Double Bass REALLY Learning a tune

[The Biz]

This AIN'T quick; I've been studying with Joe for about 10 years now and I'm only up to accent 3 triplets with moving melody.

Looking at the post date, right about now, a bunch of you must have really mastered your 4 tunes.
This seems great, I will try it.

See you in 2029.

 

[CvetkoS]

I have a few questions about this.

Let’s say i moved to eight notes. Should i Play through halves and quarters in every session or just to eights?
If i were to pick a blues tune how would i do part 3 of the exercise (3 bars melody, 5 bars improvised)? 1 bar melody/3 bars improvised? I would love to do this with a blues tune, rhythm changes and ballad.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I have a few questions about this.

Let’s say i moved to eight notes. Should i Play through halves and quarters in every session or just to eights?
If i were to pick a blues tune how would i do part 3 of the exercise (3 bars melody, 5 bars improvised)? 1 bar melody/3 bars improvised? I would love to do this with a blues tune, rhythm changes and ballad.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, had a friend visiting from out of town.

First I'd say, lose the blues. The idea behind this exercise is to start hearing voice leading and that's going to be easier to do with a progression that has more movement and a resolution to an actual tonic, either major or minor. The way the blues totality sits around varying dominant chords doesn't really provide the same "fertile ground" for the purposes of this exercise. It's really more of a play around developing melodies by switching between the major and minor blues scales.

Second the idea is that the exercise is progressive. You stay with half notes until you are able to move through the entire progression of the exercise (not the progression of the composition) and successfully maintain the sound of the melody, the sound of the harmonic progression, the sound of the rhythmic pulse, AND the sound of your melodic, improvised line all at the same time. THEN you move on to quarter notes. etc. Once you have accomplished the stages of the exercise with one rhythmic subdivision, you move to the next.

I have to strongly reiterate - this is not a quick exercise where you run through half notes for a little while and then jump to quarters etc. etc. It was generally several weeks before I was really able to move to he next part of the exercise with one rhythmic subdivision, not the next subdivision. I think it took about 9 or 10 years of weekly lessons and practicing about an hour a day to get up to accent 3 eighth notes with moving melody. And that kicked my ass.

How long have you been trying this method?

 

[CvetkoS]

Thank you for the reply.
I havent started yet, Im picking out the tunes so i wanted a little Feedback before i start. Okay, so you say without the blues, i will take cherokee, misty, body and soul and autumn leaves or all the things you are.
I know its a long term exercise, and i move on to quarters only when all parts of the exercise Are cemented. So, then i dont do halves ever again? And when i move to eight notes no more quarters? I know its long and i expect to be at halves for at least a month or more and when i move up the rhythmic subdivion to speed ever more time on quarters and accent x 8ths.
But what do you think about doing this exercise with halfnote and quarter note triplets also?

 

[sean_on_bass]

What a great exercise. Not to diminish the progressive steps but just accomplishing Part 1(melody/chord line/melody) is super beneficial as a bass player. Outlining the chord tones really gets you thinking more like a piano player, along with a mastery of the melody against those chord tones. I have been using this method against a list of tunes i want to internalize and it is really working to create those songs you can never forget. Also, by utilizing inversions in the chord line piece it can really help free up what you play to support a group and break the 'root on the one' method of playing i had fallen in to personally. This makes you start to voice lead as a bassist which is super important to getting to the next level of harmonic playing.

 

[pedroquez]

What a great exercise. Not to diminish the progressive steps but just accomplishing Part 1(melody/chord line/melody) is super beneficial as a bass player. Outlining the chord tones really gets you thinking more like a piano player, along with a mastery of the melody against those chord tones. I have been using this method against a list of tunes i want to internalize and it is really working to create those songs you can never forget. Also, by utilizing inversions in the chord line piece it can really help free up what you play to support a group and break the 'root on the one' method of playing i had fallen in to personally. This makes you start to voice lead as a bassist which is super important to getting to the next level of harmonic playing.

The "root on the one" method is often mandatory because all the band is expecting to hear it coming exclusively from the double bass on the first beat. Unfortunatelly, the next level of harmonic playing may be bringing you no gigs.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

The "root on the one" method is often mandatory because all the band is expecting to hear it coming exclusively from the double bass on the first beat. Unfortunatelly, the next level of harmonic playing may be bringing you no gigs.

Your experience is, of course, your experience. Mine has been that once you are playing with players of a certain level, the expectation for interaction and involvement in the "melodic moment" has changed. But I would posit that, even for ensembles of mixed levels of competency, a walking bass line that weaves an intentional arc moving the harmony forward will communicate the progression more effectively than any rote formula that dictates "root on one". But that is, of course, just my experience.
May I ask, what exactly is your experience?

