Double Bass The Real Book

[ChuckCorbis]

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.

+1

 

[Groove Doctor]

^ It ends up every song starts and finishes roughly the same, always playing the head at the top and tail, and solos go on ad infinitum. I don't care where you studied, ANY player or band can sound repetitive.

The subtext of so many of these threads tends be about making excuses to not work on one thing or another.

Internalising - absolutely.

One thing internalising allows you to do is to REWORK and INTERPRET a tune, not just follow a sheet or copy someone else's recorded version.

I'm the MD in the 5-piece I'm in and its taking a lot of time and effort to make songs sound unique. 40+ different intros and endings, stops, and most importantly.... DYNAMICS. Y'know, making real music.

 

[damonsmith]

Time keeps moving forward and I think we are seeing a lot of that material aging extremely well. In one period say '70's'-90's Real Book tunes were disposable forms for players to put their licks in.
I think A. We don't need disposable forms anymore - it is clearly possible to create forms in the moment in 2013.
B. the Chicago and Brooklyn kids have given us PLENTY of forms that are far more disposable.

The tunes I do know just become richer and more inspiring the longer I play them. I have to agree that that is where the value is at this point. I think there was a period when even on a dinner jazz gig patrons would know what tune you are playing. I think you may as well play some subdued free bop instead of reading a tune the band doesn't know OR really delve into a tune you all know. Either way the music will be more honest.

 

[Phil Smith]

I saw a video of Herbie Hancock with a chart of one of his own compositions on a gig. Not sure what that means, just throwing that out there.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I saw a video of Herbie Hancock with a chart of one of his own compositions on a gig. Not sure what that means, just throwing that out there.

In a career of maybe 40-50 years, you can't remember everything you did!

What I was saying earlier is that in the UK, in a scene where there are a lot of originals and few standards, you see charts at virtually every Jazz gig.

It's not the only way - but when you have no time for rehearsals and are playing with a different group of musicians every night, it probably starts to seem like that.

I do see the benefits of internalising tunes - I had a week at Jazz Summerschool where the tutor was Chris Batchelor - a great trumpet player/composer in bands like Loose Tubes and Brotherhood of Breath.

So we had a week of playing music together every day, but there was not a scrap of written material. Chris would play us tunes (no standards) and we (the band) learned them all by ear during the day and then played them in the nightly Jazz club with no charts - which felt very liberating and I'm sure that I played better as did all the band. We communicated better as we weren't staring at pieces of paper and engaged the audience - horn players moving towards and looking at them, for example

However - that was an exceptional situation of having the wonderful luxury of a week with the same musicians and leader and unlimited time - normally it would be a case of : here are the charts - let's play!

 

[John Goldsby]

Ed: Thanks for the plug

Zojo: Where can I find one of those toasters with a little built-in TV?

Damon: lamb tongue salad . . . mmmmm!

 

[squidtastic]

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.

Right. And there're also those who have their own arrangements of standards which are so different from the standard changes/arrangment, they might as well be originals.

Interesting thread. Huy, I looked you up. I'm also a former Jazz Camper (11 years). There is some world-class talent on the faculty there. I've always found it interesting that the faculty has very little to do with standards yet the students seem to want to play lots of standards (at open mics, anyway).

Your fundamental point that it's better to know than not know a tune by heart is pretty hard to argue against. I'd add that you can certainly get gigs playing just standards, but there's a certain level beyond which you can't really go if that's your main thing. If you're content playing standards, then by all means spend your time memorizing. But a lot of players -- like your teachers -- are where they are because they can read their a$$es off, and they aren't limited to playing casuals.

I think the guys in this thread who essentially said, "There are only so many hours in the day, and the best choice at any given time isn't necessarily to memorize tunes" got it right. To state the obvious: to each his own.

 

[John Goldsby]

To state the obvious: to each his own.

This is a key point: It's pointless to argue that one person shouldn't pursue a particular course of practice because another person finds other skills more important.

A comparison of two scenes:

When I lived in New York, one of my gigs for many years was a steady jazz trio gig: 7 hours a night, 3 nights a week (sax, piano, bass). We almost never used charts—we only used charts on rare occasions when we played originals. I took off regularly to do other "better" gigs, and I had to call subs; players like: Larry Grenadier, Jay Anderson, Peter Washington, Earl May (speaking of lefties), Scott Colley, Todd Coolman, Steve Gilmore, Ron McClure, etc. etc. Lots of players did the gig over the years.

All the subs I called were comfortable playing a 7-hour gig with no charts. We often played different tunes all three nights — that was normal. Maybe that was indicative of the New York scene at that time ('70s - '90s). When I played at Bradley's (or wherever) or when I heard Red Mitchell, George Mraz, Ron Carter, Richard Davis, etc. at those places—no players ever used charts. That doesn't mean that they didn't read, or didn't want to learn new tunes. It just meant that that the "way to do it" was to learn tunes and play them by ear—deep, internalized renditions of standard material.

Now—many years later—since I have a steady job playing with a European radio band, the requirements are often about reading. We start a new project every week or two —with all new arrangements. We often get parts, play through them once, and then immediately record. It's all about reading and making the parts sound completely accurate and natural—so there's no discernible musical difference between written parts and improvised parts.

