Who Says The Real Book is "Wrong"???

[Al_F]

I think for $19.00 its quite a deal. Hundreds of tunes, some of it may be wrong but in terms of learning, its a great starting point for me.

[Buster Loaf]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Hi Buster Loaf,

If you mean *this* -- it's from the days of the typewriter, and the computer as well. It's an indication (universally-understood, practically) that a word in a typed manuscript, or text file, should be boldface. Even now, in MS Word, if you have "auto-correct" turned on and have the default corrections selected, Word will automatically make boldface *any* word thus written.

Likewise, in text editors (Notepad, for example), a word written like _this_ will be italicized by MS Word (and Word Perfect and others.)

Writers who wrote their manuscripts on typewriters (which couldn't make a word boldface or italic), were required to indicate italics and boldface this way. The typesetter would know, then, to set the word as the writer intended. For *years* after the simplest word processor was Italicizing words, this remained a requirement for freelance manuscript submissions. Now that everything is computerized, magazines use mostly rich text format (rtf) and prefer that writers italicize and boldface their own work. That MS Word will still automatically format words written this way tells you what a strong convention it was.

I had to get in the habit of doing this, since I wrote, and write, for magazines. It has become popular in email and in Internet forums, though, and it's likely that many who use it have no idea of the origin of the thing. I don't see how that matters, though. It *is* a good way of stressing a word in writing such as this -- and faster, for me, than taking my hands off the keyboard to click the "B" or the "I" -- though I do that sometimes.

That's my explanation. Now maybe you can explain how the use of asterisks (an intangible thing, the use of) can possibly be "retarded." Furthermore, how can this be "overtly" retarded? Just curious.

kj

Good lord you're a tedious one, as is your style. Thanks!

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by Buster Loaf

Good lord you're a tedious one, as is your style. Thanks!

Touché.

[M-ster]

Most times the quality of a transcription roughly equates to the experience of the transcriber. I believe this explains many notational and harmonic errors in real/fake books.

As a studious musician, I think one is compelled to revisit original recordings to deepen one's own understanding of what "the masters" are/were doing or had intended.

The fact that so many musician's don't bother to do this is how you get the notational errors broadly proliferated, as has been described.

In short: Go back and listen!

[cosmic gumbo]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

I've heard it so much, I had almost accepted it as a given, but then it hit me -- what's _wrong_ about it, but more important, says who, and why?

The old bootleg realbook had plenty of errors, and they mostly involved questionable chord changes, but, it was what it was...bootleg, thrown together to fill a huge void. Legitimate music publishers like Sher Music and especially Hal Leonard (world's largest music publisher) have access to the correct charts, because most of the tunes were in their catalog anyway, so there was no excuse for not making the corrections needed.

Like any collection of 400+ tunes, there's bound to be a few songs that some people can't agree on, but I find the legal versions to be very accurate. Here in the northeast usa, lots of older cats are still using the bootleg version because it cost them $40-$50. Otherwise, when I play with horn players, the version I need to have is the legal Hal Leonard 6th edition, because jazz is so much bigger than just guitar, and I don't want to be left in the dust. The Sher realbook is nice, but I just don't see it on the bandstand with horn players, so it's not as practical to have.

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

...when I play with horn players, the version I need to have is the legal Hal Leonard 6th edition, because jazz is so much bigger than just guitar, and I don't want to be left in the dust. The Sher realbook is nice, but I just don't see it on the bandstand with horn players, so it's not as practical to have.

Glad I got my Hal Leonards. Thanks. Maybe I'll pick up Sher sometime when I can afford it. My next purchase when I get the cash is going to be the Randy Vincent Drop 2 book.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by M-ster

Most times the quality of a transcription roughly equates to the experience of the transcriber. I believe this explains many notational and harmonic errors in real/fake books.

As a studious musician, I think one is compelled to revisit original recordings to deepen one's own understanding of what "the masters" are/were doing or had intended.