 

[pedroquez]

Your experience is, of course, your experience. Mine has been that once you are playing with players of a certain level, the expectation for interaction and involvement in the "melodic moment" has changed. But I would posit that, even for ensembles of mixed levels of competency, a walking bass line that weaves an intentional arc moving the harmony forward will communicate the progression more effectively than any rote formula that dictates "root on one". But that is, of course, just my experience.
May I ask, what exactly is your experience?

My experience is that the players that you refer playing at a certain level are exactly the ones who want the bass player to bring the root note on time, because they are playing rootless chord voicings, extensions and so on, making you the only one who plays the tonic. Of course, the arc movements you refer can be safely played, for instance on a 2 5 1 progression you hit the 3rd of the V chord, but, in my experience, if you go wild beyond this, that's a no-no...

 

[Ed Fuqua]

My experience is that the players that you refer playing at a certain level are exactly the ones who want the bass player to bring the root note on time, because they are playing rootless chord voicings, extensions and so on, making you the only one who plays the tonic. Of course, the arc movements you refer can be safely played, for instance on a 2 5 1 progression you hit the 3rd of the V chord, but, in my experience, if you go wild beyond this, that's a no-no...

So we play with the same folks? Like, who?

 

[Ed Fuqua]

.

 

[pedroquez]

I'm sure we don't play with the same folks because we're an ocean apart. If I happened to convey that idea with my words, sorry for that, because English is not my primary language.
Now, you asked me what's my experience. Then you asked who I play with. It's reaching me as a stalking atitude and I'm just affraid your next question will be what car I drive or if my bank account is bigger than yours.
What I described as my experience is, unfortunatelly, common experience among many bassists. And if it comes as a surprise for you, congratulations, you managed to live in a bass player's heaven bubble. I'm not even advocatting it should be that way because I think we, bass players should have the same rights to get our artistic vision as, say , the piano player. But the role of the bass has been exactly that for many years. Just a simple example: 2 bars of a IM7. Bass player plays 1st inversion arpegio up and down (3 5 7 8 7 5 3 1) instead of "root on 1". Piano plays 3 + 7 voicing with LH and sharps the 4 with RH to convey a Lydian feeling. For better or for worst, the feeling became 3 aeolian instead of I lydian. The one on the bass appears only on the 4th beat of bar 1 and can be easily understood as just a neighbour tone to attack the next bar with the five of the same chord. Now, if the piano player is the band leader it could happen two things: Or he loved the new approach or he got mad because the bass player just killed his lovely lydian vibe. Better yet is to reach the position where you lead the band and you do what you want and if the piano player doesn't like it, that's his problem. LOL
Of course if the bass player has terrific chops and is a master at the trade he can be voice leading for the whole song with killer bass lines and won't be making those potential mistakes because he has the sensibility to avoid them.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Maybe it is a language thing, because I don't really care what car you drive or how big your bank account is but (to continue with cars) if you're posting some critique of a methodology I espouse for fixing, by way of analogy, Ferraris, I'd like to know if
1. you actually work on cars
2. those cars are Ferraris
3. your work is recommended by people whose Ferraris you've worked on
Because anybody can have a differing opinion about the efficacy of an approach. But for that opinion to carry any weight, it's helpful to have, with precision and specificity, what experience informs that opinion. Someone espousing an opinion whose experience is playing opposite Joey Calderazzo in Branford Marsalis quartet for the last 4 years, I would say, has more weight and value than hearing something that somebody read in a book or worked on last week in their 9th lesson with their teacher. Generally, for me, it's great to hear someone play, because then I get an actual sample of where they're coming from, how they put their musical understanding into action. There are a number of folks on this site with whom I have a differing opinion about approach and we just have to agree to disagree. Because I hear them play and they are making musical responses based on their approach and, while those choices and responses are different than what I would play in the same situation, they work for them and music is made. Some folks reaction is that this is just some kind of stream measurement, but really, for me, it's just the easiest way to hear where you are along the path. The other part is this; we have both proposed a different take on approach for the same process and it would behoove none who's reading these to have some concrete basis to decide what methodology is most in line with the direction they want to pursue. If the listen to me play and there's nothing in my playing they resonates with them, that they find musical, then it doesn't really matter how logical or emphatically put forth my method has been. It's just "Oh, man, I don't want to play like that!". There's plenty of examples of my playing around the site, but if you have any problem finding them, just let me know. I'm happy to provide links.

