 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: michele zukovsky
Date: 2020-06-03 12:15
do people play this on the A clarinet, and if so, is it possible to get a transposed part?
thanks!
michelezukovsky@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2020-06-03 18:00
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316706092/Francaix-Clarinet-Concerto-clarinet-part
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2020-06-03 18:20
Hello Michele,
This concerto is indeed sometimes played on the A clarinet.
I will email you a transposed part for A clarinet.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2020-06-03 21:45
Hello again Michele,
My email to you with the transposed Francaix part was returned to me (rejected on USC's end).
The email might still get through to you, but if you don't receive it, I could try resending it.
Best,
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2020-06-03 22:26
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316706092/Francaix-Clarinet-Concerto-clarinet-part
--------------------------------
That's a B-flat part.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2020-06-03 23:12
rmk54 and m1964,
Michele is looking for the solo part of the Francaix Concerto which has been transposed from the original clarinet in Bb to clarinet in A. Your links to scribd are for the original solo part for clarinet in Bb.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2020-06-04 03:05
Not my link - I was just quoting m1964 to point out the error.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2020-06-04 22:35
Not meaning to open up a can of worms, but I'm curious: assuming that it's "appropriate" to play this piece on an alternate instrument, is it "legal" to create such a part for a work that's still under copyright?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2020-06-05 00:19
"is it "legal" to create such a part for a work that's still under copyright?"
I like to think a transposition is legal (or at least not realistically enforceable, if not legal), since one is not changing any of the notes (as they sound). It is not an arrangement after all. Musically and sonically speaking, nothing has changed or been altered. At least that will be my defence if hauled in front of a magistrate
The legality of transposition has been discussed on this board, if one wants to search the archives for previous discussions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2020-06-05 00:30
Simon Aldrich wrote:
> "is it "legal" to create such a part for a work that's still
> under copyright?"
>
> I like to think a transposition is legal (or at least not
> realistically enforceable, if not legal), since one is not
> changing any of the notes (as they sound). It is not an
> arrangement after all. Musically and sonically speaking,
> nothing has changed or been altered. At least that will be my
> defence if hauled in front of a magistrate
>
> The legality of transposition has been discussed on this board,
> if one wants to search the archives for previous discussions.
It is realisticslly enforceable. If you want to play with fire go right ahead. If you make a lot of money the owner of the copyright will go after you and win. If you make nothing then there's no reason to go after you other than a "cease and desist"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2020-06-05 03:51
Mark Charette wrote:
> It is realistically enforceable. If you want to play with fire
> go right ahead. If you make a lot of money the owner of the
> copyright will go after you and win. If you make nothing then
> there's no reason to go after you other than a "cease and
> desist"
Mark, if you publish the transposition for sale or even offer it gratis to other performers, I can easily see that it would be a copyright violation and sooner or later the copyright owner could find out. If you play the piece from the original but simply play it a half step higher (without a written transposition) on A clarinet, would there be a violation? If you quietly put a written out transposed version on your music stand (a) who would know and, since you presumably own a legal, purchased copy (from which you've made the transposition) (b) how would the copyright owner be damaged by your using a written transposition? Isn't proving monetary damage part of a claim of copyright infringement?
Karl
Post Edited (2020-06-05 06:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-06-05 04:56
I am pretty sure that using a personal copy (transposed or otherwise) is fine.
Just don't publish the transposed part for saie...........unless you get permission from the publisher.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2020-06-05 05:00
kdk wrote:
>
> Mark, if you publish the transposition for sale or even offer
> it gratis to other performers, I can easily see that it
> would be a copyright violation and sooner or later the
> copyright owner could find out. If you play the piece from the
> original but simply play it a half step lower (without a
> written transposition), would there be a violation? If you
> quietly put a written out transposed version on your music
> stand (a) who would know and, since you presumably own a legal,
> purchased copy (from which you've made the transposition) (b)
> how would the copyright owner be damaged by your using a
> written transposition? Isn't proving monetary damage part of a
> claim of copyright infringement?
There's no real legal nuance (other than "fair use") to copies of works not under the author's or author's estates when the work is under copyright ... that's why it's called "copyright" (there are many nuances for aural copyright - things that "sound like" another and then there's mechanical reproduction copyrights to boot) but making an unauthorized copy of the written work, even to make a page turn manageable, violates copyright. Stupidly, in my opinion.
But no one is coming after you. Not economically prudent. Unless you start giving the copies away or otherwise hurt the sales of the copyrighted work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin Fay
Date: 2020-07-02 01:54
I'll weigh in on this. I'm not an expert clarinet player, merely avocational in a couple of good civic groups. I am, however, a pretty good copyright lawyer; several Fortune-500 companies have paid me a lot of money for legal advice.
