This is a review of a product that has been out for ages already, but this section seems the most appropriate place to discuss it.
The concept of a definitive book of the quintessential tunes in American fiddling, complete with chord symbols and some basic information on playing styles and a bit of tune history, sounds like a wonderful resource that would have universal appeal. Having a book that could be used somewhat like a fakebook to give one a way into tunes could be an invaluable resource. For players looking to venture into fiddle music, it could be a key that could unlock a trove of treasure that could only increase over time with use.
When the book came out and for years afterward, the book was marketed as THE definitive book of tunes, even called the Bible of Fiddling. With all that marketing promotion, many players were enticed into buying copies, especially non-fiddlers who were curious about fiddling but either lacked access to fiddling groups or were discouraged by the feeling that one had to know the tunes before showing up to play. For the first time, many players, especially in the classical field, believed that they had been given the manual to playing fiddle music, something many found intriguing. During the 90s a copy of the book was to be found on many a bookshelf, and even good number of fiddlers bought copies to see what was included.
But what was purchased was not even remotely like what was pitched. The book contained many tunes, but the transcriptions were awful. Tune after tune was diluted or neutered to the point that its essence was lost and its playing would yield something unpalatable. It wasn’t merely a matter of stripping back layers of ornament or interpretation to reveal the bones of the tune in a way that would instruct the player and allow for thoughtful interpretation, like the use of figured bass in a baroque composition, but rather of pulverizing tunes and attempting to reconstitute them from the slop leftover in that act of violence.
If you had learned a tune from another source, the comparison of versions could be rather startling. The lifelessness of the fakebook’s versions would be evident immediately, and the appearance of the book was almost a guarantee that the soul of the music was to be exorcised.
I think this book is uniquely responsible for several issues that exist in fiddling nowadays. First, it was so heavily marketed to non-fiddlers as an entry into fiddling. It in no way fit that description and it was instead a source of awful information. Anyone who played the tunes following the book would sound unlike a good fiddler or even a typical one. Bo matter how much a player tried to follow the advice about playing styles in the appendices, no amount of effort would turn the sow’s ear into silk purse. This was a problem for three groups of people: the regular players, the curious players, and anyone who had to listen.
If this book was your introduction to fiddling, it could easily convince you that fiddling was not a style of playing that had any merit whatsoever. It gave plenty of ammunition to any player who was convinced that fiddling was just for hacks with tin ears. The renditions of good tunes were so badly transcribed that it was easy to dismiss the genre entirely.
If you were a fiddler already, the book really served no purpose, as there were other tune collections already. It did, however, promote a negative attitude toward players of other genres, as the efforts to play these poorly transcribed tunes made everyone sound awful and unlike a fiddler. I believe that the distaste of fiddlers for classical players was ratcheted up to fever pitch by the effects of the book in a way that it wouldn’t have occurred had the book never come out.
Since its publication it has offered both sides reason to think poorly of each other through its ineptitude. For the critic of playing from the page, it lends itself to the negative opinion, as no amount of study of it will lead to a more authentic fiddle sound. For the player looking in from outside, the best case scenario is that the book is recognized as a poor source of information and set aside, but the worst is that it will be taken as a faithful representation of fiddling (easily done with the level of glorification it once received) and will convince the player that fiddling is a monumental waste of time.
Since its publication, other more musical books of tunes have been published that better represent fiddling and the book has faded in popularity, although it is unfortunately still available to be purchased.
It was one of the first fiddle tune books available in the early revival. It has stood the test of time as it explores transcriptions of many folk styles of fiddle. It helped many music readers to get started. For its time, this book served a purpose. It has it's failings but the world outside of folk fiddling see it as a gateway to folk fiddling. Our copy sits on the shelf with only an occasional usage. Keep in mind that these are transcriptions of fiddler's performances and should never be taken as the definitive version of the tune. This goes for all tune books. Fiddling lives outside of books. It morphs with each player and the times. Always has, always will.
Well, I expect that "definitive version" is always going to be "only" a place to start. Between my fiddle and me , my late start and arthritis I will play what I may. And keep on the path of tonal and technical improvement. Slow though it may be. I have many fiddle books which I keep to inform me of how a certain section of a tune or song may be played. I have fiddle books that are still beyond my level of skill. And some I may never "get into". Then I listen, and listen some more. But time with the bow is always well spent if not always quite what I was looking for. So... I play on. R/
You or someone else posted a similar review a few years ago. I think many people have found the book useful. I certainly did and don't understand the severe criticism. There are a great many books and websites of fiddle transcriptions to access, and this is one.
