Why is the Real Book so heavy on Wayne Shorter?

[sausagefingers]

Not being smart-aleck...but has anyone else noticed this? :huh Anyone ever play Armageddon at a Wedding? House of Jade? Was there a license agreement or something that he allowed so many tunes to be reproduced?

I am by NO MEANS anti-Wayne Shorter. But: It seems strangely lacking in Berlin, Porter, Loesser, Hammerstein, Gershwin (yes, they are all there, but count the Shorter tunes for goodness sakes!)

[Lucidology]

Well IMO Wayne is one of the best tune (melody) writers ever ...
Prince of Darkness, Witchhunt, etc. are top notch compositions

Miles Davis, who obviously had much more clout then moi,
says he is his favorite jazz composer ...

[sausagefingers]

Well IMO Wayne is one of the best tune (melody) writers ever ...
Prince of Darkness, Witchhunt, etc. are top notch compositions

Miles Davis, who obviously had much more clout then moi,
says he is his favorite jazz composer ...

I am willing to be schooled on this....I think of Real Book as my "play along with swingin' Frank" book...but I will explore Wayne....on your rec Joe :drink

[russ6100]

Wayne Shorter's stuff is the epitome of great writing in every way imaginable. There are tunes in the Realbook that should be replaced with more Shorter tunes.

Oh yeah - and WS tunes are the shizzle,

[jb70]

because wayne shorter is the living god of music. seriously.

[Gene]

I have a realbook and I have never played a wedding! That has been my musical goal ever since I remember. I got suckered to do a bar mitzvah once with a well known pop singer type guy but that was enough.

Seriously, I didn't notice that Wayne had an unfair portion of tunes in the realbook. Which edition real book? I transcribed most of his tunes so I never looked in the "books".

[landru64]

get "Speak No Evil" and you will see the light

[JonR]

The original Real Book was prepared illegally by students at Berklee in the 1970s.
So (a) neither Wayne Shorter nor any of the other composers featured "allowed" their work to be included. None of them got royalties.
And (b) the books' producers were students! Wayne Shorter was (and is) cool. "Wedding jazz" was (and is) not!
The book was - quite consciously - an antidote to all those "fake books" that musicians commonly use (or used to use) to busk jazz at function gigs. "No man, this is the REAL book, you dig?" :cool: :rolleyes:
It expressed a deep respect for what great jazz musicians actually played (by transcribing recordings, instead of just copying out melodies and simple chords from existing books) - which is, of course, why it became so hugely popular in the jazz community.
Er, except among some of the composers who were ripped off, I guess...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Book

[sausagefingers]

Wayne Shorter's stuff is the epitome of great writing in every way imaginable.

get "Speak No Evil" and you will see the light

the books' producers were students! Wayne Shorter was (and is) cool. "Wedding jazz" was (and is) not!
The book was - quite consciously - an antidote to all those "fake books" that musicians commonly use (or used to use) to busk jazz at function gigs. "No man, this is the REAL book, you dig?" :cool: :rolleyes:
It expressed a deep respect for what great jazz musicians actually played


Thanks! Consider me schooled. :BEER


Also, I had forgotten that Weather Report was Shorter.

[brad347]

It expressed a deep respect for what great jazz musicians actually played


Too bad the respect wasn't quite deep enough to transcribe the tunes correctly.

:crazyguy

Interestingly enough, I am not sure a fake book is the best place to learn Wayne Shorter tunes.

The "chord symbol over a single staff" format falls ridiculously short when it comes to conveying what Wayne conceived. Even the "more accurate" legal fake books, while better than the old illegal one(s), don't quite get it.

The reason is that, at least with a lot of his second-quintet-and-later compositions, much of the harmony was very specific. As in, the voicings were specifically notated. And come to find out, the vertical order of tones, as well as which tones of the mode are omitted, are often very crucial to the sound of the piece. "Nefertiti" is a great example of this. That one (and others) also has a lot of flexibility built into the harmony for the subsequent choruses, which is impossible to communicate via fake book.

The whole "Chord/scale theory" as preached by Jamey Aebersold, et al, is what those books are built around... i.e. any chord can be reduced to being derivable from an entire mode of some scale or another, usually major or melodic minor, and any note of that mode applies. And you can put them in any old order, with your artistic license as your guide.

But Wayne wasn't really coming from that place on some of his stuff. On lots of compositions, the harmony was more strictly conceived, with specific voicings written, and certain notes of the mode conspicuously (and consistently) omitted. This is something I'm just discovering more and more about Wayne.

