![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The external link is broken. 67.164.231.139 01:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Foreword section belongs in Wikisource, not here. -- 66.167.56.33 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
I don't think the WP:LINKFARM should be in the article. Another editor disagrees. Discuss. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
@ JaconaFrere:, please explain why you reverted my edit without comment or discussion. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
see, it is here https://pirataibay.in/s/?q=Real+Book&category=0&page=0&orderby=99
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The external link is broken. 67.164.231.139 01:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Foreword section belongs in Wikisource, not here. -- 66.167.56.33 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
I don't think the WP:LINKFARM should be in the article. Another editor disagrees. Discuss. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
@ JaconaFrere:, please explain why you reverted my edit without comment or discussion. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
see, it is here https://pirataibay.in/s/?q=Real+Book&category=0&page=0&orderby=99