Talk:Fake book

merged
Thanks for kicking me out of the history :-) Mikkalai 22:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I'm being dense, but I don't understand that comment. DavidWBrooks 00:42, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Mikkalai started an article at Fake Book about the same time as you started yours at fake book . 'Twere easy to get the two confused, especially since User:Stw copied a bunch of stuff from one to the other. I've now merged the two articles. &mdash;Paul A 07:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The merged edit history is relatively easy to interpret, as these things go, because all the edits to Fake Book happened in an unbroken run between two edits to fake book.

''(cur) (last). .  04:59, 22 Jan 2004. . Stw'' '''(cur) (last). .  04:54, 22 Jan 2004. . Stw''' '''(cur) (last). .  03:14, 22 Jan 2004. . Salsa Shark''' '''(cur) (last). . M 03:03, 22 Jan 2004. . Fabiform''' '''(cur) (last). . M 02:38, 22 Jan 2004. . Mikkalai''' '''(cur) (last). .  02:32, 22 Jan 2004. . Mikkalai''' ''(cur) (last). .  01:12, 22 Jan 2004. . DavidWBrooks''

The bold edits were made to Fake Book, beginning with its creation by User:Mikkalai and finishing with User:Stw turning it into a redirect page for fake book.

The italic edits were made to fake book - first User:DavidWBrooks created it, then User:Stw pasted in the text from Fake Book (but left the edit histories separate, so the edit history didn't show who'd written that text).

After that comes

''(cur) (last). . 15:47, 22 Jan 2004. . Paul A''

which is a dummy edit made by User:Paul A to mark the point where he merged the edit histories. From there on, all edits are straightforward edits of fake book.

&mdash;Paul A 08:24, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, Wikipedia life would be a lot easier if there were no capital letters ... DavidWBrooks 14:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights
What exactly are the issues on copyright? I'd love to start a fake book over on wikibooks... &#8594;Vik Reykja 06:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's more straightforward than you might think: folks wrote out the melody and chord changes to songs that were composed by other people, then bound them in a book and sold it without paying (or even seeking permission from) the composers. Lovely idea to kave a wiki fakebook, but the same copyright problems would apply, apart from a small number of very early jazz tunes that may now be public domain. The trouble involved in proving they were PD, though, would almost certainly suck all of the fun out of such a project ;-) Ornette

commercial ventures
I've taken out references to, and a link to, some guy selling music lessons. Please don't use wikipedia to support commercial ventures. I also removed some duplicate text, and a just-added link that went to a 404 dead page. - DavidWBrooks 18:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Real Book 6th edition
The article states that "The 6th edition of the Real Book is published illegally."

The Hal Leonard Corporation publishes a book titled The Real Book: Sixth Edition (ISBN 0634060384). I'm pretty certain that it's published legally. Seems defamatory to state otherwise. 74.229.8.169 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

History Problems
The "history" section gives the impression that there were maybe a half-dozen fake books prior to the first "Real Book"; this is not accurate. In fact, there were hundreds of fake books made and distributed; I own examples of several not even mentioned here. One line, the 20th Century Cavalcade of Hits went through 31 thick volumes between 1958 and 1972, and these still turn up periodically. Then there were fake books that specialized in show tunes; books that specialized in swing; books that specialized in bop, and even books the specialized in specific bands (e.g., Duke Ellington's band). Several databases of such books may be found around the web, for example:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au7yxUr1zqGNdHFmTGJLek5rV2h0bTRHVzk3UGxqSXc&hl=en_US#gid=0

It's ironic that the "Real Book", the name of which is a pun on the whole concept of "fake books", originally started out as one of illegal underground publications -- but eventually went legit. Non-legit fake books are still out there, though, some of which have been copied and recopied since the 50's.

As to the statement, "All these books have been long out of print", that really depends on what you mean by "in print". Through the 60's, 70's, and 80s most of these books were reproduced by photocopying, and music stores and individual musicians often made copies and sold them to others -- they still do. So while some of these books have become rare, one can still find some of them for sale, if one knows where to look. And yes, they are still sold "under the counter", and yes, they still don't bother to secure permission for copywritten material.

At any rate, this section needs to be improved or rewritten. If nobody else wants to do it, I'm willing to take it on, as time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive.Org: something looks suspicious here
https://archive.org/details/fakebooks&tab=about — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMtB03 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fake book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906191712/http://www.personal.psu.edu/bdk4/PREHISTORY.pdf to http://www.personal.psu.edu/bdk4/PREHISTORY.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sentence
"The fake book is a central part of the culture of playing music in jazz, where strong improvisation abilities are expected from "comping" rhythm section players (piano, electric guitar, double bass, drum kit) and "lead instruments" which play the melody and improvise lengthy solos over the chord progression."

That's about them most awkward nearly impenetrable sentences I've ever read. It's as though that one sentence had 5 different authors Not to mention it names rhythm instruments (it should read guitars, not electric guitars) but doesn't mention what lead instruments, likely because the way it's phrased it would have had to include piano and guitars as lead instruments too which would further confound anyone trying to read it.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia - it probably was written by five different people. Go ahead and improve it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)