wulf

I've played at church and other Christian settings almost as long as I've been playing bass but I've also had lots of other playing experience along the way. It seems to me that there are plenty of distinctive things about the setting, some good and some not so good. For example, at a lot of churches you are improvising the song based on chord charts or simple piano arrangements; generally there is a lot of room for playing excellent and interesting basslines (although you can can get away with a very basic level of skill and simple often is the best choice). On the downside, there is often a lack of preparation time, you might find yourself playing with people who aren't very good and don't seem to do anything to improve and, rather than having to cope with a singer, you've got a whole congregation-full of them. As a bassist who is also a Christian, I'd be at some kind of regular gathering anyway, so the chance to take a bass along and contribute still feels like a privilege. However, it hasn't always been the most demanding playing setting and I'm glad that, looking back, I've taken plenty of opportunities to develop my skills in lots of other settings too. Wulf ps. if anyone is from the direction of Suffolk on 18 June, I'm running an informal event called [url="http://www.web-den.org.uk/bassist/deepdeep.php"]Deep to Deep[/url], a long-running series of get-togethers specifically for Christian bassists.

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='1246583' date='May 27 2011, 06:36 AM']I've never even been paid a tenner for a gig. The sort of music I play doesn't get paid like that, but I fail to see why I should have to play stuff I don't want to (functions/covers)...[/quote] If you choose to play anti-commercial music then you either have to supplement that by a day job or by playing other music which does attract some income. Or perhaps you are missing opportunities to either reduce expenses or get some income. It sounds like you are in a gap at the moment, so perhaps your next project might explore a lower cost set up. For example, I don't make much from my current main band, a small folky trio called [i]Peter and the Wulf[/i], but costs are also very minimal because all the members are fairly local, there aren't many of us and we can rehearse round each others houses. Wulf

How many restarts are you allowed? I once did a wedding gig at the Barbican in London which had a three strikes and you're out for good rule. It really puts the dampers on; clapping and cheering at the end of a song can push you towards the danger zone even if you resist the typical "everybody hits everything loudly" endings. Whoever thought it was a good idea to build a major metropolitan entertainment and then spice it with residential accomodation really should have had their head examined! While I am not a fan of overly loud music, it is very hard to live up to the expectation of being the band powering the party when you are constantly having to watch the dB meter. If the bride and groom really want a live band, any chance of finding a nearby venue that could accomodate that part of the evening without the restriction (or seeing if the owners of the barn would agree with a compromise like disconnecting the automatic shut off part for a couple of hours during the evening)? Wulf

Might you need a second bass? If you are competing with electric guitars, a drum kit and adding distortion to your own tone then do the nuances of acoustic tone matter. Perhaps something like a Stagg EUB would do the new job better without modding your existing bass in a way that would affect it for more sedate gigs? Wulf

Sketch out the big picture first before getting bogged down in the details. Anything that is really hard for you to hear is probably ignored by everyone else so you've got some leeway in playing something appropriate. I'd start with the overall structure, then begin adding in the easy notes. Once you put in distinctive riffs and hooks you are most of the way there and can make a decision on how much to sweat the details (which, frankly, may have been improvised and may just clutter things up if no-one else in your band has been that accurate). Wulf

Garageband is probably on the iMac already - it is part of the iLife suite that seems to be part of the default install. Wulf

I was talking about it with my colleagues at work yesterday. The administrator of my department was there; she has seen both guitarists numerous times and concurred with The Funk's opinion, that Beck's performance was definitely stronger, while Clapton seemed to be plodding a bit (although, to be fair, she said that he did pick up a few numbers into the set and all was good from then on). It's a shame I hadn't twigged what this conversation was about when I first spotted it, otherwise I could have impressed them by knowing the names of the bassists... Wulf

What are you used to using at the moment? A .90 string tuned down to D is going to pretty loose although should be playable. Wulf

An example of B# being the correct name would be if you needed to spell out a chord like E7#5. The fifth is B so that becomes B#. Watch out for Cb as well. As far as key signature goes, dominant seventh chords (eg. A7) can be a good clue in a song that seems to be in a major key. There should only be one place that occurs in any given major key, the chord built on the fifth note of the scale. A lot of songs throw in dominant sevenths all over the place so this concept is far from infallible. However, it is often useful in jazz contexts, where you need clues to keep up with a shifting key centre(*). Wulf (*) ... until somebody decides to throw in chord substitutions and your A7 (signifying a key centre of D major) becomes something like Em7 / Eb7 / instead.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='679831' date='Dec 10 2009, 02:19 AM']This feels like a really silly question but I genuinely don't get it. If you're going to name the notes after letters of the alphabet, why would C be first?[/quote] I suspect that the reason the majority of music teaching starts with C is that this it is the root of the only major key with no sharps or flats. What that doesn't answer is why C got picked for this honour. For western alphabets, you would have thought A would be a more obvious choice but don't think about that too hard or you'll forget the accidentals when starting there and sound like a minor. Wulf

