PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum
Jazz Guitar Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

real books
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> The Jazz Guitar Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JohnB



Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 368
Location: Preston, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.intermusic.com/index.php

at least you're not as bad as these guys. this is possibly one of he most bonkers forums!
_________________
he who kisses the joy as it flies,
bathes in eternities sunrise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 368
Location: Preston, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

got that book anyway. Very Happy
_________________
he who kisses the joy as it flies,
bathes in eternities sunrise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alfonso, I wasn't offended, and even if I had been, you certainly don't owe me an apology.

I was simply pointing out an inconsistency...

I'm not a big fan of our laws regarding "intellectual property" either, but it is a fact that this is the framework within which musicians -- performers and/or composers -- as well as publishers, earn what income they can.

Naturally, we all want to protect our own turf...for example, our ability to derive some income from performance.

But for that self interest to become Adam Smith's enlightened self interest, we must also acknowledge the other fellow's need to profit fairly from his own efforts, provided his or her efforts produce something of value.

Clearly, you value the work of your fellow musicians who just happened to compose the body of standards you want to work from -- or you wouldn't go to some effort to obtain copies of those compositions.

They're entitled to reap some benefit from your demand for their work, just as you are entitled to try and reap a benefit from your performance of their work.

If you circumvent the only system in place to finance their work and/or the publication of their work, then you are denying them the benefit that should derive from their efforts.

And that's what I was explaining...nothing more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alfonso



Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cjm,
Ok, glad we agree on at least one thing copyright laws create loopholes where we can feed ourselves some jazz standards and that's the bottom line. Some people see it as theft and yes technically it is, "I'm ok you're ok", just kidding just thought of a title of a psychology/self-help book that was around years ago. Laughing later


cjm wrote:
Alfonso, I wasn't offended, and even if I had been, you certainly don't owe me an apology.

I was simply pointing out an inconsistency...

I'm not a big fan of our laws regarding "intellectual property" either, but it is a fact that this is the framework within which musicians -- performers and/or composers -- as well as publishers, earn what income they can.

Naturally, we all want to protect our own turf...for example, our ability to derive some income from performance.

But for that self interest to become Adam Smith's enlightened self interest, we must also acknowledge the other fellow's need to profit fairly from his own efforts, provided his or her efforts produce something of value.

Clearly, you value the work of your fellow musicians who just happened to compose the body of standards you want to work from -- or you wouldn't go to some effort to obtain copies of those compositions.

They're entitled to reap some benefit from your demand for their work, just as you are entitled to try and reap a benefit from your performance of their work.

If you circumvent the only system in place to finance their work and/or the publication of their work, then you are denying them the benefit that should derive from their efforts.

And that's what I was explaining...nothing more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
croth



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 26
Location: Long Island, NY

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

john wrote:
Igiro,
I appreciate your thoughts on this and I recognized the fact that there are different opinions. What I like about this forum is it is like getting together at a eatery or bar after a gig or concert and just talking with people of like interest, pretty neat.
I of course dont agree with you and my statement was not that my economic situation authorizes economic advantages others dont have. Perhaps I didnt explain it well enough but knowing what something sounds like will help me buy it. Not knowing I wont. When I was a kid music stores would have listening booths. If you liked it you could buy it or not. I just think sharing helps the music business as well as musicians. I do not think that we will be able to resolve the issue on this thread but I certainly want you to be able to express your thoughts. Same for me.


Unfortunately, this is no longer a matter of "different opinions". The reason OLGA, for one example, no longer publishes full tabs accompanied by full lyrics is because the legal system has clarified for us that it is copyright infringement to do otherwise. Just as it has about sharing your mp3's.

Let me make it clear that I am inherently on your side in this respect: It doesn't jive with me that someone's unprofessional transcription, which is certainly not guaranteed to be accurate, is infringing upon anyone's protected right to their original work. It's tanatamount to copying an artwork of one of the Masters in your own hand, and giving it away to a friend while telling them it's a fake that you produced. Or you, as an individual, sitting down with a friend and showing them how you figured out how to play a musical standard, errors and all, which certainly would seem "Big Brother" to disallow. I think the law in this matter has come down, as it often does, on the side of Big Business to an absurd extent. However, it is the law, and "opinions" don't count. If you don't like it, it is your responsibility to get the law changed. not undermine it because you have a differing personal opinion about it.

'Nuf said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:

finally, fake book sellers don't advertise "hey come get your inaccurate changes and melodic rhythms right here!", now do they? they give the consumer the impression that the sheet music is worth the price one will pay - to them.


That's a key point. There is no copyright violation in scribbling out the chord changes (accurate or inaccurate) and handing them to someone else...because chord changes cannot be copyrighted. And a hastily transcribed arrangement, while it is technically a copyright violation to hand it out to band members and friends, is a violation so minor that nobody is going to complain.

But in this thread, the conversation turned to downloading and exchanging copyrighted books of lead sheets that have been scanned into PDF files for the purpose of circumventing copyright laws and avoiding the cost of ensuring that the people with legitimate rights to the material get their fair share.

