Accompanying a jazz singer on rubato sections

[Jazz+]

When playing with a singer you will most likely encounter rubato introductions or entire songs that are performed rubato. This skill is perhaps the hardest to learn, but when mastered, sets the good accompanists apart from the mediocre.

 

1) Following: Most singers usually have a planned out stylistic approach and its your job to follow him or her. Some singers want the accompanist to strictly follow their phrasing, which requires you to hear the singer first. In other words, the accompaniment will be slightly behind the singer, but if you are attentive and respond quickly this delay will sound natural. Keep in mind that the singer is in charge and its the accompanists job to follow.

 

2) Lead the way: Sometimes you will experience singers who are waiting for the accompanist to start phrases. Do not hesitate to start phrases and take charge. The singer is waiting for you! When using this approach it is important to be clear in setting up beginnings of phrases so you do not confuse the singer. Sometimes it is also helpful if the accompanist emphasizes the starting pitch, but make it a part of the set-up so it doesnt become too obvious to the audience.

 

3) Exact accompaniment: This is when the rhythm and phrasing of the vocalist and accompanist is played exactly together. A rehearsal is recommended to achieve this difficult task unless you are very familiar with the singers style. Do not hesitate to write out a lead sheet in order to be consistent with the comping of a certain tune.

[moj]

Jazz+, your post is insightful and useful, HOWEVER, you are not the person who originally wrote this. You copied this from learnjazzpiano.com forum member Alfredo's post and even responded with your own post (see below). I'm not sure if you intended to plagiarize; perhaps it was just an oversight on your part not to acknowledge the original source.

 

learnjazzpiano.com

alfredo -- 10/22/2004, 09:55:45 -- #8249

 

Rubato Sections

 

1) When playing with a singer you will most likely encounter rubato introductions or entire songs that are performed rubato. This skill is perhaps the hardest to learn, but when mastered, sets the good accompanists apart from the mediocre.

 

1) Following: Most singers usually have a planned out stylistic approach and its your job to follow him or her. Some singers want the accompanist to strictly follow their phrasing, which requires you to hear the singer first. In other words, the accompaniment will be slightly behind the singer, but if you are attentive and respond quickly this delay will sound natural. Keep in mind that the singer is in charge and its the accompanists job to follow.

 

2)Lead the way: Sometimes you will experience singers who are waiting for the accompanist to start phrases. Do not hesitate to start phrases and take charge. The singer is waiting for you! When using this approach it is important to be clear in setting up beginnings of phrases so you do not confuse the singer. Sometimes it is also helpful if the accompanist emphasizes the starting pitch, but make it a part of the set-up so it doesnt become too obvious to the audience.

 

3) Exact accompaniment: This is when the rhythm and phrasing of the vocalist and accompanist is played exactly together. A rehearsal is recommended to achieve this difficult task unless you are very familiar with the singers style. Do not hesitate to write out a lead sheet in order to be consistent with the comping of a certain tune

 

Jazz+ -- 10/22/2004, 16:03:20 -- #8269

I wouldn't call all those well thought out observations "crap". The "just do it" approach isn't very useful for analysis and discussion.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

I think these observations about rubato sections are true.

 

However, in practice, I've found, espescially when "winging it" unrehearsed, it's very difficult to know when the singer is leading, waiting for you to lead, or expecting exact accompaniment.

 

Rehearsal is very advisable for this kind of thing. If not rehearsal, then it helps if both parties are familiar with how the singer expects the rubato section to be approached. Failing that, it helps if you've worked with that singer a lot and are familiar with their style. Finally, it helps to be familiar with the material.

 

However, in reality, it happens that you just end up on a gig and singer puts a chart in front of you with a rubato section you've never seen before, and you just have to use your ears and your experience, and make the best of it.

