Ron Carter's Intonation

COINTL

unread,

Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96

to

I have had a disc of Ron playing Bach for some time and am puzzled by his
out of tune playing. The chords and double-stops are enough to make me
laugh out loud while listening. The liner notes discuss Carter's
unsurpassed skill and I wonder what I'm hearing that others don't (or
choose not to). I am forced to draw a comparison to a Denver bassist
named Paul Warburton who I've seen recently. Warburton is almost unknown
(with the exception of one Cal Tjader album he told me about and that I
then found) hit skill is incredible. Intonation perfect (as possible).
What is deal here? It Ron Carter puling the wool, or has he developed a
new microtonal approch to playing Bach (yeah right) Comments please!

Andrew Homzy

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
choices).

Perhaps my biggest complaint, however, is the fact the Carter was one of
the first acoustic bassists to embrace the amplified pick-up system. His
tone on those recordings was lousy. Worse yet, he became as a role model
for hundreds if not thousands of young bassists who tried to duplicate
that lousy tone - thinking this was the hippest. Without going into the
whole subject of acoustic bass string set-up, tone and volume (see the
intesting post about Charlie Haden below) here is my summary of Carter's
attributes:

1. Poor intonation; 2. Poor note choice in walking bass lines; 3. Poor
tone quality

Why then, did many of the world's best musicians hire him? Well, Ron
Carter does have an excellent command of time and he is creative in the
macro sense. Besides this, he may have just been in the right place and
subscribed to the social dictates as those he worked with. Very little
research has been done in the area of social dictates, but I have heard
stories about musicians beeing hired by leaders because they (A) lived in
the same neighborhood; (B) drank at the same bar; (C) went to the same
church; (D) wore the same brand of shoes -Humprey Lyttleton and Bruce
Turner; (E) did the same drugs; etc., etc., etc.

I look forward to more discussion, opinions and exploration of these topics.

Andrew Homzy

From Mike Maida (ma...@galaxy.nsc.com):

"I was very saddened to learn about Charlie Haden's severe tinnitus. He
was surrounded by plastic shields and wore earplugs. The may have been
one reason why the group's performance was not as intense as I had
expected. Before the performance I attended a lecture/workshop that
Charlie Haden gave. He mentioned growing up in the backwoods playing
hillbilly music. He has deep spiritual feelings about performing; he
plays music because he must. He also feels that modern music is getting so
loud that the dynamic level prohibits a player from really listening to
the rest of the group, a tendancy he decries."

--
Andrew Homzy
Music Department
Concordia University, Montreal

J. David Holmes

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <HOMZY-05069...@fp-music-200-248.concordia.ca>,

Andrew Homzy <HO...@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>In article <4p28eq$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, coi...@aol.com (COINTL) wrote:
>
>> I have had a disc of Ron playing Bach for some time and am puzzled by his
>> out of tune playing. The chords and double-stops are enough to make me
>> laugh out loud while listening. The liner notes discuss Carter's
>> unsurpassed skill and I wonder what I'm hearing that others don't (or
>> choose not to). I am forced to draw a comparison to a Denver bassist
>> named Paul Warburton who I've seen recently. Warburton is almost unknown
>> (with the exception of one Cal Tjader album he told me about and that I
>> then found) hit skill is incredible. Intonation perfect (as possible).
>> What is deal here? It Ron Carter puling the wool, or has he developed a
>> new microtonal approch to playing Bach (yeah right) Comments please!
>
>I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
>intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
>choices).

I've got to agree. I've never found him to be a soloist of any weight,
either. With the number of truly fine players out there, it amazes me
that Carter is on so many recordings.

--Dave

Darcy Gray

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <HOMZY-05069...@fp-music-200-248.concordia.ca> HO...@vax2.concordia.ca (Andrew Homzy) writes:
>
>I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
>intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
>choices).
>

>Perhaps my biggest complaint, however, is the fact the Carter was one of
>the first acoustic bassists to embrace the amplified pick-up system. His
>tone on those recordings was lousy. Worse yet, he became as a role model
>for hundreds if not thousands of young bassists who tried to duplicate
>that lousy tone - thinking this was the hippest. Without going into the
>whole subject of acoustic bass string set-up, tone and volume (see the
>intesting post about Charlie Haden below) here is my summary of Carter's
>attributes:
>
>1. Poor intonation; 2. Poor note choice in walking bass lines; 3. Poor
>tone quality

What do you mean by "poor" note choice in walking bass lines,
Andrew? Which recordings would you cite as examples? Ron's tone is
not always to my taste, and I've heard nothing but ill reports about
his classical playing (so I've never been inspired to check it out),
but "poor" note choice? I've always considered the "Ron and Herbie"
rhythm team as THE all-time great example of bass-piano communication.
When Herbie would bring in harmonic substitutions, Ron was almost
always right there with him, and the same applies in reverse. He was
also often the anchor for the 60s Miles quintet, holding down the fort
while Tony and Herbie were off marauding in polyrhythm-land. And
"poor" intonation? Okay, this tends to be a problem when playing
Bach, but I don't know anyone who thinks that classical music is
Ron's forte. Ron's tuning was "close enough for jazz," and is (I
find) much more precise than, say, Charlie Haden's. Having said all
of this, I do think that Ron's best work was with Miles in the sixties,
and it's pretty much been all downhill from there. But Ron's playing
in that group was consistently on a much higher level than you seem
to give him credit for.

- Darcy

Darcy Gray
McGill University, Montreal
Jazz Performance (Piano)

"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"

- Tom Stoppard, _Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead_

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

Andrew Homzy wrote:

> I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
> intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
> choices).

Really? Now that's one I hadn't heard. Bad intonation, sure, that complaint
is common, but I've always thought his lines were solid, if not especially
interesting of late.

> Why then, did many of the world's best musicians hire him? Well, Ron
> Carter does have an excellent command of time and he is creative in the
> macro sense.

To me, Ron's contribution was in his ability to provide Herbie Hancock with
conversational yet rhythmically solid accompaniment that was exactly as
harmonically ambiguous as was appropriate. When it was time to play changes,
Ron would hit the changes; when it was time to think more freely, Ron would
give Herbie more room, and it was all done in a way that allowed for departure
from straight 4/4.

I hear Ron as being better in those respects than Charlie Haden back in the
early-mid 60's. Richard Davis was probably as good or better.

I can't say that I care for what Ron has done since that time, though; he
hardly ever leaves quarter notes behind any more, and his change playing is
growing increasingly static. He has never been a fantastic soloist in my eyes,
but his tendency the last ten years or so to simply walk a bit louder seems a
waste.

> Perhaps my biggest complaint, however, is the fact the Carter was one of
> the first acoustic bassists to embrace the amplified pick-up system. His
> tone on those recordings was lousy.

Here, I am in the minority again, I think. In my opinion, the acoustic bass
is a very poor instrument to fulfill the role it has been given in jazz. The
instrument was designed to draw long notes when bowed, and short when plucked.
An entire section of basses is used to anchor the sound of an orchestra.
Asking a single bassist to anchor a jazz quintet by playing long, ringing tones
in a pizzicato style seems to me like asking the clarinet to do bugle calls.
So I'm not at all offended by the sort of sound obtained by the amplified
pick-up; it seems to make the bass a better fit for its most common role.

--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.

Andrew Homzy

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <05JUN96.16...@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, Darcy Gray
<BXQ...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> wrote:

> In article <HOMZY-05069...@fp-music-200-248.concordia.ca>
HO...@vax2.concordia.ca (Andrew Homzy) writes:
> >

> >I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
> >intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
> >choices).

To anyone just beginning to read this thread: Please read my previous post
on this subject to get the proper context of my remarks.

> What do you mean by "poor" note choice in walking bass lines,
> Andrew? Which recordings would you cite as examples? Ron's tone is
> not always to my taste, and I've heard nothing but ill reports about
> his classical playing (so I've never been inspired to check it out),
> but "poor" note choice? I've always considered the "Ron and Herbie"
> rhythm team as THE all-time great example of bass-piano communication.
> When Herbie would bring in harmonic substitutions, Ron was almost
> always right there with him, and the same applies in reverse. He was
> also often the anchor for the 60s Miles quintet, holding down the fort
> while Tony and Herbie were off marauding in polyrhythm-land. And
> "poor" intonation? Okay, this tends to be a problem when playing
> Bach, but I don't know anyone who thinks that classical music is
> Ron's forte. Ron's tuning was "close enough for jazz," and is (I
> find) much more precise than, say, Charlie Haden's. Having said all
> of this, I do think that Ron's best work was with Miles in the sixties,
> and it's pretty much been all downhill from there. But Ron's playing
> in that group was consistently on a much higher level than you seem
> to give him credit for.
>
> - Darcy

Darcy,

Your questions will require me to research this topic thoroughly and not
simply respond off the top of my head - which I will foolishly do in the
meantime.

As I said, Ron Carter has a great sense of rhythm and is very creative. I
have no doubts that he his a great musician in the macro sense and that
his best work was as a sideman when there were high expectactions on one
hand and a "since I'm not the leader, I don't have to worry about playing
it safe" attitude on the other. He has my respect.

Regarding your defense of his poor intonation, I never bought the "close
enough for jazz" philosophy. I find it de-meaning and promotes the sort of
mentality that leads to "a higher pay scale for classical musicians and a
lower scale for jazz musicians". For examples of good intonation, listen
to Mingus play the bowed passages on *Meditations* or listen to any of
Slam Stewart's recordings.

For great examples of walking-bass-lines (the operative word), listen to
Ray Brown, Paul Chambers (yes, his intonation is often poor), George
Duvivier or any of Ellington's bassists. For a different role, freer in
conception, Carter's work with Miles must stand against the likes of
Mingus and LaFaro. It does for me.

For superb tone, listen to all of the above - except Mingus' last
recordings when he was literally forced to use a pick-up.

More?

Don Herzog

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

I haven't listened to Carter's Piccolo in years. (I suppose because it's
not out on CD and the advent of CDs has made me mercilessly intolerant of
background noise.) It's surely not a very deep or tortured session, but
it's huge fun; more to the point here I recall Carter as being very
inventive and doing a damned good job hitting the pitch dead-on. Is that
wrong?

What strikes me on some of the more recent recordings--Diz with Rubalcaba
and 21 with Allen--is the weird fuzziness of his attack. I don't know if
this is something he's doing or the way he's being recorded, but the
notes don't begin crisply at all. Quite irritating.

--don

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In <4p4fq4$k...@access4.digex.net> jdho...@access4.digex.net (J. David Holmes)
writes:

>
>In article <HOMZY-05069...@fp-music-200-248.concordia.ca>,
>Andrew Homzy <HO...@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4p28eq$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, coi...@aol.com (COINTL)
wrote:
>>
>>> I have had a disc of Ron playing Bach for some time and am puzzled by his
>>> out of tune playing. The chords and double-stops are enough to make me
>>> laugh out loud while listening. The liner notes discuss Carter's
>>> unsurpassed skill and I wonder what I'm hearing that others don't (or
>>> choose not to). I am forced to draw a comparison to a Denver bassist
>>> named Paul Warburton who I've seen recently. Warburton is almost unknown
>>> (with the exception of one Cal Tjader album he told me about and that I
>>> then found) hit skill is incredible. Intonation perfect (as possible).
>>> What is deal here? It Ron Carter puling the wool, or has he developed a
>>> new microtonal approch to playing Bach (yeah right) Comments please!
>>

>>I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
>>intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
>>choices).
>

>I've got to agree. I've never found him to be a soloist of any weight,
>either. With the number of truly fine players out there, it amazes me
>that Carter is on so many recordings.
>
>--Dave

I'll join in on this one, although I'm reluctant to get into a dissing
session! Carter has always seemed overrated to me, perhaps because he
was a member of one of the greatest Miles Davis bands. His work since
then has been characterized, to me anyway, as considerable amount of
ego-tripping. A few years ago I remember seeing him in a group with
Cedar Walton and Billy Higgins, and was consistently annoyed by his
overly busy playing, and I kept wishing that somebody who was more of a
team player was the bassist!

