Bass Player Competence Study - for my PhD research

[Jazzneck]

Done.
But you may not like the comments at the end - no offence.

[3below]

Done. Suggestion - it would be worthwhile having a free text box to seek comments about the questions and possible further questions (seeing Jazzneck's post, did I miss a comment box?) As an example. I found the qn about ability to play in differing keys difficult to answer. I can relate to it when I played Sax and was not fluent (or anyway competent). As a bass player I do not perceive keys as any great complexity (all the notes are there to find - or not).

Are you working on positivistic methods e.g. an algorithm, qualitative or the 'mixed-methods' paradigm?

Edited May 12, 2016 by 3below

[Beedster]

Not a well designed or considered survey and i gave up. In fact I felt patronised. If this is PhD level work your supervisors should be more on top of how you collect your data.

[ivansc]

[quote name='EvilSmile' timestamp='1463069399' post='3048324']The end goal is to be able to take a piece of music that has been notated, a detailed transcription or some other detailed annotation of the music and have a computer automatically determine how difficult the piece is to play. Some pieces of music might require you to play beyond the 12th fret or any other the other things i'm asking - i'm just trying my best to be thorough!

[/quote]

Now THAT makes sense. Not the usual "do my homework/dissertation for me" garbage and with a well defined end objective that is USEFUL. too!
Good luck with it.
(thinks: Bugger now I will have to go back and do it properly!)

[Beedster]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1463084899' post='3048518']
Not a well designed or considered survey and i gave up. In fact I felt patronised. If this is PhD level work your supervisors should be more on top of how you collect your data.
[/quote]

I should expand; if you're looking for 'bass players of any ability or skill', you have to use language that allows responses from the entire range. Your survey language is tutored/schooled, so might exclude many players who don't fall into that category, such as myself. Some of the most competent and musical players I know are unschooled, whilst many of the schooled players I know are less competent and relatively unmusical. Many unschooled bassists can perform some or all of the techniques listed with competence, but without knowing the labels you use, whilst schooled players might know the terms but be less competent. Your data will not capture the full range of competencies of all players, and will over-represent the responses of schooled players.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Beedster

[TrevorR]

I found that an interesting process. I suspect the scales competence question is much more relevant to sight reading than general playing. Anyone using scale/mode patterns/Nashville method as movable shapes should find little difficulty shifting keys. Reading in 4sharps etc is a bit more tricky. That may throw up a bias.

For notation complexity a better metric might be speed of reading and error rates when reading a particular set of notes on a stave. Both playing and transcribing note names... More complex to measure and collect data, though.

[KK Jale]

Sorry Callum, I gave up too.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TrevorR' timestamp='1463088011' post='3048563']
I found that an interesting process. I suspect the scales competence question is much more relevant to sight reading than general playing. Anyone using scale/mode patterns/Nashville method as movable shapes should find little difficulty shifting keys. Reading in 4sharps etc is a bit more tricky. That may throw up a bias.

For notation complexity a better metric might be speed of reading and error rates when reading a particular set of notes on a stave. Both playing and transcribing note names... More complex to measure and collect data, though.
[/quote]

Indeed; a good point. I took all of the questions to be concerned with playing, not reading, nor even understanding.what one is playing..! I can play in any key, or no key at all. I can't play Shostakovitch with ease, though. The wording of the questions is in favour of those with academic musical skills, not just bass-playing.

[AndrewJordan]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1463088495' post='3048571']
Indeed; a good point. I took all of the questions to be concerned with playing, not reading, nor even understanding.what one is playing..! I can play in any key, or no key at all. I can't play Shostakovitch with ease, though. The wording of the questions is in favour of those with academic musical skills, not just bass-playing.
[/quote]
Same for me. My sight reading is pretty much non existant. I answered everything from a playing perspective.

