Don't Use Charts on The Gig

[JimmyM]

I want to thank all you guys who never learn the tunes and keep having to read charts on stage. You're the reason my phone keeps ringing .

I want to thank all you guys who can do one but not the other. You're the reason MY phone keeps ringing.

BAM! Game, set, match!

 

[Joe Nerve]

I want to thank all you guys who can do one but not the other. You're the reason MY phone keeps ringing.

BAM! Game, set, match!

LOL. Never said I CAN'T read charts. Actually lost a gig a long while back, because I brought a bunch of charts. BL was pissed cuz she thought I didn't care enough to learn her stuff and it made her look unprofessional. That was a lesson for me, although I was happy to not be playing with this particular woman any more anyhow. Only times I've used charts since then were times I was forced to learn huge amounts of songs in a few days time. And when I do/did that, it's more notes actually than charts - verse/chorus/bridge and arrangement of the tune. I try to keep it real low key, too.

 

[Pacman]

I want to thank all you guys who never learn the tunes and keep having to read charts on stage. You're the reason my phone keeps ringing .

Who said I couldn't learn charts??

I just said I use charts when I need to. Trust me, I've never worked with a bandleader who didn't call me back. I can do a gig with 50+ tunes with 2 weeks notice, and make you think I wrote them, while reading the chart. And after a few weeks playing them, I don't need to look. But the key is, I can do that gig this week, and not have a bandleader regret it. Like Jimmy says - I can do both.

 

[JimmyM]

LOL. Never said I CAN'T read charts. Actually lost a gig a long while back, because I brought a bunch of charts. BL was pissed cuz she thought I didn't care enough to learn her stuff and it made her look unprofessional. That was a lesson for me, although I was happy to not be playing with this particular woman any more anyhow. Only times I've used charts since then were times I was forced to learn huge amounts of songs in a few days time. And when I do/did that, it's more notes actually than charts - verse/chorus/bridge and arrangement of the tune. I try to keep it real low key, too.

Ya, you definitely have to read the situation, and I get the idea of bandleaders not wanting anyone reading charts. AC/DC would look quite doofy reading charts onstage, for example.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Ya, you definitely have to read the situation, and I get the idea of bandleaders not wanting anyone reading charts. AC/DC would look quite doofy reading charts onstage, for example.

As would most of the bands I've played in. Best gigs I've had I'm certain would never have been played by someone who needed to be reading charts.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I want to thank all you guys who never learn the tunes and keep having to read charts on stage. You're the reason my phone keeps ringing .

If a BL is given the choice between a guy who can do a show with charts and I guy who can do one without, I'm gonna bet they'll go with the guy who'll do them without. And I don't screw the songs up. I learn them.

That being said, if someone wants to spend their gigging life depending on charts go for it. I personally think you're missing out.

But there is another type of player, as I mentioned. One who can do both. That's me. And one more type which IME is pretty rare... they can commit lots of intricate music to memory on very short notice and perform which high accuracy. I don't know anyone like that but I have to leave open the possibility. So in your hypothetical situation add a time component, a sense of urgency. Who does the BL choose? The guy who can play their new to him set list overnight or the guy who says he did it and needs no reminders of their arrangements. Unless the focus of the show is on that player, I'm betting on the former.


As far as missing out in general, the player who can't do both is really limiting their options IME. I hear it occasionally... they're sure they can sub for me but when they get the call they rely on memory and chops. Last year out of five subs I had on gigs, four crashed and burned. That's job security for me but not why I called them. I needed competent subs and they weren't. And they certainly didn't help their reputation with the people who hired them or the musicians they played with. In most cases they had time to prepare either way and didn't.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ya, you definitely have to read the situation, and I get the idea of bandleaders not wanting anyone reading charts. AC/DC would look quite doofy reading charts onstage, for example.

Imagine how they'd sound with an unfamiliar sub who kinda knows their songs.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Imagine how they'd sound with an unfamiliar sub who kinda knows their songs.

That's the same as saying, "Imagine how they'd sound with someone reading off charts who sucked at reading charts".

I absolutely guarantee that if I got offered a gig with ACDC and was given only a few days to prepare, I would not need charts. And I would not screw up. And if they gave me any less than 2 days to learn 2 hours worth of material, I'm certain they'd expect me to show up with charts.

 

[JimmyM]

What if you're given an hour and a half before the show?

 

[Joe Nerve]

Then I'm not getting the gig. Nor are a lot of other people.

I could cover a Zeppelin gig an hour and a half before the show . Without breaking a sweat.

 

[JimmyM]

Sounds like you better get to work on AC/DC then

 

[maisbass]

Nothing wrong with that. Some signature lines I stay at home on too. But here's my pet peeve about playing as close to the record as possible... most artists don't do that with their own work when they play live. So I won't personally tie my hands to original lines when I have the opportunity to use them as a starting point and do "me" or something that can be a lot of fun... take the whole thing in a different direction. Either can lend a good air of unpredictability to a performance. I know some audience members want to hear a band play just like the record... I'm definitely not one of them. Surprise me... that's why I wanted to hear you actually play live.

Agreed but again depends on the gig. My main gig which pays extremely well markets themselves on sounding close to the record as possible. So in order for me to keep that gig I have to do my best to try to accomplish this. That means making sure I have the proper tone for the tune, singing the proper background vocals, and playing it close to the original as possible. Now I don't always do it note for note and as I stated earlier I do try to throw my signature in here and there, but I don't over do it. I do it just enough so it doesn't piss the BL off. In fact I have to play keys on my gig as well to cover synth bass sounds.

