I guess this is general question about sight-reading and putting your interpretation on gigs where you are sight reading notes.

In general I general do play the solo section by playing note by note, and I might 'cheat' by playing LH, RH in octaves instead of what is written (Most of time, you are playing the horn line on RH and bass line on LH) But sometimes it seems a little futile because in most cases you can't really hear the piano when the horns are playing the same things.

I do make sure that I play the hits, and learn the music note by not, if it specifically ask you to, and if it's important part (and no one else is playing the notes except me). As far as I know I have not had any complaints about my playing, and I am doing other rhythm section duties with no problems.

My question is as a rhythm section player, how much do you take the notes literally, and how much do you put your own interpretation in? I tend to think "I'll interpret as much as I can get away with", especially if I have to learn a lot of music in a short time.

When I used to do big band gigs my main concern was getting the extensions right (after the rhythm, etc of course). Nothing is worse than the horn section playing a 13 and you playing a #5. That being said, I also found big band charts the hardest to read BECAUSE they had so many specific extensions. I suppose one could just go back to the 3rds and 7ths if things got too specific too fast. In any case, I've never had anyone complain about my comping, except for when the rhythm section also contained a guitar player and we didn't play in the same groove.

scepticalforumguy

I guess I am kind of the opposite. I have no problem playing the extension on most chords, but it will slow me down if I have to read actual notes instead.

For me I think the main job of the piano player is being a rhythm section... you are the engine that drives the big band. Being able to play the soli seems like something that "would be nice if you can do that too".

For example there is a piano part I have to play at the beginning of "birdland". I definitely need to play the RH part as written because it's the only thing supporting the singer, but the LH part doesn't seem too important, since the bass player is playing it anyways.

I've read people like Taylor Eigsti and Kenny Werner do take a lot of liberty on written music, even when they are playing classical music...

I reckon it entirely depends on the chart.
Ideally the chart should give you just the information you require and nothing else, but never have I ever seen a big band chart that is like that. Usually either they have sample bass lines and sample solos written in or hundreds of absurd chord extensions that change on every beat often written out in notes and quite often with no symbols. Usually the chart stretches across 7 pages when 2 would easily provide every bit of required information. I guess usually these charts are designed for students who maybe don't improvise or just compiled by a copyist who doesn't understand what you really need to know, but the first step is to deciper the rubbish that is there and put some lines through the stuff you can ignore and then rewrite the chord symbols so they are understandable and playable.
In the average big band there is not much scope to be individual except in the solo sections, but of course that doesn't apply to really good bands. If the chart is good then there is more chance of playing something half decent.

Actually I was slow on both! I'm probably much better these days, but I'd also avoid doing big band gigs in any case because of the limited role of the pianist.

I'm not sure the piano player is the engine as much as they are the windshield, or maybe the turn signals. I'd say the engine is the bass and drums.

I guess when you say RH and LH you mean in the grand staff? Or are you talking about the chord symbols? If they are written out chords, that can be a pain, as beeboss mentions. Too much information at times...

I'm sorry if this is common knowledge and I come across as overly pedantic, but I have a lot of experience with big bands (38 years, since my first "jazz lab band" in jr high):

These days, virtually all big band charts from major publishers are graded. Grades 1 & 2 are beginner charts, suitable for an elementary to middle school band. Grade 3 is sort of like advanced beginner to intermediate, Grade 4 is advanced intermediate, sort of, and Grades 5 and 6 are advanced and pro level. Many arrangers write for the gamut, for example Sammy Nestico writes beginner charts, intermediate charts that a high schooler can play, and pro level charts. His well-known Basie work is mostly grades 4 through 6.

From private arrangers, and other small places, charts aren't always graded, but you can almost always get a sense of what level it is, perhaps by asking the composer/arranger. At an IAJE Convention, I had a conversation with a guy named Rick Stitzel where he asked me what kinds of charts I was shopping for. I said "grades 3 to 4, sometimes can play a 5" and he picked a few for me to look at. I asked him about one with rudimentary soloing, for beginners, and he pointed out another.

The reason why I say this is that it is rare to have a Grade 3 chart or lower that doesn't have the piano part fully notated (same thing with bass and drums). Solos may even be notated. Grades 4 and up, you get mostly chord symbols, but there are exceptions, of course. A piano part, for example, may have a particular section written out because the composer wants you to play exactly what he's written.

