Talk:Double bass

Earlier talk can be found at: Talk:double bass/Archive1

Double Bass featured article nomination

I feel that this article is a fine product of alot of hard work by many individuals. Please support this article in its nomination as a featured atricle. Even if the nomination fails, we can still improve the article greatly based on what comments people have about it. -Bottesini 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pleas express your opinions on the featured article nomination page which can accessed my clicking the "leave comments" on the FAC box above. -Bottesini 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim down

Playing styles section needs slimming. Whole page needs to get down to about 32k!--Light current 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

agreed (this is probably my last edit for tonight). by the way, the image on the left looks much better. please continue this great improvement drive. even if we fail, we can still renominate the article after improvement. -Bottesini 02:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I agree. Please let me know if you find any of my edits too vicious. Then we can discuss how to retain the info whilst keeping the article size reasonable.--Light current 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical DB repertoire

I think this section needs serious thinning out. Its far larger than the paras on other genres and we really need to get the page tighter (smaller!)--Light current 22:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strings

It says in the article Some bassists who perform in baroque ensembles use gut strings to get a lighter, "warmer" tone. Does this mean the strings have more/less bass or more/less top or what? What about sustain on gut -is it better/worse than steel?--Light current 06:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the addition you are referring to, but in true baroque ensembles there aren't any double basses. I'd like to give a simple answer, but this seems confusing to me because, as I previously stated, there are no double basses in a baroque chamber orchestra (as in an ensemble that uses period instruments and plays period works exclusively), and I doubt that most musicians would change their strings to perform one piece of music. But anyways, I don't believe it is accurate to talk about the differences between modern and gut strings in terms of more/less treble or bass. I would say that modern strings such as steel core varieties are "brighter", and do have significantly increased sustain. ==> Bottesini 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Some bassists who perform in baroque ensembles use gut strings to get a lighter, "warmer" tone taken from String materials section, para 1. If what you say is true, then this bit is not correct.--Light current 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, bassed(!) on my limited experience of nylon strings on Spanish guitars, my gut feeling [:-))]- is to say that they have less sustain than metal strings.--Light current 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there were double basses in the baroque orchestra (except for the very early baroque, where the violone was used). Modern baroque orchestras all use double basses as well. Why do you believe double basses were not used in the Baroque orchestra? Badagnani 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it true to say that most DB players regardless of genre, now use steel strings?--Light current 03:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's some interesting information here about early strings and early double bass-type instruments in the Baroque; but I'm not sure I can understand it all. http://www.earlybass.com/dbsession.htmUser:Badagnani

I'm sorry, but I am just not great at getting my point or ideas across in text. In modern Baroque-style orchestras, you're right, there are double basses, but in an ensemble like I mentioned that uses period instruments, modern basses are generally not included. I do not think it is wrong to say that gut strings have a "warmer" tone. Although I think that modern strings are far more popular than gut strings in all genres, I can't speak for any variety except classical (in which gut strings are rarely seen due to durability issues and whatnot). I'm pretty sure there are still some lose ends in what I'm saying, but I'll have to wait and see. ==>Bottesini 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, In reference to double basses using gut strings for Baroque music performance... Lemur Music, a store for bass strings and accessories, sells gut bass strings for bass players who perform in Baroque ensembles.NatMor 14:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

DB Sound and harmonics

Anyone know why the DB and BG sound so different. Is is purely to do with the inclusion or lack of frets? ie how did the earlier fretted DB sound and why does a fretless bass sound similar to a DB even tho' it has no body? - --Light current 23:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference in sound between the two instruments is because of their means of amplification and construction. A double bass uses acoustic properties to project its sound, while a bass guitar utilizes pickups or other electronic methods for amplification. While a fretless bass may sound similar to a double bass compared to a fretted guitar, there is still a significant difference. Frets play a role, but a minor one in terms of basic tone (as in tone that is not shaped by the musician). -Bottesini 23:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its more complex than that, but I'll wait for more comments.--Light current 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's partly this: on the fretless bass guitar, the string contacts more of the surface area of the wood fingerboard than it does on the thin metal frets of a fretted electric bass guitar. This creates a microscopic buzzing of the string against the fingerboard that gives the fretless its special timbre, which is more similar to that of the double bass. Badagnani 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

YES!! That concurs with my suspicions (altho' I havent proved it). There is also the question of how the note tends to grow (the attack phase) or change in tone/timbre just after plucking on a DB or EUB. Any thoughts on that?--Light current 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall now be referring to the above effect by the technical term 'Mwaah'--Light current 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is strange, isn't it? This goes along with the buzzing aspect--in this way, the sound is similar to that of the Indian tambura/tanpura/tamboura, which has a special bridge that is gradually sloped so that the string contacts the bridge in this buzzing manner (although the tambura's buzzing is much more pronounced). I think what the buzzing does (on both instruments) is add high overtones. On the tambura, the sound also seems to "grow," as the overtones kick in. Maybe some more acoustically minded people can describe this better, or maybe there is some website that discusses this in more detail. Badagnani 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well its seems very logical that buzzing will produce more overtones and as the buzzing decreases (with the diminishing amplitude of the fundamental), so the tone changes! You would think that the fingering would actually reduce the overtones by damping. Perhaps it does happen but not as much as you would think. Still got the attack phenomenon to explain tho'!. I'm not sure whether that's the whole story -but its a start for people to comment on.--Light current 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, just a thought. If you pluck an open string on the DB, BG or EUB, they sound a lot more similar than fretted /fingered notes do. This lends credence to the idea of the buzzing contributing to the tone. On a DB or EUB, or fretelss, the open strings can sound uninteresting by comparison the the fingered notes - do you agree?--Light current 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the open strings sound harp-like. Fretted EB always sounded artificial and compressed to me, maybe because of a lack of overtones (?) -- the waveform is too sine-like, without the imperfections introduced by the "wood" sound of the DB. Regarding the fretted EB, if you used a metal nut, the fretted notes should sound the same as unfretted ones. But most people don't prefer to use a metal nut. I've heard of a lap dulcimer player (can't remember who) who uses a metal nut, believing that all the notes should have the same timbre. Badagnani 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted more buzz on the open strings, I supposes one could deepen the grooves in the nut so the the strings contact the the finger board slightly. Ill have to check an my 'action' at the nut!--Light current 22:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Harp like sound is not surprising because the strings are supported similarly (sort of) and dont rub against anything. They are also plucked. When you say 'wood' sound, I assume you're still talking about the finger board buzz effect because I can get a very good DB type sound from my EUB (which has no body to speak of). I agree about the thumpy (not warm or smooth) sound of a fretted BG.

I suppose the only way to get more harmonics out of a BG is to hammer the strings at the right place and have bright sounding round wound strings (like a piano). I think its clear that metal nuts (zero frets) will give same timbre as fretted notes.--Light current 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the really funny thing is that production of higher harmonics can actually make the DB or EUB sound lower in pitch than it is (I mean an octave lower) due to synthesis in the brain of the missing fundamental!--Light current 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it isn't more complex than means of amplification - all I am saying is that this and the basic, obvious differences in construction are the main reasons for the differences in basic sound. If you're going to get into a comparison of the physics and whatnot between bass guitar and real bass, I'm just going to stay out of it because I'm far from having practical knowledge unique to the bass guitar. Viewing the discussion thus far, I may have missed your point. What I do have to say is that an electric upright can only model the sound of a double bass. Bottesini 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct- because EUBs lack the resonant body structure that gives every DB its unique tone. But consider this- if you were to adjust your amp tone controls to model the resonance of a wooden DB body, wouldn't the EUB then sound identical to the DB?

Also, EUBs can give out a hell of a lot more high frequencies (enough to strip paint off the wall) than DBs due to the piezo pickups.--Light current 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So my conclusion is that the sound of a string bass (DB or EUB) can best be described as a bandpass filtered buzz! The filtering is done by the body in the DB and by the amp etc with the EUB. The pressure of the finger also acts to damp out some of the higher harmonics on both instruments again tending to make them less 'buzzy'-- but a buzz it is!!--Light current 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly because of the physical properties that affect the timbres of both the BG and the DB. The BG has a solid body, and its sound is mainly projected through electronic pickups that detect the sound from the strings. Also, the strings on a BG are most of the time roundwound, which are different compared to the flatwound type strings used on a DB, and even if flatwounds are used on a BG, the sound is still different since the length of the string is shorter, the presence of frets, and also the usual attack of plucking style is different, since the majority of the time, when BG players pluck w/ fingers, its simply plucked in a finger walking motion, while DB tends to use more finger surface and wrist power.

The DB on the other hand, projects its sound by using its large hollow wooden body to resonate the vibrations caused by its large strings. Even when amplified, the strings are longer in length and usually made of different material. Plus, many of the pickups used on DB function differently from many BG pickups, many DB pickups detect the vibrations within the body or bridge. The neck is fretless, and is made of ebony, contributing to the sound (buzz). Also, as stated above, the attack is usually different.

