Using Charts vs Memorizing Jazz Standards?

[Stevebol]

Golden. iRealPro on my phone ain't goin' anywhere either

'What's a cell phone?" - Prince

[cosmic gumbo]

This isn't 1949, and there are no nightly jam sessions and endless supply of gigs to memorize a repertoire shared by all your peers. It's almost 70 years later, with 70 years more music, and less chances to perform it.

I spend as much time as I can afford playing and leaning, but, to be able to take advantage of as many playing/performing opportunities as possible, using charts of some kind or other is by far the most productive route for me. It also seems to be accepted practice by most of the musicians I know.

It's kind of stupid to limit yourself nowadays, unless that's what you want. I would never respect some snob that shamed me about reading charts. It doesn't mean I haven't memorized hundreds of songs.

[TOMMO]

I can internalize a tune after one chorus.

Did I mention that I'm a beginner / hack?

[destinytot]

This isn't 1949, and there are no nightly jam sessions and endless supply of gigs to memorize a repertoire shared by all your peers. It's almost 70 years later, with 70 years more music, and less chances to perform it.

I spend as much time as I can afford playing and leaning, but, to be able to take advantage of as many playing/performing opportunities as possible, using charts of some kind or other is by far the most productive route for me. It also seems to be accepted practice by most of the musicians I know.

It's kind of stupid to limit yourself nowadays, unless that's what you want. I would never respect some snob that shamed me about reading charts. It doesn't mean I haven't memorized hundreds of songs.

Perhaps you're right, and perhaps having standards makes one a snob.

But that's not about trying to shame anyone.

And notated arrangements are another matter.

Personally, I just don't believe chord charts containing relatively simple sequences - paper or digital - are at all compatible with dressing to the nines and providing musical entertainment.

Unless they are somehow ornamental - now that's what I call 'stupid'.

[unknownguitarplayer]

I find that playing with/without chart provides a different experience of the same tune, and it can be useful to switch gears. There are lots of tunes that I've internalized to the extent that if you ask me what the changes are, I have to make a very deliberate effort to name them...I just "know" the tune (one of the few benefits of being old). But if someone puts a sheet of the tune in front of me and I have to look at the "actual" changes, I become aware of (or am reminded of) relationships and possibilities that aren't part of the internalized version and my playing goes off in unexpected directions. On the other hand, there are tunes I think I need to look at, but when forced to "just play", turn out OK and can also go in interesting and unexpected directions.

Which is better? In my case, probably neither (sadly). Nevertheless, I try and change things up every now and then and read what I don't need to, and play through what I should read.

[christianm77]

Welllllllll.... I know many pro jazz musicians including ones teaching at conservatories who don’t know many tunes.

People who know lots of tunes are those doing straight ahead gigs ALL the time. Because you can learn a tune in an afternoon, but retaining it long term is a different thing. (Jim Mullen said that and he seems to know all the tunes.)

However those working musicians who do need charts are often those that play more originals projects and so on.

So charts are a necessary evil. I use them myself sometimes- I’m always happy to try a new tune to see if I like it and want to learn it. But I’m also aware that any playing I do from charts will not be my best.

Why? Well you can’t read and listen at the same time. Try it. Try browsing the web while watching a movie. (A modern malaise I suffer from.)

The best way to learn a tune is of course to listen to the changes and melody. I think it sticks better that way, rather than thinking of chord symbols or notes on the page. After all we can all sing along to our favourite songs we listened to when we were 16, right?

Once that kind of a mental image is made of the music, the playing of it is easier then you might imagine.

[Sam b]

Hi Jeff,
I think I get what your charts look like but do you mind sharing one? I think that would be a very helpful way for me to learn tunes better.

[mr. beaumont]

Hi Jeff,
I think I get what your charts look like but do you mind sharing one? I think that would be a very helpful way for me to learn tunes better.

Absolutely.

Have a tune request? I'll draw one up neatly, my usual chicken scratch handwriting is pretty horrible!