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

Darcy Gray (BXQ...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA) writes:
> In article <HOMZY-05069...@fp-music-200-248.concordia.ca> HO...@vax2.concordia.ca (Andrew Homzy) writes:
>>

>>I too have never been enamored by Carter's playing. Besides his poor
>>intonation, I was always dissapointed in his walking bass lines (note
>>choices).
>>

>>Perhaps my biggest complaint, however, is the fact the Carter was one of
>>the first acoustic bassists to embrace the amplified pick-up system. His

>>tone on those recordings was lousy. Worse yet, he became as a role model
>>for hundreds if not thousands of young bassists who tried to duplicate
>>that lousy tone - thinking this was the hippest. Without going into the
>>whole subject of acoustic bass string set-up, tone and volume (see the
>>intesting post about Charlie Haden below) here is my summary of Carter's
>>attributes:
>>
>>1. Poor intonation; 2. Poor note choice in walking bass lines; 3. Poor
>>tone quality
>

> What do you mean by "poor" note choice in walking bass lines,
> Andrew? Which recordings would you cite as examples? Ron's tone is
> not always to my taste, and I've heard nothing but ill reports about
> his classical playing (so I've never been inspired to check it out),
> but "poor" note choice? I've always considered the "Ron and Herbie"
> rhythm team as THE all-time great example of bass-piano communication.
> When Herbie would bring in harmonic substitutions, Ron was almost
> always right there with him, and the same applies in reverse. He was
> also often the anchor for the 60s Miles quintet, holding down the fort

> while Tony and Herbie were off marauding in polyrhythm-land. <snip>

My complaint as a bassist was that Carter almost never soloed (sp?), but
having gotten more familiar with the sixties Miles albums I has gained a
new appreciation for him. I don't think there's anything poor about his
note choices, they're just simple. Nothing wrong with playing harmonically
simple lines. But his sense of groove and swing is absolutely
incredible!!! BTW I can't remember who in this thread posted it but the
quote about the Haden clinic was wonderful. Insightful as always. Thanx.
peace,
mark

--
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
Jebediah Springfield

tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

In article <HOMZY-05069...@fp-music-200-248.concordia.ca> HO...@vax2.concordia.ca (Andrew Homzy) writes:
>

>For great examples of walking-bass-lines (the operative word), listen to
>Ray Brown, Paul Chambers (yes, his intonation is often poor)

I hear a lot of intentional use of quarter-tones in PC's playing.
I don't think it's poor intonation--I think he meant it that way.

--
------------------------------------------------------
"Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but
I think I got away with it." -- Basil Fawlty

Darcy Gray

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

>Regarding your defense of his poor intonation, I never bought the "close
>enough for jazz" philosophy. I find it de-meaning and promotes the sort of
>mentality that leads to "a higher pay scale for classical musicians and a
>lower scale for jazz musicians". For examples of good intonation, listen
>to Mingus play the bowed passages on *Meditations* or listen to any of
>Slam Stewart's recordings.
>

Sorry, what I meant with the "close enough for jazz" comment (which
I tried to use ironically) was that jazz tolerates a much greater
degree of variation in pitch than does classical music. Ron,
Charlie Haden, Paul Chambers, Eric Dolphy, Kenny Dorham, Ornette
Coleman, Jackie McLean, Don Cherry, etc., are all horrendously
"out of tune" by classical standards, but this "nonstandard" intonation
is an integral part of these artists' styles. These are all great
players, and I certainly wouldn't fault them for playing "out of
tune" any more than I would fault Miles for having "poor tone" (by
classical standards). So I don't buy the argument that you can
criticize someone for playing out of tune, unless it is (a) uninten-
tional, and (b) truly unbearable. I don't think that this applies
to anyone I mentioned.

David J. Strauss

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

> Besides this, he may have just been in the right place and
> subscribed to the social dictates as those he worked with. Very little
> research has been done in the area of social dictates, but I have heard
> stories about musicians beeing hired by leaders because they (A) lived
in
> the same neighborhood; (B) drank at the same bar; (C) went to the same
> church; (D) wore the same brand of shoes -Humprey Lyttleton and Bruce
> Turner; (E) did the same drugs; etc., etc., etc.

I'm still fence sitting on this issue, but I thought I'd mention that
Carter handled the money stuff in Davis' 2nd quintet (according to Miles'
autobio) and this had much to do with his position in the band (and,
if I'm reading the book's implications properly, his leaving it).

DS
djs...@is.nyu.edu

Andrew Homzy

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

In article <4p4r23$q...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, ma...@fc.hp.com wrote:

> In my opinion, the acoustic bass
> is a very poor instrument to fulfill the role it has been given in jazz. The
> instrument was designed to draw long notes when bowed, and short when plucked.
> An entire section of basses is used to anchor the sound of an orchestra.
> Asking a single bassist to anchor a jazz quintet by playing long,
ringing tones
> in a pizzicato style seems to me like asking the clarinet to do bugle calls.
> So I'm not at all offended by the sort of sound obtained by the amplified
> pick-up; it seems to make the bass a better fit for its most common role.
--
Marc Sabatella

Marc,

Among the innovations jazz brought to the music of this planet is that it
re-defined the use of many instruments and gave prominence to others. Many
classical bassists have remarked to me that jazz bassists were pioneers in
their development of pizzicato technique. A development which left its
mark on the recent technical expectations of all stringed instruments.
Jazz bassists even learned how to re-configure their instruments to
achieve a longer sutained pizz. I have seen Charles Mingus used two basses
- one set up for jazz pizz., the other set up for arco.

Left in the hands of symphonic composers, the trumpet might still be
relegated to elaborate bugle calls. And the saxophone? Just listen to some
"classical saxophone" music for a few days - start with Paul Brodie - and
think of what it could have been.

Cheers,

James Marcus

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

I have to agree when it comes Ron Carter's Bach recordings, which I
actually reviewed for JazzTimes when they were first released. The
intonation is just terrible throughout. And yes, I did puzzle over
those liner-notes and wonder whether I was missing something
crucial. Evidently I wasn't.

--James M.

COINTL

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

I'm glad to see much response on this subject. While I agree that the
Miles Davis quintet is without question one of the finest groups that this
music ever produced the contribution of Ron Carter seems to be placed on
the same pedistal that Miles and Wayne Shorter are. This is not right.
There are may bassist who work very hard and long to have acceptable
intonation on the instrument, Carter's playing is sloppy and tasteless
(when in doubt gliss?). For argument's sake check out "In a Silent Way"
to see was is in essence the Miles Davis quintet (plus two more keyboards)
with Dave Holland on bass. Holland is so much more articulate, the
direction of the band is really guided by the bass rather than the other
way round. To me Ron Carter is someone who should count his blessings
because there are many , much more talented bassists that would benifit
from some of the gigs that he has.
Cheers all,
Tim Hochman
(bassist, composer, instructor)

Mike Smith P125

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

We seem to have drifted from the original question to a general
Ron Carter slamfest.

First, I think Carter is a fine bassist. I wish I could play like
he does in duets with Houston Person, Nows the Time.

What is mysterious about the Bach effort is that his intonation, even
pizz, is noticeably worse than any of his jazz work. I believe Carter
was classically trained in cello, so even if he could not handle the
challenge, how could he have not heard the problem? How could this
CD have been released?

The sad part is that it reinforces the stereotypes of bassists -
have you heard about the bassist who was so out of tune that the
rest of section noticed?, etc. The fact is that there are thousands
of bassists, hundreds of them jazz bassists, who could perform those
pieces with better intonation (and time - sometimes he wavers between
straight 8s and swing triplets in an awkward way).

mps

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

Andrew Homzy wrote:

> Among the innovations jazz brought to the music of this planet is that it
> re-defined the use of many instruments and gave prominence to others. Many
> classical bassists have remarked to me that jazz bassists were pioneers in
> their development of pizzicato technique. A development which left its
> mark on the recent technical expectations of all stringed instruments.
> Jazz bassists even learned how to re-configure their instruments to
> achieve a longer sutained pizz.

Clearly. My observation was simply that I am not offended by the pickup/amp
system as a means in this endeavor. Sure, it changes the sound of the
instrument, but I don't consider this bad in itself, as long as the new sound
is inherently pleasing and musically useful, which I think the amplified bass
generally is, with isolated exceptions like Eddie Gomez, whom I find grating.
But Ron doesn't usually strike me that way (although he is often mixed too
high). I think it is just a matter of personal taste on the part of the
listener.

I wonder how much of the complaint against the amplified bass sound is due to
people being conditioned to think of the classical sound as "correct" and
everything else as "wrong". I didn't spend much time around jazz or orchestra
music when I was forming my tastes; pop-rock (electric basses usually) and band
music (bass part provided by a tuba section) set my expectations. Just
speculation, but perhaps that is a factor.

> Left in the hands of symphonic composers, the trumpet might still be
> relegated to elaborate bugle calls. And the saxophone? Just listen to some
> "classical saxophone" music for a few days - start with Paul Brodie - and
> think of what it could have been.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at it here, but you know, I used to
accompany a few classical saxophonists back in my Florida State days, and oddly
enough, I liked a lot of that literature, even when most everyone else I talked
to didn't. I didn't tend to like most attempts I heard at playing older
baroque/classical literature on the saxophone, but most of the 20th and late
19th century stuff I heard was pretty cool. But it's hard to argue with what
Coltrane brought to the picture.

Darcy Gray

unread,

Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96

to

Marc Sabatella wrote:

> My observation was simply that I am not offended by the pickup/amp
> system as a means in this endeavor. Sure, it changes the sound of the
> instrument, but I don't consider this bad in itself, as long as the new sound
> is inherently pleasing and musically useful, which I think the amplified bass
> generally is, with isolated exceptions like Eddie Gomez, whom I find grating.
> But Ron doesn't usually strike me that way (although he is often mixed too
> high). I think it is just a matter of personal taste on the part of the
> listener.

Although I definitely prefer the Jimmy Blanton-Ray Brown-Charles Mingus school
of a big, full, woody bass sound, I think that the more amplified sound has its
place as well. As long as the tone fits the context and the notes are
happening, then I won't complain. Going back to the original question, I think
that first off, Ron's tone was much better in the sixties and Teo Macero knew
how to place him in the mix (for comparison, check out Ron's own _First Plane_,
from the seventies -- no, wait, don't torture yourself like that... ). And I
think that the more "amplified" sound worked well on the kinds of things that
Miles was doing with that group, especially "Eighty-One", "Footprints",
"Freedom Jazz Dance", etc. That's part of the reason why I feel that Miles had
been leading up to _Bitches Brew_ for a long time, and the album wasn't so much
a radical change in direction as it was part of an evolutionary process.

- Darcy

Keith L. Saunders

unread,

Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96

to

On Jun 05, 1996 20:35:15 in article <Re: Ron Carter's Intonation>,

'ma...@sde.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)' wrote:

>The instrument was designed to draw long notes when bowed, and short when
plucked. An entire section of basses is used to anchor the sound of an
orchestra. Asking a single bassist to anchor a jazz quintet by playing
long, ringing tones
>in a pizzicato style seems to me like asking the clarinet to do bugle
calls. So I'm not at all offended by the sort of sound obtained by the
amplified pick-up; it seems to make the bass a >better fit for its most
common role.

