Does Tenuto actually mean "full value"?

[tbdana]

Someone who actually plays an instrument and reads music doesn't know what "full value" means?

[AndrewMeronek]

Someone who actually plays an instrument and reads music doesn't know what "full value" means?

Believe me, this has made me scratch my head a lot.

Also, the dandruff.

[Wilktone]

It's not right. It's also in the wrong engraving font, so it will trick people into playing like squares. 2 and 3 are out completely for me.

This whole thread gives me pause especially since nearly all of the examples are not written in the correct font. That screams "arranger/writer has no idea what genre they are in or how to write for it".

I don't have the money to buy that cool handwriting font you use, Harrison. I just cranked out screen shots with a default new file to ask questions. Some of the examples were from actual arrangements I have been asked to play and were not intended to be examples of what to follow.

But seriously, font selection is important. Use something that is close to what the performers would be used to reading, when possible.

Conventions (such as > meaning "long") don't stop being conventions just because you've never played real big band charts or learned the conventions.

Well here's another interesting side topic, when do conventions stop being so and new conventions become the norm? The use of the term "obbligato" comes to mind. I sometimes wonder how much longer circling something in the music will indicate tacit, since so many music students circle things on their parts to help remember to play it correctly.

Someone who actually plays an instrument and reads music doesn't know what "full value" means?

Often students will equate playing a whole note as "Play(one), two, three, four(off on four)" instead of "-4," if my short hand makes sense. I have worked with students before who needed to have the idea explained to them that a whole note is "Play(one), two, thee, four, off (one one)," if that makes sense.

Longer notes are commonly short changed (or held too long) because there's a natural tendency to turn off our brain for long notes and stop keeping track of the beat. It takes training and practice to keep the beat (and count) in mind at all times.

[harrisonreed]

But seriously, font selection is important. Use something that is close to what the performers would be used to reading, when possible.

Conventions (such as > meaning "long") don't stop being conventions just because you've never played real big band charts or learned the conventions.

Well here's another interesting side topic, when do conventions stop being so and new conventions become the norm?

Dave, come on. Seven years ago I would have agreed with you about all this. But now when I see new/poorly arranged big band charts that don't follow the historic conventions, strangely written rhythms, and are poorly engraved with bad or excessive accent markings, it is really difficult to read. It did not take very long playing in a big band for me to make that change of mind. The old way is clean and intuitive, and assumes the player is familiar with the style up front.

Unlike most other historic styles, the entire history of Big Band music is well documented, both in terms of sheet music as well as recordings by the artists who wrote the tunes. They played the tunes that way. So if someone studies the genre, just by listening to charts and then playing the charts with a band, they should know about these things.

Sure we can change convention, I guess. But why? It works really well.

[Wilktone]

Sorry, Harrison. I didn't mean to imply I am for changing convention. I agree whole heartedly with you on notating the music according to what the musicians are comfortable seeing.

All I was doing was musing that convention changes and it's possible that some of the things we're discussing could potentially change over time.

[Doug Elliott]

There was a time when > meant short, at least some of the time. Eighths tied across a bar line were always short notes - the tie to another eighth meant nothing. Slurs meant legato and phrasing - most of the time.
But there was lots of ambiguity and nonsensical interpretation. That's why we have conventions now, so you don't have to re-mark the parts for consistency. Well written charts should be sightreadable with virtually all the interpretation already there.

[Wilktone]

But there was lots of ambiguity and nonsensical interpretation. That's why we have conventions now, so you don't have to re-mark the parts for consistency. Well written charts should be sightreadable with virtually all the interpretation already there.

Yeah, there's a band I sometimes play with that specializes in 1930s-1940s jazz. Much of the book are stock arrangements with very widely different notation. I don't have a bunch of stocks in my library, so I couldn't find something with the specific rhythmic example we've been discussing. But here's something close, from Song of India.



