Jeff Berlin says - Bass Teachers Work Harder at Fixing Learning Concepts That Don't Require Fixing

Status
Not open for further replies.
C to F# is an augmented 4th, such as in C lydian mode, for example, which includes a perfect 5th (G), as is Gb-C. C-Gb is a diminished 5th, as in C locrian mode, where the 4th (F) is perfect.
But if in each case the harmonic function of the lowest note (Gb or C) is root (whats the chord?) then they are, indeed, the same thing - an augmented 4th. If F# is root then C is dim5. So the real answer is 'it depends'...
Just to add to the confusion, if it appears as the tritone between 3rd and 7th of a dominant 7th chord such as G#7, then it is a diminished 5th because the 3rd is B#, not C, even though the pitch is the same...
One more edit - by way of clarification, intervals are always reckoned from the lowest note , so C-F# (augmented 4th) becomes a diminished 5th (F#-C) when inverted.
This thread is about why short-cuts are really not short cuts, and why music is so important.
I hate to say it, @SteveCS, you lost a lot of us. Is it expected that we research the points made in a post to really understand it. Why bring up the mode stuff, to me you are showing off. The mode references, is part of the secret language I complain about. @SteveCS, this post is not meant to be trollish in nature. I am just expressing an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveCS
C to F# is an augmented 4th, such as in C lydian mode, for example, which includes a perfect 5th (G), as is Gb-C. C-Gb is a diminished 5th, as in C locrian mode, where the 4th (F) is perfect.
But if in each case the harmonic function of the lowest note (Gb or C) is root (whats the chord?) then they are, indeed, the same thing - an augmented 4th. If F# is root then C is dim5. So the real answer is 'it depends'...
Just to add to the confusion, if it appears as the tritone between 3rd and 7th of a dominant 7th chord such as G#7, then it is a diminished 5th because the 3rd is B#, not C, even though the pitch is the same...
One more edit - by way of clarification, intervals are always reckoned from the lowest note , so C-F# (augmented 4th) becomes a diminished 5th (F#-C) when inverted.

I understand this, but it appears to me this is just about ‘correctly naming intervals’, which is ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveCS
@Mark Ambler,
its not the intervals, that's straight forward, and its a good explanation. its the references to the modes, that to me is showing off.

The mode thing was just to show where to find, for the purpose of contrast and compare, an augmented 4th and a diminished 5th. I'm not massively into modes but many people give the impression that they are, so I just tried to give context, nothing more. And I certainly didn't set out to show off, so apologies if it came over that way...
 
Last edited:
No argument there - but you don't have to go to Berklee or conservatory know to things like that.

IMO, @JeffBerlin 's post is a red herring of sorts - hard to talk about such details, because he hasn't specified what he's talking about - what sorts of shortcuts and tricks and 'new fangled notions' he's referring to, and that sort of thing is unfamiliar territory to me.

Good point! But to do so would be to comment directly about musicians, schools, and websites that you are all familiar with. I have no wish to cause harm nor insult anyone directly. This is the difficulty of my situation; I can spell things out clearly but will be vilified for doing so. While I have no fear of stating things clearly, I know that there are a lot of people that do not take lightly any comments that violate their fan love of their favorite teachers, bass players, schools, or website instructors.

People have to seek these things out as the system that bass players police really prevents me from going into details. I want to help bass players to improve, but not at the risk of infuriating a really large portion of bass fans that don't tolerate well any criticism of their heroes or institutions.
 
As they say, "theory is great, in theory"

Sorry - not a big fan of that notion.

Musical theory is derived from musical practice. It's not like Relativity - something that Einstein figured out in his head, and then they did experiments and proved he was right.

Musical theory is just a precise description of the music we hear and play, and so it is in a state of constant flux. Things that 70 years ago (or far less in some cases) were "forbidden" or "impossible" based on the musical styles of the time are commonplace today because of people like Charlie Parker, Dizzie Gillespie and Thelonious Monk - and fast forward to people like Miles Davis or Jimi Hendrix. They didn't really "theorize" anything (Miles did, to some extent, and he was well schooled) - they just played differently. Then pedagogues come along and invented or borrowed terminology to explain what they were playing.

There is really nothing "theoretical" about musical theory - it's just a domain specific language describing our music. When you learn the language - use and understand the correct terminology and its implications, then you get a better perspective and understanding of your music, which helps you to be a better musician.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying there are more crappy bass players than crappy guitarists? Again, nothing but idle speculation and unsupported assertions - nothing to back up any of these claims.



As I mentioned in some other places, your entire post is rather meaningless because you haven't given any specifics about what methods you are criticizing and what methods are good. You have spoken the whole time in very broad generalities, and have also brought no empirical evidence to support any of your claims.

As an aside, with all due respect to your academic credentials, they are meaningless with respect to your knowledge and ability in the area of teaching. You might be the most knowledgeable EBGuitarist in the world but that doesn't mean you know anything about teaching. Great teachers by no means have to be great pedagogues. So your list of academic credentials followed by the claim that you're an expert on teaching bass is a non sequitur. Far more convincing would be a list of great players that have emerged due to your tutelage as opposed to other 'new fangled' teachers, etc.

All I got from your post was this: We all know about fake news - but let's not forget there are also a lot fake bass teachers out there, and it gets me peeved.

So, thanks for that. I'm not Jeff Berlin but I also know that. You don't even have to know anything about music to know that - all you need is some common sense. They world is full of charlatans and it's not hard to spot them, regardless of what they're peddling. So, welcome to the world - don't let it get you down.

