Double Bass The Real Book

[John Goldsby]

"Internalize" is a good word to describe the process of knowing and learning tunes — thanks, Trey.

The protagonists in this thread seem to be arguing in circles.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

But I think PDub's point still stands: I cannot imagine bebop being invented by Diz and Bird with charts in their faces, and to ignore that charts are generally not part of that tradition is a big indicator - at least in the jazz realm.

But as I was saying - if you look at the photos of the sessions for Kind of Blue from 1959 and many others - then playing from charts, clearly was a big part of that "tradition"!

Link Removed

 

[Paul Warburton]

This Thread has gone in to the realm of "One flew over the cuckoo's nest". You got several posters talking about several different subjects. I think it started out with the OP talking about the use of the Real Book and his interest in dumping it and internalizing the music for the gig. What does that have to do with pictures of major players reading music in the studio, Bruce?

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

This Thread has gone in to the realm of "One flew over the cuckoo's nest". You got several posters talking about several different subjects. I think it started out with the OP talking about the use of the Real Book and his interest in dumping it and internalizing the music for the gig. What does that have to do with pictures of major players reading music in the studio, Bruce?

I was simply responding to the assertion made : "that charts are generally not part of that tradition" - by showing that there is a lot of evidence to the contrary!!

 

[damonsmith]

At this point, the real book is part of "the tradition". It is an extremely useful tool for those born after the 1950s.
I think this thread is nice in that it explores the other side of it.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

I think we should use the word INTERNALIZE, not memorize. There is quite a difference. When I've internalized a tune, that does not mean I've memorized a bunch of licks or a set way to play through changes and/or maybe some sub changes. It means I know the tune and can play off of what I'm hearing and feeling while on the stand interacting with other musicians. I know the tune well enough to create something on the spot. It also means that the next time the tune is called at some other time and place, the tune will probably be quite different musically in terms of time, feel and so on and so forth (unless I'm hangin with hacks).

What's the big deal? It seems quite logical that it is always better to actually know something than to not know something! Maybe I'm missing some nuance in this discussion.

Spot on as usual, Trey!

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I think there are many traditions in Jazz and in some scenes it's all about standards - but in others it's all about original tunes with no reference to standards.

Many of the Jazz "greats" were as much composers as they were players and if I look at my Jazz CD collection, it's full of albums where the tunes were all written by the performers, with only the occasional standard. If you look at lists of best Jazz albums ever - then these are full of original tunes by Mingus,Coltrane, Miles, Bill Evans, Brubeck, Monk, Zawinul, Shorter etc. etc.

 

[Chris Symer]

"

The protagonists in this thread seem to be arguing in circles.

What a surprise.

Just to be clear.... the issue I had been responding to is not about just knowing tunes, but the idea that the only way to learn them is by transcribing them, or that using a chart is some how "faking it". Aside from the fact that "faking it" is a term usually used to describe playing a tune without a chart, it just felt to me like too broad of a generalization. Charts are at least useful and at times necessary in some situations. Having to read Autumn Leaves would say a lot about someone's experience level. So would reading a re-harmonized odd meter arrangement of it with tutti interlude and nailing the thing.

As for how you learn all the tunes, we all make our choices. I am no where near so hardline about it as to say I would learn them all by ear. If that is what floats your boat, fine. I have learned most of the music I play from the written page and from playing tunes on the stand. A quick description of the lay out of a standard and it's significant points- "starts on the II, bridge goes to Ab"- can get me through tunes I don't know pretty easily. Then if I am motivated I will learn it from a chart when I am home.

I am confident that as far as tradition goes I am not too far out of bounds with this approach either. I am willing to put it up for debate if it was more likely in 1953 to be able to go home and get on youtube or iTunes and listen to what you wanted and transcribe, stop at a music store and pick up a copy of something and learn the melody, or have somebody you play with teach it to you. Clearly the last two approaches are what people were doing. Most families had few if any records at home either. Transcription is more common now and often said to be the way to learn jazz. It has obvious benefits, but it is by no means the only way to learn this music. Exposure to it, both live and recorded, and as much time as possible actually playing it, in as many situations as possible will quickly get you pointed in the right direction and let you know what you need to work on most at home. For me it has never been knowing melodies or solos in 12 keys that got the phone ringing. Once again that has just been my experience, and things do change, but dogmatic devotion to one way of doing things never worked for me, even though it does work for others. I just get a little riled up when it feels like I am being told that if I have not done this your one true way, then I am somehow not legit and am going to hell.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

or that using a chart is some how "faking it"....

I agree with you - that's what I was responding to as well.
I see a lot of use of charts in Jazz.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

What a surprise.

