View Full Version : An Online Real Book!!!!!

02-21-2004, 05:57 PM
Here's the link. Could you ask for more?

02-22-2004, 03:51 AM
Artists being paid the royalties they deserve? Accurate charts? Buy Chuck Sher's "New Real Book" from www.shermusic.com and don't rip off other musicians. Besides they are generally considered to be the next best thing to using your ears (The best way to learn tunes in Jazz) ;)

This has been a public service announcment from the "surly-when-sleeply" DanF.


02-22-2004, 03:59 AM
I dont know about the accuracy or anything like that, but my thought is this:

Information is free. Millions of people know the scales on a guitar, or whatever. Just because someone decides to have the idea to write an online book about it, is no reason they should have some type of monopoly on it. It's one thing when you come up with something original, but regular lessons are quite another. People share info, thats the way the world works.

This is how Ibreathemusic works, and how guitar tab works etc...writing 'online books' is just a dumb idea to make money, and I dont think it can ever really work. To me it just seems like a waste of time, even if you have only the best intentions of helping people.

I'm not saying people shouldn't write books, and other people are free to steal info...but the point is that theres millions of places you can find it. The purpose of buying a book is so you can look at it away from your computer, if I was at my computer I'd just do a quick google search (or come here) and get all the info I could ever want.

02-22-2004, 12:59 PM
If information were free we would not have thousands of pages of intellectual property law. If you authored a song you are entitled to the rights to it. If you want to learn to play Misty by Errol Garner you should learn it by ear or pay the royalties that he/his estate deserve.

On the otherhand if you're the type that thinks that downloading music without paying for it (not counting the pepsi/iTunes promotion ;)) is cool because "Music should be free, maaan" then maybe I'm not choosing my battles very well.

Just because the alphabet is available for free doesn't mean you can have any book from Barnes & Noble for free too, you're making quite a leap between scales and songs.


02-28-2004, 04:24 AM
i didnt mean to cause a riot. this is just an excellent resource in my opionion and i thought someone could get some use out of it.

02-28-2004, 08:24 AM
I am the type that believes most music on the internet shoudl be free. The reason is because any band who is signed, makes, at best , 1$ from their cd. And they owe the company a few hundred thousand/millions for promoting it. I did a report on this, and 75% of bands dont even see a single penny of royalty payment, because they never sell more than 200,000 or so cd's. Okay, so you did, now you make 1$ a cd (a usual average) now split that between 5 guys in the band....and then take out what you owed to the company for promotion.... it doesn't look too good, does it?
I am 19 years old, and would have never heard of steve vai, or megadeth, or motley crue, or guns n roses, or joe satriani or dream theater or [input band here] simply because they're played on the radio. I also would not have paid 1.00 to hear some song from a band I've never even heard of, even though lots of people might pay 1.00 to hear, say the new eminem song or something. I wouldn't even be playing the guitar today if it wasn't for mp3's, and yet I now own 90+ cds, and have gone to probably 2 dozen concerts I never would have even thought of attending if not for mp3's. The guys who it really hurts have enough money, and are on MTV and all over the radio...the guys it doesn't are the ones who deserve the free publicity. Thats just my point of view....

The truth is most bands make almost all their money off concerts/touring, and off merchandise, the reason is because thats what they control the most.

I dont want to argue about that, I think we all know major labels are completly crooked, but my point was that posting things that are the same as what anyone knows is free territory. I dont see why you should post a bunch of scales, and then try to sell them, when they're availible/common knowledge everywhere. Its one thing if you come up with a song, or if you devise a whole new teaching method or something original, but posting a few scales, and some chords or traditional songs that everyone who ever picked up a guitar knows or whatever on the net, and then trying to charge for it is ludicrous, if not just bad business.

I didn't explore the site that thouroughly, but thats what it looked like to me. It wasn't some revolutionary teaching method, or anything even remotly original. It was pieces of jazz standards and a few scales to go with them. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again its just my opinion...

02-28-2004, 12:56 PM
You should check out the editors column in Guitar One this month, he talks about how Tab on the internet denies artists the royalties that they deserve for someone transcribing their songs.

