Groove Isn't The First Element of Bass Playing. It is Last!

[markjsmithbass]

Is this teaching of groove more prevalent in American institutions because I've never once seen or heard of anyone teaching it anywhere here in the UK. It's always just nuts and bolts of music. Harmony, arranging, history, aural (ear training), performance classes etc. etc.

 

[electracoyote]

playing only the right notes is not a guarantee in the success of a efficient bass part.

Well, you're right, and I think you'll get a lot of agreement there. I don't hear anyone denying it.

But the premise of the thread is, from an academic perspective, emphasizing "groove" (a very nebulous term at face value) at the expense of learning your instrument, theoretical fundamentals, position playing, and tasteful effective musical note choices, is putting the cart before the horse.

Ultimately, a healthy command of both would be the ideal.

 

[Groove Master]

Sorry, dear Groove Master, but I totally disagree with you.

I mean generally speaking technique is not an essential tool to play with a groove. I'm a big advocate of mastering your technique though. But...put anybody that has a sense of music behind any instrument that they don't even know and they'll make music out of it.

Also think of Steve Swallow that plays great jazz with.....a pick!

The main point is that there should be some musicality taught right from the start when learning an instrument.

 

[nutdog]

When bass teachers started offering lessons and discussions about groove, in essence, they were focusing on a subject that wasn't that important to focus on. In the past, barely anyone in education mentioned it. In live playing or recording, it was too obvious a thing to bring up, sort of like telling a driver to focus on stepping on the brakes when they wanted to slow down a car.

I don't disagree with your music education philosophy but I have a 17 year old daughter and two 16 year old sons. Sometimes what seems obvious is not and I have had to tell them to step on the brakes more than once.

I spent many years giving and receiving flight instruction. I literally grew up in airplanes and this immersion impeded my ability to identify with people that didn't have what seemed to be the innate sense of flying that I possessed. In order to teach effectively I had to teach in real terms and avoid platitudes and generalities.

In general flying is taught with a "building block" concept beginning with tasks and goals then proceeding when those are mastered and building upon them however one must also consider the motivations of each student. A 65 year old retiree that wants to shorten his trip to the beachhouse doesn't respond the same as the 15 year old with a desire to fly fighter jets and they don't need the same level of education and expertise to accomplish their objectives. Either's desire to fly can be squelched by an instructor that doesn't understand this.

Also, toss into that mixture the fear of crashing and the very real aspect of severe injury or death and it makes for an interesting instructional environment.

I began teaching focusing on lots of facts and principles, 4 forces, Bernoulli's principle, P factor, etc., but eventually learned the first thing they needed to know was, "You steer with your feet."

 

[JeffBerlin]

I don't disagree with your music education philosophy but I have a 17 year old daughter and two 16 year old sons. Sometimes what seems obvious is not and I have had to tell them to step on the brakes more than once.

I spent many years giving and receiving flight instruction. I literally grew up in airplanes and this immersion impeded my ability to identify with people that didn't have what seemed to be the innate sense of flying that I possessed. In order to teach effectively I had to teach in real terms and avoid platitudes and generalities.

In general flying is taught with a "building block" concept beginning with tasks and goals then proceeding when those are mastered and building upon them however one must also consider the motivations of each student. A 65 year old retiree that wants to shorten his trip to the beachhouse doesn't respond the same as the 15 year old with a desire to fly fighter jets and they don't need the same level of education and expertise to accomplish their objectives. Either's desire to fly can be squelched by an instructor that doesn't understand this.

Also, toss into that mixture the fear of crashing and the very real aspect of severe injury or death and it makes for an interesting instructional environment.

I began teaching focusing on lots of facts and principles, 4 forces, Bernoulli's principle, P factor, etc., but eventually learned the first thing they needed to know was, "You steer with your feet."

My comment about stepping on a brake was a metaphor. It was to show that with qualified musicians, suggesting that they groove in a tune was a ridiculous notion. Read what you quoted from me with that thought.

"It (groove) was too obvious a thing to bring up (to capable players) sort of like telling a (capable) driver to focus on stepping on the brakes when they wanted to slow down a car."

 

[JeffBerlin]

Well, you're right, and I think you'll get a lot of agreement there. I don't hear anyone denying it.

But the premise of the thread is, from an academic perspective, emphasizing "groove" (a very nebulous term at face value) at the expense of learning your instrument, theoretical fundamentals, position playing, and tasteful effective musical note choices, is putting the cart before the horse.

Ultimately, a healthy command of both would be the ideal.

I totally agree with you which is why I emphasize being taught musical content by music teachers and in music schools and being self taught.

