Talk:Double bass/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Slapping

I do believe that in the early days of Jazz, a man called Bob Haggart invented something called the syncopated triple slap technique. THis is described in his book on Bass playing. This does sound similar to that technique which User:Badagnani describes and I think therefore should be included in the article. I can provide a ref if needed!--Light current 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of years ago at the National Folk Festival in Bangor, Maine, I saw a young double bass player in an acoustic rockabilly-style group at a party at the hotel one night playing in this style. It was my impression that in that style of music he was playing it's not as syncopated as in some of the early jazz recordings. He was basically doing what is described in the article: plucking as normal for the first and third beats, then "filling in" with one, two, three, four, or more "clicks" in between." Occasionally I think he would do some sort of reversal or displacement, where the clicks came on the downbeat, somewhat like what some funk drummers will do to switch the beat around for variety. I was told that this young player had devoted his life to the study of this style of double bass slapping, and that he was known as an expert on this. I don't know who this player was or what the name of his band was, but I suppose there might be some way to find out. Perhaps with his help a separate article on the double bass slapping technique could be created and the information moved there to shorten the double bass article. Badagnani 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it is (was) a recognised technique in the thirties (Im told!) So whether it should be included Im not sure. I mean how far back are we going in jazz ? (or classical for that matter). I dont think a separate article would be desirable. Just a short mention will be OK--Light current 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jazz may go back at least to the end of World War I, with James Reese Europe's military band (which didn't really swing, but contained many elements of later jazz). He had various society orchestras which were ragtime-based over the preceding decade as well. Badagnani 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I called the National Council for Traditional Arts and found that the group I saw was from Maine, the leader being the rockabilly guitarist/singer Sean Mencher. The bass player was Shane Kiel (from the band Two Timin' Three, formerly of Massachusetts and currently of Austin, Texas). In the audio tracks on their MySpace page, the "drums" you hear (there is no drummer in the band) are actually played by the bass, using a virtuosic "slapping" technique. Blows my mind. Give it a listen. http://www.myspace.com/twotiminthree http://www.rockabillybass.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=shane-users Badagnani 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful how you throw the term "virtuosic" around. But anyways, the music sounds cool. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you saw the guy live you would certainly use the word. I just listened to all four songs and only two have the multiple slaps between bass line notes (the fourth, and, to a lesser extent, the third). I would argue that, of the four, the fourth track's bass part is virtuosic at least as regards this difficult technique. The bass players I've worked with, while great, have had trouble consistently doing one slap between bass line notes, let alone three or more at a fast clip. The bass parts in the other two songs here are not "virtuosic" in my view. Badagnani 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on progress

I turn my back and look what happens! I was going to comment on a version of the page I printed last week, but that page is in the bit bucket. Okay, so some off-the cuff notes on where the page is now. Some of these may be blunt, inflammatory even, so take them with a grain of salt. Some of these reinforce discussion above (to the extent that I have scanned it)