 

This is where another skill comes into play that wasn't mentioned: sleight of hand. Or in this case, maybe it should be call sleight of ear. It's very likely that things will go wrong - the singer will get ahead of you, fall behind, get out of sync, whatever. Like a magician, the accompanist has to magically fix things, cover the mistakes, catch up, slow down, somehow make it sync up, whatever, and do it in a way that makes it sound like (to quote Pee Wee Herman) "I meant to do that".

 

It's true, this is a very difficult and demanding thing to be able to do. But rehearsal, and familiarity with the material and singer, makes it easier.

 

NOTE: I thought this up and wrote it myself.

[Jazz+]

One and the same...I'm Jazz+ and I'm "alfredo". Many names, many Forums. I have more aliases than fingers.

[moj]

Originally posted by Jazz+:

One and the same...I'm Jazz+ and I'm "alfredo". Many names, many Forums. I have more aliases than fingers.

OK, I got it now, BUT posting a topic under one alias and responding under another!? At least you will get a response to your post. However, if you had started your post with..."I got this from Alfredo at learnjazzpiano.com..." I would be none the wiser.

 

NOTE: I wonder how many other aliases you have at The Keyboard Corner?

[guestuserguestuser.com]

That piece above about rubato sections is copied from an article called "Accompanying a Singer" by Per Danielsson from the "Creative Keyboard" online magazine.

 

http://www.melbay.com/creativekeyboard/feb02/accompanying.html

[gangsu]

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:

That piece above about rubato sections is copied from an article called "Accompanying a Singer" by Per Danielsson from the "Creative Keyboard" online magazine.

 

http://www.melbay.com/creativekeyboard/feb02/accompanying.html

Frankly, my dear...

 

Anyway, the simple solution is to have the singer sing a bit first, then you get a feel for whether she actually (why did I just say "she") feels the beat or has her head stuck in a mirror. And besides, unless it's a laid back opening to a song like Misty or something, rubato is much more effective sung against a solid beat. Or am I missing something?

[moj]

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:

That piece above about rubato sections is copied from an article called "Accompanying a Singer" by Per Danielsson from the "Creative Keyboard" online magazine.

 

http://www.melbay.com/creativekeyboard/feb02/accompanying.html

The Truth Is Out There...

 

It's funny when I inferred that Jazz+ may have plagiarized when, in fact, he came clean and admitted he was Alfredo. ... So, to be fair to him, let's take 3 degree's of separation an assume that he is, indeed, Per Danielsson.

 

This X-File is closed!...

[gangsu]

Originally posted by mojazz:

he is, indeed, Per Danielsson.

...

This X-File is closed!...

Wait! I've always had the impression that Jazz+ is a she . He sounds like a she, and changes his mind like a she. He's deceptive like a she and nags like a she. ..oh, ok i'll stop now.

[eric]

Originally posted by Jazz+

One and the same...I'm Jazz+ and I'm "alfredo". Many names, many Forums. I have more aliases than fingers.

It does get confusing, but once the subject matter and writing style come through, it is not that challenging to see all the different personas. I lost track awhile ago, but I am aware of Jazz+ showing up as petros, rintincop, abath07, now alfredo and there was at least one or two other known aliases. If this individual indeed has "more aliases than fingers," then who knows what other users are the same person.

 

Regards,

Eric

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by gangsu:

And besides, unless it's a laid back opening to a song like Misty or something, rubato is much more effective sung against a solid beat. Or am I missing something?

I always thought rubato meant the same thing in classical as in jazz - being free with the tempo, i.e., the pulse is not steady. However, having just done a google search, it seems that in classical, it can also mean being free with the timing of a melody over a steady tempo. Is that correct?

 

Generally speaking, in jazz, some degree of being free with the timing of a melody over the steady time of the rhythm section is expected, it's understood, it's part of your personal style, no special notational marking is required for that. Jazz musicians will usually play with the timing (phrasing) of a melody to some degree. They'll usually only play the melody 'as written' when they are part of a section (trumpet section in a big band, for example), or if a particular piece requires it because of an arrangement, or because of the style it's in, or maybe some other reasons I can't think of right now. Even then, the way they play it will not necessarily be exactly the way it's written. A certain sense of phrasing is 'understood'. Swung eighth notes, for example, are written as straight eighth notes.

