Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 87
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    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?

    Are we talking mostly the chord progressions, or the melodies?

    How do we *know* it's "wrong" -- what is it wrong compared to? The composer's final copy, the way Bill Evans did it, the way Miles did it, the way some teacher said it goes... I just don't get how a huge work, such as Goodrick's first effort, can be deemed "wrong," because it has some mistakes, or because it isn't exactly like this or that player thinks it should be. NOTE: I'm not saying it isn't wrong! I'm just confused. The tunes I've learned from it seem close enough for learning purposes, anyway. But just "wrong?"

    Why? How? Says who?

    I have the 1980 "6th edition" -- what's a tune in there that's wrong? Or the Hal Leonard versions? I also have the "Colorado Cookbook," which is of questionable legality, but seems well-done to me. I'm just trying to understand. : )

    kj

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    i like to have the (legal edition) real book and the new real book side by side...wherever they agree (most everything, except chord extensions), pretty sure that's "right" enough for all practical purposes...course, i have other sources, too...and then, it can be enlightening to get "street changes" from the veterans (see aaj)...
    "Beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we still are just able to endure, and we are are so awed because it serenely disdains to annihilate us." -- Ranier Maria Rilke

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Who gets to pronounce a lead sheet "wrong"? If Miles has a "definitive version" (according to some) and Bill Evans has a definitive version (according to others) -- which is THE definitive version? Neither - right? They're both right. It's their interpretation.

    So, just because Miles was Miles, does that make his way "it" and Hal Leonard's way "wrong?" Or what?

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Well, the chords of "Footprints" for example (The last D7 - Db7) are not how it's played on any recorded version that I know of.But it's mainly minor issues of a wrong chord or note every now and then - it's still a great book! The new Hall Leonard edition did some "corrections" and it's funny to find out that the "wrong" chords have became accepted over the course of the years amongst most players.....
    Jazz, Funk, Soul & Boogaloo: My group | Listen to Hip Jazz a Go Go! | Jazz, Soul, Blues: Eva La Voix

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Jay View Post
    Well, the chords of "Footprints" for example (The last D7 - Db7) are not how it's played on any recorded version that I know of.But it's mainly minor issues of a wrong chord or note every now and then - it's still a great book! The new Hall Leonard edition did some "corrections" and it's funny to find out that the "wrong" chords have became accepted over the course of the years amongst most players.....
    Good point, Jay -- my scant experience, when comparing the actual piece as written by, say, Gershwin (Summertime, esp.) or whomever, with a fakebook version (take your pick) is that the jazz books have sometimes taken HUGE liberties -- have changed the tune, sometimes, until it's almost a different tune.

    I have the original Summertime, as penned by Gershwin. If I can find it, I'll scan it and post it.

    kj

  7. #6
    I don't know about people saying they're "wrong". Mostly what I hear is something like "there are too many mistakes"; typos where the chord is just wrong and can't be explained by an alternate version, sub, or simple reharm.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Most of the flat out "mistakes" are corrected in the new legal realbooks.

    I think of the issue with realbooks is no so much that they're wrong, as much as they're not the only way that's right.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    There might be minor differences in some melody notes but as far as the chords, they are just someone's harmonization ideas.
    "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates
    “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.” - Alan Wilson Watts

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    The editors of the Real book themselves so much as admitted they had some wrong changes / melodies themselves when the issued a list of corrections in later releases. In the copies I have these corrections appear in the beginning.

    I can think of quite a few tunes with a wrong change here or there. There are even some misnamed songs in some of the "Spaces" editions and RB volumes 2 and 3

    The issue is (as with Footprints) most guys have come to play these 'wrong' changes.

    An interesting bit of 'trivia' is that there are two versions of the "non legit" Volume 2.

    I have one copy of the RB Volume 2 that has tons of more modern tunes and lot's of guitar-centric tunes. As a matter of fact it contains the charts for almost all of Vic Juris' Horizon Drive LP. They also released a second volume 2. The second one contains more standard tunes.

  11. #10
    In the 5th edition isn't there a missing line in Desafinado?

