...If you want to create a new Real Book of tunes written since 1970, I think I'd start with successful jazz composers first and then branch out to big-name jazz artists and stop with college jazz professors. I've met a lot of folks who think they can compose but mostly, their tunes are just okay. I think it's great that they work on their craft that way, but for many reasons, IMO, their work is at best, boring. OTOH, I've heard some really great new jazz from jazz composers like Steve Swallow, jazz artists like Gary Burton, Pat Metheny, Rufus Reid, David Friesen, and talented jazz faculty like Chris Fitzgerald, Fred Hamilton, and Dan Hearle. I think your idea about choosing simpler songs is probably smart, but what I notice is that good tunes tend to have something difficult to play. For instance, many players think that Maiden Voyage is a simple tune, and it is, except for the bass/piano comp, which takes committed practice for most players to play well - and IME, most players don't play it well.
This is the kind of operational nuts and bolts I'm interested in getting ideas about. Interested in your thoughts, and others on the items below.
I think I'd start with successful jazz composers first and then branch out to big-name jazz artists and stop with college jazz professors. I've met a lot of folks who think they can compose but mostly, their tunes are just okay.
@Tom Lane I think the value of your approach is that it provides instant credibility to the tunes. But one thing I didn't mention (or maybe did say) was that one of the goals is to create a book of really good compositions that grant a limited copyright to be played anywhere provided admission is less than a particular dollar value. This has a few purposes -- it keeps BMI and ASCAP off the backs of small clubs where a lot of people play regularly.
Another goal is to give the competent, but unknown composer a place to publish their music with wide, viral distribution.
I think people on the list you mention would balk at giving away their compositions that way, or lowering their music to be included in some kind of grassroots book. They also would want to be paid by more high profile publishing companies as well. More high profile than a little, grassroots, non-profit publishing company.
I do see the merit in your idea, definitely, but t the economics of it is a concern. It means you would probably have to be just like any other publisher out there essentially. I was sort of hoping for a more grassroots effort. I know from hard experience that the original tunes we play at our gigs get heavy applause. I was thinking of tunes like that.
For example, you liked @Steven Ayres tunes earlier -- tunes of that quality. From checking his profile, As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong Steven), he is not a university professor or renowned artist, in spite of his apparent virtuosity on upright bass. Yet he wrote a great song you said you would like to learn. You also requested the chart. I personally, would like to play it.
if you're going to create this new Real Book, I think I'd be tempted to create a non-profit to own the work and create a website to allow transcribers to download chart guidelines and then ask for volunteers to submit charts. That way, all of the charts will look similarly, and conform to legibility requirements and a set of nomenclature standards. Chord symbols, fonts, 4 bars to a line, no more than 2 pages, etc. Composers would have to be paid, but the only thing the transcribers would get is an acknowledgement that they did the transcription.
I already have a transcriber. He's very fast at it and loves to do it. He already charted a bunch of my tunes based on an MP3 I gave him and so far, has bought into the project. So I have that covered for now. I would rather not pay the composers to keep this sustainable over the long term. Here are my reasons.
a) One of my favorite quotes is that "leadership is the process of turning vision into sustained reality through the wise use of power". The sustainability part is hard to pull off when you have to pay for the music. That is why I would like the artists to grant a limited copyright of the songs. This way the songs can be played at low-paying, free or low priced gigs, yet composer retain the copyright for bigger usage of their tunes, like in a movie or for a formal show. This will help get the music into venues where owners have been ASCAPPEd and BMI'd, and can't pay the expensive fee to have live music...I have used the original sets we have three times now to get around copyright problems with ASCAP and BMI.
b) I asked four really good musicians who have compositions I have played, and seen audience reaction. They have all agreed allow their work to be used without compensation. So far, four of them -- one, an adjunct professor of music at a local college. one a drummer with a bachelors degree in music, another a Berklee College grad, and our arranger for my group that did a pretty high paying theater show last week. He did music full-time as a transcriber, arranger, and composer in the military for over 20 years, since retired.
b) I already have a non-profit through which all this could be run that I have been operating for 2 years now. I am one of the officers and have a pretty free reign to do what I like with it, the way it is structured. I would have to tweak the mission statement a bit and file the necessary paperwork. Done it before.
You would probably also need a bunch of volunteers to review the transcriptions and rank them, and those folks could get contributing editor credit. An ambitious endeavor for sure, but with good organization and enough help, definitely doable.
Yes. Story of my life -- finding good volunteers. LIke most things I have started, the project needs momentum first. People will join a moving bus a lot faster than one that isn't even moving. And that means slugging it out with a couple good people at first, learning the flaws in the plan, making adjustments, and then going big after gaining the necessary knowledge. The good news is that it could be a virtual group of volunteers.
You could start with a first edition aimed at 99 or 100 tunes of varying character - swing, straight-8th, latin, bossa nova, waltz, etc.
What about smooth and contemporary jazz? Do you think these newer forms should be included? We have some smooth jazz in our local standards that keep popping up at gigs like Mr. Magic, Shaker Song, Morning Dance, and contemporary stuff like Pat Metheny's Bright Size Life, Phase Dance, James, Song for Bilbao....do you think these newer jazz styles are a good fit with a book like this? Or do they belong in a separate book?
My main concern is the exent to which the book would be used, so would inclusion of smooth and contemporay tunes hurt its useability/acceptance by other musicians given the fact that some are jazz purists?
Worse than that, for the past 3 months, I've been working on the same 3 tunes! Slow learner, I know.