A good point, but I don't entirely agree. There are a growing
contingent of bassists these days who are going back to playing gut strings
and relying less on amplification. There's a great bassist named Jon Weber
living in NYC (he works with Johnny Griffen) who used no amp at all. PC
got a huge sound without an amp. For that matter Ron Carter's sound was
beautiful when he played with Mile's, and I can't imagine he had a pick-up
then. (were they even invented yet?)

I believe that some bass players rely too much on their amp for their
sound. I believe that he sound, or tone, should come first and foremost
from the instrument.

Keith Saunders

SwingDoug

unread,

Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96

to

Darcy Gray wrote:
> Although I definitely prefer the Jimmy Blanton-Ray Brown-Charles Mingus school
> of a big, full, woody bass sound, I think that the more amplified sound has its
> place as well. As long as the tone fits the context and the notes are
> happening, then I won't complain.

Funny you mention Ray. I love his sound on the older recordings, but he uses
an amp nowadays. Fortunately, he gets a pretty good sound with a pickup. I
really love acoustic music. By that, I mean acoustic instrument with no
amplification. I play acoustic guitar, and in order to be heard, I use mics.
I realize this is still amplification, but it gets the closest representation
to the real sound of the instrument.

I think the amplified upright bass has its place, though. A lot of the ECM
sound lends itself to the bass being upfront in the mix like that. I really
appreciate guys like Dave Holland and Gary Peacock who go to great lengths to
get a good amplified sound. Eddie Gomez is such a lyrical player, but his
sound really takes away from the performance when I listen to him.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SwingDoug
c-sch...@nwu.edu (HOME)
dwa...@allstate.com (WORK)
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~cds653
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You don't know what love is,
until you've learned the
meaning of the Blues..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles R. Sullivan

unread,

Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96

to

Darcy Gray <BXQ...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:

[snip]

> Ron's tuning was "close enough for jazz," and is (I
>find) much more precise than, say, Charlie Haden's.

I'm surprised to hear you cite Haden---I've never been bothered by his
intonation, and would have said he (usually) plays with great care
and attention to all aspects of his sound, including intonation.

However, particularly in jazz, "precision" might imply the wrong way of
thinking about intonation. To start with, equal temperament is
a crude approximation to good intonation---picking the "best"
intonation for a given note to sound "in tune" is actually quite an
art. Then add the fact that you can use intonation for additional
expressive potential, both in the choice of pitch center, and in
bends and whatnot around the pitch center.

Charlie Sullivan

unread,

Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96

to

I too have heard Holland play with incredible speed (although usually just
quick bursts) but I've noticed he switches his attack to more like an
electric guitar approach than traditional jazz style and his tone gets
ever so slightly thinner. Ray Brown, who I claimed as the standard for
great tone, also plays some pretty fast licks but its pretty hard to
compare either of these two to the speed of the inimitable NHOP. However
they seem to pull off great speed without having their tone suffer,
something I don't think NHOP manages. It is unquestionably easier to play
fast on a bass with low action but it won't project very well. One dilemma
of the modern bassist seems to be finding a happy medium where your bass
sounds good acoustically, and amplified AND you can still get the amount
of dexterity you want. Personally I just work on technique acoustically
and if I can't pull it off with out changing my setup, I just don't play
it. I'd rather have a great bass tone and play like the traditional role
of the bass than have a thin, crappy tone and play like a bop trumpet
player. Just my personal preference. And as Anthony Cox once told me
playing with low action shouldn't make you question your manhood :)!

Charles R. Sullivan

unread,

Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96

to

comm...@usa.pipeline.com(Keith L. Saunders) writes:

> I believe that some bass players rely too much on their amp for their
>sound. I believe that he sound, or tone, should come first and foremost
>from the instrument.
>

It surprises me that rmb'ers, who tend to be very open minded about
alternative harmonic (or non-harmonic) systems, song structures, or what
have you, tend to be such purists about bass sounds.

In practice, it may be true that the acoustic sound of an acoustic bass
is "better" than the sound that almost anyone, or perhaps anyone, gets
from amplifying the signal from a pickup. But to say that this is how
it "should" be--to deplore the practice of amplification, rather than
the results--seems rather silly to me.

After all, the wooden body of a bass is in a sense very crude amplifier.
And certainly one that does not very faithfully reproduce the sound of
a string vibrating by itself.

It may in fact give results that we all like better than the results
that most people get through electronic amplification. And there are
certainly pitfalls in electronic amplification. But there is no a
priori reason why electronic amplification can't be as "good" as direct
acoustic sounds. An bass player's goal should try to create a wonderful
sound. If he uses a stack of electronics to (successfully) do this,
is there any reaon to think him a lesser artist than someone who uses
wood and catgut?

I can't actually think of any examples of bass players whose electronic
sound I would hold up as a wonderful example. So if you say that in
practice, you like the acoustic sound of an acoustic bass, I'll have
no problem with it. I even share your taste. But if you say that it
is in principle inferior to work differently, I'll disagree.

The example I can use is the electric guitar. In that case, the
electric sounds that, for example, Sonny Sharrock used, were much
richer than typical acoustic guitar sounds. Some will perhaps reply
"Oh, that's different, that's an electric rock-oriented context."
But on Ask the Ages, the sounds of Sharrock's guitar (and amp) and
Pharoah Sanders tenor are really incredibly similar, both in sound
and in aesthetic role. I don't really remember the bass on that
recording, but I think an rich acoustic bass sound would be lovely
with that sort of music.

I could go on about the many pitfalls of amplification, but I'll save
that for another post.

Charlie Sullivan

Charles R. Sullivan

unread,

Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96

to

>> Darcy Gray <BXQ...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> > Ron's tuning was "close enough for jazz," and is (I
>> >find) much more precise than, say, Charlie Haden's.

I wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised to hear you cite Haden---I've never been bothered by his
>> intonation, and would have said he (usually) plays with great care
>> and attention to all aspects of his sound, including intonation.
>>
>> However, particularly in jazz, "precision" might imply the wrong way of
>> thinking about intonation.

[...]

>> Darcy Gray replied:

>This is precisely what I meant with my (ironic) use of the phrase "close
>enough for jazz". But Charlie Haden is definitely not "precise" (in a
>classical sense) when it comes to pitch. In fact, he will often attack

>a note on pitch and then slide upwards [...]

> Of course, he does this deliberately
>-- it's not inconsistent with "playing with great care and attention to
>all aspects of his sound".

Yes, it seems we heartily agree about Haden. And it seems like you have
caught more than your share of complaints from people who didn't
understand what you meant by "close enough for jazz". But back to
Carter. I have never particularly noticed artful microtonal stuff in his
playing. And I have noticed what seems like sloppy distinctly
un-artful imprecision in his classical playing. So I interpert the
"imprecision" in his playing as real inaccuracy, whereas in Haden's
"imprecision" is part of what makes him so great.

Charlie Sullivan

tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

unread,

Jun 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/9/96

to

In article <4pc9hs$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mark

S Fraser) writes:
>
>Don Herzog (dhe...@umich.edu) writes:
>> Hmm: I don't know anything about the technical side of how bass playing
>> works, but I wonder if speed has those effects.

>I too have heard Holland play with incredible speed (although usually just

>quick bursts) but I've noticed he switches his attack to more like an
>electric guitar approach than traditional jazz style and his tone gets
>ever so slightly thinner. Ray Brown, who I claimed as the standard for
>great tone, also plays some pretty fast licks but its pretty hard to
>compare either of these two to the speed of the inimitable NHOP. However
>they seem to pull off great speed without having their tone suffer,
>something I don't think NHOP manages. It is unquestionably easier to play
>fast on a bass with low action but it won't project very well.

I think that rapid playing takes a toll on tone quality on any
instrument. It's not unique to bass. It's just difficult to
focus on tone production and bring it off when you're burning.

--

------------------------------------------------------
"Use your guts, man! That's what you've got them for!"
--Roy Scheider in Seaquest

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/9/96

to

(tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu) writes:
> In article <4pc9hs$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mark
> S Fraser) writes:
>>
>>Don Herzog (dhe...@umich.edu) writes:
>>> Hmm: I don't know anything about the technical side of how bass playing
>>> works, but I wonder if speed has those effects.
>
>>I too have heard Holland play with incredible speed (although usually just
>>quick bursts) but I've noticed he switches his attack to more like an
>>electric guitar approach than traditional jazz style and his tone gets
>>ever so slightly thinner. Ray Brown, who I claimed as the standard for
>>great tone, also plays some pretty fast licks but its pretty hard to
>>compare either of these two to the speed of the inimitable NHOP. However
>>they seem to pull off great speed without having their tone suffer,
>>something I don't think NHOP manages. It is unquestionably easier to play
>>fast on a bass with low action but it won't project very well.
>
>
> I think that rapid playing takes a toll on tone quality on any
> instrument. It's not unique to bass. It's just difficult to
> focus on tone production and bring it off when you're burning.
>

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

In article <4pc0a3$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,

Mark S Fraser <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>As a bassist I think you'll find if you poll bassists Ray Brown is usually
>the most often cited as have in the best tone.

:-) I moonlight as a bartender in a jazz club. Last night at work, the
bassist (Lynn Seaton, with the Jeff Hamilton Trio) kept coming up to the
bar to check out the personnel on the cd's I was playing during breaks.
Quite coincidentally, I seemed to pick a lot of cd's with Oscar Peterson
and Ray Brown on them. I hadn't thought about this until the last time
he asked (Ben Webster's Soulville); I shook my head apologetically, and
explained "I have no idea why I seem to be doing this, but I guess it's
Ray Brown night tonight." "Hey," he says to me, "When you're a bassist,
every night is Ray Brown night."

> As a matter of fact I've
>found that "Night Train" is the album most bassists from that generation
>claim as their ideal tone.

:-) :-) That's the first one he asked me about.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

Keith L. Saunders wrote:

> I believe that some bass players rely too much on their amp for their
> sound. I believe that he sound, or tone, should come first and foremost
> from the instrument.

As someone who plays an instrument on which it is virtually impossible to
control one's "sound", it is extremely difficult for me to care what the source
of the sound actually is.

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

Marc Sabatella (ma...@sde.hp.com) writes:
> Keith L. Saunders wrote:
>
>> I believe that some bass players rely too much on their amp for their
>> sound. I believe that he sound, or tone, should come first and foremost
>> from the instrument.
>
> As someone who plays an instrument on which it is virtually impossible to
> control one's "sound", it is extremely difficult for me to care what the source
> of the sound actually is.

I think bassists often forget that the sound *has* to come from the bass
first and foremost. If you bass sounds like crap it doesn't matter what
amp/pickup/preamp you're using. Often a crappy sound amplified is simply a
result of not spending enough time getting a good sound acoustically
first. I found bowing really improved my sound acoustically and alot of
jazz players spend very little time bowing.

Don Herzog

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

In article <4pgdng$p...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,

Marc Sabatella <ma...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>As someone who plays an instrument on which it is virtually impossible to
>control one's "sound", it is extremely difficult for me to care what the source
>of the sound actually is.
>

You think so? Sure, you're more or less at the mercy of whatever piano
you're stuck with at the moment and there is huge variation from one
piano to another. But consider the Maybeck solo recital series:
apparently every one of these is recorded on the same piano. In pure
tone quality, the different pianists get very different sounds out of the
instrument: at least that's true for the 3 I own, by Joanne Brackeen,
Marian McPartland, and Adam Makowicz. And I don't think this is a matter
of different ways of miking the sessions or whatever else--the sounds
they get are quite consistent with the sounds each of them gets on other
recordings.

--don

Charles R. Sullivan

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mark S Fraser) writes:

>I think bassists often forget that the sound *has* to come from the bass
>first and foremost. If you bass sounds like crap it doesn't matter what
>amp/pickup/preamp you're using.

I disagree with that, but agree with the following:

>Often a crappy sound amplified is simply a
>result of not spending enough time getting a good sound acoustically
>first. I found bowing really improved my sound acoustically and alot of
>jazz players spend very little time bowing.