Just to be clear.... the issue I had been responding to is not about just knowing tunes, but the idea that the only way to learn them is by transcribing them, or that using a chart is some how "faking it". Aside from the fact that "faking it" is a term usually used to describe playing a tune without a chart, it just felt to me like too broad of a generalization. Charts are at least useful and at times necessary in some situations. Having to read Autumn Leaves would say a lot about someone's experience level. So would reading a re-harmonized odd meter arrangement of it with tutti interlude and nailing the thing.

As for how you learn all the tunes, we all make our choices. I am no where near so hardline about it as to say I would learn them all by ear. If that is what floats your boat, fine. I have learned most of the music I play from the written page and from playing tunes on the stand. A quick description of the lay out of a standard and it's significant points- "starts on the II, bridge goes to Ab"- can get me through tunes I don't know pretty easily. Then if I am motivated I will learn it from a chart when I am home.

I am confident that as far as tradition goes I am not too far out of bounds with this approach either. I am willing to put it up for debate if it was more likely in 1953 to be able to go home and get on youtube or iTunes and listen to what you wanted and transcribe, stop at a music store and pick up a copy of something and learn the melody, or have somebody you play with teach it to you. Clearly the last two approaches are what people were doing. Most families had few if any records at home either. Transcription is more common now and often said to be the way to learn jazz. It has obvious benefits, but it is by no means the only way to learn this music. Exposure to it, both live and recorded, and as much time as possible actually playing it, in as many situations as possible will quickly get you pointed in the right direction and let you know what you need to work on most at home. For me it has never been knowing melodies or solos in 12 keys that got the phone ringing. Once again that has just been my experience, and things do change, but dogmatic devotion to one way of doing things never worked for me, even though it does work for others. I just get a little riled up when it feels like I am being told that if I have not done this your one true way, then I am somehow not legit and am going to hell.

This is all absolutely my experience.

A chart is a tool to get you through a rehearsal or gig playing music well when you don't "know" the tune. Flailing around when you aren't familiar with a song is pointless, embarrassing, and accomplishes nothing positive.

I recently did a weekend with a heavy-hitter pianist. He didn't want to send me any music or tell me what we would be playing before the hit. I did spend a couple of weeks listening to some of his recordings to get a sense of the vibe. We played his originals, some other jazz tunes and standards. The craft involved is making something musical happen on the first run though when you're in front of an audience. I had never played with his drummer before, either...and hooking up with his feel on the fly is also part of the challenge. Without charts to his tunes, the evening would have been a no go...

It's good to know tunes well enough that a chart isn't necessary, but it's a practical necessity to use the written page when you are playing new music, or music that's new to you.

 

[Zojo]

What's the big deal? It seems quite logical that it is always better to actually know something than to not know something! Maybe I'm missing some nuance in this discussion.

You aren't missing any nuance; you are using faulty logic in the form of a forced choice. The choice is not between A and B. The choice is between A and B, C, D, E, F....

Just because having a tune memorized is better than not having a tune memorized does not mean memorizing a tune is better than all other choices for what to do with your time. Given limited time, everything you chose to do requires eliminating something else.

A toaster with a little TV built into it is "better" than a basic toaster, but that doesn't mean it is the best use of my money over all.

This isn't to say that memorizing is bad. It is one good thing of many competing things to chose between.

 

[damonsmith]

Ear/Memory + chart are not really choices if your goal is to be an A list jazz bassist. You need all of it. I have chosen not to try to be an A list jazz player, and I understand that not having a bunch of tunes memorized is a big part of what makes me NOT a pro jazz bassist.
If you choose not to get one or the other together, you don't have a lot of hope for high level jazz playing.

So, sure, we all have choices. You can spend your time perfecting lamb tongue salad (I am making some right now!), but you are not going to get very far with even low level jazz playing.

You aren't missing any nuance; you are using faulty logic in the form of a forced choice. The choice is not between A and B. The choice is between A and B, C, D, E, F....

Just because having a tune memorized is better than not having a tune memorized does not mean memorizing a tune is better than all other choices for what to do with your time. Given limited time, everything you chose to do requires eliminating something else.

A toaster with a little TV built into it is "better" than a basic toaster, but that doesn't mean it is the best use of my money over all.

This isn't to say that memorizing is bad. It is one good thing of many competing things to chose between.

 

[Jake deVilliers]

I am somehow not legit and am going to hell.

It goes without saying, Chris, that you're going to hell.

I'll save you a seat by the fire!

 

[Eric Hochberg]

Ear/Memory + chart are not really choices if your goal is to be an A list jazz bassist. You need all of it.

Exactly right.

