when my dad unexpectingly played that last big gig in the sky...every pro. in wash.dc called looking for his fakebooks...yep they went to his bass player.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass The Real Book!
- Thread starter Ike Harris
- Start date
The thing that's frustrating is that you can go out on a limb tell people stuff till you're blue in the face and they still insult your intelligence by doing stupid **** like bringing "fake" books to gigs. That's exactly what they are...fake. Use that stuff at home but you are missing it if you fall for it and bring it with you. Learn some tunes. Better to struggle without it. At a session agree on 20 tunes..then play. The ****ing people aren't listening anyway. Who cares if you mess it up. I can just see it now, a bunch of guys in tee shirts with chrome music stands and real books standing around playing Recordame for the 100,000th time. So, when the senior guy tells me to learn the tunes and get my ears big enough that I can do it on my own without the book even if it's a new tune....that's what I do. In fact, try this for intimidating. Miles fired his nephew, because he said he needed to shed. Miles felt his time was messed up. Yeah, he fired his own nephew. He did it out of love for the music and most of all, for his nephew.
I think they are a fine reference tool. I like playing tunes I have never played out of the real book solo.
I agree about the need to ween yourself off them quick if your intent is to learn mainstream jazz at a pro level.
The whole situation is skewed now that most of us don't have a real engagement with the original version of any of these tunes.
I guess the question ends up being: do we want to spend a lot of time re-creating life in the 40s and 50s or do we learn some tunes out of the book and get on with our own music?
I agree about the need to ween yourself off them quick if your intent is to learn mainstream jazz at a pro level.
The whole situation is skewed now that most of us don't have a real engagement with the original version of any of these tunes.
I guess the question ends up being: do we want to spend a lot of time re-creating life in the 40s and 50s or do we learn some tunes out of the book and get on with our own music?
While I don't totally agree with Damon's sentiment of jazz 'standards' being a music of the past I do when he talks about the learning process being skewed. I think that is why it ends up falling pretty firmly along a generation line. I know a bunch of standards (I'm sure not near as many as Paul or Eric) but I've had to make a concerted effort to learn these tunes through playing with heavier cats, seeking out recordings, looking at charts, etc. The 'list' of standards that might get called on a gig is really pretty daunting. When a tune comes up that I don't know I head to the shed and learn it. We are really talking about a list of tunes that spans 80 years. Many of these tunes were ones that we were exposed to on some level in college not on the radio or in the clubs. No excuse to not know tunes. Just an observation.
Wow, Michel Legrand, Johnny Mandel, Carlos Jobim, Herbie Hancock.......40s-50s.......I don't give a damn what "list" of tunes you use. In fact a substantial number of tunes I like are from the '60s and '70s. Jeez. Just get the books with the music stands out of there and start listening and improvising and if your lucky something real good will happen. Sight reading is not part of the curriculum here. And I might add, it's not sight reading after the 100th time.
Chuck. Why are you getting bent out of shape on this? Everyone here is coming from different places. I make a concerted effort to learn as many standards as I can since the vast majority of my gigs are playing them. Damon is coming from a different place. He is a fantastic player that focuses more of his musical energy on improvised/free stuff. Part of what makes these discussions 'discussions' is the differing points of view.
Interesting points of view from everybody so far. Me? I think that writting music down is a fine way to comunicate an idea of what you want. I also usually stress that what is written down is not the music. It is only the recipe. The music is the sound that is being made. In this context the books are a fine way to get familiar with something new.
I'll side with most others so far on the downside of playing with people who sit for chorus after chorus staring at the thing though. I really don't think that is the best (or possibly even intended) use for it.
On the other hand, I have also played with as many people who had their head stuck on a recording they learned from, as people who couldn't get away from the Real Book. Haven't we all played with people who, for example, always double time the bridge because "that's that way it was on the record", even though it would have been nice, just once, to keep the time where it was?
I am actually a big fan of putting a chart in front of students and having them play without having heard a recording. I'm pretty sure that what comes out is them. Which as I see it, is a lot like the original recording. After all, none of them had an "original" recording of the song to listen to, did they? So how did they learn tunes? Only by ear? Did Trane just hum the melody to Giant Steps to everybody and say "you'll hear it"? Nobody was reading when Lush Life was recorded?
If you make a living playing music, reading music is a valuble skill. Interpreting charts often pays as many of my bills as does playing standards. Long post, but I think this discussion isn't quite as simple as it seems at first. It's easy to jump on the "no books" band wagon, and I mostly agree with it. Which is why I want to question it, know what I mean?
I'll side with most others so far on the downside of playing with people who sit for chorus after chorus staring at the thing though. I really don't think that is the best (or possibly even intended) use for it.
On the other hand, I have also played with as many people who had their head stuck on a recording they learned from, as people who couldn't get away from the Real Book. Haven't we all played with people who, for example, always double time the bridge because "that's that way it was on the record", even though it would have been nice, just once, to keep the time where it was?
I am actually a big fan of putting a chart in front of students and having them play without having heard a recording. I'm pretty sure that what comes out is them. Which as I see it, is a lot like the original recording. After all, none of them had an "original" recording of the song to listen to, did they? So how did they learn tunes? Only by ear? Did Trane just hum the melody to Giant Steps to everybody and say "you'll hear it"? Nobody was reading when Lush Life was recorded?
If you make a living playing music, reading music is a valuble skill. Interpreting charts often pays as many of my bills as does playing standards. Long post, but I think this discussion isn't quite as simple as it seems at first. It's easy to jump on the "no books" band wagon, and I mostly agree with it. Which is why I want to question it, know what I mean?
I play with guys who can take a quick look at a chart and then truly make some music. They, we, are not stuck with our noses in a book. It's just a road map. I don't often take a book but sometimes somebody wants to try new tunes "at least for us" and I see no reason to NOT take a book.