 

Rubato in jazz means not having a steady tempo.

 

Typically, verses of the "american songbook" songs (verse as in 'the part before the main song') are played rubato. Or, sometimes, if the vocalist is not doing the verse, or if there is no verse, the vocalist might sing the first chorus (chorus as in 'once through the main song') of a tune rubato.

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by gangsu:

Wait! I've always had the impression that Jazz+ is a she . He sounds like a she, and changes his mind like a she. He's deceptive like a she and nags like a she. ..oh, ok i'll stop now.

Dang Sue , I don't resemble this remark much, do you, honestly?

 

Anyway, to address the real matter at hand, I have only accompanied a singer once, but here's something that might help as it worked for me:

 

I remember at least getting to rehearse with the singer, which helped me greatly. To address the rubato section, 2 things came into play: (1) Me playing more sparsely and fluid, not something too rhythmic; (2) Getting to know the singer's cues -- I even told him what I was watching for (his breathing and gestures, body language stuff).

 

So I'm not an expert at this, but at least my brief foray went off successfully. SO, this is offered in the spirit of "hey, if I can do it, maybe how I did will help another newbie."

 

I hope it helps ...

[gangsu]

Any phrase needs direction, a forward motion and a completion, time to breath, that's life. And yeah, I tend to lump jazz singing and pop singing into the same category, where there's nothing more disturbing than the accompanist who speeds up and slows down. Like come on, make up your mind.

 

So you're talking no drums, just you and the singer falling over eachother. Like "someday he'll come along..yada yada yahh..." Ok. Most singers in fact have a favourite rendition they're trying to copy. Ask for a recording, who's their idol, etc.

 

Some opera divas can be a bit of a headache. They want you to be the orchestra. They want you to lead. Big and bold. So that's how you have to think. Take charge.

 

You want rubato, try accompanying some kids in the music festival sometime. It's easy to follow exactly note for note, but it's hilarious. Better to give some sense of pace and match up the odd barline.

[gangsu]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

Dang Sue , I don't resemble this remark much, do you, honestly?

Of course I wasn't talking about you or I.

 

You make a good point. Watch for the breathing. Actually I have to really bite my lip to keep from singing along.

[Michelle ggurl]

Ooops, sorry Sue, I quoted your wrong quote! Damn, I was trying to make a funny. I edited my post to reflect as such.

 

I shouldn't drive on forums without first having coffee.

[gangsu]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

Ooops, sorry Sue, I quoted your wrong quote! Damn, I was trying to make a funny. I edited my post to reflect as such.

 

I shouldn't drive on forums without first having coffee.

I must've had too much coffee because I laughed.

[vicsant]

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:

 

Typically, verses of the "american songbook" songs (verse as in 'the part before the main song') are played rubato. Or, sometimes, if the vocalist is not doing the verse, or if there is no verse, the vocalist might sing the first chorus (chorus as in 'once through the main song') of a tune rubato.

I really get confused about the use of the terms "verse", "chorus", "bridge", "coda" as they are used in a jazz, or a pop setting.

 

In the American songbook example, the "verse" is that rubato part, and the whole song is called the "chorus". So in a jazz standard, how does one label the different sections of a "chorus"

 

In a pop setting, the "verse" is usually the A section, then the "chorus" is the B section. The "bridge" is a C section just played once, while the "coda" is a repetition of part of the chorus in the ending of the whole song.

 

Whew....did I get this right?

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Yes, it is confusing! For a long time I thought chorus and refrain (the Am. Songbk meanings) were the same thing, I only recently realized that refrain is similar to what is now called a chorus in pop music.