See also

talk:electric upright bass--Light current 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Im wondering whether that talk would be welcome (and better placed) over here. There are some interesting comments there. (Not all mine).--Light current 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mwaah

Anybody got any theories about the Mwaah sound?--I shall expound my theory shortly--Light current 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the cause of the mwaah sound?--Light current 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the subtle "buzz" that shows up a second or two into a low pizz note, especially on low notes? I think it comes from what we discussed earlier, the relatively larger surface area of the string in contact with the fingerboard, producing a microscopic "buzz" that doesn't happen with a fretted instrument, or with open strings (the nut or fret being much thinner). Badagnani 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed! I'm glad you asked! Since you first made the (Correct I think) suggestion of string buzz a the finger, I have done a lot of thinking, a little research and some simple experiments on my EUB. Now I believe the characteristic tone and change of tone during the note is caused by the following events:

1. The string is initially deflected in a transverse manner by the fingers of the right hand and released causing the string to vibrate in a plane parallel to the finger board. Only a small amount (if any) buzzing occurs at this time.
2. As time progresses, the vibration of the string is transformed from a simple lateral one into a mode where any point on the string describes an ellipse. This phenomenon has been studied in detail I believe with regard to guitar strings.(but I have no refs). This elliptical motion, of course, has a vertical as well as a lateral component.
3. The vertical component of the motion increases the buzzing near to the fingered position and so the tone becomes brighter as these extra harmonics are added by the buzz.
4. As time progresses further, the amplitude of the fundamental reduces due to damping (air resistance, body absorption of energy etc) and therefore the amplitude of the buzzing decreases, causing the higher harmonics to diminish, leaving only the fundamental (eventually).

The above, I believe, describes all phases of the sound of a pizzicato fingered note on the DB (or EUB or fretless bass). It explains the reason for the delay in onset of buzzing and its dying away. It also explains why there is generally very little harmonic richness on open strings (unless of course the action at the nut is set very low).

Now when bassists talk of the note 'growing' (or is it growling?), what they must be referring to is this onset of increasing buzzing which gives more harmonic content and that makes the note appear louder. As some of the higher partials of a stretched string (eg 7th) are slightly out of tune with the fundamental, this buzzing phase can make it sound as if your intonation is bad. It does with me! (I think a bit of vib may help here).

On a DB, the fundamental note and all the harmonics produced by the string are 'filtered' by the bandpass characteristic of the body of the instrument, which may explain why some basses have more or less 'mwaah' and different timbres. Another important factor is of course the action (and probably the gauge) of the strings. Higher actions will give less buzz, lower actions more. On a EUB or fretless BG, the 'body' of the instrument has a minimal effect on shaping the tone, and this is done in the amplifier. Hence the amplifier on electric instrument takes the place of the body on an acoustic instrument as the major timbre modifier. I suspect that to get a nice 'plummy' sound (very few harmonics) DB players set their actions on the high side and use heavy(ish) gauge strings. Is that correct?

I would appreciate any comments on the above exposition!--Light current 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Great discussion. This makes perfect sense, and is quite well phrased. The folks who disagreed with you about the buzz, I believe, don't know what is going on with the physics of their own instruments. Two things I'd add is that the "mwaah" buzz is also found on fretless basses (esp. those with lower, or "just right" actions). Regarding the separate issue of whether an EUB sounds different from a DB, I believe they do sound different, in this way: the rather thumpy, "hollow wood" sound coming from a pizz DB (coming from the drum-like sympathetic vibrations of the instrument's thin spruce top, especially when plucked vigorously) cannot be duplicated on a solid-body EUB, no matter how amp settings are arranged. Badagnani 04:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listening!! Now regarding the diff betweeen EUB and DB sound, the only thing I can think of is that the thumpy sound comes becuase you have a high action and tight strings on a DB that are somehow more highly damped (not sure why this should be physically yet) If you were to set your action very low and use lighter guage (and therefore slacker) strings, my bet is that you would lose a lot of that thump and get more 'mwahh'. I think its probably a trade off-- you cant have both !--Light current 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The "thump" does seem to emerge more prominently when plucking higher notes (which would be notes that would have less "mwaah"). Badagnani 05:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh well, I think thats becuase:

1. The DB body, as I said, is like a bandpass filter and the higher notes are mainly outside its passband and so have less resonance
2. I think also that these shorter string lengths dont have as much Q (quality factor) and you cant put as much energy into them with your fingers because you cant deflect them enough. I think theres a physics reason for this but I cant recall it ATM.

Now on the EUB of course (or fretless BG) the body has very little effect on the timbre and so you find the notes even very high up still ring quite well.(but still not as well as lower down the fb). In this respect I would definitely agree that a DB does NOT sound the same as a EUB (unless of course you were able to put some extra damping on the strings ;-))--Light current 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes less mwaah on high notes becuase the string vibrates with much less amplitude than for lower notes and so theres less buzz. Aslo, higher up the neck the string departs from the fb at a larger angle , giving more clearance near the finger for vibration without buzz.--Light current 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

True. Badagnani 05:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been getting slightly too much mwahh on my EUB G string and this tends to accentuate any intonation problems because of the harmonics priduced by the buzz. Anyway, following the consensus opinion here, I have raised slightly the bridge sadle for this string and, yes, it decreases the mwahh as predicted and lessens the seffects of bad intonation.8-)) (makes this string also sound more DB like - which Im sure some will be pleased to know 8-))--Light current 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Valve sound

Also, does this speculation about harmonics also apply to valve sound where people claim that valve amps sound more bassy than transistor ones?--Light current 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Combining Bow Sections

I'm going to go ahead and attempt to combine the two bow sections. I'm not sure how that ever even happened - they both cover slightly different material with alot of overlapping info. ==>Bottesini 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

D or Eb neck

Should these two alternatives neck formations ( posn of 'heel') be mentioned?--Light current 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion in whether it should be mentioned or not. I'm not going to go out of my way to add it (because the difference is not incredibly profound), but I am not strongly opposed to it being added. Bottesini 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New picture

I vote for a new main picture at the top of the article. Surely there is a better one out there than a picture of someone's personal instrument. I suggest something along the lines of that which is featured in the german article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontrabass (of course a 4-string model, however.) I'll be looking for a better one. -Bottesini 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally dont see anything wrong with the picture we've got. But if you can find a copyright free alternative thats better, why not?--Light current 20:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW it's is my bass. I agree that it may be time for a better photo - possibly also a better french bow (also mine - sorry), or maybe if someone with both styles of bow could get a side-by-side photo. The .de page is a better bass photo - I don't see the 5th string as a problem (except for the one occasion I had to play one!)

BTW I think you two (maybe others?) have done a great job fixing up this page. Far better balance and structure. It was on my list of "todo"s for a while but I couldn't give it the attention it needed -- too many random edits by passer-bys with their own limited POV. It deserved my photo! I agree with the FA discussion that it is not quite there yet, but it is a couple of orders of magnitude better than what it was when I last looked in. I will take a hard copy away and look for specific improvements. Catch you later. Andrew Kepert 05:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

PS browsing your respective user pages, I think that Bottesini has a much better bass photo. It is even a better-looking bass. Older with more character. Mine is a "one careful owner" commodity instrument subsequently abused with set of jazz strings and a retrofitted piezo. Andrew Kepert 07:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well I like the look of that one, but he's only got the front view. Do you think User:Bottesini could be persuaded to take a side view pic as well? ;-) --Light current 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you are all in luck. I have pictures of the back, side (I think), scroll (which you can see here: scroll (music)), and f-hole (which you can see here: f-hole). But i don't think the pictures are particularly suited for the article. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just checked. Don't have a pic of the side. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well its up to you!--Light current 02:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an excellent picture here, but it's copyrighted, so I'm not sure if there's a way to get around that. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yuo would have to get permission from the copyright owner. Why not email them. ;-)They can only say no! --Light current 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 17:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell the difference?

I say you cant tell the difference (on pizz) soundwise between a real DB and a EUB with properly adujsted amplifier and good speaker cab! Any comments?--Light current 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any double bass player could tell the difference. Bottesini 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you say the difference is?--Light current 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's rather hard to describe things like this in text. I'm not sure how I could explain it. I am sure though that it is easily possible to identify them from each other based on their sound. Most people without musical training could probably identify them as different instruments based on their sound, and probably tell which was which. Bottesini 23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the EUB sounds less 'tubby' on the higher notes (thumb posns on DB) becuase the sound does not depend on the body for reproduction as is does on a DB. In that respect IMO, an EUB sounds better- more sonorous!--Light current 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Endpin and bows

Removal of endpin info means that the article doesn't explain what the endpin is or what it does. Please return some relevant info. Also, the comparison with violin, viola, and cello bows was good to have, and quite relevant to the bass's distinction from the other members of the bowed string family. Hope you'll return that as well. Otherwise the article is improving well. Badagnani 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Restored as requested.--Light current 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm just thinking to keep the description as complete as possible for people who don't know about these instruments (although things like the endpin might be taken for granted by people who know the instrument). Badagnani 03:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Standing on bass

I genuinely think that standing on the body of the double bass is notable and of interest (even if it's done only on occasion by rock and roll and rockabilly players). Badagnani 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope!--Light current 05:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not for some styles of music (such as classical), but it is something one does see on occasion, and is notable. Your dismissive response doesn't engender a feeling of teamwork. Badagnani 05:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You dont expect all members of a team to agree all the time do you? Im saying I dont agree with you. You do not have to agree with me. We can agree to disagree. That is not a lack of team work! Standing on a bass is nothing to do with playing style. By defn its another sort of entertainment that any non bass player could do.

Anyway Im going to leave this article now for some other editors to have some input. I may revisit sometime later.--Light current 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may be interesting, but probably not worth mentioning. At best, I could see it as trivia. But anyways, you could never stand on a good quality, fully-carved bass without damaging the actual bass or the endpin. It's still probably damaging to those stupid painted plywood basses. -Bottesini 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

b string quote in intro

"...an extra low string tuned to B. Such basses are larger than usual and somewhat harder to play because there is less space in between the strings."