The fact that so many musician's don't bother to do this is how you get the notational errors broadly proliferated, as has been described.

In short: Go back and listen!

WORD!

[Reg]

OK ... to answer a few questions... Goodrick didn't put the original Real book together... He was one of the older players, Swallow was older and still on staff at Berklee at time of 1st publication... anyway Kojo... yea early editions had source of transcription... But I though the question was about current and which version of fakebook was best... there's no real question there. If everyone jumps is that the best.... or most common etc... Any fake book will work if the players all have the same copy...
The standard versions would be the basic changes and melody. By basic changes I mean the basic harmonic pattern or rhythm of changes. When there are a few choices, usually before the tune is played... a reference would be made to which changes. ( sometimes what key also).
For the majority of gigs... which is what I do... I'm expected to know standards... most leaders or who ever is responsible of the gig would have his or her book which would have versions or arrangements of tunes etc...
What are the fake books for... when there were only a few, it was fairly simple and most players new the tunes already, again fake book was for reference. Your "ears" need(ed) to make the choices.
One of the great things about fake books was that we could play new tunes, that were not standards etc...
Loose gigs have loose tunes, which is cool when all the players can cover... when the players aren't so great... you need better charts. When I lead or book gigs, I always have one of my sets of my gig binders or collect of charts to pull from, which have arrangements etc...
As Cosmic gumbo pointed out the Hal Leonard is most common. it's cheaper and most resembles original which is what most of us are use to seeing.... That doesn't make it better... as I said the Sher books are much more accurate and much more professional... But any jazz player is very comfortable reading from a napkin, piece of binder paper... or as with many gigs... a quick verbal "Head Arrangement".
I have all the fake books... I also have an ipad... I know and understand most of the tunes... and I work on them and new tunes everyday...
Reg

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by Reg

...as I said the Sher books are much more accurate and much more professional...I know and understand most of the tunes... and I work on them and new tunes everyday...

Hey Reg, thanks for the insightful reply and for clearing up the Shur/Sher spelling. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you about your daily routine(s) as a working pro. We hear all the time here from lots of us wannabes about the best way to practise this and practise that--which exercise is best for whatever...learn tunes; transcribe; this book; that website; this method; that method--it never ends. Besides learning and working on your repertoire, do you have a set method, i.e., covering scales, arps, progs, exercises, etc? What has helped your development as an improvisor, besides the obvious? Do you transcribe regularly? I'm just curious and always interested to learn from an experienced pro. Thanks again.

[Reg]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

Hey Reg, thanks for the insightful reply and for clearing up the Shur/Sher spelling. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you about your daily routine(s) as a working pro. We hear all the time here from lots of us wannabes about the best way to practise this and practise that--which exercise is best for whatever...learn tunes; transcribe; this book; that website; this method; that method--it never ends. Besides learning and working on your repertoire, do you have a set method, i.e., covering scales, arps, progs, exercises, etc? What has helped your development as an improvisor, besides the obvious? Do you transcribe regularly? I'm just curious and always interested to learn from an experienced pro. Thanks again.

I'm embarrassed to say... I don't practice much, don't have the time... But I play three to four hours a day... many times more. I spent most of my free time composing or other stupid things... I spent way too much time practicing when I was young. I was very organized with my schedule
and updated every week as needed. Just the obvious material, exercises and drills... nothing magical. I've posted what guitarist need to know... and what jazz guitarist need to know and be able to play.

