-
I'm one of those guys that say "transcribe" to beginners but this is probably true. There is groundwork to be done (like understanding theory is really useful) and fake books can help out quite a bit in the beginning.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
01-28-2014 05:46 AM
-
Here is someone who not only does not likely need the Real Book, he could have written it. Stephane Grappelli, my touchstone for 'virtuoso genius' and his musical collaborator, the brilliant Martin Taylor. At 85 years old, Stephane just continued to become a greater musician. Humbling and inspiring.
Jay
-
Jake, I don't want to diminish the point of your argument, which I agree with, but Pat Martino's case in particular is an extraordinary one. I had the great fortune to have seen him before he was stricken by a brain tumor. At that point, I never saw him with a chart. He suffered a tumor which after its removal, left him with some areas that were literally missing from his performance ability. Times I'd seen him after his recovery, he needed to have a chart even to negotiate his own tunes. His soloing was still brilliant, but the chart was a crutch he needed, and I'd wager, he would have given anything to be free of. Originally Posted by JakeAcci
For Pat Martino anyway, I wouldn't look at his case as the best advocacy for using a chart, as I wouldn't look as a wheelchair as the way to mathematical genius because Stephen Hawking suffered ALS's devastation.
David
-
As a BEGINNER to this jazz ish, I use the Real Book as a means to help remember the structure of tunes. For example, Blue Bossa for instance, the melody is so easy to transcribe its silly, BUT what about the chords? Once I have the basic structure of the tune memorized, its easier for me to listen to a version of the tune and adapt accordingly. The Real Book is a great tool for learning songs as it provides you with the core foundation of the tune. Its not perfect at all, but that's the point. The RB is more or less a song primer.
-
Interesting thread! Ok, let me share an interesting experience. I never use books to learn tunes. I never have. I just listen to a version that I like and try to figure out the changes. Over a few decades, this has gotten much easier. Now, when I play a gig I always schlepp that damn book. I know the tunes but I've always felt I need it "just in case I forget". Well last weekend I had a gig, all standard stuff really, but I was lazy and didn't feel like looking for charts, or carrying the book around. I whipped out irealB on my iPhone and set it up on a music stand. I know, it looks ridiculous. Now my eyes aren't what they used to be, so it was annoying to have to strain to read the charts. Near the end of the gig, I realized that I hardly once looked at it. Instead I focused on the interaction with the others. Some of them head down in a real book, and some of them totally loose and relaxed watching the others. I then realized that I always play like that. Ie that dumb book is in front of me but I'm never really looking at it. At best, it is just an obstruction of my view to the other players.
My advice to people who want to learn a lot of tunes:
Learn how to harmonize the major scale with three note chords in all twelve keys. Get this down cold. Play it in arpeggios etc. Then listen to any version of the tune you like and figure it out using only those thee note chords. You will see, that after a while many patterns repeat themselves and you no longer have to memorize chord changes. All you have to do is memorize how the tune sounds in your head. You will also eliminate the problem of remembering chords for a tune in particular keys.
Edit: I should mention that it's very useful to memorize all three inversions of all of those three note chords for this to work.Last edited by AlainJazz; 01-28-2014 at 07:09 AM.
-
I haven't found that memorizing tunes takes that much more time than playing from a chart. (More concentration maybe but not a great deal more time.) It just means moving away from the chart as soon as you can. And yes, it shouldn't be about memorizing a chain of chords but rather the relationship between the chords and song sections (i.e. modulates up a fourth here, then down a half step, etc.) Upkeep just involves playing the tune until it becomes ingrained. Almost all my practicing is in the context of playing tunes - whether it's comping or reinforcing a particular arpeggio fingering or whatever - so it's not like it's taking time away from tasks. But as Cosmic Gumbo pointed out, we wouldn't need specialized upkeep if we were all playing gigs several times a week.
-
Cosmic - I usually have a couple gigs a week. One is a long solo gig. I know probably 100 tunes, and have really solid arrangements of 50. There's no way I can play all 50 of those tunes over two gigs, so I might go a week or even two without performing one of my arrangements.
I've found that I have to hit the ones I haven't played every 3 or 4 days or I start making lots of mistakes. I bet this wouldn't be a problem if I were gigging every night, but I'm not there, yet. Even then, there will be tunes that I prioritize, and ones that I don't.
I'd be really interested to hear perspective on this from folks who are touring musicians (or just constant giggers).
-
Oh right, hah! Forgot about that 'minor' detail - thank you for the clarification. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
-
This is so crucial, and I don't like to be negative, but I feel like it should practically be a banner on the front page of this forum - we (myself) included can get wrapped up in all these things we think we're supposed to do, but time gigging with good players usually reveals all. Not only does it expose where we actually need to work (most of the time: time, time, time) but the experience alone makes us better at the activity we are doing - performing jazz with other musicians, for a live audience. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
It's a cruel reality, that is, unless if we are willing to accept a more expansive and liberal use of the word "jazz."
