INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to
order.

UMI
A Bell & Howell Infonnatioii Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
 THE STATUS OF CONTRABASS INSTRUCTION AT
SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA

D.M.A. DOCUMENT

P resen ted in Partial Fulfillment of the R equirem ents for the

Degree Doctor of Musical Arts in the
G raduate School of The Ohio S ta te University

By

Tod Leavitt, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio State University

1997

D.M.A. Committee;
Approved by
Professor David Butler

Professor Marshall Haddock

Professor Paul Robinson, Advisor

Advisor
School of Music
 UMI Number: 9813297

Copyright 1997 by
Leavitt, Tod John
All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 9813297

Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Copyri^t by
Tod Leavitt
1997
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this docum ent Is to analyze current trends In contrabass

pedagogy at colleges and universities In the United S tates of America.

Before this century, the contrabass was considered to be merely an

accom panlm ental Instrument. Except for an occasional solo line In som e

orchestral and cham ber works, the melodic capability of this Instrument w as

largely Ignored by major com posers. The voice of the solo contrabass

em erged In various styles of m usic during the twentieth-century and many

new approaches, m ethods, techniques, and sounds have been developed.

Most college students of the contrabass are now required to give full solo

recitals before they graduate. In order to better understand th ese

expectations, a questionnaire w as sent to contrabass Instructors at selected

colleges and universities In the United S tates of America.

Four-hundred-elghty-nlne questionnaires w ere sent to contrabass

Instructors at colleges and universities In The United S tates of America at

the beginning of the 1996-97 academ ic year. One-hundred-twenty-nine

final responses were received by Ju n e 30th, 1997. The questionnaire

focused on contrabass pedagogy, student opportunities and program

requirem ents.

The results show the Simandl and Rabbath m ethods to be m ost favored.

While som e instructors choose to teach exclusively the French or German

bow, m ost are willing and able to teach both. More than half of the

pedagogues teach the u se of the thum b in the lower positions, extended

fingerings, and pivot fingerings; less than half teach the use of the third

finger separate from the fourth in the lower positions. While only 47% of

students occasionally record their lessons, 60% of instructors believe their

students record practice sessions. O ver 90% of the teachers advise their

students to practice in front of a mirror and with a metronome. Recital

requirements average betw een one and two full recitals for BA, BM, MA,

MM, and Ph.D. degrees; MPA and AD d eg re es averaged betw een two and

three recitals while the DMA averaged 3.22 recitals. Eighty-seven percent

of the respondents require a jury or orchestral board for their students.

Ill
Dedicated to Monica and Ariel Leavitt

IV
 A C K N O W LED G M EN TS

Grateful acknowledgm ent Is m ade to my b a ss Instructors who continued to

encourage my abilities a s a perform er and a teacher. To Virginia Bodman

for planting the s e e d s of my first three y ears of contrabass Instruction. To

Peter Dominguez who continued my technical training while opening my

ears to jazz repertoire. To my mentor, Bert Turetzky, who gave me

musicianship, confidence, and purpose. To Barry G reen who m ade me

aw are of the Inner approach to music. To AI Laszio who focused on the fine

detail work of sound production. To Paul Robinson, w hose dedication and

confidence In my abilities, helped guide m e through the completion of the

DMA degree. To François Rabbath w hose love of music and people never

c e a se s to am aze m e.

I am thankful to Marshall Haddock who gave me sound advice and musical

challenges that m ade m e grow a s an orchestral musician.

I wish to thank David Butler for his support, editorial assistan ce, and vast

knowledge of doctoral docum ents and surveys.

Finally, I would like to thank David D aw es for his help with d a ta processing.
 VITA

S eptem ber 16, 1962 Bom - Lansing, Michigan

1981-86....................... B.A. Music Education

O rchestral Scholarship
Michigan S ta te University

1 9 8 7 ............................ B.A. Music Perform ance

Michigan S tate University

1987-89...................... M.A. Music Performance

G raduate Teaching Assistant
University of Califomia,
San Diego

1989............................. Section B assist

San Diego O pera

1990-95........................ G raduate Teaching Assistant

University of Cincinnati,
C ollege-C onservatory

1992-Presen t.............. B ass Instructor

Northem Kentucky University

1993-Presen t.............. B ass Instructor

Earlham C ollege

1995-97 .................... G raduate T eaching Associate

The Ohio S ta te University

1996-Presen t.............. B ass Instructor

Xavier University

1997-Presen t.............. B ass Instructor

Bowling G reen S tate University

VI
 PU B LIC A TIO N S

1. Leavitt, Tod. “An Interview with Bertram Turetzky.”

International Society of B assists
(Autumn, 1989; Winter, 1989).

2. Leavitt, Tod. “The Rabbath Institute.” International Society

of B assists (Autumn, 1990).

3. Leavitt, Tod. “The Rabbath Institute.” American String

T eachers Association (Autumn, 1991).

4. Leavitt, Tod. “Barry Green: Workbook til The Inner Gam e of

Music.” Denmark: Bastidende (June, 1994).

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Music

Minor Field: Music History and Theory

Cognate: Ja z z Studies

Specialties: Music Performance an d Education,

The Inner Game of Music

Vl l
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Abstract...................................................................................................... ii

Dedication................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgments................................................................................... iv

Vita............................................................................................................ V

List of Tables...........................................................................................vii

List of Figures.........................................................................................viii

Chapters:

1. Introduction........................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................ 1
1.2 Statem ent of the Method, and Purpose........................... 2
1.3 Definition of Terms............................................................... 3
1.4 Limitation of the Study......................................................... 6

2. Method...............................................................................................7

2.1 Procedure..............................................................................7
2.2 The Questionnaire................................................................ 8

3. Analysis of the Data.........................................................................9

3.1 Description of Participating Institutions........................... 9

3.2 Music Faculty and Scholarship Statistics....................... 9
3.3 Bass Faculty Background................................................. 11
3.4 Ensembles........................................................................... 17
3.5 Method Books.....................................................................21
3.6 Bows.................................................................................... 37
3.7 Left Hand Techniques....................................................... 38
3.8 Materials for Student Practice..........................................45
3.9 Student Solo Obligations..................................................49

viu
4. Summary, Conclusions, and Recom m endations.....................53

4.1 Summary..............................................................................53
4.2 What is the experience of the instructor?...................... 54
4.3 What ensem bles are available?....................................... 55
4.4 What m ethod and technique books a re being
implemented?.....................................................................55
4.5 What techniques and materials are recom m ended
for bass students?............................................................. 56
4.6 What are so m e of the obligations that th e student
must m eet to com plete the major program ?................57
4.7 Conclusions and Recom mendations............................. 58

References..............................................................................................64

Appendix A - Questionnaire................................................................. 67

Appendix B - Accompanying Letter....................................................69

IX
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Numbers of b a s s instructors with specific d eg rees and

performance em phasis................................................................................ 13

2. Numbers of institutions that do and do not offer various

ensembles........................................................................................................ 18

3. Time period breakdown of the num bers of instructors

who offer m aster cla sses............................................................................. 20

4. Total ratings for each method based on a 1-10 scale

(1 = lowest, 10 = highest).............................................................................35

5. Average ratings for each method based on a 1-10 scale

(1 = lowest, 10 = highest).............................................................................36

6. Numbers of instructors who perform and teach with

German, French, or both bows................................................................... 38

7. Total num bers of resp o n ses for recital requirem ents

for each degree offered................................................................................ 51

8. Average num bers of recitals required for each d e g ree

offered............................................................................................................. 51
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Totai numbers of full-time and part-time faculty........................................ 10

2. Average numbers of full-time and part-time faculty.................................. 10

3. Total num bers of institutions that offer and do not offer

scholarship money......................................................................................... 11

4. Total num bers of b a ss instructors with and without bass

performance as their major field.................................................................. 12

5. Num bers of bass instructors with specific degrees and

performance emphasis.................................................................................. 14

6. Total num bers of students taught per w eek and who play
while sitting,standing, or can do either....................................................... 15

7. Numbers of physical records kept or not..................................................... 16

8. Num bers of instructors who do or do not play/teach

electric b ass.................................................................................................... 17

9. Num bers of institutions that offer and do not offer

various ensembles......................................................................................... 19

10. Time period breakdown of the num bers of instructors who

offer m aster classes....................................................................................... 20

11. Num bers of institutions that do and do not own b a sse s......................... 21

12. Num bers of bass instructors who do and do not require

a method book................................................................................................22

13. Total ratings for each method based on a 1-10 scale

(1 = lowest, 10 = highest)..............................................................................36

14. A verage ratings for each method b a se d on a 1-10 scale

(1 = lowest, 10 = highest)..............................................................................37

15. Num bers of instructors who perform and teach with

German, French, or both bows.................................................................... 38

xi
16. Numbers of instructors who teach and do not teach the use
of the thumb below the second partial........................................................ 40

17. Numbers of instructors who teach and do not teach

extended fingerings........................................................................................41

18. Numbers of instructors who teach and do not teach

pivot fingerings................................................................................................ 43

19. Numbers of instructors who do and do not teach the use

of the third finger in lower positions............................................................. 45

20. Numbers of students who do and do not record their

lessons or practice sessions.........................................................................47

21. Numbers of tea ch e rs who advise students to practice with a mirror

or metronome................................................................................................. 49

Xll
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The twentieth-century has proved to be a period of significant change for the

contrabass. It h a s evolved from m ere accompanlmental sta tu s to

acknowledgment of its solo capabilities. One twentieth century contrabass

performer, Bertram Turetzky, h a s inspired over 300 solo works for this

instrument, which alone more than doubles the entire solo repertoire for the

contrabass before this century. While there are few b assists who could be

considered a s soloists before 1900, there are now several who are solo artists.

