Post 605: SEARCHING FOR TAINTED TUNE TITLES

'We're now going to play that good old number from the 1930s - Fats Waller's I'm Crazy 'Bout My Baby.'

'One, Two; One, Two Three....'.

'Hold on! Hold on!' shouts the bass player, hunting through his chord book. 'Does it come under I for I'm Crazy? No. I can't find it.'

'Try under C,' calls the piano player. 'You've probably got it as Crazy 'Bout My Baby'.

How often I have heard such conversations delaying the start of tunes and also making the band look incompetent.

A Friend's Chord Book

When you are compiling an extensive alphabetical chordbook or list of repertoire, you have to take so much care. In the case of the I'm Crazy 'Bout My Baby example, it might pay to have the chords under both letters.

Another troublesome problem is how to handle tunes beginning with an apostrophe.

For example, do you put 'S Wonderful under I because it means It’s Wonderful, or does it go under S?

If you set out the title correctly with the apostrophe included and then tell your computer to ‘SORT’ your titles into alphabetical order, you are likely to see 'S Wonderful end up neither under 'I' nor under 'S'.

But on a gig, you may need to find a tune quickly. So you need a good system.

There’s a similar problem with all the ’Taint tunes. Think, for example, of ’Tain’t Nobody’s Business if I Do, ’Tain’t No Sin to Take Off Your Skin, ’Tain’t What You Do, It’s The Way That You Do It, ’Tain’t Nothing Else But Jazz. Do you want them pedantically under 'I' [for It Ain't] or under 'T'?

The best solution, when preparing such lists, is to omit the apostrophe, ensuring that you begin the title positively with a letter rather than a punctuation mark. Then, the 'SORT' into alphabetical order on your computer will convert any list into something more useful. So use TAINT rather than ’TAINT.

Then there's the matter of tunes that have an apostrophe very near the beginning, as in I'm Alone Because I Love You. Would you expect this to appear before, or after, If I Had You ? It makes things easier if you establish a rule and stick to it.

In my case, I keep little notebooks containing leadsheets. These are supported by a separate Index. I have found the best solution for this Index is to show letters only. In other words, I get rid of all spaces and punctuation marks. I then let the computer 'sort' the titles in alphabetic order and - by thinking only of the letters, I can instantly find any tune. Here's an extract from my Index:

ILoveParis285

ILoveYou(ColePorter)288

ILoveYou(Thompson/Archer)294

ILoveYouBecauseYouUnderst289

ILoveYouSoMuchItHurts167

ImAloneBecauseILoveYou168

ImAlwaysChasingRainbows356

IMayBeWrongBut293

ImBeginningtoSeethLt386

ImBlueandLonesome28

ImComingVirginia1140

ImConfessin1142

ImCrazyBoutMyBaby1141

ImDreamingofaWhiteChristm229

ImForeverBlowingBubbles333

ImGettingSentimentlOY387

ImGoingAwaytoWearY290

ImGonnaLockMyHeartand244

ImGonnaMeetMSwtieN382

ImGonnaSitRightDown&W167

ImHenerytheEighthIAm35

ImHummingtoMyself315

ImintheMarketforYou1143

ImintheMoodforLove292

ImLookingOver4L289

ImNobody’sBaby47

ImPuttingAllMyEggs390

ImShyMaryEllenImShy356

ImSittingonTofthWld391

ImSorryIMadeYouCry256

InaMellowTone47

InAppleBlossomTime155

InaShantyinOldShantyTown257

Indiana122

IndianLoveCall244

INeverKnewthatRosesGrew356

INeverKnewWhataGalCdDo379

InHarlemsAraby370

IntheGarden388

IntheGloaming383

IntheGoodOldSummerTime190

IntheMood374

IntheShadeoftheOldAppleTr284

InTheSweetB&B289

IntheUpperGarden389

IntoEachLifeSomeRain294

InWalkedBud361

IOnlyHaveEyesforYou274

ISawMummyKissingSantaCl294

IsItTrueWhatTheySayabtD1115

IsleofCapri113

ISurrender,Dear386

IsYouIsOrIsYuAintMB317

ItDontMeanaThing333

ItFeelsSoGood164

ItHadToBeYou287

ItHappenedinMonterey295

ItIsNoSecret462

ItLooksLikeaBigTimeTont421

ItLooksLikeRaininCherry422

ItsAllRightWithMe351

ItsaLongWaytoTipperary1115

ItsaSintoTellaLie179

What it means is that, for example, if I want 'I'm in the Market for You', I find it as
ImintheMarketforYou1143
and this tells me the tune is to be found in Notebook One, Page 143.