There seems to be less agreement about the conventions for big band writing, compared with notation and engraving for classical styles. I've been looking around now for a single resource that goes over standard big band notation practice and there aren't really a lot out there. The best one I've found is the Rogers Evans resource I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Anyone know of any other good ones out there?

But getting back to the conventions, there are differences and it makes sense for composer/arrangers to pick one approach and be consistent, at least in the same chart. Here are some different ways I've found to notate that off-beat quarter note figure Harrison posted (or at least similar to it).

Sesame Street (Denis DiBlasio arrangement, adapted by Bob Lowden)



It's Not Polite To Point (Gordon Goodwin)



Granada Smoothy (Mark Taylor)



Basie Straight Ahead (Sammy Nestico)



Orange Colored Sky (Roger Holmes)



The Day I Saw You (Wendy Jones/David Wilken arr.) - Harrison, the following font is what I'm currently using with Dorico for big band writing, Petaluma.



How those rhythms and articulations were written may not have been the decision of the composer/arranger, but may have come from the publisher (who may not have ever played in a big band).

Looking through my collection of jazz arranging text books, I only found one that deals specifically with how to notate things properly. Here's what Commercial Arranging, Vol. 1 (Andrew Charlton and John M. DeVries) has to say:

[harrisonreed]

I will say that the figure with eighths with marcatos over them is NOT the same as syncopated short quarters. Those are big fat "DAHHT"s. It's notated that way on purpose.

Actually you've chosen a lot of examples with marcatos. Not the same thing. These examples are all clean, and not showing the same thing at all. I think you're focused on just the note start timing but missing the accents.

And the alternating quarter / tied eighth is just splitting the bar into two. Maybe a two feel.

[Doug Elliott]

I have not listened to recorded examples if those excerpts...

But I think they are all different composer/arranger/copyist's versions of how to write the same thing.

In big band writing, ^ frequently only means "short," not "marcato."

[TomInME]

Naming the composer/arranger provides important context about the notation, because they all have their quirks, and the more influential they were, the more likely those quirks became conventions.
Internal consistency is more important than conventions when conventions aren't explicit and/or universally agreed-upon. If I know a composer wrote tenutos when they wanted it short, I'll play them short.

[Wilktone]

I was more looking for the rhythmic notation of successive off-beats with the latest examples, rather than the different articulations. But the articulations also aren't standardized between the excerpts either.

I will say that the figure with eighths with marcatos over them is NOT the same as syncopated short quarters. Those are big fat "DAHHT"s. It's notated that way on purpose.

This one?



Those were played short by Maynards band.

Actually you've chosen a lot of examples with marcatos. Not the same thing. These examples are all clean, and not showing the same thing at all. I think you're focused on just the note start timing but missing the accents.

Yes, I was focused with the rhythmic notation, but again, almost all the examples I posted have off beats that were played short by the bands that originally recorded them.

And the alternating quarter / tied eighth is just splitting the bar into two. Maybe a two feel.

This one?



If so, yes, that's more of a two feel. It's a very bright samba feel.

But I think they are all different composer/arranger/copyist's versions of how to write the same thing.

Yep, that's why I posed them. There are different ways that the same figure can be notated, some are better than others. With the exception of the Song of India stock arrangement, all the quarter notes (or tied 8th notes) have an articulation marked. The excerpt with the tenuto markings over them is the only one I posted intended to be played full value. As the arranger of that example I can say with absolute certainty that I wanted the off-beat quarter notes to be played connected. The groove is a bossa on that chart, by the way.

Conventions (such as > meaning "long") don't stop being conventions just because you've never played real big band charts or learned the conventions.

Unless they aren't meant to be played long (such as the Maynard example). Different arrangers often use different ways to notate. Personally, I don't want the confusion when I put one of my own charts in front of a band for the first time, so I don't use > over quarter notes unless they are long.

Internal consistency is more important than conventions when conventions aren't explicit and/or universally agreed-upon.

Yes, and listening to the lead player to follow their interpretation.

Dave

[tbdana]

Yes, and listening to the lead player to follow their interpretation.