That sounds like a mix of a couple of (valuable) approaches. One is about supporting the leading finger (the one holding down the string to get the note you are playing). Rather than making it take the whole tension of the string, you can use any fingers behind it to share the load. Less tension means less strain means less fatigue, which is vital when playing for an extended period. The other one sounds like minimising movement: less work and more accuracy. The two don't necessarily run together. For example, if your exercise went Bb A Ab G on the E string and then Eb D Db C on the A string, supporting the leading finger would mean you would shift the whole set of fingers up to the A string supporting the fourth finger in playing the Eb. Strict minimal movement would leave 1-3 covering G-A. Both are approaches worth taking in the practise environment though and then considering how to apply them to your live playing. Ultimately, the aim is to be so smart and lazy you can provide appropriate energy for your basslines all night. Wulf

I make quite extensive use of chording. The two "secrets" are: 1. You don't have to include all the notes from a chord spelling to make it work - the harmony can often be implied by just a couple of notes. Eg. C-9 (Cm9) suggests C Eb G Bb and D. You could just put C and D (above the octave) together and it would probably work, perhaps spiced up with an Eb or Bb. 2. That helps because playing notes that are too close together sounds muddy, especially at the lower end of the range. The higher you go, the sweeter the sound but, if you can also add in a low note you get real space and beauty in the sound. The easiest place to start though is probably learning a few double stop patterns - for example, root and third, root and fifth, fifth and octave and so on. Any other chord you want to play later will probably include one or more of those simple patterns. Wulf

[quote name='TimR' post='563860' date='Aug 8 2009, 09:53 PM']Is it just one note played once, or one note played several times? If it's buried in the live recording mix it's likely to be buried in the live sound too. You may be able to hear it from your cab on stage, but will the audience? If it is very important to the song, you might have to play with the arrangement or more specifically what the other musicians are playing.[/quote] That's a good point. Mixing is well and good but arrangement is a better long term solution. Even on the mixing side, it might be better to bring down what is clashing with the target bass note rather than try to boost the note via EQ. The former approach creates space for it to shine naturally; the second risks distorting it by unbalancing the frequencies. Wulf

Multiply. The overtones are the fundamental x2, x3, x4 etc. Therefore, your open A string has a 55Hz fundamental and overtones at 110Hz, 165Hz, 220Hz, etc. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that the second overtone is particularly strong in the timbre of most basses, which is why you can follow the line even on a speaker that starts to significantly drop off below, say, 80Hz. FWIW, playing harmonics involves touching the string so that lower frequencies are cut but the higher overtones continue, which is why they become progressively quieter and harder to sound as you work up the series. Wulf

Who are you playing it with? What matters is not all the possible ways [i]Summertime[/i] can be played (... and, if you wanted a song where the answer is "it depends", you picked a good one with countless reharmonisations available!) but how the group of you are choosing to recreate it. The simplest version I ever did boiled down to: [code]Am | Am | Am | Am | Dm | Dm | E7 | E7 | Am | Am | Am | Am | Dm | E7 | Am | Am |[/code] Under the minor chords, I played a simple 1 2 b3 5 riff (A B C E or D E F A) and used the chords I've marked as E7 to put in little turnarounds. It's possible those weren't the chords everyone else was playing but provided a suitable (and simple) structure for me to hang it on. The version I played most recently, in a more advanced jazz setting, had all sorts of "weird sh*t" going on and sounded wonderful but a) I can't remember it off the top of my head and to make the most of it the whole group would need to be singing off the same hymn sheet... Wulf

An exercise (which you'll find in a lot of books) is to play scales using intervals. You play each note but between them add in a particular number of steps above. For example, rather than playing C D E F G A B C, you could play it with thirds: C E D F E G F A G B C (and then in reverse coming down). It improves your finger dexterity and gives you a good feeling for the sound of the available intervals. With that example, you will be playing a combination of major and minor thirds. Wulf

[quote name='arabassist' post='531426' date='Jul 3 2009, 08:56 AM']How would you know which note the bass part should be based on (no pun intended) whilst the other instruments/vocals are changing?[/quote] If you're covering a song, your starting point for the bass notes are the ones the original bassist used. If you're improvising, keep that original bass part in mind and use it as a springboard. The technique is know as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostinato"]ostinato[/url] (from an Italian word meaning stubborn). The bass (or it can be another instrument) stubbornly sticks to a particular riff (or "figure" if you want to talk in classical music terms) while other instruments define the harmonic movement of the song. Relatively simple chords can sound more complex because they are in tension against the ostinato pattern. Wulf