 

[nutdog]

My comment about stepping on a brake was a metaphor. It was to show that with qualified musicians, suggesting that they groove in a tune was a ridiculous notion. Read what you quoted from me with that thought.

"It (groove) was too obvious a thing to bring up (to capable players) sort of like telling a (capable) driver to focus on stepping on the brakes when they wanted to slow down a car."

That make sense but it also seems you are suggesting it's ridiculous to bring up to new (incapable) players.

 

[bass12]

Have you been to rave gatherings?



I've listened to/and enjoyed your new album, and I've thought this:
If I were your good friend, if I lived close to your town/city, if you had asked me, "What do you think about it" while recording your tracks, if I were present while in the recording studio with you, then,
it would be much much easier for me to get my vision/message on "groove" across with nuanced details coming from my mind about it.
P.S. It does not mean that my or your understanding about "Groove" are "superior". It's all about your and my Music worlds have different Moods, Characters, Visions, etc...

I purposely steered clear of raves when they were "a thing" here in the '90s, though I did attend various events at large after hours clubs and saw shows by acts such as Dubtribe, 808 State and Meat Beat Manifesto.

Everyone has their tastes and different people are moved by different things. Some people don't think a programmed rhythm section can sound "groovy", some do. Some people think Alain Caron (for example) "grooves" and some people don't. There are all kinds of subtleties that go into making up an individual's "feel" and that's part of what makes that person appealing (or not) to a given listener. Talking about "groove" is fun but it definitely has it's limitations. It generally works better when you can show by example (play for someone rather than describe). Thanks again for checking out my E.P.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Yes.

You graduate from a course, school, college, university, conservatory with "nuts and bolts", and then, embark on you life-long journey!

Precisely! Well said! I am impressed with your understanding.

This next section explains my thoughts. People should realize that these are my opinions. You don't have to take them as facts.

Whousedtoplay's comments are why I don't recommend the top schools where the electric bass is taught to anyone. But I might heartily recommend a small unknown music college with a music program if I knew that the bass teachers were teaching music exclusively to their students.

I WANT to be in support of bass education but my training in music makes this difficult. My background was in the practicing of musical content. It gave me insight into being taught that many never had. It showed me that a group of teachers either untrained or uninterested in music had altered the manner of teaching to where it isn't even in the same location as proven musical training is. When you have a group of trusting and also musically untrained fans being taught and lectured to by unqualified bass educators, this bodes for a poor result in creating people qualified in their chosen field as so many are in theirs. It is easier to state that a person trained in air conditioning and refrigeration repair will find employment than a graduate of some of the top music schools. Why? Because they were taught correctly.

The teaching of groove is one of the elements of organized teaching that I feel never needed to see the light of day. Or, certainly it never needed to be the focus of interest that everyone has put on it. Why do bass players put so much focus on groove? Because it bypasses the other steps necessary to become a skilled bass player. Instead of improving as musicians, you are taught how to improve as performers (playing live music is a performance experience.) Instead of doing the work to learn, you are encouraged to do the work to perform, which is an experience that usually provides instant gratification. But remember this little phrase that I've been sharing recently on TB.

Learning is different than playing.

 

[FantasticFour]

From a marketing perspective, groove is the perfect product!
It will "make you play like a pro" but somehow it looks like a couple of hours a week for a couple of months are going to get you there (since there are no real contents to cover, not like learning a phrase in all 12 tonalities).
And then once you haven't become the bass player you thought (or you've been promised) you'd become, you look for more groove lessons. Because you don't really know what that is but your playing hasn't substantially changed and you're not a star yet. So it must be you haven't quite caught "the groove" yet.

 

[bass12]

Yes.



I totally agree. When I program any lines, bass, drum, keyboard, etc... - it's all about the standard music fundamentals - the note's length, the note's volume, is there some vibrato, etc...
I'd like to compare any programming to teaching.
You require something from a student, you require something from the DAW, sequencer, software, etc...
A few months ago, I concocted some lame tune inspired by one of our TB members. It was notated with Guitar Pro 7. The member has asked me to email the MIDI file, I did, and guess what, the same MIDI notes (with the same instructions) did not sound the same on his Presonus Notation as on my Guitar Pro.





Thank you for supporting my cause of "what kind of teacher teaching what kind of groove?" concept.



Yes, it works better but it's should be possible to describe it by looking at the standard notation also.

Oops, can't believe I wrote "their" instead of "there". I think it is possible to describe elements of a groove, but it can still be difficult to get one's precise idea/feel across. Never hurts to try though.

Well, I'm off to my upright lesson to try and continue with this learning of music thing.

 

[Pilgrim]

I understand Jeff to say that technical ability comes first, groove follows.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you groove if you can't play the notes. Simple enough.

