Bilbo

I write out the dots. Job done.

When you REALLY get off on making other people sound good.

Can't say without seeing it but try playing with your right hand (assuming you are right handed) further up the neck from the normal playing position (i.e. further from the bridge) and adding some vibrato with your left hand.

I shared a stage with Jim once - can't say we played together tho' - he played a whole load of standards I had never heard of, without charts, at tempos that would strip paint. Nobody died but it sounded like a dogs breakfast to me. Hope he gets well soon tho'...

Just plain wrong. RIP

Interesting thread. My own perspectives are that, unlike many other genres, your bass solo in a jazz setting shoudl be determined not only by your own muse but by the accompaniment you receive. If there is none, you have a relatively free reign (tempo/form can be a boundary but, depending on the setting, you have other options). There are 'industry standard' responses to the bass solo (off beat hi-hat, minimal chord movement etc) but these can be very tired and little more than a bland and cliched response by bored/uninspired/uninspiring musicians. For me, the best bass solos take place when you have accompaniment that is, in some way, provocative. The solo should be a dialogue with the accompaniment and, if that accompaniment is interesting and challenging, you will find yourself reflecting that in your own contribution, playing a solo that is more musical and less 'showy'. I don't 'prefer' any particular style of accompaniment, I just ask that it is congruent with the piece being performed, responsive in terms of where we, as an ensemble, are taking it and utilises the fullest possible range of the ensemble's collective musicality. In jazz, it is very easy to get locked into a traditional head - solos -head routine with a fairly predictable be-bop orientated solo in swung triplets. It'll get you work, it'll get you applause and it'll get you paid but its a tiny part of the instruments/genres potential. Your bandmates are like all groups with whom you have contact. Your familiarity is borne from experience. Sometimes you hit it off with someone from the first time you meet, others you learn to love as your musical relationship develops. I would avoid telling someone 'what I want' because that has the potential to stifle their contributions. What I don't want is ambivalent accompaniment or silence which is informed only by the need to take another swig of ale! Re: acoustic playing. I agree that, in practice, it helps but, if this is the case, you need to have some conversations about why that is. You should be able to sound musical and sensitive plugged into a 1000 watt Marshall - its about playing with musicians not players. And as for bandleaders, some of them just aren't. They let the players 'do their own thing' with no real vision of what they are trying to achieve and fail to exert any influence. Loud insensitive drummers remain so because they are still booked - if they weren't, they would learn pretty quickly!

You could try the Jamey Aebersold play along series starting at beginners guide to improvisation. Jazz focussed but as good a place to start as anywhere.

Am I right in thinking that the 'common tones' Spiltmilk was referring to are nothing more complicated than relative minors (the sixth mode of any major scale or a minor chord three semitones below that major)? C6 is Am7, D6 is Bm7, G6 is Em7 etc. As for the Neopolitan stuff, I think MM is right. This is another way of repackaging stuff that is known by other terms elsewhere. It sounds a lot like figured bass to me but I am not 100% on 'classical' theory; my knowledge all comes from the use of theory in jazz. Its the sounds that matter not the names! Stravinsky influences Ohad Talmor a lot (he even quotes the Rite of Spring in a solo) [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lhistoire-Du-Clochard-Bums-Tale/dp/B001PM2P0A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1245837764&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lhistoire-Du-Cloch...7764&sr=8-1[/url] or OhadTalmor.com

I learned the first half of it - t'aint rocket science. I gave up because its a lot of work for a party trick of limited musical value

Great stuff going on here, some of which I can't digest away from my bass/guitar/piano (I think with the instrument in mind not just the notes). Chord names are usually defined by the role they have at any given time, by what comes before and what comes after it. That can often resolve confusions about chord names. One epiphany I had, after a few years of confusion, was the relationships between some chords, inversions, substitutions etc and the associated scales - I would get very confused about slash chords, for instance, not really comprehending that they were often contextually very simple (e.g. a descending root (like Am7 follwed by Am7/G), or a third in the bass (e.g. C/E). In my experience, the best way to learn this stuff is not just academically but in the context of a piece of music. That way it sticks more readily. This can be a problem if the music you listen to is too 'simple' - a lot of popular genres lack harmonic depth so you can 'understand' the theory of an Abmaj7sharp11 but you will never hear it when you play! That's why jazz can be a great space to go and learn because it integrates the theory much more extensively than soime other genres (and its better, of course).

Loads of options out there depending on your budget. I went for Cubase but Pro Tools is a kind of industry standard but expensive.You need to know a lot more than which programme to use: microphones, positioning, room acoustics, VST instrumenys, programming etc are all important but, at this point, you just need to get your toes in the water and start. There are a few credible books out there that mat help but your mate is as good a place to start as anywhere. Lots of room for trial and error but a lot of fun & frustration. Learn to love the egg-timer! One BIG piece of advice is to not use your music PC as an internet/music download PC and vice versa. You have a lot more to lose than a few word documents if you get hit by a virus.

