 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2011-09-09 21:26
It's less than $20.00.
Buy it - If you are serious about the clarinet, you should have it in your personal library (w/the piano part)
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 2E
Date: 2011-09-10 11:06
Is there anywhere where the sheet music for this piece is for free?? It's new to be on imslp
Yes, any decent music library should have it. Try your local public or university library catalogue.
2E
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-09-10 12:45
Most professional clarinetists will have a copy. If you have a local symphony, ask one of the players.
Any university music library will have a copy.
You really should buy a copy, though. Poulenc's estate deserves the small royalty, and playing from printed music means many fewer page turns, particularly for the pianist.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-09-11 15:23
Well, for one thing, Poulenc's estate owns the copyright and has the legal right to be paid a royalty when his works are copied (and even played). That right is part of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of every country.
For another, royalties are how Poulenc made his living and supported his family. His heirs have every right to be paid during the term of the copyright.
Simply because modern technology lets you make copies easily doesn't make it ethically (and legally) right to do so.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-09-11 16:44
They are legally entitled to it. "Deserves" is a whole other matter. Using copyright as a retirement plan for one's grandchildren hardly serves the public interest.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2011-09-11 17:03
Isn't the same thing going on with Gershwin's music?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-09-11 17:31
Indeed, and with any other music written since the 1920s.
Copyright has all sorts of benefits, both to creator and consumer, but crazy-long terms like those currently in place do significant damage and serve as little more than a cash cow for publishers and great-grandchildren.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2011-09-11 20:43
Poulenc never married and presumably had no children. He was also wealthy from an inheritance. So who gets the royalties? Also, there is nothing in the US Constitution granting dead people a 70-years-from-death "right" to profit from their work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-09-11 21:14
elmo lewis wrote:
> Also, there is nothing in the US Constitution granting dead
> people a 70-years-from-death "right" to profit from their work.
The Constitution leaves the details to Congress.
The international politics that surround copyright are complex, and the respect of copyrights internationally require more compromise between nations than one might expect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2011-09-11 22:17
"Copyright has all sorts of benefits, both to creator and consumer, but crazy-long terms like those currently in place do significant damage and serve as little more than a cash cow for publishers and great-grandchildren."
Who are you to decide what is deemed "crazy-long terms"? The presumption that your needs trump the viability of a publisher and the composer or family or whatever whether it's great grandchildren or some long-lost cousin, it doesn't matter. Why are you against a person earning what is rightfully, legally theirs?
This really strikes a nerve with me as someone who writes music AND plays music. I understand the desire for students to want to copy music, I was there too, as many of us were. But I also know that there are starving composers out there just like there are starving musicians and if it's OK to copy Poulenc's sonata even though he's been dead for 48 years, why is it not okay to copy a 25 year old's music that's protected by the same laws? This sounds like hypocrisy in the air.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-09-12 01:23
By that logic, why is it okay to freely copy music by JS Bach?
Look at why copyright was originated: without copyright, there was little incentive to create works, because these works could be freely copied. Why would you pay someone for some music when you could get it for free?
So copyright came around, a monopoly granted to the author for a *limited* time, in order to provide a finanical incentive for them to create their works (some time to make money off it), after which time they are released into the public domain for the greater good of society.
Keeping works under copyright nearly indefinitely is harmful to the greater good of society. Among those harms (these being more specific to the classical world): It puts ensembles with little financial means under great financial strain if they wish to play music legally. It also ensures that said music, even when very old, is played much less often than music that's out of copyright. Groups that would love to play Shosty might opt for Schumann instead because they can't shell out the grand. If Shosty were still around, that would be one thing, but by and large these works are held by publishing companies who have long since made a healthy return on their investments. As a result, many 20th century musicians end up forgotten because nobody plays their music. If I gave a crap about my legacy, I would much rather it be that my stuff brought enjoyment to thousands more people than that it got my grandchildren (or my publisher) a few extra bucks.
It's my understanding that the latest extension to copyright duration in the U.S. was almost entirely motivated by Disney, fearing a proliferation of public domain access to Mickey Mouse.
Who am I? I am someone (also a performer and composer) who thinks the term is too damn long. I'm not about copyright abolition, I just think that the current length does far more harm than good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-09-12 02:10
EEBaum wrote:
> If I gave a crap about my
> legacy, I would much rather it be that my stuff brought
> enjoyment to thousands more people than that it got my
> grandchildren (or my publisher) a few extra bucks.
Copyright give you that right - you can do whatever you like with your music, including giving it away.
> It's my understanding that the latest extension to copyright
> duration in the U.S. was almost entirely motivated by Disney,
> fearing a proliferation of public domain access to Mickey
> Mouse.
One of the motivations, along with others that assist US composers in maintaining their copyrights internationally.
Most of us really speak from both ignorance of the laws and the motives of those laws. Law is rarely cut & dry, is seldom common-sense, is either too wide or too narrow in scope, and is subject to vagaries of wording and intention.
Along with being a proof of the old saying, "No good deed goes unpunished."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2011-09-13 02:42
Thus says Alex of "The term is too damn long" party.
(sorry - that immediately made me think of that fellow McMillan and his "rent is too damn high party." I couldn't resist).
I hear what you're saying, but I also think that if you want a blanket law that needs to apply to every situation, the current law might be about where you end up. And thus I refer to Mark's comments. The law is the law whether you like it or not. And we're not talking about orchestral music, we're talking about a clarinet and piano piece that costs about $19.95 + shipping, well within the realm of affordability for anyone. And let's not forget that your Schumann piece is likely published by someone like Kalmus or Luck's and even though Schumann's ancestors may not own the copyright anymore, that publisher likely does. I doubt this hypothetical orchestra is going to play off of the manuscript to a Schumann symphony.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-09-13 03:53
I'm not condoning breaking the law. Rather, I'm encouraging a changing of a law that I find to be hostile to the public interest.
Just because something is the law, doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean it's in anyone's best interest. Some people choose to break the law when they disagree with it. I prefer the raising-hell-toward-your-elected-representative angle. I've written letters to politicians on various issues, but they've usually fallen on deaf ears, given that I typically live in the areas represented by people who came up with the laws I so adamantly disagree with. Will probably have to up my game in the future, as letters are small potatoes.
However, simply hiding behind "that's the law" and somehow equating it with "that's what's right" I find highly offensive. I find it my responsibility as a musician and citizen to look at the law, look at why it became the law, and look at the law's effects, and if I find it to be harmful to society, to try to do something about it.
The publisher of Poulenc gets to charge what it likes for Poulenc's music, because that's what copyright law dictates. As long as that's the case, I will decide whether to pay $20 or not have the Poulenc Sonata. (I have a copy that I bought at a music store, probably for about $20)
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Claire Annette
Date: 2011-09-17 22:51
All right....I might as well confess. I had Poulenc's love child (just so I could have part of the royalties off his music.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Hard to believe, I know.