This is why the fake book thing in my opinion, in most circumstances, kinda falls short. Well, there are other reasons, with other types of compositions. I generally don't recommend fake books at all. I suppose that they could be handy in certain situations, for certain players. But I haven't used one--for anything--in quite some time. But I digress! :D

Generally, in my opinion, the more specific/intricate a composition, the less-suited it is for a single-staff-with-chord-symbols format. I'm no Wayne Shorter, but for most of the music I write, I use a two- or three-staff format (kind of like a 'mini score' for all players), and while there is plenty of room for interpretation, I cannot imagine reducing any of it to a single staff.

[sausagefingers]

Interestingly enough, I am not sure a fake book is the best place to learn Wayne Shorter tunes.

This is why the fake book thing in my opinion, in most circumstances, kinda falls short. Well, there are other reasons, with other types of compositions. I generally don't recommend fake books at all. I suppose that they could be handy in certain situations, for certain players. But I haven't used one--for anything--in quite some time. But I digress!

But I'm a hack!

I like the format for working out chord-melody solo guitar arrangements of familiar tunes. When you Wish Upon a Star, Wee Small Hours, Misty, Autumn leaves, etc. Did I mention I'm a hack?


As an aside, I have 2 Real Books. One I photocopied more than 20 years ago, and one I bought recently on Amazon. The new one has another weird quirk: On the Mingus tunes, it always has a note in typeface on the page: 'to learn more about Charles Mingus and his music, please see..." with a reference. This little note is only on Mingus tunes!

[brad347]

The Hal Leonard "Real Book" things that are out now are, if I'm not mistaken, legal books designed to look like the old illegal ones. I would suspect that the "for more info about Mingus" note was probably a stipulation of whatever agreement allowed them to reproduce lead sheets for his compositions.

For the kind of thing you are talking about, the fake book is probably an acceptable means of conveying the general essence of the tune. Tunes like the ones you listed have been around for so long, have been played so much, and are so far removed from their original context that a single staff with chord symbols could very well communicate one way of harmonizing the tune adequately. At certain times, communicating the bare minimum is desirable, as it leaves the musician to flesh out the harmony in more individual ways.

But there can be something still more limiting about that than hearing the tune and learning it on your own by fiddling around with your instrument until you have it. Or, if it's not strong enough in your memory, learning it off of a recording or two.

The reason is that, with those popular standards, what is in the fake book is but one way of harmonizing the tune, arbitrarily chosen. In 99% percent of cases, the harmony indicated in the fake book is not the original harmony as composed by Gershwin, Porter, or whomever. It is usually merely an arbitrary method of harmonization, considered by whomever compiled the fake book to be a) customary b) "the best," or c) most expedient/easy/obvious.

It's amusing to note that certain tunes are played a certain way, harmonically speaking, chiefly because of the Real Book. For instance, "Alone Together" by Dietz/Schwartz, to use one popular standard. For instance, in the 14-bar A section, in bars 9-10, there are a series of two ii-Vs in the real book. The first is B minor seventh to E seventh, followed by G minor seventh to C seventh.

A bit curious, indeed, to have those ii-Vs leap downward by major third like that. But 99% of people today play the tune like that.

But you know what? Back in the 60s, if you go back to the Kenny Dorham or Miles records on that tune, or any number of others, the progression is instead Bm7 E7, followed by Bbm7 Eb7, which then resolves up to F∆7. Hay-o! Functionally, that makes a whole hell of a lot more sense, at least in terms of typical jazz-idiomatic harmonic motion. I've never heard a record of someone playing it the "Real Book" way until after the Real Book came out.

Incidentally, neither harmonization above is anywhere near the original published score, which was (loosely) Abdim7 for a whole bar followed by Gm11 for two beats and Bbm6 for two beats, resolving to F maj. This original is arguably the coolest and most interesting of them all.

Anyway, nowadays, the "real book" harmonization, arguably the most awkward and least interesting of the three possibilities above, has become the de facto "standard" version. All because of the real book.

Weird.

Incidentally, many/most good musicians will not harmonize any two choruses the same way on those tunes. There are so many possibilities to get from one tonal area to another, that you can have infinite variety if your knowledge of the tune is more loose/broad-minded. If you know it is in F here, and then goes to D over here, there are a million places you can get from A to B that work with the melody (or, in the improvised choruses, that last bit isn't even necessary). If your harmonic concept is dictated by the fake book, then you just might be cheating yourself out of the fun of investigating/discovering those new possibilities.

