Today the word "fake" was brought to my attention, I have heard folk on this site mention "fake books" fake sheets and "faking it"

But, I never knew what this meant, whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, so I felt left out of the loop through lack of knowledge.

maybe its a language thing, But in the UK, "fake" or "faking it" is normally meant as not a good thing, like a forgery say.

But some folk say its not a bad thing, and yet others say they wish it wasn't called that at all.

So in the interests of pure knowledge, can we explore folks interpretation of what it means and what they feel about it?

I went and read up on Wiki, but the prognosis was not favourable, wiki talks about many mistakes in fake books, the history and why.

And also, it talks about (ahem) avoiding royalties due to musicians....

This is such a big subject and appears a really interesting topic for discussion?

Thoughts?

In a nutshell, playing from a "fakebook" is like giving a speech using several talking points to guide you through it.

The score in a fakebook generally just gives you the root note in the left hand to work from as well as a simplified right hand melody and notation. You must make up the rest.

This is why they call it a "fakebook" because it may seem like you are playing from some glorious score when in essence you are making up most of it using some basic musical 'talking points'. It can be seen as *faking* it. Faking the sightreading portion that is.

I have never used a fakebook before because my spontanious play by ear abilities were not good enough in the past but I would love to give them another try at some point as I think they can be a great tool to help develop your creative and spontanious play by ear abilities.

In reality, you have to be a fairly accomplished improviser to be able to play from a fakebook correctly. It is a skill many of us would like to have.

Did you forget to take your medication?

Being a performer now primarily using these "fakebooks", I will confuse you now because among ourselves (musicians), we tend to call of them "REALBOOKS" (in keeping with the brand name of the most popular of the fakebooks).

So is it FAKE or is it REAL?

I think it's REAL

I think this is what happens. When you're practicing as an amateur at home, you have to call it Fake. Then when you start playing professionally, you have to call it Real...

The popular format here in USA at present seems to be the commercially published "Real Book" series that basically took the format of the informal (i.e. not respecting of copyright) fake books that were being passed around and purchased the proper reproduction rights to all the songs. So the "Real Book" is not free or even particularly cheap but it is well printed, pretty well error-checked and totally in keeping with copyright regulations.



An example of the "Real Book" entry for one of my favorite tunes.

rnaple, one day we will have to have a medication taking competition, I will bet my wife that I will win.
However,
Wiki, states that many "fake books" are innacurate, so if that is true ( I.dont know i have never seen one, but am awaiting a pm from someone who is sending me a sheet to look at) if that is true, and that Historically they were indeed just sheets passed between musicians, then surely that could lead to problems?

I am curious as to how others percieve these things, as I live in the UK and have never heard anyone mention "fake books" here. Unless they are calling them by a different name maybe?

What wiki says is interesting, but is wiki reliable in this subject?

And is that a good thing or a bad thing? LOL!

AHA, thanks Brent H // sorry for the simultaneous post>>>

So, wiki speaks historically about the "fake" books, ( and innacuracies) but the "real fakes" you pay for and they are good in terms of being correct..?

This is even more complex than I thought!

After Brent's 850 pix wide post
you now have to scroll horiz.
nine miles to read the other
posts on this page.


Tip: temporarily set your preferences
to 1 post per page, and only the one
post will be screwed up

And if "fake" makes you uncomfortable, the sheet for an individual piece is sometimes called a "lead sheet" or just a "chart".

These forms of abbreviated notation are standard performance tools in many musical genres. As with fully notated scores, the copyright status of a particular sheet is a separate matter.

The term "faking it" came from the days when it was considered not real if you were not playing music that was written out. There was a snobbish air to how non-classical musicians were viewed. Playing by ear was not considered real musicianship by those formally schooled to sight read.

Fake books, being lead sheets (I.e. melody line with the chords notated above) were not considered real in that they were not fully scored as would be used by formally schooled musicians.

The Real Book was a play on words. The original Real Books came out of place such as Berklee school of music. These were ear training/transcribing assignments done by students, hence, the number of well known errors in them. There were no copyrights acknowledged and no royalties paid. Some of the people involved did jail time.

Later, Hal Leonard came out with a series called the Real Books, with corrected chord changes and all of it copyright acknowledged and legit.