Part of the problem with the book is that it was not treated as merely one of many sources of tunes, but rather marketed to players as the definitive source for fiddling. It encouraged the opinion that it had all one needed to know, and anyone who took it seriously and played following it would have been gravely short-changed.
The book is so awful because it gives players plenty of reason to assume (wrongly, in my opinion) that fiddle music is inferior music for mediocre players. If fiddling really was the way the book presents it, I’d be in favor of compassionate euthanasia for the genre rather than a move to define and save it.
I’ve said before that so much depends on the quality of transcription, and the book is such a disservice to fiddlers, as it fails miserably at accomplishing anything truly useful. In almost every case, the player is better served finding a different transcription. Good transcriptions won’t sound like midi files when played well, regardless of familiarity with the tunes.
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulPart of the problem with the book is that it was not treated as merely one of many sources of tunes, but rather marketed to players as the definitive source for fiddling. It encouraged the opinion that it had all one needed to know, and anyone who took it seriously and played following it would have been gravely short-changed.
The book is so awful because it gives players plenty of reason to assume (wrongly, in my opinion) that fiddle music is inferior music for mediocre players. If fiddling really was the way the book presents it, I’d be in favor of compassionate euthanasia for the genre rather than a move to define and save it.
I’ve said before that so much depends on the quality of transcription, and the book is such a disservice to fiddlers, as it fails miserably at accomplishing anything truly useful. In almost every case, the player is better served finding a different transcription. Good transcriptions won’t sound like midi files when played well, regardless of familiarity with the tunes.
Your opinion of the Fakebook is shared by others. As I indicated I consider it an acceptable addition of all the available material. I'm surprised you brought it up as a topic since I don't believe it is considered as important as it perhaps once was. I offer my own website of good transcriptions. You may beg to differ. My goal is clarity, meaning I try to capture the essence of the version of a tune I transcribe, and render it in a visually uncluttered way. Purity? It won't meet your standards. Very little seems to. FiddleTunes.net
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful
When the book came out and for years afterward, the book was marketed as THE definitive book of tunes, even called the Bible of Fiddling. With all that marketing promotion, many players were enticed into buying copies, especially non-fiddlers who were curious about fiddling but either lacked access to fiddling groups or were discouraged by the feeling that one had to know the tunes before showing up to play . . .
[I]t was so heavily marketed to non-fiddlers as an entry into fiddling
What evidence can you cite for these assertions about how the book was marketed?
Just one more fly in the playing by dots ointment - bad sheet music yields bad music. Ears however don't lie
"The tunes which follow are not to be taken as the “right” or the “real” version. An application of these terms to a musical genre so wonderfully capable of change and variation as the fiddle tune, that chameleon in binary form, is to misconstrue its nature. This caution made, I believe the settings in this volume do follow what is commonly agreed upon through usage as the melody and the rhythm for a particular piece.
In some sense all aural music is improvisational. You only begin to internalize the possibilities of variation and improvisation in a given style through repeated listening. Whether you are a complete beginning, having just bought your instrument with the object of learning to play fiddle tunes, or an advanced and classically trained violins, spend time listening (See the Select Discography in the back of the book). Listening to the real thing will give you more information that the most exact transcription. You can imagine how strange it would sound if someone tried to play a Mozart concerto with the same vibrato, style of shifting and bow pressure that he uses in a concerto by Bruch. Reading music, especially when the essence of that music is aural, without a clear idea of how it should sound is like reading a foreign language of which you know the characters and are yet unfamiliar with their exact pronunciation and meaning."
preface to the Fiddler's Fakebook
quote:
Originally posted by screecherquote:
Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful
When the book came out and for years afterward, the book was marketed as THE definitive book of tunes, even called the Bible of Fiddling. With all that marketing promotion, many players were enticed into buying copies, especially non-fiddlers who were curious about fiddling but either lacked access to fiddling groups or were discouraged by the feeling that one had to know the tunes before showing up to play . . .
[I]t was so heavily marketed to non-fiddlers as an entry into fiddlingWhat evidence can you cite for these assertions about how the book was marketed?
Yes, I was curious about that too. As far as I know it was published and available the same way other books are. Not sure how "heavy marketing" would be defined in the folk music market. I first came across it at Strawberry Music Festival in the 80's and it served me well in those days learning tunes on mandolin, Just one source of many I acquired over time.
quote:
Originally posted by wrench13Just one more fly in the playing by dots ointment - bad sheet music yields bad music. Ears however don't lie
When I listen to music it goes in one ear and out the other.
When I read music it goes in one eye and out the other.
Marty, now dat's funny!
Me I started listening to ONLY fiddle music in '72 and I missed all the rock and what ever else. Immersed myself in the familial soundbath and never looked back. Guess some rubbed off , finally.