  • Overall the page is cleaner. Maybe a little too clean for my taste. Prose is now quite simplistic in parts.
  • Quite a few wikilinks have been lost - arco, pizz, bow, in section 0 for a start.
  • In Section 1 (history) too many one-sentence paragraphs. Bad writing. It reads as a list of dot-points supporting an argument as to why (or why not) the bass is really a viol. Or not. IMHO a bass is a bass, and its form and construction is a result of a range of influences and traditions, based on what worked (bassists like it when luthiers make playable sweet-sounding instruments, and so they spent their money there). Might be an idea to mention octobass here in passing. (and where is my quadrabass???)
  • Section 2 (terminology). Formal instrument name subsection is terrible. Is it derived from italian, or is it the size, or does it double? I always thought it was the "doubling" but not from a 'cello POV. In a harpsichord and organ, you often use a combination of registers - pull some levers that double any line, usually with an octave displacement. But this is not called double on the pipe organ or harpsichord page, so my version of this myth is flawed too.
  • Section 3 (design) is good. Drop sentence with explicit reference to "websites quoted below", or at least get the referencing working properly. Which websites, and are they quoted (or merely listed with hyperlinks). Look up the current WP guidelines and decide whether to have a direct link to the external site or an internal link like "... see the external links below"
  • Section 4 (Tone) why is the only reference point the electric bass? Comparison with 'Cello would also be useful.
  • Section 5 (construction) disagree totally on pegbox being important. It is a 20C innovation. Basses existed before then with friction pegs (I've played one). Machine heads are not what makes a bass a bass!! What is important to the sound of the bass are the arched belly and to a lesser extent the arched back, coupled via a soundpost. (some basses have flat backs). Front is usually 1-piece, but back is often 2-piece. Extremely anal nit-pick: weight not mass determines the need for a robust spike.
  • Section 6 (strngs) is OK
  • Section 7 (tuning). Maybe drop 5ths tuning, unless you can come across a good reference for it. Could be merged with prev section.
  • Section 8 (pitch). Is OKish. I am getting tired. Clarify: Bottesini as composer or player? Change "concertos" to "solo works". Maybe call section "Pitch and notation". Drop "extreme" as tenor clef is used for a 2-octave range on G-string. Picture of clef could have open strings and approximate upper range notated.
  • Section 9 (technique). drop inside leg measurement. typo: inefficient -> insufficient. Is there a page on general string technique so that we are not reinventing the wheel? (vibrato, bowing, pizz) Much of classical technique has gone astray. Probably worth mentioning that bassists often use multiple fingers to stop a single string, unlike other stringists.
  • Section 10 (Bows). Nice section. I think this section should be earlier, with other "physical" aspects. Maybe after strings. Put length of bow in first paragraph.
  • Section 11 (problems). Is this section here just so people feel sorry for us?? If this section stays in, can it be put in a more positive light? It could be useful to cross-reference the 4ths tuning to the problem with "reach". Carbon fibre and fibreglass variants should go alongside plywood in construction. Andrew's recommendation: get rid of this section totally, and distribute between technique and construction.
  • Section 12 (modern playing styles). Here "modern" is ambiguous. There is modern art music, modern popular music. Just list them all (arco, pizz, variations on pizz) under "playing styles" or "technique". Also note that many playing styles attributed to popular music (slap pizz) were known in classical music (partic 20C art music). Other classical playing "styles" are col legno, sul tasto, sul ponticello, but I guess they should fit in "technique". Andrew's recommendation: merge with technique
  • Section 13 (classical repetoire). I like this section. Ah, memories (I am not an active classical player)
  • Section 14 (DB in jazz). A bit short. Here you could actually bring in influential players, as they correspond to classical repetoire and composers. Mingus mingus mingus mingus mingus!! Maybe a description of styles of bass line other than walking bass, and how this has developed as jazz has freed up from 1950 on.
  • Section 12 1/2. Before the current section 13, we need a section DB in classical music, explaining its role in the orchestra, chamber music, and solo (rather than just a list of repetoire).
  • Section 15 (DB in bluegrass) I don't know much about BG apart from Edgar Meyer. I'll duck this one.
  • Section 16 (DB in popular music). Can we have a term other than "popular music"? Jazz was once popular (snif). The role of the DB in rockabilly was partly put down to R+B and country - the first mention of these forms of music in the article. I know the DB was used in R+B, but country?? I have an allergy to country music, so don't ask me. Trim paragraph on EB to a sentence that describes DB being replaced by EB as it more suited aspects X Y and Z of the music.
  • Section 17 (Bassists) either we don't include any names, or we include some jazz bassists and others that people think are noteworthy. Otherwise links to lists of players.

OK - the above are some quick gut reactions for others to mull over their worth, and to incorporate into future edits. Some of these are corrections that are quick to make (I would have made them, but I was not in "correcting" mode) and others require a bit more careful planning and thinking. HTH! Andrew Kepert 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Double Bass in Jazz

