Charlie Parker Omnibook Changes for Band In A Box
Maxwell_Guy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bluejazz/
TITLE:
CHARLIE PARKER OMNIBOOK CHANGES
If you need some cd's to hear the heads and solos:
Most, if not all the tunes are on these box sets at Amazon:
Boss Bird boxed Set:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000069DWX/
Yardbird Suite:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000033PW/
There are some sound
samples around
look here:
http://shopping.yahoo.com/shop?d=product&id=1921880863
Incredibly this gives you quite a big portion of the tunes/solo,
Check this guy's site as well:
http://saxmania.com/TheSax/Practice/Exercises/exercises.html
The Omnibook is the Bebop Bible.Take a look, modify to your liking. Improve
on them.Change keys, and tempos in your practices. Loop sections etc.Have
fun.
Jack Zucker
That'd be really cool.
--
Experience a revolutionary way to approach the instrument.
Introducing Sheets of Sound for Guitar
"Let the music govern the way you play guitar instead of the guitar
governing the way you play music!"
Check it out at:
http://www.sheetsofsound.net
"Maxwell_Guy" <jv2...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Svvvc.2193$DX2...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Maxwell_Guy
copyright issues. sorry.
However, if you learn the solos, you then would be able to enter them in no
time!! ;)
(guitar synth) you can go to that sight below, and hear them. There are
samples.
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:78qdna1f24U...@adelphia.com...
Jack Zucker
> No sir,
> copyright issues. sorry.
You can't copyright improvised solos...
florian schmidt
Where did you get that idea? You got any cases to back that up? An
improvised Solo is a composition.. Well, since i don't live in the US and
you are probably discussing US copyright I'm not really sure. But what
good is a copyright if it doesn't protect all of my creations. Regardless
off if i sit alone at a table around midnight writing tunes and
precompose a solo or if i create it spontaneously on the bandstand?
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
Holger Weber
"florian schmidt" <mista.nos...@gmx.nospam.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pan.2004.06.03....@gmx.nospam.net...
It's true, you can't copyright solos. You can however copyright
transcriptions afaik, so using the omnibook verbatim for BIAB files would
probably still be a violation of copyright. But then you could always just
correct the many mistakes and claim it your own work ;))
> Flo
>
> --
> Palimm Palimm!
LOL!
Holger
Bill Williams
Holger Weber
"Bill Williams" <bill.w...@mail.telepac.pt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:84b470f8.04060...@posting.google.com...
"It is fairly clear, though, that the transcription of a solo that's clearly
based on a particular song will involve the reproduction of a "substantial
part" of the underlying
song."
"For my part, I can't help but think that many jazz solos are capable of
existing separately from the songs that first inspired them."
Lawyers....
Holger
Joey Goldstein
Maxwell_Guy wrote:
>
> I've posted the zip file here:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bluejazz/
>
> TITLE:
> CHARLIE PARKER OMNIBOOK CHANGES
I'm always at a loss when I see people posting this stuff.
What is so hard about entering the changes into BIAB yourself?
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
tomw
>
>
> Maxwell_Guy wrote:
> >
> > I've posted the zip file here:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bluejazz/
> >
> > TITLE:
> > CHARLIE PARKER OMNIBOOK CHANGES
>
> I'm always at a loss when I see people posting this stuff.
> What is so hard about entering the changes into BIAB yourself?
>
>
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
cmaj7dmin7
news:2i8pd5F...@uni-berlin.de...
I'm a lawyer and I can clear this all up for you: what do you want it to
mean how much is it worth to you?
If you want it to make sense, it'll be necessary for me to argue that in
"transcription," what's being placed on paper is a subsequent composer's
reharmonization and melodic reconstruction to the extent that a new work
with certain derivitive but not proprietary characteristics survive. While
the reproduction of a "substantial part" of the first work may occur, it
fails to meet the standard of infringement since allowing absolute ownership
of the intellectual property rights in any specific series of harmonic forms
(chord changes) ignores the paramount importance of the spark of "theme"
which is melody. In anticipation of the jazz-inspired counter argument that
there exist cognizable works which are nearly exclusively chord changes
intended by the composer to serve as a substrate for improvisors, I would
suggest your paying me more to defeat the recognition of such rights.
As for the second assertion, quotes from the article, is it not true you can
hum "Happy Birthday" and it'll be recognized by the overwhelming majority of
listeners, without accompaniment? Is it so inconceivable that a well-known
improvisation can have the same effect and, indeed, is often heard in the
mind of a listener instead of the comparatively hum-drum original melody
line?