:bassist:

Yours is a very well explained post. Thanks for sharing it.

Here is my bottom line: With very little exception, I can't make any statement without some people finding flaws with them. I see this as a knee jerk reaction. As a test, I once wrote that Jaco wrote out the famous bass solo on his debut record, Donna Lee. Which he did! People were furious and for a long time, I was lambasted for stating that the solo wasn't improvised. People went crazy!

When a new record of his called "The Criteria Sessions" was released, it included a version of Jaco playing Donna Lee almost a note for note duplication of the one on his first record. He was still writing out the solo during the time that he recorded this version, but it was essentially the same solo. When I reported this on line, not a single person that took me to task either acknowledged that I was correct, nor apologies to me for their personal comments to me.

This is just an example of the uber-fan attitude that some have and it gets in the way of clear thought and discussion about learning. This is why I generally don't care what people think anymore when I post my thoughts. Some people prefer to argue. I don't! When it comes to someone entering into this mindset in the comments that they share with me and others, I will never respond to their posts.

Everything that I have shared with people about learning music was shared with me by some of the greatest teachers/players in music. I tested out many of the lessons and I learned where the source of capable playing came from. Everyone with a similar background as I had knows these things.

I don't have data to share, but, if I did, I wouldn't share it with people. Too many people are poised to argue and split hairs and I prefer to not participate in this kind of exhausting back-and-forth discussion. I believe that any data that I might have gathered will cause a lot of people to argue with it. Some people really aren't into finding out new things that might benefit them, and so, I just offer my thoughts. People can take them or leave them as they wish.

Regarding how I arrived at my conclusions about teaching, realize that I've done clinics on almost every continent for over forty years. I taught in several schools and I have seen a large number of people on-line when I used to teach one-on-one. Remember that I am trained in music since age five and have an insight into learning that only people with my background might have. I saw that almost everyone shared the same playing deficiencies, sort of those common difficulties in playing that might show up with someone that was limited in their knowledge of music and instrument. Those people that watched my impromptu clinics at the Cort booth at NAMM were witnesses to the common difficulties that everyone exhibited when they sat down with me. While is was easy for people to fathom my points about learning while we were all together in a live teaching environment, people on-line aren't so open to even ponder my points of learning that I can prove in a classroom.

The planet's musicians, since the days of the drum beating caveman, were all self taught (in charge of what they wanted to learn with) or they were taught musical content. This is practically everyone's story since the beginning of music but even here, some people will choose to argue. Long ago, I decided to not engage with bass players except to only share my thoughts and leave it at that (although I have a totally different interaction with people that meet with me on my Office Hours on-line classes. We're engaged together.)

I'll share my thoughts and then leave it at that. If anyone wants my advise, I'm here to help.
 
Last edited:
Here is my bottom line: With very little exception, I can't make any statement without some people finding flaws with them... I'll share my thoughts and then leave it at that. If anyone wants my advise, I'm here to help.

That's fine, but I'm software engineer/IT guy by trade (music is a hobby for me - a serious hobby) - when someone makes claims and assertions, without details, data and specifics, it's meaningless/useless to me - that's how I am trained to think.

How can I comment when I don't know exactly what you're talking about and you haven't brought any supporting evidence to back up your contentions? (Which you now did with respect to your teaching credentials - thanks for that.)

With all due respect -and yes I understand that someone in your position has got a target on his back - with respect to its raw content, a post like yours is useful, to the extent that "My mother told me not to talk to strangers" is useful. It is useful, but only in a very general way - doesn't help me deal with specific cases or make judgement calls when questions arise.

But no harm, no foul. You have enough knowledge and clout around here so that when you take the trouble to put something up there, even if it's short on details and specifics, we know you're talking about something, and that engenders a good, lively discussion at a fairly high level, whether or not we agree with you or grasp exactly what you're driving at. That's always good, so thanks for taking the time. I know you've got other things to do.

:bassist:
 
Last edited:
The mode thing was just to show where to find, for the purpose of contrast and compare, an augmented 4th and a diminished 5th. I'm not massively into modes but many people give the impression that they are, so I just tried to give context, nothing more. And I certainly didn't set out to show off, so apologies if it came over that way...
no apology needed. I have a problem with the concept of modes.
It my understanding, modes were based on the c scale. Now it seems every key has it's modes, instead of twelve major keys there's 84 different modes, seven for each key. It seems to what was simple just got more complicated, and the secret sause people want to keep it complex.
 
no apology needed. I have a problem with the concept of modes.
It my understanding, modes were based on the c scale. Now it seems every key has it's modes, instead of twelve major keys there's 84 different modes, seven for each key. It seems to what was simple just got more complicated, and the secret sause people want to keep it complex.

Basically you've got the modes from the Major, Harmonic minor and Melodic minor ascending. No secret sauce here! Plenty of free resources online, but I strongly recommend buying the Mark Levine Jazz Piano book. Excellent theory and jazz harmony resource. Imo, for all musicians regardless of instrument
 
Here’s what I remember clearly.
I was 8 and during my solfeggio class a teacher would play any two notes (within one octave) on the piano and I would answer.
(Two Octave intervals were next year).
There’s no question whether it’s Gb and C or it’s F# and B#.
Just - What is the interval?
But of course, YouTube musicians have a better knowledge about intervals; therefore, please continue...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.