-
I'll play devil's advocate here. I used to gig very regularly. Not as regularly as a "real" pro, but I'd say far more than the average amateur. I'd take any gig, and play with anyone that was willing to play some jazz. I'd go to every jam session I could find. I did this for many years and have loads of gigging experience. Then one day, I realized that I've been gigging for years, and for years my playing has stagnated. Sure, I can play most of the gig standards without thinking, and I consider myself very relaxed in a gig situation but my playing was not improving at all. It was just boring me. So about 3 years ago, I decide to dedicate more time to "couch practice". Yes, the kind that all the pros make fun of. i.e. Sit on the couch and practice by myself. I stopped taking just any gig and only take the ones that I really want to do. I can afford that luxury at this point in my life. I started taking lessons from a real master. And I can tell you that in my case, and I'm only speaking for myself, less gigging time and more focused practiced has led to dramatic improvements in my playing. So, all you guys that say that all you have to do is gig often to become better, I disagree. That's not enough. Bring on the flames :-)
-
I agree with you Alain. I think more gigging does lead to knowing more tunes, but not necessarily improving the things that require dedicated practice.
-
Gig to get better...at gigging.
You gotta be damn good before gigging ' s all the practice you need...and I bet if you ask those really great players, the ones touring constantly...well, they might tell you they wish they had time to practice...
-
Alain, at least reflecting my views, if you look at what I wrote I never said that you only need to gig to get better at playing jazz. I said (and I think CG was saying too) that gigging illustrates what needs to be worked on.
-
The thing that bugs me about the article is that it has an elitist tone, dividing people into two groups, one of which is superior. It's the beauty magazine approach.
I know guys who have played professionally their entire lives. They have the RB in front of them, and look at it occasionally. They really aren't concerned about what some snooty blogger has to say about it.
Now, let's discuss that unsightly cellulite of yours. I mean, this is a serious problem.
-
You're right. I totally agree with that statement. Originally Posted by JakeAcci
-
huh? you agree? I thought this was the internet, aren't we supposed to bicker uselessly about word selection for three pages? Originally Posted by AlainJazz
-
Anyway, if you are looking at a Real Book, you are an old fogey. The kids these days are all squinting at IRealB on their phones.
-
I think the best advice on this subject (and sadly, a whole lot of others) comes from the nonexistent, yet immortal George Costanza;
Hearing and seeing are different, and each stimulates different responses.
If you need a fake book to play, close it and learn how to do without.
If you have internalized the tune and never look at the book, open it once in a while. You may notice relationships that are different than the ones you've internalized.
Rinse and repeat.
In the meantime, I'm off to have a chicken salad sandwich...on rye...UNTOASTED!!
-
If you're staring at the pages of a book, chances are you're not paying attention to the group interaction.
The worst thing is a mechanical comp. Some guy staring at the changes, over-comping because he doesn't listen to your playing.
Some players become really good at reading changes and being able to comp well at the same time, while others never do.
I try to memorize the changes of every tune I want in my repertoire. Sometimes I try a new tune to see if I like it, in which case I'll read the changes. If I like it, I'll memorize the changes.
If you know the tune really well, you can free your mind to connect to the music better. There are already so many distractions on the bandstand. Jazz police in the audience, people talking loudly when you play, the last thing you need is another distraction.
IMO.
-
Some folks just can't play with a chart in front of them. I find that it's pretty much none of my business that, for whatever reason they have a poor memory and never developed their ears.
Long ago I worked with a guy (cordovox player to let you know just how long ago it was) who had been playing the same 4 song medley as an opener for over 25 years. He couldn't play it without charts. He was stiff with his time, but he worked regularly and made a great deal of his living playing music.
Who is anyone to judge how he did it? The fact is....he did.
Did using a Real Book ruin his ears or did he never have ears to begin with? I play with people who have great ears but can't transpose on the fly. We all have our weaknesses.Last edited by Flyin' Brian; 01-28-2014 at 05:22 PM.
-
Poor Dave Holland, you'd think he could afford to rehearse his band enough to play without charts, or hire guys that could memorize them...Chris Potter, what a hack..
-
Without adding another 46 replies (really?) when you are learning a tune off the record vice real book are you writing the changes/melody down (ie creating your own book) or just learn, play, repeat, and hope you don't forget?
I am starting my New Years resolution by focusing on learning tunes more.
-
heck, i think electronic tuners are bad for the ears
-
Sure pros play with charts sometimes...but doesn't say diddly about whether having a Real Book-focused approach is bad for your playing.
-
I just saw some "pros" last week at a Sunday gig. These guys are all university professors. They had their noses in their real books the whole time looking up occasionally when not sure who had the next solo. It was the most boring music I've heard in several years. They were all decent players and they sounded like a bunch of guys who coincidentally were standing on the same stage playing the same tune at the same time. Zero energy and boring to look at to boot. Get rid of the books. They are evil I tell you.
Reply With Quote
Denny Diaz (Steely Dan) interview with Rick Beato
Today, 03:11 PM in The Players