In this century, th e contrabass h a s taken on several nam es and continues to

thrive in various g en res of music. It is known a s the string b a ss a s opposed to

the brass b a ss or tuba; the acoustic or upright b a ss a s opposed to the electric

bass; the double b a ss or co n trab ass (or kontrabass) viol in orchestral literature

- an instrument playing lower than the bass viol (which h as a range similar to

that of the cello). It is analogous to the double (or contra-) bassoon; which of

course does not usually “double” the bassoon line.

In the early part of this century th e string bass took the role of the tuba and

bass sax and has blossom ed in jazz a s both a solo and accom panying
1
instrument. The acoustic b a ss has regained favor in today’s popular music,

particularly in acoustic or “unplugged” concerts and recordings.

Statement o f the Method^ and Purpose

During this period of significant change, there h as em erged a large repertoire

of m ethods and techniques for approaching b a ss pedagogy. There seem s to

be much controversy regarding how to hold, perform, and teach this

instrument.

A questionnaire w as se n t to all college and university b a ss instructors in the

USA who a re listed in the 1995 issue of the Directory o f music faculties in

colleges and universities, U.S. and Canada, which included 585 persons

listed a s part-time or full-time instructors of contrabass. All recipients received

the sam e questionnaire, accom panying letter, and a stam ped return envelope.

The purpose of this survey w as to begin to understand w here b a ss instruction

in higher education w as heading during the 1996-97 academ ic year. The

following a re a s of b a ss pedagogy were questioned to determ ine what

teaching m ethods, techniques, perform ance opportunities and student

obligations w ere being implemented:

1. W hat experience does the instructor have a s a perform er and educator?

2. W hat ensem bles a re available for the student and will a b a ss be provided if

n eed e d ?

3. W hat method books are being used and how does the instructor rate them ?

4. Does the instructor limit the choice of bow?

5. W hat left hand techniques a re taught?

6. W hat m aterials are su g g ested for use during student practice time?

7. How many solo obligations d o es the student need to m eet to complete the

major program ?

D efinition o f Terms

The following term s are u sed in this discussion:

Extended Fingering - T he m ovem ent of stretching at least one finger

beyond the regular hand position while leaving at least one finger stationary.

Fingerboard - The ebony or rosew ood piece attached to the neck of the

bass. When moving “up” the fingerboard, the hand m oves towards the floor. It

is called “up” b ecau se the pitch is being raised.

Finger Numbering - The first finger is the index finger; the second finger is

the middle finger; the third finger is the ring finger (not traditionally used by

itself until the upper position); and the fourth finger is the little finger.

French Bow - A stick with a frog more closely resem bling that of th e cello

bow and is held from above the stick.

German Bow - A stick which is shorter than th e French bow and h a s a larger

frog that is gripped from the side, which more closely resem bles the gam ba

grip.

Jury - A semi-formal perform ance by the student for selected faculty members

for the purpose of recognizing the progress of the student.

Master Class - An organized class of b assists who perform for, and learn

from each other. This class Is lead by the b a ss instructor.

Mean - The sum divided by the num ber of resp o n ses.

Orchestral Board - A selection of musical excerpts which are taken from

orchestral works and performed unaccom panied by the student for selected

faculty m em bers.
Partial - O ne of the musical to n es produced from the fundam ental upwards

through the entire overtone series. The first partial is the fundam ental. The

se co n d partial is the first overtone or one-half of the vibrating string.

Pivot Fingering - The m ovem ent of all of the fingers in one direction while

the thum b rem ains stationary.

Regular Lower Hand Position - Having the sp a ce of a m inor seco n d

betw een the first and second fingers, and another minor seco n d betw een the

seco n d and fourth fingers in the lower positions.

Shifting - The m ovem ent of the whole left hand up or down the fingerboard.

Standard Deviation - The absolute value of the sq u are root of the variance.

Upper and Lower Positions - The upper positions a re ab o v e the second

partial (the first harmonic) and the lower positions are below the second

partial.

Variance - The average of the sum of the difference betw een the values and

the m ean squared.

Limitation of the Study

This study w as limited to b a s s instructors who teach at colleges and

universities in th e USA an d who were listed in the 1996 Directory of music

faculties in colleges and universities, U.S. and Canada.

 CHAPTER 2

METHOD

2.1 P ro ced u re

In June of 1996, the investigator exam ined the Dissertation Abstracts on line at

the Cincinnati Public Library. The following data were ascertained from the

data b a se: “b a ss” had 1,094 records; “double bass” had 101 records; “string

b ass” had 79 records; “contrabass” had 36 records.

In July of 1997, the records were rechecked at the Cincinnati Public Library. At

this point: “b a ss” had 1181 records from 1937-97; “double b a s s ” had 109

records from 1962-96; “string b a ss” had 87 records from 1955-96; “contrabass”

had 38 records from 1982-96.

None of th e s e records contained information regarding questionnaires on

b ass instruction at colleges or universities. The lack of information in this a re a

of bass pedagogy inspired the investigator to work on this project.

The directory of music faculties in colleges and universities, U.S. and Canada,
Is published semi-annually by the College Music Society. The 1995 list

Includes 608 b a ss Instructors; 355 taught only b a ss while 253 taught b a ss and

another subject.

Of the 608 b a ss Instructors In the 1995 listing, 585 of them were teaching In

the U.S. Of those 585 Instructors, 489 were se n t a questionnaire (a copy can

be found In Appendix A), an accompanying letter (a copy can be found In

Appendix B), and a stam ped return envelope; the other 96 were not sent one

b eca u se they were either teaching at other Institutions and received a

questionnaire there (their nam e w as listed m ore than once) or the Institution

had m ore than one listing for b a ss Instructor (In which c a s e the b ass Instructor

not teaching at another Institution w as chosen).

2.2 The Questionnaire

A copy of the questionnaire can be found In Appendix A. Several questions

asked for general Information about the musical Institution, Including: the

nam e; num ber of faculty; scholarship money; e n sem b les available; num ber of

b a sse s owned; and recltal/jury requirements. O ther questions em phasized the

musical background and pedagogical practices of the b a ss Instructor.

One-hundred-twenty-nlne questionnaires w ere filled out and retum ed to th e

Investigator during the 1996-97 academ ic year. The d ata w as then entered

Into a d a ta b ase during the sum m er of 1997.

 CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

3.1 Description of Participating Institutions

Of 489 possible respondents, 129 com pleted, or mostly completed,

questionnaires and retum ed them to the investigator.

The following statistics were b ased on resp o n se s to the questions. Not all

questionnaires were fully filled out. Therefore, su m s of responses do not

necessarily add up to the total num ber of questionnaires received.

3.2 Music Faculty and Scholarship Statistics

The total num ber of full-time m usic faculty teaching at the 109 responding

institutions w as 2,591. The m ean w as 23.77 and th e standard deviation w as

21.01. The total number of part-time music faculty teaching at the 100

responding institutions w as 1,566. The m ean w as 15.66 and the standard

deviation was 13.06. Figure 1 show s a graph of th e total num bers of full-time

and part-time faculty. Figure 2 show s the av erag e num bers of full-time and
part-time faculty.

3000

2500 - -

2000 - -

MBTotal number full-tim e

" fa c u lty
1500 - -
H ^ o t a l number p art-tim e
faculty
1000 - -

500 H

0 -H

Figure 1: Total num bers of full-time and part-time faculty.

■Average Full-time faculty

[A verage p art-tim e faculty

Figure 2: Average num bers of full-time and part-time faculty.

Of the 128 respondents, 77% of institutions (a total of 99) gave scholarship

money to at least som e of their b a s s students during th e 1996-97 school year.

10
Figure 3 shows the total num bers of institutions that offer and do not offer

scholarship money.

100
90
80
70

60
Institution DOES offer schoiarsfiip
50 money to students
40 Institution DOES NOT offer
30
scholarship money to students

20

10
0

Figure 3: Total numbers of institutions that offer and do not offer music scholarships.

3.3 Bass Faculty Background

Of the 129 respondents, 84% of b a ss instructors (a total of 108) had a major

em phasis in bass perform ance/education. R espondents giving a negative

response to this question were either cello instructors or had a general music

education background. Figure 4 show s a graph of the total num bers of b a ss

instructors with and without b a ss performance a s their major field.