    I to play a completely different turn around on Footprints. When I was playing with another guitars a few months ago his teacher taught him exactly the same re-harmonization of Footprints as mine did.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    I just don't get how a huge work, such as Goodrick's first effort, can be deemed "wrong,"
    Kojo - Thanks for starting this thread. I hope it grows and yields lots of information for noobz like me who come to jazz with knowledge and experience from other styles of music. Which Goodrick work are you talking about? Surely not "Advancing Guitarist?" Did he compile a fake book? I've also seen comments about Aebersold's stuff being inaccurate. The only thing I've seen as wrong is his use of "+4" when "#11" is present. Annoying. Other than that the lead sheets seem okay to me. Looking forward to seeing some of the pros weigh in on all of this.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    after using "fake books" on so many gigs...the "real" books are quite an improvement...a quick scan of the progression can reveal a major error if you are familiar with the piece..but as far as "chord names" ... i translate them and use roman numerals and basic chords...and adjust them if the melody demands..so for me if i see a E13 in a piece in the key of D with a melody note G#..the chord may in fact be DMa7#11..

    as far as "wrong" .. it can be .. but if your ability can work around it .. it could just be a "typo" ..

    play well

    wolf

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Yeah while we're there
    what should the last bit of footprints be ?

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pingu View Post
    Yeah while we're there
    what should the last bit of footprints be ?
    |F#m7b5 B7alt | E7alt A7alt |
    Jazz, Funk, Soul & Boogaloo: My group | Listen to Hip Jazz a Go Go! | Jazz, Soul, Blues: Eva La Voix

  16. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by pingu View Post
    Yeah while we're there
    what should the last bit of footprints be ?
    F#m7b5 B7 Em7b5 A7 Cm7

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    I believe that there are many mistakes in the fake books. Chord extensions really are the worst; for chord-scale soloing and chord-tone soloing they really muddle things up. The New Real Book series seems the most tested and solid. They even put the common subs above the standard changes, etc.

    Like theory and everything else, you really must test the charts out. Play along to some definitive recordings and take notes. Some harmonically sophisticated tunes are filled with chords that defy standard symbols- or could be interpreted in various ways; those are always difficult to sort out by chart alone. Seems like there are lots of players who never listen to recordings of tunes and just learn them via fake books and JA Play Alongs- Footprints is one for sure. The changes above are "correct" though they are rarely played in student combos.

    Unique sonorities can happen with extended chords with slash bass notes, etc. Cmaj9/D is very much like Am11/D; which is "correct" and what do you use to voice it and solo with? The basic pitch collections of "C major" or "C Lydian", depending on how you fill the F or F# as a passing tone or possible extension. That just one simple example.
    Last edited by JonnyPac; 09-28-2011 at 06:55 PM.
    JonnyPac

    Chord-Scale Theory and Linear Harmony for Guitar Book by Jonathan Pac Cantin
    New PDF E-Book version available for download!
    Order here:
    http://jonnypac.weebly.com/
    http://amzn.com/0615431119

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    It's not that they're wrong, but there's a better way to play things (simpler way, to be specific). In a sense, they're wrong depending on who's playing it. Many times, it's easier for a beginner to , say, read a progression such as Emin7 - A7 - Dmaj7 rather than Emin11 - Eb9 - Dmaj9. For an advanced player, it would be nice to add alterations to a chord if the melody plays said alteration.

    Melody-wise, it's mostly the articulation of things. I know some Bird tunes don't have the a lot of the triplet things written out (even though it's expected to be played with triplets or just embellishing), and some books do have the triplets written out.

    It's not a big deal. If you're at least intermediate, you should know how to alter chords, eventually play the right ones. You also would probably be embellishing the melody anyways, adding triplets here and there.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    I don't know about people saying they're "wrong". Mostly what I hear is something like "there are too many mistakes"; typos where the chord is just wrong and can't be explained by an alternate version, sub, or simple reharm.
    Thanks, Matt - a good answer I can sink my teeth into. : )

    kj

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whatswisdom View Post
    Kojo - Thanks for starting this thread. I hope it grows and yields lots of information for noobz like me who come to jazz with knowledge and experience from other styles of music. Which Goodrick work are you talking about? Surely not "Advancing Guitarist?" Did he compile a fake book?
    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.

