------------------
Bill in Dayton

Spot on, Bill.

Your main problem with an arranger is, unless you use different styles for the same song every time you play it, no matter what sounds YOU use, the backup band are going to play it IDENTICALLY each time (assuming you don't hit the wrong chords or use an inappropriate Variation)...

No matter what disadvantages you think might exist working with other players (and it would be an eye-opener to hear what some of these dissed other players think of the poster! ), at least they are going to throw something fresh at you from time to time. The price you pay for a night that leaves you high on music is a night that isn't so good. But your arranger will never surprise you, never challenge you, never outplay you (well, I guess that depends on the player!), never make you reach down for something you wouldn't have come up with by yourself...

If consistency and repeatability are your gold standard, it's the tool of choice, second only to the SMF WS's in always doing the song the same way each and every time. But, if I'm playing with a bunch of live players, hearing the song played identically each time they do it bores the hell out of me. Might as well use a CD...

An arranger IMITATES what real musicians do. You think those styles were made by musicians that play something identically each time? But the style does, once it is made. Same fills, same guitar patterns, same bassline, same horn licks. Live music just doesn't do that... And, I'm sorry to say, the general public knows the difference. Or there wouldn't BE any live bands.

This incessant repeatability is what I have been going on for a long time about arrangers. It just isn't REAL. To be honest, I don't think that sound by itself is what makes a great arranger, it's how much variation and spontaneity the style section can throw at you. Why just four Variations? Why only six or so fills? Why just the one break/fill? (And yes, I know the Audya is one of the first to address the B/F issue).

It's kind of strange, because the Audya has addressed a couple of my pet peeves about arrangers... more breaks, and some way to introduce extra phrases in a quasi random manner to add more variation to the Variations, but on the other hand, it also relies quite heavily on audio loops, which by their very nature can't be changed much at all. Some of the Audya features are a generation ahead of the rest of the TOTL pack.

But for arrangers to start to give us the same experience that playing with a GOOD live band gives you (I'm afraid I tend to think that most of the live band naysayers never had the opportunity to play with the best - especially, sorry to say it, but from listening to some demos, it's easy to see THEIR playing skills aren't up there, either... hard to get the best to play with you if you aren't at their level), it is going to need a LOT more features designed to impart variation depending on how YOU are playing. Features that make the arranger follow your dynamics are a good start, although I'd like to see more than just getting louder or softer, and see different parts entirely switch in and out, and then features that look at whether you are playing 'busily' or not, and respond to that, features that look at your 'pocket', and impose that on the rest of the style, features that look at the inversions you are playing, and make musical decisions that mirror what real players would do...

There's a LOT that arrangers could do to mimic the live band experience, but other than Audya, I don't see a lot of innovation going on in that area. Tons of work getting the sounds that YOU play more realistic, but little to make the parts that the style section parts more realistic, and I mean realistic with respect to note choices, not just the sound, which at this point, I think is as realistic as it needs to be - were it tied to more realistic playing it would fool anyone. Right now, little of it fools me, and I know it ain't the 'sound'.

Don't get me wrong, you all know how much I love using arrangers... but I am a LONG way away from admitting they are an adequate substitute for playing with really good players. They make a great choice for economic gigging, they are the easiest way to put something together to do a solo OMB act or duo, and they never gripe at YOU for your playing shortcomings or personal habits (we might be better people if we followed their example )... If you took this forum seriously, you would think that only paragons of virtue played arrangers, and that ALL other players are nothing but lazy slackers with poor hygiene and bad timing. Me, I think it's a more even distribution of flaws and faults than we wold care to admit!

This isn't meant to be 'elitist' (the word that always gets trotted out when we start talking about REALLY good players, unless they are already stars, of course! You never hear Paul McCartney being accused of being 'elitist' just because HE prefers real players over automatic backing ), but I am afraid to say, if you think that playing with an arranger is as satisfying musically as playing with real players, you simply haven't played with any really good ones...

Sorry...!

It is satisfying to your bank account, and maybe your ego (I can't count the number of times I've heard demos here by their proud posters that had timing on them so bad, no decent musician would ever tolerate it!) and it is convenient, but arrangers have a LONG way to go before you can walk off stage with the same high you get from interacting with great players. Interacting with the audience is a TOTALLY different type of experience to 'talking' with a skilled player that understands music, understands his axe, and understands how to make a meaningful musical 'conversation' that lifts you higher than you thought you could go. You can 'interact' with your audience just the same from a band or an OMB, but you can't interact the same way with real players and an arranger.

JMO...

Bill said:
"I have to say, I despise Petit Fluer, but we get requests for it all the time. It's our stock Tango...I just don't like it."

I was never crazy about the song either, but I like the way YOU guys did it!

Lucky

Lucky-

The funniest thing is that while 50+ people dance to every time, there's one cute old couple that always requests "their tango" every night. How is that so funny? While everyone else is out their doing Tango steps-they fox trot.

The couple that requests the tango, doesn't tango, lol...

Thanks again for the kind words-you should sign my guest book...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

You make several good points, but I'm going to suggest that in some cases, the kind of music you perform and for whom, can dictate what kind of conversation occurs.

There's some great jazz players on the SZ. Dave M., Russ, etc. The kind of music you do Diki, I also thinks lends itself to a lot of quality and spontaneous creativity. Of course there's a lot of nuance stuff going on that differs from night to night. As much as I love my T2, and think I'm pretty proficient at playing it, there's NO WAY I can pull that off. The water's way too deep for me and I'd drown quickly.

