Bilbo

Writing a biography, particularly on someone who was well known to people who are still living, is a minefield. I compare it to doing a jigsaw where the pieces are hidden all over the world, each piece has a picture on both sides and there is no lid to refer to. Every piece of information you are presented with comes to you as a ‘fact‘. It is the biographer’s job to ascertain its veracity and this is sometimes very easy. But, with a a lot of the stuff you review, there is no ‘smoking gun’, no proof that remains. Rumours become anecdotes become ‘I was there and I saw it’. People who love your subject want him portrayed in a good light and miss out the bad bits. Some, often those who love him the most, won’t discuss him at all. Others who were wronged by the man may want to vent their spleen. Someone who knew him peripherally want to ‘big up’ their part in his story. Some people even tell you they were married to your subject when they weren’t. The subject can even distort things himself by introducing people as brothers, cousins, daughters etc when they are not related. Everyone has a vested interest and you, in the time available, have to screen these contributions and decide what is real. As I was/am putting the final touches to a biography of a celebrated bass player, I was beginning to experience increased anxiety about the responsibilites I felt in trying to present the ‘truth’, even when I cannot really see it and am operating merely on a balance of probablilities. I shared my anxieties with a friend who said simply that the only thing worse that an inaccurate biography is no biography at all. If you write something that contains inaccuracies, then let others respond with a book of their own. You must do what you can to ensure the highest level of integrity in your work but, ultimately, you are only sharing your research. If it proves to be inaccurate, let others who ‘know better’ (but who may have chosen not to share, as an interview subject or writer) write a better book. Milkowski wrote a book. If Metheny or Ingrid Pastorius thinks it is inaccurate, let them write another. I will read that too.

A lot of it is context - the chord preceding it and the chord to which it resolves. Unless you know that, you can call it what you like because it won't really matter

Spent first 23 years of my life in Cwmbran and did my first jazz gigs in Cardiff in 1988. Family still there. Welcome.

Sounding like Jaco is and always was a fool's errand (even when I was trying it). Yes it's great but it was great because it was fresh and exciting. Now its superficial and tranparent. Birelli should know better. I prefer his playing on The Super Guitar Trio cd [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Super-Guitar-Trio-Live-Montreux/dp/B000QJMSUK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247753349&sr=1-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Super-Guitar-Trio-...3349&sr=1-1[/url] PS didn't watch the clip - can't on my work PC.

There are other variations on the second four bars but they are only substitutions using cycle of fifths so, if you are not a jazzer and trying this for the first time, I'd stick to Doddy's changes. Also, for you Moondance bit, try A, C, B, E intead of A, B, C, B as it resolves more naturally and is a bit more interesting. Just an opinion. PS Moondance is probably the worst record ever. If you want to know what jazz is about DON'T use that as a guide

Firstly, you don't necessarily have to practice along with anything. Your long established practice of playing along with the original won't work particularly well when you get into jazz which is, after all, an improvised music. If the players on the recordings you like played the same tune again, THEY would play it different so why wouldn't you. Here are some options: Play the chords into a tape/PC and play along with it. Use something like Band In A Box to programme in a sequence and style that suits the tune you want to practice. Find a guitarist or piano player that also wants to learn these tunes and play along with them. Use some Jamey Aebersold PlayAlongs and turn the volume on your stereo hard left so isolating the piano and eliminating the bass. This is probably your best bet in terms of working to a familiar pattern. Hardest of all is playing and practicing the tune on your own, in isolation to the chords, trying to imply the harmony with your lines only. By far the best method but very hard for a beginner. Get a teacher who can point you in the right direction. It doesn't have to be a bass teacher, jsut someone who can play jazz.

Jake's right. The purpose of sight reading practice is to sight read not to learn the piece. If you learn the piece, however superficially, you are starting to play it be ear and not actually to read it. Ploughing through is good because that's what the discipline requires. Stopping to correct errors will get you fired off a gig I agree that there is considerable merit in learning to read rhythms and dots sepearately in the early stages. Reading rhythms is actually a lot easier than you think and you can learn a lot quite quickly before bringing in the notes. My problems start with key signatures. A massive percentage of jazz is written in F, Bb or Eb or C, G and D so a b major key signature gives me the willies - accidentals are also an isues if there are too many of them. Main point is that there are NO quick fixes for this. To lear to sight read like Ready Freddy Washington will take years (I know a guy who is what I call a ten-finger reading painist and he reckons it took him 15 years to get it sorted). PATIENCE (a swear word in contemporary society) is the key. PATIENCE!

[quote name='chris_b' post='536483' date='Jul 9 2009, 02:41 PM']It's pointless to write out the dots for Whole Lotta Love or Communication Breakdown! I will probably write the dots for a particular rhythm pattern that I need reminding of in an original number, but I won't write the dots for the whole song. What I currently do doesn't require that.[/quote] Depending on what's happening, you can get away with an awful lot if you have good ears and a generally wide experience of genres. I have done more than a handful of gigs over the years where I don't know any of the songs until the guitarist starts playing (Hey, Pete Young - remember that gig you saw me at with Gione? No charts, no knowledge of the tunes but a room full of happy punters!!!)! I once did a piano/bass duet with a guy who played solid for 90 minutes without stopping, segueing every tune into the next without asking if I knew them or not. For the record, it sounded like it! In practice, a chart with the form and any details/stabs/stops/breaks written out generally does the trick for me and the results are generally impeccable.

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