Jazz Audition reject

[Phil Smith]

Now if you play bass in a jazz band where some one else writes the part that you have to play, that's another story. But if that's the case then it's not really jazz anymore in my book. Jazz is every musician doing their own thing, improvising within the context of a tune (among other things).

You may be a Professor, but you can't make the call on what or what isn't Jazz.

 

[MD]

Originally Posted by Professor Jones
Now if you play bass in a jazz band where some one else writes the part that you have to play, that's another story. But if that's the case then it's not really jazz anymore in my book. Jazz is every musician doing their own thing, improvising within the context of a tune (among other things).

You may be a Professor, but you can't make the call on what or what isn't Jazz.

And away we go.....

 

[Professor Jones]

You may be a Professor, but you can't make the call on what or what isn't Jazz.

Well the first thing I wrote in this post is "Of course everyone has his own definition of jazz" and I added "in my book" in the paragraph you quoted, so what I said is nothing more than my own opinion and was not meant to be presented as a fact.

 

[billyfalconer]

A jazz tune is made of chord changes and a melody or head.

You don't need to read the notes to comp or improvise on changes, you can just read the chord symbols (you of course have to know what to do with them but that's another topic).

The head can be learned by ear and memorized.

As others have pointed out, you're wasting the band's time if they have to stop and play a lick or required pattern to you, instead of your being able to read notes, and not just chord symbols. It's true that most jazz bass books are just changes, but there are usually specific licks and rythmic patterns given note-for-note that the band shouldn't have to wait for the bassist to figure out.

 

[Professor Jones]

As others have pointed out, you're wasting the band's time if they have to stop and play a lick or required pattern to you, instead of your being able to read notes, and not just chord symbols. It's true that most jazz bass books are just changes, but there are usually specific licks and rythmic patterns given note-for-note that the band shouldn't have to wait for the bassist to figure out.

[IMHO]

I only played in quartet, and we always exchanged ideas by playing them to the other members. If we played a non original tune then we'd get familiar with it by listening to the recording. And if you're a decent jazz musician it should not take you hours to figure out a lick by ear on your instrument. If there's only one musical style that requires a good ear it is jazz.

Now in big band I can imagine that it would not be possible to function that way. Big bands are not my thing and when I think of jazz the first band formations that come to mind are the smaller ones (3-6 members).

[/IMHO]

 

[Pacman]

A jazz tune is made of chord changes and a melody or head.

You don't need to read the notes to comp or improvise on changes, you can just read the chord symbols (you of course have to know what to do with them but that's another topic).

Till the first time someone drops a part with an ostinato line on your stand. "Night in Tunisia" anyone?

 

[Professor Jones]

The head can be learned by ear and memorized. Bass players won't have to play if most of the time, they may have to play some riffs or motifs that are part of the tune's identity (So what, Night in Tunisia), but again these are easily memorized.

 

[Pacman]

Clearly, you don't have a jazz gig.

 

[Phil Smith]

And while you're working on memorizing that line, the guy or gal that can read it cold is on the gig.

 

[Professor Jones]

I understand that reading might be important for some, but why is it so hard for these same people to imagine that some are doing just fine without it ? When playing Jazz, you're mostly improvising, ie. playing something that is NOT WRITTEN. In that case, why would reading be that important ? The only thing you might be reading when improvising are chords symbols. They're here precisely because they are faster to decipher than a bunch of notes. Again heads and licks are easily memorized and represent a small time of the whole tune.

I play hard bop. 80 to 90% of our tunes are mostly us improvising. So no I don't need to read to play the other 10-20%, my ears and memory are enough for that.

 

[Phil Smith]

I understand that reading might be important for some, but why is it so hard for these same people to imagine that some are doing just fine without it ? When playing Jazz, you're mostly improvising, ie. playing something that is NOT WRITTEN. In that case, why would reading be that important ? The only thing you might be reading when improvising are chords symbols. They're here precisely because they are faster to decipher than a bunch of notes. Again heads and licks are easily memorized and represent a small time of the whole tune.

I play hard bop. 80 to 90% of our tunes are mostly us improvising. So no I don't need to read to play the other 10-20%, my ears and memory are enough for that.

