 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-03-25 21:28
Readers may recall my quest for a recording of the Mozart Clarinet Concerto by Gino Cioffi and the Boston Symphony Orchestra made during the late 50s.
I have received many letters offering references to people who may know, however today I received a note from a former student of Gino who had studied with him at the New England Conservatory as had I, and about the same time.
He now lives in New Zealand and he heard the recording of the Concerto at Mr Cioffis summer home in Tanglewood many years ago.It was on a reel-to-reel tape recorder. I would suspect that if it still exists it may be with his effects. I will attempt to get a copy. Stay tuned.
Sherman Friedland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pabstboy
Date: 2007-03-25 22:31
Sherman
I was the person who originally wrote you about finding Gino's Mozart. I do know that Gilbert has it listed in his book of clarinet recordings. But I can not get a phone number or address for him. I will keep looking for it though. Someone out there has to have it. Good luck !!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-03-27 04:09
I am very, very interested in getting a copy of Gino as well, please, if you do find it, email me at arca0026@umn.edu
I will of course still keep watching the boards for you, as well.
Chris Arcand
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-03-27 10:35
Ditto.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2007-03-28 01:59
Ditto!
In fact, having done some searches of threads here recently for recordings by Marcellus and McLane, we could almost start a little "permanent underground" of people interested in exhuming and sharing information about historical clarinet recordings/performances. I'd love to acquire more recordings by those guys. The Library of Congress supposedly has transcriptions of some McLane broadcasts, but ... do I need a FOIA application to liberate them?
Very interested in getting a copy of the Cioffi, too, needless to say.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-03-28 15:42
The LOC McLane performances were of the Schubert Octet and the Beethoven Septet, with the Budapest Quartet and various top wind players. About 20 years ago, they were retrieved from the original recordings (undoubtedly 78 rpm shellac discs) and prepared for the LOC historical series, broadcast, among other places, on WQXR in NYC. Several people taped these broadcasts, and I got a copy from one of the "permanent underground" (I can't remember whom). They're great performances. I've tried to interest a couple of record producers in issuing them, particularly since they've already been prepared for broadcast, but without success.
There are also broadcast airchecks of Marcellus playing the Mozart Concerto, the Debussy Premiere Rhapsodie and Schubert's Shepherd on the Rock (with Benita Valente and Erich Leinsdorf playing piano). RM performed the Brahms Trio at one of the Casals Festivals, and I'm told that a video tape was made, but the owner won't release it. Finally, RM did two master classes at the Clarinet Congress at Oberlin maybe 25 years ago, which I finally got hold of last year.
And, as I said the last time the subject came up, I'd also like Gino's Mozart when and if it's found.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-03-28 18:50
Ken,
Do you know if there is any copyright issues with the tapes you have. It would certainly be easy enough to turn them into digital media and make them available to the public for free.
If no one wants to market them, can't we just have access to them?
I am certainly interested in having all of these recordings, and I am sure I am not the only one...
There are plenty of sites that would host the mp3's, maybe they could even live on woodwind.org ?
Best,
-Sylvain
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-28 20:31
Sylvain wrote:
> Do you know if there is any copyright issues with the tapes you
> have.
There most certainly are. Private usage of recordings is one thing; distribution of such is something totally different. Unless the estate and the recording company allows it, there can't be any public distribution, even for free.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-03-28 20:48
Yet another example that copyright is not working. I face the same problem every time I need a book out of print. More often than not the author would be happy to simply have it broadcast for free, but it can't be done thanks to publishing companies. Hopefully, endeavors such as youtube and google books will finally put an end to this non-sense.
If anybody knows who I shoudl contact to make some of the recordings Ken was talking about available to the public, let me know I will be happy to do so.
-S
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-28 20:54
Sylvain wrote:
> youtube and google books will
> finally put an end to this non-sense.
And when you're a composer and don't get paid for your livelihood because what you do isn't worth anything, let me know ...
Youtube is being sued right now, and Google has been required to get permission to copy books that are under copyright.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-03-28 21:20
Mark -
The Google Books case is complex and walks a razor edge between what's a copyright violation and what's "fair use."
The principle of fair use permits the quotation short passages from a copyrighted work -- for example, to make a point or to guide others to useful information.
The Google Books service permits people to find particular words and display them with a few words on either side for context. If that's all the service did, it would clearly be fair use.
The problem is that to let users find particular text, the full text has to be available for searching. To do that, Google scans the entire book. That scan is not available to Google users, who can retrieve only a few words. Nevertheless, the publishers argue that Google violates their copyright by copying the complete book.
I'm not so sure. If I read a copyrighted book, and have a photographic memory, I could answer someone else's question about that book and quote a few words from it without infringing the copyright. I see no difference in principle between that and the Google Books service, since the user is not getting the complete book.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-03-28 21:53
From the US copyright office:
"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works."