 

Uh, that is, I think so. Ummmm, I'm pretty sure...

 

But, anyway, back to the question - in jazz, sections of tunes are often identified as A, B, C, etc. This comes from analyzing a form as AABA, ABA, ABCB, etc. Bridges are called bridges, or they might be called 'B section' in an AABA tune.

[cnegrad]

Originally posted by vicsant:

I really get confused about the use of the terms "verse", "chorus", "bridge", "coda" as they are used in a jazz, or a pop setting.

Also understand that most singers have this confused too. I can't tell you how many times singers have looked at me in the middle of a piano solo and said, "Go Back To The Bridge", only to get very frustrated when I did just that. It turns out that most singers often confuse the Bridge and the Chorus.

[cnegrad]

And then just to confuse matters further, there are many different names for the section of music that takes place between the Verse and the Chorus. I've heard it called all of the following:

 

The Climb

The B Section

The Channel

The Pre-Chorus

 

I'm sure that there are more of these, and I'd be interested to hear them. I find that their usage is usually governed by what region of the US that I'm in.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by cnegrad:

And then just to confuse matters further, there are many different names for the section of music that takes place between the Verse and the Chorus. I've heard it called all of the following:

 

The Climb

The B Section

The Channel

The Pre-Chorus

 

I'm sure that there are more of these, and I'd be interested to hear them. I find that their usage is usually governed by what region of the US that I'm in.

Would those be pop music terms? I've never heard those in a jazz context (except for B section)

[cnegrad]

Yes; I've heard these used mostly by pop/rock songwriters. I was exposed to them when I attended a symposium of songwriters from all around the country.

[Michelle ggurl]

In my experience, what is considered a "verse" in pop music is considered the "head" in jazz. That seems to be universally understood.

 

Then whatever the different part is, if it happens in the middle of the song and not at end or beginning, is a bridge ... and then there is the yet-additional different part possibly called the "solo section" ... then there are the "intro" and "outtro vamps" ... yeah, these are all terms I've used and have heard being used by jazz musicians. Of course, it's funny, cuz often you have these conversations like:

 

"OK, so after the 2d bridge go directly into the solo section."

 

"OK, so, what part is the bridge?"

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

In my experience, what is considered a "verse" in pop music is considered the "head" in jazz. That seems to be universally understood.

In my experience, "head" in jazz is another word for "chorus" (which, in jazz, usually means once through the form). However, in context, it's often used in such a way that someone might think it meant "the beginning of a the form", for example "after the last solo, play the head". Maybe that's why you thought it meant verse, since the verse is usually at the beginning of the form in a pop song.

 

Also, some jazz peices have one form for the melody, and another form for soloing over. In this case, if someone says "after last solo, play the head", it means return to the melody form.

 

It's all very confusing, isn't it? After a while, though, you (usually) just know from experience and context what someone is saying.

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by Toiling In Obscurity:

Originally posted by geekgurl:

In my experience, what is considered a "verse" in pop music is considered the "head" in jazz. That seems to be universally understood.

In my experience, "head" in jazz is another word for "chorus" (which, in jazz, usually means once through the form). However, in context, it's often used in such a way that someone might think it meant "the beginning of a the form", for example "after the last solo, play the head". Maybe that's why you thought it meant verse, since the verse is usually at the beginning of the form in a pop song.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It's generally the beginning form of the song. And yeah, in context, everybody pretty much figures it out pretty quickly. I am kinda confused, tho, as to why the head, being the "first form", wouldn't therefore be analogous to the "verse" of a pop song rather than the "chorus" ... could you elaborate?

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

I am kinda confused, tho, as to why the head, being the "first form", wouldn't therefore be analogous to the "verse" of a pop song rather than the "chorus" ... could you elaborate?

It's because in jazz (that is, vocal jazz, assuming the vocalist is performing old American Songbook tunes), the term 'chorus' means 'once thru the tune', the whole tune. Like, if you have an AABA form, chorus means all the sections of that tune, AABA. And verse is a little section that comes before the chorus, is usually only sung once, and is usually rubato.