HOWEVER--

What sausagefingers is talking about is more like using the fake book as a songbook, for personal enjoyment. In other words, kind of hearkening back to when music was the home entertainment, and families would gather around the piano or organ and sing/play from songbooks, purely for diversion. There's something very cool about this, and I think fake books are as good as any songbook for that sort of practice.

I'm just not sure I recommend them for learning jazz repertoire by someone who considers themselves a serious student of that music.

[Gene]

I do have an inside scoop as I have worked with players who know Wayne very well and also played in his bands over different times and space.

Let's just say, even the Shorter tunes in the approved version, the changes are not really correct. Perhaps not by mistake either.

Man, really. If you want to play Wayne tunes, listen to the recording and play it. If you can't hear it, develop your ears and play easier stuff for now.

[brad347]

Let's just say, even the Shorter tunes in the approved version, the changes are not really correct. Perhaps not by mistake either.


exactly

[russ6100]

Great thread!

I've spent some time scouring the interwebs trying to find clues about how WS approaches writing, mostly through his interviews. If you've read much of those, you'll notice that WS communicates pretty uniquely.

If I had to guess, it would seem that most of his melodies came first and were harmonized after. I just love how some of his melodies are simple, pentatonic lines harmonized in the most beautiful of ways.

Any of you guys know of any anecdotes, semi-confirmed rumours, or more informative interviews that could possibly shed some more light on WS's thought process when writing?

And I agree of course, none of the realbooks are even close to accurate regarding his tunes. Another monkey wrench is that the versions he did with Miles are just another variation on the originals, some of which we maybe never heard.....

[russ6100]

Originally Posted by Gene http://img.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=5563775#post5563775)
Let's just say, even the Shorter tunes in the approved version, the changes are not really correct. Perhaps not by mistake either.
When you say "not by mistake", are you thinking that Wayne himself is being deliberately obtuse?

[Gene]

There is a big hint on records Wayne did in the 60's with Miles. Basically, compositions based on "sounds" than "chords".

[sausagefingers]

Man, really. If you want to play Wayne tunes, listen to the recording and play it. If you can't hear it, develop your ears and play easier stuff for now.

Actually, I never said I want to play his tunes....I was looking for insight as to why the Real Book included so many of his melodies, when I consider The American Songbook to be predominantly showtunes. I want to play tunes I know from Sinatra records! I think I understand now that Shorter is revered as a great melodicist. And my ears are just fine. ;)


exactly

Right on, I respect your authority on how "the repertoire" has evolved...after all, I read the thesis you sent! :AOK

[Lucidology]

I have a realbook and I have never played a wedding! ....

Yo Gene .... you have never played a wedding ...?

[RichardB]

Hey Sfingers, I agree w/ you on this. and don't sweat the guys implying that the "standard" canon is somehow lamer than Wayne's thing. It ain't. In fact, I will put up Kern, Porter et al up against the best jazz composers any time any place.

Those show tune writers were some truly bad guys. Plus factor in their lyrics and you don't get better in songwriting anywhere. It doesn't get hipper than Loesser or Porter or Sondheim, for example.

[russ6100]

RichardB wrote:
Hey Sfingers, I agree w/ you on this. and don't sweat the guys implying that the "standard" canon is somehow lamer than Wayne's thing. It ain't. In fact, I will put up Kern, Porter et al up against the best jazz composers any time any place.

Those show tune writers were some truly bad guys. Plus factor in their lyrics and you don't get better in songwriting anywhere. It doesn't get hipper than Loesser or Porter or Sondheim, for example.

Richard, I absolutely love Porter, Kern , Gershwin etc..

I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

Hey - OT for a sec...

What was that hilarious show called that parodied "serious jazz" that you posted a YouTube link to a while ago?

[RichardB]

Russ,
that show must have been "Jazz Club"

Search for jazz club and you will see it on youtube

[Gene]

Yo Gene .... you have never played a wedding ...?

I never have and it is by design. A singer just asked me to do one and I had to turn it down.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is a bad thing or a lesser musical thing. I just have no interest in playing my guitar at a wedding for some strangers. Being told what to play and not to play, etc.

I don't know if this makes any sense but I don't see myself as a guitarist. I don't even want to be a guitarist. I love playing the guitar to express myself musically. So I don't really accept anything that doesn't fit into my will. My main path is to explore and develop my music as an individual artist. That is about it, really.