I just don't think that's true. You can make an argument as to why they're harder to play, but that wouldn't be the reason. There is not that much of a difference in string spacing; it is a wider fingerboard and bridge which allows for the extra string. -Bottesini 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just bought a five-string bass and have been practicing for about a month. The crown of the bridge is slightly less and the strings are slightly closer together than a four-string bass, both of which are problematic. However, the string positioning is the most difficult problem I've encountered. The strings just don't seem to be where I expect them. When playing Pizzicato I tend to finger one string and pluck another. When using the bow I tend to bow two strings at once. After four weeks I'm just beginning to feel a little confidence playing the instrument.Rsduhamel 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

edit response

(→Technique - Bob Haggart says first finger at HP should be same level as players eye. Is this right or wrong?) - lightcurrent

Well, I always remembered it as first finger at eye level in first position, but i could be wrong. But anyways, its completely different if you play sitting on a stool (like i do), and it really only applies to classical music, and even then its still a matter of personal preference. alot of blugrass players dont even extend their endpin. of course im saying all of this out of personal experince, but i usually set my beginning students up with the 1st finger-eye level in first position. -Bottesini 00:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Im happy to go with the majority view. I only play jazz but I find that if the electric upright bass is too high, I can easily get out of position. (happens if I play without shoes as well!). So I set mine at the Bob Haggart (who of course was a jazz bass player) recommended height and I have minimum trouble (still enough tho'!)--Light current 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if the HP is higher than the players eye level, its easy to get lost simply because you cant see where your left hand is with the peripheral vision of the left eye. I could be wrong about this tho'!--Light current 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a matter of preference. I think that if you need to rely on your peripheral vision to locate a position or note that you need to go back through your simandl book! :) -Bottesini 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I havent got one. Maybe thats why Im in trouble!--Light current 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to pick one up. It is affectionately referred to as the "bass bible" by teachers and students. It pretty much set the playing guidelines that we use today. It divided the fingerboard into the positions and developed simple things like how we use our fingers, etc. You should play through the entire book. It may be a hundred-something years old, but it's still a necessity. (@Amazon) -Bottesini 01:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref, but it wouldnt really apply to the EUB with its shorter scale. I use modified bass guitar fingering (horror!) --Light current 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm apalled -Bottesini 01:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So this is goodbye then?--Light current 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you repent by listening to the entire "Semi-Abridged History and Chronology of the Viol de Gamba" on audiotape. -Bottesini 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can find it. Anyway I like the doghouse sound , its just I cant afford one or transport one. Im listening to Paul Chambers At This Very Moment!--Light current 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How many fingers for pizz?

Just wondering how many fingers classical players usually use when playing (lots of) pizzicato. I only play pizz and Im trying to use two (ie when one gets sore I use the other). But Im trying to harden them both so I can alternate natually whilst playing runs, triplets etc.--Light current 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually one finger for slow, steady pizzicato, but all professional players are easily competent in using the first two fingers in rapid succession for fast sections. This is usually only able to be done if your right hand is not holding the bow, like if you have a quiver or you have placed your bow on your stand for example. -Bottesini 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean if your Right hand isnt holding the bow! Yes?. Anyway do your fingers get sore>--Light current 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

heh, yeah right hand. and no, my fingers dont get sore because ive been playing for many years. -Bottesini 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose classical players are mostly playing arco so thats easier on the rh fingers.--Light current 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When I used to play in an orchestra, it was end of middle finger with bow pointing up. Yes, and you're right, orchestral players don't play much pizz - I don't think it would ever be more than 10% of the time. This style is standard for french bow, and cellists too. For a german bow I think tip or side of index finger is more common, with bow hanging down. My jazz technique is mostly side (near tip) of index finger, with middle finger when needed (for dexterity, not pain). Occasionally RH thumb for special effects such as chords and drumming.

Keeping fingers tough enough does not require much - nowadays I only play one two-hour session most weeks, which is enough to keep my RH fingers tough enough to play that amount and occasionally more (eg 6h last Easter weekend) - I have more problems with LH callouses not being up to the job. Keep your hands dry and maybe try different strings. Andrew Kepert 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

THanks for the advice Andrew. Im gradually toughening my middle rh finger thro' a series of blisters. THe index finger is quite hard as I use that all the time, but I want to able to use either finger for dexterity on fast stuff (like drops, triplets etc, runs of semiquavers). Previously I had plaged BG, where the nails or fingertips took the hammer and I was used to that. Also, I find on the upright bass that Im using a lot more force on the strings on loud or frantic passages/tunes and this of course puts more wear on the finger ends.--Light current 07:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead pic

Does anyone think, like I do, that the Matthias Klotz bass copy would make a better lead pic than the one we have now? (ie swop their positions)--Light current 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think we need a better picture, but switching the two at the beginning is not a good idea. The busetto bass is a nice picture to have, but it shouldn't be the lead pic because it is simply not what most modern basses look like. -Bottesini 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. You know more about these things than I--Light current 16:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you like the sound of superb jazz bass playing

Try to get hold of a copy of Jeff Berlin's track: 'This is your brain on Jazz'. If this does not blow your mind, you are not from this planet (or not a bass player -or both>??).

There are 2 basses on this. One playing 'lead' and one playing 'bass'. The 'lead' bass sounds like a fretted bass guitar whilst the 'bass' bass sounds like a DB or a fretless bass to me. I have listened to this track over 30 times , and Im still analysing the lead playing!!! (never mind the bass or drums or vibes!!!)--Light current 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it. -Bottesini 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm waiting for you to break 15k edits so i can give you some crazy award. -Bottesini 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you!! I dont know which counter you're going to use tho' as the one I refer to seems to have broken!--Light current 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Its here!!![1] Sample only - but try to get hold of the whole thing-- theres so much in it (a bit like Bach!)--Light current 00:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool -Bottesini 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Now all I need is some one to offer to transcribe it for me to practise!. Any offers?--Light current 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

From the fragment, it sounds pretty straightforward harmonically. To my ear (I would have to check with my hands on a bass or a piano) the intro and interlude section are basically cycles of fifths (ii-v-i 's) then the main part (with fast walking bass) is a one-chord section with major/minor tonality, sticking mostly to blues scale - strong emphasis on the tritone (if I had perfect pitch I would tell you it was in C or D or something, but I don't). I agree that it sounds like a fretted bass (see photos on http://www.jeffberlinmusic.com/) with an amplified DB behind, maybe EUB. I think the woody tone in the lower register (say around the 40sec mark in the sample) sounds more like a DB than an electric bass. Pretty nifty fingerwork. Nice drums too - really drive it forward. Why don't you write to the address on the site - they would have session info (players, instruments) and maybe a chart is available somewhere? Andrew Kepert 06:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

THanks for your comments Andrew!--Light current 06:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

picture?

Can someone figure out what hapened to the main picture and fix it? because it's pretty screwed up right now. -Bottesini 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pic looks OK on my browser Firefox. Are you sure its not your browser?--Light current 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuning

Article says for solo work, the whole bass is tuned a tone higher. Does this affect the bend of the neck at all? Also, how much higher would people consider it safe to tune a DB before risking the neck cracking/breaking?--Light current 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It has a negligible effect on the instrument. But I can tell you that the strings will break long before the neck will crack solely from string tension. -Bottesini 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

THank you. for the info--Light current 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To expand on this, there are special strings sold for solo tuning. You CAN in fact use orchestral strings for solo tuning, but you should detune them to orchestral tuning before putting the bass up for the night, or else it will affect the neck. Kntrabssi 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I probably should have mentioned that you use a different set of strings. I've never used orchestra strings for solo tuning, but I agree completely that it would be a problem. — ßottesiηいーたi^{Tell me what's up} 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Now this makes a bit more sense!--Light current 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Now when solo tuning is used, do you have to mentally transpoe the written part, or is it transposed on the music?--Light current 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When playing in solo tuning, the strings are all tuned up a whole step, however, the solo part is written a whole step lower than the rest of the orchestra, or the piano. The only time you would have to mentally transpose your part would be if you were playing in orchestral tuning, although solo tuning is generally done to make parts lie easier on the bass. To answer your question shortly, the music is transposed on step down. You play an E where you would normally play an E, it just sounds like an F# :-) Kntrabssi 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The only problem is if you have been practicing the piece in standard tuning and then rehearse with accompaniment in solo tuning, it sounds very strange as you are used to hearing it a whole step lower. I remember the first time I played along with my teacher (at the piano) on the Dragonetti and it blew my mind because I was used to hearing it in G major. Ahh... memories. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Link cleanup

I have deleted a substantial number of links from the external links section. I am fairly familiar with most of the ones I deleted, and only did so for a couple of reasons: 1)A completely commercial site with limited information. 2)A site with information pertaining mostly to the bass guitar. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

We need to start going through the article and citing references. If anybody wants to get started... — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You start We'll follow you!--Light current 23:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, when I get around to having enough free time. Just wanted to mention it, just in case anybody else wanted to be productive. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes its important for FACs--Light current 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Glissandi

Has anyone ever noticed that, when doing a long upward gliss, the note tend to remain strong over the whole of the fingerboard, yet when doing a long downward gliss, the note tends to die away more quickly?. Does anyone have any theories?--Light current 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Never noticed that before. I'll have to check it out. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Never noticed it either, but it could possibly be because when you gliss upwards, you are shortening the string, but when you gliss downwards, you are lengthening the string. That seems to make sense to me, but I wonder if it's almost something with your bass....? Kntrabssi 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I Haven't tried it out yet, but I am thinking that if there is a difference, it is due to string length. Right now I'm thinking that maybe it's because (if you're using a bow) that you are not changing the contact point of the bow in propoprtion with the changing string length (i.e. you need to play closer to the bridge when in the upper regester to get the same tone that you can get by playing closer to the fingerboard in the lower positions.) — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, I should have mentioned that the glissandos are done pizz not arco!--Light current 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I would think it's due to the same principles. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well I think its due to the fact that there is more energy stored in the longer string vibrating, so that when you gliss up, this energy is easily transferred to the shorter length thus maintainig (or even increasing) the volume. When glissing down, the small(ish) amout of energy you put into the string is insufficient to give the same vibrational amplitude to the ever increasing string length. Comments?--Light current 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually not quite correct - it has more to do with the energy in a particular oscillation at a particular frequency and amplitude, and how efficiently it is transferred out of the string to become sound that you can hear. According to this and a little algebra (sorry, I am really a mathematician who pretends to be a bassist) the energy in an oscillation of a mass m at amplitude A and angular frequency ωおめが (i.e. actual freq 2πぱいωおめが) is m/2*ωおめが²*A² -- or in other words the energy is proportional to mass (heavier strings - more energy, in proportion), the square of the frequency (for a given mass and amplitude, each octave of pitch has 4 times the energy) and the square of the amplitude (each doubling of amplitude gives 4 times the energy). Basically there is more energy in higher-pitched vibrations.

