Writing for Rhythm Sections

[Frodo]

This is an offshoot of another thread where the subject of writing for rhythm sections commenced.

Questions raised (among many):

1. Writing too much for a rhythm section
2. Writing too little for a rhythm section

For symphonic pops orchestras, the more information you include, the better. There are some great improvisers in symphonic rhythm sections, but for the most part these players fare better with detailed, note-driven charts. A good example of this as a standard was set by Leonard Bernstein in his "Symphonic Dances from West Side Story" score. Things that would naturally be done by a session or "gig" player have all been completely written out-- and the result is quite effective for symphonic musicians where the swing material might have not have otherwise been idiomatic for that body of musicians.

For studio session players, chord changes with comp slashes or rhythmic accent indicators are more than enough. If one hires a particular pianist for a session (Herbie Hancock or Chick Corea) a lot of detailed suggestions can steer the life of a track towards idealism rather than sponteneity. If you hire a player for the way they play, then you should allow them to bring as much of their own personality and creativity to the session-- or get a different player. Also, with session work, the arrangement won't be complete until the final mix is done, so creating an extremely detailed chart in advance can be a waste of time. I do agree with the person who suggested leaving certain bars blank comes in handy. Great musicians not only will finish the chart for you, but the entire session lives or dies on how much freedom with being creative they are given as leeway when a new arrangement is being brought to life.

Broadway players fall somewhere in the middle. They don't need nearly as many notey details, but creative license is much more contained.

It helps a great deal to know who the players are when preparing charts, although this is often a rare luxury.

For example: I would do sessions where I'd know I want a specific guitarist or bassist. This particular guitarist was brilliant!! Yet, I also knew from past experience that his reading wasn't 100% up to snuff. I'd write an F11 and he'd struggle with voicing it-- several minutes at a time, holding up the session. I learned it was easier to give him a chart that simply had an E-flat chord symbol instead. Sessions went tons faster.

Another example: I knew I had a particular bass player on a session. When I'd write the chord symbol F/C, it would confuse him for whatever reason. I would make a special chart just for him that would avoid inversion symbols, and would put C instead of F/C.

One might say-- "oh, just go find someone who can read". Dunno. I'd rather have someone who can PLAY. If they play well, I'll bend over backwards to facilitate the experience for them. All idealism aside, in my experience less than half of session players read extremely well. 25% read okay, and the rest struggle. Yet, it's the strugglers who are at their best when they are unbridled.

It's also worth mentioning that some of the most memorable session performances came from those who were less fluent at reading.

So, there's really no "one size fits all" solution. If you know for whom you're writing, it makes preparation so much easier.

[Phil O]

Spot on Frodo. I recently played drums for a high school production of Guys and Dolls. (They hired out for the pit). The charts they rented were the worst I've ever seen. At one point I had 64 measures of quarter notes marked "a good feel" followed by 18 more measures marked "with increasing violence." When a syncopation was indicated somewhere in the music it usually didn't line up with anything in the other sections and I felt like a buffoon trying to get through the charts. Finally, I got a copy of the movie, familiarized myself with the music, and used the charts for structure and cuts, and used my ears.

There has to be a happy medium - one which tells the player what is expected without overly constraining him/her and at the same time matches the amount of artistic freedom to the idiom. It's a balancing act few composers/arrangers do well. And as you said, each player's ability to handle that medium varies.

So when I got to "with increasing violence" I shot the flautist.

Phil

[npatton]

Excellent advice, all. I get to work in a variety of environments, with widely varying skill levels.

For my church work, my rhythm charts are pretty much lead sheets (melody/lyrics with chords). This requires the band to create their own parts, with me giving suggestions when something isn't quite working. (When I use a horn section or strings, then they get a full arrangement that syncs with the lead sheet everyone else has.)

I recently "acquired" a bass player who can actually read, and even does better reading than with chords. So, if we have a tune that requires enough spot-on punches, I give him a separate written part. Our drummer is a 10-year old powerbook running Cubasis, so I always get the drummer to play EXACTLY what I want .

I've recently started writing my church lead sheets with two versions of the chords, with a lower set for my skilled players, and the upper set for my younger ones (middle/high school age). The skilled players get all the 9/11/weird sus chords, while the upper set of chords are pretty much triads and basic 7th chords. I can add the color from the piano if necessary, and the younger kids get a chance to learn and play with the band.

For a recording session I'm preparing for next month, I have the luxury of picking a trio of excellent players coming in, so I get to be more creative. Again, this particular bass player likes to see things written out, but is then able to mess around with things once he has a framework. I give him basic rhythms and roots, with an occasional fill line that I know will work with the arrangement. The drummer is a human metronome, and just reads off the bass chart for punches, and then ignores the rest to create his own vibe.

