Jeff Berlin's thought about learning (if this is in your interest to do.)

[shwashwa]

This is why bass educators are displeased with me; I state that they are not fulfilling their principle goal which is to teach to bass players what they cannot acquire easily on their own, which is meaningful musical content to work on.

i think this may be less true today than it was when jeff first hit the scene in the 80's and 90's with his magazine articles and stuff, pre internet. maybe i travel in different circles, but pretty much everyone i know has experienced in some way, charlie banacos' approach note exercises (whether from charlie, or a former student or some other source). i know bass players going to Bergonzi's books, approach note exercises, triad pairs, melodic cells, everything in every key etc. transcribing charlie parker and coltrane solos and playing them on the bass and pulling them apart and analyzing and isolating the phrases and playing through the keys. there's just so much info available today its actually overwhelming. not much of this stuff was around back in the 80's when i first started.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

1. Learning is diametrically opposite than playing which means that lessons in playing don't produce positive results.
2. Music has only been taught two ways, by self taught effort and by learning and practicing musical content. In that these two descriptions seem to define (at least here) everyone reading this post, it does put learning into a more narrow point of regard.

For me, the most important study that has aided my bass playing has been classical cello. I am entirely self-taught on bass, but without classical training on cello and to a lesser extent abortive studies on other instruments (violin and clarinet with grades on both) I wouldn’t be able to begin to play most of the music I’m involved with. It’s transferring the acquired knowledge between instruments and genres yourself that is the key. Imho of course

 

[Lobster11]

Nothing that I stand for is considered non-traditional in how practically every other instrument is taught. It seems to be that only in the bass educational world (and maybe in the guitar world as well) are learning and practicing music viewed as non-traditional.

I get your point, but it seems to me that there is a good reason why bass is taught differently from most other instruments: The bass plays a different role, in the vast majority of contexts, than other instruments. The primary role of the bass is typically at least as much rhythmic as it is melodic and/or harmonic. I don't know anything about how to play drums, much less how drummers are taught, but I'd be very surprised to learn that drummers are not routinely trained to practice with a metronome (for example). So it seems to me that teaching/learning bass should in part be similar to teaching drums, and in part similar to teaching/learning other instruments. No?

 

[Herrick]

I understand that before we play with feeling, before we gig, before we come up with an idea on the bass, we first have to know what the notes are and where they are located on the bass neck. Other teachers don't do this which always concerned me.

I've never been to a real teacher but I've noticed this kind of teaching is very prevalent on YouTube. Maybe they just assume people already know the notes but I get the feeling these teachers don't know which notes they're playing either...otherwise why wouldn't they say the notes? I don't know.

I've never been a fan of not knowing which notes I'm playing.

 

[JeffBerlin]

i think this may be less true today than it was when jeff first hit the scene in the 80's and 90's with his magazine articles and stuff, pre internet. maybe i travel in different circles, but pretty much everyone i know has experienced in some way, charlie banacos' approach note exercises (whether from charlie, or a former student or some other source). i know bass players going to Bergonzi's books, approach note exercises, triad pairs, melodic cells, everything in every key etc. transcribing charlie parker and coltrane solos and playing them on the bass and pulling them apart and analyzing and isolating the phrases and playing through the keys. there's just so much info available today its actually overwhelming. not much of this stuff was around back in the 80's when i first started.

This is encouraging to hear. I would submit that most bass players aren't aware of Jerry or Charlie, but subscribe to groove, feel, metronomes and other non music-centric approaches. I would like to hear from them and share why they view groove as so important to where it is a subject consistently reviewed by bass players that both teach and play. This inspires a question in me:

Why do some believe that groove is the most important element of bass playing when it isn't? It is only one element of bass playing. Can you share your thoughts?

 

[JeffBerlin]

I get your point, but it seems to me that there is a good reason why bass is taught differently from most other instruments: The bass plays a different role, in the vast majority of contexts, than other instruments. The primary role of the bass is typically at least as much rhythmic as it is melodic and/or harmonic. I don't know anything about how to play drums, much less how drummers are taught, but I'd be very surprised to learn that drummers are not routinely trained to practice with a metronome (for example). So it seems to me that teaching/learning bass should in part be similar to teaching drums, and in part similar to teaching/learning other instruments. No?