I agree that a site with scales and chords should be free. That site has the leadsheets for jazz standards that were written by composers and are their "property." Another problem is that you are using yourself as an example of using online music for promotion (btw most artists sites do have preview clips). I have 2 friends with massive mp3 collections who never buy CDs (and say they never will) and who never go to concerts because they're too loud and the music isn't as perfect as it is on CD. If for every one of you there are two of them musicians are losing big time.

I'm not really going to address the rest but you should really consider whether you want to tell someone who has created something original that they "should" give it away for free. $1 a cd is still 100x more than nothing (actually that's not even true because 0 doesn't multiply...err.)


02-28-2004, 01:11 PM
Hmm.. I took a look at the site and what it is, is the scanned version of the old "Real Book." This argument in regards to the "Real Book" is ageless. I will take the middle road here, as both arguments, for and against, seem correct depending on your point of veiw.

The "Real Book" is a fake book of most of the greatest jazz standards. There are many editions, the most famous and used, is the fifth edition. This is the edition that has been scanned for the site in question.

The argument against the "Real Book" is this: Whoever wrote and transcribed the tunes for the "Real Book" and obviously sells it, does not pay publishing rights to the composers. Usually, when you buy sheet music, part of the money you pay, a small percentage is supposed to go to the composer. Just like when you buy a CD the artist/composer gets a royalty payment. So, technically, the "Real Book" is illegal as it does not pay any money to the composer. That is why some people get angry when you buy and use the "Real Book."

The argument for the "Real Book" is this: It has been one of the greatest tools for promoting Jazz. Matter of fact, when I started getting into Jazz, if you didn't have one, you couldn't get together with your buddies to jam. I think that probably back in those days (we are talking the 80s, I'm not that old) there wasn't any real jazz sheet music or fake books available so somebody decided to write it up so we could play together and continue the Jazz tradition, and that is what became the "Real Book." It was cheap, and had every tune in it that you could possibly want to play.

So why is this good for the artist? Well, if I never had the "Real Book" I would have never bought a Miles Davis record. Would have never heard a Coletrane tune or have discovered Wayne Shorter. If the next addition of the "Real Book" included one of my tunes, I would jump for joy because it would mean that some twenty year old kid may run across it in the "Real Book" and play it with his pals and might just wonder what the original sounds like and go out and by my humble CD. And I would get paid royalties for that.

True, there is new "Real Books" that pay out royalties and I guess that is a good thing. It may be the best way to go these days. But the original "Real Book" was the biggest reason for me becoming the player that I am today and I still treasure my old beat up "Real Book" as well as all the Jazz Cds I bought because of it. My CD collection would be in a sad state if I had never found it.

02-28-2004, 03:23 PM
I agree with LarryJ. Before the internet and mp3 I used to go to the library and check out some music/or just borrow from a friend a cassette/album and just copy whatever songs I wanted to cassette. So 'stealing' music is nothing new. So I don't totally buy the arguement that people will never buy cd's again, because I still bought cassettes and albums even though I could (and did) get alot for free. And I still went to concerts and bought the bands merchandise. So even though I got alot of music for free, I also supported the bands I liked with my $$. And I believe most people are the same way. Yes there are some people who will never go to concerts again or never buy cd's again but there will always be people that.
I think its actually a good idea for artists to have there music available free. Take the simple example of our EricV. Having never heard his playing before I never would have downloaded his music at his site if I had to pay a dollar before hearing it. (uh no offense Eric :) ) But because it was free I did and since I liked it, I'm more likely to go to his concerts or buy an instructional video he releases or whatever. Heck come to think of it, he's already seen support of my $$. I helped buy his new computer. :) So while I got some free songs from him, I also returned some cash his way. And like I said I'm more likely to pay for one of his future projects.
There are many other artists who I discovered this way. Rusty Cooley, Mike Campese, Theodore Ziras, and MANY more...I have products from all of them (I have all 3 of Rusty's instructional Cd-roms for example) The ONLY reason I bought products from them was because I had access to their music free.
Again there will always be people who try to pimp the system, you can't stop that no matter what you do. For the most part however I believe most people will support there favorite artists with $$ even though they can get alot of their stuff for free.

02-28-2004, 05:46 PM
Well at least the artists are having their music heard. If the person was never going to buy the cd, or go to the concert, they probably wouldn't have bought the cd anyways, especially considering the price cd's cost nowadays. 1 dollar out of 15-20 going to an artist is pretty sad.

