This is a list of fake books that you can download on the Internet.Bill Evans Fake Book pdf 106pThe Book (in C) (502 Jazz Standards?) pdf 514pBrazilian Jazz Real Book pdf 275pThe Colorado Cookbook pdf 292pThe Country Music Fake Book pdf 55pCuban Fake Book Volume No.
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?' 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. 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. 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. 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.
Ultimate Jazz Fake Book Eb Pdf To Word 2017
Other than that the lead sheets seem okay to me. Looking forward to seeing some of the pros weigh in on all of this. 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'. But if your ability can work around it.
It could just be a 'typo'. Play well wolf. 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; at 06:55 PM. 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. 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? 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; at 02:09 PM. 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. 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. 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. RegThat was what I wanted.
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, 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.' 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. 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. Which is correct: Shur?
'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?