Any particular band you play in might have charts from all sorts of grades. I joined one band, which was kind of weak, and when they were struggling with the Grade 4 charts they had, I started to bring in some easier ones. Another band I played in could get a Grade 5 chart going, but only after lots of rehearsal.

If you check out a good online music store (such as www.marinamusic.com) you can see in the description of their charts how they are graded. Sometimes you'll see descriptions that say fully-notated rhythm section parts and that kind of thing.

Guy

One other thing I'd add about Basie -- Neal Hefti wrote a chart, "Little Darlin'" which is probably graded a 3. But I consider it one of his hardest charts, especially to play it as well as Basie's band did. Thad Jones had a similar chart for "A Child Is Born." Graded a 3, but it is actually fairly difficult to get it to sound well.

scepticalforumguy,

yea I meant the grand staff. The chart for "Birdland" looks pretty much like a classical score, with every chord written out. I had to figure where I needed to play as written and where I can just do my own thing. Some of the bass line/bass clef notes are very synchopated.. I did learn most of it, but even if i didn't it shouldn't be such a big deal since the bass player is playing them already.

The director did throw one curve ball at me though.. There is a very synchopated 8 bar intro at the beginning of "Moten Swing" and he asked me to play it by myself w/o the rhythm section. I wasn't able to do it on my first rehearsal because I felt very intimidated about setting the time for everyone else to follow.. but I liked the challenge and I've been working on it ever since.

I later found out that in most recordings, the rhythm section was playing behind the pianist, so I either the director was messing with me for fun or he just wanted to give me a challenge

Beeboss

Yea, There is definitely too much information on charts, and having 8 pages instead of 3 really makes it harder for me to follow the chart sometimes. I like Tom Kubis or Bob Minzer Charts, because it will tell you when they want you to do something other than comping.

There are times where the chart will give you a sample chord changes I don't usually play them, but if I hear the entire horn section doing the same rhythm then I will play the rhythm with my own chords. I guess that's where it's most frustrating. A good chart will just have the chord changes with the hits/rhythm on it.

Guy

Thanks for the info, I checked the charts and yea, they are mostly grade 3 or below. The problem with written out chords is that they don't tell you which hits you should be hitting with everyone else, and I usually have to listen to the horns to make that decision.

I avoid big band gigs, they pay what? $50 if you are lucky? I find big band piano playing both boring (very background) and tedious reading those cryptic charts, and loud.

If I did one nowdays I would not play any horn section unison parts because it's pointless because it won't be heard. I just comp in the spots where it's open enough to be heard and follow the rhythm/note cues in the spots where the piano can actually be heard. The arrangers don't often write hip parts so I look at them as suggested parts and voice my own usually.

Somtimes the arranger will write out parts for a rhythm section if he thinks the player is not strong enough to play what he wants. Other times he writes the parts for a specific sound. If you start to play your own stuff in the latter case that would not be right, and the arranger would not be happy. So it's a judement call on your part.

Jazz+

Yea, well this gig actually pays okay, and I am networking with new people. But yea in general big band rehearsals can be rather boring, because most of the time the conductor is fixing problems in the horn section.

etc. -- I know that Moten Swing chart! It is a tricky intro, but it fits well with the nature of the arrangement. Played it in one band where the pianist had an awful sense of time (this guy couldn't clap on beats 2 and 4 if his life depended on it!), and he'd blow that intro virtually every time. I don't think practicing helped him, because his sense of time was so bad. But that chart is fairly close to the Ernie Wilkins arrangement that the Basie band played.

Another common problem on that chart, regardless of the arranger: all horns play it too loud. It is a fantastic and effective chart, if you play it softly enough, until you hit the shout chorus.

The band I'm in now has quite a few Kubis charts, and all of them are great. I'm not so much a fan of Mintzer charts, though. But those are all grade 5 and grade 6 pro-level charts. A kick-butt HS or college band could play them; they're very challenging.

If you want some great piano parts, try looking for arrangers that are pianists. Bob Florence comes to mind, and my band has a bunch of them. Fantastic charts, and great piano parts. He also has long stretches where the piano lays out, because it isn't always needed in full ensemble playing.

I know this is common knowledge, but big band playing is all about the ensemble. Not everybody gets this, but every big band player needs big ears, so to speak. Sure there are solo sections, but even those are small ensembles. Legend has it that when he got a new chart, Buddy Rich would listen to the rest of the band play it first, and then on second run-through, he'd play his part and then play it exactly the same way every time after that.

