Playing the part versus playing the record part

[Aussie Player]

My go to when someone says "as recorded" is the studio version that was played on the radio. Suggesting some other version means people have to unlearn whatever it is they have in their head, which is needless extra work.

Understood, but there can be variation expressed by the band after recording, a prime example being FREE doing All Right now.
Record has basically verse Chorus Verse Chorus Solo Verse Chorus' Too long and goes over 6 minutes.
The song drags too much and loses the gains made at the solo in feel by dropping back to a verse.

look at the live takes and it drops that useless 3rd version so that the songs builds to the solo then holds it there with a repeat chorus to end. Much Better.

 

[LBS-bass]

Understood, but there can be variation expressed by the band after recording, a prime example being FREE doing All Right now.
Record has basically verse Chorus Verse Chorus Solo Verse Chorus' Too long and goes over 6 minutes.
The song drags too much and loses the gains made at the solo in feel by dropping back to a verse.

The single version was cut to a reasonable length and that's the one most people remember hearing on top 40 radio. That's the one I'd assume we'd be playing unless otherwise specified.

 

[51PRI]

Make sure to run it by the person who's paying you first, but if it were me, I'd only "do the record" for bass parts that are distinct to the song. So, for example, if you started off playing "Billie Jean" some other way, nobody would recognize it as "Billie Jean" even though you are still in the right key and all that. Then once the song gets going and people's minds are in familiar territory with the whole ensemble, maybe then play it "your way" vs "do the record." That's how I usually roll.

Why would anyone play anything but the original bass part on "Billie Jean?"

...If you want to be a robot, replicate the recorded line; if you want to be a musician, play whatever elevates the song.

How is learning and being able to perform the original part as recorded bing "a robot?"

...As for subbing the original part for the one the track, as long as there are no musical conflicts, I doubt anybody would notice...

The other musicians probably would. I was subbing on guitar with a band. They played "Long Train Running." the other guitar player kicked it off and I came in the the other guitar part, not just another rhythm part. After the set the LS thanked me for playing that part, that he could never get any guitar player that had ever been in the band to play. That (1) let me know that band members are listening,, and (2) the original parts from the record will be missed if they aren't played.

...I'm not one to make a fuss....

I am...

That is the wrong way to think about it, lol. They are playing their interpretation of it. Even pros don't follow their own recordings note for note live, lol

What version is "the" recorded one? If you listen to a "live" version of any song, it usually differs greatly from the initial studio release of the same song.....

So? None of your audience is likely to have done a deep dive into live performances of hit songs.

My go to when someone says "as recorded" is the studio version that was played on the radio. Suggesting some other version means people have to unlearn whatever it is they have in their head, which is needless extra work.

YES!!!

 

[Aussie Player]

The single version was cut to a reasonable length and that's the one most people remember hearing on top 40 radio. That's the one I'd assume we'd be playing unless otherwise specified.

Agreed, but it is staggering how many bands still after half a century, cannot play it properly, especially the guitarists and bass players.

PS: Free played 3 versions of this song with the later Live version applying a new riff during the chorus as well as the expected ad libs.

 

[smittybass33]

Sidebar: Rehearsal last night. I'm playing a song that I learned several years ago. I know I'm playing the part pretty close to the record because I have played this song A LOT. It's not an easy song to learn/play and even harder on the others than on me. Lots of weird jazzy chords. They're still learning it; I am not.

We play through it with the recording (or try to) several times. I need to leave the room for a minute, so I say "hey guys, I'm going to put this recording on again and, since I already know it, I'm going to go take care of something and I'll be right back."

As I'm walking out of the room I hear all sorts of clashy stuff with the bassline. I'm like WT#? I've played this a million times and I've never heard anything clashing like that and start to worry that I've learned it wrong. Then I realized one of the guitarists is doubling the bassline but playing some bad notes.

So yeah, to fix that I have two choices. Get him to play it like the record, or change what I play to accommodate him.

When I came back in, he says "OK, I get it now. My part is the same as your part right there; but I need to learn it better by listening to the bass." That's the answer I wanted to hear. But if these were songs a MD had handed us charts to, the simpler thing might be both of us playing what's written to keep those two lines in sync, even if they're wrong.

I write this to illustrate just how easy it would be for this to go badly if people aren't listening to each other or just take it upon themselves to play whatever they want. I didn't really hear the clashy stuff until I stopped playing because I was louder than he was where I was sitting.

The listening and adapting part is key to this and everything we do. It's a little sad that it's overlooked as a key component to playing with people and not just, learn your part and practice it. I think this quote below mentions the same concept.

Why would anyone play anything but the original bass part on "Billie Jean?"


How is learning and being able to perform the original part as recorded bing "a robot?"