II
 123

103

83 - -

— B ass perform an ce/ed u catio n IS

H major field
63
ŒD B ass perf/edu IS NOT
major field
43

23 - -

Figure 4: Total numbers of bass instructors with an d without bass performance as their major

field.

12
The num bers of b a ss instructors, of the 129 respondents, with specific d eg rees

and perform ance em phasis is show n in Table 1 and Figure 5.

Total num ber BA 19

Total num ber BM 60

Total num ber MA 13

Total num ber MM 66

Total num ber MFA 1

Total num ber AD 2

Total num ber DMA 24

Total num ber Ph.D. 4

Total num ber Soloist 57

Total num ber Orchestral performers 94

Total num ber Ja zz performers 49

Table 1: Numbers of b a ss instructors with specific degrees and perform ance em phasis.

13
 T oi al ruiober

Total n im b e r EM

Total n im b e r MA

iTotal n im b e r MM

[Total n im b e r MFA

jTotal n im b e r AD

[Total n im b e r CMA

Total n im b e r FhO

Total n im b e r Sbioist

Total n im b e r O c h s t r a l perform er

[Total n im b e r J a z z perform er

Figure 5: Num bers of b a ss Instructors with specific degrees and perform ance em phasis.

The total num ber of b a ss stu d en ts taught per week at the 124 responding

Institutions w as 1,013. The m ean was 8.17 and the standard deviation was

5.87.

From the 64 respondents, a total of 948 students were taught to either sit,

stand, or do either while performing. The total num ber of students who are

taught to play while sitting is 190 or 20% (with a standard deviation of 4.36);

the total num ber taught to play while standing is 354 or 37% (with a standard

deviation of 3.67); and 404 or 43% are taught to play while either sitting or

standing (with a standard deviation of 5.70). While standing only ap p ears

14
nearly two-times a s often a s sitting, only having the flexibility of teaching

students in both positions seem s to be considered the best option. Som e

respondents included unsolicited com m ents:

1) “If they stand I m ake them sit and if they sit I make them stand.”

2) “All of my students do both." (2 listings)

3) “All of my students sit."

Figure 6 show s the total num bers of students who are taught per w eek and

who sit, stand, or a re able to do both while playing the contrabass.

1200

g Total students taught per week

Total stds. who sit while

_ playing
Total stds. who stand while
■
g
playing
Total stds. who do both

Figure 6: Total num bers of students taught per w eek and who play while sitting, standing, or can

do either.

Of the 129 respondents, 69% of b a ss instructors (a total of 89) kept written

records of th e stu d en ts’ progress. Som e com m ents regarding not keeping

written records cited knowledge of the stu d en ts’ progress. Figure 7 show s the

num bers of written records kept or not.

15
 YES physical records kept for each
student
NO physical records kept for each
student

Figure 7: Numbers of physical records kept or not.

Of the 129 respondents, 44% of b a ss instructors (a total of 57) either play,

teach, or play and teach the electric b ass. This num ber reflects not only jazz

and popular instruction, but also contem porary music that includes th e electric

b a ss. Figure 8 shows the num bers of instructors who do or do not play/teach

electric bass.

16
 80

70

60

50 Instructor DOES play/teach

electric bass
40
Instructor DOES NOT
30
play/teach electric bass
20

10

Figure 8: Numbers of instructors who do or do not play/teach electric bass.

Of the 127 respondents, the total years of teaching experience at a particular

institution was 1,307.5. Instructors possessed, on average, 10.3 years of

experience at their institution. The standard deviation was 9.25. Future

studies might also include num ber of years as a bassist and a s a teach er in

general.

3.4 E nsem bles

Of the 129 institutions represented in this study, 94% offer a student orchestra.

There are traditionally eight bassists in an orchestral section. Many of those

institutions with too many bassists for the dem and use a rotation system so that

all of their students will have the opportunity to play in an orchestra.

17
Of the 129 institutions represented in this study, 92% offer a jazz ensem ble.

Both big band and small combo jazz ensem bles a re essential for any jazz

program. J a z z e n sem b les typically include one bassist.

Of the 129 institutions represented in this study, 81% offer cham ber m usic to

their students. Although the b a ss w as not used very often in cham ber m usic

before the twentieth century, cham ber m usic benefits the b a ss student by

developing listening skills and knowledge of form, styles, and repertoire in a

sm aller setting than orchestra. Typically there is only one b assist in a cham ber

ensem ble.

Although b a ss ensem ble can be taught to a s little a s two b assists and up to a

large num ber of b a ssists in one ensem ble, of the 129 respondents, only 51%

gave their students an opportunity to play in b a ss ensem ble. Many

respondents com plained of not having enough serious students to offer a b ass

ensem ble. Many b a ss instructors use m aster class time to teach b ass

ensem ble while others offer it a s a se p ara te class. Table 2 and Figure 9 show

the num bers of en sem b les offered from the possible 129 respondents.

Students can play in student orchestra Y e s - 121 No- 8

Students can play in cham ber group Y e s - 104 No- 25

Students can play in jazz ensem ble Y e s - 119 N o -10

Students can play in b a ss ensem ble Yes- 66 No- 63

Table 2: Numbers of institutions that offer and do not offer various ensem bles.

18
 140

120 -1

100
BStudents can play
Bin student
orchestra
■ students can play
inchamber group
■ students can play
® injazz ensembie
Students can play
■ in bass ensemble

Yes No

Figure 9: Numbers of institutions that offer and do not offer various ensem bles.

M aster class Is important for several reasons: 1) it gives the instructor an

opportunity to present m aterial to the whole b a s s studio at once; 2) students

observe technical and musical a sp ec ts of b a ss playing; 3) students are

generally encouraged to give critiques of their own a s well a s their colleagues’

perform ances; 4) it develops sta g e presence; 5) and it gives the bassists an

opportunity to get to know e ac h other socially a s well a s professionally.

Of the 122 respondents, 89 (73%) offered m aster class. Of those instructors

who offered m aster c lasses, 37 taught weekly, 9 taught monthly, and 43 taught

19
periodically. Table 3 and Figure 10 show the time period breakdown of

num bers of instructors who offer m aster classes.

Total num ber instructors who conduct m aster c la sse s 89

Instructors who conduct weekly m aster classes 37

Instructors who conduct monthly m aste rc la sse s 9

Instructors who conduct periodic m aster c la sse s 43

Table 3: Time period breakdown of the num bers of instructors who offer m aster classes.

Total number instructors

who conduct master
classes

In stru cto rs who conduct

m aster classes weekly

In stru cto rs who conduct

m aster classes monthly

Instru cto rs who conduct

■ m aster classes
periodically

Figure 10: Time period breakdown of the num bers of instructors who offer m aster classes.

In order to participate in an ensem ble, the student must have a c c e ss to a bass.

Most institutions own several upright b a sse s. The total num ber of upright

20
b a sse s owned by the 129 responding Institutions w as 707; 95% of institutions

(a total of 123) owned at least one bass. The m ean num ber of b a sse s owned

w as 5.89. T he standard deviation w as 4.92. Figure 11 show s the numbers of

institutions th at do and do not own b asses.

Institution does own

basses

Institution does not own

I basses

Figure 11 : Num bers of institutions that do and do not own b a s se s .

3.5 Method Books

Of the 129 respondents, 88% of b ass instructors (a total of 113) require their

students to study a method book. A method book tak es the student from the

first stage of playing to an advanced level. This is different from a technique

book, which is typically for the more developed player. Figure 12 shows the

num bers of instructors who do and do not require a method book for their

students.

21
 120

100
Instructor requires
a method book

Instructor does not

I require a method
book

Figure 12: Num bers of b a ss instructors who do and do not require a method book.

The following alphabetized contrabass m ethod book list contains information

taken from respondents who use th ese m aterials a s part of their instruction for

students. Full titles, and publication data are indexed in the References

section. If a listing num ber does not follow the method title, then th ere w as

only one listing:

1) Bellson

2) Bille (25 listings)

3) Bottesini (2 listings)

4) Brown (2 listings)

5) G rodner

6) Karr (2 listings)

7) Montag (13 listings)

22
 8) “My own” ' (7 listings)

9) Nanny (42 listings)

10) Rabbath (48 listings)

11) Rollez (10 listings)

11 ) Reid - T he Evolving Bassist (4 listings)

12) Richmond

13) S h ar - The Improviser’s B ass Method

14) Simandl (95 listings)

15) Streicher (6 listings)

16) Suzuki

17) Vance (16 listings)

18) York Publications

T he Simandl m ethod is the m ost popular m ethod by 47 listings over Rabbath

(second highest) and 53 over Nanny (third highest). O ne of the reasons for

this popularity could be that in the United S tates, the Simandl method is

considered to be “the bible of b a ss m ethods;” m ost early twentieth-century

American b assists w ere taught from this m ethod and continued to use it for

their students. Another reason could be that Simandl is relatively inexpensive

and th e com plete method h as only two volum es.

T he following quotes are taken from respondents who u se specific con trab ass

m ethod books. The method books are alphabetized and the quotes under

' “M y ow n.” Refers to instructors who use their own m aterials for bass instruction.