Someone must have lent me a copy, and I must have actually returned it, back in my beginner days; I recall learning two or three tunes from it, but it hasn't been on my shelf for as long as I can remember. I believe I learned Liberty Two-Step, Connaughtman's Rambles, and La Bastringue from it. Maybe more. Anyway - I can't say it did me any harm. Except that the Liberty I learned has a little diddley bit that no one else plays, and the B part of Connaughtman's Rambles is slightly different from the standard session version.
Right on its cover it claims to be the “ultimate sourcebook for the traditional fiddler.” That’s a rather bold claim.
I used to see flyers or ads in magazines for various method books or tune books along with the other sheet music for sale. The Fiddler’s Fakebook was described as the definitive book, and as I recall, explicitly referred to as the “Bible for the fiddle.” I don’t have any of those catalogs now, but it got rather annoying reading over and over that the book was so great. Lots of people enthusiastically bought it and then displayed it proudly as a sign that they were “in the know.” But every time someone would bring it to a gathering, it would be so disappointing when tunes were chosen using it, and it was rather annoying when it would be presented by players as though it was impressive to own and an essential part of a fiddler’s kit.
It was expensive when it came out as well, so its price given its abysmal quality was rather pretentious. Even now you can get much better tune books for less.
The reason I thought about this book even though it’s not as popular now as it once was is that it stuck out to me when Al made the comments about note reading being so obvious. I still contend that a lot of that obviousness comes from either bad playing or bad transcription, and given that so many violinists were sold the idea that the Fiddler’s Fakebook was the ultimate portal into fiddling, it would make sense that hearing people play from that book or having used it to study fiddling would give an impression that note readers can’t play with any musicality.
It’s ironic that the descriptions of the book often mention it containing specific idiosyncratic and personal interpretations of tunes rather than generic forms, when the tunes are so blandly written that they’ve lost their character.
Although it’s not popular anymore, it’s still collecting dust on the bookshelves of many violinists who bought it in the 80s or 90s, tried playing from it briefly, and then closed it forever and placed it on the shelf to show that the music library had breadth. I’ve been offered dusty copies a few times, but even a free copy seemed to come at too steep a price to me. You can’t get back the time you waste reading through it.
I also felt compelled to write about it again because I wanted to be clear that I don't think sheet music is superior simply by virtue of being written down. The quality of the edition or transcription are extremely important. I remember well how much trouble my father went to when he was looking for a good edition of some works by Wienawski. There was an obscure Polish edition that was very hard to find, and it took our sheet music supplier a long time and lots of international correspondence to track it down and get a copy for us. But it was SO much better than the regular editions, even though the notes on the page were all the same. That edition was a thing of beauty and a joy to use.
Edited by - The Violin Beautiful on 08/12/2026 18:28:52
Another thought about the boldness of its claim at being the ultimate sourcebook: it claims to the not only an Old Time anthology but to be the source for all fiddling traditions. In under 500 tunes covering multiple styles it claims to be the definitive book.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never been unduly influenced by what a book claims on its cover.
quote:
Originally posted by Brian WoodMaybe it's just me, but I've never been unduly influenced by what a book claims on its cover.
I haven't been either, but that doesn't mean the covers have no impact on sales, as clearly indicated by the sales of that awful book. How many people bought Dale Carnegie's book just because they believed he was part of the major Carnegie family? A whole lot of people thought they were getting some kind of business insider information from a member of one of the most influential business dynasties in history. And that was not even taking into account the blurbs.
How many people buy kids' books because they have a Caldecott medal on the cover or new publications because the cover describes them as New York Times best sellers? Lots of junk sells when it's packaged carefully enough.
I think we can agree that the marketing is silly (as lampooned in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), but the fact remains that I was asked to explain how I came to the conclusion that the book was being promoted as the best in its class. In that context, describing what's right there on the cover as an incontrovertible example is pertinent.
Edited by - The Violin Beautiful on 08/13/2026 10:31:35
Right! Never believe a cover! Children's books especially!
Is there a book this crowd might approve?
The book has been attacked for years—I have found it useful, the settings are no worse than many others I have seen in other books (just for example, Portland Collection anyone?) and it does expose players to more styles and traditions. The phonograph records cited as sources are hardly available nowadays, but at the time it was first published, it was handy—it pointed you were to go. What other collections did that??? I don't think it is much worse than any other book.
My wife gave me a t-shirt "I never dreamed I would be a grumpy old man, but here I am, killing it."
(Actually, I did dream I would make a good grumpy old man, since I was pretty good at being a grumpy young man.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Privacy Consent (EU/GDPR Only)
Copyright 2026 Fiddle Hangout. All Rights Reserved.
