The Jaywalker

I haven't heard any slagging off of any players at all... IMHO, Ray Brown, PC and Scott laFaro are the tree trunks. By that, I mean that pretty much everyone has a bit of each in their playing somewhere. I have no specific stylistic desire to play or sound like Ray or PC; but I do to a degree because their influence was so great on all of us. Pops was undoubtedly one of the main bassists of his generation - and ergo historically significant - but a pretty poor bassist by later standards. It's all relative, in a way. Larry is hugely influential today - in my mind because of his exposure and the relative achievability of his sound/licks/style for young players. The current bass fad seems to be for turning the clock back 50 years. Whatever...it'll go in cycles like it always does I suppose. I think what's important here is discussion and openness. Without prejudice.

In terms of Bryant's being somehow substandard, I heard an interesting tale. He made Panormo style basses. I heard of an orchestral pro who took his original Panormo to Bryant and asked for a copy of that bass - and was so impressed with his new Bryant he sold the original Panormo and moved house with the proceeds.

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1459636611' post='3018343'] Yeah, it's a groove and it's really cool. Not hard to do when your ; 1. With very talented musicians 2. Your not completely driven and restricted to only the genre you personally like. I think many forget how important flexibility is in this business. If your not flexible, I say enjoy that bedroom. Because that's probably going to be where your most comfortable. Blue [/quote] Truth. Bottom line - this groove is great...but isn't difficult in the grand scheme of things. These guys live on playing that kind of stuff, so it's second nature to them. Anyone who finds what I've just said controversial or offensive - or indeed, has taken offence at anything Blue has said - simply needs to grow the fk up; musically and otherwise.

The point I was making was that I found it unfortunate that a raft of phenomenal European bassists were glossed over and some (including arguably minor) bassists included more because they played with historically important bands than because of their playing.

If you can find a luthier who really understands Jazz bass setups then this would be a positive step. Made a massive difference for me. Things to consider off the top of my head:- Nut height: should only be able to fit one business card under the strings at the nut. Any higher and the bass will feel tighter and be more difficult to play with the left hand in lower positions. Bridge curvature: orchestral bassists need to have more of an angle between the strings for arco clearance. If playing jazz with this setup it's more effort to move between strings with both LH and RH. Making sure your bridge curvature is a flatter Jazz setup makes a big difference to playability. Fingerboard scoop: if this is too extreme then the action between 4th position and the break will be higher than it needs to be. Sound post: can make an enormous difference to how your bass speaks and the overall tone. Getting it right for your sound preference is a major benefit. Some luthiers will want to change the post position if you start using different strings - it's a seriously dark art. Overall Tension: If the bass feels tight, maybe in comparison with other basses you've tried with the same strings etc, then there's stuff that can be done with the after length and tailpiece wire choice. I changed from metal wire to the Velvet tailpiece cord and the bass feels a bit less tense and more resonant. It's supposedly some "special" material but my old luthier swore blind it was just kevlar. Usual marketing guff, I guess ;-) Bridge adjusters and string action: Make sure they operate in a wide enough window so you can really experiment with different string heights. And do that. Really experiment. Get your action as low as is sonically and tonally comfortable. Ignore the "high action right: lower action wrong" nonsense - if your bass is easier to play, then you'll play and sound better! Important thing to consider with string height is the sound post setup - it will vary a bit depending on your chosen height. The bottom line is, yes, a good setup on your bass will make an enormous difference to its playability and sound. It can be like a different bass afterwards.

I was fortunate enough to have a jazz Prof who was really big on time for all instrumentalists. Produced a document for bassists and drummers about the 9 possible variations of playing together either on, ahead or behind the beat. Eg, bass ahead, drums on etc. Naturally, some feel better than others. On the beat bass sounds really hokey and wooden etc. Was also really fortunate to be able to study a concept called pulse relational rhythm theory with a percussion genius and all-round awesome dude Steve Forman. Exponentially improved what I do. He starts with the premise that we all have perfect time, physiologically speaking - or else we couldn't walk down the street. It's unlocking that and working with pulse rather than fretting over bar lines and counting 1234 it that's key. It chimes with a lot of what Jeff Berlin says about working with a metronome to improve time. The time is already there; most likely the issue is elsewhere in your technique, concentration, fatigue levels, rhythmic security etc. Really powerful and helpful stuff.