All these posts, and right there is the ultimate answer.

[Wilktone]

Well, Doug did mention following the lead trumpet earlier.

But as an arranger, I don't want to count on my lead players to accurately guess the articulation I want. This thread started because there were players who must have been listening to each other well enough to play the wrong articulation.

[robcat2075]

Naming the composer/arranger provides important context about the notation, because they all have their quirks, and the more influential they were, the more likely those quirks became conventions.

imagine if we had to know who the Road Commissioner was in a city when a sign was installed to discern its true meaning.

[harrisonreed]

Yes, and listening to the lead player to follow their interpretation.

All these posts, and right there is the ultimate answer.

Agree

[TomInME]

Naming the composer/arranger provides important context about the notation, because they all have their quirks, and the more influential they were, the more likely those quirks became conventions.

imagine if we had to know who the Road Commissioner was in a city when a sign was installed to discern its true meaning.

If you don't know what country you're in, which side of the road do you drive on? Context matters. Especially when conventions aren't 100% consistent.

As for following the lead player, what if the lead isn't playing there? What if you're the lead? How do you know what the composer was looking for?

1. If they're alive, let them know that it's not clear and ask what they meant.
2. Listen to recordings if possible, and compare them with the notation. THIS is really useful, because how you feel it should look and how it actually looks are often very different.
3. Learn the historical context.

All of those things require effort and giving up your personal biases, so I get why most people don't bother.

Composers should read that list in reverse order: historical context first, then use recordings to learn how those writers' conventions looked and sounded, then be clear about what you want (using words is OK - composers have done this for centuries).

[tbdana]

As for following the lead player, what if the lead isn't playing there? What if you're the lead? How do you know what the composer was looking for?

1. If they're alive, let them know that it's not clear and ask what they meant.
2. Listen to recordings if possible, and compare them with the notation. THIS is really useful, because how you feel it should look and how it actually looks are often very different.
3. Learn the historical context.

All of those things require effort and giving up your personal biases, so I get why most people don't bother.

Composers should read that list in reverse order: historical context first, then use recordings to learn how those writers' conventions looked and sounded, then be clear about what you want (using words is OK - composers have done this for centuries).

A couple observations. First, I think everything Tom said is good, except the little snark about personal biases. It's all great. But a lot of posts in this discussion don't reflect the practical aspects for someone sitting down to a part and playing it. So I just want to focus on that part for a minute. To me, it's a practical question, not a theoretical one. As a trombone player, I sit down in front of a chart and have to play it. So, what do I do when I get to those unmarked or weirdly marked quarter notes?

This thread has drifted (as they all do) from the original post to discussing big band notations, with varying excerpts that were provided as examples. I'll stick with that part of it.

As with any genre, musicians are expected to understand that genre's contexts and conventions. In big band music and jazz in general, the conventions are much more about how something sounds or is played than how it is notated. Musicians are expected to know how the passage sounds in context, rather than knowing how to interpret figures on a page. In big band music it's more about hearing and feeling than seeing.

"Follow the lead player" is the first and most important of the Big Band 10 Commandments. Much is left to interpretation. Find the groove, follow the lead player. If I don't know how to interpret something and I'm not the lead player, I only have to hear a few notes from any decent lead player to know how the whole chart is to be played.

what if the lead isn't playing there?

Then you are the lead player for the moment, and it's your job to know. In practical terms, unless it's the first few bars of the chart, you've heard this rhythm played earlier by the lead player, so copy that. These interpretations get established early on in the piece and carry throughout the chart.

What if you're the lead?

Then you should know how to play it. You should be able to hear it and feel it. It doesn't matter how the arranger notated it, 99% of the time you're going to know the feel. If you don't know that stuff, then look to what the lead trumpet or sax is setting down, and do that. If that didn't happen and you're just stumped, ask the damn bandleader how he wants it played. And this is big band jazz we're talking about, not some 19th century historical thing. It really doesn't matter how it was played on the recording. In jazz, people get to put their own stamp on things. If the bandleader wants it a certain way, that's the way you play it. Jazz is entirely malleable. There are conventions as general guidelines, but if the bandleader (or lead trumpet) feel it in a way different from the recording, that's how it's going to be.

