mcgraham

The 'difficulty' with music is that it is so subjective, and so variable. What one person thinks is musical is mediocre or crap to someone else, and vice versa. And it is artistic, not academic in the sense that something either works or it doesn't work. And that obviously has an impact on how effective and fruitful our practice time is, for if we practice mindlessly nothing but can come of it except perhaps technical prowess. I found that the most beneficial thing for me to do was listen and to listen intently, to pieces, songs, and especially my own playing. As you say, a scale is not musical [i]per se[/i] but it contains the [i]potential[/i] to be musical. So the simplistic explanation is to unlock the potential. What I did was to get inside the sound of the scale, notes within the scale, random/ordered/deliberate phrasings of notes within the scale, and to try and internalise what 'feel' they have. For instance everyone can identify a minor chord, major chord, or in terms of style, we can all identify something that 'feels' spanish/flamenco, we can all identify what sounds 'rocky' (I'm talking about melody and harmony rather than rhythm and genre here) etc. Do you see what I'm getting at? Try each scale and assign at least one word to describe each scale, and pick out one or two notes in each scale that [u]you[/u] think really underpin the feel of that scale; this way you'll start to truly identify what sounds certain scales embody, and how you personally identify their sound, thus internalising it and growing your musical understanding and making that understanding your own. Obviously, try to build licks out of them. Also, if you can loop a basic chord (be it a power chord or otherwise) or get an infinitely delayed pad, try noodling over the top of that. Once you've identified how certain notes in a scale (or intervals, bear in mind that there's only 12 in a given octave) through many sets of scales, you can start to appreciate, realise and cement your understanding of what intervals have what sound. Thus essentially opening your ears up to hearing all sorts of ideas and knowing how to move about in a given key (or keys!) to achieve a given sound. Does that make sense? It is highly conceptual and, as we've said, very subjective. So don't worry too much if it doesn't click straight away, but keep working at it! Mark

I don't regret selling anything I do however have purchases I regret making. I've made most of, if not all of my money back on them, and ultimately learned from these purchases that turned out to not be right for me, but I've never sold or given away anything I wasn't happy to move on. Mark

I think I know which shape you're referring to, it's a very elegant shape... and the fact that it's an Alembic doesn't exactly inhibit it's desirability There's quite substantial mass to the bottom of the bass (near the bridge) is there not? Mark

Great minds think alike ... but fools seldom differ? I did it when I was at uni. I used to sit in the Warwick Arts Centre with my bass (or guitar!) and a Pandora and practice between lectures, but I needed to sit rather than stand, and not all chairs were as good as stools, so I adjusted it for that. It meant I got hours and hours in every day and you only feel self conscious for while. I agree about the neck dive issue with most basses, although proper positioning at least when seated seems to help. My Geddy had only slight neckdive, but it was enough to irritate me seeing as it was my main bass, all the little things count as you know. I shifted the strap pin about 2-3 inches around towards the top (when strapped on) which helped a little, but the new neck has 3 over 1 tuning arrangement ala musicman with ultralite tuners. It now balances perfectly with even a slippery strap. Mark

Thanks Mat! It's good to read yours too, sounds like we've arrived at quite similar opinions from our respective start points; glad to see there's someone else who takes the same view as me! With regard to the classical guitar sitting position I [i]totally[/i] agree. I don't understand how I, or anyone else, could ever have coped playing with the bass on their plucking hand side. Whilst I tend to stand to practice, when revamping my technique (at the start of, always ongoing) I practiced seated like Willis advocates. However, I found that the complete classical positioning i.e. bass locked between left leg & right leg and coupled with arm positioning was too high for comfort. Not in terms of access to the frets (which is obviously great when worn high), but I felt a noticeable tension (or at least restriction) in my arms when they were bent at less than 90' due to the high seating of the bass. So I opted for a different approach. It's hard to explain concisely, but I'll try. Imagine Willis's seating with feet flat on the floor, but then sling them back under the chair slightly, so instead of your thighs being parallel with the floor they are inclined at... perhaps... 60' to it? round about that mark. Then adjust the strap on your bass so that the bass is positioned by your thighs (as before) but almost totally supported by the strap. Does that make sense? I found that this approach greatly relieved the perceived restriction in my arms due to the lower seating of the bass, whilst maintaining the position of the bass wherein it is more parallel with your body (from above) and at a 'more correct' angle (from the front), thus providing correct and easy posture. Like you say, straight wrist, floating thumb (or anchored) is easy on the right hand AND 1-2-3-4 fingering doesn't cause a bent wrist on the left hand. I think that the adjustment I went for is a good compromise for how my body behaves (i.e. the restriction in the arms) and what I perceive to be the (generally) correct technique to aim for. Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense! Mark

