-
If I'm in a steady situation, I learn the 50 tunes that the band plays and I don't use charts. Mind you, there may be a book of charts on a stand in front of me, but I prefer to listen to what folks are doing and go with the flow.
If I'm sitting in on a gig where I've been asked to play, but it's not my regular deal, I will look at the charts I'm given...but I still prefer to take my glasses off and listen to what folks are doing.
-
12-19-2019 02:24 PM
-
Some time ago, I played with a pianist who wouldn't use charts. He knew the usual tunes, in his way. Which is to say, that he reharmonized everything. I couldn't figure out what he was doing fast enough -- and he might change the reharm every chorus.
Originally Posted by Greentone
So, I couldn't comp along with any confidence that the next chord I hit wouldn't clash. Soloing over his reharm was also an adventure, because it was unpredictable. None of that seemed to bother the pianist.
Example: Let's say you're playing a ii V I. As the soloist, you decide to play a tritone sub for the V. That can sound great, but only if the pianist plays the V - so that the tension is heard. If the pianist plays the tritone also, then it sounds vanilla and not at all what the soloist intended. If the pianist, say, side slips a half step up or down, it may create tension and it might sound good, but now the soloist is out of control of his own solo -- which may be okay, but maybe not.
Otoh, I also think that, if the musicians know what's going to happen before they play the tune, it's not quite jazz.
But, for the most part, when I play chartless with a pianist, the pianist usually doesn't get too adventurous.
-
iPads and phones have made it a lot easier for people to use charts, and, while I can't say the musicianship isn't there, there have now been several generations since those "standards" were new and popular.
For a paying "society gig", it's entirely reasonable, even professional, to use a chart, rather than make a mess of a tune, especially if you're in the rhythm section. Now if you're a singer, reading the lyrics off a phone is indeed lame.
Jam sessions are another matter. In my area I've only seen a keyboardist discreetly use a phone. Myself, I'm more comfortable practicing or playing solo with a chart, but I would never bring music to a jam. When I play trumpet, I'm more willing to play a tune I'm "fuzzy" on, but I wouldn't call one I didn't have well memorized. On Guitar, especially- if I have to lay down multiple choruses for horn players, I'm not going to fake it.
-
That's in the big band chart. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
I do about 200 paid jazz gigs a year. Most of the cats I play with are full time pros, some are semi-pros. Nobody knows every tune and with technology, any competent musician can have charts on a phone or tablet for those tunes they do not know. Monster chop musicians like Bruce Forman and Howard Alden can learn a tune just by hearing it for a chorus (I have done gigs with both of those cats and have witnessed that), but most of us will need a chart, at least for a pass or two to play a tune we do not know. Bands that need more time in between tunes for all the players to pull up a chart than their average tune lasts probably are not delivering, IMO, a competent performance.
Any musician who needs a chart for A Train is not someone who I would want to perform with. YMMV
-
Yea... depends on gig and music.... I would also say.... I don't really know what's worse, most guitarist are staring at their guitar, like it's alive or they're waiting for it to do something. Really.... Anyway, when I use music... the stand is low, about the same height as seat, no one really even see's or notices. I know at smaller gigs, sometimes I start feelin it, go off, start burnin, lots of energy etc... audiences seem to enjoy it, pull out their phones and take vids.... (the guy's losin it, get it on vid. or maybe it's the beer)
Bigger gigs when your on stages.... if the music is written out, arrangements etc... you need to get it right, most of the time I'm sight reading, then move away from music for solos etc.. I mean what is the point.... are you a show piece or are you suppose to be interacting with band and Audience. Even when your sight reading.... it's not like your starring at the stand all the time. Like Stringswriter mentioned... a chorus and you'll probably have most tunes.
If it's your gig... yea, you generally should have the music together. But again depends on gig. I hate memorized music... and I like to have liberty to read audiences and pull tunes or feels of tunes which reflects etc...
-
I think what we're talking about here is memorization. From an educators perspective, some people are much better at memorizing than others- it's a gift. I happen to be real good at memorizing (I was also very good at standardized testing years ago). It doesn't mean I'm a good musician, just means I'm good at memorizing quickly.