    Anybody know? And was it Goodrick? Didn't they catch and prosecute him?

    kj

  21. #20
    Here's an interesting comparison. In the "557 Jazz Standards" pdf Fake book the Miles Davis song "Four" has this chord progression for the first 8 bars:

    EbMaj7 EbMaj7 Eb-7 Ab7
    F-7 F-7 Ab-7 Db7

    The 5th edition Real Book has these chords:
    EbMaj7 EbMaj7 Bb-7 Eb7
    AbMaj7 AbMaj7 Ab-7 Db7

    The Real Book chords sound way better to me and they sound like the chords on the record. Plus, the progression makes sense. EbMaj7 then a ii V I to your AbMaj7. Make the Maj7 a -7 and now it's the ii of a ii V. That's a classic progression.

    But the 557 chord progression also works. So what exactly is "Right"? Is it only the way Miles played it on his record? Or are we allowed to re-harmonize it? I guess the question comes down to "Should the Fake Book do the re-harmonization or should the player"?
    Last edited by Greg Brouelette; 09-29-2011 at 02:09 PM.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Brouelette View Post
    The Real Book chords sound way better to me and they sound liek the chords on the record.... But the 557 chord progression also works. So what exactly is "Right"? Is it only the way Miles played it on his record? Or are we allowed to re-harmonize it? I guess the question comes down to "Should the Fake Book to the re-harmonization or should the player"?

    Right -- this is going straight to what I was trying to ask in my original question. Thanks, Greg.

    Typos are a fact of life in books -- especially in a whole book of music notation! Could it GET much more tedious? But when it's a question of which chord progression is the right one, or which rhythmic version of the melody notes is the right one -- when they all work -- seems it's awfully hard to claim that one is wrong. By their nature, jazz tunes are going to evolve and metamorphose, all the time.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    I was at Berklee in 74 when the original book was put together... had been started earlier but formalize and really just for local working musicians (faculity). There are plenty of all types of mistakes... notation and chord symbolism... is embarrassing. No reference to which version of tune... There are standard versions of tunes, which include standard changes and melody... If you really want, I'll pick ten or twenty bad versions... I have them all, and still have an original. At least the Shur books show what recordings were use for transcriptions and the notation is professional. But there still better than nothing and generally their just for reference... we know the tunes. The changes are really just a guide... the basic harmonic rhythm. They're just suggestions, but would be nice if they were aware of harmonic approaches and notated changes accordingly. Reg

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    At least the Shur books show what recordings were use for transcriptions and the notation is professional. But there still better than nothing and generally their just for reference... we know the tunes. The changes are really just a guide... the basic harmonic rhythm. They're just suggestions, but would be nice if they were aware of harmonic approaches and notated changes accordingly. Reg
    That was what I wanted. Thanks, Reg.

    I have the Hal Leonards. At least now I can proceed with caution and use my ear as the ultimate guide.

    BTW, just to eliminate any possible remaining confusion, please verify that you are referring to this publication:

    "The New Real Book, also in 3 volumes, published by Sher Music Co., is another legal and readily available modern alternative. The collection of tunes in it differs from the original Real Book, but this edition offers some of the same songs, in new transcriptions and a different notation."

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    I was at Berklee in 74 when the original book was put together... had been started earlier but formalize and really just for local working musicians (faculity). There are plenty of all types of mistakes... notation and chord symbolism... is embarrassing. No reference to which version of tune...
    But at least it was something... in other words, it beat nothing? It was a brave *start.* This is how I look at it -- and I wouldn't have felt embarrassed by it, I don't think. To me, it's like the first draft of what turns out to be a great novel. Hemingway said, "First drafts are shit." They are *something to fix.* It's so much easier to fix an actual thing, although it might be awful, than to create a perfect new thing out of nothing -- you see? So almost *anything* can work as a first draft -- as a place to start fixing: adding stuff, changing stuff, deleting stuff, etc.