This explains why us bassists have to put up with fat strings and high action - to get the same energy in the string as a cellist, we need 4 times the amplitude, or 4 times the string weight, or a trade-off between the two.

Okay, so in a raising-pitch glissando, what does this mean?? Off the top of my head without writing down any differential equations, I think there are two factors:

1. The frequency goes up proportional to 1/L (L=length of string) and the mass of string goes down, proportional to L. The amplitude will decrease, but not proportional to L. (For a substantial part of the vibration, the string is at close-to-full displacement, while L decreases). Assuming constant amplitude, the energy in the string will increase proportional to 1/L. You are actually driving more energy into the system. Test for this: I am pretty sure the effect is still there if you alter the tension, rather than changing the vibrating length. Certainly if you quickly drop tension you lose volume -- this would not be the case if it was just an issue of the energy in the string being concentrated in a shorter string
2. The mechanical efficiency of transferring certain frequencies from the string to bridge+body. Something you will know: low-pitched pizzicato sustains far longer than high-pitched. So a given amount of energy in a high-pitched oscillation will be dumped into the bridge and turned into sound far more rapidly. So if you pluck a string, the most efficient way to get the energy out of the string and into the air is to increase its frequency -- a more rapid transfer of energy out of the string gives an increase in sound energy. Just like in #1, increase in tension would dump the energy into body and air more efficiently. I seem to remember seeing many years ago an analysis of the energy transfer at the end of a string, and it has to do with the parameters of the endpoint -- here how much the bridge acts as a mass vs a damper vs a springy support.
3. No, wait, there are THREE factors (no-one expects The Spanish Inquisition). The relationships between energy in an oscillation, sound pressure and perceived loudness are frequency-dependent. But it is Friday afternoon and I should be home having a beer, rather than trying to figure this out!

My guess - #2 may be the major effect

Mmmm - longer and less clear answer than when I started thinking about it! Maybe I should ask one of my physicist colleagues. Andrew Kepert 08:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. :-) But I just picked up one point where you said you are actually driving more energy into the string. I dont see how this can be, unless you are saying that the finger sliding up is increasing the tension of the string slightly. But I dont think the amount of energy so gained would account for the increase in sound output. Can you expand on that point please? :-)--Light current 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew someone would pick me up on this. 8-) I think it is a minor effect, and may only be present in an idealised friction-free vibrating string set-up, instead of the messy physics in a real bass. A quick description of this is that the vibrating string will exert a force on the finger pushing it back up the string (in a lengthening direction). This force isn't there in a non-vibrating string, and is the component of the tension force in the direction parallel to the string's normal position. Physicists will tell you that any movement against a force requires you to put energy into the system (they call it work). Of course, as a player, you are already doing expending energy, working against friction (heating your strings and skin), but the extra energy from pushing against the vibration force will actually end up as mechanical energy in the string.

This is actually different to how I originally came to a similar conclusion: If you imagine the string vibrating extremely slowly while you slide your finger up, then at some point when the string is at full displacement, you actually shorten the string significantly while still at full displacement, so the amplitude stays the same. Say you decrease the length to 1/2 of its original length (an octave) then the mass of the string is 1/2 it was before, the frequency is doubled, and so the energy being m/2*ωおめが²*A² changes by a factor of (1/2)*2² = 2. Okay, so the string isn't hanging there in a weird bent shape while your finger moves, but on average about half the time it is bent close to its full displacement one way or the other (saying more than this requires more mathematics - differential equations and such). The other half of the time the energy is kinetic energy in the lateral movement of the string, and the moving finger will not contribute extra energy. This is why I said "the amplitude will decrease, but not proportional to L". This is an extremely rough analysis. If I get a chance I will confirm it with the proper DEs.

As I said, I think the mechanical efficiency argument is more sound (ermm sorry). In a long string there is typically more energy (higher m, higher A, but lower ωおめが), but its rate of transfer out the string into sound is far slower. If it was as fast as for short-string vibrations, it would be (a) LOUD and (b) a dull thud (short low-pitched sounds are generally perceived as thuds - not enough vibrations to establish a pitch). Good basses are not constructed this way, for obvious reasons.

Having written all this out, I am not totally convinced that I am on target with the mechanical efficiency argument. The main reason is that high-pitched vibrations are more susceptible to damping -- mechanical friction from shear forces in the wood and such. This is energy lost from the string that doesn't end up as sound, and so could be contributing to the relative mechanical efficiency of low vs high notes.

Looks like I still have some thinking to do. I might even have to get a pen out. Andrew Kepert 09:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought mathematicians always used a pencil (so they can easily erase any errors!) ;-) Anyway, youre saying that you dont need as much energy in the higher pitch vibrating string as you would in a low pitch vibrating string to sound equally loud? So in that case, you wouldnt need any extra energy from the sliding finger! It may give extra energy (or minimise finger damping losses) as you describe above but I dont think its much. I think youre just altering the parameters of the vibrating system, the energy is substantially constant(except for damping and air friction etc) but is stored in higher frequency vibrations. Now if higher freq vibrations are more efficient in making sound, then I think we have the answer- no? Also, this sounds a little bit like a parametric amplifier where signal energy is put in at one level, and then you reduce the capacitance in the tank circuit to get a higher voltage output (this will also change the freq of oscillation BTW) . I suppose energy must be supplied by the voltage source charging the capacitor.(but also the circuit is them working at a higher impedance probably so there may not in fact be any power gain - just voltage gain). Hmmm. V.Interesting! 8-)--Light current 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC) I

Neutral Point of View

Some editors have asserted only one side of some debated issues regarding the double bass. An editor changed the lede paragraph so that it gave only one side of the debate regarding whether the bass is a member of the viol or violin family, saying that the bass is "properly regarded as a member of the viol family" (rough paraphrase). An editor also asserted that the etymology of double bass comes from the size of the bass and the doubling of the cello line--I imagine that this is a subject for debate, not an accepted fact. The Wikipedia policy is copied below: Key policies Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus. As indicated in the NPOV policy, all views on the subject should be represented, and that certainly should be the case for the lede paragraph, where readers are going for a quick overview of the topic. Thanks for all your hard work, fellow contributors to Wikipedia and to the double bass page : ) NatMor 14:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not debate over whether the Contrabass is a member of the viol family or the violin family. Viols are characterized by their sloped shoulders, which all double basses have. The majority of the strings on viols are tuned in fourths, just like the double bass. Violin strings are tuned in fifths, as with the rest of the members of that family. I see no reason to edit that point, and am thus reverting it. Kntrabssi 16:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're not reverting to the original, better version, because the current article does not critically examine the use of the term "bass violin" to refer to the double bass. This should be added back into the article. Who is deleting this stuff? Badagnani 06:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridge mechanics

This post of mine has been sitting on the Talk:Bridge (instrument) page for about 5 months with no replies. As we seem to have some very educated editors working on this page 8-), I thought some of you would like to comment. It does also apply to DBs BTW

Bearing in mind that there is a node on a vibrating string where it passes over the bridge, how exactly do vibrations get to the body. There arent any vibrations at the bridge cos its a node. Anyone know the answer to this paradox? 8-?--Light current 14:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

--Light current 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple answer - it isn't really a node, as there is a bit of "give" in it. As I mentioned above (actually i lie - I was thinking of putting something on this yesterday, as it relates to the mechanical efficiency, but now I check back on it, I can see that I decided enough was enough), each end of a vibrating string can have a variety of springiness, sponginess and weightiness (spring, damping, mass) and this effectively shifts the node slightly forward or back from the bridge. I think with most accousting string instruments the bridge & belly mostly is "springy" so that there is an effective lengthening of the vibrating string. (Purely "damping" anchor gives a lesser lengthening and purely "massy" anchor gives a shortening.) The distance shifted (and hence the pitch shift) is frequency-dependent, resulting in the harmonic series being out-of-whack. This is similar for an air-column. On an electric guitar or bass, there is little give in the bridge, so none of this applies. I can't find any quick reference on google, and don't have time to mess with this now. It might be worth digging something out on this for the vibrating string page. Andrew Kepert 10:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree it would be better on vibrating string or Bridge (instrument). But as I said before, all the educated editors seem to be hovering around this page ATM and therfore this I thought was a good place to gather info initially! 8-)

I think the bridge must move a small amount to transfer the vibrations to the body. Now considering a lateral (or vertical - its actually elliptical I believe) movement of the string at the bridge, how would this actually transfer the energy to the soundboard.