For a long time, the original Real Books were all musicians had to work with for the tunes they contained. We used them a lot in the working trio I worked in during the late 70s.

Tony

control and the minus symbol should sort that out Joe.
I am now wondering just why these "lead sheets" are not taught simultaneously with conventional learning, it seems illogical to miss out an entire way of seeing things.

I just realized that most of what we were taught from in my "Music For Elementary Teachers" course was "fake". They looked just like what Brent posted, except all the songs were only 2 lines long! I assumed the teacher was just writing the chords above because he wanted us to learn how to make a chord and to save space on the paper. Boy am I having a "DUH!" moment.

That's the million dollar question and also one of the big selling points of DIY piano courses. David Sudnow used to say that you should not have to train for a concert classical career if all you want to do is have fun playing your favorite songs from lead sheets. I have known formally trained piano players who were frustrated that unless it was all written out for them, they couldn't play it. I used to jam with another guy (both on guitar) whose wife had won several state classical competitions, yet could not play with us unless I wrote out a part for her. It is a real problem.

Tony

This is exactly the sort of thing that is helpfull, Little Blue Engine.
There are for example many folk who used to play guitar ( or still do) and are used to seeing chords above the stave written in this manner.
For those folk they are more instantly recognisable than the same chord written in notation in the bass clef.
When you look at music that has both, quite often the bass clef notes are identical to the chord written above.

So, if I got this correct, Historically speaking, the classical folk looked down on what they called "fake" because for them there was not enough info written down.

But for the folk it was intended for say jazz musicians or the like, they would say " we only need that much info because we KNOW the song allready" ???

have I got that bit right?

They are also called lead sheets. Most will start out playing chords in the left hand and melody in the right. This can sound choppy and blocky. People who sing advocate chords in the right hand and a baseline in the left.

I like to play some ballads off of these. Many sound good with with broken 5ths, octaves and tenths 1-5-8-5-10 and variations 7ths, 9ths, etc. mixed in with them on the left hand and the melody as the top note and some other chord notes lower than the melody on the right. Though generally all pop songs end up sounding like new age variations of Pachelbel's Canon in D. (youtube pachelbel rant)

To be very good requires some knowledge of the circle of fifths and chord structures, baseline structure, and good separate hand control.

I played for years like this, before deciding everything sounded mediocre and similar, which is why I started real piano lessons 3 years ago. I find myself leaning towards classical repitoire now primarily, but when I do go back to lead sheets, the classical training has improved my faking dramatically, though I would still classify my faking abilities as only a better mediocre unless I really concentrate on a piece and steal ideas from others on Youtube etc.

Thats really interesting Alpha terminus, would you suggest then, that maybe folk can only go so far with lead sheets? Even if folk should be able to read and recognise them for playing, that ultimately they may be limiting?

I think it has more to do with performance practices in various genres. In jazz and pop, new arrangements and improvisations around a standard melody and harmonic structure are considered valid artistic interpretations. In art music, the parameters of valid interpretation are generally thought to be more limited, and the composer needs to provide a more complete roadmap to what the performer is expected to play.

Using Brent H's posted example, almost any rendition of that general melodic line and harmonic sequence could be a valid realization of that old standard, "Bewitched", even if the tempo, rhythm, and harmonies take considerable liberties with the lead sheet (although if you're playing in an ensemble, you have to be careful about branching off in a whole new harmonic direction when you're improvising around your part). But most classically trained musicians would not consider an improvisation around the tune and general harmonic expression of an art work to be a valid "performance" of that work by that composer. They might consider it a new arrangement with its own charms, but it wouldn't be considered the composer's "real" work.

Packa, thats even more intriguing, I take it you mean classical when you say "art" or classically orientated?

Many classical composers seemed to have great difficulty in nailing down a "definitive" version of a certain piece or pieces.
We can see this in the sheer amount of variations some composers had of their works.
How many workings and reworkings they did.
In some cases it looks like they were haunted by trying to compose the "perfect" variation of what they had in their minds eye.
maybe to put these works out for "interpretation" or "improvisation" would have had rewards?

I for one am finding this a most interesting subject..

I am off to bed though for tonight.
later.

