Double Bass Murder, then burn, your Real Book...

[damonsmith]

Without pulling the book out to double check, your version seems very close to or exactly like the Mingus more than a fake book version. I think there is a whole case to be made about tunes by jazz composers played more accurately than show tunes or other standards borrowed from other contexts - in a way, most of those are being played wrong just by being instrumentals.

Continuing in our Series - Here is another RB abomination - C. Mingus' "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat".

Here is the RB version - Caution: VERY Flammable.
View attachment 3690302
Here is the "Mingus Ah Um" version that is closer - (note - "....Maj7/9" is spelled/shown as "...small triangle7/9".) Dig the solo changes.
View attachment 3690303

 

[Don Kasper]

Without pulling the book out to double check, your version seems very close to or exactly like the Mingus more than a fake book version.

Thanks.

 

[vilshofen]

Continuing in our Series - Here is another RB abomination - C. Mingus' "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat".

Yikes D.K. this may be your best work yet! Is there a Nobel Prize for transcriptions?
The chordal desecration visited upon this song by hacks like me . . .
Thanks innumerably!

 

[Richard Blair]

I never heard of this book. Tell us more!

The Montreal book was a project of a few Montreal jazz musicians in The 70s - most notably Andrew Homzy but others as well. It was a book of good sophisticated lead sheets for the tunes that were being played by contemporary Montreal musicians of that period including a lot of standards. I encountered it while playing on the West coast with a Montreal piano player in the late 70’s. It was the unofficial alternative to the Real Book in those days - had tunes that weren’t in other books, although lots of overlap. Hard to come by then - and impossible now.

 

[BrandonL]

The Montreal book was a project of a few Montreal jazz musicians in The 70s - most notably Andrew Homzy but others as well. It was a book of good sophisticated lead sheets for the tunes that were being played by contemporary Montreal musicians of that period including a lot of standards. I encountered it while playing on the West coast with a Montreal piano player in the late 70’s. It was the unofficial alternative to the Real Book in those days - had tunes that weren’t in other books, although lots of overlap. Hard to come by then - and impossible now.

Would it be possible, or even desirable, to pool the collective brain power and connections of some of the more advanced (read “not me”) TBers to create a wiki version alt real book?

 

[Carl Hillman]

Would it be possible, or even desirable, to pool the collective brain power and connections of some of the more advanced (read “not me”) TBers to create a wiki version alt real book?

I don't imagine there would be a ton of authors out there that would eagerly agree to have their copyrighted work accessible to the entire world without some compensation forthcoming.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I've never taken the listing of a recording at the bottom of a RB lead sheet to mean that the lead sheet is a reproduction of that recording, but rather just as a note of where to find a recording of it.

Right. I went to check in to this, and my actual physical copy that I bought in Boston in the early 80's has the obligatory missing pages at the beginning and the end, so no go. But then I remembered the digital version. And right there, in the foreword, it says:

(Whole foreword below - click to enlarge)



For anyone wanting to dive deeper into the waters of "where do these changes/charts come from, and why are there so many disagreements?" I would heartily recommend checking out The Story of Fake Books by Barry Kernfeld. Here's some discussion on the subject from the last big "The Real Book is the Devil!" thread, with learned weigh-ins from GOLDSBY WAN KENOBI and others.

 

[Don Kasper]

"The Real Book is the Devil!"

The Devil may be lot of things, but he/she is not Lazy and Incompetent.
Let's give credit where credit is due.
IMFO.
Thanks!

 

[Don Kasper]

The Real Laffs begin in the FOREWORD!
Satan Wept.
Thanks!

 

[longfinger]

The Real Laffs begin in the FOREWORD!
Satan Wept.
Thanks!
View attachment 3696248

C'mon... spoiled! The books previous were worse. Remember the books with 1200 songs? 3-4 different songs on 1 page? Some systems have 9 measures, others 5 measures, others 2measures? Weird page turns. Too many lyrics verses under the melody. Or the song books with piano parts written below the vocal melody for EZ piano playing? The hand written "RB" fake books were a first step to better path of melody and chord symbol charts, with a rhythm based grid for measure spacing and system layout. They were surpassed quickly, but they helped move the baton forward.

 

[longfinger]

Would it be possible, or even desirable, to pool the collective brain power and connections of some of the more advanced (read “not me”) TBers to create a wiki version alt real book?

wikifonia was exactly this from the years 2006 - 2013. It got shut down and as the creative commons licensing system it used wasn't to the satisfaction of the copyright holders.