The other musicians probably would. I was subbing on guitar with a band. They played "Long Train Running." the other guitar player kicked it off and I came in the the other guitar part, not just another rhythm part. After the set the LS thanked me for playing that part, that he could never get any guitar player that had ever been in the band to play. That (1) let me know that band members are listening,, and (2) the original parts from the record will be missed if they aren't played.


I am...




So? None of your audience is likely to have done a deep dive into live performances of hit songs.


YES!!!

Everything you got here I agree 100%. Spot on. The listening thing is such a drag. Got the blinders on and worried about their own part only. Ha! I guess I mean that I am diplomatic but direct and not one to make a scene. I definitely get things done and speak up to do the job. I've had the experience of subbing for someone and they talked to me after and mentioned that they never heard a part or didn't know that was in there with other players. That or they didn't realize how crucial those parts were to the music.

 

[SteveCS]

...
I made this post as more of discussion among us for this type of scenario which has been fruitful. Appreciate everyone's contributions to the discussion!
...

This topic, and variations of it, are rarely out of the first few pages of 'New Posts'. It actually covers a wide spectrum of scenarios, and the 'right' answer depends on so much more than who's paying the bill, where you are playing, what the audience thinks (or doesn't), and so on. Every situation is nuanced. Yet if you read the discussions you could be forgiven for believing it is black and white - play 'per the record', only those with special privilages bestowed by some secret society are allowed to deviate and everyone else is a hack that isn't really good enough ti even take the stage.

YMMV

 

[LBS-bass]

This topic, and variations of it, are rarely out of the first few pages of 'New Posts'. It actually covers a wide spectrum of scenarios, and the 'right' answer depends on so much more than who's paying the bill, where you are playing, what the audience thinks (or doesn't), and so on. Every situation is nuanced. Yet if you read the discussions you could be forgiven for believing it is black and white - play 'per the record', only those with special privilages bestowed by some secret society are allowed to deviate and everyone else is a hack that isn't really good enough ti even take the stage.

YMMV

You forgot that you're never allowed to write something until you've somehow earned the right to write something - through osmosis or divine intervention, I guess?

 

[Jefenator]

I'm getting an impression that this project might be more commercial than creative in nature.
Factoring that in, I would probably start with "playing the ink", at least until I gained a better feel for the group.
Sometimes I find the most fun & informative phase for me is when I'm shedding at home. And that's okay - especially if there's a nice big check at the end with a minimum of drama.
As long as I don't get stuck, having to paint by numbers all the time!

 

[51PRI]

This topic, and variations of it, are rarely out of the first few pages of 'New Posts'. It actually covers a wide spectrum of scenarios, and the 'right' answer depends on so much more than who's paying the bill, where you are playing, what the audience thinks (or doesn't), and so on. Every situation is nuanced. Yet if you read the discussions you could be forgiven for believing it is black and white - play 'per the record', only those with special privilages bestowed by some secret society are allowed to deviate and everyone else is a hack that isn't really good enough ti even take the stage.

YMMV

For me it comes down to what will give the band the best chances of repeat bookings in the venue. So, with that in mind I think the chances are much better that the average listener will be more familiar with the radio version of a song versus some deep cut, live cut, or the band's own version/interpretation of the song. So, the more you can play a song LIKE the version they know the better. IMO.

But, you have to know your audience.

Back in the 1970's our band was 'touring.' We were a tight top 40 band with horns and we dressed alike, in suits. Our booking agent booked un into a club in Lawton, Oklahoma, and we did our normal thing. At the end of the first night the club owner had a meeting with us. He told us to lose the suits, put the keyboard player in the back, and learn to jam (this was the early hippie days in SE Oklahoma). We did. By the end of the two week gig we went from being The Grass Roots to being The Grateful Dead, and we were successful. We got repeat bookings there.

 

[smittybass33]

I'm getting an impression that this project might be more commercial than creative in nature.
Factoring that in, I would probably start with "playing the ink", at least until I gained a better feel for the group.
Sometimes I find the most fun & informative phase for me is when I'm shedding at home. And that's okay - especially if there's a nice big check at the end with a minimum of drama.
As long as I don't get stuck, having to paint by numbers all the time!

Jeff! Good to hear from you. Didn't know you were on talkbass! Jeff is a great player and even better person. We've had the opportunity to work together and sub for each other.

Yes, it's definitely more commercial. I've been having fun learning the set and itll be great once we play together. Being stuck coloring by numbers isn't always the most fulfilling but there's always opportunities to add your own little flair in there. Part of my joy in doing this type of thing is building sounds and sculpting tones for the gig.

