Well, BG is less flexible than, say, the kind of thing Arthur Blythe or Rahsaan Roland Kirk did, but maybe about as flexible as what you'd hear from a band playing Bix tunes with a classic instrumentation of piano, drums, bass sax, banjo, clarinet, cornet, and trombone.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Double Bass Is this normal now?
- Thread starter Geepers
- Start date
Well, I am NOT a great improvisor, but I"ve been doing it for 45 years now. To me, when I see a set of changes on paper, it allows me to stake what I play down to the design intent of the tune at various points, but the main guidance on what to play is what the rest of the musicians are doing, along with all the various times I've played the tune before, and all the different times I 've heard other people play it. So like in more traditional tunes, I look at it and I can see - OK - here's where it goes to the 6 chord and then around the circle. Or HERE's a 12 bar blues with a quick four and a 2-5-1 last line rather than a 5-4-1 last line. Now, knowing this, I play what sounds "good" and "right" to me. Is that "reading"? I dunno. I mean, if I've played Tune X a couple times, and I look at a chord chart to remind myself where certain events occur - first time through I watch it closely, second time through I glance at it, the rest of the time I don't need to look at it again. Is that "reading" with all the negative press it gets, or is that "by ear" with all its supposed superiority?
Too many people here are too enamored of HARD AND FAST RULES. Oh, and you'd better never wear shorts on stage!
Probably right, and sorry for my contributions to these confusions... Keeping in mind I'm primarily a jazz outsider so my terminology is trying to describe bands I have been watching, and that terminology is pretty civilian.
For the first two bands I follow, the "era" I'm speaking of is pre-WW2, probably even pre-1935, and post WW1 -- Early jazz, old jazz, whatever...
With my (mis-) use of the term "small big band" ("S-B band" in some of my posts) I'm really trying to describe three 5 to 7 piece bands. These include trumpet, trombone, clarinet, tuba and drums for the earliest era "trad" band, and with trumpet, trombone, sax, clarinet, drums, guitar and DB for later era the "New Orleans" style band. The third band, probably post-ww2 era, has reso-guitar (amp'ed), vocals, trumpet, sax, drums and DB (amp'ed).
As mentioned these bands work 4 to 5 days a week at Disneyland and also take outside gigs. These are street bands and tend to do 15 to 30 minute sets 5 to 7 times a day. The "trad" band and the "New Orleans" style band do different songs all day long, while the post-ww2 band seems to repeat often during the day. I've never seen any of these bands with charts, and we've followed these bands for years, although judging by their expertise I'm sure they probably read fluently and could use them if they wanted to.
From all the responses I'm seeing it does seem that you have to be a jazz insider to really get the nuances of the types of jazz, including having an understanding the influences of various milestone artists to those types. At this point I'm not there; mostly I'm looking at jazz historically, roughly by date, as in an evolutionary process. Maybe that's not ever going to be very accurate, but it's where I am now.
Well I don't know anything specific to Disneyland street bands, but the band that does 30 minute sets 7 times a day is playing 210 minutes of music - if average song length (including maybe a bit of patter) is 4 minutes, that's a repertoire of something like 50 tunes. Now the lead player has to have the melody, they've got some standardized "arrangements" - they play the tunes pretty much the same way every time. The rhythm section players need to know the chord changes and any stereotyped bass lines, intros, etc. Quite honestly, for a band that does this 5 days a week, that's not really that much of a burden to do that without charts. I expect when they get a new player they're given a song list - MAYBE a rehearsal - but it'll be up to the new player to learn the tunes and be ready to follow the group in how they play them. Again, for most jazz players at that level, this isn't really all that amazing. It's really not the same thing as when you call up 5 guys for a totally unrehearsed gig and hit them with a set list - in that case, you really need some kind of charts at least for the unfamiliar repertoire, or for things that you want to do differently. I mean, you take 5 professional jazz musicians and say "A Train in C" and they're good. Say "A train, in Eb, and in the middle we're going to insert an interlude with "Long Train Running", "Train Time", and "Joy Spring" in Db, then we'll go back to A train but we'll modulate a minor third every 7 bars till we get back to C on the ONE." and you probably ought to have charts....
As an Irish bassist, this is one hard and fast rule that I always adhere to. It would just be too expensive to buy enough eclipse glasses for every potential member of the audience at every gig.
Also, think of the children
Very interesting thread..... Bottom line, if you want the songs played correctly, no matter whether it is a standard or not, make sure the musicians have lead sheets or charts of the songs and arrangements you want them to play on your gigs. Up to the individual player as to whether they need to look at the music or not to play the song correctly. It drives me crazy when people expect me to play their music the way they want it to be played and they don't have charts for me, no excuse 99% of the time. You want me to play a line or a part? Make sure i have a correct part in the proper key and it is legible and in bass clef. I play the bass, I should be reading a bass part if you want me to double a melody line not a treble clef part etc....