The guitarist needs only the chords and the punches, along with broad instructions regartding the tone I'm looking for (clean, distorted, broken chords, etc.). The rest he goes to the moon with. He showed up at a session a couple years ago with his little digital studio-in-a-box. He'd recorded several versions of the track, with multiple layers of guitar overdubs on his own time, so we could choose what we liked best. He then sat down and recorded everything in a live rhythm section session. If I had written everything out for him, we never would have had the song we ended up with! Good lesson for me...

[kinnylandrum]

Two thoughts of mine:
Broadway shows, particularly the rented scores, almost never have chord changes in the piano/conductor or keyboard parts. I find this annoying, since it would help to have the crutch of some chord symbols to help you navigate a particularly difficult piano part that you have never seen before. I understand the point of writing every blessed note out, since you don't know who is actually going to play the parts. You can make the assumption that someone can read the music, but you can't make the assumption that someone can groove. I have made that mistake and been sorry afterward. However, there aren't chord changes even on the score to Hair, for heaven's sake. What hassle would it be to add proper chord symbols to the part? I know the copyists charge a little more, but hey. Sometimes I think Broadway writers have an inflated view of their work, like it has to be EXACTLY this way or it won't work, when we all know that's usually not the case. In fact part of the art of playing those parts is knowing what to leave out.

But Frodo, I don't agree at all about studio musicians, that less than half read well. I don't know who you've worked with, but almost all the guys in New York can read flyshit, and the best players are often the best readers as well, Bernard Purdie and Steve Gadd for instance. Although I once wrote a jingle for Steve Gadd where I wrote out almost the entire drum part and he didn't really read it, although what he played was fine. Anton Figg I know can read anything I put in front of him, as can many more studio musicians I know. In fact I find this a little bit insulting, but I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

But Frodo, I don't agree at all about studio musicians, that less than half read well. I don't know who you've worked with, but almost all the guys in New York can read flyshit, and the best players are often the best readers as well,...I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

I have to concur. The guys AND GALS in LA sessions are also spot on readers and usually great players as well. HOWEVER, I have also heard great reader/players get very lazy if they don't respect or even know the conductor. In a big union session they usually won't play those kind of games, but in some smaller live gigs,they will and it can be extremely annoying. One cellist I hired a few years ago did this and destroyed the performance. No names mentioned (of course) but I certainly never hire him again nor will I ever recommend him. You'll also find most pro and semi-pro orchestral players will read exactly what you put on the page. It is up to the conductor to make sure it is as intended and balanced.

[kinnylandrum]

I agree with all this. In fact I often say the best readers will read what what is MEANT to be there, even if it isn't written quite rightly. And it's the jerks who insist on playing a mistake even though they know it's wrong, just to prove something.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

... it's the jerks who insist on playing a mistake even though they know it's wrong, just to prove something.

I don't know that I agree with that entirely. The gig is to play the page. How are you to know what it was 'supposed to be"? I would rather a player plays what I wrote and find my mistakes - so I can fix them!

[kinnylandrum]

I mean after playing what is probably a wrong note or chord, they don't ask but go on playing it. Actually in commercial music, especially in rhythm section work, which is what this thread is about, it's often obvious when there's a mistake, and often you can correct without even asking, as soon as you hear it.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I mean after playing what is probably a wrong note or chord, they don't ask but go on playing it. Actually in commercial music, especially in rhythm section work, which is what this thread is about, it's often obvious when there's a mistake, and often you can correct without even asking, as soon as you hear it.

Well, in that case I would hope they would ask, but it is also up to the composer and the conductor to hear that. Often in tight rehearsal times with the money clock ticking away, such corrections just are not possible (especially in a large orchestral score). Besides, if you are hitting a dominant V7 in, say, Fm, and there is a Db in the upper brass, whose to say you didn't want a flatted 9th? I wouldn't want the 1st trumpet to "decide" it should be a C or a Bb.

[Frodo]

Hey Kinny:

Yeah, I'd say that my guestimates are probably pretty close-- since I don't think more than half of the drummers are as good as Steve Gadd. I work with Steve, JR, Erskine, and others in that echelon: Will Lee, Nathan East, Michael Landau, and the like... Those guys are top shelf and DO read extremely well. Ironically, those guys don't need much info on their charts because you know they can play.

Of course, you *would* have to cite some of the greatest players as the exception!! LOL!

But I tried carefully to break up the "all" in to categories of decreasing sizes. Those guys who do not read well tend to get hired less unless what they actually play is worth the trouble.