-All scales and arpeggios in all positions lots of patterns, (whatever fingerings you use, be able to move with out watching your hands etc...) I use basically the Berklee 2nd finger base system with 1st and 4th finger stretches. I was using before I went there, but Berklee cleaned up my approach.
-Be able to voice any note on top of any chord any where.
I started with root 6,5 and 4 versions of chords... all inversions. My goal with comping is to be able to imply the harmony below whatever style of lead line I'm playing with whatever style of comping the tune implies. ( obviously you need to be able to determine what that style is).
-Have a better than basic understanding of jazz harmony and theory, much more than traditional or classical...(that really doesn't cover)
-Know or at least be able to hear and understand the standards and more..(transcribing could be part of, whatever it takes to educate your ears...)
-Sight reading is not an option...
-there are rhythm skills,
-all these and more skills need to be developed to a proficient level of expertize.
There are different approaches to improvising, different styles... part of our skill is to be able to recognize those... that becomes fairly easy after you've put in your time...
There's much more... but it's all very basic... some of the concepts of understanding are somewhat complicated, but they're usually constructed from simple ideas...
I always say be aware of Modal interchange, modes and modal concepts, Melodic Minor and concepts and ... blues. (not rock blues). Those are personal choices... Reg

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by Reg

-Sight reading is not an option...
There's much more... but it's all very basic... some of the concepts of understanding are somewhat complicated, but they're usually constructed from simple ideas...

The whole reply is very helpful...these were just a couple of things that I thought should be highlighted. Sight reading--hard when you don't spend the necessary time on it. Kind of reassuring to hear that concepts emerge from simple ideas. I'm discovering that more and more as I see how so much is connected. A connection that only became obvious recently to me: CEGBDFA = CMaj7 plus Dminor, to take a simple example. The I and ii chords are self-contained. Nothing simpler than that...

[thared33]

I've got a noob question. I'm not a jazz musician but I take an interest in jazz theory. Exactly what is the real/fake book and why was it created?

I've got some jazz theory books but never considered picking up the real/fake books. Is this for just playing pre existing, popular jazz songs as a cover band kind of?

I might pick it up out of curiosity but I buy music books so I can LEARN from it. Can I learn a bunch of chord progression stuff it perhaps?

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by thared33

I've got a noob question. I'm not a jazz musician but I take an interest in jazz theory. Exactly what is the real/fake book and why was it created?

I've got some jazz theory books but never considered picking up the real/fake books. Is this for just playing pre existing, popular jazz songs as a cover band kind of?

I might pick it up out of curiosity but I buy music books so I can LEARN from it. Can I learn a bunch of chord progression stuff it perhaps?

Other guys here can probably add to what I can tell you, thared -- but I'll take a first shot at it.

Originally called "Fake Books" -- these were illegal collections of tunes, particularly jazz I think, that you'd buy at music stores - they kept them beneath the counter but probably sold a ton of them because of the strong demand. They were illegal because the compiler hadn't paid, and wasn't going to pay, the songwriters any royalties.

College level jazz programs, not to mention all the self-taught players, needed these books because there are just so damn many "standards" that a jazz player needs to know that learning them all by ear is impossible. There are easily a thousand standards, I'd say -- so professional players needed fake books at gigs, and for practice/learning new tunes. Reg, for example, might sit in with a different group of players every night, and can't know ahead of time which of the zillion standards that group plays, which ones they might not have a chart for.

Then there's, "Do you take requests?" What if someone wants to hear Con Alma, but you, and maybe the rest of the band, don't know Con Alma? Or you used to know it but now it's faded a bit? Or you've never heard of the tune? You "fake it" -- with your fake book.

The Real Book (the title being a clever play on the customary jargon, "fake book") was probably the best illegal fake book ever -- I think it emerged in the 70s; and it must have sold tens of thousands of copies. If you were a jazz major back then, you almost certainly had a copy. If you performed jazz, you had a copy. The benefits are obvious -- and although riddled with errors, The Real Book was "it."

Sometime (in the 80s?) legitimate publishers opened their eyes and saw what prices players were paying for these collections of jazz tunes - $50 oftentimes - in the 70s! Since The Real Book was illegal anyway, I'm assuming, Hal Leonard Publishing capitalized on the look, format, fonts, everything almost -- for "The New Real Book" -- which is in three volumes. Sher, another publisher, has a good version of legal "fake books" now. In fact there are so many now (The Real Book of Blues, etc.) that they'd fill a shelf. Still with mistakes - wrong chords, wrong notes -- but invaluable, and the songwriters get what's theirs.