Some of you may frown at this but I consider it a challenge that I enjoy trying to accomplish, and like I said, it pays extremely well.

 

[maisbass]

And for the record I don't have to use charts for most tunes, especially club gigs, due to the fact I've played many of these tunes for years. For me, it's mainly the corporate gigs when charts come into play.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Agreed but again depends on the gig. My main gig which pays extremely well markets themselves on sounding close to the record as possible. So in order for me to keep that gig I have to do my best to try to accomplish this. That means making sure I have the proper tone for the tune, singing the proper background vocals, and playing it close to the original as possible. Now I don't always do it note for note and as I stated earlier I do try to throw my signature in here and there, but I don't over do it. I do it just enough so it doesn't piss the BL off. In fact I have to play keys on my gig as well to cover synth bass sounds.

Some of you may frown at this but I consider it a challenge that I enjoy trying to accomplish, and like I said, it pays extremely well.

Quite the contrary. I don't frown on it. If I had to do it I could. I'm just glad I don't have to as a main function of my job. Nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

That's the same as saying, "Imagine how they'd sound with someone reading off charts who sucked at reading charts".

It's the same as any reason you can't accomplish the job at a high level.

I absolutely guarantee that if I got offered a gig with ACDC and was given only a few days to prepare, I would not need charts. And I would not screw up. And if they gave me any less than 2 days to learn 2 hours worth of material, I'm certain they'd expect me to show up with charts.

So being prepared is the real issue, not how you get there.

Your scenario does offer an interesting twist. The idea that a period of time stands on its own.

What if on those two days prior to the AC/DC gig real life stuff also happens? You mat not have a full two days during a two day period. You may not have the luxury of dropping everything to focus just on that gig.

And for the record I don't have to use charts for most tunes, especially club gigs, due to the fact I've played many of these tunes for years. For me, it's mainly the corporate gigs when charts come into play.

Same here. It's not as either/or as some may think.

 

[5below]

Whenever I get a new song to learn I look up the song itself and any tabs on the web. Then compile the various tabs into something that seems reasonably close while listening to the song. Then I take my new tab and play along with the song until I've ironed out all the rough spots (sometimes this takes a lot of ironing, others aren't too bad). Then I re-draft the tabs to include all the corrections and any notes. Then I throw that finished tab sheet in my big book of songs I've learned (giant three-ring binder I keep in music room). At first I'll glance at my tab sheet while practicing until I have it committed to memory then it gets stowed away. I always bring a small binder with all the songs on a setlist to a gig. Rarely if ever use it, but it's a nice insurance policy in case I have a brain fart part way through and need a quick reminder.

I realize this process might not sound very "musical", but this methodical approach seems to work best for me in terms of consistency and memorization. And it's very handy to have a record of every song you'e ever learned in case you decide to play a cover you haven't touched for years and forgot all about. Find the page in the big book, glance over the tab, and play away.

I do this as well. I create the guitar charts, extract the bass parts from it (country covers mostly, so a lot of root-5 stuff), listen and practice the songs a lot using the charts and finally get to the point where I don't need the chart anymore. I too bring a small binder to the gig, but only refer to it if I really forget something. I hate having the music stand in front of me at the gig because I feel like it keeps me from really interacting with the audience and my band mates. Now I'm working on not looking at my hands so much, for the same reason.

 

[JamPlay]

The brain has multiple windows, compartments, folders, like your computer screen and hard drive. The repetitive nature of running through songs, assimilating the information that's on the written chart will become second nature and memorized if you approach learning the song from different angles. Cognitive development integrated with a theoretical basis or any kind of codification technique, will help the songs bassline stick in your head developing a muscle memory instinct. Regardless if you think patterns on your fretboard, or modal, scale, or riff thinking, they all work. The more you massage these skills the more skilled you become as a musician. Learning form, accuracy in your ability to play a song w/o a mistake will raise your stake in any music community particularly in professional circles. As to playing with more soul sans charts, yes I agree. There is something artistically pleasing coming from a musician who has integrated the music on the paper, now enabling them to play, listen, and react to the musical milieu unfolding; improvisation at its best...

 

[hrodbert696]

Just to point out (as P Aaron himself did a couple pages back) that the OP was not about jazz gigs, or classical, or broadway pits, or bands with 400-song repertoires to pick from and no set list established before the gig. He was talking about the simpler, "oral" genres and bands with fixed set lists. Obviously, the more complex the music, or the more of it there is, the more useful a chart becomes. Obviously, the more skilled a reader you are, the more readily you can groove on the fly as you play from a chart.

But not everybody is a pro. Different people are at different skill levels, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. I would hate to say to someone they can't go play music because they're not tippy-top pro-level musicians. And I think there's something to be said for some people, at some gigs, to get away from a chart and be more free.

 

[fdeck]

What if you're given an hour and a half before the show?

LOL, that's how I got my first gig when I moved to Madison. Bandleader called me up because he had forgotten to book a bassist for his gig at the last minute.

 

[FretNoMore]

Not looking at a chart, or the fretboard, or your shoes lets you look at your band members and the audience instead, which help with both your "togetherness" as a band and also your connection with the audience. So, this is what I try to do.

However, we rotate maybe 125-150 active songs, which get replaced as we tire of them, and as many of them don't get played all that often I simply need to look at my notes to remember details. Even though we play "simple" music the bass lines would deteriorate a bit and get dumbed down if I didn't. If we played nightly or even weekly I wouldn't need my notes, but we're a hobby band and we sometimes go long stretches without gigs.