puts me to thinking JS Bach for sure, Vivaldi, and Purcell as composers that would have used it.....depends when it was fashionable.

And now we have expanded to yet another idea, of valid, all from the one concept...which was what my original post was about. But in Figured bass you will need a foundation in more than just inversions of triads, you will,as I think about it, need to draw on your own ideas and experience....as sort of improvisation, but not free...more guided, but still open to interpretation by the player to influence the outcome of how it may sound and play.

I remember to have learned that too. The trick was to writte the movement of the bass then listen to the chord ... is it the 1 or the 5 etc ... then you completed the chord on the sheet depending of the chord and the bass note of the chords.

Like the bass line could do : C, D, E, F, G, C and the chord on top was I, V, vi, IV, I, I

I don't think it is still used in modern music.

 

[TigerInATrance]

The fundamental problem with musicians and their relationship with theory is a basic lack of wanting to get beyond thinking in theory speak. Most believe that knowing the rules and being able to recite them ad nauseum is enough. Instead of internalizing and using it as a subconscious device that is expressed without hesitation, it becomes a thing which needs to be preconceived. It's like when you learn a foreign language and never quite get to that point where you can simply speak with another person at length without translating. I've found that countless musicians who profess a knowledge of theory are stuck in a translation delay much of the time. The fault for this is the way theory is taught. If I wanted to learn another instrument I'd have to go back and relearn theory along with it because there would be absolutely no correlation in my mind between the rules and how it applies to the way you play the instrument.

As for sight reading, I can't do it anymore. I could sit and work it out in an hour or two, but I have no use for standard notation. That being said, I'm not the sort of player who wants to get involved with playing the sort of things that require strict adherence to a written part. I much prefer learning the major themes and improvising around them. I also get delighted about what I call "spontaneous composition" where nothing is out of bounds and you really have to react quickly lest things get too strange (though sometimes that is desired and preferred...)

Which returns me to internalizing theory as it relates to a given instrument and the importance of making it automatic. I have played with people who claim that they an play by ear without any theory background, but in all cases but one their limitations are quickly exposed.

 

[KingRazor]

Jeff Berlin "Music, when learned correctly, guarantees that one solves the mystery of their instrument and how to play it. Learning music isn't complicated! But it does take someone that knows the facts so that they can pass them on to their students. A musician's personality has no place in learning music as music just IS! What one does with the information is where one's personality comes into play.
My definition of music academics is the learning of factual elements that make up harmony, melody, and rhythm."

For 5 years I have read commentary by Jeff putting down all the silly things people pay others to teach them or for so they may be better players. Him tell people that TAB will not make you a better musician or a player. That in order to be better, the player must learn factual elements that make up harmony, melody, and rhythm & learn to read & write it in the approved, age old method. Concepts that took place long before any of the voodoo stuff found in mags, videos, DVDs, guitar stores & right here on TB. How did these New Methods come to be?? I really can't grasp why a person takes groove lessons or Rush lessons over just learning the best musical content material that musicians were taught at anytime before maybe say 1980 or before the Beatles or ???. Could anybody explain to me what are the benefits to learning anything other than the good content that leads to a full understanding of harmony, melody, and rhythm that will make you a better player (& a good teacher to have)?

When I learned to play bass, I picked up a book. The book was called "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Playing Bass Guitar". It taught me the major scale, chords/arpeggios, the minor scale, pentatonics, and modes. I studied it pretty intently and got to the point where I could play the major scale in my sleep.

But after all that, I still couldn't play one song. I couldn't write bass lines, and I didn't know any bass lines to play.

Then one day I wanted to jam with friends from church when we were at a retreat. When they started playing a particular song, they simply told me to play F, then G, then Bb, then C. On the first and third frets of the E and A strings. So I did. Suddenly it all "clicked". Well, some of it anyway. I learned to play root notes over chords when handed a chord sheet.

Then I learned several songs through chord sheets. But I wanted to do more than just play roots, I wanted to play the cool bass parts being played in some of the songs I was playing. But sheet music didn't exist for the songs I was playing, so I sought out TABs. Were it not for them I'd probably still be playing only root notes.

But even after all that, I still don't know how to improvise or write my own bass lines. But the point I'm trying to make here is that I did the best I could with the tools I had available.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I remember to have learned that too. The trick was to writte the movement of the bass then listen to the chord ... is it the 1 or the 5 etc ... then you completed the chord on the sheet depending of the chord and the bass note of the chords.

Like the bass line could do : C, D, E, F, G, C and the chord on top was I, V, vi, IV, I, I

I don't think it is still used in modern music.

That sound like it, but if it was Baroque based maybe it's use was for string quartets. Also being that far back, maybe it has found its way into modern music in another form. Like a chord chart gives information, but the the interpretation is the players, maybe it was passed over for that idea and slash chords.... Or that's what it became for the single performer with more polyphonic instruments being developed that could play such ideas?

 

[Roscoe East]

G major triad = G, B ,D
E major triad = E, G#, B

They only have B in common !

I rest my case.

 

[Russell L]

You don't think moving the third up an octave to the 10th changes the sound at all?

Sure, it changes the way it sounds, but it doesn't change the harmony is what I mean. It's still a C chord in root position. See what I mean?

You could add other Cs, Es, and Gs all over the place above that one lowest C note, and it would still be a C chord in root position. Still just three notes, no matter what octave they're in. As long as there's a C in the bottom, it's root position. Same principle applies to the other inversions.