[quote name='mtroun' timestamp='1458928822' post='3012233'] Wow, ok, strong opinions there. I do completely disagree with you but there you go. I've got to say I'm completely unconvinced by NHOP and Eddie Gomez, in fact I find them unlistenable (this is partly down to their over use of 1970s amplification trends, I heard a video of NHOP early in his career when he sounds much better IMO). I'm fond of Miroslav Vitous but I still think he's a bit over concerned with virtuosity as an end in itself. It's interesting because your opinion is precisely the opposite of most people I know, though I did once encounter a bloke at a jam session who loudly extolled the virtues of NHOP above all other bass players, explaining to me why he was so much better than Ray Brown. Interestingly NHOP was a massive Sam Jones fan and recorded a two bass album with him. It's weird but it's hard to tell them apart, I think NHOP slows down to suit SJ while SJ plays a lot more notes, probably to try and keep up. That record is more of a curiosity than a good record though. And I feel the same way about the later Oscar Peterson records with NHOP, lots of notes but a noticeable going through the motions, crowd pleasing kind of approach. I think saying 'what Larry Grenadier plays isn't hard in the slightest' is a bold statement. Are you really saying you can play at that level and that his status among contemporary players is a sham? Certainly with Fly, he demonstrates incredible thumb position chops, incredible control of the bow, the ability to play fluently over complex rhythms, not to mention his highly developed ears, I call all of this virtuoso stuff and I certainly can't match up to that, or indeed hope to without years more practice. Larry Grenadier was playing with Joe Henderson in his teens and has been called upon by countless older jazz masters. I'm sure he has plenty of chops that he doesn't demonstrate in such an overt way as for example Christian McBride. Interestingly, Brad Mehldau's first album has both Christian McBride and Larry Grenadier on it. When Pat Metheny picked Larry Grenadier to play with him was it because Marc Johnson was unavailable? Not to mention the fact that Charlie Haden, the anti virtuoso, is along with Palle Danielsson and Gary Peacock one of three bass players to record with Keith Jarrett, and in my and a lot of others' opinion, the best one. Again, was Pat Metheny just being nice by choosing Charlie Haden and Dewey Redman in a band that also included Mike Brecker and Jack DeJohnette? Did Chris Cheek go mad when deciding to record with Larry Grenadier, Matt Penman and Ben Street on various albums when he'd previously used Marc Johnson? I'm genuinely a bit perplexed by your assertions. [/quote] And I'm a bit perplexed by why you felt the need for a tirade. I've tried to make it clear that I'm interested in people who play the INSTRUMENT really well in the first instance. Their other musical attributes are an aside strictly in that respect as they are aspects of musicianship (however phenomenal) and quite apart from their essential performance on the instrument. I also don't care about who's played with who when I'm considering that. It's a straw man and irrelevant in that particular respect. Does Ben Street play the instrument as well as Marc Johnson? Er...no. That's obvious to anyone. Personal taste doesn't come into that. Am I saying I have Larry's ears or rhythmic ability improvising over complex rhythmic stuff?Absolutely not!! Would I be comfortable walking into all his gigs? I kinda doubt that... Purely from an instrumental and technical bass point of view, can I play his stuff? Yes. Easily. Loads of folk can, because in the grand scheme of things it's not that difficult. That's not a bold or contentious statement at all - or at least it shouldn't be; unless folks are so blinded by their sacred cows that everything Larry does must be a virtuosic impossibility..... I would never use the phrase "incredible chops" to describe him. And there's nothing wrong with that as I don't think that's what he's all about as a player! Big Jimmy Garrison influence etc. And again, this is not a criticism of what Larry does at all, he's a great, great musician. I really like his stuff with Pat. I'm just saying I find the pinnacle status he enjoys among bassists today a bit odd, considering the other options out there for inspiration. The other thing I find strangely perplexing is that often virtuosity is expected, demanded even, in the Jazz world. Unless it's from a bass player... Then it simply gets dismissed out of hand in certain quarters. It's weird. Tenor plays an eighth note solo on a bop tune - great; piano does same - great; bassist does it and it's written off as chops or technique for its own sake. Bizarre! Anyway, this thread is about inspiration. Sometimes I get it from Charlie Haden, one of my all time favourite players; sometimes Rufus Reid ; other times its Arild, Miroslav or NHOP. Other folks are going to be different. To quote Dave Liebman at a masterclass: "listen for inspiration and aspire to Masters; nothing less..." I don't see anything wrong with that advice - or looking for a certain amount of instrumental mastery in bassists I find inspirational.