The bassist I worked with for 20 years was an excellent musician. Masters in classical performance from a conservatory, studied with the Big Names, had made a good living playing in symphonies all over the Northeast for quite a few years. He can't memorize for beans. We played mostly the same tunes for 20 years- he finally got Blue Bossa, but that was it. And even Blue Bossa was shaky. I used to give him crap about it, but then realized I would much rather have a bass player who knew exactly where he was, and where he was going, in a tune, than one who had it all memorized. Every day!
Rather than judging a player by his fake books, or lack thereof, we need to honor the few of us left trying to play this music. We desperately need new, young players (not to mention a new, young audience, but that's a different issue), and of course they aren't going to know 500 tunes. Insisting that players not use charts is pure ego power trip, and there is no place for that today, in my opinion. Use whatever you need to make great music- it's going to be different for everyone.
-
Lots of interesting responses. I'm wondering; did anyone use chart before 1960 (not including big bands)?
-
my understanding is that there were fake books but they were in general so bad that pros took them with a big pinch of salt. Originally Posted by dmozell
In big bands it was common not to play with charts during the swing era. Obviously when you are playing 7 or more shows a week it’s much easier to memorise a repertoire of arranged music.
Also the charts were ... simpler. For instance sax sections got really good at harmonising melody lines in 4 way close etc without need for charts. So arrangements could be arrived at in rehearsals without their being a chart per se.
-
I don't know about prior to 1960, but I recall a fair amount from the late 60's. Originally Posted by dmozell
I never saw a wedding band use a chart and those guys could play anything in any key. It looked automatic.
I went to a few jazz gigs. I never saw a chart.
I jammed some back then, and I don't recall anybody reading.
The only printed fakebook I can recall was the one with the images of 3x5 cards, 3 to a page. I had one, but I don't recall ever seeing it when playing with other musicians.
I recall gigs I played on where the leader would have a homemade handwritten book -- and he would read. Also, in a couple of cases, criticize others for not knowing the same tunes he was reading.
Nowadays, I see charts almost every time I hear a group. Even groups that play standards seem to have arrangements for them, which they read.
In the gigs I get called for, there's either a book provided, or it's fake book tunes which I have on my phone. Many players use a tablet, but I haven't done that yet. (I have a windows laptop which folds flat, and I have all the pdf fakebooks, but I don't have software that makes it easy enough to get the page I want -- recommendations would be welcome. Meanwhile IRealPro works for chords.).
-
I forget changes all the time and my brain always has so I like a book. I guess to many it is a crutch but for this fellow I want a book. This means there is not mystery and if something sounds wrong then fix the book or the situation that is present at the gig. Great players it appears have the ears to hear and know the changes in sometimes one go around on a tune. Well guess what.............I am not in that category so I really like a book. The longer I play the more I notice differences in changes in even the most used standards. When I played with a large big band we had a book of course and frankly we played night after night it would not be like I was actually reading it but just checking it out as we go.
My motto is " leave the lights on it is easier to see in the dark."
-
I've a near-eidetic long-term memory, but that's no help at all while playing, because I'm in a different state of mind then - or should be. I mean, if they ask me for the chords to Louie Louie before we start it's fine, but in the thick of it I can be so entranced that I miss changes.
-
I honestly feel if you know a ton of standards the idea of your memory failing is much less of a worry, because you can probably remember how it goes, and by working out a few hundred or maybe a thousand by ear you basically blag it again.
sometimes I have this. I can’t remember a tune intellectually, but when we play it all the chords play themselves.
i suspect this is probably the right way to do a jazz and I want to get deeper into it, because it seems easier. Also I like the idea of not having to learn tunes. Just hearing them once and knowing what the changes are. I feel like I’m 50% there.
and I also think learning tunes is as good a way of doing this as any formal
ear training. Plus it has the benefit of your knowing lots of tunes.
-
02-29-2020, 06:39 PM #39joelf Guest
I'm agin it...
-
Probably true, that if you know a ton of standards, the next ton is easier.
-
Best way I've found to work at that is to have a collection of the tunes I'd like to know ready, and listen through it often enough. I try to have vocal versions of the tune if available.
