"People of the Book"

Bones

Yeah Will, I have exactly the same problem. I could/can memorize grilles and chord shapes easily which obviously really helps being a rhythm player. I.e. I can grab a chord anywhere on the fretboard without thinking about it so I'm free to concentrate on the song, not the grip itself (the whole CAGED thing).

But I'm not a natural soloist and that always has been difficult for me. Even though I know the chord structure of a song it's easy to get lost when soloing. I've never taken soloing seriously until recently so I can't really answer the question definitively but I think it boils down to not REALLY 'knowing' the lines and arps well enough. Sounds kind of obvious, but I think it is just a matter of the lines not being second nature so I have to concentrate too much just on the lines and then I forget my place in the form. I think once the arps/etc become second nature then it will be easier to keep ur place in the grille (i.e. what chord is coming up next).

As I'm a novice soloist I'm hesitant to really put out an answer for you but since I have the same issue I'll say that I think it's kind of like walking or any of the other stuff that we do with our body automatically. You can walk around fine while having a conversation with someone and eating an ice cream cone all at the same time. That's because you don't really need to think about walking and eating. Those actions are automatic so you are free to have a conversation at the same time.

I've only really started practicing solo lines the last few years since my arthritis has kicked in and I can't play rhythm for long periods of time anymore so I am forced to play single notes if I want to continue on the instrument. I'm actually enjoying it a lot and it's like starting over again fresh and all kinds of new stuff to learn but as with everything else it takes a LOT of time in the shed to get those arps automatic all over the fretboard. Sorry probably not the proverbial 'silver bullet' but I don't think there is one. Just lots of hours of diligent practice I guess.

Russell Letson

There are a lot of "oughts" going around here, and it might be useful to consider which are practical/pragmatic ("here's the optimal path to competence in X or Y") and which are covertly aesthetically/culturally normative. Again, I've been hearing this conversation for years, and there is inevitably a strain of "real musicians/real jazz musicians don't use charts." I'm not going to argue with Dennis's experience about the quality of playing among chart-using musicians--those are his ears and his judgments. But I will suggest that the distribution of abilities ("talent," if you will) and learning styles and other constraints will dictate the role of charts in one's practice regimen and performance.

There is indeed a divide between ear and eye players in non-classical-music worlds, and I have watched teachers coax schooled players--most often horn and violin students--off the page. And I have observed the range of ease with which these (usually young) musicians make the transition. I have also observed my own progress over the decades (six and counting), and note that the confluence of ear-familiarity (I grew up on standards) and practice (playing a chunk of repertory with some regularity) dictates how often I need to look at a chart to keep my place. As for transposing on the fly--that is a quite specific skill

Bones

Hi Russell, yes for sure I agree there is a whole spectrum of 'talents' and also even just not being able to commit to the amount of time it takes to get to the highest level in this genre. Let's face it, GJ is a virtuoso genre. Even the most 'talented' top players have put in TONS of time in the shed to get to where they are. Those of us amateurs who have day jobs or just life constraints that limit our available practice time can get to a certain level but we aren't going to be able to keep up with the top players (even if we have the inherent 'talent'). No shame in that, one can still become a competent amateur and have a lot of fun, but we still have to put in a reasonable amount of time just to become 'competent'.

But back to the OP, the book thing. I'll rephrase my example in my previous post. Try reading/comprehending a book and have a conversation with your spouse at the same time. Can't do it, right? Plus it would be really rude if your spouse came up to talk about something and you didn't even bother to look up from the book. I'd say gigging/jamming is kind of the same thing. You can't really focus on the conversation if you are REALLY reading the book. I'm sure we are just talking about the grille here and not reading the melody. Worst case, once thru looking at the grille and you should have it (actually just one glance would be better). Even better yet, if the guy next to you knows it just ask him where it goes right before you start or watch him thru the first chorus. If that is hard then maybe we could pick a specific example to try to figure out where people are getting stuck.

And to be specific I think we are talking about a jam here right? Not a gig. On a gig you should not need charts I would think. Pre-planned set list and tunes everyone is familiar with for a gig?

BillDaCostaWilliams

Lango-Django wrote: »

The problem comes when it's my turn to play lead and somehow the arps for those same chords don't just automatically flow through my brain/fingers like I would wish them to...

Interesting point Will – and now I come to think about it I realise it has happened to me from time to time. Maybe the 2 skills (internalising the accompaniment structure vs internalising the structure for improvising) aren’t exactly the same so they need time to be practised separately.

Overall I would aim to play in a jam without a book but I find there is another factor that comes into play as one gets older: memory power. Like Russell I have a repertoire of probably hundreds of songs I learnt in the 1960s that just flow automatically once I get a start. But after about 60 one takes longer to learn tunes, I find, and even once learnt a complex tune/arrangement can often just vanish from memory after a while. So now I’ve passed 70, I admit having a chart to glance at can be a boon.