And having an artist's song tabbed out makes me think of this. Thousands of people are playing Mozart, but he's not getting any money. Someone who owns rights to his estate or works or publishing perhaps is, but that doesn't seem fair to me. If they dont want people to copy their songs, then they shouldn't be in the business. It should be an honor to have someone learn your song, and play it. It builds further interest, if nothing else, and unless the band actually wants to go and tab out something themselves, someone has to be there to fill the void, wether its cherry lane music publishing, or some random person on the net offering his interpretation. It's like trying to make money off traditional songs, or songs that have been around for ages that people sing around a campfire etc. It's human nature to want to learn others music, thats probably why 95% of us picked up a guitar in the first place (well, that and to get girls). I think artists need to be more grounded and remember their roots. Just because you play a few powerchords doesn't mean your some kind of god who has to charge people for learning your songs, everynote on the guitar has been played thousands of times by others before, they just happened to get lucky.

I believe music is an industry, and definitly am out to support the artist. I agreed 100% with everything ChrisJ had to say in his article about this.

However, I also believe in the freedom of music. Music is made to be heard, and I believe mp3's aren't killing the artists, the record companies are. If they were willing to change how they look at things, things would be better for bands, and they would be doing better. I dont like how big business runs the music world, I dont think it's healthy at all. You could copy tapes, copy songs off the radio, tape things off mtv...so mp3's (while easier to get) shouldn't make that much of a difference. Just because I have one hit song from a band, doesn't nessicarily mean I cost them a cd sale, because I'd never buy the cd in the first place. I could have just turned on the radio at home and heard it every 20 minutes on some station instead if I really wanted to. Last time I checked I wasn't paying to listen to the radio...

The internet is free promotion for an artist, and pretty good promotion at that. It takes away most of the point of having a major label when you can promote/sell your own cd's without major label backing, just look at Nora Jones. If record companies sold cd's for cheaper and helped artists, I'd be completly against mp3's, but since artists just get ripped off I think they really do help the artist get out there.

Bands nowadays dont have 3-4 albums before they get big. In the old days you could grow and still be kept on a label. Nowadays it seems like if you dont sell a million records, your dropped instantly, and like I said, you need to sell quite a few records before you even start to turn a profit on royalties. Anyone who is complaining about mp3's hurting their sales already made it big, and is groveling over money they dont need. The small time people, and the originators are the ones that mp3's help, guys like the guitar virtuoso's. You would probably never hear of 1/2 of them, at least, let alone find a cd in a store otherwise. The post above is right. I would have never heard about most famous guitarists playing, because its not on the radio or in the mainstream. The best I would have done is maybe some clapton, and some led zeppelin on the radio once in a while. I definitly would not have heard of steve vai, let alone EricV.
Its guys like that we want to help, and who are being helped. I personally couldn't care less if Eminem can buy 1 less ferrarri because 10,000 people downloaded his album instead of buying it.

This is turning into a rant, and I apologize, its just something I feel pretty strongly about. I realise theres people out there who aren't like me, and who download songs and whole albums and cheat the system, but I dont believe they would have bought that many cd's to begin with, just because they have 200 albums on their comp doesn't mean they would have bought 200 albums in the store, if you know what i mean.

Again, sorry for the argument. Feel free to flame back :)

02-28-2004, 05:50 PM
Heres a little something to think about as well:

Cd's and Dvd's were created because of length/quality issues, as well as because they were cheaper to produce than VHS tapes/audio Cassettes. I think it costs like a fraction of a penny to produce 1 cd/dvd. It's either 1/6th of a cent, or 6 cents, I think I read. Meanwhile it costs alot more to make a cassette/vhs tape , not to mention all those moving parts involved like gears, and theres probably a decent amount of non-working ones at the factory.

So why is it that tapes are so much cheaper now than dvds/cd's? I understand its the market demand system, but even when they first came out it was like that. I dont like how I have to I pay 16.95 for a cd, or 8.95 for a cassette, when its the same info on it, and cd's are drastically cheaper to make. Does anyone else find that funny?

The injustices of the music world....