Wikifonia - Wikipedia

Link Removed

 

[Don Kasper]

C'mon... spoiled! The books previous were worse. Remember the books with 1200 songs? 3-4 different songs on 1 page? Some systems have 9 measures, others 5 measures, others 2measures? Weird page turns. Too many lyrics verses under the melody. Or the song books with piano parts written below the vocal melody for EZ piano playing? The hand written "RB" fake books were a first step to better path of melody and chord symbol charts, with a rhythm based grid for measure spacing and system layout. They were surpassed quickly, but they helped move the baton forward.

I have a few of the "1200 songs...." books - I use them for lyrics and for the published melody. They are accurate enough...
Sorry - the RB (overall) is an embarrassment on so many levels.
IMO.
Thanks for your interest and civility.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

C'mon... spoiled! The books previous were worse. Remember the books with 1200 songs? 3-4 different songs on 1 page? Some systems have 9 measures, others 5 measures, others 2measures? Weird page turns. Too many lyrics verses under the melody. Or the song books with piano parts written below the vocal melody for EZ piano playing? The hand written "RB" fake books were a first step to better path of melody and chord symbol charts, with a rhythm based grid for measure spacing and system layout. They were surpassed quickly, but they helped move the baton forward.

Agree. The older books were basically unusable, especially on a dark bandstand. And after reading the Kernfeld book, I can only imagine what using the Tune-Dex cards must have been like! Here's the front and back of the chart for the Tune-Dex version of "Alice In Wonderland":

I think that when viewed in context, the Real Book was a significant step forward in the evolutionary process. Certainly not the be-all-end-all, but also not the kind of pure evil it is often made out to be.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

The real book is a collection of transcriptions of (former?) Berklee Music students with some original compositions by them.
At that time it was not that bad, but to make a book out of them, a lot of students were required to make a book that contains a representative collection of tunes.
The book was useable on stage, no page turning on two page tunes, large chord symbols, adequate number of bars per line. (But no copyright clearance until version five or six, cannot remember exactly). The chords might be simplified a bit because it was compiled for student use, so more experienced players might not like them and also students might not be experienced enough to correctly identify the chords.
BTW, do you remember the different errata sheets for the first edition?

Due to history it might still be the book that most people have and which is used by most musicians in a jam session.
If you look at the chords in iRealb, they are often not much better than the ones in the original real book, probably because they are either copies of fake book chords or written by musicians who need something like that to get through the tune (like me, I don’t want to waste time memorizing those tunes, for new ones I need something written anyway).

And chord change collections are the only legal way to share tunes since melodies are under copyright, but chord changes are not. That’s the reason why the software impro-visor does not contain original melodies but only chord changes and the notation of improvisations from those who have permission to publish them.

There are some books where the composers gave permission to publish one or a few of their compositions (German real book) but then you won’t get the all-American songbook stuff in there. It might work as a free sampler of contemporary compositions (like the ones from Gary Burton, Steve Swallow etc. in the original real book) so that people might get interested to buy other compositions from them. Or composers might want to donate their compositions to a non-profit organization for free common use after their death.

 

[turf3]

Isn't "Alice in Wonderland" in 3?

Anyway, I think those who get all upset over the accuracy of chords in the are largely missing the boat - to me the RB isn't about accurately documenting which chord extensions Bill Evans used on a particular day in 1959 when he recorded a particular tune (I'm exaggerating here), but rather to show someone unfamiliar with a tune the basic song form. Those things on the sides of your head need to be the guide. Plodding through a tune playing exactly what it says on the RB page, no matter what your ears are telling you, indicates a bigger problem than whether the transcriber got all the inner details exactly right.

And, it also offered an opportunity for the transcribers to promote obscure tunes no one really plays (or even likes).

 

[ee-san]

This conversation reminded me of the Monster Book from which I learned a bunch of tunes before I ever saw a Real Book. The format of the Monster Book is very similar to the Real Book and once in a while I see a Real Book page that appeared to be copied from the Monster Book. So, who among y'all knows the history of the Monster? Didn't it precede the Real Book and provide the prototype format? And while we're at it, where did the Colorado Cookbook or the Blue Book come from?