I agree that the bass carries a different role than other melodic instruments do. But isn't it also true that before anybody can artistically or stylistically play the music that their instrument requires, that they first need to learn how to play?

 

[JimmyM]

I have two daughters who started guitar very young. They appeared to have exceptional natural sense of rhythm from three or four onwards and can pick up quite complex rhythms very easily. Conversely there are people I have tried to teach very basic rhythms to showed that they appear to have no internal rhythm at all. Can you actually teach rhythm to someone that can't even tap to a beat?

My question here would be, " What does a metronome teach a person with no internal rhythm?" It does give them an external way of hearing what the beat is, but what happens when you turn it off and they have to rely on their own internal rhythmic abilities? Most of us have been to shows where they try to get the audience to clap along, and while the front person is clapping, most of the folks in the audience do great. The second the front person stops clapping, some people can continue but most people get confused, realize they're confusing themselves and everyone around them, and stop.

And there's also the issue of musicians not using click tracks in many situations. Rare are the times I've worked live with someone on a click, and it's always the drummer using it, never me. And even with it, they're never perfectly on the beat at all times, so you still have to be able to read the musicians you're working with and develop a feel for how they play so you can sound right with them and they you, and no metronome will teach you that.

Was my daughter's "natural ability" (like that of the 5 year old Jeff) actually a natural internal thing or was it a product of being exposed to music constantly from a very young age? On the other side, I have had good rhythm since i can remember but there wasn't a single musical person in my family.

I tend to think that because of people like you and me who had families who loved music but weren't musically inclined, it's mostly natural, though I certainly believe that people who work their asses off can develop a level of proficiency. And it's definitely true that people with natural abilities still have to work their asses off to be good at it. I had a natural affinity for playing music but I wasn't born knowing how to read music and form chords, let alone applying them to musical compositions.

 

[JeffBerlin]

For me, the most important study that has aided my bass playing has been classical cello. I am entirely self-taught on bass, but without classical training on cello and to a lesser extent abortive studies on other instruments (violin and clarinet with grades on both) I wouldn’t be able to begin to play most of the music I’m involved with. It’s transferring the acquired knowledge between instruments and genres yourself that is the key. Imho of course

Practicing cello is an interesting idea. In your case is a self taught principle in that you assigned to yourself the job of practicing it. It has its benefits, but doesn't provide a more comprehensive regard of music other than the piece you are working on. Playing cello music is similar to playing pop songs for one reason; they both begin and end as compositions. This doesn't leave much harmonic or tonal awareness other than what the piece provides.

 

[JeffBerlin]

I've never been to a real teacher but I've noticed this kind of teaching is very prevalent on YouTube. Maybe they just assume people already know the notes but I get the feeling these teachers don't know which notes they're playing either...otherwise why wouldn't they say the notes? I don't know.

I've never been a fan of not knowing which notes I'm playing.

I am not convinced that Youtube is a reliable place to go to learn from. It is far more entertaining in my view.

 

[JimmyM]

I get your point, but it seems to me that there is a good reason why bass is taught differently from most other instruments: The bass plays a different role, in the vast majority of contexts, than other instruments. The primary role of the bass is typically at least as much rhythmic as it is melodic and/or harmonic. I don't know anything about how to play drums, much less how drummers are taught, but I'd be very surprised to learn that drummers are not routinely trained to practice with a metronome (for example). So it seems to me that teaching/learning bass should in part be similar to teaching drums, and in part similar to teaching/learning other instruments. No?

I took drum lessons for years when I was a kid off of a few different teachers, actually got pretty good at it at one time (though you could never tell today ). Number of times I used a metronome? 0. There's no question in my mind that if I had stayed with drums I'd be at least at the level skill-wise that I am on bass. Metronomes are a staple in the studio today (though I have no clue why), and drummers are wise to develop a proficiency with playing to one if they want to survive in today's world, but if you can't internalize rhythm, no click in the world is going to teach you to do it.

