Talk:Double bass/Archive 3

How many fingers for pizz?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead pic

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

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

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

If you like the sound of superb jazz bass playing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

picture?

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

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

Tuning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link cleanup

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

Referencing

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

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

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

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

Glissandi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually not quite correct - it has more to do with the energy in a particular oscillation at a particular frequency and amplitude, and how efficiently it is transferred out of the string to become sound that you can hear. According to this and a little algebra (sorry, I am really a mathematician who pretends to be a bassist) the energy in an oscillation of a mass m at amplitude A and angular frequency ω (i.e. actual freq 2πω) is m/2*ω²*A² -- or in other words the energy is proportional to mass (heavier strings - more energy, in proportion), the square of the frequency (for a given mass and amplitude, each octave of pitch has 4 times the energy) and the square of the amplitude (each doubling of amplitude gives 4 times the energy). Basically there is more energy in higher-pitched vibrations.

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

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

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

My guess - #2 may be the major effect

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

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

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

This is actually different to how I originally came to a similar conclusion: If you imagine the string vibrating extremely slowly while you slide your finger up, then at some point when the string is at full displacement, you actually shorten the string significantly while still at full displacement, so the amplitude stays the same. Say you decrease the length to 1/2 of its original length (an octave) then the mass of the string is 1/2 it was before, the frequency is doubled, and so the energy being m/2*ω²*A² changes by a factor of (1/2)*2² = 2. Okay, so the string isn't hanging there in a weird bent shape while your finger moves, but on average about half the time it is bent close to its full displacement one way or the other (saying more than this requires more mathematics - differential equations and such). The other half of the time the energy is kinetic energy in the lateral movement of the string, and the moving finger will not contribute extra energy. This is why I said "the amplitude will decrease, but not proportional to L". This is an extremely rough analysis. If I get a chance I will confirm it with the proper DEs.

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

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

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

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

Neutral Point of View

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

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

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

Bridge mechanics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCartney

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

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

classical music section

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

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

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

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

Featured Article Candidate

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

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

What do we have?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merging

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

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

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

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