 

[LBS-bass]

For me it comes down to what will give the band the best chances of repeat bookings in the venue. So, with that in mind I think the chances are much better that the average listener will be more familiar with the radio version of a song versus some deep cut, live cut, or the band's own version/interpretation of the song. So, the more you can play a song LIKE the version they know the better. IMO.

But, you have to know your audience.

Back in the 1970's our band was 'touring.' We were a tight top 40 band with horns and we dressed alike, in suits. Our booking agent booked un into a club in Lawton, Oklahoma, and we did our normal thing. At the end of the first night the club owner had a meeting with us. He told us to lose the suits, put the keyboard player in the back, and learn to jam (this was the early hippie days in SE Oklahoma). We did. By the end of the two week gig we went from being The Grass Roots to being The Grateful Dead, and we were successful. We got repeat bookings there.

We can quibble a bit over this - I don't think the audience really cares what version you play, but I think that the band stands a much greater chance of not train wrecking if they're playing the version they've heard a thousand times. The audiences are almost always ok if you're playing competently and enjoying what you do. You stand a better chance of doing that if you stop throwing curveballs to your band members.

The main problems I've had in bands that couldn't connect with the audience mostly come from bad attitudes on stage. If someone's not happy up there, it shows. If someone's just drawing a paycheck up there, it also shows. If someone's bored out of their gourd, it shows. If everyone's having the time of their lives, the audience grabs that energy and runs with it.

There are lots of ideas about what works and what doesn't, and for those who have experienced something that works they will say "oh, this is it, this is the key!" But we focus too much on the playlist and not enough on all the other intangibles, I think. Grumpy people don't convey anything fun to an audience.

That said, I want my playlist to be unique so that it adds an extra punch. A competent band, having fun, playing well and giving you something nobody else is doing is a winning combination.

There's nothing that annoys me more than working up a song, playing it once, and having it removed from the playlist because "it didn't go over." It probably didn't go over because you never played it before and everyone was a little bit unsure of themselves. That's why I always say to give any new song at least three chances to fail. I very rarely pull something off my list for any reason other than making room for something new.

 

[Jefenator]

Jeff! Good to hear from you. Didn't know you were on talkbass! Jeff is a great player and even better person. We've had the opportunity to work together and sub for each other.

Yes, it's definitely more commercial. I've been having fun learning the set and itll be great once we play together. Being stuck coloring by numbers isn't always the most fulfilling but there's always opportunities to add your own little flair in there. Part of my joy in doing this type of thing is building sounds and sculpting tones for the gig.

Good to see you here!
Yeah, IME even when a part is locked down, one can stay engaged and even find some latitude for expression by zooming in to those finer layers of detail.
Of course, it's always better when the written parts kick a$$ at every level. (As was the case doing some Schumann with the Symphony last winter, and that Lin-Manuel Miranda musical I was lucky enough to help cover for you.)

 

[Marko 1]

(I confess to only reading the first page)

Short of a conversation with them...

I'd note the recorded part, but start out playing it their way.

In short order you'll know what you can get away with.

 

[Snarf]

Play the chart. If you're working for a band that has gone to the trouble of scoring everything out and doing click and backing tracks, there is an expectation of their charts being executed as written. I know this because I'm putting together a production that follows this exact format. If you're doing more than one show, talk to the band/bandleader and ask how much flexibility you have.

 

[basseux]

I see no reason to not play the original part.
I can't see a reason not to, or don't want to hear it.
In fact I would not agree to a gig where the bass is humiliated even more than what it's usually is.
That's my non pro take.

 

[basseux]

bands that play songs perfectly exactly like the recording ver batim but they are such perfectionists that they deliver it with all the anti-joy and spirit of a hospital gurney. They sound amazing! -- but are boring as a million yawns.

Then they don't play it exactly perfectly like the record.

If the musicians recording it where playing it like their life depended on it, then unless matching that energy, it won't be close to the record, which is in fact what you describe is happening.

 

[Bass-ball]

Why would anyone play anything but the original bass part on "Billie Jean?"

I'm just using that as an example, man. A very distinct example. Aren't you OP? I thought you were asking about when it's ok to deviate from 'the record,' and I'm just using Billie Jean's intro as an example of when it's probably not a good idea to deviate and make it your own. If you're not OP (I don't feel like checking), then never mind. Maybe it was a poor example on my part, but apparently I didn't make my point clear (to you).

 

[smittybass33]

Played the gig and figured it was time for an update. The group was fantastic and their producer couldn't have been better. They were all exceptional and professional. When I brought up the part she was surprised that is was not the record and we met in the middle. Played it like the record with the exception of specific accents that called for slaps/pops.

I was the only new person on this gig and got a lot of compliments on playing down the parts and taking specific liberties that were talked about before and some that just happened organically.

Again, this was more of a fun topic of conversation which turned out great! Thanks everyone for coming to chat.