(3/3) What influences the relationship between a Big Band’s horn- and rhythm section?
What insights do the interviews give into how relationships are built between the rhythm and horns section in a Big Band? What insight can listeners give?
The majority of relationship-building happens off stage, according to Smith, Cheung and Zaslav. It’s a multi-layered relationship, not only between the two groups I was interested in, but for the entire band in general. Whether on the road, during rehearsals or simply during time away from instruments, the more time band members spend with one another off stage, the stronger the relationship between them will become. Simultaneously, the less verbal or physical communication is needed on stage. The consensus was that the better band members know one another, the more fun they will have whilst performing.
Big Band Relationship-building mostly happens off-stage
This means, as Cheung pointed out, that a skilled musician is not only expected to master his or her instrument. Much more, a core skill of a musician is to find his or her place within a group of other musicians through relationship-building. That relationship then, as Zaslav pointed out, is used as a medium to enable and push the ability of other musicians in the band. Acknowledgement of good solos, for example, have an immense effect on the soloist. Mutual respect in the band facilitates musical communication.
The way Big Band musicians communicate on stage, according to the interviewees, manifests itself in three possible mannerisms — musical, physical, and verbal.
Communication on stage can be musical, physical or verbal
Musical communication is the most subtle — active listening from all members is required. Physical communication may be less subtle, involving eye contacts, lifting arms and pointing at band members to signal entry points, solos, or transitions. Verbal communication, as Cheung explained to me after our interview, is the least subtle, requiring the director or band members to shout out phrases that aim at keeping the band together. However, as both Smith and Cheung pointed out, the use of verbal communication is not a sign of little practice or performance issues. Rather, it can be seen as a tool to show enthusiasm and increase energy on stage.
Audiences respect the effort of Big Band performances
Big Band musicians and directors alike are cognizant of the audience, and feel that their presence adds energy to the music they play. However, one must distinguish between feedback and atmosphere. Whilst the former is direct communication between the audience and the band, atmosphere alludes to something intangible that is “felt in the room”. Both can empower a performance — especially during solos, as both instrumentalists interviewed pointed out, audience feedback can be a source of energy. The feedback may manifest itself in clapping, whistling, or vocal approval.
Good audience feedback increases the Band members’ enjoyment of a given performance. Smith even went as far as saying that good feedback acts “like a glue” for the band.
However, bad feedback is never given — in these interviews, not one instance of negative audience feedback was noted, leading to the hypothesis that Big Band audiences respect performance efforts, regardless of whether they are done successfully.
Audience members listen and look for different features
Different people listen for different features of music. Big Band music is perceived as a unit, which is why relationships between the rhythm section and horns section is not immediately a reason for concern. Though every interviewee listened primarily “with their ear” rather than eye, different people look for different aspects of a performance. For example, whilst Smith looks at the musicians’ posture, Pennington evaluates the visual effect of costumes and stage design.
With the permission of the interviewees, I have uploaded the raw recordings of my conducted interviews here (they are private and can only be accessed through the above link). In the comment section of the tracks, I have added my interview observations.
There are several ways in which this study can be improved. Primarily, the number of interviewees can be increased; by doing so, the exposure of the interviewee to Big Band music should be acknowledged, and should ideally vary — all four interviewees have had expansive knowledge and familiarity with the topic, so hearing a novice audience member, for example, would give an interesting perspective.
Secondly, the questions could be developed to gain more detailed reports of subjects. For example, I would like to ask about specific examples of how the musicians bonded off-stage. Similarly, I would like to make sure that every question is replied to during an interview, and not left unanswered (i.e. Smith did not tell me about his responsibilities as a director for relationship building amongst band members, an insight that this study would have profited of).