THis para seems to be very short campared with the other genres. Do you think we should try to balance up the amount of content on the different styles of music in which the DB is used?--Light current 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the section was much better a week or two ago. I recommend using that version as a template. I agree that this version does not do justice to the jazz double bass tradition as well as the previous version. Badagnani 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont recall anynoe removing stuff- certanly not I. Ill have a look at earlier versions to see whats there. BTW I lke the new pic - but is that the natual color or is it just the most worn out double bass ever!! 8-? --Light current 12:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the stuff and reinserted it.8-) Now the para is the largest and may need some pruning 8-(--Light current 12:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I note the last prargraph about Jazz Rock stan clarke and Miroslave has been deleted forgotton is there any rason for this?
Also I think Slapping is important But I disagree with elements / issues of projection. A well set up bass non amplifyed will fill a whole room and indeed project. A well knowin Sydney bassist (I'll see if I can find the book in which this is mentioned) useed to listen to Jazz bands on boat's out on Sydney Harbour in the 1920's and 30's His observatons where that the a good double bass sound carried better than even a tuba due to the wave length. I think the slap stuff would be better placed in the technique section.
Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Steve Abrahall 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--Steve Abrahall 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah its because the page is about double bass. Stan and Jaco played fretless electric. 8-|--Light current 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Stanley Clarke and Miroslav Vitous do both play double bass (Clarke playing both electric bass guitar and double bass). I don't think Jaco was mentioned above. Badagnani 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. But the para is really supposed to be about the role of the DB in jazz and not necessarily the players- although I agree its hard to separate the two. I feel we should only mention the pepole known mainly for jazz DB playing. But if we could concentrate on the role of the DB rather than the players, I thikn that would be preferable.8-|--Light current 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Right, there are really too many -- and they appear in the list of jazz bassists. But one could pick out a few of the greatest masters, Mingus being one. I guess a couple of others are worth mentioning, like Milt Hinton (who could be mentioned as regards slapping), as well as Gary Peacock and Ron Carter are others who are considered some of the best (like the Gary Karrs or Edgar Meyers of jazz bass, ha ha). Badagnani 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we could restrict mention to those who were actually innovators in the use of the DB. Mingus is probably one. Chambers another (arco style). But someone like Ray Brown (who is one of my favorites) I dont think warrants being mentioned under these criteria 8-(--Light current 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree with the above. Chambers worked with Coltrane and so did Jimmy Garrison (maybe also Reggie Workman). I don't know their individual styles well enough to tell them apart. As far as "innovation," Alan Silva and Henry Grimes were also good in "very free" jazz. Badagnani 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. What I suggest is that we all propose names here of jazz bassists with the reason for their importance. Ill start it off; Please ad to the list, then we can all agree on how to prune it to the bare essentials. --Light current 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As already stated Stan and Mirsolave did / do play double bass and incorporated it into the Jazz rock thing. The reason they are mentiond is that the Jazz sub article is written in a style that notes how the bass is an important part of Jazz and who and how that person contributed.
Just as a number of Bass players are mentiond in classical section/s. I think it's a good and important part of the article that we mention double bass players. And while we are on the issue of bassists I think it insane not to incuude Ray Brown! His solidity musicality and the people he worked with did a massive amount to liberate the bass! I don't think the musicans should be seperated from the article.
I don't know how old you people are but back in the early 80's it was darn hard to find out about Bass players (it still is although the Net and I tunes helps a lot)
I was of the opinion that this was a positive and usefull side to this article. You want to know about the double bass - music it is useed for and who made that music. May be this could be considered a positive function of this article? --Steve Abrahall 06:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AS I said earlier, we should restrict mention of players to those who have been major innovators on the DB in jazz. Otherwise, the section will grow out of proportion. I agree that Ray Brown was a fantastic, solid player, and actually my hero, but I dont think he was an innovator really. Also, I dont think it appropriate to mention players just 'cos of the people they played with. Sorry to appear so uncaring but we have to be strict to make this a good article. 8-(--Light current 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ray Brown thru his musicality choice of musical partners (Eller Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson) is an example of a truley great ensamble player, and solist (A not so well knowin album he did with Duke Ellington a few weeks before Duke passed away is an amazing, musicaly it pre dates a heck of a lot of work that people like Myer, Stan Clark and Jaco did ) His ensamble playing is as good as anyones he was the Fritz Chrylzer (sp!) of Jazz double bass playing! An exlemparary team member a refined soloist. He Set the standard for all Jazz Bass players! Shame on you! LC! :) Steve Abrahall

Yes. I said Ray Brown was my hero but unfortunately, I cant think of any innovations he made. He was just a damn good bass player. But there are other 'damn good bass players' Anyway I see he's still mentioned. I wont be removing his name (but I wont be putting it back either) 8-( --Light current 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed jazz D Bassists for inclusion in page

These are just suggestions- please add to/delete/amend as you see fit!