[blhm84]

As to the usefullness of hte real book, I think the Real Book is extremely useful If you have a knowledge of how to use it. The chords listed are bare bones, and represent only the band chord and not what players actually play. Any good jazz musician though will look at whats there and know what to play. As a guitarist, I find it extremely useful for learning tunes initially or for playing a tune on the fly at a gig.

Anwway, it should only be a guide rather than a bible. But it has its uses.

[Gene]

Anwway, it should only be a guide rather than a bible. But it has its uses.

Yes, it does has uses. Can't deny that. Chuck Sher has done a great job with his work. Probably as close as it gets to being musical and it saved me time learning the lyrics to standards.

[Lucidology]

I never have and it is by design. A singer just asked me to do one and I had to turn it down.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is a bad thing or a lesser musical thing. I just have no interest in playing my guitar at a wedding for some strangers. Being told what to play and not to play, etc.

I don't know if this makes any sense but I don't see myself as a guitarist. I don't even want to be a guitarist. I love playing the guitar to express myself musically. So I don't really accept anything that doesn't fit into my will. My main path is to explore and develop my music as an individual artist. That is about it, really.

Yes ... this makes a great deal of sense ... and you have the talent to back this up ... that's for sure:YinYang

[brad347]

a wise person once told me "never get too good at something you don't want to do."

[Gene]

a wise person once told me "never get too good at something you don't want to do."


My problem is that I can't be as good as I want with what I want to do... Alas, such is our human fate.

[DrSax]

I LOVE the Chuck Sher Real Books. What an amazing resource, and extremely well done.

[Flyin' Brian]

Well IMO Wayne is one of the best tune (melody) writers ever ...
Prince of Darkness, Witchhunt, etc. are top notch compositions
Miles Davis, who obviously had much more clout then moi,
says he is his favorite jazz composer ...

Absolutely agree Joseph. Melody is king and his are many of the best.

[JonR]

Too bad the respect wasn't quite deep enough to transcribe the tunes correctly. Well, I think most are correct enough. I know there are a few errors which are notorious among more experienced jazz musicians (or less experienced but somewhat anal ones), but for the amateurs/semi-pros that use the book, it's good enough.
The mistakes in it are wildly exaggerated, IMO.
And - AFAIK - it was the first attempt at anything like that, and they didn't do too bad. Naturally, it had to be improved subsequently, and there are more accurate (and legal) editions since.

Interestingly enough, I am not sure a fake book is the best place to learn Wayne Shorter tunes.

The "chord symbol over a single staff" format falls ridiculously short when it comes to conveying what Wayne conceived. Even the "more accurate" legal fake books, while better than the old illegal one(s), don't quite get it.

The reason is that, at least with a lot of his second-quintet-and-later compositions, much of the harmony was very specific. As in, the voicings were specifically notated. And come to find out, the vertical order of tones, as well as which tones of the mode are omitted, are often very crucial to the sound of the piece. "Nefertiti" is a great example of this. That one (and others) also has a lot of flexibility built into the harmony for the subsequent choruses, which is impossible to communicate via fake book.I'm sure you're right here. Shorter is an example of the kind of composer who exposes the limits of the "top-line-plus-chord-symbols" convention.

The whole "Chord/scale theory" as preached by Jamey Aebersold, et al, is what those books are built around... i.e. any chord can be reduced to being derivable from an entire mode of some scale or another, usually major or melodic minor, and any note of that mode applies. And you can put them in any old order, with your artistic license as your guide.I also agree about the shortcomings of chord-scale theory. It ends up as the tail wagging the dog - or (to mix metaphors) not seeing the wood for the trees. (The integrity of a song can get fragmented by breaking it into single-chord chunks.)

This is why the fake book thing in my opinion, in most circumstances, kinda falls short.Well in some situations, yes. But they are still absolutely fine for a certain type or era of jazz - the type of jazz often first approached by beginners. As long as they don't get stuck in chord-scale theory... ;)

Generally, in my opinion, the more specific/intricate a composition, the less-suited it is for a single-staff-with-chord-symbols format. I'm no Wayne Shorter, but for most of the music I write, I use a two- or three-staff format (kind of like a 'mini score' for all players), and while there is plenty of room for interpretation, I cannot imagine reducing any of it to a single staff.Well, that's a different kind of jazz. There's still plenty of room for the kind typified by a single melody, with a somewhat flexible harmonic accompaniment that can be represented by chord symbols, and even reharmonised.