[3below]

Following on from Beedster's expansion I would like to add some other elements of complexity that I believe should be considered. In playing from notation the difficulty may be in 'reading' rather than physical technique (stated above by the time I had typed this ). If deciphering a tune by ear the difficulty may lie in recognising / working out what is being played rather than the technique difficulty. These both represent cognition and comprehension difficulties. Perhaps some questions should be located in finding out what bass players perceive it is that makes some music difficult to play and other music straight forward. This qualitative insight might help shape the next phase of your research.

Completely random thought, ask bass players to list 10 tunes (bass parts) in order of difficulty giving them free choice. With a sufficiently large and varied sample, subject the notation to AI and see if the machine learns what constitutes difficulty (if this is technically and computationally possible - I recall something similar has been done about hit songs over time?). Once this is possible, reverse the experiment. Machine rank some common music for difficulty, ask bass players to do the same. test the statistical significance, feed the data back into the AI. PhD for anyone?

Edited May 12, 2016 by 3below

[leftybassman392]

In fairness to the OP (and assuming he's trying to do what I think he's trying to do, i.e. develop an algorithm that can be used to analyse any piece of music and come up with a difficulty rating), the algorithm he develops will need to use the component parts of the music in order to acquire the data it will need to perform the analysis; which in turn will most likely dictate how the questionnaire is structured. Despite the alternatives offered hereinabove, I'm not sure it can be done any other way. If it's to have the utility he's looking for, it needs lots of numbers to crunch. Without wishing to offend anybody, I don't think that asking people to rate tunes in terms of difficulty will do the job; and for a number of reasons.

When all's said & done, it is a Ph.D. project, so the level of difficulty involved should really be a given I would have thought...

Having said that, there are some very good players out there who for whatever reason find it very difficult to describe what they do in such technical terms - no criticism implied by the way. This would appear to suggest the possibility of a multi-faceted approach.

Just thinking out loud and using my mathematical background really: it's the way I would look to do it.

Edited May 12, 2016 by leftybassman392

[Beedster]

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1463093745' post='3048640']
When all's said & done, it is a Ph.D. project, so the level of difficulty involved should really be a given I would have thought...
[/quote]

A PhD is supposed to good research, not difficult. OK, we don't know the full story of the OP's work, but s/he states very clearly that they want data from bass players of all levels, and I think his questionnaire attracts the opposite, it speaks to a relatively narrow spectrum of educated and tutored musicians. If the survey were specifically aimed at this relatively small group of bass players, then fine (having said that, from some of the responses in the thread, it's clearly drawing ambiguous responses from players interpreting questions differently, so perhaps it still needs some thought). I get the feeling the OP should have piloted the survey on a small group, got some feedback (the type he's getting here), and then gone public with it (although perhaps that's what he's doing). I'd certainly suggest that s/he explain or provide examples of techniques specified and clarify some of the questions themselves, both of which would both broaden the range of players who can respond and at the same time increase the reliability of the responses. And frankly, use a decent platform, the YOB has a drop down icon next to it but you're required to manually enter the year!

Edited May 13, 2016 by Beedster

[skej21]

[quote name='EvilSmile' timestamp='1463069399' post='3048324']
Thanks again to all the new people for both giving it a go and also to those who've completed it I really appreciated it!



Thats a fair point. The end goal is to be able to take a piece of music that has been notated, a detailed transcription or some other detailed annotation of the music and have a computer automatically determine how difficult the piece is to play. Some pieces of music might require you to play beyond the 12th fret or any other the other things i'm asking - i'm just trying my best to be thorough!

As for purpose of the study... being able to compare pieces of music based on their difficulty is something I need to be able to do in my PhD, and will likely be useful to other research in music information retrieval and musicological fields It could also help or aid in bass player education contexts, and help in recommending musical pieces that are of a similar difficulty, or are slightly more/less difficult to a given piece/pieces or suitable for someone playing expertise/ability.

If you would like more specific (read: technical) information i'm happy to PM you and to answer any other questions
[/quote]

+1 to what Beedster has said so far.