Dreadful one. You remember that Alas Smith and Jones sketch where Smith played piano and Griff Rhys Joesn played bass? That was the standard. 25th wedding anniversary ina community centre. Bad sound, drummer that could play jazz - fine, but it was a pop gig. Couldn't hear myself for intonation purposes because the stage sound was created by Helen Keller with Evelyn Glennie out front. AND I played like a tit. £100 for nothing - oh and, yes, as always, the punters loved it. :wacko:

Saw Krantz a few (3?) times at the Brecon Jazz festival with Carlock and Tim Lefebre (if thats the spelling). I remember it was harmonically sophisticated but rhythmically a bit less so and LOUD is not the word (too loud, really, every time and I'm not normally one for complaining). Would have loved to seee him with Jackson (mind you, I would like to see Ronan Keating with Jackson...)

Its an artistic choice. I have, for obvious reasons, listened to a LOT of Paul Chambers recently and, one of the first things I noticed was how little he actually deviates from a straight quarter note swing groove. Compare him to someone like Dave Holland, who rarely actually walks a straight line for more than a few bars at a time. The more you deviate from the quarter notes, the less established the swing feel is. This is a choice thing and entirely subjective. For the soloist, however, the straight line is easier to follow and to negotiate than the Scott LaFaro type broken line feel. So, if you want to be liked as a player and, by association, to be booked regularly, stick to the rule. If you want to take it somewhere new, ignore the rule, enjoy the freedom and develop a taste for dry bread and tap water In truth, the path most people take is somewhere in the middle, trying some creative options that don't alienate the soloist and leave him/her high and dry. Despite the superficial trappings of the game, soloing is a team sport. Support your local soloist!

Your points are credible, but not necessarily contextually accurate. You could think of it in another way; as a dance. If each of the musicians in a jazz performance were a dancer or acrobat, the interaction would, of itself, be the entertainment. If person A jumps up and person B catches them in a creative and original way, you will enjoy the experience (think of that Diversity thing on Britains Got Talent). If, using their individual sound, knowledge, experience, creativity and ideas, a musician makes something of a musical situation that you find stimulating, satisfying, intriguing, original, organic, you will be entertained. If their response is predictable, tasteless or just plain wrong, you will be bored or irritated. In most cases, dances/acrobatic performances are rehearsed to the nth degree so the metaphor breaks down as there is minimal improvisation but, if you think of a jazz performance in those terms, you can begin to get a sense of where the entertainment comes from. The performance requires some additional attentive listening from the audience not a 7 year study of the idiom but, in a nutrshell, the entertainment is in the process performance and not just in the outcome i.e. the piece of music as a product, a thing (in truth, it is deeper than that and the entertainment is in a much broader range of factors but, for purposes of this discussion, you get my point). .

[quote name='silddx' post='516576' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:32 PM']I'm particularly interested in Bilbo's comment "The walking lines also create a counterpoint to the soloist. The magic of a great walking line comes from its relationship with the soloists". The walk is more or less improvised, as is the solo, so I infer from the above statement from Bilbo that the relationship between the bassist and the soloist needs to be DEEP. Much more than just musically but on a deep human level too. You need to know each other very intimately to subconsciously predict where the other might go, to create the real magic like you get on something like So What. Maybe this is what jazz is about, maybe I am starting to understand. Or am I?[/quote] Yes and no - the walking line and solo lines are not improvised simultaneously, they are acting and reacting to each other and, in a similar way, to other stimulae (drums, piano, percussion etc). So, in principle, you line is a reponse to the soloist or to another voice that is there in the mis, and not an independent improvisation generated unilaterally. Knowing the other players 'thing' is a massive bonus but not essential for good interaction (like having a conversation with a stranger vs. someone you know). Its like any dialogue, you respond to what is presented and your response, in turn, generates another and so on. Its all about total listening, hearing everything that is going on and reacting organically rather than just playing your part in a predetermined context like many other genres.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='516483' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:09 PM']I can follow the chords as they're laid down in the real book etc., not trip up too much, and do what the books tell me I'm supposed to be doing. But it still feels like I'm 'pretending to walk' rather than actually walking.[/quote] The fact that you recognise that fact means that you are listening and conscious of what you are doing; that means you are more than half way there. Try transcribing some of that Paul Chambers stuff - his note choices are magic - but beware. If you just try and play his choruses over any jazz blues, the change of context (drummer and pianist) negates their value entirely and will soudn wooden. Educate you ears and then let them guide you, Grasshopper

[quote name='jakesbass' post='516499' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:22 PM']Lines should be melodic and have a natural inner sense of phrasing to rise and fall through the changes small variations of not choices make a huge difference.[/quote] 100% - the logic of the line is profoundly important and, whilst I agree there is a huge element of the subconcious involved (particularly at 260 bpm ), that subconcious is informed by the 1,000s of lines you have previously developed consciously or otherwise. Its like any language, you start by learning the constituent parts and then, eventually, you become comfortable enough to forget them. The equivalent in bass lines would be the strong beat/weak beat issue (e.g. play roots, thirds and fifths on strong beats 1 & 3 and seconds and fourths on weak beat 2 & 4 - a useful 'rule' in teh beginning but not cast in concrete and eminently forgetable as you get more involved in the work of walking). Fundamentally, you will learn a lot from just playing and listening to transcriptions like those attached above and then just doing it - a million choruses of trial and error. Be patient, it will come.

