Talk:The Jazz Theory Book

Cleanup Suggestion

This article has several issues.

1. It is a stub. Thus, I added a tag.
2. There might should be a picture of on the cover.  Done Ditto for the Jazz Piano Book.
3. In the article for the Jazz Piano Book, the title is not italicized, while the first mention of it is. In this article, the title is italicized, the first mention is not.  Done

I could give help, seeing as I have a copy. A chapter list with summaries might help. However, for the Jazz Piano Book, somebody else will be necessary as I do not have a copy of that publication.

Eman235^(talk) 04:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Subjectivity

The article states this book is the most comphensive study of jazz theory ever published..this is probably true but it`s a subjective statement and ultimately a matter of opinion..I believe it should be reworded..perhaps " arguably the most comprehensive..or one of...." I understand a lot of people would disagree with this but it is a subjective statement. 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)75.139.89.159 (talk)

That's actually a quote from the publisher, so I put quotation marks around it. Eman235/talk 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That`s my point...it`s a bias statement..It`s an opinion not a fact..it is the most comprehensive book on jazz theory I`ve ever read but that is just my opinion.2602:306:BD95:45F0:D0F0:919D:13CC:5A4A (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the claim now. If anyone wishes to re-add it, I suggest adding the phrase "it is claimed to be..." to avoid WP:PEACOCK. Eman235/talk 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)