In terms of being fully-developed, again, I'm talking about the instrument in terms of setup, quality metal strings, amplification options and the stylistic, technique, expressive and tonal benefits that followed. It's important to remember that at the same time, there was a bass revolution going on in the classical world as well. Guys could play on better strings with a much more manageable setup. The number of bass concertos/music written in the past 50 years has been exponential. " I don't really know what constitutes mastery in your book if you think top players today are limited technically. It also seems to be you are wanting to hear music that pushes the boundaries technically rather than concerned about the overall musical effect. I know there are few players today that play as expansively as LaFaro for example..." You've got me completely wrong. I just want to hear guys that can play the instrument well. Really well. There's a lot of folk out there that will quite happily write off any bassist with great technique as all about the technique and not the music. It's bullshit. If they've ever taken the time to transcribe or analyse what NHOP, Marc Johnson etc are up to in solos they'd see that themselves. Also, it's precisely BECAUSE of their technique that these guys can say more with a couple of slow, lyrical notes than the "saying more with less" cliche-brigade will in their entire lives! In terms of the "overall musical effect" and playing a solo using a couple of notes and rhythmic figures, modulations etc - I know the vibe. the overall musical effect is often some dude with a crap sound and really poor technique thrashing away on a couple of notes. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's putting the instrument back 50 years. Too bad for them. Leave them to it. I'd rather listen to someone actually play the bass. If I had a quid for every time someone had hipped me to a "you MUST be into this guy, he's SICK" bassist and been sorely , but unsurprisingly, disappointed... In terms of "mastery" I look to guys like LaFaro, NHOP, Eddie Gomez, Chris McBride, Arild Andersen, Miroslav Vitous, Ray Brown, Marc Johnson, Gary Peacock etc Do any of the players you've mentioned stack up to these guys? No. Categorically not. Do they NEED to? No. Again, categorically not. it's not about personal taste or stylistic preference. Again, I'm not making a musical judgement here: I'm dealing with a bald fact - Larry's (as an example) stuff ain't hard in the slightest; which isn't a criticism, it's an observation. Ray, Eddie, NHOP - different ball game. Contemporary bassists often don't really move me (obviously there's always exceptions). Is it a stylistic choice not to develop? Is it laziness? Lack of ability? I once had a telling conversation with an NYC sax player who tried to make a point and call me out for having a well-developed technique. He said that the only thing you need to practise on the bass is Blues lines with a metronome; that's all his friends (dropped some names) ever did/do. And it sounds like it ;-) When you think about it; bass is weird...the low level of instrumental ability that's accepted on it (and indeed, lauded) wouldn't be acceptable on any other instrument in the Jazz canon. That's the unfortunate side of Tradition I guess.