As Jay wrote: To each his own. Everyone knows what they feel like they want to improve in their playing. Reading is obviously important. Knowing *some* kind of musical material deeply, internally, from memory, by ear, is also extremely important.

Jay: Regarding playing different versions or arrangements of standards, that's also common knowledge and common practice in certain circles. If someone calls "Round Midnight," I'll be listening to see if they use Monk's changes or Miles's changes (On the above-mentioned steady gig, we used to play RM using Herbie's changes from the Round Midnight movie). "When Lights Are Low" Benny Carter's changes, or Miles's changes on the bridge? "Body and Soul" á la Coleman Hawkins, or with Trane's changes? "Rhythm Changes," with which alterations? "But Not For Me" starting on the IMaj chord (Ahmad Jamal), or starting on the II7 chord (Miles)?

If you know standards deeply, from memory, then it's fun and challenging to play different versions of the same song. That's why some songs are such popular standards—because they're so durable as improvisation vehicles.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I saw a video of Herbie Hancock with a chart of one of his own compositions on a gig. Not sure what that means, just throwing that out there.

Phil didn't we do this already? If I'm remembering correctly what was on the piano was NOT a lead sheet but a bunch of chord voicings.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Jay: Regarding playing different versions or arrangements of standards, that's also common knowledge and common practice in certain circles. If someone calls "Round Midnight," I'll be listening to see if they use Monk's changes or Miles's changes (On the above-mentioned steady gig, we used to play RM using Herbie's changes from the Round Midnight movie). "When Lights Are Low" Benny Carter's changes, or Miles's changes on the bridge? "Body and Soul" á la Coleman Hawkins, or with Trane's changes? "Rhythm Changes," with which alterations? "But Not For Me" starting on the IMaj chord (Ahmad Jamal), or starting on the II7 chord (Miles)?

If you know standards deeply, from memory, then it's fun and challenging to play different versions of the same song. That's why some songs are such popular standards—because they're so durable as improvisation vehicles.

And even over and above that, you need to be alive to the moment, which is hard to do with your nose stuck in a book. You keep chugging along with the changes that are on the paper in front of you and don't hear that the soloist is treating this as a single altered dominant chord or is superimposing a progression over the 2nd A that has absolutely nothing to do with the original harmonic structure but instead follows the logic of the line they are playing.

 

[Phil Smith]

Phil didn't we do this already? If I'm remembering correctly what was on the piano was NOT a lead sheet but a bunch of chord voicings.

We have been there before however unless you personally chatted with Herbie about that particular gig it is speculation as to what exactly was on the chart for "Dolphin Dance" and what he was using it for.

 

[gerry grable]

This is a key point: It's pointless to argue that one person shouldn't pursue a particular course of practice because they find other skills more important.

A comparison of two scenes:

When I lived in New York, one of my gigs for many years was a steady jazz trio gig: 7 hours a night, 3 nights a week (sax, piano, bass). We almost never used charts—we only used charts on rare occasions when we played originals. I took off regularly to do other "better" gigs, and I had to call subs; players like: Larry Grenadier, Jay Anderson, Peter Washington, Earl May (speaking of lefties), Scott Colley, Todd Coolman, Steve Gilmore, Ron McClure, etc. etc. Lots of players did the gig over the years.

All the subs I called were comfortable playing a 7-hour gig with no charts. We often played different tunes all three nights — that was normal. Maybe that was indicative of the New York scene at that time ('70s - '90s). When I played at Bradley's (or wherever) or when I heard Red Mitchell, George Mraz, Ron Carter, Richard Davis, etc. at those places—no players ever used charts. That doesn't mean that they didn't read, or didn't want to learn new tunes. It just meant that that the "way to do it" was to learn tunes and play them by ear—deep, internalized renditions of standard material.

Now—many years later—since I have a steady job playing with a European radio band, the requirements are often about reading. We start a new project every week or two —with all new arrangements. We often get parts, play through them once, and then immediately record. It's all about reading and making the parts sound completely accurate and natural—so there's no discernible musical difference between written parts and improvised parts.

As Jay wrote: To each his own. Everyone knows what they feel like they want to improve in their playing. Reading is obviously important. Knowing *some* kind of musical material deeply, internally, from memory, by ear, is also extremely important.

Jay: Regarding playing different versions or arrangements of standards, that's also common knowledge and common practice in certain circles. If someone calls "Round Midnight," I'll be listening to see if they use Monk's changes or Miles's changes (On the above-mentioned steady gig, we used to play RM using Herbie's changes from the Round Midnight movie). "When Lights Are Low" Benny Carter's changes, or Miles's changes on the bridge? "Body and Soul" á la Coleman Hawkins, or with Trane's changes? "Rhythm Changes," with which alterations? "But Not For Me" starting on the IMaj chord (Ahmad Jamal), or starting on the II7 chord (Miles)?

If you know standards deeply, from memory, then it's fun and challenging to play different versions of the same song. That's why some songs are such popular standards—because they're so durable as improvisation vehicles.