[JonR]

Actually, I never said I want to play his tunes....I was looking for insight as to why the Real Book included so many of his melodies, when I consider The American Songbook to be predominantly showtunes.Indeed. But why should the Real Book reflect the American Songbook?
The latter is popular music (of the best kind, generally vocal).
The former is jazz (generally instrumental, of what was considered the coolest kind in the 1970s...); it just happened to contain some examples of vocal showtune standards, because great jazz musicians happened to have selected them as improvisation vehicles.

There is actually an edition of the New Real Book that deals more with the canon of American popular song:
http://www.shermusic.com/new/1883217091.shtml

[esmiralha]

I never have and it is by design. A singer just asked me to do one and I had to turn it down.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is a bad thing or a lesser musical thing. I just have no interest in playing my guitar at a wedding for some strangers. Being told what to play and not to play, etc.

I don't know if this makes any sense but I don't see myself as a guitarist. I don't even want to be a guitarist. I love playing the guitar to express myself musically. So I don't really accept anything that doesn't fit into my will. My main path is to explore and develop my music as an individual artist. That is about it, really.

What didn't make sense was the part about the strangers and being told what to play. What if it was a friend's wedding and the singer told you to come up with the set list?

[free_jazz]

similar anecdote: Ed Thigpen Trio, with Tony Purrone - guitar (playing a PRS at the time -- and all due respect to him, with an extra-heaping tablespoon, what a player!), Bob Magnusson - bass...
Anyway, Ed called, "Round Midnight" and they had to talk it over first... Ultimately, Bob deferred to Tony, who "learned it directly from Jimmy." (Heath)
Bob told me later that there were simply too many published "interpretations" (ahem) which had vied to become the common vernacular and that any time a "legitimate" lineage could be revealed, it was worth it.

I'd advocate changing it's title to anything other than "Real."

[brad347]

Well, I think most are correct enough. I know there are a few errors which are notorious among more experienced jazz musicians (or less experienced but somewhat anal ones), but for the amateurs/semi-pros that use the book, it's good enough.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'good enough.' ;)

The mistakes in it are wildly exaggerated, IMO.

I don't really remember this being the case. Of course I gave my copy of that book away about 10 years ago and haven't looked back. :) So my memory might be stretched a bit thin on that one.

And - AFAIK - it was the first attempt at anything like that, and they didn't do too bad. Naturally, it had to be improved subsequently, and there are more accurate (and legal) editions since.

Fake books have been around for a lot longer, perhaps approaching a century. In fact, the name "The Real Book" is supposed to be a word-play on the term "fake book." A "fake book" is so named because it's designed for musicians to "fake" a tune.

Back in the day, all of these tunes we know as standards had real, published scores you could purchase for 50 cents, or whatever they charged for sheet music back then. They were usually a three-staff score with a vocal/melody staff, two piano staves, and ukelele or guitar chord diagrams.

A "fake book" score would generally just be the melody and a chord symbol reduction of the approximate harmony in the piano staves. This allowed a band to "fake" the tune... i.e. play it to where it was recognizable to satisfy the audience but not technically accurate as per the original score. A classic case of the good ol' American "do just enough to get the job done, and no more." :D

Many musicians and bands made their own fake books, and in fact that's probably how the illegal "fifth edition Real Book" started. I'm not sure I'd say it was anywhere close to the first of its type. Perhaps it was the first to achieve wide underground distribution.

Well, that's a different kind of jazz. There's still plenty of room for the kind typified by a single melody, with a somewhat flexible harmonic accompaniment that can be represented by chord symbols, and even reharmonised.

The "kind" of jazz you just described is probably every kind, eventually. It results from a gradual erosion and watering-down of original composers' intent. Not to say that this is a bad thing, necessarily. To the contrary this is where performers' individual creativity gets to replace the composers' creativity, making something with the same general shape but of a different constitution-- much like stone petrifying a tree over centuries.

I would not be surprised if Wayne Shorter compositions and other stuff get similarly eroded after like fashion over subsequent centuries and persistent handling by musician after musician. It's already happened with tunes like Nefertiti, where chord symbols have magically appeared that 'work' with the melody but miss the essence of the composer's creation. Usually to the detriment, in this particular case, in my particular opinion, but that's neither here nor there.

On the other hand, the erosion might not happen as readily, since unlike the first half of the century, we have a canon of popular, high-fidelity recordings of the composers' original intent.