I also think the survey has a few pitfalls in attracting a range of players. If you notate a piece played above the twelfth fret as standard notation but 'octave above' it'll be much easier to play than if you notate it in standard notation but on ledger lines. It's also affect the difficult if the read if you have clef changes, as some players will be more fluent in switching/reading other clefs. So the "difficulty" of notated music is more to do with how easy it is to translate the dots to notes. I'm not sure a computer could tell the difference between those scenarios. It would judge both as "playing beyond the twelfth fret" and deem them as equally difficult when a simple nuance of notation could make one way of reading infinitely easier or more difficult depending on the players reading experience/preference.

The same goes for octaves for example. If you notate playing a first fret F on the E and then and octave F and you don't have any positional knowledge or only a vague knowledge of where your notes are (common for beginner players) or hell, you just know that sliding up/down in to that octave SOUNDS better for the style of music you're reading, you might end up jumping from the first fret F to the 13th fret F on the same string. I've seen 'unschooled' (as Beedster put it!) players do this at open mic nights etc and players doing it because it has a very specific style/sound. I've also had had students early on who do it because they don't know the same note is on a different string closer to the original lower octave note and it's simply not knowing otherwise. They know 12th fret is an octave and they never learnt the notes elsewhere or someone who tabbed it out online didn't know better and tabbed it like that, so they play it like they've been told to.

Again, a computer wouldn't be able to judge the difference in difficulty between a player who chooses to play their octaves as jumps all on the same string and one who plays it positionally within a two fret space with string jumping. In fact, the computer would not be able to judge any positional/reading decisions made by a player when reading notation and the whole point of understanding positions when reading is to counteract as many of the physical difficulties as possible. Therefore, creating an algorithm for the "difficulty" of a piece can only be judged by the experience of the reader and how many strategies they have to make reading the piece easiest for them IMO.

[BigRedX]

The questionnaire was about reading? IIRC all the questions said "playing". My reading is about a bar every 5 minutes for something reasonably simple, but I can play in any key (although I probably won't know what the key actually is).

Also the bass guitar (and guitar) is a very versatile instrument when it comes to deciding where to play the actual notes because most of them occur in at least different locations. Also you can simply retune and make something that was previously very difficult a lot more straight forward to play. As an example: back when I was a teenager learning the guitar my playing took a major step forward when I realised that instead of struggling with all those complicated Eb, Ab and C# chords I could simply put my capo on the first fret and play the much easier D, G and C instead!

[gapiro]

[quote name='TrevorR' timestamp='1463088011' post='3048563']
I found that an interesting process. I suspect the scales competence question is much more relevant to sight reading than general playing. Anyone using scale/mode patterns/Nashville method as movable shapes should find little difficulty shifting keys. Reading in 4sharps etc is a bit more tricky. That may throw up a bias.

[/quote]
Indeed
I find it a hell of a lot easier to play a 12 bar blues in E than read something in E....

[4stringslow]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1463086109' post='3048536']
Your survey language is tutored/schooled, so might exclude many players who don't fall into that category, such as myself. [b]Some of the most competent and musical players I know are unschooled, whilst many of the schooled players I know are less competent and relatively unmusical. [/b]Many unschooled bassists can perform some or all of the techniques listed with competence, but without knowing the labels you use, whilst schooled players might know the terms but be less competent.
[/quote]

I once got myself into a lot of trouble by saying much the same thing to some young musicians proclaiming that their various 'grade' qualifications made them musical experts despite their demonstrable inability to jam along with a bunch of their unschooled mates.