That's my damage - somebody fix my goofs.

kj

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by Reg

OK ... to answer a few questions... Goodrick didn't put the original Real book together... He was one of the older players, Swallow was older and still on staff at Berklee at time of 1st publication... anyway Kojo... yea early editions had source of transcription... But I though the question was about current and which version of fakebook was best... there's no real question there. If everyone jumps is that the best.... or most common etc... Any fake book will work if the players all have the same copy...
The standard versions would be the basic changes and melody. By basic changes I mean the basic harmonic pattern or rhythm of changes. When there are a few choices, usually before the tune is played... a reference would be made to which changes. ( sometimes what key also).
For the majority of gigs... which is what I do... I'm expected to know standards... most leaders or who ever is responsible of the gig would have his or her book which would have versions or arrangements of tunes etc...
What are the fake books for... when there were only a few, it was fairly simple and most players new the tunes already, again fake book was for reference. Your "ears" need(ed) to make the choices.
One of the great things about fake books was that we could play new tunes, that were not standards etc...
Loose gigs have loose tunes, which is cool when all the players can cover... when the players aren't so great... you need better charts. When I lead or book gigs, I always have one of my sets of my gig binders or collect of charts to pull from, which have arrangements etc...
As Cosmic gumbo pointed out the Hal Leonard is most common. it's cheaper and most resembles original which is what most of us are use to seeing.... That doesn't make it better... as I said the Sher books are much more accurate and much more professional... But any jazz player is very comfortable reading from a napkin, piece of binder paper... or as with many gigs... a quick verbal "Head Arrangement".
I have all the fake books... I also have an ipad... I know and understand most of the tunes... and I work on them and new tunes everyday...
Reg

Thank you, Reg.

And to all the rest of you - thank you. I finally understand, I think, what you're talking about when you say "wrong." If you want to learn "Summertime," listen to Billie Holiday, and Erroll Garner, and Miles -- and see how they did it. Take Gershwin's score for what it is -- a jumping-off point, valuable still, but not as valuable as the way Billie Holiday did it, because hers was the first jazz treatment of the tune, back in 1936. Do some research if you have to, listen, listen, listen -- and if you have a fake book, compare. If something sounded questionable in the fake book, listen to these first recordings, the important, most popular recordings -- and hear for yourself. Heck, listen even if nothing sounds questionable.

Close?

[randalljazz]

good summary, kojo (imho, fwiw)...minor point...The New Real Book is the series published by chuck sher. hal leonard publishes the legal version of The Real Book, which retains much from the old, illegal 'berklee' real book...

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by randalljazz

good summary, kojo (imho, fwiw)...minor point...The New Real Book is the series published by chuck sher. hal leonard publishes the legal version of The Real Book, which retains much from the old, illegal 'berklee' real book...

Yes - right.

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by Reg

Sight reading is not an option - Reg

I think this will be my screen-saver for a while...

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

I think this will be my screen-saver for a while...

LOL.

[whiskey02]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd always heard that Goodrick created the infamous "illegal" Real Book from the early 80s, maybe late 70s. Every college jazz program had them circulating, music stores had boxes of them stacked beneath counters, slyly-penned ads in Down-Beat sold them by mail.

But the composers got ZERO money for their efforts. And the books were probably selling for - I don't know - who bought one? I have one, and it's the one I use -- from dad's big-trunk-o-books-and-tapes. Seems he gave $30 for it, maybe more.


kj

$20 in front of Berklee in 1976.

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by whiskey02

$20 in front of Berklee in 1976.

..

Cool. Maybe the farther away from the source, the more middle men and the more "freight"?

Seriously, though -- think of the money "that guy" made (not Goodrick, Reg told me, can't remember the actual guy's name) ... he must have retired a wealthy man.

I think I have a good idea of how little a comb-bound book like that would have cost back then. Unless he used a local Mom & Pop printer (and used a "mail-order" printer, as he should have), it couldn't have cost more than $2. Paper was SO cheap.