I find taking a very rigid, inflexible position on anything is almost always counterproductive. I'm also amused when some of us get our panties in a twist over basically nothing. Most of the "Great American Song Book" was written, and popular, before my time, as well as many others who frequent this forum. These tunes are not typically floating around on the air waves on radio and/or TV. You have to do a little digging to hear these songs, melodies, tunes. Here's an idea, listen to a few different versions, (these days UTube is a great resource), and ENJOY yourselves. In my view, music is supposed to be life affirming not an endless obstacle course to be endured!
I am not saying standards are thing of the past, just being able to engage with the original version in it's original context certainly is.
I use standards as a big part of my teaching and personal study.
I just think the real book question is one of how deeply you personally feel you need to engage.
Do you want to play Cole Porter tunes with the depth of Lee Konitz and Red Mitchell? Then burn it!
Do you want a basic feel for those melodies and harmonies? It is a useful tool then.
If you want the basic mechanics of 32 bar tunes, II-VI-Is and an understanding of the tension and release, etc. the real book is fine.
It is like the question of what 'cello suite edition to play out of, the Bärenreiter 'cello edition at pitch is ideal, but playing out of a basic International Music edition in the low register is going to do some good as well!!
I use standards as a big part of my teaching and personal study.
I just think the real book question is one of how deeply you personally feel you need to engage.
Do you want to play Cole Porter tunes with the depth of Lee Konitz and Red Mitchell? Then burn it!
Do you want a basic feel for those melodies and harmonies? It is a useful tool then.
If you want the basic mechanics of 32 bar tunes, II-VI-Is and an understanding of the tension and release, etc. the real book is fine.
It is like the question of what 'cello suite edition to play out of, the Bärenreiter 'cello edition at pitch is ideal, but playing out of a basic International Music edition in the low register is going to do some good as well!!
+ 1! It is great when you want to really learn a tune to track down some early versions with the lyrics.
YouTube rules. Yes, it does.
You ask why, PW, doncha huh? Sure you do.
I use it every day either in my teaching or when I find it hard to remember lyrics, composers or just some obscure Standard or Jazz tune that my old brain left to rest. Most of what I consider are the definitive versions are in there and many others in many different keys to boot.
Example: Sometimes when I post a Denver Gig Spam I mention that I'll quote "All this Is Mine and Heaven Too" more times in a single night than Lee Morgan ever did in his short life time. That's an old standard tune that I used to play with singers back in the olden days. It became very hip for Beboppers to quote in their solos, especially one Clifford Brown. Lee started to use it all the time on his records and it became a kind of private joke among us all. I hear younger players use it and when I do, I make it a point to ask them if they really know what they're doing there. They say no and I tell them that they're actually quoting Lee Morgan, quoting Brownie, quoting that tune. Then I tell them to search it under the title and Frank Sinatra on YouTube and up comes a very, very old version offa Frank vinyl. The kids are amazed by that.
I sometimes wonder that if I had had YouTube as a young Whippersnapper, might I be even more brilliant than I am now. Is that even possible?
I think not.
You ask why, PW, doncha huh? Sure you do.
I use it every day either in my teaching or when I find it hard to remember lyrics, composers or just some obscure Standard or Jazz tune that my old brain left to rest. Most of what I consider are the definitive versions are in there and many others in many different keys to boot.
Example: Sometimes when I post a Denver Gig Spam I mention that I'll quote "All this Is Mine and Heaven Too" more times in a single night than Lee Morgan ever did in his short life time. That's an old standard tune that I used to play with singers back in the olden days. It became very hip for Beboppers to quote in their solos, especially one Clifford Brown. Lee started to use it all the time on his records and it became a kind of private joke among us all. I hear younger players use it and when I do, I make it a point to ask them if they really know what they're doing there. They say no and I tell them that they're actually quoting Lee Morgan, quoting Brownie, quoting that tune. Then I tell them to search it under the title and Frank Sinatra on YouTube and up comes a very, very old version offa Frank vinyl. The kids are amazed by that.
I sometimes wonder that if I had had YouTube as a young Whippersnapper, might I be even more brilliant than I am now. Is that even possible?
I think not.
That's funny. You should read what Miles did to Jackie Mclean one night when Duke came to here him. He called tunes that Jackie didn't know, just to **** with him. Jackie said in an interview he never forgave Miles for embarrassing him in front of Duke on stage, but he learned the tunes. I'm sorry guys. I feel we are carrying on a tradition that requires a certain amount of etiquette and class. I just feel it's blasphemous. Yeah. It's just "cocktail music" as Cecil says so, pull up, pull out your real books and disrespect everybody that ever played this music. Just **** 'em. I don't see any youtubes of any of the greats with charts in front of them. Wow. That's funny. I wonder why that is? Hmm......But with all do respect Damon I will agree to disagree.
I agree with where you are coming from - anyone who wants to carry on that tradition needs to not have a book in front of them. I heard Matt Brewer just kill it with the Lee Konitz trio, no books and no talking.
I get your position, and I am a big fan of your contribution here, too.
I still feel there are lesser ways to engage with that tradition that help your music even if you are not going to be a full time jazz player.
I get your position, and I am a big fan of your contribution here, too.
I still feel there are lesser ways to engage with that tradition that help your music even if you are not going to be a full time jazz player.
I don't know Chuck, does what Miles did to Jackie qualify as etiquette? Or was that class? And what did Duke think of the music that night? Did he think less of Jackie afterwards because of it, did he wonder why Miles hired him in the first place? Do you think Miles was respecting the music by calling tunes his own band couldn't play? What kind of class and etiquette is that anyway? And is this really what you would tell a student (or do to them on a gig) who showed up totting a Real Book?