Also, I do have to apologize for getting a little distracted here. The first thing I should have addressed is your misconception of this as simply and only a methodology for a walking bass line. As the title reads, it's about learning the HARMONY of a tune, getting that harmonic structure in your ears. When you have worked on this to the point that you have the melody, the harmonic structure, and the time all in your ear, then whatever line you play, be it accompaniment or solo, can be improvised based on what you HEAR, not some formula.

 

[pedroquez]

Ed, the misconception is yours. I think I can explain you why:

1) I only answered a fellow bassist who wrote "break the 'root on the one' method of playing i had fallen in to personally". It seemed to me he was wanting to somewhat drastically move out of the root on one method as if he is ruining every gig when, in fact it's the most common walking bass method used on most classic jazz records we love by monster double bass players.

2) I read every single post of this thread because, as you may understand, I found this methodology absolutely interesting.

3) I don't have a single doubt of the improvement this study formula brings and I will apply it too, as soon as I can.

4) As I see it, you wrongly understood that statement as a personal attack to all the methodology you explain, which is nothing further from the truth. I didn't mean that at all. But I understand, as this matter is too close to your heart. In my opinion you overreacted to it in a not so polite manner, which prompted my needless cars and bank accounts reaction too.

I stand by the words of caution I wrote to the fellow bassists thinking of totally leaving the "root on one" method and I don't think that goes against the method you teach of revolving the song to "the bones", at all.

Finally, I want to personally thank you for this fantastic thread and the knowledge you're passing to all of the community in it, as well as asking you not to take some supposedly contrary statements or opinions so close to the heart.

 

[jheise]

Of course if the bass player has terrific chops and is a master at the trade he can be voice leading for the whole song with killer bass lines and won't be making those potential mistakes because he has the sensibility to avoid them.

Ed, the misconception is yours. I think I can explain you why:

1) I only answered a fellow bassist who wrote "break the 'root on the one' method of playing i had fallen in to personally". It seemed to me he was wanting to somewhat drastically move out of the root on one method as if he is ruining every gig when, in fact it's the most common walking bass method used on most classic jazz records we love by monster double bass players.

Hi @pedroquez, you lost me here and I think other people who read this thread, too. Please don't read this as an "attack", it's not meant to be one.

On one hand, you talk about "sensibility" to avoid potential mistakes and on the other hand you only wanted to point out to "a fellow bassist" that he should stick to playing the root on the one to not ruin every gig.
So you tell him, to not use the method laid out in the first post, to build the "sensibility" you talk about?

I guess, that's not what you want to say, but others might interpret it like that. If you want to grow, you have to try things. Errors will be made. If you're "sensible" you'll notice and adjust the next time around. Why do you assume someone would drastically change his approach right after reading about the method when the method starts at the absolute basics (melody, arpeggios) and (by experience) takes years to work on?

 

[DoubleMIDI]

Not playing the root on every first note of a new chord does not mean totally avoid playing the root on the first note of every chord change.

Being bound to play the root on every first note after a chord change is rather limiting and as far as I have registered the big players don’t do that themselves, even if they sometimes say students should stick to that. It can be helpful to be able to do that if the music needs it but you will be able to play more interesting lines without sticking to that rule too closely.

On the other hand without experience (meaning having played bad lines and over the time developed a sense what works and what to avoid) the lines can get ore bad than the stick to the root ones. One have to take the risk of playing bad lines often to develop the sense what works and what doesn’t. That can get you thrown out of jobs, but if you can play more interesting stuff later you might get hired (by the right people) because of that.

There is the question what you can afford to survive, play too simple to like it yourself or loosing jobs and money.

 

[Tom Lane]

Not playing the root on every first note of a new chord does not mean totally avoid playing the root on the first note of every chord change.

Being bound to play the root on every first note after a chord change is rather limiting and as far as I have registered the big players don’t do that themselves, even if they sometimes say students should stick to that. It can be helpful to be able to do that if the music needs it but you will be able to play more interesting lines without sticking to that rule too closely.

On the other hand without experience (meaning having played bad lines and over the time developed a sense what works and what to avoid) the lines can get ore bad than the stick to the root ones. One have to take the risk of playing bad lines often to develop the sense what works and what doesn’t. That can get you thrown out of jobs, but if you can play more interesting stuff later you might get hired (by the right people) because of that.

There is the question what you can afford to survive, play too simple to like it yourself or loosing jobs and money.

