Double Bass Is this normal now?

[Ed Fuqua]

I'd say charts become a problem when a band leader is calling tunes from a book that the other players have never heard, that's never a good thing.

Played a gig on Lawn Guyland with group that included a string quartet, a concert harpist, and us- rhythm and 4 horns. Band leader had a book organized numerically, not alphabetically (that is 1 could be DO NOTHING TIL YOU HEAR and 2 could be AVALON, just randomly distributed and ordered by number, right?), but spent all night calling tunes by their title, not number. Luckily I was positioned by the pianist so I could watch his left pinky…

 

[turf3]

A freind of mine was on the Mal Fitch band back in the 70s and he said the countoffs generally went like "Number 195, one-two-three-four!" He said you ended up memorizing the first 32 bars of every chart in the book.

 

[statsc]

I used to sub on a gig at an old time resort here on the shore of Lake Champlain in Vermont with a piano player from NYC who came up every summer to do the gig. This guy was not a jazz player but was part of the Lester Lanin Organization. Lester Lanin’s “schtick” was “continuous music”: 1-2 choruses of a tune, modulate to a new key and a new tune, wash, rinse, and repeat. The tunes were all Great American Songbook 20’s - 60’s plus all show tunes from that time period. No time for charts at all; you just had to hear your way through the tunes. This piano player was amazing! Besides knowing all these tunes cold, he could be playing a tune, talking to a guest at the same time, seeing another guest walk in and instantly modulate into that guest’s favorite song. At the same time, if he heard me struggling with the changes, he’d point to the root of the next chord with the pinky of his left hand just before we got there, all while keeping up his end of the conversation! On the way home from the gig I’d have to drive with the windows open and the radio blasting on a rock station just to clear my head out!

 

[JRA]

I would much rather have the musicians reading charts playing the correct forms and changes vs. them trying to play without charts and jeopardizing the quality of the performance. There is no question in my mind......

not even an issue.

 

[Papageno]

Played a gig on Lawn Guyland with group that included a string quartet, a concert harpist, and us- rhythm and 4 horns. Band leader had a book organized numerically, not alphabetically (that is 1 could be DO NOTHING TIL YOU HEAR and 2 could be AVALON, just randomly distributed and ordered by number, right?), but spent all night calling tunes by their title, not number. Luckily I was positioned by the pianist so I could watch his left pinky…

I don't get it why a band leader would deprive bandmates of useful information (key, page number, etc.) that would enable them to make the overall music experience better and more enjoyable for all. What could be the purpose of that? Making band mates feel awkward? Playing music is not supposed to be a pissing contest...

Maybe band mates could just not play if they do not receive the necessary information. After a couple of tunes played solo, the guy would possibly change his attitude...

 

[turf3]

I don't get it why a band leader would deprive bandmates of useful information (key, page number, etc.) that would enable them to make the overall music experience better and more enjoyable for all. What could be the purpose of that? Making band mates feel awkward? Playing music is not supposed to be a pissing contest...

Maybe band mates could just not play if they do not receive the necessary information. After a couple of tunes played solo, the guy would possibly change his attitude...

This kind of thing is generally a case of overall cluelessness not intentional nastiness.

 

[james condino]

It is 2 1/2 hours before my gig and I have not received any kind of communication or a setlist for tonight from the bandleader. I'll be happily reading at least a few unexpected song charts from the real book tonight to help me put on a good show...

 

[damonsmith]

It is one of the issues of the post-bop, post-free era. With so much original material there is less and less "common rep.". if you are in a particular scene that has settled on a set of tunes, you might see people playing without charts.
Once you move into the areas of jazz composers, then there less of a chance that people know all the tunes you do. Steve Lacy spent his career on his own work and Monk's. It was said that he knew more Monk tunes than Monk.
There is a story where he was asked to play a Bird tune with Ra Kalam Bob Moses and Cecil McBee. Moses ran into him and asked which tune they would play, he said, "Confirmation", Moses replied, "Oh, do you like that tune?", Lacy said, "Not particularly, but it is the only Parker tune I know".
You can have leaders that concentrate on certain eras, like Blue Note from the 50s or maybe all the Bill Evans versions of standard tunes.
You start getting into asymmetrical forms and then the side people who are less invested are going to need to read.
Once you get into different improvisational systems for the compositions then there is real trouble.
You have to either be enough of an icon that people want to learn your language and concepts on their own dime, or have the income to keep a band together.
You can see how certain masters had bands of giants they could keep together in '70s, '80s & early '90s, where now they have to depend on whatever scenesters are willing to commit.

So, it is great that "jazz" has the capacity to expand so much, but it leaves less and less common ground as it does.

 

[Phil Smith]

Playing without charts is always preferable in jazz, but if you don't know the song or are insecure about knowing the song, as a band leader I would much rather have the musicians reading charts playing the correct forms and changes vs. them trying to play without charts and jeopardizing the quality of the performance. There is no question in my mind......

It all comes down to this.

I played an opera titled "Sassy" which was based upon the life of Sarah Vaughan. It was a full orchestra with written parts that were provided. During the next to last rehearsal, they casually mentioned that there were four "standards" that would be played by an onstage band plus me in the pit where there were no video screens to see or even hear the count off on these tunes. Naturally, I set myself up for success by creating the required charts that were not provided and closely listening to make it happen.

 

[Ethan Eriksen]

It just depends on the gig. If it's just standards, bands where everyone knows a lot of the same tunes will probably play without charts. If it's an ensemble that performs together pretty regularly, they might not need them in that situation either. But if it's a one-off $100 gig of original arrangements/compositions or obscure tunes, charts will probably be necessary.