Sting doesn't read music, for example, and neither does Brian Wilson or Stevie Wonder (!)-- I must say that Stevie DOES read *something*, but it's not something I have enough knowledge to prepare for him.

But my experience may be different than others in that I don't get to work with the best of the best readers *all the time*. About half the time I find myself with people with a diversity of skills, and often their ability to create a riff and lay down a groove so deep that you couldn't climb out of it with a rope is enough to justify having them in the studio.

I do work with a lot of orchestras, and reading is clearly not a problem in those cases. This past week, I premiered 14 new scores with the Boston Pops. Was reading a problem? I should say not-- even with the most difficult of the charts, there were some issues with some complex syncopations and hemiolas as far as ensemble was concerned which were remedied with a couple of spot-checks, but there were no *reading* issues.

Because of the diversity of skills often presented to me, I find it worth while to prepare different types of charts for different purposes, and to remain flexible and objective in my preparations so that the singer or instrumentalist reading my charts is as much as home as possible.

I also feel some obligation in some instances to prepare charts for those who do not read, because they have expressed some desire to improve their skills. So, I get a wide range of musicians with a diversity of experience. It just doesn't make sense to take the one-size-fits-all approach.

That's all I was trying to say-- and I certainly was not taking any swipes at LA or NY players-- just telling the truth from a shireling's perspective.

[kinnylandrum]

yeah but if copyist (or arranger) forgot the natural in front of the E, the piano player should just play it anyway, especially if the chord change is there, without asking, and probably the first time.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

...hemiolas...

Ahhh, you know the way to my heart!

[kinnylandrum]

But when you talk about Sting (who probably reads more than he lets on), Brian Wilson, Stevie, etc, for all their great playing, they are not "studio musicians" per se. I think of studio musicians as hired sidemen, and ALL of the best ones read fairly well, and most of the good ones read flyshit. It's just a fact. And the ones who read well groove just as hard as anyone. I don't think you ever have to trade, as Thomas Dolby called it, an "ability to swing" for an ability to read. In fact at an event I was at George Martin was asked (not by me, but I wish I had) did he think Paul was a better musician because he never learned how to read and Martin said absolutely not. In fact Martin said Paul did actually take some piano lessons for a while and Martin wishes he had kept it up. I know when Paul was doing the Liverpool Concerto Carl Davis said he tried to teach Paul the rudiments of notation and even taught his son some things in the hopes that it would rub off on the old man. But Paul was afraid it would hurt his "innocence". I think Martin was basically saying that was rubbish. You can never know too much, or have too many tools.

[Frodo]

But when you talk about Sting (who probably reads more than he lets on), Brian Wilson, Stevie, etc, for all their great playing, they are not "studio musicians" per se. I think of studio musicians as hired sidemen, and ALL of the best ones read fairly well, and most of the good ones read flyshit. It's just a fact.

True-- but keep in mind "all of the best ones" may constitute a different cross-section than "all any one of us gets to work with on a regular basis". I've worked with Gadd and JR, and then I work with Pookey and Tyrone. When you know you have "all of the best ones" at your beckone call, it's easier to prepare charts for them. How do you deal with the others without making them uncomfortable or putting them on the defensive regarding their reading skills?

And the ones who read well groove just as hard as anyone. I don't think you ever have to trade, as Thomas Dolby called it, an "ability to swing" for an ability to read.

Also very true. I hope I didn't leave an impression to the contrary.

The truth *also* is that the ability to groove musically is what gets people hired regardless of reading skills, at least from what I see in non-classical world.

yeah but if copyist (or arranger) forgot the natural in front of the E, the piano player should just play it anyway, especially if the chord change is there, without asking, and probably the first time.

That does happen, indeed. But again, you're talking about the sharpest and keenest eyes, lips, and fingers in the business. It is a blessing to work with such astute musicians.

You can never know too much, or have too many tools.

Indeed. That's why I keep coming back here because I'm always learning about the experiences and methods of others and am constantly taken new inventory of my own approaches to confirm or modify my own efforts. It's a never-ending educational cycle.

Maybe the day will come when I won't have to worry about Pookey and Tyrone any more. But as long as I can be sensitive to the needs of various types of musicians there may be great comfort in knowing that whatever I contribute to a musical endeavor is not the cause of certain types of discomfort for those musicians.

[kinnylandrum]

How do you deal with the others without making them uncomfortable or putting them on the defensive regarding their reading skills?

You have a point. Although for those kind of players do you even write a chart, apart from putting some chords on paper? I guess I'm just sensitive because of the sometimes perceived bias against musical literacy and intricacy in the commercial music world these days.