    I know the analogy isn't air-tight. Fiction isn't music notation, which (with errors) can lead to botched performances and other tragedies. Still, though, you gotta start somewhere. I'd bet that Goodrick, or whoever put the first version together, was *counting* on what happened. He probably knew that the bullshit would get tossed out in shovelsful, by working musicians and good students, who would know a mistake when they saw one. And isn't this more or less what happened? Each successive "edition" (or "draft") was somewhat better?

    One man working alone could not, in a reasonable number of years, have created this much-needed resource, imo. Traditional (legit) publishers weren't seeing the huge demand, weren't providing what tens of thousands were clamoring for -- so at least the guy showed them, woke them up, and now we have passably good fake books. Whoever created the first terrible version, in effect, created the best version we have now. Hal Leonard and Sher used the hard evidence the bad version created (big sales) to at last publish legit versions. The songwriters probably should thank Goodrick, or whoever it was!

    Reg: I have the illegal 5th edition. It appears that "source recordings" are included with most of the tunes. Or maybe they are recommended listening.... For example, _Green Dolphin Street_, in the 5th edition, lists at the bottom, "Sonny Rollins On Impulse!" and "Bill Evans - The Tokyo Concert." I'm not sure if these are sources or recommended versions for listening. Surely they don't have the same chord progression! Or might they? If so, this would be convincing.

    Are there any really bad lead sheets you know of in this edition - if you have it, I mean? I hear it came out of Berklee/Boston area in the late 70s, early 80s. I'd appreciate it if you could point me to some goof-ups.

    There are standard versions of tunes, which include standard changes and melody...
    Are you talking about the scores written by the composer? Is this what you'd call the "correct" way to play the tune? (This is the kind of thing I'm confused about.) Or is it some "definitive" recording that determines the "standard changes and melody?"


    kj
    Last edited by Kojo27; 09-30-2011 at 08:46 PM. Reason: misspelled Sher

  26. #25
    realbook may be wrong but i've seen herbie hancock, joe henderson and pat metheny reading out of the real book.

  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    What is with the overtly retarded use of the humble old asterisk these days?

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Loaf View Post
    What is with the overtly retarded use of the humble old asterisk these days?
    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

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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
    *Nicely* done.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    Hal Leonard and Shur used the hard evidence the bad version created (big sales) to at last publish legit versions.
    Which is correct: Shur? Sher?

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whatswisdom View Post
    Which is correct: Shur? Sher?
    "The New Real Book, also in 3 volumes, published by Sher Music Co., is another legal and readily available modern alternative. The collection of tunes in it differs from the original Real Book, but this edition offers some of the same songs, in new transcriptions and a different notation."

    I keep seeing the name spelled differently. Seeing as we're talking about accuracy and legal vs. illegal, as well as multiple editions of fakebooks published by different entities, could we get it straight as to who's who? Thanks.

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    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.

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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!

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Loaf View Post
    Good lord you're a tedious one, as is your style. Thanks!
    Touché.

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    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!

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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.

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    ...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.

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by M-ster View Post
    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!
    JonnyPac

    Chord-Scale Theory and Linear Harmony for Guitar Book by Jonathan Pac Cantin
    New PDF E-Book version available for download!
    Order here:
    http://jonnypac.weebly.com/
    http://amzn.com/0615431119

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    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

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    ...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.

  41. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whatswisdom View Post
    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

  42. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    -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...

  43. #42

    User Info Menu

    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?

  44. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thared33 View Post
    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

  45. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    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?

  46. #45

    User Info Menu

    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...
    "Beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we still are just able to endure, and we are are so awed because it serenely disdains to annihilate us." -- Ranier Maria Rilke

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by randalljazz View Post
    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.

  48. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Sight reading is not an option - Reg
    I think this will be my screen-saver for a while...

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whatswisdom View Post
    I think this will be my screen-saver for a while...
    LOL.

  50. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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.

  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whiskey02 View Post
    $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