Playing in a big band

[Richard Blair]

I’ve played in big bands for over 50 years. I’ve gone through every phase of thinking about this, from “there’s no way I can play that piece of ##” to straight reading. Ultimately I think this: read it as is until you are thoroughly familiar with the chart. If the chart doesn’t have changes, borrow the guitar chart or piano chart and pencil them in. Once you know the chart and you’ve heard it played, you might take some liberties with the shape of a line if it really doesn’t lie well on the bass. Don’t mess with the rhythmic content. And if you’re seeing the chart for the first time at a gig, read it. If you’re subbing in for another player, read it as is. In that situation no one wants to notice how great you are - they don’t want to notice you at all.

 

[Pacman]

Absolutely nothing to do with Technique. Moved to Misc.

I've played a metric ton of Big Band (25 years in Military bands). Play the ink.

 

[turf3]

I find it difficult to play and manage paper at the same time. At home, I'll spread everything out in front of me, and work the thing until it is stone cold memorized. On the gig, I just play. No charts, no music stand, everything from memory. It's done all the time with smaller ensembles regardless of genre, adding some horns doesn't change how I approach things.

Good luck with that when there's 400 charts in the book.

 

[turf3]

Hi !

I'm playing the bass in a big band, I would like to know how you work the tunes.
Everything is written, sometimes lines are not so logical or comfortable that's why I play again my five string bass in order to make the fingering easier (not a question of range).
I find it difficult, do you write an extra page with chord symbols (some scores don't have chord notations) ?
How do you manage it ?

For fully-written-out parts, play the ink.

Sometimes I can't play the ink. I make up something simpler but similar on the spot when that happens.

You can usually figure out pretty quickly what the basic chords are (never mind all the extensions).

There will occasinally be something written that just doesn't make sense, but don't assume the stuff you can't play falls into this category.

Keep in mind, too, that most of these parts are written for upright bass so something that seems clunky on bass guitar may lay well on the upright.

 

[fdeck]

I’d love to hear your experiences in reading ahead. Very little has even been posted here on TB about it, how to acquire it, the benefits, etc.

Hal Galper has a YouTube video on Forward Motion. It’s brilliant.

I think there are a number of things that contribute. But maybe the general idea is to reduce the cognitive load of "normal" playing, to the point where you can devote some of your attention to big-picture things like the overall structure of the arrangement, key changes and unison sections, who just came into the venue, etc. That means getting more fluent on reading, but also on your bass. Something has to become automatic so you can focus on something else.

Fluency on the bass is referred as "knowing your way around the fingerboard" and similar terms. In big band parts, because of the registers involved, it means being fluid at shifting, and having the patterns for scales and arpeggios under your hands. Oddly enough reading helps with this because it forces you out of your familiar patterns, and you can also take a tricky passage and work out better fingerings. That work eventually becomes quicker and more intuitive.

With more playing, you can recognize the bread-and-butter parts that can be improvised with no penalty, and let your body do the work while you look ahead.

Familiarity with the genres. Listen, listen, listen.

 

[micguy]

Good luck with that when there's 400 charts in the book.

A book with 400 charts is like a hymnal with that many hymns in a church - nobody uses all of them. The gigs I do, I have about 300 songs in working memory, but if a tune comes up where I have to read a chart (never happens in my world), I can read charts just fine - I just play better with it memorized - I can look around and get in sync with the other musicians and the vibe in the room much better if I'm not starring at paper or an ipad.

 

[turf3]

A book with 400 charts is like a hymnal with that many hymns in a church - nobody uses all of them. The gigs I do, I have about 300 songs in working memory, but if a tune comes up where I have to read a chart (never happens in my world), I can read charts just fine - I just play better with it memorized - I can look around and get in sync with the other musicians and the vibe in the room much better if I'm not starring at paper or an ipad.

I don't think you're grasping the kind of ensemble we're talking about here. This is a BIG BAND - think Duke Ellington, Count Basie, the One O'Clock, Woody Herman.