Or is it the slight increases and decreases in tension that actually rock the bridge toward and away from the nut microscopically and hence bend the soundboard to a similar small extent? 8-|--Light current 14:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

McCartney

Am I the only one who disagrees with having a picture of a guy playing electric bass on the Double Bass page? Kntrabssi 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No of course not! I have removed it several times only to find it put back later! 8-(--Light current 06:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

classical music section

I like the rewrite, but the subsection titled "solo works" needs to be changed because most of the pieces mentioned are solo works. It seems to be a subsection where all the other pieces that didn't fit into the other categories were put. Perhaps title it "other" or something like that? — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes please feel free to modify according to your wishes 8-)--Light current 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going to, but I'm looking for suggestions on a better way to arrange it. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK well you obviously know more about this subject than I do. I was just trying to prune it down a bit and put it into some sort of order that I thought sensible. But, as I say, please modify as you wish (as long as it doesnt get too big!) 8-)--Light current 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Guys, my goal is to get this article to be nominated and succeed as a featured article. In order to do so, let's check the criteria:

1. It exemplifies our very best work
2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable
3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects.
4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.

What do we have?

• I would agree strongly with requisite number 1. This is a well written article and represents the great work wikipedians do.
• Requisite number two, I would agree with points 1, 2, 4, and 5. What we do NOT have is a list of references. Perhaps this should be the next course of action?
• Requisite number 3 is a questionable. There is a good lead section. However, the order in which the topics are brought up could be fixed, and there may be too much information here (see point number 5). EDIT: fixed now!
• Requisite number 4 is fine. There are good pictures and good captions in good places, check this one off.
• Requisite number 5 is the only other question. This article, at the time of my writing is 38 kb, and the reccomended size is 32. Now this is NOT a large problem since we are close to the recommended size. However, there are parts in this article that could be removed. Instead of going into them here, I will just do them. I am also going to be adding tags in the neccissary spots, and then we can work on that. Whaddya say guys? Kntrabssi 22:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you should check the discussion from when I nominated it to see why it failed and get some pointers. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Im in favor of Bottesini (or others) trying to prune the article further. Ive done some, but I fear I may do too much damage by doing any more. It needs someone with more knwoledge of the DB and its music than I have.--Light current 23:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that nothing is permanent. Be bold and edit. Justify why you edited of you feel it might be questionable. Badgan, Bottesini and I are frequently here, and we will not let you get away with a bad edit ;-). Kntrabssi 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KB for your vote of confidence, but I really feel I ought to leave the repertoire section to someone else! 8-)--Light current 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References and possibly one more picture should be added, fellas, then I will propose this for Featured Article! Kntrabssi 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I feel as thought the subcategories "Practical Problems of Double Bass Playing" and "Playing Styles" could be either merged to another category or eliminated entirely. I also believe that that "Sound Characteristics" category could be turned into a "Tone" category and made broader by copy editing. Kntrabssi 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to keep thse two topics with the page as they are intimatley related to the instrument itself and are of great interest to persons thinking of taking up or starting the DB. 8-|--Light current 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The information should stay, agreed. However, the topic of "Practical Problems of Double Bass Playing" should be covered under the "Technique" category, similarly with "Playing Styles". Kntrabssi 04:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

THats OK 8-)--Light current 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pruning Section

I don't believe it's neccisary to have a paragraph in here about Slam Stewart, Charles Mingus and Scott LaFaro. They contributed greatly, but their contributions can be covered on their page, not this page. This page should be about the bass and its function in music. Kntrabssi 23:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and that anon just added LaFaro. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we separate the DB page from the 'bass players' as were thinking of doing on the Bass guitar page. Maybe we could put all the bass players together on one page???? (light blue touch paper and retire immediately)--Light current 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be a category page for bass players (If there isn't one already) and the information about them, as well as what they've done for the instrument should be listed on their page, not on the page about the instrument. Kntrabssi 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already a page for list of bass guitarists and Im not suggesting we put DB players there unless thers a lot of support for that move. However, Im not sure if there exists a page for DB players as yet--Light current 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a list page of notable double bassists which is seperate from the list of bass guitarists. The double bass page should be about the instrument and not the players. I'm going to remove all mentions to all bassists who aren't Simandl (because he developed the method that nearly all of us use today), Bottesini and Dragonetti (because of their influences on bows and the function of the instrument). Kntrabssi 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 8-)--Light current 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the bass

We should have a consistent policy when referring to the bass in this article as far as the name goes. It may be confusing to call it the double bass in one part, the string bass in another and the contrabass in another. Since the title of this page is Double Bass, I propose that all references made to the instrument be Double Bass. Kntrabssi 17:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Double bass players(continued)

And another thing, there are already three articles about notable double bass players that are seperate from the bass guitarists page. I also agree that people except for historical figures should be removed (except for maybe gary karr or edgar meyer). — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, if you read this section you will understand why I edited away the individual players I did in my last revision. Kntrabssi 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As we've seen, we don't always agree, and I do not agree in this case. It "adds" nothing to a great article on the double bass and its uses to erase all mentions of highly significant players. Of course, we all agree that we don't want superfluous players or a huge list, but two or three of the finest exponents of a style (such as slapping or the use of double bass in a rock context) are very useful as Wikipedia is a web of links, and allows users to pursue interests through these links. By removing the names as you have done (to which I strongly object), these users are cut off from knowing about Soul Coughing's restoration of the double bass in a rock context, or finding out more about fine slap players. This is wrong, and, to my mind, shows a bias toward classical uses and against popular uses of the instrument by some editors -- as if the non-classical uses are somehow less valid or worthy of consideration. I wish that weren't the case. Badagnani 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the instrument itself, however. There are five or so lists of notable double bassists at the bottom of the page which readers can go to and find out about slap players and jazz players and bluegrass players, etc. The people we have left on here have actually changed the instrument and developed techniques, such as Franz Simandl. Mentioning of the Stray Cats and the Barenaked Ladies is not relevant to the evolution of the instrument and the details are more suitably put on their pages, not on this page. There is still mention of the basses evolution in popular music, it is just not neccissary to lists bands and players. I respect your opinion, however the consensus here has leaned on the conservative side. Kntrabssi 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kntrabssi said: The people we have left on here have actually changed the instrument and developed techniques, such as Franz Simandl. Mentioning of the Stray Cats and the Barenaked Ladies is not relevant to the evolution of the instrument and the details are more suitably put on their pages, not on this page.

I do not agree at all with what you have written here. The instrument is a tool used by performers and it is not incorrect to discuss the instrument's use, and users, in context. Furthermore, it is quite mistaken to say that slap style is not a significant development in technique--it is a fairly revolutionary and highly developed technique. Even so, I do not agree that the mention of those groups is irrelevant to the article, and maintain that by removing these mentions we are cutting users unfamiliar with these important uses off from these links--quite a shame. What you have written, unfortunately, seems to bear out my guess that the bias is in favor of classical uses of the instrument -- that's really too bad. Please rethink before deleting in the future, especially when other skilled editors have thoughtfully and carefully added these selected details over a period of months, if not years. Badagnani 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, I have tried nearly 7 times to civily talk to you about why these edits have been made. I have told you mutliple times that there has been a consensus reached on this, and that the contributions players have made towards the double bass should be listed at their page and not on a page about the instrument itself. I have also respected your opinion and even comprimised with you on the nicknames instance. What I have met time and time again has been nothing but hostility, incivility and condescension. That you do not agree with us is fine and well. However, to suggest that I am not a skilled editor because I have deleted something that Light Current and Bottesini have also agreed on is very much a Personal Attack, not only against me, but against the other two. I have told you that I respect your opinion about the matter. However, the community consensus has been reached and you are outvoted. I have been editing this article for over a year now myself, and have thusfar not ran into the hostility that you have shown me in the last few hours. You talk about a community project, yet you are not contributing to a community atmosphere. We understand your opinion. You have every right to disagree. However you have no right to begin insinuating things. This is no longer a discussion. Any more edits made to this page that violate this policy will be seen as vandalism. I want nothing more than for this to become a comfortable community and I can't help but feel as though you are not contributing to that. Kntrabssi 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, in my post just above I referred to "other skilled editors," which does not imply that you are not one of these. Badagnani 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if anything I have said comes across as uncivil, but actions (specifically the selective deletions of other editors' content) speaks for itself. Conversely, your recent comments on my talk page and edit summaries seem to constitute the same rudeness which you are ascribing to me. Finally, your deletion of instrument nicknames was not the result of consensus; you posted your intention, then went ahead and made the deletion without input from others. Let's respect one another's contributions, as we are all working hard on the article, but not delete without consensus (which, by the way, means a unanimous decision worked out among a group, which was clearly not reached in the cases we are discussing, despite your contention). Badagnani 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My deletions of information was simply my being bold. Generally, when one has an issue with something that has been deleted, they bring it here and there is a discussion about it, instead of simply reverting the information back. That inevitably leads to edit wars which become a nasty mess. However, there have been a few instances on here where majority has ruled and some people have just had to swallow their beef. We have tried to avoid the issues that you brought up by putting a list of notable bassist together and linking it at the bottom of the page. We felt this was more suitable and would leave this page to be solely about the instrument. Kntrabssi 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reread the discussion and see nothing about a decision to purge all names (even brief references, in context, of highly notable players known for their expertise in various techniques) of non-classical bassists from the article, only eliminating an entire paragraph about specific players. Looking over recent deletions going back a number of weeks I see that they do mainly relate to non-classical uses of the instrument, which may be regarded as frivolous by classical players. Badagnani 22:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Light Currents third edit