One good way to get a good sound is to get a good acoustic sound and
then try to amplify it, faithfully reproducing the orginal good sound.

Another, equally-valid way to get a good sound is to electroacoustically
modify whatever you are getting from a pickup to get what you want.
Some attention to the original sound is, of course, advisable, but it
needn't be the final result you are looking for.

Charlie Sullivan

Charles R. Sullivan

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

comm...@usa.pipeline.com(Keith L. Saunders), after agreeing that
amplification could at least in theory sometimes result in a good

sound (or something like that) writes:

>I prefer the sound to come from the instrument and not the amp. The thing
>about too much amplification is that it forces a pianist to either have to
>pound to be heard, or turn the up the piano mike. And I would much rather
>hear the true sound of the piano than an artificial moniter. I just think
>that by and large, the less amplification used, the better the music feels.
> Of course there are certain situations i.e. concerts where it is
>unavoidable.
>

Yes, I agree. Another problem with amplification is that musicians
sometimes stop taking responsibility for the balance between
instruments. That becomes the responsibility of the person running
the sound system. A lot of musicality can be lost that way.

Charlie Sullivan

Gary Persons

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

In article <4piina$a...@agate.berkeley.edu>, From
char...@crissy.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Charles R. Sullivan), the following
was written: > Yes, I agree. Another problem with amplification is that

musicians > sometimes stop taking responsibility for the balance between
> instruments. That becomes the responsibility of the person running
> the sound system. A lot of musicality can be lost that way.

Plus, I sub in a big band where the bass is the dominant instrument!
The brass section can't play as loud!

!^NavFont02F01AB0008MH56HHAC717B

--
Gary Persons gper...@earthlink.net
06/10/96 21:36

Fathom

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

After listening to him on "Third Plane", I'd have to say his playing is so
compelling and expressive I couldn't notice the intonation if I tried.

--
Fathom >8-)>
**********
No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work, anyway.

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

Don Herzog wrote:

> You think so? Sure, you're more or less at the mercy of whatever piano
> you're stuck with at the moment and there is huge variation from one
> piano to another. But consider the Maybeck solo recital series:
> apparently every one of these is recorded on the same piano. In pure
> tone quality, the different pianists get very different sounds out of the
> instrument: at least that's true for the 3 I own, by Joanne Brackeen,
> Marian McPartland, and Adam Makowicz.

There are always subtle differences that are just byproducts of differences in
articulation, but the basic sound is still largely due to the piano. Whereas
on any other instrument, articulation is only one piece of the puzzle.

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

Keith L. Saunders wrote:

> But do you really not care what the bass player you are playing with, or
> listening to "sounds" like?!

Of course I do, but as I said before, as long the sound is pleasing and
musically useful, I am happy. I consider this completely unrelated to whether
the sound happens to be altered electrically, and indeed, most amplified bass
sounds I've heard fit this bill. Including Ron Carter. On the other hand,
the sound many bassists get unamplified is neither pleasing nor musically
useful to me - it is not loud enough, and there is not enough sustain, and they
get tired too easily over the course of a gig. I'd much rather they play
amplified unless they can really cover the part unamplified, which in my
experience is rare. And I don't consider it inherently bad for them to have to
do this.

> If I'm playing with a bassist with an amp I
> have to play differently than I would if he was playing acoustically.

Me to. I generally have to restrain myself and not play nearly as hard as I'd
like if the bassist is playing acoustically. So I much prefer if he uses an
amp. There may be a small handful of bassists in the world capable of matching
the volume of a piano played as percussively as I tend to play, but I haven't
yet played with any of them.

Keith L. Saunders

unread,

Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96

to

On Jun 10, 1996 06:01:20 in article <Re: Ron Carter's Intonation>,

'ma...@sde.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)' wrote:

>Keith L. Saunders wrote:
>
>> I believe that some bass players rely too much on their amp for their

>> sound. I believe that the sound, or tone, should come first and
foremost
>> from the instrument.
>

>As someone who plays an instrument on which it is virtually impossible to
>control one's "sound", it is extremely difficult for me to care what the
>source
>of the sound actually is.
>

Well, obviously it is possible to control the sound of the piano through
touch; how hard one plays. And I assume you know this and that you are
referring to the fact that we cannot put gut strings on a piano, raise &
lower the action etc.

But do you really not care what the bass player you are playing with, or

listening to "sounds" like?! If I'm playing with a bassist with an amp I
have to play differently than I would if he was playing acoustically. I
think that a great bassist will sound great with a terrible sounding
amplifier, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer him to have a better
sound, be it amplified or not.

Keith Saunders

Brian Rost

unread,

Jun 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/12/96

to

In article <4pkss9$5...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, ma...@fc.hp.com wrote:

> On the other hand,
> the sound many bassists get unamplified is neither pleasing nor musically
> useful to me - it is not loud enough, and there is not enough sustain,
and they
> get tired too easily over the course of a gig. I'd much rather they play
> amplified unless they can really cover the part unamplified, which in my
> experience is rare. And I don't consider it inherently bad for them to
have to
> do this.

> I generally have to restrain myself and not play nearly as hard as I'd
> like if the bassist is playing acoustically. So I much prefer if he uses an
> amp. There may be a small handful of bassists in the world capable of
matching
> the volume of a piano played as percussively as I tend to play, but I haven't
> yet played with any of them.

One of the great mysteries of the bass for me is how the heck any of the
great players who were around BEFORE amplification managed to be heard at
all, especially in big bands carrying a dozen horns (mystery #2 is Freddie
Green playing all those years with Basie and not amplifying his guitar!).

I use an amp all the time on gigs where there are drums and even when I
play in folk groups where I'm competing with a piano, fiddles and
accordions I can't hear myself well without monitors (makes for "creative"
intonation).

The bass by it's very nature projects the sound out and away from the
player so when I can't hear myself, most of the band members tell me they
hear me fine. It helps if I set up in a spot where I can get some
reflectons off a nearby wall (at home I always practice facing a wall
about eighteen inches away).

The first few gigs I played amplified were a treat for me as I could use
more dynamics (i.e. I didn't have to pound all the time to be heard) and
if I got tired, I could just crank the amp up a bit and give my fingers a
rest. I'm still not 100% happy with the sound (after going through two
pickups and three amplifiers in search of a realistic tone) but being able
to hear myself over loud guitar amps in a blues band is nice 8^)

--

Brian Rost
3Com Corp.
508-264-1550
br...@synnet.com

*********************************************************************

There is no justice: we lost Stevie Ray Vaughan but we can't
even get Jon Bon Jovi to ride in a helicopter.

-- Dennis Leary

*********************************************************************

Mike Smith P125

unread,

Jun 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/12/96

to

In article <brost-1206960901540001@thomas_radogna_mac.synnet.com>,

Brian Rost <br...@synnet.com> wrote:
>
>One of the great mysteries of the bass for me is how the heck any of the
>great players who were around BEFORE amplification managed to be heard at
>all, especially in big bands carrying a dozen horns (mystery #2 is Freddie
>Green playing all those years with Basie and not amplifying his guitar!).
>
>I use an amp all the time on gigs where there are drums and even when I
>play in folk groups where I'm competing with a piano, fiddles and
>accordions I can't hear myself well without monitors (makes for "creative"
>intonation).

Note there are two issues here. I'm morally certain that players like
Blanton and Kirby etc. couldn't hear themselves during performances, at
least by the standards of a monitor-dependent age.

Nor by the standards of a generation used to electric basses with
active pickups. round-wound strings, 4x10s with tweeters, etc, were
they heard that well by their audiences. But I'm also morally certain
that they could be _felt_, which was more important to the dancers on
the floor.

These guys also played with gut strings, with actions high enough to
drive through. Broken strings were commonplace.

OTOH, in the small youth orchestra in which I am the only bassist, I
have no difficulty being heard over a piano and a few dozen assorted
strings. And I am a fairly low-volume player. Especially when bowed,
the bass is very loud for the audience, if not the player. In my
experience as an auditor of various acoustic gigs, the bass tends
to drown out unamplified guitars, violins, accordians and mandolins.

I've never used a monitor, but I suspect they may be deleterious to
group performance. An ensemble performance is not a bunch of simul-
taneous solos, and should not be listened to as such, by the audience
or the performers. In a performance one should hear onself well
enough to be able to recognize the contribution to the total sound
one is making, but no more than that. (Granted, sometimes we can
barely hear that much, but I do believe that it is largely a matter
of training the ear to listen.)

mps

Keith L. Saunders

unread,

Jun 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/12/96

to

On Jun 12, 1996 15:33:23 in article <Re: Ron Carter's Intonation>,

'mis...@bnr.ca (Mike Smith P125)' wrote:

>One of the great mysteries of the bass for me is how the heck any of the
>>great players who were around BEFORE amplification managed to be heard at

>>all, especially in big bands carrying a dozen horns (mystery #2 is
Freddie
>>Green playing all those years with Basie and not amplifying his guitar!).

I have wondered this myself from time to time. People I know who saw
Coltrane's quartet have told me that it was almost impossible to hear Jimmy
Garrison & McCoy Tyner when Trane was soloing.

But here's a hypothetical question: How would the music have differed
had there been amplification as far back as the 30s? Would the beat have
been heavier? What affect would it have on the evolution of the bass
players of the time?

Keith Saunders

John Sullivan

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

In article <4pn51a$r...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> comm...@usa.pipeline.com(Keith L. Saunders) writes:
>'mis...@bnr.ca (Mike Smith P125)' wrote:
>
>
>>One of the great mysteries of the bass for me is how the heck any of the
>>>great players who were around BEFORE amplification managed to be heard at

>>>all, especially in big bands carrying a dozen horns (mystery #2 is
>Freddie
>>>Green playing all those years with Basie and not amplifying his guitar!).

If you listen REEEAALLL close you can hear him chugging away in the
background. The rest of the rhythm section said they needed him to keep the
beat together, so his presence seems to have been more for the band than the
audience.

>
> I have wondered this myself from time to time. People I know who saw
>Coltrane's quartet have told me that it was almost impossible to hear Jimmy
>Garrison & McCoy Tyner when Trane was soloing.
>
> But here's a hypothetical question: How would the music have differed
>had there been amplification as far back as the 30s? Would the beat have
>been heavier? What affect would it have on the evolution of the bass
>players of the time?
>
>Keith Saunders

It's a personal theory of mine that rock music was a result of bass
amplification. It's a pretty crucial element.

On an unrelated note, Duke Ellington loved to hear that bass. His recordings
from the 20's are notable for how up front the bass is in the mix. I doubt if
it was that audible live, though some players can spank that thing pretty
loudly.

John Sullivan
jsul...@fhcrc.org

Mike Maida

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

In article p...@fcnews.fc.hp.com, ma...@sde.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
> Keith L. Saunders wrote:
>
> > I believe that some bass players rely too much on their amp for their

> > sound. I believe that he sound, or tone, should come first and foremost

> > from the instrument.
>
> As someone who plays an instrument on which it is virtually impossible to
> control one's "sound", it is extremely difficult for me to care what the source
> of the sound actually is.
>

> --
> Marc Sabatella
> --
> ma...@fc.hp.com
> http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
> --
> All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
> and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.

Marc, as a reed player I hear what you're saying. Yet, one of the things I love
about Jessica Williams' playing is that she does control her sound and very subtly so.

Can it be the general increase in volume in small jazz group performances has de-emphasized the art of the touch in playing the piano?

This is just a thought I want to explore. By no means am I trying so say anything
negative about your piano playing.

Mike Maida (ma...@galaxy.nsc.com)

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

Mike Maida wrote:

> Yet, one of the things I love
> about Jessica Williams' playing is that she does control her sound and very
> subtly so.