 

[consectaneus]

I strongly agree with Jeff Berlin. And I like Jonas Hellborg's take on 'groove' too:

I keep thinking about how Jonas Hellborg explains groove here. I wonder if Jeff would agree. If I can explain it in a nutshell, written rhythm is mathematical and undisputed. "Scientific" I even think he says...much as a perfect circle can be drawn with a compass. It's when we attempt to draw a circle freehand that we all fail to meet this ideal and it is in these "failures" that each of us are a little different. He says that even if we could draw a perfect circle it would be boring, and he relates this to trying to achieve perfect metronomic timing. It can't be done but it is in the attempting, and the ways we miss the mark in infinite little ways (even influenced by our physical and cultural differences) that results in what is called "groove".

Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

 

[Bondobass]

As a student of Guitar 1st and now Bass, all I can tell you that once I got(or getting) scales down, it’s just that,

1) Work on getting the notes out cleanly,
2) Work on getting them out in even time
3) Copy the masters

Then maybe I can groove

 

[JeffBerlin]

That make sense but it also seems you are suggesting it's ridiculous to bring up to new (incapable) players.

I went back and looked for the post where I mistakenly used the word "incapable" but am not sure which post it is. Could you quote it in its entirety so that I know where to go? Cheers.

 

[csc2048b]

Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

no correction necessary as you understood it like i did and the same way anyone else would.

and contrary opinions to Jeff's or Jonas' wisdom are more valid from those who:
-played as long as them
-recorded as much
-appeared as much on music publications (and won polls)
-have a fan base as large
-are as technically and musically competent

i simply ignore those who dispute Jeff and Jonas.

 

[JeffBerlin]

It's interesting that you say that. In the music I play, groove is useless. Even if I was the most groovy bassist ever, you wouldn't know it because none of the songs are focused on a feel that has groove. Controlling my timing in that band goes into making the songs feel more energetic.

I would see groove as that kind of time feel or time flow that fits how something moves forward. Speaking our native tongue happens in its own groove while speaking a foreign language might put a hitch in the time flow of speaking, a hitch in its groove. Driving functions in its own groove, its own time flow as traffic speeds up, slows down or comes to a complete halt.

You use groove but maybe you don't use a metronome or adhere to a philosophy that groove is more important an any other facet of musical performance. If you don't then, I applaud you for seek your groove through your skills as a play and your understanding of what is required in the musical style you are playing. Everyone else in music history did this which makes me wonder why some support a view that doesn't seem to exist outside of the bass community.

 

[bass12]

Maybe we can substitute "groove" for style. Or feel? When someone says, "this has a samba feel", are they talking about the notes or the rhythmic subtleties which make up a genre? Reggae is one music that comes to mind that has its own feel. I could play the same notes as "Family Man" but I probably wouldn't sound like him because of his lifetime of being involved in that culture and music.

When someone says "samba feel" they are generally referring to the underlying rhythm and time feel. If someone says "bossa nova feel" then this might also suggest that the tune be played within a certain tempo range and using certain dynamics. Reggae has certain "feels" and it has its own vocabulary (just as any musical style does). I'd say that popular music genres are generally most easily differentiated by their rhythmic elements - certainly when it comes to dance music.

 

[5thsand4ths]

no correction necessary as you understood it like i did and the same way anyone else would.

and contrary opinions to Jeff's or Jonas' wisdom are more valid from those who:
-played as long as them
-recorded as much
-appeared as much on music publications (and won polls)
-have a fan base as large
-are as technically and musically competent

i simply ignore those who dispute Jeff and Jonas.

Like Victor Wooten?

 

[fdeck]

My take on "groove" is simply that music notation is not a perfect system. It can't express the composer's intentions down to every final detail, and admits of no interplay with the performer's intentions, which might be different. A notation system that expresses timing down to the millisecond level, might also become unreadable, or be too awkward to write efficiently.

Music notation is an efficient but approximate shorthand, and the composer expects the performer to fill in the missing details themselves. But what about playing by ear, or improvisation? I also think our ears are efficient but approximate. Our brains are not a perfect system either. We can't remember all of the details of a bass part, down to the millisecond level. So we remember what we can, and fill in the fine details based on intuition and experience. We might impose our own details, different from the original, based on a stylistic idea that we're interested in exploring.

Still, I think we're all reaching "violent agreement" on the point that you can't play what you want unless you can control your bass, and what I think practice does for us is to commit technique to a deeper level in our brains, so we can use our conscious brains to think about what we're doing. A person can perceive groove, but they lose that perception if their brain is occupied struggling with technique, reading, or whatever.