It is interesting to note that when high fidelity recording came about (i.e. the LP record), popular standards ceased to integrate themselves within the canon of popular/jazz standards so readily.

Perhaps this is because when you have a high fidelity recording of the Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand," whatever thirst you had for that tune is easily slaked, and you less need to hear a jazz artist/interpreter's version. Who knows.

[brad347]

similar anecdote: Ed Thigpen Trio, with Tony Purrone - guitar (playing a PRS at the time -- and all due respect to him, with an extra-heaping tablespoon, what a player!), Bob Magnusson - bass...
Anyway, Ed called, "Round Midnight" and they had to talk it over first... Ultimately, Bob deferred to Tony, who "learned it directly from Jimmy." (Heath)
Bob told me later that there were simply too many published "interpretations" (ahem) which had vied to become the common vernacular and that any time a "legitimate" lineage could be revealed, it was worth it.

I'd advocate changing it's title to anything other than "Real."

There are many recorded interpretations as well.

The famous Miles recording is framed within a completely different harmonic environment than Monk's original composition.

And there are many others, including those including both elements of Miles's conception and Monk's. Monk was the original composer, but I feel almost certain that the Miles version sold a lot more records.

So which is 'correct?' That which is in the consciousness of the composer, or that which is more in the consciousness of the audience for whom you are playing? Neither? Both?

[sausagefingers]

Indeed. But why should the Real Book reflect the American Songbook?
The latter is popular music (of the best kind, generally vocal).
The former is jazz (generally instrumental, of what was considered the coolest kind in the 1970s...); it just happened to contain some examples of vocal showtune standards, because great jazz musicians happened to have selected them as improvisation vehicles.

http://www.shermusic.com/new/1883217091.shtml

Aha! See, that's a distinction I never thought about. I do admit, I thought of the RB and the 'American Songbook' as largely overlapping, where in fact they only overlap sometimes!

My (mis)conception comes partly from of all those Oscar Peterson records where he played 'the American Songbook', or Ella's songbook recordings which were 'jazzy'.

So maybe that partly explains why some of the 'great' tunes I'm looking for aren't in the RB. Because they haven't been given well-known jazz treatments?

[free_jazz]

So which is 'correct?' That which is in the consciousness of the composer, or that which is more in the consciousness of the audience for whom you are playing? Neither? Both?

Hah. Since it's "Friday the Thirteenth," I'll take the former, unequivocally. Otherwise, it's something else.

But ultimately, It's all about serving The Music.

[GovernorSilver]

Out of curiosity, who's the guitarist in this version of "Three Marias"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgggmB8Xons&feature=related

Interesting that Shorter chose a harmonically static vamp for the improvisational section of the tune, despite the cool harmonic movement going on in the through-composed sections. Reminds me of Frank Zappa, who wrote fairly complex pieces, but when it was time for his guitar solo, it was always harmonically static.

[Lucidology]

Out of curiosity, who's the guitarist in this version of "Three Marias"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgggmB8Xons&feature=related

Interesting that Shorter chose a harmonically static vamp for the improvisational section of the tune, despite the cool harmonic movement going on in the through-composed sections. Reminds me of Frank Zappa, who wrote fairly complex pieces, but when it was time for his guitar solo, it was always harmonically static.


Great observation ... as many artists have done & do the same ..
Metheny often includes a far simpler section to solo over then chords behind the tunes head ...

Actually makes for a nice contrast musically me thinks ...

[brad347]

Hah. Since it's "Friday the Thirteenth," I'll take the former, unequivocally. Otherwise, it's something else.

But ultimately, It's all about serving The Music.

How about this one, then: ;)

Monk's own style was a huge part of his compositions-- performance-as-composition, of course. Music is not dots on a page; music is sounds in the air (or ear).

So in a sense, any time someone other than Monk plays his compositions it's "something else."

The beauty is in the "something else," sometimes. Sometimes the something else is as, or even more interesting than the original. Either or both can have validity.

Here's another one for you, for Friday the 13th: ;)

Many composers have recorded their pieces several times over the years, with different arrangements, harmonic treatments, and even melodic differences. Wayne Shorter has re-recorded some of his 'standards' in recent years, with different harmonic treatments.

So in THAT case, in your opinion, which is "correct?" The composer's original intent, or the revisions/changes he made after years of experience? NOW does the popularity of either version play into the equation of which is 'definitive?'

hmmm.....

:)

In any case, 'correct' is a funny word to use when talking about music.