23
e a c h author heading are listed in order of the largest number of a specific

significant word. If the num ber of significant words are the sam e, then they are

listed alphabetically and then from shortest to longest quote. Significant words

a re taken from the respondent and determ ined by the investigator a s to their

descriptive values as they relate to the m ethod books; these words are

underlined. The words “etu d es,” “scales," and “arpeggios” may not be

significant because they were prom pted in the questionnaire.

Regarding Bille:

I ) “Bille for etu d es”

2) “Bille for scales and e tu d es”

3) “E tudes, scales, and arpeggios a re included.”

4) “Bille h a s plenty of e tu d es in e ac h position.”

5) “Bille for lower position etu d es which a re m ore melodic."

6) “Bille h as a graduated course of studv covering etudes, harm onics, and

thum b position.”

7) “Bille is good for the upper position (8va).”

8) “Bille for scales and arpeggio”

9) “Bille for bowing variations”

10) “Bille for bowing, left hand, all around good book”

I I ) “Bille for music”

12) “Bille for concerto-like p iec es in all keys (VOL. Ill) and musicalitv”

13) “Bille for varietv”

14) “It works for me.”

24
15) “Bille Is m ost easily available”

16) “Bllle for orchestral playing: styles and tem pi”

17) “It helps their Intonation and gives them sound patterns of flnaerinos.”

R epeated significant term s from the 17 p e d ag o g u es who u se the Bllle method

are: 6 for etudes; 4 for positions; 3 for scales; 2 for arpeggios; 2 for bowing;

and 2 for music. Any other significant term w as u sed only one time.

Regarding Brown:

1) “Brown for jazz technique”

Regarding Grodner:

1) “Grodner for double-stops as a support for playing B ach”

Regarding Karr:

1) “Karr for b eg in n ers”

2) “Karr books 2 and 3 have excellent exercises, duets, and the narrative

explains what each exercise Is working on.”

Regarding Montag:

1) “Montag for s c a le s and etu d es”

Regarding Nanny:

1) “Nanny for bow ex ercises”

25
2) “Nanny’s several volum es encom pass the best system atic system of

bowing, shifting, etc.”

3) “It develops the left hand in particular.”

4) “Nanny for left hand tech n iq u e” (2 listings)

5) “Nanny for e tu d e s” (2 listings)

6) “Nanny for reading and slow teaming”

7) “Nanny for sc a le s and arpeggios" (2 listings)

8) “Nanny te a c h e s acro ss the board (jazz students).”

9) “I alternate both Nanny and Sim andl for variety but each student u se s only

one.”

R epeated significant term s from the 9 instructors who implement the Nanny

method are: 2 for bow; and 2 for left hand. Any other significant term w as used

only one time.

Regarding Rabbath:

1) “Rabbath for sc a le s and arpeggios” (4 listings)

2) “Rabbath for scales, arpeggios, and stretching (fingers)”

3) “Rabbath for fluid m ovem ent and scales in the upper positions”

4) “Rabbath for etudes, scales across the board (strings), and pivot”

5) “Rabbath for positions, pivot, bowing, scales, and extended tech n iq u es.”

6) “Rabbath book 2 for e tu d es and finger exercises; book 3 for sc a le s and

arpeggios”

7) “Rabbath for extended fingering”

26
8) “R abbath for m odem approach to finger problem s”

9) “R abbath u se s the entire fingerboard so o n e r but confuses som e stu d e n ts.”

10) “R abbath for facility all over the fingerboard and use of tunes instead of

e tu d e s”

11 ) “R abbath for technique”

12) “Rabbath is good for technical developm ent."

13) “R abbath is good for intermediate to ad v an ced students (left hand fluency,

rhvthmic training, extended techniques^."

14) “R abbath for playing across strings”

15) “Rabbath to follow up Vance and supplem ent to Sim andl”

R epeated significant term s from the 15 resp o n d en ts who use the Rabbath

m ethod are: 9 for scales; 6 for arpeggios; 6 for finger; 4 for technique; 2 for

etudes; 2 for positions; and 2 for strings. Any other significant term w as used

only one time.

Regarding Reid:

1) “Reid builds b a ss lines”

2) “Reid for iazz” (2 listings)

Regarding Simandl:

1) “Simandl for reading etu d es”

2) “Simandl e tu d e s are melodic.”

3) “Simandl for sc a le s and etudes”

27
4) “Simandl for etu d es” (8 listings)

5) “Simandl for foundation studies (etudes)”

6) “Simandl for etudes and m usical training”

7) “Simandl for etudes, inten/als. and bowing”

8) “Simandl for etudes but I adjust fingerings”

9) “Simandl for logical presentation and etudes”

10) “Simandl for etudes and positions” (2 listings)

11) “Simandl for understanding fingerboard and e tu d e s”

12) “Simandl for etudes and thum b position” (2 listings)

13) “Simandl for basic technigue and e tu d e s” (2 listings)

14) “Simandl for etudes and m ethodical position studies”

15) “Simandl for positions, sc a le s and e tu d e s” (3 listings)

16) “I like the exercises a s well a s the e tu d es in Sim andl.”

17) “Simandl for consistent studies (etudes) in each position”

18) “Especially considering the level of my students. Simandl offers a thorough

system atic approach to the left hand and provides good e tu d e s for m any levels

of advancem ent.”

19) “Simandl for positions and fingerings”

20) “Simandl for leaming positions - m usic”

21 ) “Simandl for basic position work” (2 listings)

22) “Simandl to develop positions and rudiments of m usic.”

23) “Simandl for organization of progressive position studies”

24) “Simandl for positions, intonation, and bowino”f2 listings)

25) “Simandl for scales and fingerings” (2 listings)

28
26) “Simandl for basic understanding of the fingerboard”

27) “Simandl for beginning students and low register tone”

28) “Simandl is appropriate for the level of students I have.”

29) “S tu d e n ts like Simandl (I don’t know why) and have requested it.”

30) “I altem ate N anny and Simandl for variety but each student u se s only

one.”

31 ) “It is well organized and good for various levels of players (students). The

studies mainly focus on the right hand.”

32) “Simandl provides a student with the m ost com plete training for the

orchestra student (although it is dry and difficult to get through).

33) “Simandl for reading”

34) “Simandl for reading and slow learning”

35) “Simandl is good for reading skills (easy to h ear se q u e n c e s )."

36) “Simandl for technique"

37) “Simandl for left hand”

38) “It develops the left hand in particular.”

39) “It works for m e.”

40) “Simandl d o es the job.”

41 ) “It is the m ethod I used.”

42) “Simandl is really boring.”

43) “Simandl for organization”

44) “Best way to improve tone”

45) “Simandl is com prehensive”

46) “Simandl is m ost easily available”

29
47) “Simandl is stan d ard at this institution."

48) “Simandl gives a firm grounding for b a ss”

49) “Simandl for beg in n ers (basic foundation)”

50) “Simandl is geared towards orchestral playing”

51) “Simandl for chrom atic approach and note relationships”

52) “All students are electric except one who u se s Simandl

53) “It’s what I used. It’s basic, fundam ental, and thorough.”

R epeated significant term s from the 53 pedagogues who u se the Simandl

method are: 30 for etudes; 16 for position; 6 for finger; 6 for scale; 6 for student;

3 for bow; 3 for music; 3 for reading; 3 for technique; and 2 for left hand. Any

other significant term w as used only one time.

Regarding Streicher:

1) “Streicher is good for the thumb position (treble cleft.”

2) “Streicher: positions, shifting, string crossing: a logical and progressive

approach”

3) “Streicher is imaginative, stimulating, disciplined.”

R epeated significant term s from the 3 respondents who u se the Streicher

method are 2 for position. Any other significant term w as used only one time.

Regarding Vance:

1) “I start quite a few b eg in n ers."

30
 2) “Vance for b eg in n ers (basic foundation)"

3) “Vance for beginners: to get them around the whole b a s s ."

4) “The stu d e n ts I get need extensive remedial work. Vance is an excellent set

of six seq u en tial volumes from beginners to the Draoonetti C oncerto."

5) “It helps their intonation and gives them sound patterns of fingerings."

6) Vance for facility all over the fingerboard and the use of tu n es instead of

etudes”

7) “V ance for less advanced stu d en ts”

8) “Vance for technique" (2 listings)

9) “Vance for sc ale s, bowing, and etudes"

Repeated significant term s from the 9 instructors who u se the V ance m ethod

are: 4 for beginners; 2 for finger; 2 for students; and 2 for technique. Any other

significant term w as used only one time.

Regarding York Publications:

1) “York for melodic and technical materials"

The following general quotes are taken from respondents who u se their own

pedagogical m ethod books or did not list a method book:

General Quotes:

1) “I try to fit each m ethod to each student."

31

i
I i
2) “I u se the best material I know for each stu d e n t.”

3) “All things depend on the stu d en ts needs.” (2 listings)

4) “I u se different m aterials for specific student n e e d s.”

5) “I u se any m ethod book th at h as an effective approach to a problem faced

by th e student.”