Jessica has one of the most staccato touches I've ever heard on piano. More so
than McCoy Tyner, but much less percussive. Even when playing 16th notes at
some ridiculous tempo, there is space between the notes she plays. It amazes
me how cleanly she can play like that.

But I still maintain that articulation is a separate issue from tone quality.
A note struck with at a certain loudness for a certain length of time on a
certain piano will sound pretty much the same no matter who is doing it. This
is not even close to being true on the bass, or pretty much any other
instrument. Now, articulation, compbined with a few other tricks like rhythmic
placement, phrasing, and so forth, can lead to the *impression* that a given
pianist is really making his piano "sound" different, but it isn't even close
to what other instruments can do.

> Can it be the general increase in volume in small jazz group performances
> has de-emphasized the art of the touch in playing the piano?

I don't see it that way. I think the opposite, in fact - amplification has
made it possible to achieve balance at more extremes highs in volume, which
opens up more possibility in dynamic range. We can play as softly as ever, but
now we can play more loudly, and still have control over the balance. This
gives musicians great opportunities to explore. Now, some musicians may choose
not to bother exploring this range, but I don't see as they'd have been more
apt to in the days before amplification.

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

Keith L. Saunders wrote:

> I have wondered this myself from time to time. People I know who saw
> Coltrane's quartet have told me that it was almost impossible to hear Jimmy
> Garrison & McCoy Tyner when Trane was soloing.

This pretty much matches my impression (no pun intended:-) of many recordings
I've heard of the band. I mean, you can feel them, but not really hear them,
especially Garrison.

> But here's a hypothetical question: How would the music have differed
> had there been amplification as far back as the 30s? Would the beat have
> been heavier? What affect would it have on the evolution of the bass
> players of the time?

This is an excellent question. I suspect that, among other things, bebop
would have sounded very different if bassists of the time could have gotten
away with playing something other than quarter notes and still be heard. I
think it would have had a profound influence on what Charlie Parker played, for
instance, had the equivalent of Scott LaFaro been there for him on a regular
basis. Speaking of which, any recordings of Parker with Blanton?

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

In <JSULLIVA.7...@fhcrc.org> JSUL...@fhcrc.org (John Sullivan)
writes:

>It's a personal theory of mine that rock music was a result of bass
>amplification. It's a pretty crucial element.
>
>On an unrelated note, Duke Ellington loved to hear that bass. His
recordings
>from the 20's are notable for how up front the bass is in the mix. I
doubt if >it was that audible live, though some players can spank that
thing pretty
>loudly.
>
> John Sullivan
> jsul...@fhcrc.org

Or is bass amplification a result of rock music?

Duke Ellington's original bassist was Wellman Braud, who came from New
Orleans. Apparently there was a number of New Orleans bassists who had
this amazing ability to play loudly: Pops Foster, Steve Brown, Sidney
Brown (no relation) all projected very strongly. Might there have been
a bass teacher in New Orleans who brought this out in his students?
I've always wondered.
jack

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

Marc Sabatella (ma...@sde.hp.com) writes:
> Mike Maida wrote:

>> Can it be the general increase in volume in small jazz group performances
>> has de-emphasized the art of the touch in playing the piano?
>
> I don't see it that way. I think the opposite, in fact - amplification has
> made it possible to achieve balance at more extremes highs in volume, which
> opens up more possibility in dynamic range. We can play as softly as ever, but
> now we can play more loudly, and still have control over the balance. This
> gives musicians great opportunities to explore. Now, some musicians may choose
> not to bother exploring this range, but I don't see as they'd have been more
> apt to in the days before amplification.

I have to agree with Mike and I read a paraphrase of Charlie Haden saying
the same thing (in this very thread I believe). We CAN play as softly as
ever, but my experience is we don't. The volume just keeps rising and
rising. As a trumpeter in a quartet I play in said recently "What do you
mean dynamics?! I'm already playing as loud as I can!!" (TIC). I play in
so many bands where the only solution to a poor balance is TURN UP. I get
really annoyed by drummers who bash away as hard as they can and then turn
to me and say "I can't hear up...turn up!". OOOOPS! Guess we hit one of my
pet peeves again. Sorry for the rant. Incidentally I believe that if I'm
playing in a big band playing traditional big band music and anyone in the
audience can make out the actual pitches I'm playing, I'm too loud. I
often play that loud because that's how the band leader (a loud drummer)
likes it but personally I think it detracts from the authenticity of the
sound.

Brian Rost

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

In article <JSULLIVA.7...@fhcrc.org>, JSUL...@fhcrc.org (John
Sullivan) wrote:

> On an unrelated note, Duke Ellington loved to hear that bass. His recordings
> from the 20's are notable for how up front the bass is in the mix. I
doubt if
> it was that audible live, though some players can spank that thing pretty
> loudly.

Not unrelated at all! I often sit in at folk gigs (where there are no
drums) and the others players *always* comment to me "wow, it really
sounds a lot better with that bass in there". The bass is really the glue
in a lot of musical styles that links the rhythm with the harmony. The
other players listen to the bass to get the time, to hear the changes go
by, etc. That's why you hear complaints about "busy" bass players,
everyone wants the bass player to be the foundation. Anyone who doesn't
enjoy that support role should forget about playing the bass!

--

Brian Rost
3Com Corp.
508-264-1550
br...@synnet.com

*********************************************************************

It's great playing in a duo, because if something good's
happening then you know you're responsible for half of it.

-- Red Mitchell

*********************************************************************

Brian Rost

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

In article <4pq9jo$c...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Woker) wrote:

> Duke Ellington's original bassist was Wellman Braud, who came from New
> Orleans. Apparently there was a number of New Orleans bassists who had
> this amazing ability to play loudly: Pops Foster, Steve Brown, Sidney
> Brown (no relation) all projected very strongly. Might there have been
> a bass teacher in New Orleans who brought this out in his students?
> I've always wondered.

Jack, don't forget that many of the older N.O. guys were doubling bass and
tuba. Having played in a band with a tubist, I can tell you the tuba is a
heck of a lot louder! It makes sense that bassists having to replace
tubists would need a big sound.

Fathom

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

In article <Dsy93...@voder.nsc.com>, ma...@galaxy.nsc.com wrote:

> Can it be the general increase in volume in small jazz group
performances has de-emphasized the art of the touch in playing the piano?

This is going to be interesting.

To get things going, I will assert that amplified bass is not where the
escalation of sound levels started. It started with the development of
synthetic drum heads in the 1940's, which for the first time gave drummers
the power to drown out everyone else.

The bass players then had to amplify to be heard at all.

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

In article <fathom-1406...@d96.pm3.sonic.net>,

Fathom <fat...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>Add to your list of pianists who still have good touch control and dont'
>just go for volume:
>Keith Jarrett, Bill Evans, Richie Beirach. Oops, and of course Oscar Peterson!
>
>Heavy-handed: Thelonius Monk, McCoy Tyner...
>
>So far, I don't see that "art of touch" has been lost over time. Let's
>hear from some more jurors.

Ouch: Monk is often *very* percussive, for sure, but I would also credit
him with excellent touch: not that I could single out lots of moving
pianissimo passages or even legato ones, but that he is a master at
extracting just the effect he's after. Not quite so hard to duplicate
persuasively as his idiosyncratic voicings and sense of time, but pretty
damned close. Think of how he comps behind others, or how his comping
offsets his own solo lines.

I've often thought of Tyner as someone who just does pound away
relentlessly, but I should say that I once saw him romp through a
devastating solo reading of "Someone to Watch over Me" in which he showed
great command of dynamics and touch.

--don

SwingDoug

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

freemuse wrote:
> I think that if drummers learned the proper way to play, with finger
> control and slight wrist action, the dynamics would be a lot better.
> Unfortunately too many use their entire upper arm muscles each time
> they hit the drum. And that's another one. One really shouldn't
> *hit* the drumhead as much as touch it with the stick. At loud
> volumes a drummer can completely lose all control of the finer aspects
> of playing the instrument.
>
> oh well....
>

Yeah, it's a shame we have to deal with clueless drummers like
Elvin Jones who obviously haven't learned things the right way.

What a ridiculous post!

oh well...

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

>>> I have wondered this myself from time to time. People I know who saw
>>> Coltrane's quartet have told me that it was almost impossible to hear Jimmy
>>> Garrison & McCoy Tyner when Trane was soloing.
>>
>>
>>This pretty much matches my impression (no pun intended:-) of many recordings
>>I've heard of the band. I mean, you can feel them, but not really hear them,
>>especially Garrison.
>
>
>As one who was there, I can well remember times when Jimmy would just sit
>next to McCoy on the piano bench, both of them laying out, as 'Trane and
>Elvin did their thing. Jack, this jibe with your recollections? Interesting
>to wonder if that would have been the case, had Jimmy had a powerful
>pick-up.
>
>
>Interesting contrast with some of the early bebop records. They didn't know
>how to record drums; would muffle them. On some of those records it's the
>_drums_ that are felt but not heard.
>

I only saw Trane once, and it was when the quartet had been augmented
by Pharaoh Sanders and Rashied Ali - the whole thing was pretty
cacophonous, and I can't remember being able to focus on what any
individual was doing during the ensembles! However I do remember that
Jimmy Garrison did play a lengthy solo, during which the rest of the
band left the stage, and although he was very audible, the level of
chatter in the room was as loud as (if not louder than) he was, which
pissed me off at the time!
In regards to the quality of bebop recordings, sometimes the bad
sound is not the fault of the original engineer, but of the incompetent
remastering engineer. I learned Charlie Parker's Savoy sides on the
Lp's that were available in the 1960's, on which the bass and drums
were a murky wash of sound. When the material was remastered by Arista
in the 1970's and issued on a boxed set, I was astounded at how clearly
one could follow what the individual members of the rhythm section were
doing!
jack

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

>
>> But here's a hypothetical question: How would the music have differed
>>had there been amplification as far back as the 30s? Would the beat have
>>been heavier? What affect would it have on the evolution of the bass
>>players of the time?
>>
>>Keith Saunders
>
>In point of fact amplifiers DID exist in the 1930s. Bob Willis and the
>Texas Playboys used to lug around Fender prototypes on road tests,
Charlie
>Christian used an amp in the late 30s, and many others experimented
with
>the new technology.
>
>BBB
>
>

Yes, there were amplifiers for guitars - many western swing players
hooked up their guitars and lap steels in the mid-30's, but was there
amplification available for bassists? I've never heard of any.
jack

unread,

Jun 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/15/96

to

ga...@gacki.sax.de (Malte Rogacki) wrote:

>In article <4pplkn$r...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Marc Sabatella writes:

>>
>> I don't see it that way. I think the opposite, in fact - amplification
>> has made it possible to achieve balance at more extremes highs in volume,
>> which opens up more possibility in dynamic range. We can play as softly
>> as ever, but now we can play more loudly, and still have control over the
>> balance.

>Hardly. I used to rehearse a singer a few days ago. Pure acoustic setting
>(drums, amplified bass guitar, 3 horns). The drummer was playing so
>insanely loud that I had to wear earplugs! Now, for the drummer to hear the
>piano we had to amplify it. This in turn raised the overall level beyond
>anything practical. From my experience, amplification leads very often to a
>"more" approach - everything gets louder and louder.
>BTW, when one of the horn players complained that he couldn't hear himself
>anymore the drummer shouted at him: "Buy yourself a mic and an amp!"