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='531545' date='Jul 3 2009, 10:50 AM']Wulf - maybe with your regular band you need to rehearse some ideas for bass accompaniment - just a few do's and dont's that you can suggest to the guys. Maybe something subtle and spacy from the guitar - just pointing to the sequence. A light hihat tick to keep it all together. Piano chords at the cadence points. A build towards the finish.[/quote] I've left that group behind anyway by moving from London to Oxford. I've got some new things going on here but nothing quite in the straight foward "real book" jazz line just yet. Wulf

The two things I find trickiest when it comes to the bass solo are: a) I've been concentrating on holding together the foundation of the song. Switching to something more melodic can be tricky. With the group I've played with most, the tendency is for everyone else to drop out, so I'm left exposed, trying to maintain a foundation, soar lyrically and remember where I am in the form! Quite often I end up playing something similar to what I would normally do at the start of each phrase but letting myself stretch out at the end. It's not as unfettered as I would like but manages to keep things together. Of course, the inevitable truth is that the whole process is much easier on songs that you know inside out and have spent time practising solos both with and without accompaniment. As you build up a vocabulary that way, it becomes easier to adapt that on the fly to less familiar songs. Other instrumentalists probably find soloing easier simply because they spend much more time doing it. Wulf

Switching from DB to bass guitar can be tricky though. Suddenly the little instrument feels like a toy! If you are going to switch, don't wait until you can't take the DB anymore. The first full length gig I did with my electric upright, I had my six string bass along as well; it was the one tune in the second set where I decided to switch down that I dropped the most clams in! In retrospect, I probably would have done better to have done one set on each of the basses; swapping between them is a skill in itself. Wulf

[quote name='paul, the' post='520083' date='Jun 21 2009, 04:20 PM'] [/quote] Lovely - what a fantastic sound! Wulf

How about just blaming it on the rest of the band? Unless it is a solo bass piece, in which case you can shoulder all the blame, the essence of a great bass part is that it works as part of the whole ensemble. Learning a part so well that you could be transmogrified back to the recording session and fill in for the original bassist still isn't going to mean it sounds awesome if the rest of the band haven't been so diligent with nailing their parts. Even if you get the bassline note for note and beat for beat there's still going to be chafing if the other parts don't fit equally tightly. Wulf

Yes - with a teacher, the "mystifying" aspect becomes unimportant because there is someone who can answer questions and make decisions about the best path to take through the text (including extra material from other sources). I think it sounds like we're beginning to harmonise here! Wulf

[quote name='rslaing' post='512001' date='Jun 12 2009, 10:58 AM']I disagree.........I bought the 2 Simandl books (when I read Pastorius raving about them!) and the first one obviously starts with the most primitive and elementary aspects of playing and reading music. The second book takes you through to the highest levels of playing. Although I have still not learned to read tenor clef proficiently. The Simandl stuff is highly recommended by most teachers and professionals, why do you think it seems unnecessarily mystifying?[/quote] I think it would be wonderful if it explained why the particular positions had been chosen. My working theory is that it is based on the position of natural notes on the A string (1 pos = B, 2 pos = C, 3 pos = D, etc), which might related to A being the highest string on a cello. I appreciate the need for careful thought on positioning but why did Simandl choose his particular scheme? Also, I'm not convinced that a beginner needs to get into territory like double-flats or play exercises that are so chromatic they sound atonal. Almost all instrumental methods seem to start with teaching a few notes that can quickly be used to play simple tunes and then build up through concepts like scales; Simandl seems to assume that you've got a good grasp on music and just want an exhaustive guide to all possible combinations of notes, beginning from the area that involves the greatest degree of stretching. I'm not saying it is a waste of time but I think I would have found it mystifying and offputting if I hadn't gleaned an understanding of music from plenty of other sources over the previous 20+ years. Wulf

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='511913' date='Jun 12 2009, 09:43 AM']That's why the Simandl book is so highly regarded - it is well graded, taking the student through the positions gradually and thoroughly, building knowledge of finguring while slowly introducing different rhythms and bowing styles.[/quote] I'm not sure I would put "well-graded" as an adjective for the Simandl book! It works through the given positions from one end of the neck to the other and, while it does start rhythmically simple, seems to take delight in forcing the student to recognise every possible combination of natural, sharp, flat, double-sharp and double-flat option for naming each pitch. Approaching it after 20 or so years of playing bass guitar, this wasn't too bad in itself, but I think it would seem unnecessarily mystifying if I'd begun with no idea what music was about. Wulf