 

[reverendrally]

Have played a fair bit of jazz over the years. I struggle to remember the changes. So yeah, charts help me a lot.

 

[Lorenzo Ponce]

Pretty similar experience here : used to play jazz as a teen, we used the Book on rehearsals but we would have DIED before opening it on a gig. I got away from the jazz scene - and the music scene in general - and resumed at 50. Now everyone is on iReal pro.

IME there are pros and cons. Pros : you can play overnight tunes you never heard of and put out a decent act. You can transpose on the fly. You can easily exchange setlists. You can incoporate complex arrangements who need some score (I use my iPad split view to display a PDF from MuseScore). As opposed to paper : lighter, infinite lists, you can play without light (however you cannot play under direct sun . Cons : yes, you are focussing on the wrong thing BUT normally only in the beginning. After a while, it is more like a safety belt - I barely look at it anymore after a few times I play the tune... You don't train your memory (but maybe you free it for the better ?). You don't learn how to transpose by ear. You are locked up into playing patterns. If you lose your tablet, or it runs out of battery, you're done. And most importantly : as long as you read, you don't really know the tunes and you'll eventually get lost at one point. There's a vid of Ron Carter out there where he makes a point about it

I would compare it with finding your way "the old way" (with a map, asking people, memorizing visual cues etc.) and with a GPS (you can go anywhere, don't have to carry paper, but you don't pay attention and you still need the GPS to go to a place you've been 20 times because you did not have to memorize it).

So all in all : handy, extending possibilities, but limiting your inner abilities (which you actually "externalize" in a device, like so many other ones nowadays...)

 

[Dan Waineo]

I just started a jazz combo that practices at my house. No books are allowed. We meet once per week and add 2 new standards each week.

I felt the books were a crutch for me, and I didn't really know the songs as Ron Carter notes above. Even if I knew the songs I was nervous to play without a book. The sink or swim approach is helpful for me.

 

[fdeck]

I think it has become normal.

About 20 years ago, I decided to stop bringing my fake books to "standards" gigs. I was pretty smug about "knowing tunes," but in reality it meant that the scene had settled on a very small local repertoire, all from the Real Book. I think that a lot of players get in the habit of staring at charts that they're not even reading because they memorized the tunes long ago. I realized this when I heard someone play exactly the same solo on two successive nights, both times "reading" from their fake book.

Today, I'm happy to play from a much broader repertoire, even if it means that the band is using charts. And bands seem to be trying to move beyond the Real Book Era, with material that's newer, sometimes older, arranged, composed, etc. One of my bands plays mostly original jazz tunes.

I still make an effort, and can usually play gigs at least 90% from memory. With the originals band, it helps avoid train wrecks if I can at least just glance at my rehearsal notes (written in bold red) before a tune begins.

In addition to memorizing tunes from the books, I think it helps to practice learning them by ear without the book. Part of the trick of "knowing tunes" is that you can anticipate most of what's ahead of you, if you hear what's being played. So it's not exactly pure memorization, but memory being jogged by context.

 

[Bruce Calin]

I've been playing with some younger players lately who do some newer jazz and even pop adaptations along with standards. The older tunes I've done many, many times and probably have played them in my sleep at times, but the newer stuff(for me) calls for some sort of chart: changes or preferably lead sheets. I prefer paper to ipad, but I'm old. The chance to play with young, energetic people is a gift, and if I need some printed reference it's no big deal. Playing by memory is a necessary skill IMO, but in cases like this the compromise can be worth it.

 

[fdeck]

I've been playing with some younger players lately who do some newer jazz and even pop adaptations along with standards. The older tunes I've done many, many times and probably have played them in my sleep at times, but the newer stuff(for me) calls for some sort of chart: changes or preferably lead sheets. I prefer paper to ipad, but I'm old. The chance to play with young, energetic people is a gift, and if I need some printed reference it's no big deal. Playing by memory is a necessary skill IMO, but in cases like this the compromise can be worth it.

Yeah, even a fairly large tablet is no substitute for paper. My kids both have iPads, but they're also younger and have better eyesight.

But the iPads are almost indispensable in a college setting because of the sheer quantity of material that the kids go through in a week. And "let's get together and read quartets" no longer requires a trip to the library or access to a printer.

My main band, a 19 piece big-band, still uses 100% paper.

I have a slightly smaller, but much cheaper, Android tablet. It's fine for my work. As I mentioned, by the time I reach the bandstand, I've usually practiced my parts so I'm not strictly sight-reading. For me, the ability of a bandleader to send out PDFs of their rep is a huge time and paper saver.

 

[PauFerro]

For me, it depends on a) the length of the gig b) the pay of the gig, and c) how well I know the songs and d) if it's a "musical wallpaper gig" or a feature performnce (where all eyes and ears are on the band).

If it's a 3-4 hour gig with a band I've played with forever, and we know all the tunes, I will go most of the night without charts. If I'm paid a high amount, with repetitive gigs on that repertoire, I will often put the time into memorizing the charts so I can connect with the audience better. If it's a feature performance, where everyone is watching us, I will try to do without charts for most of the night, but if it's a wallpaper gig, and people aren't really listening (we are there to create atmosphere and visual panache) I will be more inclined to go with charts, particularly if the pay is low and I am expected to play someone else's repertoire.

So, it really depends on the factors above whether I play without charts. Normally, if it's my gig and I get to call the repertoire, I'll call tunes I know by heart so that variable (tune knowledge) is taken out of the equation given all the other things I need to do as the business motor of the gig.