6) “E ach m ethod c a u se s the stu d en t to deal with multiple fingering patterns;

visualize the fingerboard in different ways.”

7) “I u se the materials for traditional fingerings, etu d es, bowing, and various

ideas (concepts).”

8) “I u se my own sc ale and arp eg g io materials.”

9) “G annett - P hase E xercises for scales, arpeggios, intonation, left hand

strength, and agility”

10) “I don’t like etudes, it’s ju st window dressing and mindless m eandering

that can c au se harm. I like fundam ental technique through scales, arpeggios,

and bowing: then orchestral and solo work.”

11) “I u se m ethods for com prehensive technical developm ent.”

12) “My own develops tech n iq u e from a harmonic/melodic/rhythmic ap p ro ach ."

13) “Sight reading and ideas for soloing (Reid and Shar)”

14) “Each has strengths and all have w eak n esses or quirks.”

15) “I u se several sources, not written in books. W e have an exercise routine

prescribed by rote - A la Gary Karr: very effective.”

16) “I collect etudes, ex ercises in a notebook and photocopy a s needed. They

are in a prescribed order. I find b a ss pedagogy to be in the baby sta g e .”

32
R epeated significant term s from the 16 respondents who use their own method

or materials are; 7 for student; 4 for finger; 3 for method; 3 for scales; 3 for

technique; 2 for bow; 2 for etudes; and 2 for exercises. Any other significant

term was used only one time.

The following b a ss technique books w ere listed even though they w ere not

requested. For full title and publication data, th ese technique books are listed

at the end of this docum ent under References. If a listing num ber d o es not

follow the method title, then there w as only one listing:

1) Dr. Arthur Davis System for Double B ass

2) Findeissen

3) Flesch

4) Gale

5) Green (6 listings)

6) Hoag

7) Hrabe

8) Kreutzer

9) Portnoi

10) Storch-Hrabe (6 listings)

11 ) Sturm (2 listings)

12) Petracchi (5 listings)

13) Trumf

14) Zimmermann (5 listings)

33
The following quotes are taken from respondents regarding reaso n s for using

a particular technique book:

I ) “Davis for advanced stu d en t fingering, scales, etudes, and intervalic

studies”

2) “Findeissen for advanced students and scale studies for technique and

articulations"

3) “Flesch for scale system ”

4) “Gale provides system atic and com prehensive m aterials for the beginning

and interm ediate players (students)."

5) “Green for b asics”

6) “Green for tech n iq u e” (2 listings)

7) “Green for bowing technique (especially off the string)”

8) “Hoag to stretch the ear”

9) “Kreutzer for left hand”

10) “Petracchi for ex ercises and etudes”

II ) “Petracchi for thum b position” (5 listings)

12) “Petracchi helps their intonation and gives them sound patterns of

fingerings.”

13) “Portnoi for thorough fundam entals"

14) “Storch-Hrabe for virtuosity”

15) “Storch-Hrabe for m usic and left hand”

16) “Storch-Hrabe for tech n iq u e and stam ina”

17) “Storch-Hrabe for bow control and rhythm”

34
 18) “Sturm for phrasing”

19) “Sturm for right hand”

20) “Trumf has a clear format for routine. It’s com prehensive and well defined."

21) “Zimmermann for string crossing”

22) “Zimmermann for bowing” (3 listings)

From the method books listed in the questionnaire (and including the Bille

method), the following a re the total num ber of respondents for each method

that gave a rating on a scale of 1-10 where 1 w as the lowest rating and 10 was

the highest: 13 subm itted ratings for Montag; 42 subm itted ratings for Nanny;

48 submitted ratings for Rabbath; 10 submitted ratings for Rollez; 95 submitted

ratings for Simandl; 21 subm itted ratings for Streicher; 20 subm itted ratings for

Bille. Table 4 and Figure 13 show the total ratings for each method while

Table 5 and Figure 14 show the average ratings for each method b a sed on a

1-10 scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest).

Total rating for Montag 59

Total rating for Nanny 259

Total rating for Rabbath 350

Total rating for Rollez 35

Total rating for Simandl 670

Total rating for Streicher 134

Total rating for Bille 147

Table 4: Total ratings b a sed on a 1-10 scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest).

35
 g T o t a l rating for Montag
Total rating for Nanny
Total rating for Rabbatfi
Total rating for Rollez
Total rating for Simandl
Total rating for Streicher
Total rating for Bille

Figure 13; Total ratings for each method b ased on a 1-10 scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest).

Average rating for Montag 4.5 4

Average rating for Nanny 6.1 7

Average rating for Rabbath 7.29

Average rating for Rollez 3.5

Average rating for Simandl 7.05

Average rating for Streicher 6.38

Average rating for Bille 8 .1 6

Table 5: Average ratings for each method based on a 1-10 scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest).

36
 Average rating for Montag
A verage rating for Nanny
A verage rating for Rabbatfi
A verage rating for Rollez
A verage rating for Simandl
A verage rating for Streicher
m Aver age rating for Bille

Figure 14: Average ratings for each method based on a 1-10 scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest).

3.6 Bows

28% of b ass instructors perform with the Germ an bow, while 57% u se the

French bow.

23% teach only French bow, while 3% teach only Germ an. Table 5 and Figure

15 show the num bers of instructors out of 128 who perform and teach with

German, French, or both bows.

37
Perform with a German bow 36

Perform with a French bow 73

Perform with both 19

Teach German bow 4

T each French bow 29

Teach both 95

Table 6: Numbers of instructors who perform and teach with German, French, or both bows.

iQ srm an bow
IFt en oh bow
I Both

Perform Teach

Figure 15: Numbers of instructors who perform and teach with German, French, or both bows.

3.7 Left Hand Technique

The use of the thumb on th e fingerboard In the lower positions (below the first

38
partial) is becoming more acceptable. This technique gives the bassist the

opportunity to play larger intervals without shifting. While this technique was

rarely used before the second half of this century, m ore b assists are now using

it. Out of the 125 responses to this question, 61% (a total of 76) use the thumb

in the lower positions. Commentary received for this question w as arranged in

m ost positive to m ost negative order an d is displayed below:

1) “yes, a lo f

2) “yes, much of the time”

3) “yes, but not in scale studies”

4) “yes, 1/2 step below regularly but further is rare”

5) “yes, for warm-up exercises”

6) “yes, advanced”

7) “yes, occasionally” (2 listings)

8) “yes, som etim es” (2 listings)

9) “yes, but not often”

10) “yes, but seldom ”

11 ) “yes, but rarely”

12) “yes, when all else fails”

13) “no, rare”

14) “no, but considering”

While the percentages indicate a positive response, the com m ents seem to

indicate controversy. For example num bers 11 and 13 u se the term “rarely”

39
and “rare” respectively but marked opposite an sw ers for the questionnaire

(“yes" and “no” respectively). T hese com m ents lead one to believe that the

above percen tag es are not so accurate. Figure 16 show s the num bers of

instructors who teach and do not teach the u se of the thumb below the second

partial.

Yes, use of thumb in lower

position below second partial
No, use of thumb in lower
position below second partial

Figure 16: Num bers of Instructors who teach and do not teach the use of the thumb below the

second partial.

Many b assists complain th at extended fingerings dam age the hand. However,

several instructors contend that if the bassist h a s a large enough hand, this

technique is invaluable for certain p a ssa g e s. O ut of the 127 respondents,

69% (a total of 87) teach extended fingerings. Com m entary received for this

question is put in m ost positive to m ost negative order and is displayed below:

1) “yes, introductory”

2) “yes, from D up”

40
3) “yes, advanced” (2 listings)

4) “yes, for more advanced students” (2 listings)

5) “yes, som etim es” (2 listings)

6) “yes, sparingly”

7) “yes, only when n e ed e d ”

8) “yes, only in em ergencies”

9) “yes, but seldom ”

10) “no, seldom ”

11 ) “no, not a s a rule but som etim es”

12) “no, rare”

13) “no, except when n eed ed ”

14) “no, except a few orchestral p a s s a g e s ”

15) “no, m ost players hands too small”

While the percentages indicate a positive response by more than 2 t o i ,

com m ents (as in the previous technique) seem to indicate controversy. For

example: answ ers to items 9 and 10 u se the sam e descriptive adverb but the

response to the questionnaire had opposite answ ers. Figure 17 show s the

num bers of instructors who teach and do not teach extended fingerings.

41
 Y es, t e a c h e x t e n d e d f in g e r in g s

^ j N o , t e a c h e x t e n d e d f in g e r in g s

Figure 17: Num bers of instructors who teach and do not teach extended fingerings.