Great posts there! I have to say I disagree with regard to the free stroke not being strong enough (in tone) or efficient enough. I recognise that the 'thump' after a free stroke is useful to beef up the tone, however I preferred (and still do prefer to an extent) the cleanness of each note played free stroke. I too have sat down and examined the two techniques, and the reason I did not opt for free strokes in my two finger playing was that (in conjunction with the floating thumb) the hand position was too tense and slightly contorted. From an (in)effiency perspective, I don't agree that free strokes are inefficient. If you adopt the stance that Willis teaches which is to replace your finger that has just plucked a string (e.g. index) onto the next string to be plucked once the following finger (e.g. middle) has plucked, then the change in direction occurs very naturally and the faster you go (when the difference really counts) the distance they travel is much smaller before you change their direction. However, saying that, I have opted for rest strokes, so I think that says which I prefer Re: Recorded and live playing; absolutely, sound is first and foremost, technique should serve that first. I'm hugely anal about my sound, I practice almost exclusively through headphones (mostly eq'd to take some of the bass out) so I can hear every mistake, extraneous noises, bad/weak notes etc that I make so as to excise them from my playing. And every technique that I pick up I examine as I improve to find what works and what doesn't. I like clean, I don't fret noise, buzz or anything but the notes (a slight oversimplification of my preferences but that isn't for this topic). My rule is, if you (and/or your bass) sound good/great going direct into a desk or quality headphones, then it'll sound great through even a poor amp. Re: Tony Grey; his technique has changed a bit over the last few years. I wouldn't say he always uses floating thumb, at least from the vids I've seen. Older ones of him performing 'If' & 'Kung Fu World champion' he uses free strokes (almost exclusively) and has his thumb anchored practically parallel to the B/E strings. Looked really uncomfortable. However I agree in 'Return of the Kung Fu world champion' he looks like he's using floating thumb, but still with free strokes. Are there any videos you've checked out that are worth looking at for his new style? Re: your unfortunate (but ultimately beneficial!) studio gig; there are an ABSURD number of players, and players considered to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, that play with shockingly noisy playing styles. For instance, even with two fingers, Matt Garrison has a disturbing amount of extraneous noise going on for someone who is touted as being at the cutting edge of bass as an instrument. Tony Grey isn't far behind that either, have a listen to his solo on album version of 'Kung Fu World Champion', there's moments of some quite serious lower string ringing. Gary Willis on the other hand I can always trust that his sound will only be what he wants you to hear. On the other hand, that does encourage me to not get too hung up on extreme muting analness Mark

That's awesome! Congratulations on a well thought out gift. One question springs to mind though, how did you [i]not[/i] notice that your bass was missing a scratchplate for said period of time? Mark

Gotcha. That's another great thing about the technique, you could (theoretically) have a bass with a course of strings as wide as your arm is long and you'd still (theoretically) be able to mute all of them. So the physical difficulty in changing to an instrument with more strings is reduced to the left hand. And if your technique is also correct there (that discussion is for another topic ) then the problem purely becomes getting used to the general physicality of the new instrument and adjusting your mental approach. Mark

[quote]Also, although this technique has many benefits, I'm not too convinced of its worth on 4 bangers[/quote] Whilst I will acknowledge that sympathetic and other extraneous vibrations are easier to avoid and less of a problem on 4 string basses, I completely see it's worth on all instruments. You are not 'attached' to anything on your bass in the same way that you are with anchoring, therefore you are significantly more free to move around. The wrist does not need to stretch, bend, or do anything other than stay relaxed and keep the tendons that control your fingers in place. What[i]ever[/i] instrument you play, with however many strings, this can [i]only[/i] be a good thing. Mark

[quote]Fretlesses are a different matter, but I can imagine that two materials of equal hardness and stiffness would be indistinguishable. I remember reading somewhere about a guy who was making fingerboards from glass and granite... would be interesting.[/quote] Speaking of glass fingerboards, Ned Evett is the supporting act for Satriani's concert in Nottingham tonight, which I am seriously stoked about. Anybody else going? Mark

I think it does make a difference, by the laws of physics it really has to. However I think that the difference that people say/think it makes is greatly disproportionate to how big a role it actually plays in the sound, particularly in electric instruments. I happen to have those clips from talkbass saved and labelled if anyone would like to have a test on here. Am I right in remembering that it was the same test bass just with a swapped neck? Mark

[quote]My fiance hates any of my basses thats sunburst. But i love sunburst. Otherwise she doesant really get bass, She knows its important to the song but cant really stand to hear it on its own without a band. Or maybe its because i cant play![/quote] Are you saying that she can't stand to listen to a bass, if the bass is sunburst?! I know that woman can be downright illogical at times but that is something else! For many reasons I'm pretty sure my fiancee likes the bass, particularly when I'm playing it. Apparently I stick my pec's out when playing? Mark EDIT: Yes I'm sure it's my pec's... you dirty minded people

It is a great technique isn't it You should find it gets easier with practice. Another benefit of it is that it teaches/enables you to relax, and (particularly on the low strings) you find your thumb is free to chuck in other notes should you want to. It's just a wonderfully neutral hand position for all manner of techniques. Mark

free strokes can sound weak i agree. although i found that most free stroke users tend to pluck outwards from the strings, and provide very little contact with the strings. however if you start the pluck of the free stroke with the same sort of contact and action that you would a rest stroke, you get a really thick and defined note. the only difference is it doesn't rest on the string below. in fact i'd describe it almost as a rest stroke but where the follow through JUST misses the string below i.e. almost grazes the top of the lower string. re; muting, that was one of the main reasons i went back to develop my 2 finger technique. i muted by dragging my index behind the movement of my other fingers, thus damping any extraneous vibrations or ringing strings from changing strings. however said muting technique couldn't cope with anything as intricate as lots of repeated string changes. hence, 2 fingers and floating thumb. the electric bass is indeed a young instrument, and the fact that it borrows so heavily from guitar and upright bass makes it hard to settle on which techniques from each camp lend themselves to the electric bass better mark