My guess is he sold them for $10, which made selling them very attractive, to lots of people everywhere there was a college jazz program - not to mention the jobbers who worked the music store circuit up and down the East Coast, then in Chicago, in L.A. -- wow. All cash, straight to Sweden. I bet he hates Hal Leonard's ass *real* bad.

kj

[Reg]

I remember selling them on west coast in 74 for as little as $10, but usually $20. And I gave them to most of my friends... they were printed down the street from Berklee. I remember the guys who were involved... I just don't think it's cool to bring up... It wasn't only a $ making venture at first... But I was a naive kid.... hell I still am...

[Tom Karol]

I guess I'm late to the party here, but I have 3 "Fake Books" - Volumes I, II, and VII I think - that I got got from my guitar teacher in the mid '60's. I think I paid $25 each for them. He said he got them from someone who sold them out of the trunk of his car! I've also got a green one and pink one that I got at Berklee in the early '70's that looked like they were made on a copier. (Does that ring a bell, Reg?) I'm going to go now and see if I can find them amongst all the years of clutter around my house.

[mr. beaumont]

$20 in the mid 70's was a heck of a lot more th an$20 is today.

[Reg]

Hey Tom... I was on west coast in 60's... never saw anything like real book. Have some lousy smaller with lousy changes, and melodies, fake books from 60's... pretty useless except for reference to stimulate the memory. I guess that's what they really all do... but harmonically they're pretty bad.
And yea the real book went off pretty quick... it really helped...

[fep]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

$20 in the mid 70's was a heck of a lot more th an$20 is today.

Indeed, $20 in 1975 is the equivalent of $80.13 in 2010.

The Inflation Calculator

[NeillonGuitar]

Originally Posted by fep

Indeed, $20 in 1975 is the equivalent of $80.13 in 2010.

The Inflation Calculator

hehe - great little site that. Further evidence that Gibson are charging way too much for Super 400's and es-175's.

NL

[Nighthawks]

I just bought the Hal Leonard play along series and am finding the tunes recorded are sharp by varying numbers of digital cents. It is not pleasant. Anyone have a tuning chart for the tunes?

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by Nighthawks

I just bought the Hal Leonard play along series and am finding the tunes recorded are sharp by varying numbers of digital cents. It is not pleasant. Anyone have a tuning chart for the tunes?

No tuning chart, but what some would do is to rip the tracks to .mp3 format (Windows Media Player does this) and then play each one back in a media player or editor that allows for pitch correction. Audacity is a superb freeware music editing program that lets you do this, I'm pretty sure.

Once you have a track corrected, "save it as" the New Version (maybe to a special folder or flash drive, for later burning to DVD, etc.)

Playing along with an actual CD is asking for slight discrepancies in pitch, IMO. Go digital.

[Steze]

On a related note, what's the difference between the "Real Book" and the "New Real Book"? Is the "New Real Book" an update from the publishers of the "Real Book?" They have a completely different cover and when I was taking jazz guitar lessons my teacher told me to get the "regular" Real Book because the chord progressions are simpler. He said the New Real Books are good, but he wanted to pencil in the subs himself, so I could see the basic chords compared to the subs, whereas the New Real Book already has way more substitutions presented. When people say they use the "Real Book" do they mean either version?

[Nighthawks]

The idea that you can import the audio files into a good sequence application is appealing but I have not found that it works as far as retuning. I have Logic Pro 9 and run backing tracks and play along tracks to performance standards.

When I play guitar with the newly purchased Realbook play along imported audio files and use Pitch Correction to retune i get occasional digitalized warbles that ruin the track. It seems like a chart like:
Autumn Leaves/ guitar needs to be tuned 7 cents up.
Bright Size Life/ guitar needs to be tuned +15 cents
Etc.
...is needed for this series of Trio accompanied Realbook tunes.

Unless someone has a steps like answer.