Post 72: ENDING THE TUNE

A musician who is uneasy about confusion in bands when they are bringing tunes to an end has suggested I write on this topic. I'm happy to do so, for reasons that will become obvious.

I don't enjoy hearing bands ending a tune in a messy way - and I'm sorry to say this happens all too often. At worst, some of the players in the band think they are on the Out-Chorus and play an 'ending' while others keep going into another Chorus. The result is a shambles. Another type of messy ending occurs when one or two clever-dick players at the end of the tune take it upon themselves to play a few extra notes or start a two-bar or four-bar 'tag', forcing the other players to snatch up their instruments and try (unsuccessfully) to give the impression this was intended.

So this is a topic every band should talk about. A policy should be agreed.

The simplest solution is the 'chopped' ending. I like this. For example, every player stops dead on the first or third beat of the 32nd bar in a 32-bar Out-Chorus. This always has an impact, it sounds dramatic and it impresses the audience. Listen to the end of this performance for example: Click on here.

But if you must add something, then everybody needs to know that there will be a 2-bar or 4-bar tag (usually through the chord sequence IIm  -  V7  -  I), or even possibly that the final eight bars will be repeated. These endings should be polished at a rehearsal. Or at least they should be discussed and agreed in advance.

Of course it's essential that all members of the band know when the Out-Chorus is happening. The simplest solution is for one musician (most often the trumpet player) to give an indication by raising his instrument and ensuring that all can see it. (When playing seated, sticking out a leg has become a fashionable signal.) But there are more subtle methods. You can surely devise one with your colleagues easily enough.

Sometimes a problem is caused when a singer is delivering the lyrics in what might or might not be the final Chorus. Do we play one more instrumental Chorus after the singer, or do we bring the song to a conclusion on the singer's final note? Someone must clearly decide and signal. 

Another idea is to get away occasionally from the conventional barn-storming Out-Chorus ending. This requires pre-planning or discussion. How about devising a quiet low-octane ending (possibly with only two or three instruments playing the final 16 bars)? It can be very effective and give the audience a pleasant surprise.

Several famous tunes have acquired special codas and endings that have become an almost obligatory part of the performance. Think of Screamin' The Blues, Bouncing Around, Black Cat on the Fence, Joe Avery's Piece, Panama Rag, Perdido Street Blues, Pasadena. And there are a few tunes in which the Coda is by convention a repeat of the Introduction, examples being Bogalusa Strut and Clarinet Marmalade. If you are playing such tunes, you probably know what is required. But in such cases there's no harm in checking first that all members of the band are clear about what they have to do at the end.

Most bands these days play a great fun ending to Climax Rag (an ending which, incidentally, could be used with many other tunes). Everyone needs to know it's coming and that the little 2-bar phrase will be played twice - no more, no less:

Click here to enjoy it.

Post 34: BAD MANNERS

Today I am Mr. Grumpy.

The Band is playing Margie. They have started with a couple of ensemble choruses. Now it's the turn for the clarinet player to give us his 32-bar improvised solo. But, as soon as he begins, the trumpet player turns to talk to the trombonist, and a moment later they both guffaw with laughter at some private joke, distracting our attention from the music. I can tell you that, in England, this sort of thing frequently happens.  I don't know whether it's the same in other countries.

It is bad manners. I suspect it is even one of the reasons why some people lose interest in attending traditional jazz performances.

It is bad manners to both the audience and the other members of the band, because the message it gives is 'The music these other chaps are playing is so uninteresting that we might as well talk among ourselves.'

Even the 'private joke' aspect is bad manners. If there is something really funny to be said, it should be said between tunes and shared with the audience.

I'm getting all this off my chest because a correspondent (who is not himself a musician) told me how irritating it can be to an audience.

Of course, talking is excusable if it is simply the leader quietly giving an instruction, such as 'Take the next chorus'; but even this can be done discreetly, usually with a signal rather than words.

In a certain great young American band (you know the one I mean) the only words you may notice are signals such as 'Threes!' (rhythm players to play only the first three beats of each bar) or 'Top!' (go back to the first theme).

Players should concentrate on the music - and that includes listening appreciatively to their colleagues. If they expect the audience to listen, surely the members of the band should set an example? We need to demonstrate that we care about the music.

But to end on a slightly less grumpy note, I must tell you about one recent occasion when 'talk' within a band was both excusable and amusing.

It was a gig in a hall where nobody was listening to the band. The entire 'audience' was at the other end of the hall, watching a football match on a giant TV screen. But the band had been booked to play. So they soldiered on. Confronted by such indifference, the string bass player - a very droll fellow - while still pumping out the bass line behind the clarinet solo said to the rest of the Band in a weary, plaintive voice: 'What is the meaning of life? Why are we all here? What is God's purpose for us on Earth? Perhaps life has no meaning.'

By the way, the very best audiences for traditional jazz are bovine.

You will know this if you have ever seen this famous video:
Click here to watch.