  • Charlie Mingus -- experimental, Composer for bass, Unique Harmonic language
  • Milt Hinton-- slapping
  • Bob Haggart-- big band bassists and inventor of syncopated triple slap.
  • Paul Chambers - introduced arco style Modal and impresionist influence, Miles Kind of Blue Album.
  • Scott LaFaro -- Musical and melodic virtuosity extension of the trio (the bill Evans work)
  • Neils Henning Oersted Pederson - great technical virtuosity,
Players can be listed by "substyle," as it is now. Slappers, big band players, bebop players, more modern arco guys, free jazz. Previous edits listed Bill Johnson, Wellman Braud, Pops Foster, and Milt Hinton as notable slappers. I've never heard of Haggart. Oscar Pettiford is also important for bebop, maybe also Jimmy Garrison. Plus the above mentioned Ron Carter, Gary Peacock, and Silva and Grimes for free jazz. Maybe it's too many but these cover many (though not all) bases. I'm not familiar with Le Faro or Pederson. Badagnani 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, I think we should pick one only from each substyle as an example of that substyle. That would give more than enough matl for the para! 8-| --Light current 17:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that sometimes there are two or three of equal prominence in a given substyle.
In reference to the above, I wouldn't place Mingus as "free jazz." I think he was more pushing the limits of the big band into more experimental territory. Badagnani 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK well these were just my guesses. Please amend the list as you see fit! 8-)--Light current 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • My preference is simply to edit the jazz section in a collective way until we arrive at the finest bass players, rather than create a hard-and-fast list of only which players may be mentioned. We can discuss here, but as we've seen with previous overly restrictive proposals, they can "box in" editing in a way that is not helpful to the article. If more editors even more knowledgeable about jazz come along, they may have amendments to the list. So my suggestion is to use the discussion to arrive at the main players, but not be too restrictive. Our collective judgement is pretty good, I think and if someone adds a player to the text we consider extraneous or fairly insignificant we can remove that player. Criteria for inclusion could include virtuosity, influence, and reputation as well as innovation. Badagnani 23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course that is one way of doing it. The problem is that we may get into an article edit war situation. I thought it would be best to thrash out the problems on the talk page first. Edit warring on the talk page is obviously not as damaging to the article! Im not sure if you are talking about discussing things on the talk page first or not! I thought this would be a reasonable way to come to a rough consensus of whom we might include. It would not be definitive, but just a gut feeling amongst we interested editors. Of course, someone elese with superior knowledge could come along and change things. But we have to start somewhere! I am not an expert on great jazz bass players but 'I know what I like'. However I am willing to be educated as to who the real giants are!--Light current 00:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was just worried that if we somehow forgot someone really great, through our collective oversight or because we rushed through hammering out the list here on "discussion" we wouldn't be able to add them in later. Badagnani 08:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course others could be added later. But we need to decide on the main infuential players here initially and reach some consensus. 8-)--Light current 10:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Meyer

Just letting you all know that I have tickets to go see Edgar Meyer tomorrow night. I'm excited. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is he? No its OK - I looked him up. Aha! Botteesini Is that why you suggested Bachs unaccomp cello suites to me? If so, can they be obtained written in the bass clef? 8-)--Light current 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've heard him play live a few times and have never heard an arco double bass player play with such "singing" musicality and flawless intonation. Any recording you can find of his should be great. Badagnani 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a lot of recordings by him. His recordings of Bottesini's 2nd concerto are amazing. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Light Current, the cello is usually written in bass clef, so yeah you can definately get Bach's suites in bass clef. You can get them for free around the internet, a while ago I found the Prelude to the first for free on a site, can't remember which one. Bottesini... damn you. Hope you have fun. Gnome
OK thanks for that. But the last time I looked at cello music in the shop it was in the alto (C) clef I think! Ithink it may be written in both! 8-(--Light current 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it can be written on any clef, but at least half the time in bass clef. and I've definately seen the cello suites in bass clef. Although I think there's one (the sixth) that was written for a five string cello or something so that one might be in treble. Gnome
OK Well Ill have another look in the shop.8-|--Light current 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Bottesini, I got to see him in Boothbay Harbor up here in Maine and I'll tell you, he is simply amazing on the isntrument. A number of my teachers have kind of scoffed at him, perhaps because he mixes bluegrass and classical, or perhaps because his style is a little unorthodox, but he makes the instrument sound amazing. I heard one of his original pieces where the second movement is played pizzicato and he just flew on the thing. Hope you have fun! Kntrabssi 01:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Propse to delist this article as a good article

This article fails many gudielines for a good article, poor referencing/citations, over-reliance on a single source, (in this case Paul Brun's book) confusion over established definitions of terms, or misuse of those terms, as well as a large degree of internal inconsistency. A list of items that need major attention.