>--

>Malte Rogacki ga...@sax.sax.de
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>"Don't forget to TURN ON THE SYNTHESIZER. Often this is the reason why
> you get no sound out of it." (ARP 2600 Owner's Manual)
>-------------------------------------------------------------

Years ago, (late 70s, early 80s), I played in a big band with a lot of
older guys in their 50s and 60s, and they all said the electric bass
screwed things up because it made the drummer play louder, which made
the rest of the rhythm section play louder, which made everybody else
play louder, so you can't hear each other without monitors. I think
things are worse today, because at least those guys were aware of the
problem, nowadays nobody even tries to listen to each other even with
monitors.

unread,

Jun 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/16/96

to

In <4ptjsm$9...@news.jhu.edu> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () writes:
>
>In article <4psr2d$4...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Woker) writes:
>>>
>>Yes, there were amplifiers for guitars - many western swing players
>>hooked up their guitars and lap steels in the mid-30's, but was there
>>amplification available for bassists? I've never heard of any.
>
>I never have either. It's an interesting question, though.
>Amplification was just as available to bassists as to guitarists. Why
>didn't anyone think to use it? My guess is that it was because most
>bassists back then didn't have much to say musically, and that's why
>they were bassists.
>I am well aware of the good players, but most of them were just
>brought along to thump around at the bottom.
>

Tom, I'll assume this comment is flame bait for bassists, and not
meant to be taken seriously! Assuming that you are serious, is is your
contention that the only people who have anything to "say" are those
who are soloing? I, and an army of others I suspect, would disagree!
I asked a guitar player about this question, and he said that the
methods for amplifying guitars and basses are completely different -
the pickup designed to pick up and amplify guitar would not work on a
standup bass, and that the bass-amp system in use today did not come
into existence until the late 60's or early 70's, as has already been
posted.
jack

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/16/96

to

Craig Schmugar (c-sch...@nwu.edu) writes:
> John & Bonnie wrote:
>> Years ago, (late 70s, early 80s), I played in a big band with a lot of
>> older guys in their 50s and 60s, and they all said the electric bass
>> screwed things up because it made the drummer play louder, which made
>> the rest of the rhythm section play louder, which made everybody else
>> play louder, so you can't hear each other without monitors. I think
>> things are worse today, because at least those guys were aware of the
>> problem, nowadays nobody even tries to listen to each other even with
>> monitors.
>
> Finally, someone makes some sense!
>
> This is so true. The advent of electric instruments(mainly electric, or
> amplified upright bass)made everyone turn up too much and lose all sense of
> sensitivity. Mile sgreat groups with PC didn't seem to have any problem
> listening to each other. Blanton sounded great with Ellington, even on live
> recordings. I think bass players who use amps just don't want to work hard to
> get a good sound out of their hands. The idea of a Jazz piano trio playing
> with monitors is about the most insane thing I could imagine. Jazz music is
> at it's best, IMO, when it is pure and acoustic.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey SwingDoug! Ever play acoustic bass in a big band? I didn't think so! I
have and the problem is that drummers have become accostumed to having an
amplified bass and seem unable to adjust their volume accordingly. And why
exactly is a single bass player expected to destroy his hands to be heard
through 15 other instruments. The bass is made to be bowed. If you listen
to MOST big band recordings its thud, thud, thud, thud (be amplification
that is). Personally I strive for close to that sound than a predominant
bass sound but I do like it a little more prominent in the balance. And I
agree with the ludicrousness of a piano trio with monitors (excluding
perhaps large venues). I have no problem playing at all with piano players
or guitarist in purely acoustic situations, as a matter of fact I used to
play a three hour acoustic gig every Sat night for about a year and a
half. But as soon as you introduce a drummer into the mix the volume
almost instantly doubles. Not all drummers mind you but certainly most. So
Doug, play three hours on acoustic bass with no amp in a noisy restaurant
and then tell me what a lazy bunch we bass players are for using amps.

tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

In article <4q1t2n$p...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Woker) writes:
>>
>>I never have either. It's an interesting question, though.
>>Amplification was just as available to bassists as to guitarists. Why
>>didn't anyone think to use it? My guess is that it was because most
>>bassists back then didn't have much to say musically, and that's why
>>they were bassists.
>>I am well aware of the good players, but most of them were just
>>brought along to thump around at the bottom.
>>
> Tom, I'll assume this comment is flame bait for bassists, and not
>meant to be taken seriously! Assuming that you are serious, is is your
>contention that the only people who have anything to "say" are those
>who are soloing?

No, I said no such thing. The point is that people who don't have much
to say don't lose anything by not being heard. On those old records,
when you can hear the bass, the lines are usually more percussive
in function than they are melodic. Harmonically, they are rudimentary,
when they're correct.

Of course, some of the guys could play well. No one seems to know
why they weren't amplified. It wasn't a technical limitation--
it was a cultural practice. I am theorizing that the reason
bassists as a class did not press for solo space or more
prominent comping roles is because in general they were
the least accomplished musicians in the band. Of course,
this is no longer true today.

>methods for amplifying guitars and basses are completely different -
>the pickup designed to pick up and amplify guitar would not work on a
>standup bass

It wouldn't be ideal, but it would work as long as you were using
steel strings. For gut strings you need a different approach.
If you can wind a pickup for a guitar, you can just as easily wind
one for a bass. Your friend is mistaken.

, and that the bass-amp system in use today did not come
>into existence until the late 60's or early 70's, as has already been
>posted.

This is true, but it doesn't mean it wasn't possible earlier. You
don't even need a pickup, really. A microphone would have done the job.
I don't think technical limitations explain why bassists didn't amplify
earlier. It definitely was possible.

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

I agree with the idea that it was a cultural practice. I think they didn't
amplify basses because it never really occured to them, except in rare
cases, that the bass should do anything but thump around in the background.
When I studied jazz styles in school we had to transcribe swing bass solos
from pre 1950. We had a pretty extensive record collection and there just
aren't very many bassists soloing back then because:
1) The bass didn't project very well
2) Most bassists probably didn't have the chops of Blanton i.e. to solo
with high enough action to be heard.
3) I don't think anyone really thought they needed to here a bass solo. I
think people are still generally apathetic about bass solos (why do you
think that's when everyone waits to talk during a performance?)

Even alot of Blanton's solo are difficult to transcribe. Not because
they're particularly hard to but becasue they are hard to hear clearly.
Since the idea that a wound pickup requires metal strings has come up,
anyone know when metal bass strings were introduced? When did gut strings
stop being the standard?

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

In <4q2ll6$8...@news.jhu.edu> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () writes:
>

>>> My guess is that it was because most bassists back then didn't have
>>>much to say musically, and that's why they were bassists.
>>>I am well aware of the good players, but most of them were just
>>>brought along to thump around at the bottom.
>> Tom, I'll assume this comment is flame bait for bassists, and not

>>meant to be taken seriously! Assuming that you are serious, is it

>>your contention that the only people who have anything to "say" are
>>those who are soloing?
>
>No, I said no such thing. The point is that people who don't have much
>to say don't lose anything by not being heard. On those old records,
>when you can hear the bass, the lines are usually more percussive
>in function than they are melodic. Harmonically, they are rudimentary,
>when they're correct.
>

I'm trying to understand you here Tom. You seem to be taking the
position that because bassists chose not to solo, or to stray from
their role as timekeepers and harmonic supporters, that they were
somehow less accomplished than others in the ensembles. Because you
have yet to be specific about just who these primitive musicians were
let me name some great bassists who preceded Jimmy Blanton: Israel
Crosby, Pops Foster, Trigger Alpert, Hayes Alvis, Billy Taylor, Wellman
Braud, Walter Page, John Kirby, Bob Haggart, Artie Bernstein, Harry
Goodman are all accomplished musicians who knew their business,
harmonically as well as rhythmically. The fact that most of them never
took a solo (on record anyway) is not an indication that they were any
less accomplished than those instrumentalists who did.

>Of course, some of the guys could play well. No one seems to know
>why they weren't amplified. It wasn't a technical limitation--
>it was a cultural practice. I am theorizing that the reason
>bassists as a class did not press for solo space or more
>prominent comping roles is because in general they were
>the least accomplished musicians in the band. Of course,
>this is no longer true today.

I disagree with this statement. Bass solos were unheard of - the
bassist's job was as accompanist. Being a good accompanist is just as
difficult as being a soloist.

>>methods for amplifying guitars and basses are completely different -
>>the pickup designed to pick up and amplify guitar would not work on a
>>standup bass
>It wouldn't be ideal, but it would work as long as you were using
>steel strings. For gut strings you need a different approach.
>If you can wind a pickup for a guitar, you can just as easily wind
>one for a bass. Your friend is mistaken.

No, he isn't mistaken - I just didn't quote him as specifically as I
should have, which is my fault. Which bassists were using steel
strings in the 1930's?

>>, and that the bass-amp system in use today did not come
>>into existence until the late 60's or early 70's, as has already been
>>posted.
>This is true, but it doesn't mean it wasn't possible earlier. You
>don't even need a pickup, really. A microphone would have done the
>job. I don't think technical limitations explain why bassists didn't
>amplify earlier. It definitely was possible.

As you have already implied, it was a cultural convention that
bassists not amplify. As has been said thoughout this thread, there
was no need for bassists to amplify. It wasn't expected of them. In
those days nobody amplified except the singer!
If your preference in music is directed towards more modern
developments in jazz, that is certainly your prerogative. Please at
least have some respect for the great early pioneers of jazz who laid
the groundwork for what came later!
jack

Brian Rost

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

Time to get a bass player in here to explain:

Guitar pickups are *magnetic* and require steel strings to use. The string
bass was still strung with gut strings until the 50s so couldn't use a
magnetic pickup. Mikes and contact pickups WERE used on bass, often
homebrew concoctions. In the 1930s, Rickenbacker even made (in small
numbers) an electric upright bass that worked, but had poor tone. The amps
of the day had low wattage and small speakers so couldn't provide what we
consider a good tone today.

The next big step was the "Amplified Peg" or "Ampeg" invented by Walter
Hull (in the 40s I believe). This was a special peg that had a long shaft
extending into the bass' body with a crystal microphone mounted on it.
Ampeg sold quite a few of these; I even have one (not working, though) in
my own bass. Still there were problems with getting enough bottom end,
enough volume and avoiding feedback (even with modern amps and pickups,
feedback is still a problem with upright basses today, whioch led to the
new generation of "electric uprights" like the Clevinger, Vertical Bass,
BSX, etc. which can be played at punishing volume levels without
feedback).

Amplifiers capable of doing justice to the upright bass really didn't
arrive until the 1960s, with the Ampeg B15 being probably the first great
bass amp, and although it has been out of production for over fifteen
years, it is still preferred by many upright bassists.

There is no doubt that the rise of the electric bass was largely due to
the problems in amplifying the upright; by switching to the bass guitar,
the bass player could be heard, he could hear *himself* and the instrument
was physically less demanding to play due to the lower string action,
reduced string tension and smaller size allowing the bassist to sit down.
The bassists that switched over obviously were willing to sacrifice a
great tone that could not be heard for a good tone that COULD be heard.

For the poster who mentioned that Bob Wills' band used Fender protoypes,
it should be mentioned that Fender was not established until the late 40s
and didn't attempt to address the bass issue at all until 1951 when they
introduced the first Precision Bass and a matching Bassman amp. In fact,
compared to Ampeg (who sold the first widely available electric upright
bass in the 1960s) whose focus remained on the upright for many years,
Fender's whole bass approach was to abandon the upright bass altogether
and go with the bass guitar.