Horace Silver wrote an interesting book called "The Art of Small Jazz Combo Playing, Composing and Arranging." In it, he makes the argument you have to practice group intonation, group articulation, group dynamics. To me, that's all the more important with a larger ensemble. You have to practice ensemble playing. It doesn't always happen automatically.

Guy

Guy

yea, I was really intimidated at first but it doesn't seem so bad. One thing about time is that you really have to put faith in yourself and commit, even if you are wrong ...and accept that it's okay to be wrong... at least if you really meant it you know where the problem is, instead of tiptoeing through it and not being sure whether you played in time or not.

I agree big band is about listening, buut it's hard to find people in the band who is actually listening. A lot of trumpet players are egomaniacs and they think their job is to hit the high notes as loud as they can. I am also struggling because the bass player and drummer they are not really locking in, and the guitarist is a little ahead of the beat doing the Freddie Green thing. I wish I had a way to make them groove, because without the groove the music is kind of dead.

Ooooh -- you certainly hit some of my sore spots (especially the trumpets and R/S locking in). Signs of an amateurish band. Happens all the time.

Okay, another anecdote. My oldest son plays in a middle school jazz ensemble, and I've chaperoned some of their "festival" appearances. This is a date where they show up an another auditorium and play for a couple of judges, who score them on a sheet. One of the nice features of this particular festival is that one of the judges comes up afterwards and works with the group for 10 minutes or so. Those of us in the audience (parents; other bands, etc) get to see and hear all of this.

Last year, their middle school jazz band won a gold medal, and the judge worked with them on clarity of articulation and putting some "pow" into their lines when they needed it. Marked improvement in less than 10 minutes.

This year, they didn't do so well (all in all, a different group of kids, though). They scored a silver medal. As they were playing I kept thinking about how the bass player and the drummer weren't locked in. They weren't even looking at each other (hint: the bass player should have a clear and unobstructed view of the drummer's right arm). There were other issues too, though, but that's the first thing that popped out to me.

Sure enough, when the judge comes up, the first thing he does is say to the bass player and drummer, "hey, you two can't even see each other -- you need to watch each other!" and then he worked, for 10 minutes, on getting them to lock up.

So, that's the secret. In some of the amateurish bands I've played in, rhythm section uncertainty almost always comes from the lack of sync with the bassist and the ride cymbal. The bass players "owns" the rhythm. Actually, everyone in the band is responsible for rhythm, and sometimes drummers get really pissed off when you tell them that rhythmically-speaking, they are not the most important player in the band :-).

So, in my opinion, everyone is responsible for rhythm, but the bass player is the gatekeeper/chief/poobah/etc. and it is up to the drummer to get that ride cymbal in sync.

About egomaniac trumpeters...you need to hear an audio clip called "Why there is no Trumpet Christmas." It is a takeoff on something called Tuba Christmas, where players of euphonium family instruments get together and play Christmas Carols. So the Trumpet Christmas takeoff starts off majestically (and loud) and then all of a sudden you have dozens of different trumpeters trying to out-screech each other.

Luckily, I haven't played with a band like that for a very long time. And in the last amateurish band I played in, there were two things I hammered on the trumpet section about (and pissed them off). One was playing in tune. I feel if you don't know how to play in tune, then you have to start. Now. Not later. The other was the amateurish screeching. Like I really care about how big your b*lls are. It is distasteful.

(I should point out here that I don't play piano in these bands, I play trombone -- and I led one band myself for about 14 years)

Guy

Sorry, another anecdote that fits :-)

So this last amateurish band -- we played a gig, and there was a new lead trumpeter playing with us. I hadn't rehearsed with him much, so I didn't really know him at all. He was the kind of trumpet nerd that is always talking about his trumpets, mouthpieces, etc. What I call and Equipment Hound.

So in our first set on a gig, he's showing us all the size of himself, so to speak, with all that end of tune screeching. But he's missing a lot of it. It was really bad. And then in the second set, he ran out of gas. He had nothing left. He couldn't even play his regular lead part, and he punted. Most of the second (and last) set, he didn't play. So much for the size of his equipment :-).

After I left the band (not long after that gig), I heard he switched over to trombone.

I remember one of my bass teacher telling his students "as a bass player you have to marry the drummer's ride cymbal. I think there is a lot of truth in that. The first thing the drummer and bassist should do on their first gig together is to lock into each other, and whether they do or not tells me a lot about their playing already.

