I'm a jazz bassist, 61, and first saw a Real Book 43 years ago.
There were, and are, always a few hard-liners who look down on reading tunes from a book, on the bandstand. They're not necessarily the oldest, or best players, or have the best reasons. Whatever. Most of the gigs that I've played, fake books were accepted. There are similar debates in most musical styles.
Roughly 20 years ago, I decided to stop bringing fake books to gigs. I quickly discovered that I didn't need them. For one thing, the "local repertoire" wasn't vast. For another, it exercised my ability to pick up tunes by ear. I see more of what's around me, and interact more with the band and audience, because the music stand isn't there. Today, I have a bunch of stuff on an Android tablet that I keep in my bag just in case, but rarely bring it out. The tablet also contains stuff for bands that use written arrangements, such as a 19-piece jazz ensemble.
I personally think the inaccuracies are immaterial. Most players will never encounter a situation where the ur-text is important. The players I've known who mostly learned by ear don't play 100% accurate changes.
I'm not a full time pro, but am often called as a sub, so I've observed many levels of bands. I've formed the opinion that the fake books do in fact detract from performances. I hate "dead air" between tunes while the players flip through their books (or thumb through their phones) to choose what tune to play next. It's a little bit cringe when a good player who should know a beginner tune, reads it. Flipping through the books may be just a habit. Plus, dependence on the books limits the repertoire in weird ways. Real Book has practically become its own genre. Remember, the "contemporary" tunes in the RB are 50+ years old.
The problem is that gigs and jam sessions are no longer frequent enough to afford players a chance of learning tunes by ear. The books aren't going away. Bandleaders can figure out how to deliver a better performance. Send out a set list in advance. Let people listen to the tunes that they're unfamiliar with. If needed, they can transcribe them. I do that a lot when asked for a popular tune that doesn't have available sheet music, such as most country-western.
If the band is flipping through their books, paper or electronic, to choose what tune to play next, that isn't a performance worthy of the term. It's a jam session. Which is fine, but hopefully nobody is paying to listen to it.
I agree, but sometimes you don't know all of the details of a gig before agreeing to play, especially since I'm not the top call bassist in my locale. Then you put on the best show you can under the circumstances.
I feel like that commenter was a little harsh with that statement - I will say however that it has caught some flak as a source of truth. There are quite a few standards (principally, original jazz compositions by jazz musicians that have now become "standards", this probably isn't as much a problem for true "Great American Songbook" standards since those were always notated), that were transcribed incorrectly in original versions of real/fake books. To the point that many younger generation players are playing incorrect heads and/or changes to tunes since they learn it from the book rather than by ear. Not even that, but often they are just straight wrong, or dumbed down versions of the changes.
Anybody who's worked with it for any length of time knows that the charts contained are good enough for jam session purposes but either contain inaccuracies when compared to the canonical versions of songs or may have been based on the "wrong" (according to some) canonical versions. Working this out means developing your ears and listening both to the original recordings and to the musicians you're playing with in a given situation. Many people end up in a place where they're just using their ears and memory to skip the book entirely, which in some situations is an essential skill.
Most level-headed people I think regard the book as a useful tool, a step in the growth journey. As egos and insecurities enter the mix you'll occasionally find somebody who'll proclaim that the Real Book is purely a crutch and you should start and end with the ear-training bits or you're "doing it wrong".
The Real Book is an excellent resource for what it is. However since it is the primary book of jazz, it can have too much of an influence. The Real Book has a limited number of songs and entire subgenres of jazz are not represented. The structure of the songs is relatively narrow. Songs are rarely added.
There are now six volumes of Real Books from Hal Leonard, plus a several others organized around genres or artists, plus the Sher Music books. A few thousand songs. Not every player has every book, but they are all available. Most songs are available for purchase for a few dollars each as downloadable PDFs.
I disagree that in general it’s not useful to debate subjective matters.
What is being debated is not whether the given label applies, but whether the label should apply (which really means what the label means), which are subtly different things. The outcome of such a debate is an improved definition or at least an improved understanding of the sense in which others use the label.
I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
Ok, what changes based on which label should apply?
> I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
In the abstract, it probably is, unless the point of the argument is to determine whether to make meaningful change. "Are oranges racist?" - pointless. "Is this policy racist, in that it disproportionately affects X minority group?" - meaningful.
Say we all agree this is an example of innovation and not invention - now what? What was the outcome that warranted the argument at all?
I wonder how does the skinnies get dressed oversea: I wear European S which translate to XXS in the US, but there’s many people skinnier than me, still within a “normal" BMI. Do they have to find XXXS? Do they wear oversized clothes? Choosing trousers is way easier because the system of cm/inches of length+perimeter correspond to real values.
It's a crazy experience being just physically larger than most of the world. Especially when the size on the label carries some implicit shame/judgement. Like I'm skinny, I'm pretty much the lowest weight I can be and not look emaciated / worrying. But when shopping for a skirt in Asian sizes I was a 4XL, and usually an or L-2XL in European sizes. Having to shift my mental space that a US M is the "right" size for me was hard for many years. But like I guess this is how sizing was always kinda supposed to work.
The shame is inherent to the crushing expectations put on women's appearances and the pressure to be small. It manifests in clothing sizing for the same reason it manifests standing on a scale, it's a measure of your smallness. And what makes it insidious is that the measures are juuust comparable enough across different people to make people feel bad for not having the same numbers as someone 5" shorter than you.
And my experience isn't unique in any way here and it's really hard to not see it pervasive through our culture.
I worked at a Norwegian hospital once which had sizes from xxl (ekstra ekstra liten) to xxs (ekstra ekstra stor). So it's simple, you cross the ocean, you go from size xxl to xxs without having to do anything at all...
I should say though, that's the only place I've seen this particular localization.
For healthy adults, thirst is a perfectly adequate guide to hydration needs. Historically normal patterns of drinking - e.g. water with meals and a few cups of tea or coffee in between - are perfectly sufficient unless you're doing hard physical labour or spending long periods of time outdoors in hot weather. The modern American preoccupation with constantly drinking water is a peculiar cultural phenomenon with no scientific basis.
You mean like a dependency tree? There isn’t a comprehensive one — it would be way too big and we don’t have all mathematical knowledge written down in one place anyway.
But if you’re interested in any given classical result, if you ask I’m sure a mathematician can give you a rough idea of what the path back down to first principles is. If you’re not literally interested in starting by assuming the existence of the empty set, say, then opening any introductory book on the topic will give you an idea. Just look at the proof of the result and follow its references back. It won’t go that deep.
I’m inclined to agree, but who knows… maybe he just happened to have his big insight early on, and if he’d lived longer he’d never have done anything quite as significant. Plenty of people do great things only once.
You’re not being well understood here, but I do this too, and have done — with everything — all my life.
The answer is ultimately that if you deconstruct and logically analyse any particular human activity it either ruins the fun and/or makes you realise how primitive and dark most forms of entertainment are. People like being emotional, for whatever reason.
I like the explanation that says it’s about learning, though. Learning somehow feels intrinsically good.