[quote name='mtroun' timestamp='1458909968' post='3012050'] Long, but covers it pretty well: http://jazztruth.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/blast-from-past-stuart-nicholsons.html [/quote] Yeah, the thing that makes this interesting is that I can agree with the article and the guy's response in almost equal measure at times!

Yeah, the US regressive, Europe progressive thing is bogus when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it; and that's not what I'm suggesting. I simply meant that a lot of the music I hear feted as "new" from the US isn't that stylistically new compared to European stuff and some folk don't realise that. It's just all cross-pollination with different styles and influences etc. I'm not trying to diss US jazz here. That would be stupid. I'm just not up for switching off my critical faculties and putting music/bassists on a pedestal because they're from the US and sidelining European music/musicians for not being. As far as the 1958 thing goes, I'm talking primarily about bass here. There's a stylistic pressure to play in an outmoded fashion because "Tradition" was laid down before our instrument had fully developed. The unamplified thing is tradition, but also practicality on the NYC transport system. If you want qualified opinion on its merits, check out what Ray Brown and Ron Carter had to say about playing unamplified and folks who still do it today. Pretty scathing. It's like analogue vs digital recording: most folk who think the old way was best weren't actually around at the time. I'll stick my neck out and say that regarding playing the bass loud enough acoustically to keep up with a drummer as important is more concerned with pointless "killin' it" machismo than musicality - and does you no technique favours when you end up playing amplified anyway. I read an account written by a bassist/luthier who saw Mingus back on the day. Intros sounded great but when the sextet was playing he was as inaudible as any other bassist. I also loaned my rig to a US guy from the "every note as hard as possible" school - he had to turn the amp volume up and down for different vibes as he had no dynamic control of his sound. Slave to the amp, perversely, I guess. Don't get me wrong, there's phenomenal bassists playing old school tradition. Carlos Henriquez :-) Peter Washington :-) However, there's also guys with minimal technical ability who don't play the instrument particularly well (sometimes not well at all), but get away with it because of "Tradition" ie, the recorded sound of guys struggling to play loud enough to be heard on a gut-strung bass with a huge action. "The acoustic bass is an instrument you can get away with playing and satisfy your peers even whilst you still really need to get your stuff together on it" (interview with Larry Grenadier). I'm far from against guys who don't want to be soloists. I'm a bassist, I love bass! However, I still expect them to play the instrument well and not be at the very limit of their ability doing the bassics, as it were. I'd rather hear the sound of effortless mastery than the sound of struggle any day ;-) As far as that list of players you goes; you've mentioned a couple of names I perhaps had in mind. One hugely overrated as a bass icon; another who's pretty substandard on the instrument. That's my final word on that and I'm not naming names. I'm at a loss as to why my assertion is "preposterous"... If Paul Chambers solos are pretty much reading and/or lick copping practice for today's bassist, then there's nothing Larry has that isn't as readily achievable if that's the kind of playing one aspires to. It's not difficult technically or musically in the grand scheme of things - and that's not intended as a criticism, just calling it like it is. I've always been inspired by the Bill Evans bassists and the European guys; so I guess our respective scales for bassists to be off might be calibrated differently. And it'd be a boring musical world if they weren't, after all :-)

I use the B3 before the amp when I'm doing a BG gig. When using effects on DB (reverb, delay, looper, chorus and octave mostly) I decided to try it through the effects loop. My pickup requires P15 so needs a preamp - between the gain/master on the preamp then the B3, then gain etc on my amp I thought it might be the easier option to use the effects loop as my pickup and the B3 both have pretty hot outputs. Got distortion. It was only partial and occasional until I used an arco patch and there was a really bad digital distortion effect on some bowed notes. Switched over to regular setup and turned the main B3 volume down and not had any issues.

Totally, Bilbo. A friend had a great teacher at Berklee whose advice for any student struggling with something was "Just turn up". Plug away at it, it'll get better. Works a treat!