I don't think of fakebook renditions being limited, except by the individual's skill I can oom-pah along with the best of them on folk dance music (whether we call them lead sheets or fake books), but I'm just getting into doing other kinds of arrangements. But the folks in the jazz threads here in the ABF and the non-classical are a whole 'nother ball game. I don't think there's anything limited about what they're doing .

So what *are* they called in the UK, if not fake books?!? There's your mission, Rostowsky - go to a jazz club and find out what they're called and report back.

Cathy

Rossy, for a little historical reference, some years back (many many years - before the official Real Books came out), you had to go to a music store and had to subtley indicate that you needed the Real Books. Now this was illegal so you can imagine the conversations regarding the distribution of these books which actually have "official names" to jazz musicians. It would be akin to buying moonshine...(now you do know what moonshine is right? That is a uniquely American term I'm sure).

Coming to the Jazz world a little late, I had a glimpse of this world when I had a glimpse of these Real Books in PDF format. There's quite a few of these books and not all have the name "Real Book". Some where in fact called Fake books.

Now I will not admit to you that I possess such illegal documents. But I did manage to peruse them for a bit

It's just a guess mind you, but it's quite possible that some professional musicians are still passing these around...In fact, it is quite possible as well that these PDF's can be found in people's Ipads so they can flip through them easily at a gig.

What's interesting about these Real Books is that on occasion, many tunes will have alternate chord changes. Since the people who compiled these leadsheets did not do them officially (they were transcribed by ear), then there could be disagreement on how to interpret some voicings from particular players. So it is in fact useful to compare current versions (Real Books Sixth Edition -- official from Hal Leonard for example), with the old ones. Usually these differences may not affect how they get played much since you're just modifying 'voicings'. But it could change the analysis of the tunes which could then affect how you approach it.

I've seen variations on this dichotomy in numerous postings on the forum and I don't quite understand the assumptions contained in it...

In what way does having a piano teacher imply that you are on a concert classical career?

Or conversely, why does this statement imply that learning to play anything other than written out sheet music of classical repertoire requires a person to "self teach"?

For my part, no music teacher I've ever met has refused to teach with sheet music, without sheet music, classical or non-classical or any combination thereof. Including my current piano teacher. We spent a few minutes in the first lesson going over my background and goals and then starting working on what I wanted to work on...which happened to be written out arrangements of decidedly non-classical popular songs.

Are there really a great number of piano teachers who refuse to teach non-classical music? Or who force every student onto the same curriculum as used by a child who aspires to become a concert artist one day? Because I've never met them. Same goes for violin, viola, guitar and mandolin teachers. Actually I did meet one mandolin teacher who only teaches bluegrass music but I took that as an aberration.

I'm not trying to pick a fight over teaching preferences (wouldn't be equipped for such a fight if it happened, anyway). I just don't understand where the idea arises that if you take piano lessons you will only be able to play with sheet music in front of you. From the very beginning my teacher wants to pursue playing by ear in parallel with playing from sheet music. I thought that would be the norm among teachers.

Great discussion. Sadly Brent I believe that answer is yes. I've even heard other piano teachers say that any good pop/rock/jazz piano player would have to have years of classical training to be good. I find that funny since most classical players often have trouble reading a chord chart. Both styles have their merit in my book, and I believe what you say to be best, teach whatever the student wants to learn. There is technique in all of it. When you start to see how the chords and the notes are related, then the true magic happens.


I believe you're on the right track. Basically anything without a specific written piano part could be called a fake book, real book, chart, etc. But you don't have to even know the song to read one. Just need the tempo and the style. I play a lot of shows where I'm sight reading a chart. Drummer counts off the tune and off you go. It's more about creating the music together, improvising most of it. To make matters even more confusing, some charts use numbers instead of letters so you can change the key on the spot.

Classical players may believe this to be an inferior style of playing, but in reality it's just a different set of skills, equally as challenging to master. I believe it should be taught more, and not as a the word "fake" implies, but as a real understanding of music more than just "play that note, ok, now that one"

Oh how true!!!! I am one of those classically trained whatevers. I used to be able to play by ear before starting lessons! Now - as you well stated - I can't play crap unless I have the score. It is the single most frustrating part of re-learning to play.

