Ted Greene's *Chord Chemistry* Book

[WhoisLevang]

Step into my wayback machine for a second or two;

I am a dirt poor kid, 15 years old. (well... how about, poor kid on the block? I bought my own Xmas present with my paper route when I was 12 or so...) I have traded a pair of bongos I inherited and a watch that was a gift to get my first electric guitar. I have a monophonic cassette player/recorder from Radio Shack. I call in to the local radio station and request songs which I want to learn. Then, I sit by the radio in my mom's kitchen with the cassette player cued up and ready to punch the TWO buttons it takes to put it in record mode. When the song I have requested comes on, I punch those two buttons as quick as I can and tape the song. Then I wear the tape out playing it back trying to learn the tune by ear.
Flash now to the future! Was I committing theft of "intellectual property"? Personally, I see both sides of the argument, but I find it's stretching the point a bit in a lot of cases. I am all for any musician getting paid for what they create, teach, play, etc. I am also for allowing poor people access to what might be affordable only for more well off individuals. I have a lot of books I paid for. Youtube has lot's of lessons free. I am about to take some jazz from a fellow in Colorado Springs. I'll be paying him. Do I think it's wrong to get info for free? Tough call for me. I'd be interested in your take on my pre-internet "piracy".

edit-Oh! re: "Chord Chemistry" I got a VERY dog eared copy of the book FREE with a guitar I purchased long ago! We put it into a loose leaf binder to save it from complete destruction and I still have it!

[Gramps]

The dirt poor kid wasn't re-distributing the material, thus infringing on the original owners (hardly ever the artist) property.

that's my take on this.

[WhoisLevang]

Originally Posted by Gramps

The dirt poor kid wasn't re-distributing the material, thus infringing on the original owners (hardly ever the artist) property.

that's my take on this.

TWO very good points!

[Gerard45]

See Google books:

Chord Chemistry - Ted Greene - Google Books

[brad4d8]

Originally Posted by Gramps

The dirt poor kid wasn't re-distributing the material, thus infringing on the original owners (hardly ever the artist) property.

that's my take on this.

It probably would also be covered by the part of the copyright law that allows some copying for educational purposes.
Brad

[Kman]

Is the book still available? I know the publishers try to shut those guys down pretty quickly. I would be surprised if it's still out there. I believe you should buy the book if you can afford it. If you're dirt poor I guess that's another matter. Maybe Ted Greene would even feel sorry for you.

[jazzuki]

Both books are great (M.C. P.& C.C.) and should be in every guitarists reference library, Ive had both since 1984 when I was told to get them by a pro.player and I still use them.For all you pdf guys who download for free,You can always donate something to Ted Greene's website to keep it running.

[carlo75]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

keep it. i'll buy it, and support a dead man who was grossly unrecognized during his lifetime's estate, thank you very much.

when are folks gonns get hip to the fact that some people made their LIFE from teaching this shit and that it's NOT OKAY to just photocopy it and put it up for free on the internet?

Amen bro.

[onetruevibe]

I'm not into illegal downloading, but i don't think it's fair to come down so hard in this case. Especially when a large number of the members here own an illegal copy of the realbook.

http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/compi...ook-wrong.html

[bobby d]

What a waste of time reading that derailed thread.

[mr. beaumont]

It's also three years old.

[onetruevibe]

You guys should delete all of the old, derailed threads.

[604bourne123]

a constant source of how to make chords and related structures.

[TruthHertz]

Originally Posted by onetruevibe

You guys should delete all of the old, derailed threads.

+1 or put them into a permanent Read Only archive so any time the debate comes up, becomes ugly and people show their worst vitriol, somebody can say "See Dead End files #47" and let that replay end there.
David

[mr. beaumont]

Riiiight...because Franklin and I have time to look up every old derailed thread...

I think we will enforce a zombie thread rule though. If the last response was more than 6 months prior to the post that resurected it, we'll close that thread and if the new poster wants to start a new thread on the topic, that's cool.

[Astronomer]

Originally Posted by Gramps

The dirt poor kid wasn't re-distributing the material, thus infringing on the original owners (hardly ever the artist) property.

that's my take on this.

It doesn't matter. He made a copy of the artist's song without the artist's permission through exploiting a legitimate medium (the radio). He's a pirate. Still, being a pirate doesn't make him a thief, and this is what the people in this thread do not seem to understand. A pirate receives an illegal COPY of a given material, not the original source. Had the pirate taken the physical and original source, then it would be stealing. This makes stealing worse than pirating in regards to property rights.

Still, does that make pirating okay? Most people would say no. However, the whole idea of copyright laws are meant for people to make money, and more specifically, for the music and film industries to control their respective markets (who ironically headed west to escape Edison's patents). They rebuilt the system in their image, and now, they feel threatened because a new medium (the internet) wants to cut out the costly middleman. Unfortunately, copyrights inhibit innovation by giving ideas a price tag, ideas which are NOT original, but based on the arrangement of past events, ideas, and experiences that have influenced the innovator. Should we charge the innovator for utilizing the resources and ideas that influenced him? After all, they were not HIS ideas. But again, who is to say how MUCH of an idea or material BELONGS to someone? And this is why the concept of intellectual property must be re-evaluated, and why we cannot simply go on a witch hunt after pirates for exposing one of the many follies of the capitalist system. In some ways, pirates are SAFEGUARDS against corporate monopolies, forcing them to give consumers quality products and ideas at reasonable prices (after all, they now have to compete with free).

Thus, back to his anecdote. If a man cannot afford items that are not deemed "necessary" such as records or music books, then most of you will argue that he has no right to the material. This alienates a good portion of potential musicians who have the drive and ability, but not the resources. And so, we close off their opportunity to pursue a career all because of circumstances outside his control. You can argue that most kids pirate out of entitlement and not because of barred opportunities. But still, having a black-and-white attitude towards an issue as complex as pirating can only create a bigger rift between the haves and the have nots, the older and the younger generations, and fair-use and restrictions. Call me naive, but I'd rather live in a world in which our livelihood wasn't so dependent on the expense of others--a world in which pirates and honest men both suffer at the hands of the almighty dollar.

[mr. beaumont]

This thread is old, and no one's mind ever changes in this argument. Closed.