Post 407: JUDGING THE BAND

How do you judge the quality of the bands you watch and listen to?

All assessments are subjective. Different people are impressed by different qualities. I remember a lady who used to judge bands almost entirely on the nattiness of their waistcoats! And correspondent Barrie Marshall told me he once deputised in a band who wore stripey blazers and boaters; a lady told him during the break that you could tell they were a 'proper' jazz band from the way they were dressed. 

However, I thought it might be interesting - and a bit of fun - to produce a check-list with a view to awarding marks for various aspects of a performance.

What do you think of it? You may care to use this check-list in assessing some of the performances you attend. Keep the results to yourself, however. We don't want to offend anybody.

	QUALITY OF THE MUSIC (60 marks)			PROFESSIONALISM: AND RAPPORT WITH AUDIENCE (20 marks)		GOOD OVERALL VALUE? (20 marks)	TOTAL
NAME OF THE BAND	Skill of the musicians (20 max.)	Teamwork (20 max.)	Interpretation and Arrangements (20 max.)	Appearance and On-Stage Behaviour (Max. 10)	Presentation and Communication (Max. 10)	The performance as a whole (Max. 20)	Maximum possible 100

I tried applying it as honestly and ruthlessly as I could to ten bands I know well. I have put them in the eventual order of merit. I am not naming the bands as that would be invidious.

	QUALITY OF THE MUSIC (60 marks)			PROFESSIONALISM; AND RAPPORT WITH AUDIENCE (20 marks)		GOOD VALUE? (20 marks)	TOTAL
NAME OF THE BAND	Skill of the musicians (20)	Teamwork (20)	Interpretation and Arrangements (20)	Appearance and On-Stage Behaviour (10)	Presentation and Communication (10)	The performance as a whole (20)	Maximum possible 100
Band 1	17	16	16	7	7	15	78
Band 2	17	14	14	8	6	15	74
Band 3	17	14	13	8	7	15	74
Band 4	16	14	14	6	6	15	71
Band 5	15	14	15	6	7	14	71
Band 6	15	14	14	6	7	14	70
Band 7	13	12	12	7	5	13	62
Band 8	11	11	12	7	6	12	59
Band 9	10	9	9	8	7	11	54
Band 10	7	7	8	8	7	13	50

A friend noted an interesting correlation: a band that is weak in one area tends also to be weak in others.

Although any of us can carry out such 'assessments', just for our own amusement, I think it would be a good idea for bands to conduct similar assessments of their own performances. It would indicate some of the areas they could work on in order to improve.

By the way, do you think there is any band capable of scoring the Maximum 100 points? I would nominate The Shotgun Jazz Band, based in New Orleans.
=============
Postscript:

A reader has immediately nominated The Bratislava Hot Serenaders.

Post 246: WHAT IS GOOD TRADITIONAL JAZZ?

I received this e-mail:

Hi Ivan,

You have strong opinions about what is good traditional jazz and what is bad. I know nothing about music. I can't read music. I never learnt to play an instrument. Can you please explain to me what makes some jazz performances better than others?

Wow! That's a tough question.

So let me say right from the start that appreciating any kind of art is a very personal matter. What pleases me may not please you. And that is just how it should be. So I will answer the question in my own way but shall not be surprised if you hold a completely different opinion.

Knowing about music

First, I don't think it's essential to know a lot about music in order to be stirred by traditional jazz or to feel the excitement that it generates. But it does add a little to the intellectual side of appreciation. For example, if you are listening to a piece made up of several different sections (e.g. Buddy's Habit or Climax Rag), it is satisfying to understand which point in the music the band has reached and to be aware when it modulates into a different key. It also makes it a little more interesting if you know something about the chord progression, no matter what tune the band is playing. In other words, you may appreciate it just a little more if you know about the 'grammar' of the music.