Light Currents third edit, the one about removing the Double Bass page from the bass players, as was apparently done on the electric bass page, is the policy we all agreed to. Kntrabssi 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My reading of that edit was that he was referring to the long lists of bass players of various styles which constituted probably about 30% of the length of the article before they were moved -- not the removal of all names of prominent bass players from the article's text. I think it was good thing that those lists are in their own articles, but the mention in the text of the names of selected extremely influential or important players in various styles does add a lot to the article, and should not be removed, as it leads researchers in the right direction rather than hiding the information from them. If Gary Karr, Bert Turetzky, and Edgar Meyer are mentioned by name in the text (as they absolutely should be), then Milt Hinton and very prominent contemporary rock bands using the instrument should be as well. Badagnani 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Turetzky, Karr and Meyer are mentioned here as composers and not as performers. They are mentioned under the New Works categories for the pieces they have written for the instrument. What we had agreed on, and this is certain for the rest of us, was the removal of names of players who have only been performers. Their contributions to the double bass are better fit on their pages. I agree with your expansion on the slap technique, howere listing players who were prominent in slap has again gone against this policy and is again being removed. Kntrabssi 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the section. Karr and Turetzky are not mentioned as composers, but as performers. This deletion further proves my belief that edits are being made to promote classical uses of the bass, and to ignore or minimize non-classical uses -- as many of the latter uses of the double bass feature music which is not notated (though much jazz is notated, particularly that by the prominent jazz double bass player and composer Charles Mingus, who finds himself also removed from the article). Thus, important developments in non-notated music continue to be removed from the article due to this bias. Please try to be more pluralistic in your editing; the fact that of the four most active editors here are primarily oriented toward classical uses of the double bass does not mean that the non-classical uses are not worthy of equal discussion. Badagnani 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If Karr and Turetzky are mentioned as performers (I glimpsed at it, I'll admit), then I feel they should be removed. I agree that a policy should be set and upheld throughout the article with no exceptions. I will reread and probably delete their names. On a side note, when were you in Bangor? I am currently attending the University of Maine and I wonder if I knew the guy you were talking about? Kntrabssi 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you two were really friends in the dim and distant past!!!--Light current 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Badagnani. He is just as passionate about Wikipedia and music as I am, and that sometimes leads to tension, but I respect him. I hope that is clear. I assume the four consistent editors here are bassists? Where did we all study bass? I am currently studying at the University of Maine, as I mentioned above. Kntrabssi 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Im only a self taught jazz/ big band bassist (now playing EUB) but I hope you'll let me stay! You lot seem more inteligent than those on the BG page and I like it here 8-)--Light current 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Turetzky and Karr should be removed, as hard and fast policies can box information and people in. I think we should think of the usefulness and comprehensive-ness to the maximum number of English readers around the world, not telling them everything about the double bass but giving them the basics and steering them in the right direction. Along with Meyer, Karr and Turetzky are of supreme importance, in my view, for what they have done for the instrument in their chosen areas of specialization (as other great musicians have done for the instrument in their own respective genres).

It was not my impression that that rockabilly group was a Maine-based one, though I may be wrong. I think the bassisst had dark, slicked back hair. His slap technique was incredible, so fast that the eye couldn't really follow his right hand. I stood close to the bass and didn't really notice much else that was going on in the band, though I think there was also singing and guitar playing. I noticed that the plucking hand would actually seem to be jumping up and down the fingerboard several inches for each slap and pizz. but even after watching it for over an hour I couldn't really make sense of what he was doing. While in Maine I did get a chance to meet a friend of a friend, a very cool jazz trombonist/hurdy-gurdy player from Orono named Jim Winters. If you run into him tell him I said hi. His sister Stephanie has released a cool CD of multi-tracked cello music.

Although I fooled around the double bass informally (borrowing one from my local community college for a year or two while in high school) I have never studied or performed on it, though I have worked very closely with double bassists in my new music groups since 1989. I do, however, play the bass viola da gamba and electric bass, but specialize in oboe, english horn, and Asian wind instruments (oboes and mouth organs). Badagnani 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Double bass rosin

• "Double bass rosin is generally softer and stickier than violin rosin, to give the greater adhesion to the strings,..." Could anyone explain to me what the last part of this sentence means? Kntrabssi 17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I didn't write it, it's saying that it just sticks to the strings better. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposition on Nicknames

The nicknames of the double bass are way too long. What if we stuck to only the most common nicknames, or only what would appear on a piece of music? That would leave double bass, string bass, contrabass, and bass. It may look a little more professional. Kntrabssi 17:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This considerably shortened list is not comprehensive. We do not get to choose which nicknames are valid or not, just which have been used. Keep list of nicknames "as is." Badagnani 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

THe DB gets call all sorts of things and, whilst we may think some of these names are disrepectful to (y)our art, I reluctantly agree with Badagnani that we will have to keep them in. But how about putting the proper ones in the main bit and relegating the slang terms to a section on its own near the bottom of the page! 8-)--Light current 20:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is sensible but the "legit" and "illegit." terms could actually be in the same paragraph. I had surmised, as did you, that the slang terms were originally deleted for reasons that the editor is close to the instrument and feels they either make light of or demean the instrument (the way the tuba seems always to be the butt of jokes). But I always felt that names like "doghouse" were used in good humor. Badagnani 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Im easy!. I wonder what KB thinks of this compromise?--Light current 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits for the nicknames were simply to shorten the article. There are plenty of nicknames out there that haven't been put in the we may not even know of yet. My attempt was to make the article a little more professional looking by using only the nicknames that would appear on a piece of sheet music handed out in an orchestra, jazz band or symphonic band. Since Wikipedia is all about comprimise, I am fine with this. However, Badagnani, in your careless reversions you have gotten rid of all of my citation tags, as well as reverted some text that mentions other bass players, which we have agreed is not the place in this article. I am going to revert them one last time before I bring it up for mediation. Please read this discussion page before making these reversions in the future. Thanks! Kntrabssi 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You can revert only the citation tags, or I will do so for you. Badagnani 21:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bass clef symbol

What does the bass clef symbol actually represent? --Light current 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The clef on the staff of the music you are reading shows what range of music you are playing. Most orchestra stuff is in bass clef. Advanced solo music is usually mostly in treble. Either way, the double bass actually plays an octave down from the actual notes it is reading. For example, if a cello and bass were to read the same music (cellos are usually in bass clef too), the bass would be playing the same pitches, but an octave lower. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but what does the symbol mean? (See page for clue! 8-))--Light current 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite following you. If your asking it's origins, most people think that it came from a variation of a cursive "F", which is the note that the clef rests on (the line with the little ball of the hook on it). — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct! Its the F clef!--Light current 22:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, alot of people call it that. I guess I just didn't figure you'd be asking something so obvious. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well a lot of musicians (bass players even) dont know that so I guess its worth putting in the page! And Im sure you know that the treble clef symbol is a fancy G!--Light current 22:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be getting a little off-topic. It's certainly worth mentioning that it is also called the f-clef, but I don't think we need to say where it came from. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

'Fanning' of strings

Does anyone know exactly why the strings (and fingerboard) are 'fanned out' from a width of about 1.5" at the nut to about 3" (or more) at the bridge. Or is this a stupid question?--Light current 03:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it: the space is needed near the bridge for bow clearance, and it would be tremendously more difficult to play if that same spacing were used at the nut... so that's just my logical conclusion. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Id thought of that. So why aren't they they same spacing at the nut? Also bear in mind that the Fender P bass guitar is not as fanned as the Fender Jazz bass (the jazz is much narrower at the nut than the P) 8-? --Light current 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on bass guitars, so maybe you should take your question there. I do know that the spacing on double basses vary due to lack of standardization, but not by a lot. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well on the DB, my personal thought is that its easier to stop any of the strings near the nut if they are closer together. Its not often that you have to play the E and A strings high up so they can be more spaced there. But on the BG it shouldnt make a difference. I will ask on the BG page tho!--Light current 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Deafness from DB playing

Anyone know whether bass playing (on its own) can damage your hearing. Is it less damaging than (say) playing the violin next to your ear all the time? 8-?--Light current 20:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither is loud enough to damage your hearing permanently. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon?--Light current 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though folks, Im trying to find out if its safer playing bass than other insts regarding hearing loss (ie are lower frequencies less harmful to the ears). Does anyone have refs?--Light current 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always found that frequency is not the issue, but volume. So you can play flute or piccolo or oboe or anything high as well as low, but if you play them at a safe voluem, you should be fine.

Yeah but whats a safe volume with amplified bass? - it always sounds louder further away you get from the speaker and people always say youre too loud when you can only just hear yourself! 8-( --Light current 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I would look at the page on decibels for the answer on that! I generally do not play an amplified instrument, so I am not the best one to consult about that.

I think Im going to pose this one on the Bass guitar page!--Light current 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. But like I said, you could play your unamplified double bass as loud as you could for hours, and not get hearing damage. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless your standing next to the drummer! 8-))--Light current 22:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hers an interesting quotation on deafness caused by playing music:

Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also cause hearing loss. The most damaging type of sound is in the high-frequencies. Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the high-frequency harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while practicing to reduce long-term exposure. In addition, attending live concerts (where noise levels can exceed 120 dBでしべる) can damage hearing, as well as listening to loud music through headphones.

If you think you have grown used to a loud noise, it probably has damaged your ears, and there is no treatment - no medicine, no surgery, not even a hearing aid, that truly corrects your hearing once it is damaged by noise.

my bolding.