What is the purpose of walking bass lines and what constitutes good taste? Walking bass lines have the same purposes as any bass line and there are more than one. Firstly, the line underpins the harmonic movement of the chords under which it is placed and can literally define that harmonic movement (Steve Kahn always says that, when he presents a tune to his bass player, Anthony Jackson, Jackson’s lines reharmonise his work and make it sound better and more sophisticated). Secondly, a walking line contributes to creating the illusion of momentum – there are some great examples on some of the Miles Davis/Gil Evans material where the only movement that is happening is the walking bass line of Paul Chambers. Without it, the music would be sedentary chords, like an organist holding a chord down without any changes. The walking lines can actually control the pace, pull back on it, push it, and even stop it, all contributing to the ebb and flow of tension and release that makes music, well, musical. The relationship between a bass line, ride cymbal and piano accompaniment is the defining characteristic of a rhythm section. Listen to Paul Chambers, Jimmy Cobb and Wynton Kelly or Chambers, Red Garland and Philly Joe Jones. Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and Tony Williams are another great section. All very different despite the main thrust of the bass parts being only straight quarter notes. The walking lines also create a counterpoint to the soloist. The magic of a great walking line comes from its relationship with the soloists. A big mistake that people make (and this teacher guy with the ’pentatonics’ quip is clearly a victim of this) is assuming that, as long as it is in the scale/arpeggio of the pertinent chord, it will be ok. WRONG – it will only work if the logic of the line before and after it are congruent with the overall mood of the piece. That logic is created from moment to moment by the music being played by the musicians around you. If the pianist plays X, you have to make a choice as to what you do next. Whether that choice is ‘good taste’ is arguably a matter for you but there are good things to do and bad. Hitting a root note on the fourth beat of a bar may, for instance, prematurely project a change –this can be good or bad – it’s all about INTENTION. If you are just thrashing about ‘in the right key’, it will sound like it (a great example of how bad this can get is Van Morrison’s ‘Moondance’, objectively and subjectively a dreadful piece of walking bass). What we have here is a superb example of something that takes a moment to learn and a lifetime to master. Playing four quarter-notes to a bar is something that, in principle, we can all do on day one of picking up a bass. Trying to develop the ability to creating a congruent, musical, creative, grooving walking bass line will never cease to delight and frustrate in equal measure. I have been trying to do it since 1986 and sometimes, quite often in fact, I feel like a total beginner. For the record, a LOT of the swing feel that you are trying to get in a walking bass line comes from your SOUND and its relationship with the drummers ride cymbal and pianist’s voicings and rhythmic placement of chords. Don’t expect it to sound great with a bad sound, a crap drummer and a cheap electric piano! When the chemistry is right, the notes are so much easier to find!

[quote name='hatori' post='514028' date='Jun 15 2009, 12:00 PM']Hopefuly heres one.[/quote] Isn't that Uncle Fester and Gomez Adams? Waiting for a light bulb moment?

[quote name='silddx' post='514009' date='Jun 15 2009, 11:44 AM']That's not a jazz attitude, Bilbo! [/quote] Actually it is..... Or at least you should SAY it, even if you don't believe it!

Play the GROOVES; don't try and put anything clever in that will only increase your anxiety, increase the likelihood that you will fall on your arse and that you will reveal your shortcomings. Find the pocket and stay there, enjoy the groove. That's what the audience wants and the rest of teh band are the audience this time. Say things like 'its my job to make the singer look good, nothing more and nothing less'; 'if the punters notice me, I am probably not doing my job properly'...

What do you need a tuner for?

You can only come in if you like Jazz. The rock and pop sections are full

[quote name='lowdown' post='505488' date='Jun 4 2009, 02:32 PM']They aint finished yet. You know how those bop solos go on for ever and ever.... Garry[/quote] Flippancy aside, that is actually not true. If you go back to the origins of be-bop, most Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker solos were one, two or, less common, a maximum of 3 choruses long. The epic solos of John Coltrane came much later in modal and free jazz both of which came out of be-bop but are not, in fact, the same thing. Be-bop solos only sound long becasue most music nowadays doesn't contain any soloing as the industry has deemed any form of soloing to be 'self indulgent'. Unlike adolescent poetry about getting the elbow set to music which is, of course, art.