I don't believe the authors are protected anymore, in my field copyright is owned by publishing companies who use it not as a means to protect authors but their own financial interests. I doubt the music business is much different.
I do not believe the majority of composers or performers today make money based on royalties or copyrights. They get grants, commissions, checks for gig, contracts for recordings. I am sure they would be more than happy to let people broadcast their music, I doubt many are making any significant income based on recordings.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-28 22:16
Sylvain wrote:
> I am
> sure they would be more than happy to let people broadcast
> their music, I doubt many are making any significant income
> based on recordings.
Never presume to speak for someone you know not. You are free to ask them and get their permission. If they can grant it and are allowed to give it to you, and wish to do so, then you're free to do what you say. Otherwise, you cannot make that decision for them.
The Internet is a perfect forum for any composer to distribute their compositions and allow for free performances, along with performers distributing all their performances for free. I see a lot less on the Internet than your conclusion would presuppose.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-28 22:18
Ken Shaw wrote:
> Mark -
>
> The Google Books case is complex and walks a razor edge between
> what's a copyright violation and what's "fair use."
Remember Ken, that when Google first started their copying, the complete text was available via a very simple substitution on the URL. That's what got them into their initial trouble. They changed the method, but it's still relatively trivial to get the whole text from Google with some programming tricks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brandon
Date: 2007-03-28 23:36
I am on the subscirber list for arkivmusic.com. Apparently they are able to bring back older, out-of-print recordings. Here is a quote from the newsletter sent today:
"Now, thanks to licensing and manufacturing agreements with record
labels, we are able to make many of these titles available once again.
We create each ArkivCD one at a time, in response to a customer's
order. This simple idea of "production on demand" allows us to greatly
increase the number of classical titles available for sale. An actual
physical CD is produced and delivered to the customer just as quickly
as any item in our regular catalog."
Furthermore, the following was in the newsletter as well:
"I hope you'll let us know about any long-lost
recordings you would like to see us bring back to circulation."
Now the question:
Has anyone explored this with these recordings? Would it even be applicable to the recordings mentioned in this post?
Brandon
*Not affiliated with arkivmusic.com other than a few purchases.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-03-29 00:35
Mark -
True enough, but the basis of the publishers' suit is that Google is scanning and OCRing their books. The resulting files, they say, are infringing if nobody at Google accesses them, and users of Google Books can't retrieve more than a few words.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-03-29 01:17
Mark,
point taken, I should not speak on behalf of others. I have no hard data to support my claims so yes it is pure speculation, that a composer would willingly offer his music for free online.
Jim Pitman a math prof at Berkeley has a very interesting article about intellectual property and copyright in the context of scholarly articles:
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/users/pitman/tworules.html
His main point is that most of the time in order to be published you need to give away your copyright to the publisher, at which point you lose the right to distribute it (freely or not). This is especially tricky in science where books go out of print fast. Too bad if your research needs that book...
I looked around my house, and I see that for most of my novels the copyright is owned by the author, that is the way it should be. Unfortunately, for all the printed music I own (at least the dozen or so I looked at), the publisher owns copyright, for recorded music I own, the recording company owns copyright.
Now, I certainly cannot speak for composers or pro musicians, but I can't imagine they are very pleased at the fact that they, themselves, cannot send me a copy of their work because it is owned by somebody else.
I also understand that one needs money to write and record music and that money also buys food, pays rent, etc. However, I am not sure copyright, at least in its current form, is a good solution.
In the case of getting out of print recordings, printed music, copyright is simply in the way.
Regarding bootleg recordings of masterclasses or live performances of the past (or present) greats, it is not that I do not want to pay to get the recording, I just can't have access to them. I do not believe that the people owning the estate (family?) has much of an interest in copyright, but I admit this is just a belief.
Now as far as private use, vs. free distribution, my understanding is that both are equally illegal...
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2007-03-29 01:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-29 01:23
Sylvain wrote:
> Unfortunately, for all the printed music I own (at
> least the dozen or so I looked at), the publisher owns
> copyright, for recorded music I own, the recording company owns
> copyright.
The recording company owns one of the copyrights. The performer has another.The composer has another. The artist for the cover art had another. The person who wrote the liner notes has another. And I'm sure I missed at least one or two other copyrights.
> Now, I certainly cannot speak for composers or pro musicians,
> but I can't imagine they are very pleased at the fact that
> they, themselves, cannot send me a copy of their work because
> it is owned by somebody else.
They sold the rights and received payment. I'm sure they were happy at that moment in time. Whether or not they are happy today is a completely different story, though.
> However, I
> am not sure copyright, at least in its current form, is a good
> solution.
Neither am I - but have you lobbied your legislature?
> In the case of getting out of print recordings, printed music,
> copyright is simply in the way.
So are a lot of pesky other laws ...
> Now as far as private use, vs. free distribution, my
> understanding is that both are equally illegal...
