|
|
Post by ironguts on Jun 28, 2007 10:35:06 GMT 10
Time to really learn the music is so important, and not just the dots, spending time improvising on forms using the material to get inside the concepts is where music becomes more than head solo head, it would be great if there were more time afforded for those to explore this idea much more. As an example, I used to have whole rehearsals with Adam Armstrong and Simon Barker on one tune, we'd learn so much more from exploring one piece for 4 hours than trying to wade through a whole gig worth of stuff. To spend this sort of time is where development really comes.
I wish I saw the gig in question, sounds like a great couple of nights.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 28, 2007 12:20:58 GMT 10
It does seem that there are a lot of gigs (and I mean serious gigs), where guys are reading way too much. In just the last week or so I've been to a couple of gigs where the musicians were having to read too much for them to be able to really play the music. The worst was a band leader who didn't know his own tunes. Whomever that bandleader is, is in good company. I saw the Keith Jarrett Belonging band at the Village Vanguard in 1979 and Keith had his charts spread all over the piano and was looking at them pretty closely in the heads. I don't agree with blanket disapproval of people having charts on stage. Seems a very sanctimonious position to take. If it is pulling them out of their creativity to have to read then the objection is fair enough, but how can you as an observer make that judgement call to know that this is the case? If someone just doesn't like to see guys reading because it makes them squeamish and is "not jazz" that's their problem. it might indicate lack of familiarity with the tunes, but then again it Mike Nock. I keep my charts on the piano too. I get so deeply into stuff when I improvise that if I have to play the head straight after soloing (or even comping) I might well forget the detail of a scored and tightly-arranged head. Yeah I can memorise shit (I've played 90 minute classical recitals entirely from memory) but 15 minutes deep immersion in improv and then I might come up for air and find the relevant neurons inaccessible. And I value not just the improv but well-executed heads. I like the safety net, and feel there's no shame in it. All the guys in my band read onstage (and muller/hirst/firth are a subset of my band) and if you guys are lucky enough to hear it I doubt you'd claim there was a lack of familiarity with the material. Actually I have a tune which is through-composed with no solos. Yeah we look at the chart. Tut tut. |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Jun 28, 2007 12:21:37 GMT 10
Yeah guts. I remember you using that example at a workshop you did in Canberra. It really made sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Jun 28, 2007 12:31:05 GMT 10
Sorry Mark, I should've made myself clearer. I don't have a problem with guys reading difficult stuff, or under some of the circumstances you mentioned. What I'm really talking about guys who clearly aren't familiar with the material - and if they wrote it that is a bit shameful (and I'm talking about relatively simple tunes here). If you're reading a blues head that you wrote, well that's probably not so good. As for the stands on stage thing, personally I think it's better not to have them as a visual thing. They can create a barrier between the audience and the band, especially if you've got 2 or 3 stands up front for horn players. Now some people will say visual things shouldn't detract from a performance, but one of the reasons we go to see live music is just that - to see it. Tim and Brett both had stands, but they were well placed and weren't obtrusive. I saw Tim read a couple of the harder heads, but that was all. I didn't really see Brett read at all.
To be fair Mark, I think you and I are talking about different situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by shaggaz on Jun 28, 2007 13:27:03 GMT 10
Yeah likewise; I wasn't insinuating that people shouldn't have charts on stage either and I apologise if it came across that way. It is obvious when musicians aren't familiar with the material, (regardless of the reason why) and what I don't like to see/hear, or be a part of, for that matter, is a performance of someone's music that they (or I) don't fully understand conceptually.
I think it also has a lot to do with the way people learn, absorb and interpret music. I like to have a stand on stage for many gigs because I'm a strong reader and I learn visually too, often more so than aurally...thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Jun 28, 2007 13:43:05 GMT 10
Fair point.
My biggest beef is with people who are unwilling to rehearse things to an appropriate level - way too many hastily thrown together things kicking around. Obviously there are times when somebody in the band doesn't know the music inside-out, but I would think that regular working bands would (or should) know their own music inside-out. It ties in with the concept of "band" too. Muller's group sounded like a band, VADA sound like a band... but I've seen (and been involved with) heaps of stuff that hasn't been properly rehearsed, or properly thought through.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 28, 2007 14:07:00 GMT 10
That's interesting. I see lack of rehearsal and reading on stage as two entirely different things not necessarily intrinsically linked, though they might coincide at times. I'm with you in objecting strenuously to under-rehearsed bands, I just don't think the fact a band is reading necessarily signals that it is under-rehearsed.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 28, 2007 14:25:02 GMT 10
I think it also has a lot to do with the way people learn, absorb and interpret music. I like to have a stand on stage for many gigs because I'm a strong reader and I learn visually too, often more so than aurally...thoughts? My thought is that you do what it takes to get the music out there. There's always people don't like to see certain things. Some like to see people dressed up but if you feel more comfortable in jeans and T-shirt, you do it. Some people don't like to see charts and stands onstage but if that what it takes well, my heart doesn't bleed for them. I'm a strong reader and I have a love-affair with seeing music written down, and writing it down. There are similar conventions in classical music. While orchestral and chamber musicians are allowed to read, recitalists and concerto soloists are expected to play from memory. When Keith Jarrett was playing concertos with US orchestras in the 80s he raised a lot of eyebrows by not playing from memory and using page-turners (one of whom was yours truly). We talked about him using the music, I maintained that he didn't really need the music. "You know it" I said. His reply was "I don't want to know it" and then he thought for a second and corrected himself "I don't want to know that I know it". Makes perfect sense to me. I like the humbling experience of grounding the elements of a performance that are pre-set in the printed page. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Jun 28, 2007 14:28:19 GMT 10
my oath, some tunes just take for ever to memorize, and even then in the heat of the moment you can fall on your arse. better to have the safety net if you need it. I still need charts for some of my really stupid tunes, my life is too short to memorize them.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 28, 2007 14:36:34 GMT 10
Thanks guts, that's it in a nutshell. Life's too short. Danger of heat of the moment brain-fade. That's why I use charts on stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Jun 28, 2007 15:33:24 GMT 10
That's interesting. I see lack of rehearsal and reading on stage as two entirely different things not necessarily intrinsically linked, though they might coincide at times. I'm with you in objecting strenuously to under-rehearsed bands, I just don't think the fact a band is reading necessarily signals that it is under-rehearsed. I think you're misunderstood my point somewhat. I was linking the idea of a band to rehearsals and clear concepts, not to reading. I never linked rehearsing and reading on stage. |
|