Fair enough to a degree...but this is about bass. It's far more important to consider a player's ability on and contribution to the instrument itself; rather than consider what albums they're on and who they've played with to gauge importance. "Only European players who have made a massive impact on jazz worldwide could be worthy of inclusion..." I have to vehemently disagree. If this is about bass; then artistic relativism and the "fame game" can't come into it. There's some spectacularly mediocre US bassists that are really popular with younger players (imo because what they do is readily achievable...and I'm not going to name names and open a can of worms) and who have international careers. Good luck to them...but does it really make them more "worthy" bassists than Arild Andersen or Mads Vinding. Ludicrous! And I disagree with you on Stuart Nicholson's book. A lot of what guys in NYC are doing with non-swing stuff is only just catching up to what was going on in Europe 40 years ago. But that doesn't matter. I've always used the Buddhism comparison for Jazz. Wherever it goes, it picks up part of the local tradition and evolves into something new. Indian Buddhism + Tibetan Bon gives Vajryana. Mixes with Taoism and you get Dzogchen on the border with Tibet and Chan/Zen in China and Japan. Jazz moved from New Orleans to Chicago and Kansas City. Different sounds. To NYC - different sounds. Bird threw in Bach and Hindemith and we get bop. Moves to Europe and joins with classical and Folk traditions - again, different sounds. Some folks want to keep it in 1958...too bad for them!

Yeah, I can pretty much agree with everything you're saying. It's an amazing piece of work - like I said, I'd recommend it to everyone; and often do. When did you last hear someone idolise Eddie Safranski or Bob Haggart? Eugene Wright? I just don't agree with putting minor bassists (albeit guys who played on popular recordings) to the fore at the expense of, for example, NHOP, Arild Andersen, Miroslav Vitous etc. It's like Dave Liebman said "in Europe, they respect the tradition but they're not slaves to it..."

[quote name='neilp' timestamp='1458805684' post='3010961'] I couldn't let one comment go by without replying. Why bother with an orchestra? Because it's fantastic fun, it'll teach you more in an hour than you'd learn by yourself in a month, and playing with a bunch of other people will remind you to be a musician. As a great conductor I work with says "always be beautiful, even when you're wrong" [/quote] And I wasn't disputing any of that; merely suggesting to the OP that it could be enjoyable and instructional to practise and play classical arco material for pleasure and inspiration, without feeling the need/pressure to join an orchestra if it's not what he wants to do.

Thinking about the orchestral stuff - why bother with an orchestra? Get some tune/etude books, get the bow out and just play some pretty tunes. The Goldsby book has got some great stuff in it and it's a good read as a textbook for bassists too. My only gripe - and it's a big one - is that's its heavily biased towards "tradition". Meaning that minor US players (or indeed guys who really couldn't play at all but we're in a historically important band ie Pops Foster) are given a lot of airtime and some of the greatest bassists in history are glossed over in one chapter entitled "The Europeans" (naturally, none of whom merit a transcription extract). Those feelings aside, it's a great book and I'd still recommend it to anyone! PM me your email add and I'll PDF you some stuff that I've got on the jazz and classical vein ;-)

You could try using "parameters" - pick a key or perhaps an unusual scale (perhaps extract some chords from it to use in a progression); set a form of some kind eg 6 bar A section which repeats followed by a 9 bar B section. See what you come up with. After that, you can change it until you're happy. Iterative composition is another good tactic: Reharm a tune/standard then compose a new melody on your progression.

There's a few good ones out there. I've used a mixture of Abracadabra Bass, Team Strings, and Time Joggers. All good for younger beginners. The Yorke bass books are really good to move on to as the kids advance a bit on the instrument.

I'm a Schertler stat-b user as well. Extremely natural sounding pickup - very quick, even and direct sound. Amplifies the growl of the instrument really well. Tbh, I've never liked the Realist as a pickup; always finding it to have a really "hollow" and thin, nasal sound whenever I've played a bass with one fitted. I think it works well for old-school, gut type stuff. Some folks I know who are into that vibe get good results with the Realist. My old luthier hated the pickup - the design especially. Said folks would come in to get their bass setup as it was sounding bad - he'd say "take that stupid pickup off and listen to your bass then...you got any idea how long it takes me to properly fit and shape a bridge foot to the table? then you go and stick a bit of metal between the two...of course your bass doesn't sound right!"