Chris Brooks
02-28-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by LarryJ
I am the type that believes most music on the internet shoudl be free. The reason is because any band who is signed, makes, at best , 1$ from their cd. And they owe the company a few hundred thousand/millions for promoting it. I did a report on this, and 75% of bands dont even see a single penny of royalty payment, because they never sell more than 200,000 or so cd's. Okay, so you did, now you make 1$ a cd (a usual average) now split that between 5 guys in the band....and then take out what you owed to the company for promotion.... it doesn't look too good, does it?

Interesting points Larry, but your favorite bands signed their deals because they wanted to play the game. Their lawyer read the contract, they still signed. They did this because they

a) wanted to make albums
b) wanted you to buy them

They played the game and didn't ask you for a second opinion on how they (try to) make their living, no offense. Bad business it may be but once again - their choice.

The truth is most bands make almost all their money off concerts/touring, and off merchandise, the reason is because thats what they control the most.

It can be possible to make great money on merchandise when on tour, but promoters need to view a band's market potential before they'll make them an offer to go on the road. And CD sales are their most accurate guage for this. CDs enourage people to go see a band play live, and going to see a band play live hopefully encourages people to go buy a CD. I know it's hard to sit back and watch a band get screwed by a label, but it's the path they chose and didn't ask anyone to rearrange that.

Anyway, just another view. Play on. :)

02-29-2004, 12:34 AM
The subject has changed from the "Real Book" to MP3s. There are basically two arguments here also:

Point: Back in the dark ages, if you went to your local Tower records and bought my CD, "Prospects" you would bring it home and listen too it. You may also decide that you want to turn your friends on to it. So you pop in a cassete tape (remember those) and dub it and give it to your best friend. Is this legal? Yes, the reason is simple; no money changed hands. If you had sold it for two bucks, you would have broken the law.

This is where things get tricky. We can make MP3s. The argumant for downloading is this: You make an MP3 from my CD and post it on the web and say; "Hey everybody, Chris Juergensen's new CD is cool so download it for free!" Once again, no money changes hands so it could be argued that no law is broken. Of course the law must also take into consideration if this process is causing me to lose any money. And this is where the argument against begins.

The gray area is this: with my MP3s floating around the internet, more people know my name and my music and might just do a search on the web for me. They find my site or an other site where my CD is available like tower record's site and buy it and I earn a few bucks.

I personally have a few cuts from my CD available for download on my site. I want people to hear my music and to eventually buy the CD. The MP3/download thing has changed recently. If you haven't noticed, there are tons of sites popping up. eMusic, itunes, napster, rhapsody, all charge an average of 80 or 90 cents a song. I think the mentality that everything should be free on the net has changed. We all realize that if you download my CD from a black market site, I make nothing and that should cause a little guilt. There is a middle line here:

Please forgive me, this is the second time I have posted on this subject: Magnatune.com. This site walks right down the middle and is fair to everyone involved. Warning: I have a conflict of interest as I have a contract with magnatune. This is how magnatune works: You go to the site, click on my name and go to my page. You can listen to my whole CD as many times as you want for free. It's radio but you get to listen to whatever whenever you want. BUT, you can not download anything without paying. Here is where it gets really interesting. You check out my free tunes and deside that you must make this CD yours. So you deside to download the tunes and burn a CD. You can also download the jacket art and package the CD. AND, you get to pick the price?!?!??!?!?! From 5 to 18 dollars. Now, I figured that everyone would pay 5 bucks but I was wrong. I average about 8 or 9 dollars a download. Reason is simple, people want to pay me for my hard work, they want to support independent artists and at the same time not pay the record industry one single cent. What a concept, everybody except the record industry wins!


02-29-2004, 12:40 AM
Well I was going to apologize for another surly morning post but I guess if no one got too offended I'll just keep on.

The issue in this debate has really become idealism vs realism. Larry is an idealist, he believes in something that is "right" I am not, I believe there is no such thing as "right" (clearly I've had more philosophy classes than Larry :P That's a joke not a jab). I agree in theory that music should be free and that people should just do things because they love them but if that were the case we wouldn't have a utopia we would have no garbage pick-up service.

Take that Eminem Ferrari example, let's say Em has to buy only 1 sports car this year instead of 5, no one's gonna cry for him he's still better off than most. But if he had always given away his music and never been successful in the biz he would probably still be living in a trailer and working on cars. As most on here know, having a full time job can really stifle your creativity (not that I'm making any claims about Eminem's fitness to be called a musician). People gotta eat baby, and manuscript paper don't make good dinner.