Live data from Hacker News

The Real Book

99percentinvisible.org

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: The Real Book

#71
This is the problem with modern jazz. Treating it as some kind of canon is the antithesis of what it was in the first place. It's tantamount to writing down a conversation between two ancient philosophers and repeating it ad nauseum, expecting some new insight. Keith Jarett wasn't concerned with the stuff Art Tatum had done. Miles Davis wasn't trying to build on Louis Armstrong's rendition of Wonderful World. They were both exploring new spaces and trying desperately to break from the past to discover new forms. The mindless repetition and riffing on standards is why jazz has died as a relevant genre of music, and is seen as something that corny old men in suits listen to while sipping whiskey and feeling refined. Jazz used to be the cool sound because it was the avant garde, not some pretentious collection of standards written by dead people.

Re: The Real Book

#72

This is the problem with modern jazz. Treating it as some kind of canon is the antithesis of what it was in the first place. It's tantamount to writing down a conversation between two ancient philosophers and repeating it ad nauseum, expecting some new insight. Keith Jarett wasn't concerned with the stuff Art Tatum had done. Miles Davis wasn't trying to build on Louis Armstrong's rendition of Wonderful World . They w…

If you're not familiar with what those old philosophers said and how their arguments work, you're liable to make yourself look like a fool when you tread old ground not realizing it's old. Similarly with Jazz, if you wanna be avant garde, you should have some idea of the body of work that's come before you. A lot of the best musical rule breakers were classically trained and knew their shit.

Re: The Real Book

#73

This is the problem with modern jazz. Treating it as some kind of canon is the antithesis of what it was in the first place. It's tantamount to writing down a conversation between two ancient philosophers and repeating it ad nauseum, expecting some new insight. Keith Jarett wasn't concerned with the stuff Art Tatum had done. Miles Davis wasn't trying to build on Louis Armstrong's rendition of Wonderful World . They w…

See also Monty Python.

Different crowd (fewer suits, less whiskey) but same phenomenon: work deliberately created to be avant garde now repeated as canon.

Re: The Real Book

#74
post #72

This is the problem with modern jazz. Treating it as some kind of canon is the antithesis of what it was in the first place. It's tantamount to writing down a conversation between two ancient philosophers and repeating it ad nauseum, expecting some new insight. Keith Jarett wasn't concerned with the stuff Art Tatum had done. Miles Davis wasn't trying to build on Louis Armstrong's rendition of Wonderful World . They w…

If you're not familiar with what those old philosophers said and how their arguments work, you're liable to make yourself look like a fool when you tread old ground not realizing it's old. Similarly with Jazz, if you wanna be avant garde, you should have some idea of the body of work that's come before you. A lot of the best musical rule breakers were classically trained and knew their shit.

>A lot of the best musical rule breakers were classically trained and knew their shit.

Classical training is a different story. Musical theory is endlessly useful to know. But jazz has been stuck in a certain kind of sound for the last 40 years since those people who actually made it gave way to those who simply play it. And now there's just this idea of what jazz is and ought to be, rather than treating it as what is was originally; a complete break from the roots of the western classical tradition into a wholly new art form informed by the limitations of what they were leaving behind.

It's sort of a cargo cult situation, really. You have these incredible artifacts left behind that came about as a result of complex processes of intense effort and struggle, yet those who inherited them act as if by imitating the same thing, they will get the same results. It's completely missing the point.

Re: The Real Book

#75

This is the problem with modern jazz. Treating it as some kind of canon is the antithesis of what it was in the first place. It's tantamount to writing down a conversation between two ancient philosophers and repeating it ad nauseum, expecting some new insight. Keith Jarett wasn't concerned with the stuff Art Tatum had done. Miles Davis wasn't trying to build on Louis Armstrong's rendition of Wonderful World . They w…

But isn't that how it always goes? Things that were once avant-garde become “standard” and the next avant-garde has to be something different again. The same thing cannot stay avant-garde forever.

Re: The Real Book

#76
post #27

The Real Book is a great and weird learning tool. It's a rite of passage in jazz education to realise that your favorite tune isn't actually how it was written in the Real Book. Miles Davis didn't get it wrong -- the Real Book did! And just like that, you have your first bit of secret jazz knowledge... There are also some dated, now-seemingly-bizarre choices that were included. These quickly become in-jokes among fol…

I never saw the original Real Book. I bought the New Real Book from Shel Music and it seems pretty good? (I mostly don't play jazz and bought it out of curiosity.)

For beginners I recommend starting with The Real Easy Book which has some simpler tunes, mostly blues-based.

Re: The Real Book

#77

I can't help thinking that this story is a fantastic example of the free market at work. Two college kids use their insight to spot a market need that the "big guys" missed, and create a wonderful, useful product that becomes a smash hit. Of course, when I say "the free market", I'm talking about the one where good ideas can be shared and copied freely --- not the one populated by sheet music landlords, whose laws we…

"But how is that a market if things are shared and copied freely? No, there must be property rights and strict enforcements and protection of those rights, and ideally the more property one has, the more their rights are protected: so that small and ineffective market participants can be forced out easier, that'd allow for arriving at economies of scale quicker which will improve things for everyone, yes, even for those whose property was reassigned to better owners".

Re: The Real Book

#78
I can still remember going to Kinkos with a friend’s copy of the real book in 1996 to make a copy of my own and get it spiral bound.

Not only did you get the charts, but you got their notes. And the notes of anyone before them from the book’s lineage.

Still have. Still use it.

Re: The Real Book

#79

This is the problem with modern jazz. Treating it as some kind of canon is the antithesis of what it was in the first place. It's tantamount to writing down a conversation between two ancient philosophers and repeating it ad nauseum, expecting some new insight. Keith Jarett wasn't concerned with the stuff Art Tatum had done. Miles Davis wasn't trying to build on Louis Armstrong's rendition of Wonderful World . They w…

True, and the exact same thing can be said about classical music. The average person needs some sort of framework to learn the art form. And yes, this is more imitation than innovation, but nevertheless can serve as a framework for musical expression.

Re: The Real Book

#80
I love my Real book, for me its a lifetime worth of music.

Though I consider its versions as vanilla, it would be cool to see a real bebop version.

Post reply on HN