Ask away. No controversy at all - Harmony, Theory etc often allow a lot of room for discretion, depending on musical context - but some things are absolute; so there are rights and wrongs. Giant Steps is a 3-tonic system influenced by the work of influential composer Joseph Schilllinger. It splits the octave into 3 equal parts using an augmented triad, whose notes then become the new key centres. The bridge to Have You Met Miss Jones does the same thing. In essence, Giant Steps is simply II-V-I 's in 3 keys. Simply....erm... ;-) It's possible to play the whole progression using the Symmetrical Augmented scale (semitone-minor third) from Bb. This is a good example to illustrate another corrective point raised above; as this scale is not a mode. Coltrane himself pretty much just ran digital scale patterns over the progression. Just....;-)

Oky doke, fair enough. I'll retract my harshness :-) Glad we got that cleared up ;-)

[quote name='CH161' timestamp='1457565782' post='2999798'] Wow, I don't know why you feel the need to speak in this tone really. I was trying to make a simple point. The history of Western music is very clear. I really don't want to get into an argument about something so uneccesary. Goodnight. [/quote] Er, excuse me?? "I'm not getting into this, time to buy a book" And I'm the one speaking in a tone? Who the FK do you think you are? I corrected your post because it was musical nonsense. You demonstrated a small amount of music theory knowledge being incorrectly applied. I'm quite clear about the history of Western Music - over a decades worth of professional experience, a degree and several teaching posts speak to that.

I would suggest you do, yes. Feel free to PM me for some recommendations. Failing that, I can teach Harmony, Theory etc online or by Skype.

[quote name='CH161' timestamp='1457563735' post='2999775'] The OP asked about F# to F# in the G major scale - that would be the Locrian mode. If he'd asked A through to A in the G major scale (with the F# or raised 6th) then that would be Dorian. Modes are scales. The main point about them is the relationship they have within the 'Key' of a piece of music. Our western system favours chords built in triads, I, IV and V being the strong tonal centres to define Key. With the example of 'So What', the Key signature is that of C major, yet the tonal character has a root of D and the sound is minor. so in this example chord I (D min) is more normally chord II of C major. We are up one tone from the major Key centre. It is therefore Dorian because we use chord I, IV and V not as the expected Cmaj (I),F maj (IV) and G maj (V) but D min (I) , G maj (IV) and A Min (V). These chords all belong to the Key of C major - but we have shifted tonality within the key by one step in the key's scale. If we were actually in D minor (not modal), we would expect the key to have one flat (Bb), as D min is the relative minor of the key of F major (One flat Bb). It's all about the Key...Who said theory wasn't fun! [/quote] Sorry man, but you're way, WAY off the mark here. The point of modal music is that it has no chord structure or key signature. We are categorically NOT in Cmajor for So What: it's D and Eb Dorian. There are no chords I, IV and V present - I have absolutely no idea where you've cooked that up from....In any case, in practice, if a chord V is implied or directly stated it will be V7 as per if the key was D minor.

Mistyped! Should have read G melodic minor. Bassist fingers on an iPhone......Amended it now ;-) Lydian Dominant is the 4th mode of Melodic minor. However, if you were to consider a C7 chord (CEGBb), add the #11 (F#) and also the 9th (D) and 13th (A) - you get the same notes when you express them as a scale. It's better to think of scales as relating to chords rather than what their modal relationship (if any) is to a percent scale - because very often that modal relationship is irrelevant to the tune. For example: Bernies Tune is in Dminor for the A sections and contains a Bb7#11. No Fminor involvement of any kind so modal relationships are unhelpful.