[bleakanddivine]

Why? Well you can’t read and listen at the same time. Try it. Try browsing the web while watching a movie. (A modern malaise I suffer from.)

Not the same really as there are 2 entirely different unrelated contents involved. It's more like watching a movie while following subtitles on the screen.
Is there's any reason you can't be hearing the pianist playing an Am7 chord while following that bar on the page?

[Boston Joe]

I think I play better when I don't use a chart, but memorizing tunes is really hard for me. I think my rock and roll youth kind of ruined my brain for that kind of thing, because memorizing a rock tune is like, "OK, play this riff 8 times, then play this one 4 times..." So I never tried to memorize a 32 bar tune with a chord change every bar until I was over 40.

That said, I've had better luck using the "functional method" (i.e., instead of Dm, G7 CMaj, you just think II-V-I in C) than trying to memorize the chords in sequence.

(Weird aside: For some reason, I've had no trouble memorizing "Have You Met Miss Jones". I didn't even try. It just sort of happened. Bridge included.)

[christianm77]

Not the same really as there are 2 entirely different unrelated contents involved. It's more like watching a movie while following subtitles on the screen.
Is there's any reason you can't be hearing the pianist playing an Am7 chord while following that bar on the page?

Yeah, point taken (my example was given by Hal Galper, BTW). But I know that my best playing is always done when I have internalised the tune, and it's so much easier to be interactive.

Having a chart to glance at from time to time is better still. And some people are better readers than others, able to maintain more aural awareness while reading,

In the real world, however, it's not always possible to play off chart, and that's fine. If you only play off chart it wouldn't be possible to achieve certain things.

[Sam b]

Thanks but I don't want you to do any extra work! Even if you have the A section of something lying around. I'd just like to get a visual on what you're doing.

[christianm77]

I think I play better when I don't use a chart, but memorizing tunes is really hard for me. I think my rock and roll youth kind of ruined my brain for that kind of thing, because memorizing a rock tune is like, "OK, play this riff 8 times, then play this one 4 times..." So I never tried to memorize a 32 bar tune with a chord change every bar until I was over 40.

That said, I've had better luck using the "functional method" (i.e., instead of Dm, G7 CMaj, you just think II-V-I in C) than trying to memorize the chords in sequence.

(Weird aside: For some reason, I've had no trouble memorizing "Have You Met Miss Jones". I didn't even try. It just sort of happened. Bridge included.)

Yeah, it's chunks and modules.

The thing that gets missed (often) IMO is the fact that things like turnarounds etc serve the same function, but the flavour of turnaround you get is determined by what the melody is doing. For instance, these are all turanrounds:

I VIm7 IIm7 V7
I VI9 IIm7 V7
I VI7b9 IIm7 V7
I VIm7 II7 V7
I bIIIo7 IIm7 V7

But they fit different melodies.

So, if you learn the melody intuitively and then fit the changes to the melody, it's kind of is easier to remember (perhaps) then remember that the II chord on the second turnaround is a dominant 7th, or whatever.

It took me an embarassingly long time to come to this realisation.

[whiskey02]

I am going to admit something here that I am shamefully embarrassed about. I know that any “seasoned” musician will never take me seriously or respect me as a musician. When I discovered jazz in the late 70’s, I bought the real book outside Berklee and started playing and studied with a good teacher. I played in several groups at the same time, sometimes 2 or 3 in the same week. We always used charts, everyone played with the book open. No one ever mentioned memorizing anything, if you played it well you played it well and that was it. I played witha bunch players, some Berklee students and graduates, one or two who went on to teach at Berklee. Now the bad part. Without knowing it, I had trained my brain to interpret chord changes in my mind via that visual input at the terrible expense of NEEDING that visual, being unable to “think” it to myself. I can look at a chart, play chords, inversions, substitutions and alterations all over the neck, I know what every tone is, how it relates to the root (1,3,5,7,9,11,13) and understand voice leading. I played last year with a bassist/singer - I had never heard 85% of the tunes we played and he gushed every time about how good it sounded. But I can’t play a goddamned thing without looking at a chord chart. I have played Baroque keyboard literature from memory and prefer to do it that way, but I just cannot think to myself F-7 Bb-7 Eb7 Abmaj7 without looking at those symbols. I know what chord is coming next, but I have to have that visual. This is one of the most embarrassing things in my life, especially since I can look back and see that it comes from my own ignorance. This is a very bad thing, if you’re young, don’t let this happen to yourself.