I've been playing in this kind of band since 1978 and I haven't seen a single instance of a bass player having all the parts by memory yet. The really big names, their guys WERE playing a lot of times from memory, but Basie or Herman, those guys were also playing 300 gigs a year. Maybe you're playing with one of those level big-bands and I'm mistaken, in which case I apologize. But I rather suspect you're confusing the jazz big band ensemble with a large rock and roll band with horns. Very different animals.

 

[Jefenator]

Maybe it's a technological crutch, but the annotation tools are what really sold me on using a tablet (along with the page turning and everything else).
I like being able to highlight passages that need more attention, amend forms & rhythms as needed, add dynamics, expressions & chord symbols and white out distracting junk.
Higher caliber writing - and reading - will of course minimize the need for most of this. That said, I'd rather see someone forget their instrument than neglect to bring some form of writing tool to a rehearsal.

 

[turf3]

Maybe it's a technological crutch, but the annotation tools are what really sold me on using a tablet (along with the page turning and everything else).
I like being able to highlight passages that need more attention, amend forms & rhythms as needed, add dynamics, expressions & chord symbols and white out distracting junk.
Higher caliber writing - and reading - will of course minimize the need for most of this. That said, I'd rather see someone forget their instrument than neglect to bring some form of writing tool to a rehearsal.

In the day, it went like this.

First time you don't have a pencil at rehearsal, the band leader will sell you one. For $10.

Second time you don't have a pencil at rehearsal, the band leader will sell you one. For $100.

There won't be any third time.

 

[turf3]

Maybe it's a technological crutch, but the annotation tools are what really sold me on using a tablet (along with the page turning and everything else).
I like being able to highlight passages that need more attention, amend forms & rhythms as needed, add dynamics, expressions & chord symbols and white out distracting junk.
Higher caliber writing - and reading - will of course minimize the need for most of this. That said, I'd rather see someone forget their instrument than neglect to bring some form of writing tool to a rehearsal.

I'm sure that the number of working bands with their books on tablets is increasing, and by now it's probably trickling down to mid-grade bands; but I think the vast majority of big-bands are still working from paper. The labor to scan a couple hundred charts, 16 parts each, of all different sizes, and all taped together so you either have to manually scan each and every page, or untape and then retape all the parts - well, that's an awful lot of labor to pay for or get volunteered for the ordinary big band that plays maybe 20-40 gigs a year for a $2000 a pop or so.

 

[Jefenator]

In the day, it went like this.

First time you don't have a pencil at rehearsal, the band leader will sell you one. For $10.

Second time you don't have a pencil at rehearsal, the band leader will sell you one. For $100.

There won't be any third time.

I love that!!
Nothing drives me NUTS - and nothing keeps a group in garage-band-land - more than having to go over the same correction half a dozen times for one slob's benefit.

 

[fdeck]

I find it difficult to play and manage paper at the same time. At home, I'll spread everything out in front of me, and work the thing until it is stone cold memorized. On the gig, I just play. No charts, no music stand, everything from memory. It's done all the time with smaller ensembles regardless of genre, adding some horns doesn't change how I approach things.

Everybody's got to manage with the tools that they've got, and if you're able to hold yourself together on the bandstand, great. But it seems like a boatload of work for relatively little gain.

For a large ensemble, charts are a band management tool. They allow for playing a much more complex repertoire, dealing with last-minute changes to the program, and finding subs for players who get sick. Having good readers in the band eliminates the need to distribute material before the first rehearsal.

 

[turf3]

Everybody's got to manage with the tools that they've got, and if you're able to hold yourself together on the bandstand, great. But it seems like a boatload of work for relatively little gain.

For a large ensemble, charts are a band management tool. They allow for playing a much more complex repertoire, dealing with last-minute changes to the program, and finding subs for players who get sick. Having good readers in the band eliminates the need to distribute material before the first rehearsal.

I don't think this particular poster understands that a big band is not just "adding some horns" to a five piece rock and roll band. Or even "adding some horns" to a five piece jazz band.

 

[Altitude]

I don't think this particular poster understands that a big band is not just "adding some horns" to a five piece rock and roll band. Or even "adding some horns" to a five piece jazz band.