Out of 127 responses, 75% (a total of 95) teach pivot fingerings. Pivot

fingering is a technique that is em phasized in the Rabbath Method. The pivot

is a m ovem ent of the left hand up or down the fingerboard while the thumb

remains stationary (stays in the sam e position). Of the 95 instructors who

teach pivot fingerings, 46 of them also gave a rating on a 1-10 scale (1 =

lowest, 10 = highest) for the Rabbath Method. Comments:

1) “yes, extensively”

2) “yes, if the hand is flexible the technique is solid”

3) “yes, introductory”

4) “yes, advan ced ” (2 listings)

5) “yes, w hen called for”

6) “yes, som etim es” (4 listings)

7) “yes for m ore advanced students”

8) “yes, when necessary ”

9) “yes, but only a s an addition to the basic hand position”

42
10) “yes, rarely”

11 ) “no, except som e orchestral excerpts”

12) “no, not really”

While the percentages indicate a positive response by alm ost 3 t o i , the

com m ents (as in the previous two techniques) seem to indicate controversy.

For example: answ ers to items 10 and 11 both indicate rare u se and limited

u se but responded to the questionnaire with opposite answ ers. Figure 18

show s the numbers of instructors who teach and do not teach pivot fingerings.

I Y es, t e a c h p iv o t f in g e r in g s
No, t e a c h p iv o t fin g e r in g s

Figure 18: Numbers of instructors who teach and do not teach pivot fingerings.

Several b a ss instructors seem to be realizing the advantages of the m odem

techniques of extended and pivot fingering system s. However, the u se of the

third finger in the lower positions is not a s popular a concept. O ut of the 127

respondents, only 39% (a total of 49) teach the use of the third finger separate

43
from the fourth in the lower positions. Comments for this question are as

follows:

1) “yes. Davis System"

2) “yes, especially when th e Interval Is w-h; 1-3-4”

3) “yes, a s replacem ent of second finger"

4) “yes. Instead of second when m ore comfortable”

5) “yes, for extensions”

6) “yes, depends on the students hand size.”

7) “yes, not early In their progress though"

8) “yes. In certain Instances”

9) “yes, only n ear the octave”

10) “yes, on occasion”

11 ) “yes, occasionally”

12) “yes, som etim es”

13) “yes, when n ecessary”

14) “yes, but rarely” (4 listings)

15) “yes, for special situations”

16) “yes, but em ergency u se only”

17) “yes, for Mozart #39” (2 listings)

18) “no, not often”

19) “no, with som e exceptions”

20) “no, but depends on hand size”

21) “no, except In som e Rabbath sc a le s”

44
22) “no, except F# when descending”

23) “no, bad for most hands"

24) “no, danger of hand dam age too great”

25) “no, absolutely not”

Figure 19 show s the num bers of instructors who do and do not teach the use

of the third finger in the lower positions.

80

70

60

50 B Y'es, te ac h third finger s e p a ra te from

th e fourth in low er positions
40 H
BH No, te ac h third finger se p a ra te from
30 th e fourth in low er positions
20
10

Figure 19: Numbers of instructors who do and do not teach the use of the third finger in lower

positions.

3.8 Materials for Student Practice

Of the 125 responses, 47% (a total of 59) of students record their lessons.

Many students have tendencies to forget som e of the instruction they received

in the private b a ss lesson. By recording their lessons, they will be better able

45
to rem em ber what to work on during their practice times. Com m ents:

1) “yes, som e do” (3 listings)

2) “yes, som etim es” (2 listings)

3) “yes, som etim es, and periodically video taped”

4) “yes, on occasion”

5) “yes, but not often”

6) “no, but will start”

7) “no, wish they did”

8) “no, except in special situations”

Recording se ssio n s should not be limited to lesson times. Practice times

should also be included when possible. A higher percentage of b ass

instructors believe their students record their practice times. Out of 124

responses, 60% (a total of 74) of tea ch e rs believe their students record

practice sessions. Many instructors su g g est that their students record

them selves but som e advise against it because it can be very discouraging to

hear all the m istakes (especially for the beginning students). Com m ents:

1) “yes, for mid-term grades”

2) “yes, particularly before juries”

3) “yes, I encourage it”

4) “yes, I advise” (2 listings)

5) “yes, som e do” (3 listings)

46
6) “yes, som etim es”

7) “y es, on occasion” (2 listings)

8) “y e s, occasionally”

9) “yes, hopefully”

10) “no, but I tell them to”

11) “no, not a requirem ent”

12) “no, except when told to do so - beginners don’t cope well”

13) “no, it c a u se s discouragem ent”

Figure 20 show s the num bers of students who do and do not record their

lessons or practice sessions.

Students record their lessons

Students record their practice

session s

Yes No

Figure 20: Numbers of students who do and do not record their lessons or practice sessions.

If a video recording device is not available to the student for practice time, a

mirror can be of value. Of the 127 responses to this question, an

overwhelming 95% (a total of 121) of instructors require that their students

47
practice In front of a mirror. Comments:

1 ) “yes, absolutely”

2) “yes, for som e problems” (2 listings)

3) “yes, s u g g e s f

4) “yes, although I didn’t have one until my 3 0 ’s ”

5) “yes, for scales mostly”

6) “yes, at tim es”

7) “yes, occasionally”

8) “yes, som etim es” (2 listings)

The u se of the metronome can be invaluable to the beginning student a s well

a s the professional bassist. Out of the 127 resp o n ses, 98% (a total of 125) of

instructors advise their students to practice with a metronome. Comments:

1) “alw ays” (4 listings)

2) “absolutely”

3) “especially with off-beats”

4) “sparingly but often with subdivision”

5) “yes, and a tuner”

6) “Yes, at first but they m ust becom e independent of it.”

7) “Yes, but not automatically all the tim e.”

8) “yes, but also without”

9) “yes, som etim es”

48
10) y e s, part time”

Figure 21 shows the num bers of te a c h e rs who advise students to practice with

a mirror or metronome.

Prescribe students to practice in

front of a mir ror
Advise students to practice Aith a
metronome

Figure 21 : Numbers of teachers who advise students to practice with a mirror or metronome.

3.9 Student Solo Obligations

O ut of a 123 responses regarding recitals, T able 7 shows the total num bers of

resp o n se s for recital requirements for each d e g ree offered while Table 8

show s the average num bers of recitals required for each degree offered.

C om m ents include program s not listed in th e questionnaire a s well a s general

statem en ts regarding programs:

49
1 ) “BFA in perfomriance”

2) “BME” (2 listings)

3) “BS in education”

4) “Perform ance Diploma”

5) “PB (Pedagogy)”

6) “Jr. - partial and Sr. - full recital”

7) “T hree mock-auditions can substitute for one m asters recital.”

8) “An orchestral board can count a s one recital.”

9) “I recommend every two y ears but the school has no requirement”

10) “W e give joint perform ances each sem ester.”

11) “0 but advise”

12) “only associates is offered but no recital.” (2 listings)

13) “I have all electric students that m ust take upright instruction.”

14) “no b a ss majors”

15) “NA” (2 listings)

50
 1 recital 2 recitals 3 recitals 4 recitals 5 recitals 6
BA 45 13 1 2 0 0
BM 42 35 3 2 0 0
MA 16 9 1 3 0 0
MM 25 22 1 4 1 0
MFA 5 2 0 3 0 0
AD 1 2 2 0 0 0
DMA 1 3 7 6 0 1

P h .D . 3 2 0 0 0 0
O ther* 7 1 0 0 0 0

*For “1 recital" the degrees were: BME; Perform ance Diploma; PB (Pedagogy), BS in

education.

For “2 recitals" the degree was: BFA in Performance.

T able 7: Total num bers of resp o n ses for recital requirements for each d egree offered.

BA - 1.34

BM - 1.57

MA - 1.69

MM - 1.75

MFA- 2.1

AD - 2.2

DMA - 3.22

Ph.D. -1 .4

Table 8: Average numbers of recitals required for each degree offered.

51
Of the 123 respondents, 87% require an orchestral board or jury for their

program s. Comments:

1) “yes, orchestra jury of 1/2 hour (m em orized)”

2) “yes, one each sem ester and before each recital”

3) “yes, one mock-audition every se m este r”

4) “yes, I do but the departm ent d o e s not.”

5) “yes, yearly juries are chosen by a jury”

6) “y es but only when the student is ready”

7) “y es but informal”

8) “no, but optional for high school or beginning stu d en ts”

9) “no, just initial entrance requirem ents”

10) “no, not yet”

11) “no, b e c a u se almost all of my students are electric with no experience”

12) “no b a ss m ajors”

52
 CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 S um m ary

During this century, the contrabass has se e n more solo literature than all of the

other centuries com bined. Many of th e se new works have dem anded new

techniques and helped create higher sta n d ard s of contrabass performance.

The investigator b a sed his conclusions on th e results of the questionnaire sent

to 489 b a ss instructors at colleges and universities in the USA listed in the

1996 Directory of music faculties in colleges and universities, U.S. and

Canada. U sable resp o n se s were received from 129 b a ss instructors or 26%

of th e sam ple. A nsw ers were sought to th e following questions:

1. W hat experience d o es the instructor have a s a perform er and educator?

2. W hat en sem b les are available for the student?

3. W hat m ethod books a re being used and how does th e instructor rate them ?

53
4. Does the instructor limit the choice of bow?

5. W hat left hand techniques are taught?

6. W hat m aterials are suggested for students to practice with?

7. How many solo obligations d o es the student need to m eet for degree

requirem ents?