Russell Letson

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but GJ is no more virtuosic than straight-ahead jazz--try functioning in a context where the iconic players are Charlie Parker (who occupies the Django position for swing-to-bop) or Barney Kessel or Tal Farlow.

BTW (and here I am arguing)--the reading a book/following a chart comparison conflates two neurologically distinct activities. What are all those classical and swing-ensemble players doing with scores in front of them? The relationship between playing and reading is more complex than this real-jazzers-don't-use-charts stuff.

Consider this: How long did it take anyone here to memorize "Cherokee" or "Manha de Carnaval"? And how many of us would be able to adapt on the fly if a leader called such a tune in a non-canonical key? At what degree of complexity or oddity does the need to have a memory-jogger kick in?* Some of the tunes my Monday jazz guys call have those deliberately wonky bop harmonic structures, and as good as my ear is at hearing such structures, some of those I would not catch on to play without a chart.

I do know players who catch such things on the first go-round, but that is both a gift and a long-worked-on skill. And I'm not going to put away my tablet or pocket notebook because I'm not as skilled as the best players I know. (Nor am I going to get called to fill in for a regular on a paying gig. But I'm not going to hire one of them to write my regular book-review column, either--or look down on them because they haven't spent decades writing copy against deadline.)

In any case, I'd prefer to think of this whole thread as a conversation rather than an argument--there are too many sides to the topic for simple pro/anti.

* I was thinking of the trickier tunes that the Monday night guys call--many of which are by Jerome Kern. Here's Stephen Sondheim analyzing "All the Things You Are" on Marian McPartland's "Piano Jazz":

Bones

Sure, bebop, that's another great example. What I'm saying is that being an amateur in a virtuoso genre (and I should have added improvisational) is kind of a tough deal. Really any jazz genre or any genre that takes a very high level to really pull it off. We (me included) just won't get 'there'. That doesn't mean that we can't have fun and do what we can do. And if that means you need a chart go for it. Personally, I don't think it's necessary even for an amateur but it's hard to know where the problem is without a specific example to see where people are getting hung up.

But I don't think Charlie Parker needed a grille in front of him at a gig. And of course classical musicians are not improvising so maybe they need the 'score' since they are playing long pieces that are hard to memorize note for note. I don't follow classical much so I really don't know. Again, if it is a 'jam' that's fine since there is no way to really know what songs are going to be played ahead of time. For an actual sit down audience kind of GJ gig probably the band has rehearsed their set and no charts necessary unless they needed to call in a sub at the last minute who doesn't know some song in their set. As amateurs we probably should not really be playing an actual 'gig' where we have not at least rehearsed the songs ahead of time. At least I wouldn't want to unless it was a VERY casual gig. Even then......

But I think we are getting a little off on a tangent.

Buco

Lango-Django wrote: »

The problem comes when it's my turn to play lead and somehow the arps for those same chords don't just automatically flow through my brain/fingers like I would wish them to.

Take the total amount of hours you spent during your lifetime playing chords vs arpeggios and reverse them. Now let me ask you what do you think your arpeggios are going to sound like?

bopster

Good point, @Buco.

dennis

Buco wrote: »

Take the total amount of hours you spent during your lifetime playing chords vs arpeggios and reverse them. Now let me ask you what do you think your arpeggios are going to sound like?

To be quite honest, I've never really practiced arpeggios that much , but what I personally did was for every melody or phrase that I learned, I tried to see how it related to the chord. On the guitar, if I play a note in a particular position, I would try to see how it related to the chord. That's where I got the bulk of my arpeggio shapes, but I rarely actually sat down and practiced arpeggios up and down. I know I teach that to people, but I also tell them that I never practiced them that way. I think some people have to do that because they never spend time lifting solos by ear and doing what I did (and what many others did/do).

If I have trouble with a particular chord progression, it's not arpeggios that I'm working on but actual melodic lines that voice lead through the chord progression. It overlaps with arpeggios, but it's not limited to just that

Lango-Django

You are absolutely correct, Dennis... when I used the word "arpeggios" what I was really thinking of were melodic lines that overlap with arpeggios...

Take the total amount of hours you spent during your lifetime playing chords vs arpeggios and reverse them. Now let me ask you what do you think your arpeggios are going to sound like?

And Buco, that is really insightful too. Somehow we tend to devalue those skills we've already worked hard to learn and internalize!

I play with a wonderful clarinet/sax player... I'd be thrilled if I had half his imagination and ability in improvisation!... and yet he doesn't really know much about chords, except at some deep instinctual level...

And so its always kind of surprising when he professes admiration for my ability to figure out the chords and write out the grille charts for all the obscure tunes which he wants to play... because this is something he couldn't do in a million years! To me it's like, "Huh? I'm a guitar player, this is just what we do!"

It's a funny old world, innit?