Depends on the usage and the country.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-03-29 01:44
I was always in awe of the absolute ease with which Mr Cioffi would pick up his horn to demonstrate; the sound sent shivers up and down the spine and in Symphony Hall it was better. He was a man of a thousand wonderful stories and I've been told I do a wonderful imitation of his speech patterns and remember, still astounded at some if the things he said.
But one thing I know I would share with him if he were still with us. He would laugh and laugh at some of the letters....."whatsa dis copright, somebody call a the cops? Justa buy my instruuuuuuuments, inasurance, mouthapiece, and wou'lla do justa fine."
respectfully, he was ada besta.
"When ahma play good, itsa justa like Jesusa Christ. Whem ahma play bad, stilla betta then anybody else."
Gino Cioffi
Sherman Friedland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-03-29 01:52
Mark Charette wrote:
> The recording company owns one of the copyrights. The performer
> has another.The composer has another. The artist for the cover
> art had another. The person who wrote the liner notes has
> another. And I'm sure I missed at least one or two other
> copyrights.
OK fine, I obviously don't know enough about this to make a well articulated argument.
> They sold the rights and received payment. I'm sure they were
> happy at that moment in time. Whether or not they are happy
> today is a completely different story, though.
Did they have any choice?
> Neither am I - but have you lobbied your legislature?
I simply don't give my copyright anymore unless I am granted the right to distribute my work freely. I can't do much else in this country as I am not a citizen.
> > In the case of getting out of print recordings, printed music,
> > copyright is simply in the way.
> So are a lot of pesky other laws ...
That doesn't make it any better.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion, but back to topic. As I said earlier, I am *really* interested in getting access to old/bootleg recordings of past/present greats, if you have some let me know if/how I can get a hold of them.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-29 02:03
Sylvain wrote:
> > They sold the rights and received payment. I'm sure they were
> > happy at that moment in time. Whether or not they are happy
> > today is a completely different story, though.
> Did they have any choice?
Yes. Do what many have done:
Self-publish. The composer might not be any poorer, either, when all is said and done.
But selling your copyright (or negotiating) means that you think you're getting something worthwhile up front that you couldn't get on your own. Publicity, exposure to someone, whatever. I honestly feel that puiblishing companies don't do much very often with what they get - but it's the composer's right to sell what they have.
> > Neither am I - but have you lobbied your legislature?
> I simply don't give my copyright anymore unless I am granted
> the right to distribute my work freely. I can't do much else in
> this country as I am not a citizen.
If you "give" your copyright it's going to be hard to attach strings to it. In France it's impossible to completely sign away your rights ('droit d'auteur') but that's not true in the US. If anything, you might be able to negotiate a term with a publisher ('exclusive rights for a period of time') but I can't think of any sane busimnessperson who would put the time & effort of crating a publishable work and promoting it but allowing you to compete with them - for free or for profit - simultaneously after all that work. If you've found such a publisher - fantastic! I hope they figure out a way to stay in business.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-03-29 07:45
There are laws and there is common sense. Sometiems they match, sometimes they crash. In each specific situation use what makes the most sense and goes with your ethics (assuming you have some).
IMHO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2007-03-29 13:55
This thread started out full of reminiscence of colorful artists and the sense of discovery about possibly long-lost works of theirs (which I share in, by the way) and has ended up with sobering perspectives on how intellectual property and copyright laws (as they are currently written) act not just to limit access, but more often than not to PREVENT access.
YouTube is a great example. Up until Viacom decided to sue YouTube, forcing YT to remove Viacom-owned material (and thereby forcing YT to remove everything ELSE that appeared problematic, copyright-wise), it was possible to surf YT and come up with amazing stuff one never dreamed existed: e.g., long-lost clips of performances made memorable either because of their scarcity, the stature of the artist, or the artistic merit of the performance.
In numerous cases, after seeing such material on YouTube, I made efforts to track down source material and buy it (DVDs and/or CDs that moved me in some way). Frequently I'd settle for something else from a particular artist if the original stuff wasn't available. In all cases, though, exposure to the artist via YT heightened my interest in the artist, and led me to actually BUY stuff.
But the corporate lawyers at Viacom have done their work. A great deal of material I loved, and bookmarked, has simply disappeared--shoved back down the memory hole, never to be seen again.
Nobody's interests are getting served here--certainly not the artists', whose sales could only benefit from exposure on YouTube. Certainly not the public's, who lose access to, and enjoyment of, rich mother-lodes of material that for reasons of commercial viability will probably never be released at all.
Sorry, Sherman, I didn't mean to hijack the thread! My point, I suppose, is that the YouTube/Viacom litigation and the heightened threat of IP/copyright lawsuits in general is a perfect example of copyright laws gone wrong. And--particularly germane to this thread--that those who treasure obscure, little-known masterpieces like the Cioffi performance or the LOC Marcellus broadcasts are going to have to stay well under the corporate radar if they (we?) intend to pass such rare material around.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
