 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-05-02 15:16
I'd like to pose an ethical questions about the Nielsen Concerto:
The retail price for the music is $52.00 - does this give one the moral (not legal) right to photo copy the music?
What do you think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brian
Date: 2000-05-02 16:08
Larry,
I can appreciate your concern about the high, seemingly excessive price of the music, but in this case IMHO I don't think it justifies what you're proposing, at least if you're planning to publically perform it.
Perhaps this forum could be the place for folks like us to talk about ways we can address legitemate concerns like yours in an appropriate way i.e. writing letters to publishers, signing petitions, etc. Just a thought.
Regards,
brian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Frank
Date: 2000-05-02 17:26
Larry, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Brian....at least in theory. Granted, there is not legally justifiable reason to photocopy instead of purchase. However, as an extremely poor undergraduate with loans up to my eyebrows, I photocopied my fair share of music. Considering that pieces by Francaix, Adams, and other living composers can be QUITE expensive, there was simply no other option.
I agree that we should take some legitimate action with the publishers to make these pieces more accessible. Or perhaps we can wait until the publishers simply price themselves out of business! I mean, how many of us are going to pay $100 for a copy of "Gnarly Buttons" by John Adams (even though it's a pretty cool piece. Luckily I got mine free from the publisher).
Happy practicing,
Frank
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 2000-05-02 18:25
larry wrote:
-------------------------------
I'd like to pose an ethical questions about the Nielsen Concerto:
The retail price for the music is $52.00 - does this give one the moral (not legal) right to photo copy the music?
------------------------
$52 does sound like an excessive price. I'd be most curious to know how the publisher justifies charging so much. Somebody, somewhere in the publishing food chain, is trying to be greedy, but it seems to me that a price that high actually might be self-defeating, since it may discourage people from performing the concerto.
I've seen similar situations in book publishing. The heirs of certain major authors charge so much for the right to quote from their parents' books that these works almost never get quoted -- and as a result, these authors are far less well-known than they should be. Will later generations re-discover them, after the copyrights have expired? Who knows?
The way you word the question indicates that you realize it's not legal to copy the concerto for public performance. My personal feeling is that I would not be comfortable making a photocopy solely to save money. I think that idea bothers you, too, or else you wouldn't have asked -- you would have just gone ahead without thinking twice. In similar situaitons, I've found that my conscience won't let me alone if I try to ignore it. Photocopying -- stealing, to put it plainly -- as an act of civil disobedience strikes me as a poor choice here, as well, for several reasons.
First, effective acts of civil disobedience attract public attention. For instance, the Boston Tea Party would make a natural sound bite, if it happened today. Throwing chests of tea into the Boston Harbor was a very dramatic, visually appealing act. Playing from a photocopy instead of an original hardly has the same attention-getting appeal.
Second, effective civil disobedience resonates with the public sense of justice. The people who threw the Boston Tea Party came up with a first-rate, quotable slogan, even by today's media-conscious standard: "No taxation without representation!" The general public could easily understand the basic issue, and it affected everybody. Hardly anyone in the general public has heard of the Nielsen concerto. Very few people have any idea what sheet music ought to cost. At best, it would be difficult to get people to care about your issue -- and in order to generate public sympathy, you would have to explain a fairly complicated situation not readily translated into sound bites. This issue resonates primarily with your fellow musicians, so they're the ones more likely to try to help you. Are you well-organized enough to stage and publicize a public performance with members of a well-known orchestra all playing off photocopies as a protest? If not, I think you would put yourself on the wrong side of the law and have nothing to show for it in the end.
I think this is a case where you could work at least as effectively, if not more effectively, by standing solidly on the moral *and* legal high ground. Instead of breaking the law, I'd recommend mounting a letter-writing and publicity campaign. Can you find out the address of the publishing company? Can you also find out the address for the copyright owner? (It may be that the publisher has no choice but to place a high price on the music because Nielsen's heirs are being greedy, for instance. Maybe an appeal to them would be necessary.) Letters to the editor, including those addresses, might go to _Clarinet_ and _Windplayer_ magazines, and perhaps to magazines such as _Stereo Review_ with a suggestion that musicians not perform the concerto and the public not buy CDs of it. I'm sure people here have other ideas about where the letters should go. If the publisher saw sales and performances of the concerto drop, amidst bad publicity within the community that counts -- professional musicians and schools -- then maybe the price would come down.
I'm not saying that a boycott would work. In fact, IMHO, this is one of those situations where the big corporation will do as it pleases and the public can like it or lump it, alas. There just isn't enough general interest in this concerto for the public to care deeply one way or another whether or not it's performed. I don't honestly think there's much you can do. However, at least a publicity campaign leading to a possible boycott need not expose you to pointless legal risk -- and its chances of succeeding are at least as good as the chances of civil disobedience succeeding.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brandon
Date: 2000-05-02 18:51
If you are just looking for the solo part itself, my Kalmus Orchestral Catalog has the solo clarinet part listed for $5.
I am sure that there are probably other companies that might have this part cheaper as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-05-02 19:29
I ended up buying the music (I didn't know about the Kalmus edition), and appreciate the considerate comments. As it turns out, the music (clarinet and piano reduction) is published by a Danish group called the Society for the Publication of Danish Music, so perhaps I've contributed to a good cause.