As someone who's exploring when to stick to roots and when not to, I've given this a lot of consideration. First, I notice that most of the jazz bassists I admire don't stick to strictly playing the roots of the chords and that their lines are frequently more interesting than someone who reads a lead sheet as gospel. But, I suspect that most of these players have developed such a deep understanding of functional harmony and have such great ears that they generally know when and how they can break the rules. Not always; sometimes after transcribing someone, I found that I really didn't like their choice of notes but that's my personal subjective opinion. For all I know, the player wasn't all that thrilled with what they played then either - not their best work; even Ray probably had some off nights.

As @DoubleMIDI said, learning when and how to break to "roots on one" rule takes a lot of experimentation and willingness to fail, but, I think, eventually leads a bassist to a more sophisticated sense of harmony and basslines.

I've been counseled by teachers I respect a great deal to "for the moment, play as inside as you can". I didn't get a chance to ask them why, but I think it goes back to the old saw "your outside is only as good as your inside". Ultimately, I think it's important to be able to play interesting, very supportive lines and interesting, less supportive lines and all shades in between, and then experiment and listen to the masters to learn what's appropriate. The keyword being "interesting".

 

[statsc]

As someone who's exploring when to stick to roots and when not to, I've given this a lot of consideration. First, I notice that most of the jazz bassists I admire don't stick to strictly playing the roots of the chords and that their lines are frequently more interesting than someone who reads a lead sheet as gospel. But, I suspect that most of these players have developed such a deep understanding of functional harmony and have such great ears that they generally know when and how they can break the rules. Not always; sometimes after transcribing someone, I found that I really didn't like their choice of notes but that's my personal subjective opinion. For all I know, the player wasn't all that thrilled with what they played then either - not their best work; even Ray probably had some off nights.

As @DoubleMIDI said, learning when and how to break to "roots on one" rule takes a lot of experimentation and willingness to fail, but, I think, eventually leads a bassist to a more sophisticated sense of harmony and basslines.

I've been counseled by teachers I respect a great deal to "for the moment, play as inside as you can". I didn't get a chance to ask them why, but I think it goes back to the old saw "your outside is only as good as your inside". Ultimately, I think it's important to be able to play interesting, very supportive lines and interesting, less supportive lines and all shades in between, and then experiment and listen to the masters to learn what's appropriate. The keyword being "interesting".

I think that framing this in terms of playing the root on beat 1 or not playing the root on beat 1 is coming at it from the wrong perspective. It seems to me that it’s putting an artificial construct or rule on something which should be an organic process. I do agree that when you’re just starting out it’s a good idea to stick to the root on beat 1. As you become more experienced and the tunes become sounds in your head rather than chord symbols on a chart or in your brain (and Ed’s method of Really Learning a Tune seems like a good way to facilitate this) you begin hearing other possible note choices and the process happens more organically, and more importantly, serves the music (rather than your desire for novelty).

I also think that there are many other ways to introduce variety into walking bass lines besides playing something other than the root on 1. There’s so much you can do with rhythm including triplets, drops, accents, pull-offs, hammer-ons, and rakes, which can also spur the pulse along, though one needs to be judicious in using these. Mike Richmond’s Modern Walking Bass is a great source for these techniques.

Finally, I have to disagree with @Tom Lane; I think the operative word in his post should be “supportive” rather than “interesting.” To me, “interesting” sounds very self-centered in that it is serving the wants and desires of the player and putting the needs of the music in a subordinate position. When I create lines that support and inspire other players and deepen the groove, then it gets interesting. Another place to get really interesting is during your solo; at that point you’re probably not playing the root of the chord on beat 1 anyway!

 

[pedroquez]

Hi @pedroquez, you lost me here and I think other people who read this thread, too. Please don't read this as an "attack", it's not meant to be one.

On one hand, you talk about "sensibility" to avoid potential mistakes and on the other hand you only wanted to point out to "a fellow bassist" that he should stick to playing the root on the one to not ruin every gig.
So you tell him, to not use the method laid out in the first post, to build the "sensibility" you talk about?

I guess, that's not what you want to say, but others might interpret it like that. If you want to grow, you have to try things. Errors will be made. If you're "sensible" you'll notice and adjust the next time around. Why do you assume someone would drastically change his approach right after reading about the method when the method starts at the absolute basics (melody, arpeggios) and (by experience) takes years to work on?

Hi jheise;

No problem, I don't consider this as an attack, at all. Let me try to make my thinking a little more clear:

When you write " that he should stick to playing the root on the one to not ruin every gig. So you tell him, to not use the method laid out in the first post, to build the "sensibility" you talk about?":
Where have you seen me telling him not to use the method laid out or stick only to the "root on one" method ? I never told it to him. Sorry if my words led you that way. What I wanted to make clear is that the "root on one", contrary to being evil, remains often, not only a good tool, but our best tool. But I'm all to having other great tools as voice leading, inversions, extensions, creating arcs to land on a given note a number of bars ahead, etc. Of course this may vary a lot depending on circumstances. If I'm only the bass player to a free jazz or avant-garde jazz group I will play radically different than if I constantly gig with different formations who want to rely on a very supportive bass line.