Reminds me of what Ringo once said when Jeff Lynne wanted him to play to a click..."Click? I AM the ----ing click!"

 

[shwashwa]

Why do some believe that groove is the most important element of bass playing when it isn't? It is only one element of bass playing. Can you share your thoughts?

probably from a pop music point of view. you can probably cop a whole pop gig just playing roots in time, whether it quarter notes, dotted quarter/eight, or straight eight. one note will work, but a bad groove will screw the whole band. this of course is not "artistic" playing. this has nothing to do with creating art or knowing one's instrument or music, but for better or for worse, i believe that's where this thinking comes from.

 

[Ash Jazz]

There is meter in art. In learning, meter is best a malleable thing. This is why metronomes are a detriment to learning; the click is the priority, something that you must keep up with. But learning requires time to examine and go over musical principles that everyone can rhythmically understand anyway since they just about all are in some kind of a division or 4 or 8.

Hi Jeff,

I am not foolish enough to disagree with you but I believe that training yourself to lock in to a rythm is an important aspect of musical competancy that requires an investment in time and effort to develop the skill. That is not to say that melogic and rythmic concepts can't be seperated and rehearsed individually. It is something I believe I do well and feel pretty good about doing well.

I agree with you regarding scales. You dont play scales in performance but they do provide a framework for making coherent note choices. While I stand by that concept, it was Carol Kay who once said the reason jazz trained musicians make the best bassists is they think in terms of chords not scales. I could definitely use some further education in that area. I understand the concept of arpeggios but often find mine limited to 1's and 5's and occasionally 3's and then I string them together with scales and chromatic connectors. It doesnt produce the kind sophistication of great players such as yourself and an area I would love to understand better.

Thank you

 

[consectaneus]

I tried a variety of methods until the penny dropped and I realized that my biggest roadblock was not knowing how to read music and where the notes are on the fret board. Until I get that down, everything will be by rote and ingrained patterns. No doubt many can get by well with that approach, but I just don't get it. It's the idea that by learning enough tunes it will sink in by osmosis. That never happened for me and I was assuming it was because I have no aptitude for music. At this point I'm actually more interested in the learning side than the playing side. The fascination for me is in the intellectual exercise. The bass is just my preferred tool for helping me understand how music works.

 

[jnewmark]

This is encouraging to hear. I would submit that most bass players aren't aware of Jerry or Charlie, but subscribe to groove, feel, metronomes and other non music-centric approaches. I would like to hear from them and share why they view groove as so important to where it is a subject consistently reviewed by bass players that both teach and play. This inspires a question in me:

Why do some believe that groove is the most important element of bass playing when it isn't? It is only one element of bass playing. Can you share your thoughts?

I guess I'll take a crack at this, as my avatar plainly states what I like. Groove to me, as a bass player, is MORE important to me than say other things about playing bass, mostly because I predominatly play Soul music, or classic RnB. But, we may have different meanings of " groove ". To me, a perfect example of " groove " is David Hood's bass line in " I'll Take You There". It's very important to me that I nail that repetitive line, or " groove ", throughout the whole song for it to flow properly. If I loose it for a second or two, the whole " feel " of the song goes astray. So, for me, " playing the groove " is more about playing the line as more of a feel thing, and keeping it going throughout the song, hopefully in sync with the drummer, for it to be successful. My two cents.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Practicing cello is an interesting idea. In your case is a self taught principle in that you assigned to yourself the job of practicing it. It has its benefits, but doesn't provide a more comprehensive regard of music other than the piece you are working on. Playing cello music is similar to playing pop songs for one reason; they both begin and end as compositions. This doesn't leave much harmonic or tonal awareness other than what the piece provides.

Not sure I’d equate Bach or Vivaldi with modern pop songs but I take the point The harmonic and other awareness that you transfer though comes not from specific pieces but from the underlying theory knowledge gained from formal classical music study - difficult to play totally without knowledge of music theory in genres like jazz or prog, although there are some notable players who do of course...