With regard to my personal situation, my band is not a jazz band. We are a dance band playing for a crowd of dancers typically 70 years old and up on most nights. My goal and our job isn't to be fundamentally "creative and spontaneous" for the kind of jobs we're hired to play at. Our job is to provide well played, consistent, traditional dance beats to the kind of tunes these folks like.

I suppose I could insert some exotic twists and turns into our songs but by and large, its not appropriate. They get twitchy if we even modulate, you know?

They want predictable, straightforward music. My rhythm section provides a very solid foundation for them to dance to and for my sax player to play off of. There's another dance band in the area who have been criticized because they hired a great jazz bass player. Are they more interesting now? Maybe. More spontaneous? Perhaps. But they're losing gigs because the dancers who followed them claim the beats all wrong now and its too hard to follow. If they're heading in a jazz direction then they may be prepared to replace some old clients with new ones, but I don't think that's their plan, lol...

My point is that just because you play with live musicians, its not always desired to have a lot of spontaneous creativity in the context of a traditional dance band. In other musical styles, yes...

Bringing this back full circle to arrangers. I have found that the vast majority of my clients that have switched from the quartet to my duo or solo work are no less happy with the quality of my music. Neither are the dancers. I play very differently when in arranger mode than I do when with the guys, but my goals and the end results are just as good.

Good conversation!

------------------
Bill in Dayton

I think you are reading too much into what I say... I am as happy playing dumb dance music, or country, or reggae, or just about anything, as I am playing jazz. In fact, I don't play much jazz professionally, there's little market for it round here, and I prefer to play as well as possible, and sorry, but the bar is just too high with jazz for me to compare myself with the greats! I can cut it in Nashville or New York as a session guy doing R&B or country, and keep up with most of the top players (or close enough to work, anyway!) but jazz is a medium for virtuosos. I'm just a hack, really... I'd rather not play it than play it poorly

But even a dance band, or a country band, or basically ANY live band will put in more variation on any given night (AND make it work musically if they are good players) than any arranger ever will. Now, of course, that's not REALLY necessary for the audience (unless you have a LOT of repeat customers every night, and you can deal with then simply by playing different tunes every night), but, as this thread kind of pointed out, it may be more important for your own interest than you think.

There seem to be a LOT of players on this forum that don't EVER play much with others. And I can't think of anything that would send me screaming to the loony bin faster than HAVING to make music every night with something that NEVER deviates, never gets even a LITTLE creative (even dance music can be spiced up with a little creativity... it doesn't have to be much - a little goes a long way!), never makes you smile, never helps you overcome your ennui...

If your arranger's monotony doesn't bother you, then all is well. But this thread got started by some well known members here voicing a problem with ennui of the musical kind.

And I still say that playing with others is the cure, NOT getting a different arranger

I think players that are feeling stagnated or a little bored with their situation really need to do some quality reflection on what the cure might be.

If you feel like you're wanting to express things but can't to such a degree that it discourages you from playing, then it may be time to look at a different kb. If its not that, then its probably more of a internal/personal issue that needs examined.

Personally I haven't really looked at changing boards recently. Hopefully the next edition of the Tyros line will be significantly different from #3 and I may buy one. I've been very satisfied with the T2...

Thinking on this, I'm having a ball playing full time as I head into my 15th year of performing for a living. Ironically, I feel more creative/liberated when playing my arranger than I do when with my band. Weird, eh?

Different strokes, I guess...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 01-04-2010).]

I guess I must fall into the weird category as well, then. As I mentioned in another thread, I haven't run into this falling off of interest or ennui either.

As structured as arrangers are in the rhythm and accompaniment departments, it doesn't stop your right hand from doing the business. Arrangers are, after all, a compromise and can never replace the live band experience we were in for all those years. But, as the old saying goes, you cut your cloth to suit your needs. For some it's a matter of economics, for others it may be a case of not having other people available to form a group, and for still others it may be, given the general demographic of arranger players, a matter of health issues that prevent a person from going out and playing gigs. In short, it takes all sorts.

Diki has a certain amount of freedom in that he usually has an able guitarist to work along with for his audience, while Bill, in his solo OMB work, plays what his audience requires, the modern day equivalent of a strict tempo dance band. Though it may be just a wee bit looser than that, eh Bill?

Strict tempo dance bands, in their day, played the same arrangements every night, even down to the same notated solos. I never played in one - it would have driven me nuts, but to all practical purposes, apart from instrumental timbres and nuances, there's little difference in the end product between a strict tempo dance band and a present day arranger.

Fortunately, there are markets for everything and fitting comfortably into the market of your choosing probably goes a long way toward your satisfaction/interest level.

Good stuff, 124...

Your comments on the old dance bands really stood out to me in that it sounded like you were describing my dance band. Tempos, Solos, etc. really don't vary gig to gig at all. That jives nicely with my comment in my last post where I said, "Ironically, I feel more creative/liberated when playing my arranger than I do when with my band."

Solos, arrangements and mostly material change when I'm either by myself or working as a duo-with the arranger. In the dance idiom, I do stay within certain restraints as I try to always filter decisions with regard to its "danceability." My book for the Duo when working with the arranger is much bigger, by several hundred tunes. I've played weekends where I used the band for one dance, then the Duo for another the next night and haven't needed to repeat anything. Six sets of dance music with no repeating anything is fun...

The most creative environment for me is my work in Retirement Communities and Nursing Homes. The audiences are changing quickly in these facilities and the material I can perform in some is almost limitless. In some I play Big band, Classic Country, hymns, etc. while in other that want almost nothing but rock from the 60's and 70's. That includes the Stones, Beatles, and so on...

I really have a great situation where throughout a typical month I get to perform a lot of really cool music, in very different ways. My schedule has a significant amount of variety built into it.

------------------
Bill in Dayton


[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 01-04-2010).]