There's so much fun to be had when playing music with no rules. With a leadsheet, everyone has the general form and harmonic shape. Then it's up to everyone to play it in some new way, rhythmically, harmonically, melodically but still have some common thread to keep it together.

Some interesting things happen.

In my band, we don't rehearse. Some tunes we've never played before. Decisions on intro, outro, tempo, style (swing, bossa, funk, etc.), and so on are made often based on the mood and the moment so when repeated multiple times, the tunes never sound the same.

Jazz musicians in particular will not take the leadsheet literally. Often we will look at the chords and ignore it anyway and substitute something else. Sometimes we'll play 'outside' (out of the harmony) for some extra tension (bad when overdone). But all make the music unexpected and fresh. And it's done live.

This is the kind of stuff that is hard to teach in a classroom. It's a different experience playing with other musicians.

And that's the true value of leadsheets.

I can confirm that I have had a total of FOUR piano teachers who absolutely did not allow me to play anything other than classical music. Where I grew up you played Bach, Beethoven Mozart, Brahms, Grieg, Clementi, Schubert, Chopin, etc. etc. but anything besides classical music was considered frivolous, unworthy of the teacher's (and the student's) time. The second my mother signed me up for piano lessons the piano fun was *** O V E R ***. Yes, that was over 50 years ago, but I'm living proof of it.

I wouldn't really argue with this. Another way of approaching the distinction is saying that the notation conventions within a musical genre set the boundaries for acceptable performance among the community of musicians who practice that genre. So, the jazz or pop player doesn't just say "I know this song" so much as "This lead sheet establishes some musical boundaries within which I am expected to play here and now." Classical players often expect much stricter interpretive boundaries, and this is reflected in the kinds of notation they use.

In my opinion, the questions about interpretive boundaries are constructed and answered by performance communities and, in many cases, have more to do with contemporary community practice than with the original composer. In many cases, the boundaries are fuzzy, and performers are often pushing at the edges.

The boundaries change over time, perhaps not suddenly but inexorably. In the Baroque and Classical eras, art music performers were expected to improvise much more than today. Just check out "figured bass" or "cadenza" in a good music encyclopedia for discussions of the evolving place of improvisation in classical performance.

On the other hand, I think a lot of university music programs today deliberately incorporate jazz and various ethnic music traditions along with classical music. So the faculty and students are likely to accept and develop interpretive practices that might have been much rarer in the conservatory atmosphere of 50 or even 25 years ago.

I always play from fake books/lead sheets now, never from a written sheet music arrangement. I think it's a lot more fun to be creative and make up your own arrangements.

Here's a free lead sheet site:

www.wikifonia.org

You can transpose and download each song. They're not all great chord-wise, but I've gotten a lot of good ones here.

It's funny that people talk about the lack of improvisation in classical music because I took a music history course where our prof. actually improvised around Baroque Figured Bass symbols for us on the piano that was in the lecture theatre. My previous piano instructor (who was taught piano in eastern Europe and is as prototypically classical as they come) could also (after much coaxing) improvise around figured bass but had absolutely no understanding of, what she referred to as, "North American Chord Notation." To be sure, improvisation is by no means the main mode of performing in classical music, but (and this is apropos of nothing anyone here has said) given its history with figured bass and improvisation in general, I think the sort of prevailing notion one often hears that it is somehow intolerant of things like lead sheets is really just a false assumption or stereotype.

However, if there is any distaste of classical musicians to the kind of improvisation that lead sheets require (but I really don't think there is, at least not any I have seen), I think it might just come from the fact that a lead sheet would not be of much help to a pianist trying to play a fugue, or an orchestra trying to perform a symphony, for example. These types of pieces really require the kind of structural detail that only a full composition can give. I suppose, theoretically, a pianist or an orchestra could work off lead sheets alone to produce a symphony or fugue. But could this improvisation be pulled off with the same structural brilliance as a Bach Fugue or a Mahler Symphony?

In the UK it's pretty common -- but it's not really a matter of refusal, but a matter of experience. It's hard to teach something you yourself have little experience, and most piano teachers in the UK are folks who seem piano music in terms of the ABRSM curriculum. If you want to learn how to follow a lead sheet, or play by ear, or improvise, you'll probably have to find a specialist teacher. Most likely that person who have little or know exposure to the classical curriculum (there are, of course, notable exceptions).