Talk:Real Book

Untitled

The external link is broken. 67.164.231.139 01:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Foreword

It seems to me that the Foreword section belongs in Wikisource, not here. --66.167.56.33 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Someone created an article titled Real Book Errata that seems to have some useful information, but I think it should be part of this article. Opinions? Aguerriero (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jagalactic 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I created the Real Book Errata page from notes I have been making while using the new HL books with the old illegal ones. My original reason for making it separate is that it might become fairly long. I don't object to merging it into the Real Book article if others think that's where it belongs.

Kevmac1 06:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Merging this article into the main one makes sense to me. It may be a bit long, but I can see it being appended to the very end of the main article with little trouble.

• Ya' know, that Errata article won't fly if anyone in a mood to delete articles runs across it. The level of detail is unencyclopedic, or something like that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The pertinent errors and differences between volumes should probably be distilled and merged into the main article (by someone who owns both versions, which I don't). Cribcage 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to make it part of Wikibooks. That way it will work. 154.5.47.4 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article reads almost like an advertisement for Real Book. Is that appropriate?

Ok, so the merger has been debated for several, SEVERAL months now. What is the verdict? Are we going to merge or not? I also agree with the fact that it seems to sound like an advertisement. Sogospelman 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Blake Milton thing

Seems to me that whole paragraph is an ad for a commercial product. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Josh,

No more than the same information related to other recent versions like free online PDF's, Hal Leonard, Sher Publishing. Referneces to commercial products are not out of bounds. This is a valid entry covering the recent developments in the illustrious history of this unigue collection of songs. BlazeFelton 01:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's nice. It's also a direct link to an advertisement. If you want to remove other direct links to advertisements, please do so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with jpgordon, something's fishy about that. 24.107.57.112 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been a bit evasive on in a thread on talkbass.com [1] about his copyright licensing for the scans and the audio. His website even says that it is using scans from the illegal editions. His product, at this point, does not merit a whole paragraph or even a direct link. At most, it merits a generic mention of software in a sentence with or near one about PDF versions still available on the Internet. As it is, the paragraph reads as an advertisement. --Msiner (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

indispensable resource

I won't dispute the Real Book's ubiquity, but knowing of the various errors therein (cf. Real Book Errata) I think "indispensable" is laying it on a bit thick. I might feel differently if it had been worded as "Musicians such as ABC and XYZ consider it an indispensable resource..." followed by citations to that effect. Otherwise, one might just as easily rewrite the sentence in question to read "Listening to recordings and transcribing them has become an indispensable resource." Or, "knowing dozens of tunes without having to consult the Real Book is an indispensable resource." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I bring this up because of an off-Wiki comment I read: "If Wikipedia says the Real Book is the shit, it's just another reason not to trust Wikipedia..." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the communities in which I play, one has to ask, before starting, whether given tunes will be played with or without the Real Book mistakes. That is indespensible. Edrowland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

There has been no citation for "indispensable", so it has been removed. Apparently Charlie Parker played jazz before Real Book piracy/compilation, so the indispensability claim is false. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Various international Switzerland-based jazz musicians have told me, that jazz musicians who have never seen each other can come together and play witout much or even any rehearsal, because it is expected of them that professionals can play the contents of the Real Book. So with that background info I'd say: you can call yourself a jazz musician, but if you can't play the Real Book contents, you are missing something that is usually expected of professional jazz musicians. So I indeed would call the Real Book indispensable for jazz musicians. Obviously a collection of jazz tunes is not so relevant to musicians of other genres. --87.239.205.121 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Intro

The intro doesn't explain what the heck "the real book" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.241.99 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot more than that wrong with the intro. Plenty of unsupported assertions, and misinformation about fake books in general. The claim that fake books published lyrics and not music to avoid copyright is bogus ... lyrics are covered by copyright. The implication that the Real Book was innovative for including the written music (which is oddly called the "tune"). But fake books had included written music for decades. It's as if the writer did some inadequate original research, did not check facts, and did not even understand the subject matter. Sadly, all business as usual on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is full of inaccuracies, folklore, and plain BS.

First off, the main article should be "Fake Book", and not "Real Book". The "Real Book" is just one fake book (now a line of fake books) in a long progression of fake books that were around for decades before "the Real Book" existed. My grandfather used fake books back in the 1920s.

Whoever did this article knows nothing about the history of fake books, or even why they were called "fake" books. It has nothing to do with the material being used illegally (although that fact was true). The name comes from the fact that every professional band -- going back to the marching and military bands of the 19th century -- had a "book", which was a collection of core tunes that the band had rehearsed, and from which they drew most of their material for performances. When a new member joined the band one of the first things he had to do was learn the "book" for that band, that is, his parts for all of the band's standard tunes.

With the dawn of the jazz era, a lot of musicians started collecting (often by transcribing) their own personal collection of popular tunes, that they would learn to enhance their employability as they moved from band to band. Eventually, someone got the bright idea of copying out lead sheets from their collection, binding them together, and selling them to other musicians. When a new musician in a band had to play a tune that he hadn't yet learned with the band, he could consult the lead sheet in his personal book which gave him enough basic information -- melody, chord symbols, structure -- to "fake" his way thorough the tune, that is, to perform a tune that he might not be very familiar with as if he had rehearsed it with the band. Hence these semi-private collections became known as "fake books".

Because of the copyright violations involved, most of these books had (have) "for sale to professional musicians, only" written on the covers, and they were sold under-the-counter in music stores, often for exhorbitant prices (e.g., $40-$50 for a fake book at a time when sheet music was 30¢, and a full album songbook was $2.00-$3.00). When "The Real Book" came out in the 1970s, the title was an inside musicians' joke, by the musicians who compiled the original collection -- musicians who had grown up using those earlier fake books.

Bottom line: all "Real Books" are fake books, but not all fake books are the "Real Book". I have seven or eight in my collection, some that predate WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Link farm

I don't think the WP:LINKFARM should be in the article. Another editor disagrees. Discuss. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right. There's already been some related discussion at Talk:Jazz standard#External links, where the consensus seemed to be to remove them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fluffery

@JaconaFrere:, please explain why you reverted my edit without comment or discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no recollection of that edit; I reviewed it and your edit looks great. Sorry, I'm not sure how that happened.

Thanks! I imagine your fingers were working faster than your brain. Happens sometimes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Real Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120621073345/http://storage.brownman.com:80/software/BFlat-Sibelius-SmartScore/ to http://storage.brownman.com/software/BFlat-Sibelius-SmartScore/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

p2p

see, it is here https://pirataibay.in/s/?q=Real+Book&category=0&page=0&orderby=99

213.59.138.86 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)