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Sorry for the long post (yet again)

I think we should use the word INTERNALIZE, not memorize. There is quite a difference. When I've internalized a tune, that does not mean I've memorized a bunch of licks or a set way to play through changes and/or maybe some sub changes. It means I know the tune and can play off of what I'm hearing and feeling while on the stand interacting with other musicians. I know the tune well enough to create something on the spot. It also means that the next time the tune is called at some other time and place, the tune will probably be quite different musically in terms of time, feel and so on and so forth (unless I'm hangin with hacks).

What's the big deal? It seems quite logical that it is always better to actually know something than to not know something! Maybe I'm missing some nuance in this discussion.

This is what I'm mainly getting at. I think ego's get involved very quickly with this subject. The true subtext here is the stipulation that "Hey, you aren't a real musician if you don't have your **** internalized". I was trying to avoid that TBH, but maybe it's inevitable in a thread like this. And yeah, **** goes in a circle because people respond to things at different times.

Anyways, I did a some cursory research yesterday, just poking around Google on the topic of Music and memorization. Apparently with classical piano, it was taboo to play WITHOUT music until the 19th century where a couple pianists (Liszt being one of them) broke the rule. It was seen as being cocky and arrogant to not play without sheet music. Some critics are now questioning it, saying that it's not necessary and that it eliminates those who have memory issues from being able to be received at a high level. That some people as they got older (Glenn Gould possibly) would retire because their memory started to fail them. OTOH, sheet music would allow them to continue performing at a high level regardless if they had it cold or not. I don't see anything wrong with needing sheet music, esp in this situation.

I revived this thread mainly because I saw in myself a massive imbalance leaning towards needing charts. That until I started down the path of internalization, much of what I learned technically was of not much use because I couldn't figure out a way to apply the knowledge in an "effective" manner. Once tunes were internalized, all those doors opened up and some.

And yes, admittedly, I did use some loaded language but I still feel that it's technically true. "faking it" is too strong, but rather to say its "not internalized" would ruffle less feathers. Mea culpa. However, I think it's safe to say that the jazz world is not as in-your-face-cut-throat as it used to be. As Damon points out, if I posed the same sort of questions in 1960, the answers would likely be alot different. I think if you pull up photos from back in the day, you will likely see no charts (esp in live situations) and some during recording sessions (like KoB). Did the KoB band tour and play on the stand with charts in front of them? I don't know and would be interested. I would think the expectation for live perfomances to be that in which charts are not necessary. But it seems like most big band performances, charts are always available and people made a living out of transcribing charts for particular instruments - and probably part of the tradition in that style.

And yes, like it or not, charts are now part of the tradition.

I think we all agree that internalization is not necessary to be effective at making music but it is an desired ability. We need it all, reading skills, ability to play from a chart and knowing what to do when you see Cmi7b5 | F7 | Bbmi7 to also being able to play freely without it. Playing by ear is a skill but asking someone to play your gig and not hand them a chart seems a bit silly. It's obvious the new player is being tested but not giving any hints of anything prior to it seems sadistic for the most part. I could see that happening 20 years ago, but it's seems a little outdated to have that kind of expectation now.

I think John points out that there is sort of a need to split hairs on the scale of internalization, which probably ranges from not memorized at all to completely automatic. And of course everything in between. When I say automatic, the key point is that producing the needed sound is automatic - there is automaticity. The player need not to make an effort to "remember" what the next set of notes of changes are. It just flows out of them without effort. Maybe this is just another word for mastery over a given tune. However, this type of mastery seems to be more of a stance for a minority of voices.

For my own purposes, internalization is a core skill. No where did I say it is should be a mandate for everyone else. Certainly, it's less important if the music you're playing doesn't need to be re-interpreted on the fly. Having said that your'e "faking it" well, I can see how that can be less effective when I'm evangelizing it. Sorry for that.

Still hearing that there is a "master" out there who eschews memorization (even at a basic level) as waste of time... it's really interesting that they took that stance. Why isn't internalization more important? Posing a question doesn't mean that I'm challenging someone but maybe that can't be helped.

I already have a feeling that this goes down a huge rabbit hole to all sorts of reasons (pedagogical, social, and economical).

I'll try not to respond to this thread for a while and watch what anyone has to say.

 

[Treyzer]

I think Eric and Chris both lay out very clearly how actual working musicians (who get called to do lots of jazz gigs) in this day and age, deal with these issues. Damon's Ear/memory + chart riff is also pretty accurate. If you want to play this music, these are skills that are needed.

 

[John Goldsby]

You folks might find this interesting. Barry Kernfeld wrote a book called The Story of Fake Books. That particular book is rather expensive, but here is Invalid Link Removedthat he presented before the book came out which contains just a taste of the info that he expands on in the book.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

That was a very nice article about the value of learning to hear tunes on your website John.