So perhaps I shouldn't use "incorrect" when talking about some of the harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, and formal inconsistencies in the fifth edition "Real Book." Perhaps I should say "nonsensical" instead. :crazyguy

Because, after all, things like omitting four measures from the bridge of Desafinado (if I remember correctly) certainly don't make much sense.

:)

[daddyo]

A swing band's "book" (it's charts and arrangments) were very important and unique during the Swing era. Benny Goodman purchased all of Fletcher Henderson's charts back in 1929. Fletcher lead the hottest black band in NYC (which by definition made it the hottest band in NYC). Fletcher was down on his luck. By purchasing Fletcher's "book" (he even hired Fletcher's musicians to train his own), Goodman was able to jump into the fast lane.

[JonR]

Out of curiosity, who's the guitarist in this version of "Three Marias"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgggmB8Xons&feature=related

David Gilmore.
No, not Dave Gilmour...;)... David Gilmore:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=88973006
Gilmore was the guitarist on Shorter's album of that year (1995), "High Life".

[JonR]

In any case, 'correct' is a funny word to use when talking about music.

So perhaps I shouldn't use "incorrect" when talking about some of the harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, and formal inconsistencies in the fifth edition "Real Book." Perhaps I should say "nonsensical" instead. :crazyguy

Because, after all, things like omitting four measures from the bridge of Desafinado (if I remember correctly) certainly don't make much sense.

:)Oh yeah, there was something like that. That's not exactly a transcription error, more like a typo or printing error - or plain forgetfulness (bad proof-reading):rolleyes:.
I was thinking more of the wrong chords here and there - examples of bad listening or bad guesses. These are not (unless you can point me to some examples) "nonsensical", in that the wrong chords will still sound OK - just not exactly what was played that time. As you're saying, a chord sequence is not set in stone in jazz.

Does anyone actually have a list of all the "errors" in that early edition of the Real Book? (Or are you going to say it would be easier to list the tunes that were actually correct... ;) )

[Mondoslug]

Metheny often includes a far simpler section to solo over then chords behind the tunes head ...
Not often enough. :)

[Lucidology]

Not often enough. :)

LOL Andy ... I was going through the PM songbook the other day ...
and was amazed to realize in how many tunes he actually does simplify the changes for the solo section ...
Which lead me to say what I did ...

But Yo ... Pat has no problem blowing over obscure and constantly coming at ya chord changes like not many others can .. no problemo whatsoever

[aram]

i don't know if the changes in the real book are correct.

what i do know is that wayne is my favorite jazz composer.

he just takes you to this beautiful place.

I first got Adam's Apple on vinyl from the Worcester Public Library when I was in High School.

I never returned it.
(:

One of the deepest concerts I've ever been to was seeing Wayne play at Columbia University in the big open quad back in 2001.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/08/verizon_jazz_festival.html

He hit this low note, and it echoed through the Quad. Even he was taken a back a little.

And then they just killed it.

I thought it was amazing that even during other people's solos, Wayne would play these little short phrases, pushing the music along.

it was awesome.

[brad347]

I was thinking more of the wrong chords here and there - examples of bad listening or bad guesses. These are not (unless you can point me to some examples) "nonsensical", in that the wrong chords will still sound OK - just not exactly what was played that time. As you're saying, a chord sequence is not set in stone in jazz.

I beg to differ a bit on this, because a chord can 'fit' the melody and still make less sense in a conventional sense, in terms of functionality, vocabulary, language, idiom, etc.

A decent-enough, handy-enough example would be the "alone together" thing I pointed out above.

It's not too often that you find in music a sequence of ii-V progressions descending by major third like that, in that type of context.

It's not the most obvious way to harmonize that passage, it's not the original harmonization, it's not the way musicians in the idiom prior to the book harmonized it, in general, etc.

It's clunkier, harder to voice-lead smoothly, etc. For that reason it can be interesting as an exercise. But to me, the ii-V descending by half-step and then V becoming bVII7 of F major is a much more obvious solution, as it is elegant, sensible, idiomatic, etc. Those types of progressions have been seen in jazz for decades, and there is a whole system of language set up around them.

If I were using a fake book, I would probably want one with the 'regular' changes in it, i.e. the most idiomatic/obvious and/or the ones that are most commonly/conventionally played. I'm not sure, if I was a fake book user, that I would want some off-the-wall disjunct harmony dictated to me. I'd prefer to come up with that nutjobbery myself. :hiP

But as a result, the off-the-wall disjunct progression is the new 'standard' one that EVERYONE plays. At least everyone who came up after the real book came out. I think that's kind of a bummer.