Last edited:
Yeah the world is full of bad charts, unfortunately. Ask me how I know
. I must admit that I'm surprised to hear that it's still a thing at your level, Mr. Bromberg.
Last edited:
As an Irish bassist, this is one hard and fast rule that I always adhere to. It would just be too expensive to buy enough eclipse glasses for every potential member of the audience at every gig.
Also, think of the children
Hahaha, I used to live in Ireland - twice, actually - so I know perfectly well what you mean. Reminds me of this:
As an Irish bassist, this is one hard and fast rule that I always adhere to. It would just be too expensive to buy enough eclipse glasses for every potential member of the audience at every gig.
Also, think of the children
What, you don't have enough leg hair to compensate?
Oh, who am I kidding, the leg hair can never compensate until it turns into a coat of fur to make the other mammals jealous.
I also never wear shorts.
Well, I wear shorts a lot (I live in Texas, I'm fat and hairy), but rarely for musical performance. That said, the absolute rules thrown around here on the internet "Thou SHALT NOT play jazz with paper!" "Thou REALLY SHALT NOT play rock and roll with paper!" "Shorts on stage are an abomination unto the Lord!" and so on, get under my skin. I'm not a great musician, but I've been doing it, for money a lot of the time, for 45 years, and over a range of genres covering classical, rock and roll, country, bluegrass, and jazz; and adaptation and flexibility are keys to success, not rigidly adhering to some rules set down by "sumgai".
this has been a central debate in philosophy for years.
on the one hand we need absolute universal rules to maintain order, but who gets to interpret/create/ enforce them?
one the other hand if rules are just "opinions expressed by some people" and all things are relative won't that lead to an any goes society? or those with the loudest opinions win?
so charts are utilitarian good for the quality of the music, a means to and end from an imperfect initial condition.
And charts represent a deontological bad, of playing music from an imperfect initial condition.
IMHO
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
In any genre of music, the issue is not whether there are music stands/tablets on stage, but whether the band is engaging the audience. I've seen plenty of musicians reading music but still engaging the crowd, and plenty of shoegazets without music stands. Even with big bands, it's possible to involve the audience (although obviously not every musucian, and more subtlely).
Well, to you and to me they look like opinions, but those who promote them here on the internet sure present them as if they're absolute rules.
I'd say charts become a problem when a band leader is calling tunes from a book that the other players have never heard, that's never a good thing. Also, players who call tunes THEY aren't very familiar with and rely on the chart. Personally I prefer playing without charts, but I have no issue with referencing one when needed.
Playing without charts is always preferable in jazz, but if you don't know the song or are insecure about knowing the song, as a band leader I would much rather have the musicians reading charts playing the correct forms and changes vs. them trying to play without charts and jeopardizing the quality of the performance. There is no question in my mind......
Most jazz bands I play with DON'T play the same sets twice. I play with a few. Mostly subbing. Add to that, there are sometimes different versions of the Real Book tunes depending on which volume. Sometimes, we get into some obscure ones I have all the books downloaded on my iPad. Even though the grooves may be similar to each other, sometimes you might morph into one song when you should be in another. It's definitely not like the Sweet Home Alabama/Old Time Rock and Roll Days.
No, it's not what I prefer, but it saves me a lot of goofing up. But there's quite a few songs that are generic, so I'm not always tethered to the crutch.
I would love to be in a dedicated jazz situation where I could bear down on a specific song list and forego the iPad entirely. Not at this time, though.
No, it's not what I prefer, but it saves me a lot of goofing up. But there's quite a few songs that are generic, so I'm not always tethered to the crutch.
I would love to be in a dedicated jazz situation where I could bear down on a specific song list and forego the iPad entirely. Not at this time, though.
Last edited:
Nor in mine. Performances aren't good venues to find out who knows a chart and who doesn't. The hard work takes place in the practice room and during rehearsal(s) (if rehearsal(s) are even available... the bulk of my gigs have either no rehearsals, very brief "talk-throughs," or maybe a brief running of a tricky ending, intro, or passage during a sound check).
Once the performance start, the focus should be on the joy of the music in as comfortable a setting as possible. If that means with charts, so be it.
This discussion has been really helpful for me. I play a variety of musical genres, and while I have played jazz for many years, I didn't start on it as a young musician, and gigs have been rather few and far between. I've given myself a hard time for playing with charts, even though I am not always staring at them. Hearing the views of musicians of much higher caliber (thanks so much, Brian and others!) and with more experience has been helpful, and I hope will result in me not getting down on myself as much. That being said, I also want to work harder on getting off-book as much as possible. I'm sure it would be good for me and will improve my playing.