How do you know what the composer was looking for?

In big band music, unless he's there conducting, who cares what the composer was looking for?

For some of us, when we hear "listen to the recording," we're sometimes the ones who played it on the recording. We who playe these things on recordings didn't have any special knowledge when we recorded it. There was likely zero discussion about it in the context of the recording session. The fact is that 99% of these inconsistent notations fall within the hearing conventions, so it doesn't really matter how it was written.

As I'm writing this, I'm remembering playing on one of Watrous' albums. I think it was A Time For Love. At the end of the session we had a few more minutes, so they passed out a chart we had never seen before. It was "Not Really The Blues," which I think was arranged by Sammy Nestico. We had no rehearsal time, we just sight read it and did it in one take, and it made it onto the record. The whole tune is based on a four-note quarter note pattern that repeats, on and off the beat, throughout the chart. None of the quarter notes were marked. There was no indication of duration on a single one. And yet, sight reading the chart with the red light on, everyone played those notes exactly the same because people knew the conventions and followed the lead trumpet (Wayne Bergeron on this tune).

Actually, I found the recording, even though the tune name is wrong. This was recorded in one take with no rehearsal. Listen to all those short quarter notes, even though not a single one was marked short. How did everyone know to play them that way?



So, yeah, as a practical matter for musicians sitting there faced with having to figure out how to play a chart, there are conventions of how things "sound" more so than how they are "written" for big bands, so knowing those conventions solves the problem most of the time.

But if someone could convince composers/arrangers of a coherent and consistent notation convention for these things, that would obviate the need to be "in the know."

[robcat2075]

imagine if we had to know who the Road Commissioner was in a city when a sign was installed to discern its true meaning.

If you don't know what country you're in, which side of the road do you drive on? Context matters. Especially when conventions aren't 100% consistent.

(...it's an allegory.)

[Wilktone]

In big band music, unless he's there conducting, who cares what the composer was looking for?

Hey! I do! When it's my music.

But if my sheet music isn't clearly marked, then it's my fault if the band didn't understand what I was after. And if it's their conscious decision to change something, then at least it wasn't my fault for being too lazy to mark my parts correctly. Maybe what they play ends up being better, that's happened to my music before.

So, yeah, as a practical matter for musicians sitting there faced with having to figure out how to play a chart, there are conventions of how things "sound" more so than how they are "written" for big bands, so knowing those conventions solves the problem most of the time.

But if someone could convince composers/arrangers of a coherent and consistent notation convention for these things, that would obviate the need to be "in the know."

The players should understand the tradition and what's expected. The arranger also needs to understand the tradition and what the players need to perform the music correctly with as little ambiguity as possible.

From the Evan Rogers resource on big band articulations:

What's the biggest tell-tale sign of a non-jazz musician arranging jazz? Other than perhaps the infamous 'dotted-8th-note-16th-note' swing pattern, it's probably the use - or misuse - of articulation.

Ignoring harmony, form and the eye-sore of a font that is Inkpen 2, the most immediately obvious symbols that tell you it’s a jazz chart are the liberal use of articulation markings. Getting these wrong shows a player at first glance they'll have to figure out the phrasing on their own and that the arranger does not have their back. It would be synonymous with turning up to a session and seeing an orchestral score place the strings above the brass - no matter how well it's orchestrated, it's difficult to be taken seriously when the stylistic fundamental are so wrong.

[TomInME]

If you don't know what country you're in, which side of the road do you drive on? Context matters. Especially when conventions aren't 100% consistent.

(...it's an allegory.)

It's a failed allegory.

[TomInME]

As with any genre, musicians are expected to understand that genre's contexts and conventions.

This really gets to the core of the discussion, because "musicians" should include the composer/arranger, and the problems result from them (or the performers) not understanding the genre. Big band is more than just a different instrumentation.