But with or without such knowledge, I think it's possible to distinguish between really well played traditional jazz and the not so good.

Preparing and Rehearsing

I think some bands over-rehearse. Things become too arranged and formalized. Much of the freedom and looseness that are features of the best traditional jazz are lost if the players have to concentrate too hard on their 'part' in the 'arrangement'. There is stiffness in the playing of some bands using this approach, especially if they become over-reliant on printed music on stands in front of them.

At the opposite extreme, it is common enough for good traditional jazz to be played without any rehearsal or preparation. Bring together the right mix of experienced players and a fine concert can occur.

But in general I think the best traditional jazz is produced by bands who rehearse at least occasionally, mainly to discuss their music and clarify their approaches to their repertoire. They should tidy up the trickier moments, ensure they are all using the same tune structure and chord progression and they should agree on any special tune endings. The little bit of extra work put in like that can be appreciated and pays off in a better public performance.

Amplification

In general, I think traditional jazz is likely to sound better if played without amplification. (So much 'music' in the last fifty years has been made hard to bear - for me, anyway - by the use of electronic devices and massive amplification.) It is so pleasant to hear musicians in a room with good acoustics and no amplification. You appreciate the sounds of all the instruments in their natural glory. There is no electrical 'humming' or blurring of tone. Performances in Preservation Hall (or in London's Wigmore Hall) testify to the truth of this.

But I accept that bands - in special circumstances - sometimes need amplification. In these cases, it is best if it can be kept to a minimum, for example one microphone for use by the vocalist.

Melody and Soul

Most tunes in our repertoire have stood the test of a very long time. So a good band performance must respect a good melody. There is soul in these old tunes and a good performance finds and expresses that soul. We should hear the melody clearly - maybe decorated and caressed; but it should always be there at the heart of the music. As the late great Chris Blount (clarinet) once said to me, 'If there's no soul, it's just a load of notes.'

Tempo

A good traditional jazz band sets a tempo which is appropriate to the tune and its chosen interpretation; and keeps to that tempo - other than for special effects. It's bad traditional jazz when a tune drags. (I have noticed this quite a lot in YouTube videos.) It can happen either because the tune is started too slowly or because the band slows down during the performance or because of labouring from the rhythm section - especially the drummer. (I don't know why, but On The Sunny Side of the Street is an example of a tune that is particularly prone to labouring!)

Collective Improvisation

When - in ensemble choruses - one instrument (usually the trumpet) is stating the melody, there should be creative support from the other 'front line' instruments (normally the clarinet and trombone). Teamwork is the key to great traditional jazz. If teamwork is good, the performance is more likely to impress. The support will use syncopation and counterpoint. It will be decorative and yet also - by finding the best phrases and harmonies - will push the tune along. You will feel that all three front-line players are listening and responding to each other's ideas and statements. Among today's top players, Barnabus Jones, Haruka Kickuchi and Charlie Halloran (trombones) and Chloe Feoranzo, James Evans, Jonathan Doyle, Aurora Nealand and Ewan Bleach (reeds) are examples of musicians to study on YouTube if you want to see this done supremely well.

Jazzy Devices

This is really an aspect of improvising. But it is important enough to deserve separate mention. A good performance (certainly an exciting one) usually requires a generous dose of those devices that make jazz - especially traditional jazz - so distinctive. Notes bluesily bent or flattened (in the right places), glissandi, breaks, syncopation, the use of 6ths and 9ths where they take us by surprise - all these elements enrich the performance. Without this 'jazziness' you may be left with some very pretty music for dancing but it will lack the spirit of early New Orleans jazz.