 

Whereas in modern-day pop vernacular, you might have a song with ABABCB form, or something like that, where A is a verse, B is a chorus, and C is a bridge.

 

So, it's just a difference in terminology. Tell a jazzer to "take a couple of choruses", and he'll take it to mean "take a solo over the entire form, twice" (by 'entire form', I mean the entire AABA form, or whatever, but not the verse). If there's no vocalist, jazzers usually don't play verses at all, they just stick with choruses.

 

Whereas if you tell a modern-day pop musician to "solo over the chorus" he'll probably take it to mean, solo over the B section of that ABABCB tune.

 

In jazz, people tend to stick with the old terminology. Probably because we play a lot of old songs, and are big on tradition, I don't know. It's just the way it is.

 

I think the term chorus must originate from the theatre world: verses would be sung with just voice and maybe piano, and then for the chorus, the entire orchestra and supporting choir ('the chorus') join in?

 

The melody of a modern instrumental jazz tune is usually referred to as "the head", or "the melody". "Choruses" refers to repetitions of the soloing form, as in "How many more choruses is this guy gonna take? I'd like to take a solo some time tonight, dammit"

 

At least, this is how it's been in my experience. How about anyone else?

[moj]

Originally posted by Toiling In Obscurity:

The melody of a modern instrumental jazz tune is usually referred to as "the head", or "the melody". "Choruses" refers to repetitions of the soloing form, as in "How many more choruses is this guy gonna take? I'd like to take a solo some time tonight, dammit"

 

At least, this is how it's been in my experience. How about anyone else?

Same here. I think in *jam* sessions just about every player is using the old Real Book arrangements, hence calling the "head" or "play another chorus" is well understood.

However, when I use Chuck Sher's New Real Books some of the fusion and modern jazz tunes are more complicated. There are often multiple repeated sections and soloing sections can include written parts.

In that case, using sectional/rehearsal letters or measure numbers is the best way we can call out the parts. This is certainly true in big band ensembles.

[David Loving]

Chorus: "I've got music, I got rhythm...etc...who could ask for anything more."

bridge: "Old man trouble,....etc."

 

Verse: "Some people say a man is made out of mud, a poor man's made out of muscle and blood...etc...and a back that's strong."

Chorus: "you load 16 tons and what do you get....I owe my soul to the company store."

 

any questions? :-)

[David Loving]

Ooops, sorry - double post...and it wasn't worth repeating!

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by Toiling In Obscurity:

It's because in jazz (that is, vocal jazz, assuming the vocalist is performing old American Songbook tunes), the term 'chorus' means 'once thru the tune', the whole tune. Like, if you have an AABA form, chorus means all the sections of that tune, AABA.

 

...

 

Whereas in modern-day pop vernacular, you might have a song with ABABCB form, or something like that, where A is a verse, B is a chorus, and C is a bridge.

 

...

 

The melody of a modern instrumental jazz tune is usually referred to as "the head", or "the melody". "Choruses" refers to repetitions of the soloing form, as in "How many more choruses is this guy gonna take? I'd like to take a solo some time tonight, dammit"

Ah, OK, I dig it ... I must be of a newer ilk of musicians playing (attempting to play?) jazz, because I've never really heard anyone call the form a "chorus" -- just "head". Mostly because we all learned by playing out of the Real Book, I guess. Even in university ensembles they just called it the head. So when you talk about old American Songbook, are you referring to "standards"?

 

You're right about the pop thing seeping into nomenclature as well. The word "chorus" can clearly cause confusion, as we see ... Also since I seem to end up playing fusion tunes and such with more complicated forms when in "jazz" bands, we do tend to communicate in letters for the sections only (A section, B section, etc.).

 

Anyway, thanks for the insight. I think this is quite interesting!