Invalid Link Removed

Scroll down to the second article. But read the first one, too!

 

[pnchad]

I've read a good portion of this and will go back and read the rest. An important subject and an age old conundrum.

What comes first the ear or the chart?

As a practical matter though there are pros & cons.

Of course from an individual 'learning' perspective it would be wonderful to have 150 tunes internalized but there's always another guy (usually pianist) who has totally re harmonized everything into Greek - if you're that guy, bring a chart.

It's one of my complaints about the 'state' of jazz and has been for years. You show up to a gig, no rehearsals/little, if any, discussion and you're expected to sound good. And, while there are many first rate players that can pull it off, there are usually a player or 2 on the bandstand who are a peg down and need to compensate or you have a lousy set.

If you read the biographies of Miles, Monk, Duke, etc, they rehearsed a VERY limited set list for each project, concert, album, etc.

Miles would have the guys rehearse in his basement without him until the rhythm sections were tight and listen on the bldg intercom before joining them.

So, if I had s complaint about the influence of the Real Book or Fake Books in general, it is that (during my 40 yrs of playing) the books gave folks the idea that they could call ANY tune with ANY group of players.

Now, while we all strive to be omnipotent, those we admire didn't expect those capabilities.

The result is a lot of crappy sets. I'd prefer a more polished product. I think it has hurt the stature of jazz in general.

 

[longfinger]

I've read a good portion of this and will go back and read the rest. An important subject and an age old conundrum.

What comes first the ear or the chart?

As a practical matter though there are pros & cons.

Of course from an individual 'learning' perspective it would be wonderful to have 150 tunes internalized but there's always another guy (usually pianist) who has totally re harmonized everything into Greek - if you're that guy, bring a chart.

It's one of my complaints about the 'state' of jazz and has been for years. You show up to a gig, no rehearsals/little, if any, discussion and you're expected to sound good. And, while there are many first rate players that can pull it off, there are usually a player or 2 on the bandstand who are a peg down and need to compensate or you have a lousy set.

If you read the biographies of Miles, Monk, Duke, etc, they rehearsed a VERY limited set list for each project, concert, album, etc.

Miles would have the guys rehearse in his basement without him until the rhythm sections were tight and listen on the bldg intercom before joining them.

So, if I had s complaint about the influence of the Real Book or Fake Books in general, it is that (during my 40 yrs of playing) the books gave folks the idea that they could call ANY tune with ANY group of players.

Now, while we all strive to be omnipotent, those we admire didn't expect those capabilities.

The result is a lot of crappy sets. I'd prefer a more polished product. I think it has hurt the stature of jazz in general.

Thanks for bringing this different perspective into the thread.

Charts of any kind (most useful are our own customized charts) are great for creating "instant bands". The equivalent of a "just add water" cake mix. Get some decent players who can play and read, read the charts down and sound pretty ok. It is not the equivalent of a nice cake made by a dessert chef... capable of commanding a higher sell price, but rather similar to a "just add water cake" at a more affordable price point.

According to elder musicians I've listened to, and according to many posts on TB (bass guitar side), live music gigs pay much less now than they used to pay 50 years ago. The "instant band" recipe is needed to make the 'all styles of music gigs' more profitable per hour. That is how a band can rehearsal 30 songs in 120 minutes, and provides a place to take notes on how this band will play these songs differently from the other band we're also in that performs some of the same songs. Being a real band, takes much more time, and there is often not enough money flowing in, to keep all the members gainfully employed in one band.

What I find odd, is how in this thread the old "Real Book", that old Berklee book, has been bestowed with the mantle of standard music notation charts, or lead sheet charts in general. Original arrangements of standard tunes is not the old Real Book, new compositions in lead sheet format, or instrument charts for small ensemble, is not the "Real Book".

Many of the cons of the fake book have been well stated in this thread, but one pro of a 'lead sheet' not yet stated is that it helps separate the composition from the arrangement/interpretation. For instance, I was commissioned by a friend to put his original pop songs in 'lead sheet / fake book format'. He wanted to give his new band of talented musicians his compositions to interpret, but he did not want them to listen to his old recordings with his other band, as the natural thing for them to do would be to learn and copy the record. He wanted fresh arrangements and performances of his material without long rehearsal times. The lead sheets of his original tunes enabled that to happen almost instantly. "Just add water...."

How does that apply to standards? Well for many people under the age of 50, some of the songbook standards are as unfamiliar to them as their friend's original tunes. But yes, once you know the material, not looking at a chart, removing it from the situation, enables players to reach a higher level of performance, communication or at the least, enjoyment.