Mike Smith P125

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

A collection of thoughts inspired by this thread:

1. I don't know exactly when steel strings for basses first became avai-
lable, but I believe that they didn't become common until mid-century.
2. The fact that bass pickups and speakers were technically possible 50+
years ago doesn't mean that they were available. Or do you expect bass
players to wind their onw pickups and build their own cabs?
3. Bassists "thumping around the bottom" or guitarists "ch-chinking" in
the background of a swing band HAVE something to say, and are saying it.
4. I do believe that drummers played quieter in these bands.
5. But still playing upright in a 30s band required size and strength.
Scottie, Gary, Eddie, Marc need not apply. Maybe Dave.
6. So for little guys like me, amplification when playing with drums
is pretty much a necessity.
7. But I do believe that we have become too dependent on amplification.
Case in point: the guitarist I play with in church plays through a 4-foot
cab. The church seats a couple of hundred at a stretch. We have a small
choir, a quiet pianist, no drums, and I play my electric bass through a
25-watt combo or my upright unamplified. The last two weeks he's been
without an electric guitar. We have plenty of acoustics available, but
he refuses to play unamplified. He'd rather sit!
8. As a bassist, I feel my primary auditors are the choir and my fellow
musicians. I hope the people in the cheap seats can hear me well enough
to know when I stop, but if they can transcribe my part, I'm too loud.
9. Of course a choir is special situation - nothing is supposed to stand
out. If a (non-soloing) singer can hear himself clearly, he is doing
something wrong. I think all ensemble musicians could use a little
of this attitude, however.
10. When a symphony orchestra is really together, it's like riding
a big wave. You feel the sympathetic vibrations of the rest of
of the orchestra coursing through your instrument and your notes
and their notes flow together and you only hear yoourself when
you mess up.
11. As an auditor, I much prefer unamplified music, and am disappointed
when I hear samll groups in small venues wiht what strikes me as
unnecessary amplifiers.

mps

Fathom

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

In article <4q3k6f$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack
Woker) wrote:

> >Of course, some of the guys could play well. No one seems to know
> >why they weren't amplified. It wasn't a technical limitation--
> >it was a cultural practice. I am theorizing that the reason
> >bassists as a class did not press for solo space or more
> >prominent comping roles is because in general they were
> >the least accomplished musicians in the band. Of course,
> >this is no longer true today.
> I disagree with this statement. Bass solos were unheard of - the
> bassist's job was as accompanist. Being a good accompanist is just as
> difficult as being a soloist.
>

Having heard a beautiful session of Blanton and Ellington playing duets
(Chicago October 1,1940 on vol 6 of the RCA "Indispensable" set), the only
part of either side of this argument I can support is that it was a
cultural practice.

Techniques used for recording in 1940 obviously were capable of picking up
the bass very nicely, when the effort was made, so it could have been
amplified. And the soloing capability is there for sure!

In recording the big band, record buyers expected to get exactly what they
heard live-- so nothing was close-miked. And perhaps in those days a lot
of stages didn't even have reliable power supplies for amplifiers!

But I'd rather hear it explained by someone who was there.

tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

In article <4q3k6f$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Woker)
writes:

>>
>I'm trying to understand you here Tom. You seem to be taking the
>position that because bassists chose not to solo, or to stray from
>their role as timekeepers and harmonic supporters, that they were
>somehow less accomplished than others in the ensembles.

I have said no such thing. There are many other reasons why bass players
might have been the least accomplished musicians in the band. The fact
that they weren't heard and mostly were brought along to provide a
regular percussive thumping in the low end would seem to me the most
likely reason. Not much technique was required to do that job.

>>Of course, some of the guys could play well. No one seems to know
>>why they weren't amplified. It wasn't a technical limitation--
>>it was a cultural practice. I am theorizing that the reason
>>bassists as a class did not press for solo space or more
>>prominent comping roles is because in general they were
>>the least accomplished musicians in the band. Of course,
>>this is no longer true today.

>I disagree with this statement. Bass solos were unheard of - the
>bassist's job was as accompanist.

What are you disagreeing with?

>No, he isn't mistaken - I just didn't quote him as specifically as I
>should have, which is my fault. Which bassists were using steel
>strings in the 1930's?

I have no idea when bassists began using steel strings.
Certainly they had access to amplifiers at the same time
guitarists did. There are a variety of ways to get a
signal into an amp. I don't think technical limitations
were the concern. I think the reason, as you mentioned
above, is that bass solos were unheard of. Why were they
unheard of? I think it is because there weren't a lot of
bassists who could solo.
--

Pretentious? Moi?

John Sullivan

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

In article <4q3tvh$e...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> mis...@bnr.ca (Mike Smith P125) writes:
[edit]

>A collection of thoughts inspired by this thread:

>4. I do believe that drummers played quieter in these bands.

Agreed. Seems like drummers now days all think like rock drummers, i.e. they
sound better LOUD. (For rock, I agree, but not for jazz.) It seems like
playing them quiet is playing a whole different instrument. Max Roach comes
to mind. He's very sensitive about dynamics. (When I saw him, his bassist
had an electric standup, by the way.)

>11. As an auditor, I much prefer unamplified music, and am disappointed
> when I hear samll groups in small venues wiht what strikes me as
> unnecessary amplifiers.

Though I also like (and play) loud hard rock music, I completely agree with
you. I hate going to a jazz (or folk! Sheesh!) club and having everything
miked and amped to the point of physical pain. You lose so much nuance. I
like seeing somebody really play the room, using dynamics. Unfortunately I
think we've come to the point where unamplified music sounds boring to most
people. Rock has just taken over everything. Too bad. That old advice about
getting people to listen by whispering comes to mind.
(Of course some jazz is meant to be played electric. I'm talking about the
drums, stand-up bass, piano, horns thing.)

John Sullivan
jsul...@fhcrc.org

Matthew C Weiner

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

Craig Schmugar [commonly known as SwingDoug] (c-sch...@nwu.edu) wrote:

: Jazz music is

: at it's best, IMO, when it is pure and acoustic.

:
Don't want to get too purist, though; otherwise we might have
to strike "Mood Indigo" from the canon; after all, I understand that
microphone hum was an important part of the sound Duke obtained
on that record.

Matt

Mike Smith P125

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

In article <4q3r9l$l...@news.jhu.edu>, <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>I have said no such thing. There are many other reasons why bass players
>might have been the least accomplished musicians in the band. The fact
>that they weren't heard and mostly were brought along to provide a
>regular percussive thumping in the low end would seem to me the most
>likely reason. Not much technique was required to do that job.

I guess it's obvious to all that tom never played a bass and doesn't
scruple at speaking whereof he does not know.

But what struck me about this paragraph was the complete lack of rhetorical
scruples evidenced in the compound question. Compare:

There are many other reasons why horn players might have been
the least accomplished musicians in the orchestra. The fact
that they weren't seen and mostly were brought along to provide
sporadic flourishes in the high end would seem to me the most

likely reason. Not much technique was required to do that job.

Or, if that is not offensive enough:

There are many other reasons why females might be the least
accomplished software designers in America. The fact that
they aren't promoted and are brought along mostly to provide
neater documentation would seem the most likely reason. Not
much technique is required to do that job.

I can only speculate that there might be many reasons why tom's posts
are the least intelligent in this group. That I seldom read them and
that my feeder carries them only to provide a regular network dumping
in the background would seem to me the most likely reason. Not much
knowledge required to write those posts.

mps

Genie Baker

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

In article <31C45B...@nwu.edu>, Craig Schmugar <c-sch...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>John & Bonnie wrote:
>> ...they all said the electric bass

>> screwed things up because it made the drummer play louder, which made

>> the rest of the rhythm section play louder...

>
>This is so true. The advent of electric instruments(mainly electric, or

>amplified upright bass)made everyone turn up too much...

:-) Sounds like we could turn this into a long thread deciding who's
at fault, but I was sort of convinced by the person who described the
changes in drumheads. Around here, it really is usually the drummer's
loudness that causes everyone else to turn up too much. (Mostly, we're
lucky to have a lot of very tasteful drummers in the area, so it becomes
pretty predictable that things will get loud when the couple exceptions
are filling in.)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

In <4q3r9l$l...@news.jhu.edu> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () writes:
>
>In article <4q3k6f$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Woker)
>writes:
>>>
>>I'm trying to understand you here Tom. You seem to be taking the
>>position that because bassists chose not to solo, or to stray from
>>their role as timekeepers and harmonic supporters, that they were
>>somehow less accomplished than others in the ensembles.
>

>I have said no such thing. There are many other reasons why bass
>players might have been the least accomplished musicians in the band.
>The fact that they weren't heard and mostly were brought along to
>provide a regular percussive thumping in the low end would seem to me
>the most likely reason. Not much technique was required to do that
>job.
>

Tom, I still reject your assertion that early bassists are the least
accomplished members of their ensembles. The fact that YOU can't hear
them on your records doesn't mean that the musicians with whom they
were playing or the audiences couldn't!

>>>Of course, some of the guys could play well. No one seems to know
>>>why they weren't amplified. It wasn't a technical limitation--
>>>it was a cultural practice. I am theorizing that the reason
>>>bassists as a class did not press for solo space or more
>>>prominent comping roles is because in general they were
>>>the least accomplished musicians in the band. Of course,
>>>this is no longer true today.
>
>>I disagree with this statement. Bass solos were unheard of - the
>>bassist's job was as accompanist.
>
>What are you disagreeing with?

I am disagreeing with the idea that because a musician does not press
for solo space, then he is in some way "less accomplished". As I stated
earlier, good accompanying ability is not as easy as you imply.

I don't think technical limitations
>were the concern. I think the reason, as you mentioned
>above, is that bass solos were unheard of. Why were they
>unheard of? I think it is because there weren't a lot of
>bassists who could solo.

As has been posted by others, the bass is not an instrument that
projects well. Over the years, techniques have been developed in that
area that has helped bassists to be heard better - amplifiers, steel
strings, etc. Early jazz bands used tubas to project the bass part in
an ensemble. When the bass began to replace the tuba in the early
30's, it was because the less percussive sound of the string bass lent
itself better to the rhythmic feel of the music that was developing.
As I have tried to demonstrate to you by naming some great early
bassists, there were many excellent bassists around before Jimmy
Blanton. No, they did not solo, but they were nevertheless
accomplished musicians, whether or not you think so! Sorry about the
aggressive tone of this response; I just can't understand why you
insist on denigrating musicians about whom you seem to know very
little!
jack

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

Mike Smith P125 wrote:

> A collection of thoughts inspired by this thread:

> 5. But still playing upright in a 30s band required size and strength.

> Scottie, Gary, Eddie, Marc need not apply. Maybe Dave.

Took me a while to figure out you probably meant Marc Johnson. But if you did
mean me, I should observe I am not a bassist, and wouldn't be applying for a
bass job. It is true that I don't see anything inherently wrong with playing
with less strength and using amplification to make up the difference, provided
you still get a sound I like. It is also true that my tendonitis starts acting
up just *watching* people like William Parker play.

BTW, if Doug has the phone number for that female bassist he was talking about
earlier...

> 7. But I do believe that we have become too dependent on amplification.
> Case in point: the guitarist I play with in church plays through a 4-foot
> cab. The church seats a couple of hundred at a stretch.

It mystifies me as well to how some people insist on amplification where it
clearly is not needed.

--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.

tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

In article <4q4so3$9...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> ste...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Woker) writes:
>I am disagreeing with the idea that because a musician does not press
>for solo space, then he is in some way "less accomplished". As I stated
>earlier, good accompanying ability is not as easy as you imply.

My main argument is that people who cannot improvise a
solo will not agitate for soloing space. This is a separate
issue from comping. Soloing and comping are two different
technical challenges.

A related argument was that bass players did not need as much
technique to perform their comping roles back in the big band
era as they do today, because their role was more percussive
than melodic or harmonic, and because they were not heard
as clearly.

I would further argue that a rhythm section role that requires improvising
solos requires more technical accomplishment than a comping role,
by definition. Not because comping is less technically demanding, but
because for a rhythm section player, soloing imposes an *additional*
technical challenge on top of the existing challenge of comping.

Note that this argument doesn't claim that soloing is more demanding
than comping--only that it requires a different, additional technique.