That's a whole different game...and the poverty plea doesn't really wash from an ethical standpoint when the issue is avoiding a cost of $25.00 U.S. to perform the tunes on a guitar and amp combo costing hundreds, or thousands, of dollars. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john



Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 21
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats the way I see it too. I dont advocate the right to scan or photocopy someone elses commercial book. What I think is right though is to be able to share my own arrangement . I just dont see how a couple of guys getting together and person A shows person B a song with a chart he has done is stealing. And even the two never see each other but send a chart, they talk about it a little, I still dont see that as theft. I see that as adding to the musical community.
If I buy a music or other book and photocopy the pages and sell them that would be a different thing. For sure going into a music store or a guy's room and taking a book is theft. Totally different things. This reminds me of the not too distant court decision that PRS could not make single cut guitars. That is ridiculous, Les Pauls and PRS are different. What about coated strings? Many brands have coated strings but that is not stealing. I like the idea of buying the Hal Leonard book like someone above suggested that is a good way for people to get into playing jazz too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
croth



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 26
Location: Long Island, NY

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me the thread has moved a little bit away from the original posts and we are sort of cross-talking. Let me see if I can re-focus for myself (or probably add to the confusion!).

One of the earlier posts said this: "The "illegal" book I referred to was the original "Real Book" -- a collection of lead sheets that were in circulation for many years and "illegal" because there was never an attempt to secure rights to publish them."

This is the problem as I see it: as far as I know, the original "Real Books" were informally produced by Berklee students as a self-imposed project. All of the tunes were transcribed mainly by ear from, probably vinyl, recordings, an arduous task at best. Though they have become the standard fakebook over the years, they are replete with errors, the errors that amateurs would produce by not having any contact with the original source material. If I'm correct, then those books represent amateur transcriptions produced by amateurs for use by each other. The transcriptions were then compiled by them and put into a book form. If all this is so, then how did they become "illegal"? Why are artists so protective of their work that they fear innaccurate reproductions? What if I produced my own book by ear and gave it to my friend or to you to use, as bad as it would be? Would that be illegal?

Someone else said this: "I just dont see how a couple of guys getting together and person A shows person B a song with a chart he has done is stealing." And I agree with that. But, in essence, this is what the original Real Books were, yet they were labeled "illegal". Why is that?

Now Hal Leonard has secured rights to reproduce the songs and has supposedly produced a book (Real Book, Sixth Edition) that is "legal". And I can understand why you can't copy that book, as the book itself is copyrighted and the tunes supposedly corrected representing the actual, accurate work of the artists. A different story.

By the way, did Hal Leonard secure the rights from those students to use the name "Real Book"? Doubtful. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

By the way, did Hal Leonard secure the rights from those students to use the name "Real Book"? Doubtful


The students didn't have any rights because they didn't have a copyright for it. They didn't have a copyright because they didn't have the rights to the charts in it, and if they had attempted to assert copyright for their title they could have been sued for the songs inside they had no rights to.

This isn't rocket science, folks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alfonso



Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Igiro,
Small mis-understanding the musicians who put together the first illegal FakeBooks were students from Berkeley University here in California. later

lgiro wrote:
right, and its not philosophy either. i have heard that the books were illegal for years. so, either they were or weren't. as far as i know they were/are illegal.

the last argument seems to infer that every single chart was sufficiently inaccurate to the point that legality could not be established. even if that were true for some lead sheets, that would certainly not be true for all. and since the books contained many accurately written tunes, the book itself would seem to be illegal. some jazz heads are very simple in terms of melody, and as stated previously you cant copyright the chord progression. so it would seem to be pretty easy to transcribe someone else's tunes competently.

if it really was Berklee kids who created these books, well, they did a pretty good job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Viper



Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 568
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought it was Berlklee and some of the transcriptions were done by a certain P. Metheny (I fully accept that this is an unsubstantiated rumour). I have to say that I think FBs old style are less than helpful for students as they do not represent the rhythms and the pitches are inaccurate. Some of the transcriptions seem to have been done by someone living in a parallel universe.

I short caution with FBs. I would say only use legitimate ones not only for 'moral' reasons but also to achieve the musical excellence that we all seek.

You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:

...the last argument seems to infer that every single chart was sufficiently inaccurate to the point that legality could not be established. even if that were true for some lead sheets, that would certainly not be true for all...


Even if the chart was bollixed up so as to be unrecognizable, as soon as the title is scribbled at the top...it's copyright infringement...because the intent was to produce a chart of the original work.

A bluegrass arrangement of 'Round Midnight, for example. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alfonso



Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Igiro,
I guess I stand corrected, well you be the judge or somone else who actually has one of the illigal FakeBooks that you used to be able to buy in all the music stores. My understanding is that Chick Correa and the famous theory book writer, yes Mark Levine from the bay area and students from the Berkeley area in California wrote the book. The only thing I ever heard about the kids at Berklee School of Music is that they transferred the book over to PDF on CD. I don't know who's story is right but rest assured that Hal Leonard and Chuck Sher will say without a doubt theirs is better. The Sher books are really good but as far as who really wrote the original Fake, that's anyone's guess. later


alfonso wrote:
Igiro,
Small mis-understanding the musicians who put together the first illegal FakeBooks were students from Berkeley University here in California. later

lgiro wrote:
right, and its not philosophy either. i have heard that the books were illegal for years. so, either they were or weren't. as far as i know they were/are illegal.

the last argument seems to infer that every single chart was sufficiently inaccurate to the point that legality could not be established. even if that were true for some lead sheets, that would certainly not be true for all. and since the books contained many accurately written tunes, the book itself would seem to be illegal. some jazz heads are very simple in terms of melody, and as stated previously you cant copyright the chord progression. so it would seem to be pretty easy to transcribe someone else's tunes competently.

if it really was Berklee kids who created these books, well, they did a pretty good job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> The Jazz Guitar Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group