 

[Deltatim]

These threads on the real books acuracy remind me of a high school band teacher who did not like the cold, mechanical sound of everyone playing exactly what was printed....he said the paper is to keep us o the same page and key....the music comes from the Heart by way of your ears. The marching band morphed into a jazz band

 

[damonsmith]

@Don Kasper what is your proposed solution? I remember you taking Bromberg to task on using incorrect RB changes on his album. I don't have an issue with that - at a certain level RB changes shouldn't be used.
What about the reality of RB changes in the world and that being the common versions of the tunes people know? How do you propose that be addressed?
People have been saying RB changes are wrong and demonstrating it for decades.

I think it is a fine learning tool, when someone doesn't have II-V-Is and 32 bar forms in their ear, working out of the Real Book will get them in there.
I supposed there is the question of recording standards as "artworks" in the 21st century, something I think is a tough sell regardless of how "correctly" they are played.

I will argue to the death that the RB version in Em/Gmaj of Autumn Leaves is an excellent introduction to jazz harmony for a bass player (especially for BG)! Anyway, I suppose I only defend it as a learning/teaching tool.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

@Don Kasper what is your proposed solution? I remember you taking Bromberg to task on using incorrect RB changes on his album. I don't have an issue with that - at a certain level RB changes shouldn't be used.

On the other hand, at a certain level of playing, you have earned the right to play whatever changes you want, for any reason whatsoever. The measure of a great jazz player is more about "how they play" than "what they play" IMO. EEMMV, EEMWDSOCB, etc.

 

[Don Kasper]

@Don Kasper what is your proposed solution? I remember you taking Bromberg to task on using incorrect RB changes on his album. I don't have an issue with that - at a certain level RB changes shouldn't be used.
What about the reality of RB changes in the world and that being the common versions of the tunes people know? How do you propose that be addressed?
People have been saying RB changes are wrong and demonstrating it for decades.

Back when I started (in the mid 70's), you had to have the vinyl recording of a tune, or know someone who did - and would lend it to you (good luck!), as it was not po$$ible to own a version(s) of every tune that you wanted and needed to play. So, the Real Book was a useful, though sloppy and inaccurate, tool - as I soon found out.
These days, a version, or multiple versions, of a tune can be accessed in a matter of seconds, (for Free), so there is a real learning opportunity for musicians to access and hear a version of a tune that actually "exists"...unlike so many of the RB fiascos that do NOT exist, and are simply WRONG. For instance: there was no version of Dolphin Dance, (that I'm aware of), with the many ERRORS and Omissions (Wrong Pedal points, wrong changes, etc.) that existed prior to the RB publication. The RB's 4 bars of pedal "B" instead of a pedal "E" is NOT an "arrangement"... it is plain Wrong. (Yeah...I said it!)
The first chord of Blue In Green is Gmin6 9, and calling it "Bbmaj7 #11" is NOT an "arrangement".
The missing 4 bars in the bridge of Desafinado is NOT an "arrangement".
I could go on.
My problem with the RB, is NOT the Key of Autumn Leaves, (I agree - it's solid and it's correct), but rather, the many Errors and Omissions due to unqualified "transcribers" (I'm using this term very generously), and the obvious lack of any oversight, editing, or proofing by qualified/actual musicians. It's not even funny that this was (apparently?) used as a textbook.
My solution?
Use the RB or any other book or chart, to compare with an actual recording - make (many!) corrections to your RB, and begin transcribing specific versions of tunes that are NOT in the RB. Can't hear changes well? Spend some time with the pianist or guitarist in your group - they are always further along Harmonically than most bassists. Find a pianist or guitarist to take some lessons with - not for your bassplaying, but for your Harmonic awareness and Harmonic ear-training.
Given the amount of easy access and technological advances these days - (there is a thing called a "....Slow Downer", apparently?), there is no longer any excuse for folks to be using AND "learning" lame or stock or wrong changes.
We all talk about improvised music being "of the moment" and "creatively free", but if you can't hear the sound of what is actually present on a recording, (a recording that you can analyze/stop/slow down/listen to... over and over), what makes you think that you'll be able to function "creatively" "of the moment" in a live situation?
I would much rather hear someone play who has listened to, immersed themselves in, written up, and studied 10 tunes, than someone who has downloaded 2800 generic (or worse!) charts of tunes on an iPad. (Yes - the "easy access" IS a double-edged sword, as is most technology. Hey - I'm not an Amish Luddite.)
If anyone is wondering if this is " the Hill I Want to Die On...", the answer is Yes.
Thanks for your time and interest, Damon. (and be careful on your new BIKE!!! for pete's sake!)