Talk:Double bass/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead pic 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  If you like the sound of superb [[jazz]] bass playing 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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. — ßottesiηiTell me what's up 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tuning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link cleanup 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bridge mechanics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  McCartney 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  classical music section 

message: 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:
# It exemplifies our very best work
# It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable
# It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects.
# It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
# It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.
What do we have?  
* I would agree strongly with requisite number 1.  This is a well written article and represents the great work wikipedians do.  
* Requisite number two, I would agree with points 1, 2, 4, and 5.  What we do NOT have is a list of references.  Perhaps this should be the next course of action?
* Requisite number 3 is a questionable.  There is a good lead section.  However, the order in which the topics are brought up could be fixed, and there may be too much information here (see point number 5).  EDIT: fixed now!
* Requisite number 4 is fine.  There are good pictures and good captions in good places, check this one off.
* Requisite number 5 is the only other question.  This article, at the time of my writing is 38 kb, and the reccomended size is 32.  Now this is NOT a large problem since we are close to the recommended size.  However, there are parts in this article that could be removed.  Instead of going into them here, I will just do them.  I am also going to be adding  tags in the neccissary spots, and then we can work on that.  Whaddya say guys?  Kntrabssi 22:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Featured Article Candidate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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