It is hoped that the answ ers to th ese questions will help b a ss instructors

improve the quality of their program s.

4.2 What is the experience of the instructor?

It seem s reasonable to a ssu m e that the experience of the instructor directly

relates to the quality of education of the b ass student. In a ratio of more than

5:1, b ass instructors have a background of b a ss perform ance/education. The

sam ple show s that over half of th ese instructors have com pleted a m aster of

music degree and just under a fifth of them have a doctoral degree. The

average years taught at a particular institution w as 10.3.

Out of 1,013 stu d e n ts’ listed by the respondents, the average num ber of b a ss

students for the 1996-97 academ ic year w as about eight and keeping written

54
records of th ese students progress se e m s to be regarded a s desirable. By

more than 2:1 the respondents keep written records.

Slightly under half of the respondents either play or teach the electric bass.

4.3 W hat ensem bles are available?

The quality, type, and number of ensem bles m ade available to the student

directly affects her/his future perform ance possibilities. Nearly all of the

institutions reporting offered both orchestra and jazz ensem bles. Both of these

en sem b les seem to be considered essential for b a ss perform ance

opportunities.

4.4 W hat m ethod and technique books are currently being implemented?

Method books are designed to take a student from the very first stage to an

advanced level. Som e of the reasons for using particular m ethods were the

inclusion of etudes, scales, and arpeggios; which were prom pted by the

questionnaire. O ther reasons included positions, bowing, styles, exercises,

left hand, and organization.

The m ost popular method, used by nearly 2:1 of the sam ple, w as Simandl’s. It

was used by 95 instructors out of 129. On a scale of 1-10, the average rating

for Simandl w as 7.1. The Rabbath m ethod w as second to Simandl (48

55
instructors) and rated slightly higher at 7.3; perhaps the Simandl m ethod is

used by more instructors b e ca u se it has been around longer. The Nanny

m ethod placed third in u se with 42 instructors using it and giving it a 6.2 rating.

The m ethods by Streicher, Montag, and Rollez w ere used by less than one-

quarter of the sam ple; while the Streicher rated at 6.4, the other two rated less

than 5. The m ost widely used method book not listed in the questionnaire w as

by Bille.

Technique books a re essentially for the more advanced student; they focus on

specific techniques to enhance th o se begun in method books. While

technique books w ere not solicited by the questionnaire, m any respondents

listed them; perhaps the fine line of distinction betw een m ethod and technique

books is not clear to m any b a ss instructors. The m ost widely used technique

books cited by the respondents included Green, Storch-Hrabe, Petracchi, and

Zimmermann. Unsolicited com m ents for technique books focused m ore on the

right hand than did com m ents for the method books.

4.5 What techniques and m aterials are recom m ended for b a ss stu d en ts?

While 57% of the instructors use the French bow for perform ance and 28% use

the Germ an bow, th e remaining 15% perform with either one. Most of the

instructors are willing to teach either bow.

Modem techniques tend to be m ore controversial than traditional techniques.

56
Unsolicited com m ents for the technical questions ranged from “yes,

extensively” to “no, absolutely not.” T hree of the four m odem techniques

(including extended fingerings, pivot fingerings, and u se of the thumb in the

lower positions) had just over 60% positive resp o n ses. Use of the third finger

in the lower positions had just over 60% negative resp o n ses. All of th e se

techniques still seem to be in the experim ental stag e. Future studies should

continue to inquire about th ese techniques and should also include other

technical questions such as: when shifting while moving acro ss strings, do you

go to the new string first or shift first?

Materials such a s mirrors, m etronomes, and recording devices (which can be

used for immediate feedback) were highly recom m ended for student u se by

b a ss instructors; 95% of the sam ple responded favorably for the u se of a mirror

and 98% for the use of a metronome when practicing. Unsolicited com m ents

for recording lessons were mostly positive. Although m any instructors did not

know if their students w ere recording their practice se ssio n s, m ost hoped that

they were. Positive unsolicited com m ents su g g e ste d recording lesso n s and

practice se ssio n s before particular events such a s juries and m id-term s while

negative com m ents felt that the student would becom e discouraged by

listening to the sounds of the recordings.

4.6 W hat are som e of the obligations that th e student m ust m eet to

com plete the m ajor program ?

57
The num ber of recitals required by institutions varied. While som e only

required one recital for a bachelor of arts degree, others required 4 recitals for

the sam e degree.

Som e comments for th e recital requirem ents included program s offered that

were not listed in the questionnaire, options the student could choose, and

general commentary.

More than three-quarters of the respondents require orchestral boards or

juries for their program s. O ne institution even requires stu d en ts to have the

orchestral board m em orized.

4.7 Conclusions an d recom m endations.

The response from the questionnaire w as 26% of the sam ple with a total

num ber of 129 resp o n ses received. T hese responses w ere se n t from bass

instructors representing colleges and universities of all siz es (full time faculty

averaging 23.77 with a standard deviation of 21 and part time faculty

averaging 15.66 with a standard deviation of 13) from all over the United

S tates. Most of th ese instructors are also perform ers with strong academic

backgrounds. They instruct a total of 1,013 b a ss students who study b ass at

academ ic institutions. They m ake up a total of 1,307.5 y ears of experience at

th ese specific institutions; and instructors often move from one institution to

another, so it is recom m ended that future studies include the num ber of years

58
a bass instructor has taught at other Institutions. Future studies should also

include C an ad a and sen d a second request for response to potential

respondents.

The experience level of a b a ss instructor directly affects the student.

Perform ance background, academ ic study, and who the instructor studied

bass with often dictates the teaching style, m ethods, techniques, and materials

that the instructor uses. For example, 23% of th e sam ple exclusively teach the

French bow and 3% teach only the German bow to their students. This w as

either a bias that was learned from their experience or they simply did not take

the time to learn how to teach the other bow; both bows have distinct

advantages (generally French for finesse and G erm an for power) and students

should be m ade aware of th e se distinctions so that they can decide which bow

is better for them.

Similar to the choice of bow, the choice of techniques should be tailored to the

student. Certain physical asp ec ts of the student should be considered for

specific advanced techniques. Com m ents for using the thumb in the lower

position (61% do teach and u se this technique) w ere nearly all positive and

even the two negative com m ents indicated u sa g e. Com ments for extended

fingerings, which is used by 69% of teachers, w as mostly conservative and

included: “rare; only in em ergencies; m ost players hands too small.” With only

two exceptions, comm ents for pivot technique (used by 75% of instructors) was

positive. The u se of the third finger in the lower positions was the least

59
 popular technique surveyed (39% u se it); twenty-five com m ents were highly

diverse. Positive com m ents included use “a s a replacem ent of the second

finger” while negative com m ents included “bad for most h a n d s.” Studies are

recom m ended for physical m ake-up of the hands a s they relate to traditional

and m odem technique m ovem ents.

Method books seem to be popular (88% use them). The older Simandl

m ethod is still used by most instructors (74%) but rated on a 1-10 scale (1 =

lowest, 10 = highest) at 7.05 (lower than both Rabbath and Bille). Future

studies should include the Bille m ethod and the Xomehko (Russian) method

a s part of the core of method books to be rated. A separate analysis of these

m ethod books would be beneficial to b a ss instructors. It is also recom m ended

that technique books be included a s a sep arate question from m ethod books.

Method and technique books are u sed to help the student m ake progress in

the playing level. Instructors should keep written records of students'

progress; it is both responsible and professional. The sam ple se e m s to agree

by more than 2:1. The student should receive feedback of progress m ade

during each sem ester or quarter. This feedback should be given in more of a

detailed statem ent than a letter or num ber grade.

E nsem bles enhance the level of student perform ance practice. The sam ple

show s that institutions offer many ensem bles for bassists: 94% offer orchestra;

92% offer jazz ensem ble; 81% offer cham ber ensem ble; and 51% offer bass

60

I ■
ensem ble. B ass ensem ble is a relatively new concept and repertoire for b a ss

ensem ble h as grown in the last 30 years. B ass en sem b les can include from

two to a large num ber of b assists but more typically the num ber is from two to

four. B ass ensem ble provides an opportunity for students to collaborate in a

noncompetitive environment. Having the experience of m usic making with

colleagues encourages cam araderie and musicianship. It is recom m ended

that wind ensem ble be included in future studies.

M aster class (also known a s string sem inar am ong other nam es) is important

for the developm ent of th e aspiring b a ss student an d can be used to conduct

bass ensem ble. T hese c la sse s are taught by 73% of the 122 respondents and

time periods are taught a s follows: 37 weekly; 9 monthly; and 43 periodically.

The use of the mirror, recording devices, and m etronom e se em s essential for

students. While the use of a mirror for practice and lesson sessions is strongly

favored (98% of instructors recom mend), the use of a video cam era seem s

more desirable. Too often the focus of attention by th e performer becom es

distracted while playing the bass. A video cam era can be used for both video

and audio feedback with a minimal am ount of set-up time. In this age of

technology, m ost institutions have m edia centers w here recording equipm ent

is available. Students should be encouraged to record their lessons

(preferably video) to remind them selves of the details taught in the lesson.