Bottom line: Mark Charette is 100% correct.
Copyright is quite literally the right to make a copy. If a sheet of music has not transferred into the public domain, the holder of the copyright can sue you and win if you make a copy without permission, whether it be by a photocopier, a re-engraving, pencil and paper or a picture on your phone.
That's how copyright works; you either have the right to make a copy, or you don't. To get the right, you need permission; to get permission, you generally have to pay for it.
The *only* exception is fair use. If you're copying the whole thing, it isn't, ever. Sorry.
Wholly apart from whether you're violating copyright is the question of whether the holder will bother to sue you. If you're photocopying a page of a part to help a page turn, it's pretty inconceivable that a copyright holder will bother to go after you, even if for a public, paid performance. (One exception - if you're photocopying anything from a rented part to a staged musical for profit, I'd be wary.) It just wouldn't be worth the cost of litigating.
Whether the copyright holder will go after you is the same calculation as driving over the speed limit. At one point or another, we all do it. OTOH, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's legal.
Best,
kjf
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin Fay
Date: 2020-07-02 01:58
kdk asked:
"If you play the piece from the original but simply play it a half step higher (without a written transposition) on A clarinet, would there be a violation?"
Short answer, no. Reason is simple - you're reading the music, not copying it.
Then:
"If you quietly put a written out transposed version on your music stand (a) who would know and, since you presumably own a legal, purchased copy (from which you've made the transposition) (b) how would the copyright owner be damaged by your using a written transposition?"
Who would know depends on who you are. If it's me performing with the Elbonian Civic Band, chances are no one would know or care. If it's Michele Zukovsky soloing with the LA Phil, word might get around.
Damage to the copyright owner is what they can prove. Note, though, that under 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c)(2) a wilful infringement could be subject to statutory damages of up to $150,000. There is some risk in the risk-reward.
Finally,
"Isn't proving monetary damage part of a claim of copyright infringement?"
Nope. Liability and damages are separate. The holder can claim statutory damages in lieu of showing actual damages, so I wouldn't put much stock in the no-damages theory. Better to rely on whether you'll get caught at all.
Aside from the part, you may have to deal with performance rights, though - an entirely different kettle of fish. Whether or not you're transposing at sight won't matter though.
kjf
Post Edited (2020-07-02 02:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jarmo Hyvakko
Date: 2020-07-04 10:37
After someone has played the concerto with an A-clarinet, please tell the rest of us did it come any easier!
Basically it is a clarinet concerto in A major, which reminds us of....
Jarmo Hyvakko, Principal Clarinet, Tampere Philharmonic, Finland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Lowry
Date: 2020-07-06 03:51
Kevin -- perhaps you can elucidate on this. My understanding is that when I buy a piece of copyrighted music, I am NOT entitled to perform it in public simply because I bought a copy. Isn't that where ASCAP/BMI make their money (but only if the piece is copyrighted)?
There may be exceptions, such as part of a non-paid religious performance, but in general, the rules are that you can't make a xerox copy without permission, nor can you perform without permission.
I hope you will tell me I'm wrong. And I understand not all violations are worth pursuing.
Post Edited (2020-07-07 01:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2020-07-06 07:38
Ed Lowry wrote:
> I hope you will tell me I'm wrong. And I understand not all
> violations are worth pursuing.
Oh gawd! Performsnce rights! And then mechanical rights! They are enforced. The ICA got caught up in a nechanical rights imbroglio a few years back with a recording of the performances at the annual Clarinetfest and i think performance rights too.
A mini-course, Kevin?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2020-07-06 16:27
There may be exceptions, such as part of a non-paid religious performance
--------------------------------------------
Wrong.
Google "Tresona".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Lowry
Date: 2020-07-07 01:14
rmk54:
TO say "wrong" to my statement that there may be exceptions, but that copyrighted pieces can be played as part of a non-paid religious performance does the readers of this list a disservice, and is, in fact not correct. Your blanket "wrong" is, in fact, wrong.
Do a google search and you'll find the conditions that a copyrighted piece can be performed without compensation or approval of the copyright owner. I found nothing to the contrary on the Tresona website, which you suggested I google.
One law firm specializing in intellectual property (and seeking business no doubt) puts it this way on its website: "Rather, under Title 17 of the United States Code, section 110, churches and other houses of worship can be exempt from copyright infringement for the public performance of a copyrighted work. The work must be (1) of a religious nature and (2) performed in the course of a religious worship service. Whether a particular work is of a religious nature, or whether a particular service counts as a worship service, will depend upon the particular facts." https://creekmorelaw.com/does-my-church-need-a-copyright-license-for-music/
So ... certainly not a blanket exemption, but under the right conditions, the exemption exists.
Post Edited (2020-07-07 01:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