HTH
LNC
Harm-Olodic
whats going on instead of just blindly reading it; I'm a very visual
person. What I'm talking about is, if you didn't know that a ii-V7
was very prominent in jazz, putting it in a thousand times will
instill into you, "Hey, these jazz guys sure used that a lot." When I
first started playing jazz, I knew what a ii-V was, but I almost
didn't see it a lot of the times while I was playing, I'd do things
like "Ok, here's an Abm7 ok, now here's Db7" but then I wrote down the
progressions and analyzed them and now I can tell a ii-V without
blinking.
I know thats an example at its most basic level, but also an
explanation of the way I learn
Maxwell_Guy
It wasn't hard at all.
Just time consuming, and I think this is why people keep asking for them,
and downloading them.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:40BF3A92...@nowhere.net...
Maxwell_Guy
If you takes you one minute, tell us how you do it.
"tomw" <tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b292e5f8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
geekg...@aol.com
> mean how much is it worth to you?
>
> If you want it to make sense, it'll be necessary for me to argue that in
> "transcription," what's being placed on paper is a subsequent composer's
> reharmonization and melodic reconstruction to the extent that a new work
> with certain derivitive but not proprietary characteristics survive. While
> the reproduction of a "substantial part" of the first work may occur, it
> fails to meet the standard of infringement since allowing absolute ownership
> of the intellectual property rights in any specific series of harmonic forms
> (chord changes) ignores the paramount importance of the spark of "theme"
> which is melody. In anticipation of the jazz-inspired counter argument that
> there exist cognizable works which are nearly exclusively chord changes
> intended by the composer to serve as a substrate for improvisors, I would
> suggest your paying me more to defeat the recognition of such rights.
>
> As for the second assertion, quotes from the article, is it not true you can
> hum "Happy Birthday" and it'll be recognized by the overwhelming majority of
> listeners, without accompaniment? Is it so inconceivable that a well-known
> improvisation can have the same effect and, indeed, is often heard in the
> mind of a listener instead of the comparatively hum-drum original melody
> line?
I have published four volumes of Charlie Parker Transcriptions for
Guitar, bass and mandolin. I can tell you that the publishing world
views an improvised solo as a derivative work based on the original
composition (and the publishers do expect to be paid for someone using
a transcription of a solo). In my case the creator/owner of the solos
that I have printed [in this instance Charlie Parker's publsiher(S) or
estate] doesn't necessisarily get compensated for the solo, but the
original author of the tune that the solo came from gets paid the
royalty. I'm not a lawyer and I can't argue legalese on the subject,
but when I sought the print license rights to publish transcriptions
to Charlie Parker's solos over Lady Be Good and some Jay McShann tunes
I was instructed by several publishers about this process. I pay
royalties to use Charlie's solos on those tunes to Gershwin and
McShann's publishers (and I only have the solos transcribed--not the
songs' melodies). The process was easier when I transcribed and
printed something that Charlie wrote like Billie's Bounce his
publishers get the full royalt for the song (incluing the solo), but
if I transcribed Dizzy Gellespie's solo over the same tune, the
royalty would still go to Parker's publishers. Interesting, isnt it?
--Eric ELias www.ericelias.net www.funkyfolkmusic.com
tomw
@nospamyahoo.com says...
> It takes more than one minute to imput changes to that whole book.
> If you takes you one minute, tell us how you do it.
Yes, of course, but at any given time I only need the tune I'm about to
play. I suppose there is a sense of security in knowing that you have
every tune ready to go, but -- what's the big deal? -- it only takes a
minute or two to input whatever tune you want. I'm not questioning the
generosity of making the files available, I'm just wondering why anyone
would find them particularly desirable.
Maxwell_Guy
I did them for me, and just thought I'd share them.
If you don't want them, then just pass over them.
Plenty people asked, so I posted them.
sorry.
"tomw" <tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2a36afd...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
J. Byron
> hum "Happy Birthday" and it'll be recognized by the overwhelming majority of
> listeners, without accompaniment? Is it so inconceivable that a well-known
> improvisation can have the same effect and, indeed, is often heard in the
> mind of a listener instead of the comparatively hum-drum original melody
> line?
>
> HTH
>
> LNC
Sorry to disappoint you, but anybody can hum "Happy Birthday" all they
dang well please. It's only the syncronization with the lyrics that
will get you a cease and desist letter. The melody is in the public
domain.