As for recordings, those are a supplement, when available - and that's a major difference between jazz and classical. We don't have original recordings of Bach or Brahms, but we do of Ellington, Ella, Armstrong and everyone else. How can you expect to play in the style of those masters, or any of the styles that descended from theirs, without ever having listened to any of them? That's a core part of understanding the genre.

If you're reading something and have zero information from or about the composer/arranger, then all that the players have to go by is what's on the page and the contexts and conventions of the genre. That's fine (assuming the players are knowledgeable about those contexts and conventions). But it's not an excuse to avoid learning more about what the composer specifically wanted/wants if you have the opportunity to do so. Especially if they're in the same room!

[AndrewMeronek]

But as an arranger, I don't want to count on my lead players to accurately guess the articulation I want.

The whole "follow the lead player" comes with a grain of salt: I have to trust them to play what's on the page, accurately, and stylistically. If that's all there then yes, absolutely follow the lead player - and it's even easy! If the lead player is guessing, then the 1st time reading a particular phrase is a crapshoot, and let's hope that the lead player plays it the same the next time around. You can't "follow the lead player" if you can't predict the lead player.

[TomInME]

You can't "follow the lead player" if you can't predict the lead player.

[tbdana]

You can't "follow the lead player" if you can't predict the lead player.

Well, that's a pretty terrible lead player, then. Either this is a group playing at a very low level (in which case you'll probably never get agreement on note duration, much less things like pitch, time, and groove), or that person has no business being on lead.

A lead trombone player first follows the lead trumpet. If s/he can't do that in any predictable way, that's a problem.

If the lead player isn't predictable, then absolutely none of this thread matters, because no matter how perfectly the charts are notated, or how perfectly you honor that notation, that lead player is going to screw it up for everyone.

[harrisonreed]

Agree

[AndrewMeronek]

. . . and that brings it right back around to

Does Tenuto actually mean "full value"?

[Wilktone]

. . . and that brings it right back around to

Does Tenuto actually mean "full value"?

Sorry for the thread creep. But in our defense...

I meant that yes, generally that indicates full duration, but in certain contexts it means more than merely full duration. Especially in contexts where the default for an unmarked note already tends to be pretty much full duration. Then it's more about the articulation and shape of the note than the actual value

Yes, it should indicate the note is to be played full value.

Yeah, I agree that it’s strange for good players to not play tenuto full value.

Back in the days when I was playing in a British-style brass band, our British-born and raised conductor said that over there, tenuto markings over the notes are meant to be played long and slightly accented.

None of us have come up with any examples of tenuto markings that are intended to be played full value (unless you consider portato marked with a dash and a dot, which isn't tenuto).

But let me ask you again, is this because the players are lazy and just not playing things full value (perhaps being unaware of their mistake) or are they misinterpreting the marking?

Dave

[AndrewMeronek]

But let me ask you again, is this because the players are lazy and just not playing things full value (perhaps being unaware of their mistake) or are they misinterpreting the marking?

Both, in my experience.

I guess this has simply become a pet peeve of mine.

[AndrewMeronek]

Providing another example (and this is simply a really fun tune). See the timestamp of the shout chorus starting at 1:17 :



The band I mentioned in a different thread has a reasonably good transcription of this tune, and these 4 quarter notes of that first measure happen in that version to be notated tenuto, marcato, tenuto, marcato. This is, the horizontal wedge and not the vertical wedge.

I know the horizontal wedge interpretation has TONS of variations, so that I definitely forgive. And the tenuto marking is correct according to the recording, assuming it DOES mean "full value".

Oh, and it's worth noting that lead trumpet players in "the band I mentioned" NEVER are ambiguous about stuff like this. They're pros, and wonderful to perform with.

[Doug Elliott]

I would notate those quarters: accent with tenuto, and housetop with dot, to leave no question of how it is to be played.
(Typing these on separate lines)

> ^ > ^
_ . _ .