Comments about roots never being omitted in another question How to distinguish between a minor triad and a maj7 chord with same notes but without the root prompted this one.
This question Why rootless chords? only partly covers the question. It only considers a bass part supplying the root.
It seems to me for practical purposes "rootless" chords are voicings for accompaniment chords where either a bass supplies the roots, or a treble instrument ends up hitting the root in the course of improvising. A pianist could supply all three parts.
To what extent will roots actual get played somehow even if they aren't in the "rootless" accompaniment chords?
A lot of responses are saying things amounting to "roots aren't played all the time", or even "the root is absent (from all instruments) more often than not."
I though my wording "to what extent" was clear enough to show I'm looking for a rough description of what's normal in styles using rootless chords (not Dixieland, not free jazz, etc.)
Maybe two examples from Evans/LaFaro will help...
From Alice in Wonderland
The dissertation containing the transcripts is about LaFaro's unique, groundbreaking bass style. The examples aren't cherry-picked. Most all the examples look like these. Roots for the labeled chords are in the piano or bass most of the time. Also, it seems roughly, when a chord doesn't have a root in either instrument the rootless chord contained between chord that do have roots - like the first
G7 in the Alice in Wonderland example.
It isn't a question of black and white extremes or isolated passages. It a question of norms. Isn't this kind of harmony normal for "rootless" chords? Chords roots are play somewhere in the texture for a significant amount of the music.
"Rootless" is really a reference to a type of voicing, typically for the guitar or piano. "Rootless chord" is a misnomer. "Rootless voicing" or "rootless chord voicing" is the actual meaning.