When the lock happens it's going to be very apparent in the groove, the music will feel good without even trying. To me that alone can really make or break a gig.

100% agreed.

Although my experience as a piano/keyboard player with big bands is minimal, I have done a few sessions and got handed a whole book of piano charts in various styles, levels of difficulty, and voicings written out note for note. I think the most important thing I discovered from playing through some of these was to play the rhythmic hits on the right beats rather than get every note of a specific voicing with both hands and mainly get the tritones on dom 7th down and guide tones correct for minor voicings.

Many time an acoustic piano in a big band will be totally drowned out from the power of the brass and it might be better to have a digital piano with a stereo sound system to be heard.

Of all the big bands I have seen and heard that had a guitar player, I have yet to ever hear a note or chord played by one in a big band. Unless the big band is backing up a famous guitar player like a Wes Montgomery arrangement, I'm wondering if having a guitar and piano/keyboard in a big band is totally necessary. Both instruments are basic comping parts to get the groove happening in the rhythm section.

So, big band playing for piano players, the importance factor, I would just make sure the rhythm is in the pocket. But a decent piano player can get by with faking some of the parts to a point and make it fun to play with a big band.

katt

I don't care that much big bands and I've played on or subbed with some of the best...Bob Florence, Doc Severson, Louie Bellson, Kim Richmond and many rehearsal type bands made up of these same players. Also many casual, function, award oriented type of gigs with again the same roster of players that regularly show up in this scene.

It definitely sharpens your reading skills but that's about it for me. Like Jazz + mentioned, it's too loud ( half the time you can't hear yourself ) and the piano does not play a very prominent voice in that style. Although I do like the Tom Kubis and Bob Mintzer charts...they seem to leave more open , natural space for blowing and letting the rhythm section stretch a bit. I usually like their blowing changes too.

I think the key instruments are--Lead Trumpet, Drums, Bass & Lead Alto. The level of the whole section chairs here in LA is staggering. Third Trumpet could probably play Lead, etc. The Bone and wood wind players are some of the best in the biz.

A big part of the LA "Jazz Scene" have traditionally been the big bands..not that there are a ton of gigs around for them but a lot of the horn players that do them seem to be the most popular small group leaders as well. Also it harkens back to the days of the TV late night shows when BBs were a regular thing like Carson, Merv Griffen, Mike Douglas, Cavett, etc.

I also think with Big bands there as always been a tie in with the studio scene here. Top notch readers and world class musicians that read and play anything on sight..still even with all that I don't feel musically or artistically connected to that whole scene.

I've turned down requests so much the last few years to do the "rehearsal band" scene that I think the word is out, so I don't get many calls anymore for that. If it's a decent paying gig I'm not going to turn it down of course but I'm generally more happy sitting in my studio playing the D and working on a Bach Prelude and Fugue from the WTC.

Katt -- there's an old saying that went something like this, "say, ever heard Freddie Green play?" "No, but I can feel him." Freddie was with Basie's band for at least 50 years, and I don't think he ever solo'd. On the other hand, from what I understand, if he ever missed a gig, you knew it. The "All-American Rhythm Section" just didn't feel the same. Then again, Basie himself was a very sparse player, and left room for a rhythm guitarist.

Granted, Freddie was a special case. Particular style and sound, for a particularly great band.

Dave -- interesting notes about the LA scene. I've never lived out there, but on my one trip to Anaheim, I managed to catch Louie Bellson's band, which I think had the same studio cats as everyone else. Nice solid band.

Bill Watrous made a funny comment once, about young cats taking over the LA studio scene. He said that they can really play and it really keeps him on his toes.

Dave Ferris,

I am not that big fan of big bands either to be honest. Yea I am familiar with the LA band scene, my first teach in college was Tom Kubis and I learned a lot about the scene from him. The thing about the Studio/Big Band scene is that it's a really hard scene to get into. You have people like Tom Rainier, Jack Reidling who are equally competent as a jazz and concert pianist, and people like Dan Higgins can sight-read an entire musical with no mistakes.. these people are freakishly talented.

But at the same time, I am not really into their style of playing either.. I had a chance to talk the them and most of these guys aren't really into the new stuff.. They don't like Maria Schneider, and some of them even go as far as to say Dave Holland's big band isn't a big band. So it's definitely different mentality with that group of people.

I really don't know any piano player that are really into doing big band.. It's true that in most cases you are almost invisible, except when you are playing behind the soloist like you would do in small group. You may get a solo piano intro or montuno section but that's about it