Gary Willis is great. As you say he is one of the few bass players that has a true system. Although I'd (objectively) say that the reasoning behind his technique has some inherent flaws. Specifically that he advocates using the third finger to always ascend. What about when you only want to do one note per string? He switches to a completely different posture (Boo! Hiss! Inefficient!) What about when you are doing TWO notes per string (ala double picking exercises on guitar)...uhhh, effectively learning to play 2 finger with just your middle and ring fingers... hmmm, that doesn't sound efficient? Particularly with time invested. Also, if you check out Youtube there's a vid when he explains most of his technique excellently, then just adds 'oh and I just rake, like most bassplayers'. Objectively speaking that's a pretty weak argument for using rest strokes. There are some excellent advantages to free strokes. XB, I'm not sure if you've ever used free strokes as a main playing style but I find that I automatically utilize them (drawing from the free stroke method of the 4 finger/Garrison technique) for string skipping, particularly double octaves. I'm of the opinion that rest strokes are not particularly advantageous at all skipping more than one string at a time, be it up or down. You're in contact with a string with at least one finger at any given time (unlike free strokes) which (for lack of a better explanation) gets you somewhat 'tangled up' in the strings. Ramps helps with this and a light touch helps too, but perhaps try using free strokes or work on getting your rest strokes 'more' free of contact with the resting strings? I recognise that you are a teacher and Institute grad so I won't attempt to lecture you tis simply a sharing of what has worked for me. Mark

[quote]as I am a grade 8 classical guitarist[/quote] That must help! [quote]am using all 3 fingers, which makes it fine[/quote] Now, I identified several key issues with using more than two fingers. The main issue I identified (after a year of using 4 digits) was that the permutations of which fingers you change strings on are numerous i.e. on an 'x' note phrase, there are 4 different fingers you can start with or change to a different string with, as opposed to just two. So for every practice exercise you have, you (ideally) need to practice it 4 times over starting on a different finger. That's a [i]lot[/i] more work than just two fingers. That ultimately means you spend twice as long getting your technique together compared to doing the same with two fingers, possibly longer due to the higher level of co-ordination required. And the work that people throw at multi-finger techniques is amazing, imagine what could be accomplished if they threw that much dedication at two finger playing. I'm not saying abandon it, (as I use 3/4 as and when I need to) but certainly consider that the permutations alone may impede your progress. Mark

I was watching the video on the right hand (good job by the way), and whilst I agree that the tension in the ring finger and pinky that you described is not good (like you I've seen numerous bassists tense up their outer digits when playing), I don't fully agree that the method of tucking up these fingers is the optimal solution to this. When examining my two finger technique (starting again after spending a year exclusively using the 4 finger/Garrison technique for main playing) I found that placing my hand over the bass (ala Todd Johnson, Gary Willis) and relaxing yielded the best hand position (fingers uncurled). I found that tucking my fingers up (even without tension) pulled my middle finger more into my hand, (from what I understand this is likely due to a shared tendon/ligament? between the middle and ring fingers) and restricted it's movement, and introduced unnecessary tension into my hand at higher speeds and after longer periods of playing. Secondly, tucking your fingers up does not allow for ease of switching between other techniques. For example, using floating thumb and the hand position I mentioned above allows pretty much instantaneous switching into using three fingers, Matt Garrison technique, hand position for artificial harmonics, and also ease of movement into slap position, muted playing or near-neck thumbing as your hand is in a fairly neutral position. Please note that I'm not attacking your advice on this, some people's hands naturally relax into a more closed form (ala in your vid). However my hands do not do this, I'm sure other people's don't either, so I thought it might be an idea to share what I've found... and most definitely agree that comfort is the most important thing... but keep reassessing what is comfortable and working as you improve. Mark

I don't think that octaves with floating thumb are any more difficult than using an anchor, movable or otherwise. It's just the difficulty inherent in playing two non-adjacent strings with digits that are right next to each other (i.e. standard IM alternation, with or without raking), unlike using hybrid picking to pluck octaves on guitar. Erring slightly off-topic here, whilst I would agree that there's no reason that you [i]have[/i] to use index-middle to pluck octaves, and that thumb and another digit make it easy, by all means use it, but I would encourage people to develop their technique to a level such that you don't get impeded by things like this. To switch from two finger to thumb and index (say) and back again, no matter [i]how[/i] fluid, will never be as quick as not switching at all and being able to do said octave licks (string skipping et al). Mark

[quote]Classical guitarists have been at it for about 250 years too[/quote] Really? That's really quite interesting, all the classical guitarists I've watched tend anchor in some form, be it movable or absolute.