 

[jallenbass]

Learning rhythm is teachable if your teacher assigns the right kind of music to practice.

Hi Jeff. I don’t think I have ever heard you talk about this. I’d like to hear more about what the right kind of music is to teach rhythm.

 

[Herrick]

And there's also the issue of musicians not using click tracks in many situations. Rare are the times I've worked live with someone on a click, and it's always the drummer using it, never me. And even with it, they're never perfectly on the beat at all times, so you still have to be able to read the musicians you're working with and develop a feel for how they play so you can sound right with them and they you, and no metronome will teach you that.

I never really looked at metronomes as something to help learn how to keep time. I use a metronome to gain the ability to play something clean at a speed I'm not quite up to yet.

 

[consectaneus]

Hi Jeff,
While I stand by that concept, it was Carol Kay who once said the reason jazz trained musicians make the best bassists is they think in terms of chords not scales. I could definitely use some further education in that area. I understand the concept of arpeggios but often find mine limited to 1's and 5's and occasionally 3's and then I string them together with scales and chromatic connectors. It doesnt produce the kind sophistication of great players such as yourself and an area I would love to understand better.

Thank you

It is both Jeff and Carol Kay who have convinced me to think in terms of chord tones, not scales. The challenge for me will be to get away from thinking "root" and playing ideas beginning with other degrees and in different positions on the neck.

 

[Obese Chess]

In thinking more about Jeff's comments regarding the way other instruments are taught, I'm inclined to agree. One of my dearest friends, who was woefully overqualified for our garage punk band back in high school, is one of the finest drummers I've ever known. He took lessons from a very young age, but almost never learned "songs to play." He learned rudiments, technique, and the fundamentals of rhythm. He learned the building blocks that have since allowed him to be a sought-after session and clinic drummer, as well as a well-regarded teacher in his own right. Having the building blocks is crucially important, especially for versatility, which brings me to my next point - In contrast, I know one particular self-taught drummer who is exceptional in his current genre. He's a metal drummer. Any type of metal you throw at him, he'll ace it. But that's it - he doesn't have the building blocks to be successful within other genres, because he was self taught, playing metal. There are rudiments and concepts and fundamentals that he knows, but only as they apply to his genre of choice. Both are excellent drummers, but learning those concepts is a key difference. Same goes for bass and any other instrument - learn the fundamentals of music as they pertain to the instrument, then learn to play songs.

I hope this is making some sense.

 

[JimmyM]

It is both Jeff and Carol Kay who have convinced me to think in terms of chord tones, not scales. The challenge for me will be to get away from thinking "root" and playing ideas beginning with other degrees and in different positions on the neck.

I don't see what's so bad about thinking "root." Sure, maybe not at all times, and maybe you might to get away from them now and then, but I know bass players who consider "root" a dirty word and I don't get it.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Hi Jeff,

I am not foolish enough to disagree with you but I believe that training yourself to lock in to a rythm is an important aspect of musical competancy that requires an investment in time and effort to develop the skill.

Thank you

Please! You can disagree with me and I can explain my thoughts for you and others to see if they make sense or not.

If you take a look at pretty much the entire group of established bass players, they all could play in time and play rhythmically. So a certain apprenticeship precedes the actual doing of something. Training in my view comes in two forms (something that I feel needs to be repeated from time to time.) We are self taught or we are self taught and trained with musical content. I don't see a third option that makes sense or that has any precedence in music education history. So, yes, I agree with your view!

As a P.S. people may know that I view an awful lot of bass concepts as myths or without validation. Locking with a drummer is a statement of redundancy because all musicians are required to lock together. A band isn't the drummer and bass player. It is a group of hopefully like-minded players and one element of being in a cohesive group is to play in time with each other. Bass players tend to exaggerate the obvious, sort of like telling someone that is driving to the supermarket to make sure that they don't get into a car accident. It's simply too obvious a point to emphasize. Playing in a similar sense of time as your drummer does is obvious as well. If one can't do it, then this simply points to the fact that some more learning time is needed.