Double Bass With so many technical exercises...

[Andy Mopley]

to pick from, what is your yardstick in determining what is working and was isn't? And how do you assess the value of each exercise, in terms of its immediacy, and results? How relevant / influential is the person that suggest their use to you?
We could take the long view that any exercises, if adequately practiced, will be relevant but even then I am not sure that this is always the case?

Regards to all

 

[User4843936]

The best practise I’ve come across has been developing an honest relationship with the parts of my playing that I’m no good at. Recently, the ‘technique’ that I’ve had to incorporate is taking a day off to get stronger between sessions when I’ve really gone for it on some exercise or other. Just like anything else it takes time to recover between one exertion and the next and I’m not a teenager like when I first started playing.

 

[jj.833]

To me, there's a classical tradition given by number of authorities (Simandl, Rabbath, Petracchi...) and smart playalongs (Aebersold, Goldsby).

Then there's a music I need to learn for my bands. I record the rehearsal and when I listen later to the record, it's clear what I really need to work on.

When I feel I'm not much moving on, I try something new. If I had twenty lives, I won't learn all I would like to learn.

I try to play music. I try not to play technical excersises without obvious musical qualities, like vomits (with one exception - Petracchi, which is a bit too technical to my tastes, but really well thought). I believe the main reason to practise is to 'enhance my head' and then the fingers will just follow.

Lately, I'm mostly practising scales, because it seems the best way to really clear my intonation, as well as to really learn to feel them. I feel the need to be able to play, let's say, F locrian, any time you wake me up. I devise my own excersises, probably because I'm too lazy to puzzle over Rabbath's fingering in his book 3.

 

[Co.]

I try not to play technical excersises without obvious musical qualities, like vomits

Are you saying, the vomit exercise has no musical qualities, or that you always play the vomit exercise with obvious musical qualities?

 

[jj.833]

Are you saying, the vomit exercise has no musical qualities, or that you always play the vomit exercise with obvious musical qualities?

I didn't write it clearly, thanks for nocification.

I'm saying that to me, vomit excersises won't make my perception of music better. Vomits will help with octave jumps on one string, will help with muscle memory of large transitions. But the music I hear when I practise vomits is so boring that I rather do something else. My today's compensation for vomits would be playing mode of a scale downwards and then jumping back up for another downward mode etc. Tomorrow, I likely find some other way.

I'm trying to say that when I don't like the music I practise, I look for excersise that inspires me musically, that I would like to hear. With this belief, I tend to emphasize practising etudes/songs over technical bits.

 

[garrett2]

Vomits will help with octave jumps on one string, will help with muscle memory of large transitions. But the music I hear when I practise vomits is so boring that I rather do something else.

Just to clarify I've been told by my teachers that the vomit exercise is not about left hand jumps but about right hand smoothness and evenness of bow stroke. I'm not sure if that's correct, but when you think about it that way it's less musically ugly.

 

[User4843936]

Just to clarify I've been told by my teachers that the vomit exercise is not about left hand jumps but about right hand smoothness and evenness of bow stroke. I'm not sure if that's correct, but when you think about it that way it's less musically ugly.

I reckon one of the reasons why it’s so eternally vomit-inducingly annoying is that you can find a whole load of combined or individual meanings in the exercise, for either hand, depending on which aspect(s) of your own approach you’re looking at.

 

[User4843936]

to pick from, what is your yardstick in determining what is working and was isn't? And how do you assess the value of each exercise, in terms of its immediacy, and results? How relevant / influential is the person that suggest their use to you?
We could take the long view that any exercises, if adequately practiced, will be relevant but even then I am not sure that this is always the case?

Regards to all

I haven’t actually answered your question yet so I’ll have a go. My yardstick when I’m looking at how useful an exercise is - how far away I am from what I can see as being the point of the exercise. Usually pieces that I’ve performed or have to perform coming up show up holes in technique that could do with looking at in the practise room. Yardsticks show up wherever I look for them.

If it’s the case that I can play something through and feel like I’m not covering new ground whilst simultaneously achieving all the goals that it lays in front of me, then I find a more challenging thing to look at. That thing that wants looking at is probably how much I’m not being honest with myself about how I sound, if I’ve taken the attitude I’ve described above. Any exercise can be played better by another version of me in the future that’s paid more attention to what I’m doing now or have done in the past.

So, the thing that suggests the appeal of an exercise is how much of a physical workout I can handle and the amount of mental energy I’ll have to spare when I’m taking on said exercise. All according to how ‘difficult’ it seems to me that day.

Anyone else can point out something that might be useful to look at but in the end it’s me that’s got to get the thing out of the case and play it.

 

[Andy Mopley]

Thanks all, I don't know that I've expressed the question clearly, so here goes attempt #2.
Let's say I identify a weakness with string crossing. I could use a) Zimmermann b) Sevcick c) find an extract from a piece that has string crossing and IS musical and play it. All of these exercise potentially lead to the goal of improving string crossing, yet does one work best and if so, why do you personally find that is? Adam has suggested the amount of physical / mental energy required, but what about the results from it, do you give each exercise a "use by" date? Eg for you, 1/2 hour of Zimermann per day is more effective than the same for Sevcick? I realise that to a large extent this will come down to personal ability / preferences.

 

[neilG]

Notes is notes. Play the exercises that don't bore you to death. Focus is more important than the material. My first teacher was a Zimmerman student, so I played the Red Book to death. A half hour of that at one sitting qualifies you for junior zen master.

 

[User4843936]

Does one work best? Suck it and see.

To be able to say how well a thing worked for you, you need to have given it a go and found something out. Then you’re not the same musician that you were any more, and you’ll have to try something else new to keep evolving.

Static measures of ability give you something to move towards. Or away from. You look back on them afterwards and wonder how you could have been hung up on something that seemed solidly to be one way or another. According to your own moves towards better or worse, you’ll need to vary what you put in to get a different output.

Try as much as you can whilst keeping things sustainably interesting. Too much interest is overwhelming. Not enough and you won’t see a point. In the game of giving use by dates, there’s only one winner. The use by date. You’ve got personal ability and preferences. You know better than me what they are!

 

[jj.833]

I can only add that I recommend to start a practising diary, if you haven't already. Date, how much time I spent, what did I play, and what I thought I learned this day. This helps a lot with evaluating your overall progress technical and musical, as well as with evaluating how effective each type of excersise is. Try it for a month and then read it.

 

[Les Fret]

Does one work best? Suck it and see.

To be able to say how well a thing worked for you, you need to have given it a go and found something out. Then you’re not the same musician that you were any more, and you’ll have to try something else new to keep evolving.

Static measures of ability give you something to move towards. Or away from. You look back on them afterwards and wonder how you could have been hung up on something that seemed solidly to be one way or another. According to your own moves towards better or worse, you’ll need to vary what you put in to get a different output.

Try as much as you can whilst keeping things sustainably interesting. Too much interest is overwhelming. Not enough and you won’t see a point. In the game of giving use by dates, there’s only one winner. The use by date. You’ve got personal ability and preferences. You know better than me what they are!

I agree. Try everything and see if it works for you and if practicing the exercise helps you to progress. What is a good exercise for one person might not help another person.