[mr. beaumont]

Thanks but I don't want you to do any extra work! Even if you have the A section of something lying around. I'd just like to get a visual on what you're doing.

Ok, I'll draw something up tomorrow. Prepare to be (un)impressed

[John A.]

If we're talking an actual standards performance with a group that has rehearsed, I wouldn't have a chart because I wouldn't be playing tunes I didn't have memorized. But on a jam, with people calling tunes I don't know? Fakebooks or irealpro are useful. It maybe less double-plus good than doing without, but no sense in making the perfect the enemy of the good. It certainly beats standing there not being able to play at all. All that said, my preference is to play music I have memorized.

John

[pcsanwald]

My anecdotal observation is that when everyone is reading, it doesn't feel as interactive and I find that generally folks are less likely to hear it when someone plays a substitute change if they are reading.

I think generally there used to be way more of a stigma around using charts than there seems to be now, particularly as repertoire has gotten way more diverse (at least on the gigs I play).

[PMB]

My anecdotal observation is that when everyone is reading, it doesn't feel as interactive and I find that generally folks are less likely to hear it when someone plays a substitute change if they are reading.

Also, if all the performers are reading, it's less likely that anyone will play substitute changes. Occasionally, I'll be on a standards gig and find that everyone else is following iReal or a real book and playing a questionable set of chords on some tune (maybe simplified to the point of being incorrect). If it's a casuals gig where no one's paying too much attention, I'll sometimes gently call out an alternative and I usually get a nod or smile in return. As long as you're not bullish about it, most guys will be ok with learning another way through the maze.

[christianm77]

I think the use of repertoire as a shibboleth in jazz is pretty douchey - BUT - for some gigs I would prefer players with a good working knowledge of standards. And I actually think knowledge of rep - be it trad, swing, straightahead, modern or fusion - is often a determining factor of how useful a player is for deps etc.

Players who are conversant with a certain repertoire - esp trad or striaghtahead - are also much quicker to learn new tunes in the same rep.

Of course brilliant sight readers are also very useful.

If I play in a band with the same musicians playing a set repetoire of tunes, I will try and learn those tunes by heart, because I will play them better.

It's funny though, some people (pros) are very slow to do that.

[John A.]

I think the use of repertoire as a shibboleth in jazz is pretty douchey - BUT - for some gigs I would prefer players with a good working knowledge of standards. And I actually think knowledge of rep - be it trad, swing, straightahead, modern or fusion - is often a determining factor of how useful a player is for deps etc.

Players who are conversant with a certain repertoire - esp trad or striaghtahead - are also much quicker to learn new tunes in the same rep.

Of course brilliant sight readers are also very useful.

If I play in a band with the same musicians playing a set repetoire of tunes, I will try and learn those tunes by heart, because I will play them better.

It's funny though, some people (pros) are very slow to do that.

I don't think I've ever had a shibboleth called on a jazz date. Boogaloo or rhumba, sure, but never a shibboleth.

John

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

[Hep To The Jive]

I don't think I've ever had a shibboleth called on a jazz date. Boogaloo or rhumba, sure, but never a shibboleth.

John

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Many people dont have a feel for shebbolethery, but in jazz it dont mean a thing if it aint got that shibboleth IMO.

[christianm77]

Shibboleth is in 11/8

[christianm77]

It's Neely's fault:

[John A.]

Shibboleth is in 11/8

Maybe the Brubeck version, but the original (from the Maurice Schwartz musical "Barley in the Grass") is in 13. Fuckin' Brubeck never could count.

John

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

[mr. beaumont]

Yeah, what would Dave Brubeck know about odd meters?