I know people are doing just fine where they are and that's okay. I'm just saying that if you can read there are more opportunities available, if you don't care about the additinal opportunities that's cool. If the OP could read, nobody would be reading this thread cuz it wouldn't exist.

 

[FenderP]

Big band charts vary greatly - from fully written with no chords, to all chords (come up with your own line), to a mixture. I started 30 years ago in 3rd grade doing big band, and still do it in a community band. One of the reasons I get these types of gigs is that I can sight read. Unless you've got a written solo part (chord or actually written), big band isn't about you stretching as a bass player; it's about being a part of the rhythm section laying down the feel for everyone else.

In a smaller ensemble where you're just playing Real Book tunes you may be able to get away with playing by ear, but even then, you should at least be able to read chords. Sometimes you wind up doing things in different keys and having to transpose on the fly, it can be easier looking at the original.


Bottom line to all of this: the more versatile you are as a player (including having the ability to read), the better off you'll be. Consider losing the gig as a lesson learned, and get better from it.

 

[fdeck]

I understand that reading might be important for some, but why is it so hard for these same people to imagine that some are doing just fine without it ? When playing Jazz, you're mostly improvising, ie. playing something that is NOT WRITTEN. In that case, why would reading be that important ? The only thing you might be reading when improvising are chords symbols. They're here precisely because they are faster to decipher than a bunch of notes. Again heads and licks are easily memorized and represent a small time of the whole tune.

I play hard bop. 80 to 90% of our tunes are mostly us improvising. So no I don't need to read to play the other 10-20%, my ears and memory are enough for that.

Here's what I wrote in post #17: Combo jazz is of course a different story -- players have varying levels of reading ability. You can get away without reading if you know tunes, have a killer ear, or can call which tunes are played.

What am I failing to imagine?

You are able to play jazz because you play a relatively beginner-friendly style in a sheltered environment in which your skills are sufficient. How does that help the OP, who just flunked an audition?

Your comments are reminiscent of beginners who protest that jazz is supposed to be about free expression, upon discovering that jazz is dense thicket of knowledge, rules, and traditions, with a steep learning curve. Improvisation is just part of it.

Now, you can go ahead and tell me that if I want rules, and written-out charts, then I might as well play classical. It turns out that I love classical music too, as do a lot of jazz players. I know a lot of jazz players who really don't care what jazz is, or even whether they are referred to as jazz musicians.

 

[Swampman Cory]

I think that knowing how to read a chart is essential - so if somebody drops a sheet of paper with a chart for a new tune in front of you - then you have to know what to play now - not in a few rehearsals - otherwise you are wasting everybody else's time!

+1

If you look at big band charts, sometimes you'll find that part of the piece is written out, and some of it only has chord symbols. That's because sometimes a particular line is important to the song. It could be a recognizability factor, vital to some sort of harmony, etc.

Charts are found in different arrangements. You need to be able to account for what the arrangement is asking of you, not just be able to 'improv'. Improvisation has a very prominent roll is jazz, but it is not jazz. You're trying to play in a jazz band, you're not writing your own tunes. People can't afford to wait for you to go home and youtube a recording to learn the song, you need to be able to comp for it. Start learning how to read, and then get into a big band environment and observe your limits. See what you can get away with and what you can't. But do not disown the importance of reading; to be in a modern-day jazz band, you need to do it.

 

[ausf]

Arguments about improvisation, the definition of jazz, etc aside, did you ever consider that they are looking for someone with similar time investments/knowledge in their instrument?

I can't sight read and I know it puts me a great disadvantage. I balk when asked if I'm a musician. I say I play the bass, but I don't consider myself a musician, no matter how well I play.

It'd be like telling someone I speak German, until they try to have a conversation and I only know a few words.







i

 

[HaVIC5]

A couple things (even if they've been said before)....

1. Hard bop is not the only genre of jazz. This should be something that is obvious and self-explanatory, and hopefully evident to electric bass players (this is an electric bass forum after all), but there are still a good number of people on this forum that come by that seem to think that blowing over Moments Notice is the only way to play jazz. There is jazz music before 1960 and, more importantly, there is jazz music after 1960. There is also a wide variety of styles, ensembles, variants and fusions of jazz. Hard Bop is great, but the Wynton Marsalis neoclassical revival in late 1980's forever ingrained it in the heads of up-and-coming jazz students that Hard Bop is the only way to go, and it forever shall be.