Like many other "technologies," the Real Book has helped some but it hasn't come without a cost. Lots of tunes have been watered down and homogenized, and nonsensical things have become the standard. Kind of a bummer, but it is what it is.

I'm not sure I could list all of the 'nonsense' in the book, because it has been about a decade since I've peeked inside one. A lot of it would probably also be classified as 'opinion.' For example (I'm sure there are better examples, but I'm digging way back into my memory bank here), the first "A" section of "Have You Met Miss Jones" has a kind of corny, pedestrian harmonic treatment in there that 'works,' but I've never heard anyone outside of college kids and real book users play it. It's not the 'regular' changes, because it's not really what most professional musicians 'default' to on that tune. And I think that's what I'm getting at... a good fake book should probably present the 'defaults' along with any alternatives. I think the Sher books do this pretty well, if I remember right.

BUT, a good number of great musicians don't really use fake books, anyway. There's something to be said for placing an importance on developing your ear to the point where you can 'remember' tunes you've only heard, and play them. Looking at your bandmates and your audience is SO much more satisfying than looking at a book! :dude

[aram]

BUT, a good number of great musicians don't really use fake books, anyway. There's something to be said for placing an importance on developing your ear to the point where you can 'remember' tunes you've only heard, and play them. Looking at your bandmates and your audience is SO much more satisfying than looking at a book! :dude

NOt that I'm a great musician, but when I lost my fakebook Junior year in college was when I really started learning things.

Now I only read if it's a gig where we only get a quick rehearsal or no rehearsal.

I prefer to learn new tunes entirely by ear.

[brad347]

When playing others' original compositions it can be fun to read, sometimes. But I usually try to have the new tune memorized by the third chorus or so, or at least have large chunks of it memorized.

You'd be surprised how easy this is to do if you listen to the music that's happening while reading! ;)

[ToneGurus]

Gene, or anybody -

I want to know more about Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum. I heard that the changes in the real book are based on what Herbie was playing on the record, and not necessarily what Wayne wrote (assuming Wayne wrote changes for the tune). Any insights into that? I love that tune and the way the changes as written seem non-diatonic, but work so well with the simple diatonic melody. Herbie's doing??

Thanks!

Mike

[Gene]

What didn't make sense was the part about the strangers and being told what to play. What if it was a friend's wedding and the singer told you to come up with the set list?

I don't know how to really answer this in words. It is an intellectual feeling I have from the bottom of my life. Maybe the fact that I really don't play my music because of the public has something to do with it. It is the public that wants to listen.

If you have a couple of hours, I recommend watching the movie "Vitus". Tell me if I don't make sense after that.

[decay-o-caster]

I've never been in the position of playing music for a friend's wedding, but as a former commercial and fine art photographer, I have been put into the position of being asked to photograph friends' weddings. Wedding photography was not what I did. So the baggage they and I brought to the procedings, the misfit of expectations and desires, well... At the end of the day, much awkwardness in the relationship and a lost friendship or two.

I've got zero issues with someone saying 'no' to doing it either commercially or as a favor. To thine own self be true.

[ToneGurus]

Gene, or anybody -

I want to know more about Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum. I heard that the changes in the real book are based on what Herbie was playing on the record, and not necessarily what Wayne wrote (assuming Wayne wrote changes for the tune). Any insights into that? I love that tune and the way the changes as written seem non-diatonic, but work so well with the simple diatonic melody. Herbie's doing??

Thanks!

MikeIt's interesting to me that over the years I've posed this question several times and .... never an attempt at an answer. I guess I should conclude that there isn't a definitive answer to this?

Mike

[JonR]

Gene, or anybody -

I want to know more about Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum. I heard that the changes in the real book are based on what Herbie was playing on the record, and not necessarily what Wayne wrote (assuming Wayne wrote changes for the tune). Any insights into that? I love that tune and the way the changes as written seem non-diatonic, but work so well with the simple diatonic melody. Herbie's doing??

Thanks!

MikeYou need to ask that question here: http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34

[russ6100]

You need to ask that question here: http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34

Oh yeah! Prepare to have your head spun (in a good way) by Ed and dogbite with talk of melody reduction and pitch collections! Good stuff man!

:AOK

[ToneGurus]

Oh yeah! Prepare to have your head spun (in a good way) by Ed and dogbite with talk of melody reduction and pitch collections! Good stuff man!

:AOKThanks folks!

Mike