Rhythm Section

First, as my friend Barrie said to me, the expression 'rhythm section' is relatively modern and misleading. The whole band should think of itself as the rhythm section. But these days when leaders refer to their rhythm section, they mean the part of the band likely to consist of two or three or four players selected from percussion, banjo, guitar, piano, bass [string or brass]. In a good performance, these players will, as the saying goes, 'sound like one man'. They too must listen carefully to each other and to the trumpet, clarinet and trombone. In so many of the elderly British bands I have heard, or watched on YouTube, they certainly do not sound like one man: often the drummer is too loud and his rhythmic patterns are disruptive to what his colleagues seem to be trying to achieve. At least for the brighter and quicker tunes, most of the time the rhythm section in unison should play a pulsating but not too loud four-to-the-bar poom-poom-poom-poom (not um-CHUCK-um-CHUCK). This pumps the front line along and sets the audience's feet tapping. A good drummer drives the band without being loud or exhibitionist and a good pianist subjects his skills (in ensembles) to the need for a steady rhythmic and chordal underpinning of the music.

Solo Choruses

In performance, most bands include a sequence of 'solo' choruses (normally 32 bars, or even 64 bars) by several of the players in every tune. Often these solos have nothing much of interest to say (they are what Chris Blount would have called 'just a load of notes'), though, if the band has a very good pianist, they give him a rare opportunity to show what he can do. Often solo-takers try to play something stretching to the full their technical skills - showing how clever they are. I suppose this is fair enough if they are technically brilliant. Festival audiences can be counted on to applaud this sort of thing. But my view is that flashy and often raucous solo choruses are not an essential part of good traditional jazz.

Fortunately, in solo choruses a few players are technically brilliant and highly creative at the same time (James Evans again is a great example).

On the whole, though, I don't enjoy a performance padded out with numerous dull solo choruses in which the players have nothing but a string of clichés to offer. I prefer the more creative, unpredictable kind of playing (as best exemplified in the performances of Tuba Skinny) where one player takes the lead for a short time (perhaps 16 bars) but usually other players provide decorative accompaniment to this kind of 'soloing' (another example of good teamwork). Such playing gives the audiences constant delightful surprises.

Sometimes a rather special chorus contributes to a pleasing performance. For example, a band may try a 'front-line-only' chorus and even better a full-band quiet chorus (just tickling the notes) before turning up the volume for the end of the tune.

Ending the Tune

I like a tune to end well, either crisply or with a neat rehearsed coda. I think messy endings are bad.

Band Demeanour

I like all members of the band to take the music seriously. I do not like it when there is much talk between players during the performance of a tune. (Guffaws at each other's private 'jokes' are even worse.) Discreet hand signals for directing the music should be enough.

Listening Test

I will end by giving this tip to my enquirer - and to anybody else like him. When you next listen to a traditional jazz recording, try focusing your ear on just the bass player. If it's a good band, you will be amazed at the precision and importance of his or her contribution.

Now try focusing on just the clarinet. Listen carefully to the notes he or she is playing. How well and how cleverly do they blend into the overall sound?

Try listening intently to the drummer or indeed any of the instruments and you may be surprised at how much your appreciation of what the individuals do (or fail to do) helps you to sort out performances that are really 'good'.

Post 81: HORRIBLE VOCALS

I spend a lot of time watching and listening to traditional jazz bands.

One thing I find disappointing is that some of the 'vocals' are - frankly - horrible.

In particular, there are so many elderly male performers who are determined to sing the words of whatever tune they are playing, regardless of their lack of ability. They croak and strain and are out of tune. Such 'expression' as they attempt is inept. If that's the best they can do, why bother?

Perhaps some of them used to have reasonably good singing voices twenty or thirty years ago. They haven't noticed (and friends have been too kind to tell them) that they have 'lost it' with the passage of time.

I think these vocals help to explain why traditional jazz fails to attract younger audiences.

Some of the elderly gents seem to think that, in order to be qualified to sing, all you need is to be a bit musical on the clarinet or trumpet and also have the words of the song on a music stand in front of you. But there is far more of an art to it than that. It requires a good voice, intelligence and serious practice.

Here's the great Erika Lewis. What would most of us give to have a singer of her quality working with our band? But if we don't have a good singer, then may I suggest that we let the music speak for itself and cut out those horrible 'vocals'?