It’s a strange thread; I’m not sure we are all talking about the same thing. Seems like, the OP came in saying he’s in a big band, doesn’t like the notes in the charts he’s been given, and wanted to know if it’s OK to ignore the charts and improvise based on the chord changes.

Everyone who has any amount of big band experience said it’s not good to do that, but to play the ink. In response to which the OP insisted that there’s no chance he could play a note that clashes with another player as long as he’s playing open strings and as long as he avoids playing an upright bass with a bow.

So I’m not sure where that leaves us.

 

[Febs]

I'm sorry for my words, sometimes I seem arrogant, a bit harsh, English is not my native language.

Thanks all for your comments and gentleness.

You'll learn more if you listen more, keep an open mind, and not insult the experienced players who are trying to help you.

Do you remember any of the arrangements that gave you trouble?

 

[turf3]

[QUOTE="Altitude, post: 27964511, member: 54314"... the OP insisted that there’s no chance he could play a note that clashes with another player as long as he’s playing open strings and as long as he avoids playing an upright bass with a bow.....[/QUOTE]
I think there's some cross-language confusion here.

Some posters pointed out that a lot of times the bass part is being doubled by bass bone, baritone sax, maybe guitar or piano left hand - to which he responded (in not well chosen words) that trombones and saxophones and guitars can't double the bass because they're an octave (or two) higher. Well, that's true, but it's still "doubling" the part and paying something different when all those other parts are intended to parallel what you're doing isn't going to sound good. When a sax section plays a line "unison" with the altos and tenors an octave above the baritone, it still comes across as "unison". If the bari's off doing something else altogether it sounds different.

 

[Bruce Calin]

I've lately been checking out the WDR big band on youtube. If the OP would check out a few of these videos he would get the best idea of what's involved that I can think of. I've played in a lot of big bands, good, bad, and indifferent, and this is certainly one of the best ever and shows exactly how it works with a great rhythm section and the variation in the types of things the bassist can be expected to play.​

 

[Altitude]

I think there's some cross-language confusion here.

Some posters pointed out that a lot of times the bass part is being doubled by bass bone, baritone sax, maybe guitar or piano left hand - to which he responded (in not well chosen words) that trombones and saxophones and guitars can't double the bass because they're an octave (or two) higher. Well, that's true, but it's still "doubling" the part and paying something different when all those other parts are intended to parallel what you're doing isn't going to sound good. When a sax section plays a line "unison" with the altos and tenors an octave above the baritone, it still comes across as "unison". If the bari's off doing something else altogether it sounds different.

His point still seemed to be that it’s fine to ignore the ink and play to the chords “as long as”…whatever the “as long as” was. I disagree, in big bands there are a lot of notes happening and best to trust that each player has been given the notes the arranger intended.

To the nth degree - if you were a double bass player in a symphony, would it be OK to blow off the written parts and play something else as long as it fit the chords? If not, what would be the difference?

 

[Febs]

Some posters pointed out that a lot of times the bass part is being doubled by bass bone, baritone sax, maybe guitar or piano left hand - to which he responded (in not well chosen words) that trombones and saxophones and guitars can't double the bass because they're an octave (or two) higher. Well, that's true, but it's still "doubling" the part and paying something different when all those other parts are intended to parallel what you're doing isn't going to sound good. When a sax section plays a line "unison" with the altos and tenors an octave above the baritone, it still comes across as "unison". If the bari's off doing something else altogether it sounds different.

Exactly, it is very common for arrangers to write bass, bari sax and bass bone parts that are in unison or in octaves. (I posted an example below.) It's also very common for a bass player to have parts that are in unison or octaves with the guitar or piano, or parts that rhythmically and/or harmonically complement what the rests of the band is doing.

A bass player in a big band needs to play the part unless the arranger gives the bass player the option to make up his or her own part (usually indicated with chords and slashes or chords & rhythm figures).

Here is the example:

This is the bass part:

The bass trombone and bari sax play in octaves or in unison with the bass throughout those measures:

Bass trombone:

Bari sax:

 

[Altitude]

A bass player in a big band needs to play the part unless the arranger gives the bass player the option to make up his or her own part (usually indicated with chords and slashes or chords & rhythm figures).

Great point.