Origins and History section. this entire section is a poorly worded paraphrase of Brun's book, but taken out of context to promote the specific and unverifiable viewpoint that the bass is a gamba or viol family member, and not a violin at all. Also makes this section contradictory to later sections (e.g. Design section)

Tone. Nowhere in this section is there an actual description of the tone of the instrument, instead there is only a comparison to the bass guitar. (electric bass guitar? acoustic bass guitar? That should be explicit and not infered from the next two paragraphs) This is inappropriate as it does not at any time describe the bowed tone of the instrument. Further, the comparison to the bass guitar is inaccurate. The presence or absence of frets does not create or relieve the 'buzz tone' that the article describes. Buzz tone is a matter of playing technique, string material and specifications, (particularly thickness and tension) and the individual characteristics of each instrument. This section should be replaced entirely with specific descriptions of the tone, or a media file of a few long tones.

Construction. again, a section that is inconsistent with the rest of the article. An unverifable claim that the bass is closest to the violone, followed by descriptions of the violin family internal construction. Perhaps merge this section with 'Tuning.'

Strings. No mention of the use of silk strings for solo performance. Specifying specific strings is probably inapropriate for an encyclopedia, doubly so as there is no way to describe the tone differences between strings without a basic description of tone. Also look at this-

The classic 19th century Franz Simandl method does not utilize the lowest strings in higher positions because with older gut strings set up high over the fingerboard, the tone was not clear in these higher positions.

If we cut the unecesscary descriptor 'classic' and all other places where such language shows up, we'll save space in a long, and somewhat meandering article. Besides, even steel strings are unclear in the high register, the advent of steel strings and synthetic core strings led to higher playing positions generally, no just on the E string. Simandl also avoided the higher 4th string positions because of the physical and endurance challenges in playing thick, high tension gut strings.

Technique. This section really describes posture, not technique. I think it should be rewritten to include a description of finger technique, or include descriptions of feasible technical agility on the instrument.

The middle of the article is extremely well written, whoever cooked up the sections on bows, practical problems, and madern playing styles, congratulations.

Repertoire. there is confusion here over what constitutes solo works. Everything described in this section is either an orchestral solo excerpt, (Saint-Saens) or chamber music. (Mozart, K. 612) The 'Solo Works' should be better labelled 'Orchestral Solos.' True 'Solo Works,' (non-Concertos) would be things like Bert Turetzky's D Blues For the Solo Double Bass Which has no accompianment part, or the adapted version of Ernest Bloch's Prayer from A Jewish Life. Also Mention should be made of work transcribed from other instruments rep lists. It May be time for a Main article on Double Bass rep, as this section could get out of control pretty quick.

The rest of the article is high quality, but there are still general formatting and citation issues. I feel this is a confusing article in it's present state and I'm looking for consensus to remove the Good Article tag. I won't unilaterally take the tag off, and I would like some feedback or rebuttal if anyone thinks I'm out of line. --Macjonesjazz

Well rather than remove the tag, could you help us to justify its retention? I actually disagree with most of the points you have made here. The valid criticisms you have are minor and can be corrected very quickly. THere is no need to delist this article as GOOD! --Light current 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I largely agree with Macjonesjazz. See my comments from last week --- Talk:Double bass#Comments on progress above. Macjonesjazz is probably better informed -- e.g. I don't have a copy of Brun's book. It is an "okay article", needing attention if it is not to be delisted. It is better than the dog's breakfast it was 6 months ago. Suggested strategy that I will start on (probably over the weekend) in the absence of other progress or objections:
  • fix minor problems
  • compile an agreed list of major problems and possible actions (e.g. starting with those raised)
  • wait for comments
  • fix those that I am able. I have limited access to definitive references.
Andrew Kepert 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


To quote my comment to Macjonesjazz's user page:

I invite you to contribute to the double bass article yourself. This is wikipedia, anyone can edit. Instead of only listing well-founded complaints on the talk page, it would be nice if you were a little more pro-active and edited the article to improve it while explaining your actions on the talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia!

— ßottesiηi (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bottesini - I can't speak for Macjonesjazz, but the reason I haven't dived in on the major edits is that the page a busy one. I took a printout a couple of weeks ago and scribbled on it, but this was completely irrelevant when I sat down to edit a week later, due to the largely positive changes made in that week. So I gave some quick feedback (not complaints IMHO) on the major changes. Some of the changes I am thinking of partially reverse changes made then, and are time consuming. Odds are they would be immediately reverted by wikipedians who are more active on this page. So such changes are better done with some consensus, reached via this Talk page. (e.g. I hated the "practical problems" section while Macjonesjazz and others like it, so for me to delete it, throw out what I thought was rubbish and salvage some parts of it for other sections would not be polite.) This is also how wikipedia works. If there is no comment on the points raised, I can't guess whether anyone agrees or disagrees, and so will lose interest in trying to make the page better. Andrew Kepert 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)