To answer your last question: Why wouldn't I assume that from some or even many bassists who read this or other theory threads? At least my first ten years I would put to practice radical concepts on my gigs, often with disastrous results. Therefore my words of caution.

 

[jheise]

Hi jheise;

No problem, I don't consider this as an attack, at all. Let me try to make my thinking a little more clear:

When you write " that he should stick to playing the root on the one to not ruin every gig. So you tell him, to not use the method laid out in the first post, to build the "sensibility" you talk about?":
Where have you seen me telling him not to use the method laid out or stick only to the "root on one" method ? I never told it to him. Sorry if my words led you that way. What I wanted to make clear is that the "root on one", contrary to being evil, remains often, not only a good tool, but our best tool. But I'm all to having other great tools as voice leading, inversions, extensions, creating arcs to land on a given note a number of bars ahead, etc. Of course this may vary a lot depending on circumstances. If I'm only the bass player to a free jazz or avant-garde jazz group I will play radically different than if I constantly gig with different formations who want to rely on a very supportive bass line.

To answer your last question: Why wouldn't I assume that from some or even many bassists who read this or other theory threads? At least my first ten years I would put to practice radical concepts on my gigs, often with disastrous results. Therefore my words of caution.

You made your case very clear. You wrote several times that you like the method and find it useful. So it's ok ;-)

It was a surprise to me (and maybe others as well) that your first post was about "caution: please consider sticking to the root on one" in a thread that covers an (as I would think) advanced topic and practice method that develops the sensibility to give you more options to react/add to musical situations and make more musical statements. If you have the basics down (and I consider the "how to build a working walking bass line" basic) I think it's very clear that working on advanced topics means you have to make your own experiences and try to see what works. And we all play with different people and have different tastes so what works for me might not work for you.
You wrote: "the "root on one", contrary to being evil, remains often, not only a good tool, but our best tool."
Nothing in the first 8 pages can be read as "root on one is evil. stay away from the root". Root on one is certainly good but the whole thread is on "how to make it even better"!
And if your bandmates don't appreciate you trying to develop as a musician, it's time to find other bands. And if you don't want to do that because of the paycheck or other reasons - no big deal.
And if you have a lot of disasters: perfect! I learned most from the train wrecks I created over the years. And keeping always and only on the safe side and not experiment is something for doctors or other professions where lives depend on it. It's not what music is about - just my 2 cents.
So, I think, words of caution in a thread about a method that teaches organic musical growth is counter productive.

 

[pedroquez]

You made your case very clear. You wrote several times that you like the method and find it useful. So it's ok ;-)

It was a surprise to me (and maybe others as well) that your first post was about "caution: please consider sticking to the root on one" in a thread that covers an (as I would think) advanced topic and practice method that develops the sensibility to give you more options to react/add to musical situations and make more musical statements. If you have the basics down (and I consider the "how to build a working walking bass line" basic) I think it's very clear that working on advanced topics means you have to make your own experiences and try to see what works. And we all play with different people and have different tastes so what works for me might not work for you.
You wrote: "the "root on one", contrary to being evil, remains often, not only a good tool, but our best tool."
Nothing in the first 8 pages can be read as "root on one is evil. stay away from the root". Root on one is certainly good but the whole thread is on "how to make it even better"!
And if your bandmates don't appreciate you trying to develop as a musician, it's time to find other bands. And if you don't want to do that because of the paycheck or other reasons - no big deal.
And if you have a lot of disasters: perfect! I learned most from the train wrecks I created over the years. And keeping always and only on the safe side and not experiment is something for doctors or other professions where lives depend on it. It's not what music is about - just my 2 cents.
So, I think, words of caution in a thread about a method that teaches organic musical growth is counter productive.

Jheise, You say I was very clear in my previous posts but then you continue to elaborate on the ideas contained in the 8 pages of the thread and conclude your train of thought by implying that I shouldn't have wrote my thoughts on this specific thread as if I stepped some invisible moral barrier or some sacredness already achieved by the thread. So, and just to end my contribution to this discussion, I think I already made it very clear that I just commented to one paragraph of a specific post by a fellow bassist that I thought pertinent enough to be addressed. As this paragraph was actually written in this thread, I had to answer it in the very same thread and I find it hard conceiving why shouldn't I do it. Simple as that.