+ 1 Right on.

 

[Phil Smith]

I've been to a couple of piano bass duet gigs at the Knikerbocker bar and grill on University Place in NYC and got an opportunity to see and hear Todd Coolman and Peter Washington up close, basically looking over their shoulder. Neither of these bassist used charts but the pianist on the gig did, the late Mulgrew Miller and a woman whose name I don't remember. On a number of tunes both bassist were playing off of the same chart and in some instances had places pointed out to them by the pianist.

I think we can all agree that you need to be able hear and you need to be able to navigate a chart playing something style appropriate if what to play isn't completely notated. The notion that eveyone sounds not as "good" when playing with a chart in front of them or that the presence of the chart acts as some sort or "ear plug" is kind of rediculous.

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Right. And there're also those who have their own arrangements of standards which are so different from the standard changes/arrangment, they might as well be originals.

I enjoy playing reharms and seeing them as a functional way to explore alternative paths to soloing. You can look at a reharm also someone elses perspective on soloing and substutions. To solo using the harmony they provided and ear train in a way that gives the ear an alternate path.

Interesting thread. Huy, I looked you up. I'm also a former Jazz Camper (11 years). There is some world-class talent on the faculty there. I've always found it interesting that the faculty has very little to do with standards yet the students seem to want to play lots of standards (at open mics, anyway).

You should come back. This was my first year and some of the students were really throwing it down. I would say that only about half were standards. Some of the student performances were really really impressive. It's a mixed bag, some are experienced and some aren't.

The faculty also have amazing ears. There were several instances of playing standards in the faculty concerts and after hours sessions. Generally without charts unless there was something complex going on. And many of them have amazing ear playing skills as well. Some are there to be accompanists specifically, they have to do it all since student singers may call tunes that are more obscure. If anything, they're complete musicians and have all pistons firing.

I think the guys in this thread who essentially said, "There are only so many hours in the day, and the best choice at any given time isn't necessarily to memorize tunes" got it right. To state the obvious: to each his own.

Yup, that has always been the case. As with many things, I find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum - that internalization actually speeds up learning. It made things more efficient but would it work for everyone else? Maybe, maybe not. Sitting back and thinking about it, there are a number of things that have been set up since early childhood that maybe makes it advantageous for me to do it this way and not for most people. Most people are not going to start out with 15 years of classical piano with a tendency to play by ear. That this is my process over 30 years or more. Maybe I'm the outlier but this is the correct path for me. The more I do it, the less time it takes. *shrug* And my way of doing it is not as thorough and intense as Ed's/Joe Solomon's - the learning is def shallower.

Of course, I'm not pro either.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

We have been there before however unless you personally chatted with Herbie about that particular gig it is speculation as to what exactly was on the chart for "Dolphin Dance" and what he was using it for.

Well I'll dig it up, again recollection is that the observation was from someone who was backstage or was backstage at another gig on this tour something like that. But, point taken, it's only vague recollection at this point.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

The notion that eveyone sounds not as "good" when playing with a chart in front of them or that the presence of the chart acts as some sort or "ear plug" is kind of rediculous.

As I was saying, I have been to many gigs with top Jazz pros, where they have used charts and what tends to happen is that a horn player will look at the chart to play the head and make sure they have played what the band leader/composer wanted - but after that they won't make any reference to the chart and will be concentrating on the other players and audience, as well as making great music!

Of course - I have had lessons from some of those same players and they all tell me to learn and internalise as many standards as I can!

 

[Dimmik]

I've found that in jazz, you're just using the same riffs over and over again in different ways. Certain walks I've memorized because there's so much stuff i can pull out of them on a moment's notice to use in something else in a different way. Anybody who tells me they don't play in this way is either one of the greatest bassists that has ever taken up the instrument or is a pathetic hack--I'm inclined to guess the latter if i haven't heard of you.

I prefer a basic chart to learn with, then I'll mark it up my own way and ultimately chuck it aside once I know all the changes and have performed every permutation of them that I can think of or that I've heard other bassists do. Nothing in the Real Book was meant to be graven in stone, for god's sake. Time to grow up.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Anybody who tells me they don't play in this way is either one of the greatest bassists that has ever taken up the instrument or is a pathetic hack--I'm inclined to guess the latter if i haven't heard of you.

I don't play that way and I'm neither. You can decide for yourself either here or here. Oh and a little bit here.

 

[ChuckCorbis]

And even over and above that, you need to be alive to the moment, which is hard to do with your nose stuck in a book. You keep chugging along with the changes that are on the paper in front of you and don't hear that the soloist is treating this as a single altered dominant chord or is superimposing a progression over the 2nd A that has absolutely nothing to do with the original harmonic structure but instead follows the logic of the line they are playing.

+10

 

[pnchad]

This has got to be the 'wordiest' thread ever haha

I would add though that, if you're under 50 (not sure where that number comes from but...) and you are just as unfamiliar with standards as someone's new composition, you have a different problem, as a improvisor.

Maybe you DO need a Real Book or at least a 'great American song' book

There was a golden age of song writing and unfortunately it is 60+ yrs old