So dont go sticking that DB under your chin 8-) (Sorry! couldnt resist that one) --Light current 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, Im sure my fellow bass players will be pleased to know that, after having taken the 'telephone hearing test',(both ears) my results are 'within acceptable limits' for a person of my age (which shall remain a mystery!). Also, I went to a v.loud gig yesterday and wore my musicians earplugs. The sound level was very bearable with the plugs in (the music was crap) and I 'exposed myself' for about 3 hrs with no after effects. I could still talk to people close by and order (too many) drinks etc!--Light current 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Slapping

I do believe that in the early days of Jazz, a man called Bob Haggart invented something called the syncopated triple slap technique. THis is described in his book on Bass playing. This does sound similar to that technique which User:Badagnani describes and I think therefore should be included in the article. I can provide a ref if needed!--Light current 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of years ago at the National Folk Festival in Bangor, Maine, I saw a young double bass player in an acoustic rockabilly-style group at a party at the hotel one night playing in this style. It was my impression that in that style of music he was playing it's not as syncopated as in some of the early jazz recordings. He was basically doing what is described in the article: plucking as normal for the first and third beats, then "filling in" with one, two, three, four, or more "clicks" in between." Occasionally I think he would do some sort of reversal or displacement, where the clicks came on the downbeat, somewhat like what some funk drummers will do to switch the beat around for variety. I was told that this young player had devoted his life to the study of this style of double bass slapping, and that he was known as an expert on this. I don't know who this player was or what the name of his band was, but I suppose there might be some way to find out. Perhaps with his help a separate article on the double bass slapping technique could be created and the information moved there to shorten the double bass article. Badagnani 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it is (was) a recognised technique in the thirties (Im told!) So whether it should be included Im not sure. I mean how far back are we going in jazz ? (or classical for that matter). I dont think a separate article would be desirable. Just a short mention will be OK--Light current 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jazz may go back at least to the end of World War I, with James Reese Europe's military band (which didn't really swing, but contained many elements of later jazz). He had various society orchestras which were ragtime-based over the preceding decade as well. Badagnani 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I called the National Council for Traditional Arts and found that the group I saw was from Maine, the leader being the rockabilly guitarist/singer Sean Mencher. The bass player was Shane Kiel (from the band Two Timin' Three, formerly of Massachusetts and currently of Austin, Texas). In the audio tracks on their MySpace page, the "drums" you hear (there is no drummer in the band) are actually played by the bass, using a virtuosic "slapping" technique. Blows my mind. Give it a listen. http://www.myspace.com/twotiminthree http://www.rockabillybass.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=shane-users Badagnani 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful how you throw the term "virtuosic" around. But anyways, the music sounds cool. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you saw the guy live you would certainly use the word. I just listened to all four songs and only two have the multiple slaps between bass line notes (the fourth, and, to a lesser extent, the third). I would argue that, of the four, the fourth track's bass part is virtuosic at least as regards this difficult technique. The bass players I've worked with, while great, have had trouble consistently doing one slap between bass line notes, let alone three or more at a fast clip. The bass parts in the other two songs here are not "virtuosic" in my view. Badagnani 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on progress

I turn my back and look what happens! I was going to comment on a version of the page I printed last week, but that page is in the bit bucket. Okay, so some off-the cuff notes on where the page is now. Some of these may be blunt, inflammatory even, so take them with a grain of salt. Some of these reinforce discussion above (to the extent that I have scanned it)

• Overall the page is cleaner. Maybe a little too clean for my taste. Prose is now quite simplistic in parts.
• Quite a few wikilinks have been lost - arco, pizz, bow, in section 0 for a start.
• In Section 1 (history) too many one-sentence paragraphs. Bad writing. It reads as a list of dot-points supporting an argument as to why (or why not) the bass is really a viol. Or not. IMHO a bass is a bass, and its form and construction is a result of a range of influences and traditions, based on what worked (bassists like it when luthiers make playable sweet-sounding instruments, and so they spent their money there). Might be an idea to mention octobass here in passing. (and where is my quadrabass???)
• Section 2 (terminology). Formal instrument name subsection is terrible. Is it derived from italian, or is it the size, or does it double? I always thought it was the "doubling" but not from a 'cello POV. In a harpsichord and organ, you often use a combination of registers - pull some levers that double any line, usually with an octave displacement. But this is not called double on the pipe organ or harpsichord page, so my version of this myth is flawed too.
• Section 3 (design) is good. Drop sentence with explicit reference to "websites quoted below", or at least get the referencing working properly. Which websites, and are they quoted (or merely listed with hyperlinks). Look up the current WP guidelines and decide whether to have a direct link to the external site or an internal link like "... see the external links below"
• Section 4 (Tone) why is the only reference point the electric bass? Comparison with 'Cello would also be useful.
• Section 5 (construction) disagree totally on pegbox being important. It is a 20C innovation. Basses existed before then with friction pegs (I've played one). Machine heads are not what makes a bass a bass!! What is important to the sound of the bass are the arched belly and to a lesser extent the arched back, coupled via a soundpost. (some basses have flat backs). Front is usually 1-piece, but back is often 2-piece. Extremely anal nit-pick: weight not mass determines the need for a robust spike.
• Section 6 (strngs) is OK
• Section 7 (tuning). Maybe drop 5ths tuning, unless you can come across a good reference for it. Could be merged with prev section.
• Section 8 (pitch). Is OKish. I am getting tired. Clarify: Bottesini as composer or player? Change "concertos" to "solo works". Maybe call section "Pitch and notation". Drop "extreme" as tenor clef is used for a 2-octave range on G-string. Picture of clef could have open strings and approximate upper range notated.
• Section 9 (technique). drop inside leg measurement. typo: inefficient -> insufficient. Is there a page on general string technique so that we are not reinventing the wheel? (vibrato, bowing, pizz) Much of classical technique has gone astray. Probably worth mentioning that bassists often use multiple fingers to stop a single string, unlike other stringists.
• Section 10 (Bows). Nice section. I think this section should be earlier, with other "physical" aspects. Maybe after strings. Put length of bow in first paragraph.
• Section 11 (problems). Is this section here just so people feel sorry for us?? If this section stays in, can it be put in a more positive light? It could be useful to cross-reference the 4ths tuning to the problem with "reach". Carbon fibre and fibreglass variants should go alongside plywood in construction. Andrew's recommendation: get rid of this section totally, and distribute between technique and construction.
• Section 12 (modern playing styles). Here "modern" is ambiguous. There is modern art music, modern popular music. Just list them all (arco, pizz, variations on pizz) under "playing styles" or "technique". Also note that many playing styles attributed to popular music (slap pizz) were known in classical music (partic 20C art music). Other classical playing "styles" are col legno, sul tasto, sul ponticello, but I guess they should fit in "technique". Andrew's recommendation: merge with technique
• Section 13 (classical repetoire). I like this section. Ah, memories (I am not an active classical player)
• Section 14 (DB in jazz). A bit short. Here you could actually bring in influential players, as they correspond to classical repetoire and composers. Mingus mingus mingus mingus mingus!! Maybe a description of styles of bass line other than walking bass, and how this has developed as jazz has freed up from 1950 on.
• Section 12 1/2. Before the current section 13, we need a section DB in classical music, explaining its role in the orchestra, chamber music, and solo (rather than just a list of repetoire).
• Section 15 (DB in bluegrass) I don't know much about BG apart from Edgar Meyer. I'll duck this one.
• Section 16 (DB in popular music). Can we have a term other than "popular music"? Jazz was once popular (snif). The role of the DB in rockabilly was partly put down to R+B and country - the first mention of these forms of music in the article. I know the DB was used in R+B, but country?? I have an allergy to country music, so don't ask me. Trim paragraph on EB to a sentence that describes DB being replaced by EB as it more suited aspects X Y and Z of the music.
• Section 17 (Bassists) either we don't include any names, or we include some jazz bassists and others that people think are noteworthy. Otherwise links to lists of players.

OK - the above are some quick gut reactions for others to mull over their worth, and to incorporate into future edits. Some of these are corrections that are quick to make (I would have made them, but I was not in "correcting" mode) and others require a bit more careful planning and thinking. HTH! Andrew Kepert 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Double Bass in Jazz

THis para seems to be very short campared with the other genres. Do you think we should try to balance up the amount of content on the different styles of music in which the DB is used?--Light current 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the section was much better a week or two ago. I recommend using that version as a template. I agree that this version does not do justice to the jazz double bass tradition as well as the previous version. Badagnani 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont recall anynoe removing stuff- certanly not I. Ill have a look at earlier versions to see whats there. BTW I lke the new pic - but is that the natual color or is it just the most worn out double bass ever!! 8-? --Light current 12:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the stuff and reinserted it.8-) Now the para is the largest and may need some pruning 8-(--Light current 12:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I note the last prargraph about Jazz Rock stan clarke and Miroslave has been deleted forgotton is there any rason for this?

Also I think Slapping is important But I disagree with elements / issues of projection. A well set up bass non amplifyed will fill a whole room and indeed project. A well knowin Sydney bassist (I'll see if I can find the book in which this is mentioned) useed to listen to Jazz bands on boat's out on Sydney Harbour in the 1920's and 30's His observatons where that the a good double bass sound carried better than even a tuba due to the wave length. I think the slap stuff would be better placed in the technique section.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Steve Abrahall 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--Steve Abrahall 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah its because the page is about double bass. Stan and Jaco played fretless electric. 8-|--Light current 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Stanley Clarke and Miroslav Vitous do both play double bass (Clarke playing both electric bass guitar and double bass). I don't think Jaco was mentioned above. Badagnani 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. But the para is really supposed to be about the role of the DB in jazz and not necessarily the players- although I agree its hard to separate the two. I feel we should only mention the pepole known mainly for jazz DB playing. But if we could concentrate on the role of the DB rather than the players, I thikn that would be preferable.8-|--Light current 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Right, there are really too many -- and they appear in the list of jazz bassists. But one could pick out a few of the greatest masters, Mingus being one. I guess a couple of others are worth mentioning, like Milt Hinton (who could be mentioned as regards slapping), as well as Gary Peacock and Ron Carter are others who are considered some of the best (like the Gary Karrs or Edgar Meyers of jazz bass, ha ha). Badagnani 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we could restrict mention to those who were actually innovators in the use of the DB. Mingus is probably one. Chambers another (arco style). But someone like Ray Brown (who is one of my favorites) I dont think warrants being mentioned under these criteria 8-(--Light current 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree with the above. Chambers worked with Coltrane and so did Jimmy Garrison (maybe also Reggie Workman). I don't know their individual styles well enough to tell them apart. As far as "innovation," Alan Silva and Henry Grimes were also good in "very free" jazz. Badagnani 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. What I suggest is that we all propose names here of jazz bassists with the reason for their inportance. Ill start it off; Please ad to the list, then we can all agree on how to prune it to the bare essentials. --Light current 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As already stated Stan and Mirsolave did / do play double bass and incorporated it into the Jazz rock thing. The reason they are mentiond is that the Jazz sub article is written in a style that notes how the bass is an important part of Jazz and who and how that person contributed.