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1463116846' post='3048687']
A PhD is supposed to good research, not difficult. OK, we don't know the full story of the OP's work, but s/he states very clearly that they want data from bass players of all levels, and I think his questionnaire attracts the opposite, it speaks to a relatively narrow spectrum of educated and tutored musicians. If the survey were specifically aimed at this relatively small group of bass players, then fine (having said that, from some of the responses in the thread, it's clearly drawing ambiguous responses from players interpreting questions differently, so perhaps it still needs some thought). I get the feeling the OP should have piloted the survey on a small group, got some feedback (the type he's getting here), and then gone public with it (although perhaps that's what he's doing). I'd certainly suggest that s/he explain or provide examples of techniques specified and clarify some of the questions themselves, both of which would both broaden the range of players who can respond and at the same time increase the reliability of the responses. And frankly, use a decent platform, the YOB has a drop down icon next to it but you're required to manually enter the year!
[/quote]

All very good points (and FWIW I do agree with many of them).

I'm not looking to be confrontational (and did indeed make the point about adopting a multi-faceted approach). I'd agree that in the absence of any clarification from the OP, there do appear to be some flaws in the piece as it stands. That said, his aim seems to be to develop an algorithm: any algorithm he develops will need data. How he generates that data is the point under discussion (and which may stand in need of further development), but the need for it isn't going to change. The obvious place to look for it is in the music itself (notwithstanding the remarks on the subject from the OP himself!).

Edited May 13, 2016 by leftybassman392

[Beedster]

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1463128063' post='3048775']
All very good points (and FWIW I do agree with many of them).

I'm not looking to be confrontational (and did indeed make the point about adopting a multi-faceted approach). I'd agree that in the absence of any clarification from the OP, there do appear to be some flaws in the piece as it stands. That said, his aim seems to be to develop an algorithm: any algorithm he develops will need data. How he generates that data is the point under discussion (and which may stand in need of further development), but the need for it isn't going to change. The obvious place to look for it is in the music itself.
[/quote]

Yep, agreed; how he generates the data is exactly the problem. Data in itself isn't a neutral phenomenon simply waiting to be tapped into (as I suspect you know), the way the question is asked biases the data. So, for any given problem there's good data and there's poor data. OK, those data will no doubt tell a story and that story will be part of the thesis. These days any competent data analyst can analyse even the most complex dataset, but it doesn't mean that the results will tell us anything about the real world or the specifics of the question asked. That's the difference between good data analysis and good data capture.

Whilst an incompetent bassist (certainly by the standards of the survey), I am a competent data capturer (i10=24, h=17)

Edited May 13, 2016 by Beedster

[Agwin]

Done

[CamdenRob]

[quote name='Agwin' timestamp='1463131265' post='3048804']
Done
[/quote]

You haven't got time for filling out questionnaires... get back to this months noodle...

[charic]

Not done the questionnaire as I've read the comments here and my sight reading is solely based on my experience as a keys player.

I would suggest that if you want to see competency across difficulties then develop a set of exercises pertaining to different aspects that you want to analyse. As the player/reader completes those exercises they rank how they feel they did.

This could potentially be taken further with a brain training type app when complete to help people improve where they feel they're weaker

[EvilSmile]

Hi Charic - I think I need to add an edit to my first post now to clarify.

This [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]survey is not about sight reading at all. It is about your playing ability.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I am wanting to analyse how challenging a piece of music is given the sum of the things involved in the physical playing of it. The assumptions that other people have made in this thread relating it to sight reading is likely a miss understanding introduced when I mentioned i'd be using notated music in response to ivansc's question related to the purpose of this survey.[/font][/color]

As a note: complexity/difficulty in reading a piece of music is a different issue to what this survey is investigating - i'm only interest here in the playing and specifically how competent you think you are in performing/executing/doing a variety of bass specific techniques and general musical things.

This work isn't the totality of my PhD its the first steps in the data gather part. The results will be used as a way to judge how challenging a piece of music is but it feeding into a much larger question/problem that is the main focus on my PhD!

Edited May 13, 2016 by EvilSmile

[Myke]

Done

[Telebass]

Attempted but failed, due to lack of understanding of the questions. Sorry...

[gs_triumph]

Sorry... I tried but I got confused 😖