>As has been posted by others, the bass is not an instrument that
>projects well. Over the years, techniques have been developed in that
>area that has helped bassists to be heard better - amplifiers, steel
>strings, etc. Early jazz bands used tubas to project the bass part in
>an ensemble. When the bass began to replace the tuba in the early
>30's, it was because the less percussive sound of the string bass lent
>itself better to the rhythmic feel of the music that was developing.

Surely you meant to type "more percussive"?

>As I have tried to demonstrate to you by naming some great early
>bassists, there were many excellent bassists around before Jimmy
>Blanton. No, they did not solo, but they were nevertheless
>accomplished musicians, whether or not you think so! Sorry about the
>aggressive tone of this response; I just can't understand why you
>insist on denigrating musicians about whom you seem to know very
>little!

I haven't denigrated anyone. And I am familiar with jazz history on record.
We can even stipulate that everyone whose records are still available
was a virtuoso. But records are not representative of the entire
population of working musicians, which back in the early days of
jazz was far larger than it is today.

I proposed that the reason bass solos were uncommon was because
guys that were capable of solos were also uncommon. This is not
a far-fetched theory, nor an attack on anybody. Back in the day,
even many horn players did not solo. The overall level of technical
accomplishment was far lower than it is today, on every instrument.
This was partly historical circumstance, and partly because
demand for musicians was higher.

We know that Blanton was taking solos in the early 40s. But bass
solos did not become commonplace for another two decades. I think
that demonstrates that cultural reasons rather than technological
limitations explains why bass solos were uncommon.

So what change in culture led to more bass solos? Did bass players
begin to develop soloing technique as a result of access to amplification?
Or was the development of amplification technology a result of bass players'
growing ability to solo and thus increasing demand for adequate amplification?

You seem to argue that advances in amplification technology led to
more soloing, and that the musical technique was already there just
waiting for it.

I would argue that the causation was the other way around--as the general
level of bass-playing technique advanced, demand for amplification technology
grew and stimulated technological developments in the industry. I have offered
as one piece of evidence the fact that related technologies for guitarists
developed much faster. I would also offer the fact that the technical
requirements jazz imposes on players of ALL instruments have been steadily
growing, and that bass players are part of that trend. My evidence is
inconclusive, I admit, but it speaks directly to the issue.

But I think that the evidence you have offered--a list of swing era bass
players who were technically accomplished but did not solo--is also
inconclusive. Further, I would point out that your list is not representative
of the population of bassists in that era. Finally, good comping technique
does not really even speak to the issue of soloing. It is a different technique.

--

Pretentious? Moi?

Marc Sabatella

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

Genie Baker wrote:

> >John & Bonnie wrote:
> >> ...they all said the electric bass
> >> screwed things up because it made the drummer play louder, which made
> >> the rest of the rhythm section play louder...
> >
> >This is so true. The advent of electric instruments(mainly electric, or
> >amplified upright bass)made everyone turn up too much...

> :-) Sounds like we could turn this into a long thread deciding who's
> at fault, but I was sort of convinced by the person who described the
> changes in drumheads.

My point is, that the *ability* to play more loudly is not a problem in itself.
I am still convinced it is *possible* to play with more variation in dynamics
than ever before. Just because some people do not know how to handle this, I
do not think it is fair to blame their poor artistic choices on the enabling
technology. I'm reminded of the line from the gun control debate: "amplifiers
don't play too loud; bass players do".

Big bands, BTW, are a problem no matter what. If you go with an unamplified
bass, you are stuck with either a band in which the bassist is practically
inaudible (both on stage and to the listener), or you are forced to have the
trumpet section play the high parts at artificially low volume levels that
don't project the intended power, or you write arrangements that don't call for
this type of playing. Amplication of the bass makes it at least *possible* to
achieve a well-balanced yet still maximally expressive sound. Don't blame the
amplifier if your favorite band hasn't figured out how to do this, though.

Lee Brenkman

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

Genie Baker wrote:

>
> :-) Sounds like we could turn this into a long thread deciding who's
> at fault, but I was sort of convinced by the person who described the

> changes in drumheads. Around here, it really is usually the drummer's
> loudness that causes everyone else to turn up too much. (Mostly, we're
> lucky to have a lot of very tasteful drummers in the area, so it becomes
> pretty predictable that things will get loud when the couple exceptions
> are filling in.)

Speaking as a live sound mixer with about 30 years experience, it is
true that the drummer sets the dynamics with his volume in most
"acoustic" jazz settings. Even with Tony Williams more recent "straight
ahead" band (the one w/Mulgrew Miller etc.) mixing the sound even in the
smallest clubs consisted of turning EVERYONE ELSE up to Tony's volume
level. In a newspaper interview preceeding an appearance at Kimball's
East in Emeryville CA a couple of years ago he said (and I AM
parphrasing because I don't have the piece in front of me) " I don't
even want to talk to anyone who says I play too loud, the drums were
MEANT to be played loud."

Tony is a brilliant musician, but since this thread started with a
discussion of Ron Carter's intonation and amplification I felt his
thoughts on the volume/amplification thing was interesting.

Speaking for myself it is a LOT easier to do my job, which I percieve as
transmitting a balanced musical sound to the audience, when the
musicians listern to each other, not themselves. "More ME in MY monitor
speaker!" is the beginning of many of the least satisfying nights of my
career.

Please excuse the ramble.
Cheers,
Lee Brenkman

Lee Brenkman

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

Don Herzog wrote:

> I've often thought of Tyner as someone who just does pound away
> relentlessly,

And someone who insists that his drummers play hard! I have worked on
at least one live recording where the piano mics picked up enough of the
drums to almost be all that was needed in the final mix. McCoy also
wants the piano LOUD in the stage monitor loudspeakers>

> but I should say that I once saw him romp through a
> devastating solo reading of "Someone to Watch over Me" in which he showed
> great command of dynamics and touch.

Amen to that, when the volume drops to a moderate level, McCoy can play
as lyrically as anyone.

Cheers,
Lee Brenkman

SwingDoug

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to ma...@fc.hp.com

Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> Mike Smith P125 wrote:
>
> > A collection of thoughts inspired by this thread:
>
> > 5. But still playing upright in a 30s band required size and strength.
> > Scottie, Gary, Eddie, Marc need not apply. Maybe Dave.
>
> Took me a while to figure out you probably meant Marc Johnson. But if you did
> mean me, I should observe I am not a bassist, and wouldn't be applying for a
> bass job. It is true that I don't see anything inherently wrong with playing
> with less strength and using amplification to make up the difference, provided
> you still get a sound I like. It is also true that my tendonitis starts acting
> up just *watching* people like William Parker play.
>
> BTW, if Doug has the phone number for that female bassist he was talking about
> earlier...

Well, she lives in Florida, although I'm trying to lure her into moving
to Chicago. She's a heel of a bassist. She just got off the road from
doing a Japan tour in a trio with Junko Onishi and Terri-Lynne
Carrington. Hope she continues to go places.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SwingDoug
c-sch...@nwu.edu
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~cds653
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Russ Evans

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

In article <4q3r9l$l...@news.jhu.edu>, tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu writes:

> I have no idea when bassists began using steel strings.
> Certainly they had access to amplifiers at the same time
> guitarists did. There are a variety of ways to get a

> signal into an amp. I don't think technical limitations
> were the concern.

Without saying that technical limitations were the whole issue (some
of the old-time acoustic big-band bass players I've played with have
been louder then their amplified brethren!), there *were* technical
issues which would have affected bass amplification much more than
normal guitar-range amplifiers. On the amplification side, the only
option until the late '60s was valves, which have to be transformer
coupled, and that makes the amps physically heavy. Probably a lot
more importantly, bass speaker systems need high intensity magnets,
long throws and stiff cone materials, and all of these have improved
vastly in quality since the '40s. So speaker units of that time were
necessarily bigger and heavier. And to avoid at least some spurious
resonances but maintain high efficiency, the cabinets need to be rigid.
These factors all add up to *weight*. A bass player would need a lot
of motivation to lug something like that around to every gig - and he
still wouldn't have had the tonal quality of a modern bass combo.

Russ

tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

unread,

Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96

to

In article <4q4ihc$t...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> mis...@bnr.ca (Mike Smith P125) writes:
>
>I guess it's obvious to all that tom never played a bass and doesn't
>scruple at speaking whereof he does not know.

You would be wrong. I have played a bass. I even keep one in my closet
and pull it out now and then for kicks. But one doesn't need to have
played a bass to hear what bass players were playing on those old records.

>But what struck me about this paragraph was the complete lack of rhetorical
>scruples evidenced in the compound question. Compare:
>
> There are many other reasons why horn players might have been
> the least accomplished musicians in the orchestra. The fact
> that they weren't seen and mostly were brought along to provide

> sporadic flourishes in the high end would seem to me the most

> likely reason. Not much technique was required to do that job.
>

>Or, if that is not offensive enough:
>
> There are many other reasons why females might be the least
> accomplished software designers in America. The fact that
> they aren't promoted and are brought along mostly to provide

> neater documentation would seem the most likely reason. Not
> much technique is required to do that job.

You are a hypocrite to be questioning my "rhetorical scruples", considering
you've got nothing going but straw men. Come back when you've got an argument.

--

Pretentious? Moi?

Mark S Fraser

unread,

Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96

to

Marc Sabatella (ma...@sde.hp.com) writes:
> Genie Baker wrote:
>
>> >John & Bonnie wrote:
>> >> ...they all said the electric bass
>> >> screwed things up because it made the drummer play louder, which made
>> >> the rest of the rhythm section play louder...
>> >
>> >This is so true. The advent of electric instruments(mainly electric, or
>> >amplified upright bass)made everyone turn up too much...
>

>> :-) Sounds like we could turn this into a long thread deciding who's
>> at fault, but I was sort of convinced by the person who described the
>> changes in drumheads.
>

unread,

Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96

to

But when you listen to recordings of him at the very beginning of his
career, he didn't play like that at all. I don't think he started
pounding until he played with Elvin in the Trane quartet.

-Jeff

Jack Woker

unread,

Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96

to

In <4q88lf$f...@news.jhu.edu> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () writes:
>

>So, why didn't they begin to solo earlier? My suggestion has been that
>few guys had the necessary technique. The objection to my argument has
>been that they had the technique but didn't have amplification. We can
>now see that amplification followed technique. So I have to ask--if
>bass players really were so technically proficient as soloists, why
>didn't they solo more in the old days?

Actually I believe this has been covered in my previous post. I never
said they had sufficient technique, although I'm sure some of them did.
I merely said that because they didn't solo doesn't mean that they were
lesser musicians. Conventions of the day precluded the need for bass
solos, and bassists who were technically proficient were not afforded
the opportunity to solo within the confines of the music they were
playing. It took an incredible virtuoso like Jimmy Blanton, the vision
of Duke Ellington to showcase him, and giants like Oscar Pettiford and
Charles Mingus, to show the world that a bass solo can be a beautiful
thing! And they did it with gut strings and no amplification!
jack

Fathom

unread,

Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96

to

In article <31C76F...@sirius.com>, Lee Brenkman <bren...@sirius.com> wrote:

> Speaking for myself it is a LOT easier to do my job, which I percieve as
> transmitting a balanced musical sound to the audience, when the
> musicians listern to each other, not themselves. "More ME in MY monitor
> speaker!" is the beginning of many of the least satisfying nights of my
> career.
>
> Please excuse the ramble.

Not a ramble at all-- it's very helpful to hear this from the mixer's POV.

I'm a little perplexed by the last bit though.
My worst nights of playing have been when I couldn't hear myself through
the mix onstage. That's when I play too loud and fail to blend. Once I
hear myself, I instinctively cut back and balance with the group (or at
least I try to). But that's just me, a keyboard player.