Also as part of normal everyday practice, I try to figure out a random tune by ear. As anything musical, you get better at it with practice.
-
Plus it's fun to work out a song from ear, especially when you've not heard it in a while. And it gives you glimpses of what the composer must have been thinking when you see how certain chords suggest certain melodic lines that they then either applied or deliberately avoided.
-
Originally Posted by marcwhy
I distinguish between memorizing and internalizing. Originally Posted by JazzDaddyD
Memorizing is learning something by rote, often in chunks. Memorizing is only one chunk away from forgetting, which is one small step away from 'train wreck.' For example, zillions of American junior high schoolers have to memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Almost all of them are fooked if they forget one sentence in the middle.
Internalizing a song means I grasp the melody and chords well enough to play each or both, in the moment, without reference. If I have a song internalized playing it in a different key is just a parlor trick, because I'm not thinking, 'Time for the F-7b5,' I am thinking, 'annnnn-dah.' I could go back and tell you what I just did, but I wasn't thinking about exactly what I would do because I was improvising when the precise moment came to do it. And a lot of people refer to that as "playing jazz."
Sometimes I'm stuck with memorizing. I've been hearing Giant Steps for decades and to play it accurately I often still need to think, "2-5 to B, now tritone away." If I forget something I need to wait to catch up. It sucks.
No disagreement, but I encourage folks on every level to challenge themselves to pick a song and spend the hours, weeks or months to really grasp a tune so well that they are past memorization. It's a door to a wide open space. Originally Posted by JazzDaddyD
A favorite quip on topic: "Work on memorizing later -- the time to play in the moment is right now!"
-
Yes a lot said in this post memorizing is one set away from disaster for me when you put it in those terms. To really hear the melody and get so fluid with it that you just put your finger down on the guitar anywhere and begin the melody playing it without thing and using the ear. The hand is getting trained to follow the ear. I suppose I need to do that with all tunes but I am slow need another 50 years of work to get to that point. Originally Posted by Sam Sherry
In a totally different context I teach Church history and all has to do with dates. I know all the dates of important things and lives of Saints, there year of birth and death, possible dates for biblical passages. I never have sat down to memorize them as such. It is just in context of explaining Church history to folks is just comes out. I don't think about it at all a rarely get lost. If only my guitar play could get to that level.
-
Originally Posted by deacon Mark
I'm convinced that the guy who knows 1000 tunes, knows them by sound. He pre-hears the sound of the tune and his fingers know where to go. I don't think players learn 1000 tunes by thinking about roman numerals and intervals.
It's non-linguistic.
-
I recall trying to learn guitar from my father. We would be playing, and I would ask him what the chords were. He would say "You can't hear where that goes?". Well no, I couldn't. I was young and hadn't been playing for very long. He could just hear the song and play the chords, and I don't think he ever understood why I couldn't. I still can't do it always, but I'm better at it now than I was at 17 or so, just through experience and listening.
-
I play with some guys with big ears. We listen to something and they immediately know what it is. I work on it. Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
I don't know anything close to 1000 tunes (standards + jazz tunes); but, this is definitely true for me. I mostly learned this way by playing along with records and learning tunes by playing along. Anytime there's a harmonic change I'm not sure of after a couple choruses, I stop the recording and figure it out. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
This has improved my ear and ability to learn tunes way more than any other activity. For a while, I also used to listen to jamey aebersold recordings and write out the changes as they went along. Do this a couple times, and it will be very obvious where the "gaps" are in what you can hear and label, and what you can't.
-
Old fake books = bad. Hmm? I have a very old fake book, given to me by a musician from the past. It is a black, 3-ring binder with hundreds, maybe thousands of lead sheets. The stuff is from the 20s-40s. It's actually quite good, with smart changes and all.
I don't use it much because it is well on the road to decay, at this point. However, it is quite a keepsake.
-
There's so many reasons a player might use a chart.
If they're playing well and still engaging, then it's fine. A good player can have a chart and still communicate with the rest of the band and the audience.
Reply With Quote
Couple of entry level arch tops
Today, 01:28 PM in For Sale