2. Jazz music does not have to be improvised in order to be jazz. I don't believe many people would disagree that the music of Duke Ellington, Thad Wilson and Count Basie was jazz (incidentally, Duke Ellington hated being called a jazz composer). A Tone Parallel to Harlem is 14 minutes long, and every single note is written out for all the musicians, is it not jazz? The tune "Lush Life" by Billy Strayhorn never is played with improvised choruses, is it not jazz? Improvisation is a vital part of jazz music, but it's not what makes jazz jazz.

3. Reading is part of the jazz scene's culture. Even if you're playing relatively conservative hard bop in clubs night after night, there will always be an instance where you'll need to read down a chart without rehearsal. Nobody will give a crap if you can listen to it once and then have it down cold, if it's not out on the first go around, you haven't done your job. Reading music is an auxiliary skill to the actual performance, but vital just the same.

4. The skills necessary for large jazz ensemble performance are virtually never improvisation beyond the ability to comp to chord changes, and even then for high school level and some college level, not even that. Reading and the technical ability to perform what's on the page in terms of notes, dynamics, blending, etc are what you need to worry about, not improv.

 

[SBassman]

A couple things (even if they've been said before)....

3. Reading is part of the jazz scene's culture. Even if you're playing relatively conservative hard bop in clubs night after night, there will always be an instance where you'll need to read down a chart without rehearsal. Nobody will give a crap if you can listen to it once and then have it down cold, if it's not out on the first go around, you haven't done your job. Reading music is an auxiliary skill to the actual performance, but vital just the same.

4. The skills necessary for large jazz ensemble performance are virtually never improvisation beyond the ability to comp to chord changes, and even then for high school level and some college level, not even that. Reading and the technical ability to perform what's on the page in terms of notes, dynamics, blending, etc are what you need to worry about, not improv.

You're actually selling me on putting the time in. I have always avoided it. Are there any easy, fun, few minute a day approaches that will yield something after a year or so?

 

[fdeck]

I don't know if it's a tried-and-true method, but it's fun to work your way through the melodies in the bass clef version of a fake book. This will do a lot of things for you, beyond just learning to read. A method book like Simandl will be a bit more dry, but will also get you to cover the entire fingerboard in every key. A music store should have piles of classical solo material at every level for the cello. Of greater difficulty, maybe for later on, might be transcribed jazz solos.

I've been working on treble clef, having dug out some old flute music. One thing I have been doing is playing along with my daughter when she practices her violin. I am counting the months until she can play material on violin that is beyond my ability to play on bass!

But in general, there's a huge amount of written material out there in every style, that's a blast to collect and play. Look for stuff that is just a bit beyond your level, and you will keep advancing.

The other thing is to keep trying to get into a band with charts.

 

[edpal]

I'd agree with those that said you need to know what every note is on your instrument, so you can at very least follow chord charts with no preperation or assistance. But being able to read music is so much better - you can figure out how a song sounds without anybody else. Playing by ear is good too - some people are so used to playing to music, they are lost without it. Lot of it comes down to the genre, the particular gig and the other bandmates - if the band leader says "lets pick it back up at measure 26", you need to know EXACTLY what is happening there. Otherwise, you's the weakest link.

 

[Jazzerbone]

It seems to me that this thread has exposed alot of things in some people and jazz music.

THANK YOU for mentioning Ellington and Basie. You are absolutely crazy to listen to Basie and say it's not jazz. They could swing their a**es off!

I think it would be interesting sometime to have a discussion about how many styles of "jazz" there really are. BIG word.

OP: Reading is a skill that will get you gigs over other bassist sometimes in surprising places. Big band especially.

I'm playing at a church right now where sometimes I have to read out of a hymnal and transpose at the same time. Last Sunday we read one written in Ab, played it
in D and then the pianist would add chords as we went and look at me funny when I didn't immedeately follow him. Sometimes I have to read Abraham Laborials transcribed lines without changes written above them. Rehearse once, then service twenty minutes later. I'm not saying this to brag, but to point out that reading actually has tangible real life applications. Sometimes it pays pretty well. Being a good reader can be good job security too.

Ok, it's late and my inner-monologue filter is down. Goodnight.