I thought the differentiation between public and private performance (in terms of the photocopy dilemma) was interesting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Beejay
Date: 2000-05-02 23:15
What annoys me is having to buy two copies of clarinet duets so that my musical partner and I each have a part for practicing. Publishers sell piano and clarinet duets as a single unit. Why can't they do the same for two-clarinet music?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LJClarinetGuy
Date: 2000-05-03 01:53
Name: Beejay ()
Date: 05-02-00 19:15
What annoys me is having to buy two copies of clarinet duets so that my musical partner and I each have a part for practicing. Publishers sell piano and clarinet duets as a single unit. Why can't they do the same for two-clarinet music?
-----------------------------------------------------------
In some cases they do, I bought a Klose Three Concert Duets for Clarinets with both 1st and 2nd parts, sometimes if you can find a company like the one Brandon suggested who might sell you both parts for a good and fair price, depending on what you're looking for. I know it can be hard to find some good duet music with both parts included, but it's out there, and if it isn't, it can be attained.
-Joey-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2000-05-03 04:37
The practical (not legal) reason given for not copying music is that if there is no market, new pieces will not be composed or printed. Publishers need to understand however that to some extent, price does enter into the decision of which pieces to purchase and learn. Not too long ago I purchased a number od solo pieces for my son to study working from lists and my own knowledge, and definitely, where all else was equal, pieces priced well above others were not purchased. There is quite a bit of music available for this instrument.
A pet peeve of mine is seen more with choral music. (I also sing) Scores by composers and editors gone so long ago that there is no question of the work being in the public domain still have had enormous price increases in recent years. These scores are still being printed by the old plates and in some cases old stock is simply given a new sticker over the old price. Since royalities are not involved, only the publisher profits. An example, the price of the Handel Messiah score has increased by a factor of more than 10 since the early seventies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 2000-05-03 14:32
Music prices do seem to have skyrocketed. I buy a lot of my sheet music in used book stores. Generally it's in the section with the music books, stuffed in sideways. Quite a crap-shoot what might turn up in a pile, but in big cities, at least, it's well worth wading through all the useless "Learn the Guitar Almost Overnight With Hardly Any Work, Even If You're Lazy and Stupid!" method books.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-05-03 15:27
Picking up on something Jim wrote: it wouldn't be so bad to pay a high price for music if the print and paper quality were also high. Most german publishers seem to do a good job. But even this expensive Danish Nielsen edition looks almost like a bad photo-copy itself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RWW
Date: 2000-05-04 17:22
I don't think there is any objection to copying music for your own use. To make copies so a duet doesn't have to use the same copy to practice or perform, it seems to me should be acceptable as long as you own an original. Of course selling copies or distributing them so your friends won't have to buy them is and should be illegal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-04 18:50
RWW wrote:
-------------------------------
I don't think there is any objection to copying music for your own use. To make copies so a duet doesn't have to use the same copy to practice or perform, it seems to me should be acceptable as long as you own an original.
--------
It is illegal in both cases (except for a fair use clause, which neither of these meets). However, the copyright police need warrants just like everyone else, so you're pretty safe in your own home. Don't do it in public 9recital, performance, etc.) or in the best case you won't be allowed to perform; in the worst you could be liable for treble damages and jail time should the performance be recorded and sold.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: anon
Date: 2000-05-04 20:12
This is an interesting conversation. Laws are public morals or public ethics. Just becasue we do not ascribe to them, we should not break them. What if everyone violated a law because it was cheaper to do so?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 2000-05-05 12:34
anon wrote:
-------------------------------
This is an interesting conversation. Laws are public morals or public ethics. Just becasue we do not ascribe to them, we should not break them. What if everyone violated a law because it was cheaper to do so?
-------------
I agree with this. I think that breaking the law just to save money is wrong. Breaking the law for civil disobedience, in an attempt to gather support for a change in the law, is another matter. The difference is usually very clear in context.
I also think that the new information makes a difference in this particular situation, since the person who originally asked the question has now added that a more reasonably-priced edition of the music is also available and that this $52 version is for charity. So this seems not to be a case of the copyright owner just getting greedy, as I speculated above -- and nobody is being forced to contribute to that particular charity in order to use the music, since there's an alternative, commercial edition. I'm glad to hear that the person who asked the question bought the sheet music.
The photocopying that really bugs me is the copying of music written by living composers. Composers earn little enough income as it is. Stealing the (usually very meager) royalties from them stinks, IMHO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Daniel
Date: 2000-05-11 05:11
Perhaps the publisher's plates of the Nielsen Concerto have worn out since my copy was printed. But i bought mine about 6-7 years ago and it looks crisp and clean. It may have also been sitting in Southern Music's shop for a few years prior to my finding it, especially considering the sticker price was $30.60.
larry wrote:
-------------------------------
Picking up on something Jim wrote: it wouldn't be so bad to pay a high price for music if the print and paper quality were also high. Most german publishers seem to do a good job. But even this expensive Danish Nielsen edition looks almost like a bad photo-copy itself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