Just as a number of Bass players are mentiond in classical section/s. I think it's a good and important part of the article that we mention double bass players. And while we are on the issue of bassists I think it insane not to incuude Ray Brown! His solidity musicality and the people he worked with did a massive amount to liberate the bass! I don't think the musicans should be seperated from the article.

I don't know how old you people are but back in the early 80's it was darn hard to find out about Bass players (it still is although the Net and I tunes helps a lot)

I was of the opinion that this was a positive and usefull side to this article. You want to know about the double bass - music it is useed for and who made that music. May be this could be considered a positive function of this article? --Steve Abrahall 06:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AS I said earlier, we should restrict mention of players to those who have been major innovators on the DB in jazz. Otherwise, the section will grow out of proportion. I agree that Ray Brown was a fantstic solid player, and actually my hero, but I dont think he was an innovator really. Also, I dont think it appropriate to mention players just cos of the people they played with. Sorry to appear so uncaring but we have to be strict to make this a good article. 8-(--Light current 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ray Brown thru his musicality choice of musical partners (Eller Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson) is an example of a truley great ensamble player, and solist (A not so well knowin album he did with Duke Ellington a few weeks before Duke passed away is an amazing, musicaly it pre dates a heck of a lot of work that people like Myer, Stan Clark and Jaco did ) His ensamble playing is as good as anyones he was the Fritz Chrylzer (sp!) of Jazz double bass playing! An exlemparary team member a refined soloist. He Set the standard for all Jazz Bass players!

Shame on you! LC! :) Steve Abrahall

Yes. I said Ray Brown was my hero but unfortunately, I cant think of any innovations he made. He was just a damn good bass player. But there are other 'damn good bass players' Anyway I see hes still mentioned. I wont be removing his name (but I wont be putting it back either) 8-( --Light current 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed jazz D Bassists for inclusion in page

• Charlie Mingus -- what can you say (free jazz innovator)? experimental, Composer for bass, Unique Harmonic language
• Milt Hinton-- slapping
• Bob Haggart-- big band bassists and inventor of syncopated triple slap.
• Paul Chambers - introduced arco style Modal and impresionist influence, Miles Kind of Blue Album.
• Scott le Faro -- what was his innovation? Musical and melodic virtuosity extension of the trio (the bill Evans work)
• Neils Henning Oested Pederson - great technical virtuosity,

Players can be listed by "substyle," as it is now. Slappers, big band players, bebop players, more modern arco guys, free jazz. Previous edits listed Bill Johnson, Wellman Braud, Pops Foster, and Milt Hinton as notable slappers. I've never heard of Haggart. Oscar Pettiford is also important for bebop, maybe also Jimmy Garrison. Plus the above mentioned Ron Carter, Gary Peacock, and Silva and Grimes for free jazz. Maybe it's too many but these cover many (though not all) bases. I'm not familiar with Le Faro or Pederson. Badagnani 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, I think we should pick one only from each substyle as an example of that substyle. That would give more than enough matl for the para! 8-| --Light current 17:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that sometimes there are two or three of equal prominence in a given substyle.

In reference to the above, I wouldn't place Mingus as "free jazz." I think he was more pushing the limits of the big band into more experimental territory. Badagnani 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK well these were just my guesses. Please amend the list as you see fit! 8-)--Light current 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Meyer

Just letting you all know that I have tickets to go see Edgar Meyer tomorrow night. I'm excited. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is he? No its OK - I looked him up. Aha! Botteesini Is that why you suggested Bachs unaccomp cello suites to me? If so, can they be obtained written in the bass clef? 8-)--Light current 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard him play live a few times and have never heard an arco double bass player play with such "singing" musicality and flawless intonation. Any recording you can find of his should be great. Badagnani 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of recordings by him. His recordings of Bottesini's 2nd concerto are amazing. — ßottesiηいーたi ^{Tell me what's up} 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Light Current, the cello is usually written in bass clef, so yeah you can definately get Bach's suites in bass clef. You can get them for free around the internet, a while ago I found the Prelude to the first for free on a site, can't remember which one. Bottesini... damn you. Hope you have fun. Gnome

OK thanks for that. But the last time I looked at cello music in the shop it was in the alto (C) clef I think! Ithink it may be written in both! 8-(--Light current 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it can be written on any clef, but at least half the time in bass clef. and I've definately seen the cello suites in bass clef. Although I think there's one (the sixth) that was written for a five string cello or something so that one might be in treble. Gnome

OK Well Ill have another look in the shop.8-|--Light current 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottesini, I got to see him in Boothbay Harbor up here in Maine and I'll tell you, he is simply amazing on the isntrument. A number of my teachers have kind of scoffed at him, perhaps because he mixes bluegrass and classical, or perhaps because his style is a little unorthodox, but he makes the instrument sound amazing. I heard one of his original pieces where the second movement is played pizzicato and he just flew on the thing. Hope you have fun! Kntrabssi 01:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Propse to delist this article as a good article

This article fails many gudielines for a good article, poor referencing/citations, over-reliance on a single source, (in this case Paul Brun's book) confusion over established definitions of terms, or misuse of those terms, as well as a large degree of internal inconsistency. A list of items that need major attention.

Origins and History section. this entire section is a poorly worded paraphrase of Brun's book, but taken out of context to promote the specific and unverifiable viewpoint that the bass is a gamba or viol family member, and not a violin at all. Also makes this section contradictory to later sections (e.g. Design section)

Tone. Nowhere in this section is there an actual description of the tone of the instrument, instead there is only a comparison to the bass guitar. (electric bass guitar? acoustic bass guitar? That should be explicit and not infered from the next two paragraphs) This is inappropriate as it does not at any time describe the bowed tone of the instrument. Further, the comparison to the bass guitar is inaccurate. The presence or absence of frets does not create or relieve the 'buzz tone' that the article describes. Buzz tone is a matter of playing technique, string material and specifications, (particularly thickness and tension) and the individual characteristics of each instrument. This section should be replaced entirely with specific descriptions of the tone, or a media file of a few long tones.

Construction. again, a section that is inconsistent with the rest of the article. An unverifable claim that the bass is closest to the violone, followed by descriptions of the violin family internal construction. Perhaps merge this section with 'Tuning.'

Strings. No mention of the use of silk strings for solo performance. Specifying specific strings is probably inapropriate for an encyclopedia, doubly so as there is no way to describe the tone differences between strings without a basic description of tone. Also look at this-

The classic 19th century Franz Simandl method does not utilize the lowest strings in higher positions because with older gut strings set up high over the fingerboard, the tone was not clear in these higher positions.

If we cut the unecesscary descriptor 'classic' and all other places where such language shows up, we'll save space in a long, and somewhat meandering article. Besides, even steel strings are unclear in the high register, the advent of steel strings and synthetic core strings led to higher playing positions generally, no just on the E string. Simandl also avoided the higher 4th string positions because of the physical and endurance challenges in playing thick, high tension gut strings.

Technique. This section really describes posture, not technique. I think it should be rewritten to include a description of finger technique, or include descriptions of feasible technical agility on the instrument.

The middle of the article is extremely well written, whoever cooked up the sections on bows, practical problems, and madern playing styles, congratulations.

Repertoire. there is confusion here over what constitutes solo works. Everything described in this section is either an orchestral solo excerpt, (Saint-Saens) or chamber music. (Mozart, K. 612) The 'Solo Works' should be better labelled 'Orchestral Solos.' True 'Solo Works,' (non-Concertos) would be things like Bert Turetzky's D Blues For the Solo Double Bass Which has no accompianment part, or the adapted version of Ernest Bloch's Prayer from A Jewish Life. Also Mention should be made of work transcribed from other instruments rep lists. It May be time for a Main article on Double Bass rep, as this section could get out of control pretty quick.

The rest of the article is high quality, but there are still general formatting and citation issues. I feel this is a confusing article in it's present state and I'm looking for consensus to remove the Good Article tag. I won't unilaterally take the tag off, and I would like some feedback or rebuttal if anyone thinks I'm out of line. --Macjonesjazz

Well rather than remove the tag, could you help us to justify its retention? I actually disagree with most of the points you have made here. The valid criticisms you have are minor and can be corrected very quickly. THere is no need to delist this article as GOOD! --Light current 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with Macjonesjazz. See my comments from last week --- Talk:Double bass#Comments on progress above. Macjonesjazz is probably better informed -- e.g. I don't have a copy of Brun's book. It is an "okay article", needing attention if it is not to be delisted. It is better than the dog's breakfast it was 6 months ago. Suggested strategy that I will start on (probably over the weekend) in the absence of other progress or objections:

• fix minor problems
• compile an agreed list of major problems and possible actions (e.g. starting with those raised)
• wait for comments
• fix those that I am able. I have limited access to definitive references.

Andrew Kepert 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)