Students will have a better understanding of what they need to work on and

make the appropriate ch an g es in their practice habits if they can se e and h ear

61
them selves.

While it is essential to develop an internal pulse and have the ability to

subdivide it, th e m etronom e keeps the player honest. Even after a student

gains confidence in her/his intemal pulse, the metronome should be

implemented on an occasional basis. The m etronom e should be used first on

strong b e ats a n d then on weak beats. Students should also be able to

subdivided th e b eat into basic divisions of two, three, and four. This will

ultimately en ab le them to com prehend m ore com plex rhythmic divisions.

Completing a m ajor music program not only gives the student self confidence

in his/her abilities a s a musician but also e arn s the respect of her/his peers

and instructors, which should gain him/her recom m endations for prospective

employment. It is recom m ended that future studies include the following

program s for further research: BFA (bachelor of fine arts); BME (bachelor of

music education); BS (bachelor of science); and performance diploma.

Holding a jury or orchestral board at least once a y ear should be required for

all music m ajors. Of the 123 respondents, 87% require one or the other of

these.

In conclusion, th e investigator believes that this study has shown where b ass

pedagogy is a t ju st before the tum of the twenty-first century. Ideally

institutions should have experienced faculty with a variety of ensem bles

62
available to the student. The b a ss instructor should adapt teaching techniques

and m ethods to the students needs. Finally, students should have the

resources they need to be the b e st players they can be.

63
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Bellson, Louis, Modem reading text in 4/4: For all instruments. Miami,
FL.: Belwin-Mills, 1963.

2. Bille, Isaia, New method for double bass. 7 vols. Milano: G. Ricordi &
0 . Editori, 1922, 1985.

3. Bottesini, Giovanni, Metodo complete per contrabasso. London,

England: York Edition, 1982.

4. Brown, Raymond, R ay Brown's b a s s method. Hollywood, CA.: Ray

Brown’s Music Co., 1963.

5. Davis, Arthur, Dr. Arthur Davis System for double bass. Author-
published.

6. Erdos, Paul L., and Arthur J. Morgan, Professional mail surveys.

McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970.

7. Findeissen, Theodore, 25 technical studies, op 14, for string bass. Ed.

by Fred Zimmermann, New York: International Music Co., 1957.

8. Flesch, Carl, Scale system: Scale exercises in all major and minor
keys for daily study. Ed. by Gerd Reinke, New York: Fischer, 1944.

9. Gale, T hom as, Melodic foundation studies. Cincinnati: Liben, 1989.

10. G reen, Barry, Advanced techniques of double bass playing. Ed. by

Paul Martin Palom bo and Lucas Drew, Cincinnati, CH.: Piper, 1976.

11. Grodner, Murray, An organized method of string playing. Bloomington,

IN: P e e r International Corp., 1977.

12. Hoag, C harles, Studies, double bass. Bryn Mawr, PA: T. Presser, 1991.

13. Hrabe, Jo sep h , 86 etudes for string bass. Ed. by Franz Simandl; newly
ed. by Fred Zimmermann, New York: International Music Co., 1959.

14. Karr, Gary, Double bass book. Pacific, MC: Amati Productions, 2 vols.,
1987.
64
15. Kreutzer, Rodolphe, 42 Etuden fûr Violine solo. Frankfurt; New York:
C.F. Peters, 1958.

16. Merriam-W ebster, A., Webster’s third new international dictionary.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 3 vols., 1976.

17. Montag, Lajos, Double bass method. 8 vols. Budapest: Editio Musica,
1955-1982.

18. Nanny, Edouard, Complete method for the four and five stringed
double bass. Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1920.

19. PetracchI, Francesco, Simplified higher technique. Rome: Yorke ed.,

1980.

20. Portnoi, Henry, Creative bass technique. American String T eachers

Association, 1978.

21. Rabbath, François, A new technique for double bass. 3 vols. Paris:
Alphonse Leduc, 1984.

22. Reid, Rufus, The evolving bassist. Teaneck, NJ.: Myriad Ltd., 2 vols.,
1983.

23. Richmond, Mike, Modem walking bass technique Vol. 1; a

contemporary rhythmic approach. Englewood, NJ.: Ted Xing Music,
1983.

24. S h ar [sic], Sher, Chuck, The improviser’s Bass Method. Petalum a, CA:
S h er Publications, 1979.

25. Simandl, Franz, New method for the double bass. 2 vols. New York:
Carl Fisher, Inc. (other editions available), 1948.

26. Strelcher, Ludwig, My way of playing the double bass. 2 vols. Wien:
Verlag Dobllnger, 1977-1980.

27. Storch, J.E ., 57 studies In two volumes, for string bass. Ed. by Fred
Zimmermann, New York: Intematlonal Music Co., 1948.

28. Sturm, Wilhelm, 110 studies. 2 vols. Ed. by Fred Zimmermann. New
York: Intematlonal, 1963.

29. Suzuki, ShlnlchI, The Suzuki method. New York: Intematlonal Music
Co., 1979.

65
30. Trumf, Klaus, Compendium of bowing techniques for the double bass.
2 vols., Leipzig: VEB D eutscher Verlag fur Music, 1988-1989.

31. The College Music Society. Directory o f music faculties in colleges

and universities, U.S. and Canada. Missoula, MT.: CMS Publications,
Inc., 1995.

32. y arxce, Qeorge, The bass project. 6 vols. Silver Springs, MD.: SLAVA,
1985.

33. Yorke Publications, Yorke: Studies volume 1 and Yorke: studies

volume 2. 2 vols. London, England: York Publications, 1984.

34. Zim m erm ann, Frederick, A contemporary concept o f bowing technique

for the double bass. Milwaukee, Wl.: MCA Music Publishing, 1966.

66
 APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Please state your nam e, the nam e of the institution which employs you, and
your zip code.

2. Number of music faculty full tim e ; part tim e .

3. Is b ass perform ance/education your major field? _____ .

4. Please check the following that applies to y o u : BA. BM. MA.

MM. MFA. AD. DMA. PhD. Soloist. Orchestral Performer
Ja z z Performer.

5. How many b a ss students per w eek did you teach during the 1996-97
academ ic year at the stated institution?

6. Do you keep physical records of each students progress?

7. Does this institution offer any scholarship money to any of your current bass
students?

8. Do you play and teach electric b a ss?

9. Do your students have the opportunity to play in a student orchestra?

10. Do your students have the opportunity to play in cham ber music?

11. Do your students have the opportunity to play in jazz ensem ble?

12. Do your students have the opportunity to play in b ass ensem ble?

13. Do you conduct m aster c la s s e s : weekly. monthly. periodically.

no.

14. How long have you been teaching at this institution?

15. Does this institution own any b a sse s?

16. If the answ er to question 15 is yes, how many b a sse s d o es it own?

67
17. Do you require your b a ss students to study a method book?

18. If the answ er to question 17 is yes, which b ass m ethod books do you use?

19. P lease state briefly the rea so n s why you use each particular m ethod book.
For example: Simandl for etudes; Rabbath for scales and arpeggios.

20. P lease give a rating on a scale of 1-10 (1 being the lowest rating and 10
being the highest rating) for e ach of the following method books which you
have employed: Montag. Nanny. Rabbath. Rollez. Simandl.
Streicher. O ther (p lease sta te name)________________________ .

21. Do you perform with the Germ an or French bow?

22. Do you teach the French or German bow?

23. Do you use the thum b in the lower positions (below the second partial)?

24. Do your students sit or stand when playing the b a ss? Num ber who sit.
Number who stand. N um ber who do both.

25. Do you teach extended fingerings?

26. Do you teach pivot fingerings?

27. Do you teach the u se of the third finger separate from the fourth in the
lower positions?

28. Do your students record their le s so n s? Practice se ssio n s? __

29. Do you prescribe for your students to practice in front of a mirror?

30. Do you advise your stu d en ts to practice with a m etronom e?

31. How many recitals do you require for each of the following d eg rees
(please write in a num ber only for the degrees offered): A ssociates. BA.
BM. MA. MM. MFA. AD. DMA. PhD. Other (please
state p ro g ram s)_____________________.

32. Do you require an orchestral board or jury for any of the program s
offered?
68
 APPENDIX B

ACCOMPANYING LETTER

D ear C olleague 8-20-96

Enclosed with this letter is a questionnaire regarding current trends in b a ss

pedagogy at colleges and universities in the United S tates. The answ ers from
this survey will be part of my DMA docum ent on classical b a s s m ethodologies
(excluding technique and etude books). All of the answ ers will be compiled
anonymously. After processing the an sw ers to this questionnaire, I will submit
the results to the International Society of B assists for publication. The
questions should be e a sy to answ er and take approximately 10 minutes. I
have enclosed a self ad dressed stam ped envelope for the answ ers to the
questionnaire. P lease answ er all of the questions to the b e st of your
knowledge.

Thank you in advance

for your participation,

Tod Leavitt

69