Opus Clavicembalisticum

[aqu01rius]

I saw someone posted the full score for this piece before...
but the link's no longer working,
and the person is not replying my mail..

does anyone know where to get the full score for this piece? Thanks!

[edit]

found

[xvimbi]

That person might be in jail...

You need to contact Alistair Hinton who is the curator of the Sorabji Archive. It is not quite legal to distribute the score or recordings of Sorabji pieces. It's particularly not a good idea to do this here since Mr. Hinton is a member of this forum and is posting quite regularly as of recently. He will probably respond soon with proper instructions.

[JCarey]

He recently joined my forum as well. What is his username here?

[stevie]

ahinton

he is friendly with marc-andre hamelin too

perhaps he could persuade marc to join these boards!

[JCarey]

ahinton

he is friendly with marc-andre hamelin too

perhaps he could persuade marc to join these boards!

ahinton... hehe, how original. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Hamelin has already joined. Possibly, he doesn't want to reveal his identity, as he would be bombarded with PMs, emails, and questions.

[ahinton]

Why is it 'not quite legal' to distribute the score online?
Is it because the Sorabji Archive is full of greedy/stingy fucks?
If so, I will not hesitate to distribute the score.
PM me if you're looking for it.

It is not legal because the work is in copyright. Simple as that. If the copyright owners (us) were unwilling to distribute it, then any such flouting of the law as the kind of distribution you mention would still be illegal but eminently defensible. This, however, is not the case. Anyone who has this score available for distribution has very likely got it from or via us in the first place. We have not spent a fortune setting up the facility to distribute all of Sorabji's scores and published literature just so that people who buy them can go redistribute them at their leisure.

In answer to your second question, I can tell you with authority that The Sorabji Archive is full of scores, literature, correspondence and other information; I hope that all of the above helps you in arriving at your decision as to what not to do next.

Kind regards,

Alistair

[ahinton]

That person might be in jail...

You need to contact Alistair Hinton who is the curator of the Sorabji Archive. It is not quite legal to distribute the score or recordings of Sorabji pieces. It's particularly not a good idea to do this here since Mr. Hinton is a member of this forum and is posting quite regularly as of recently. He will probably respond soon with proper instructions.

We are unaware that anyone is enjoying a prison sentence for having distributed Sorabji's scores illegally, but then we don't want to get into that kind of thing. Our rôle is to make Sorabji's material available for anyone who wants it. Brochures, etc., are available from us by email; please contact us at
sorabji-archive@lineone.net
and we will be more than happy to help.

Kind regards,

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

[ahinton]

Why is it 'not quite legal' to distribute the score online?
Is it because the Sorabji Archive is full of greedy/stingy fucks?
If so, I will not hesitate to distribute the score.
PM me if you're looking for it.

On reflection, we should perhaps have made our position vis-à-vis Opus Clavicembalisticum somewhat clearer. What we supply is a copy of the composer's own "Working Copy" publication, in which he had inserted many corrections by hand over a period of years (although this published score remains littered with printing and other editorial errors). This is an item which was generously donated to The Sorabji Archive several years ago by the friend to whom Sorabji himself had given it in the early 1940s.

Best regards,

Alistair

[stevie]

alistair, i am sure you are aware about the distibution of sheet music over the internet, primarily in PDF format.

i must confess, i , like many members of this forum, were very curious just to get a glimpse of this notoriously famous and difficult piece (the 'OC', subject of many topics, particularly those about the most difficult pieces veer composed..).
so i obtained through a contact on this forum, a PDF version of the score, for free.
i had no intent to play it at all, i was just curious to so what it looked like.

many people on this forum are in an identical position as i was, just curious to see what it looks like, and not intending to play it.
now considering the price of buying the score, and the ease by which they can obtain it freely from the internet, its easy why the choose this 'illegal' option..

[ahinton]

alistair, i am sure you are aware about the distibution of sheet music over the internet, primarily in PDF format.

i must confess, i , like many members of this forum, were very curious just to get a glimpse of this notoriously famous and difficult piece (the 'OC', subject of many topics, particularly those about the most difficult pieces veer composed..).
so i obtained through a contact on this forum, a PDF version of the score, for free.
i had no intent to play it at all, i was just curious to so what it looked like.

many people on this forum are in an identical position as i was, just curious to see what it looks like, and not intending to play it.
now considering the price of buying the score, and the ease by which they can obtain it freely from the internet, its easy why the choose this 'illegal' option..

We are of course aware that a handful of people do indeed distribute copyright music over the internet, irrespective of the fact that it illegal to do so. The question of whether the person or organisation distributing such material does so only to people who have no intent to play it affects neither the status of the works concerned nor the breach of copyright law involved in distributing such material without the appropriate permission of the owners. Likewise, it makes no difference whether such illegal distributions are made with or without charge; we are aware that both do happen on occasion.

We are fortunately able to confirm that, in Sorabji's case,  most people who want such material still continue to obtain it through the proper channels; it is our responsibility to provide it promptly whenever any of it is requested.

In the specific case of Opus Clavicembalisticum, one forum menber who put up a score of this for download last year has removed it for this very reason.

There is a continuous flow of new typeset editions of Sorabji's works being prepared and they are available only through us, by arrangement with the editors.

It is the case that anyone who distributes - or enables to be distributed - scans of Sorabji's music will in most cases have prepared those scans from material which we have originally provided; if we were to cease to provide it - especially in the case of new editions - it will not become available for any purpose, including scanning.

There are several forums dedicated to the sharing of scanned files of music and most of these generally confine themselves to the sharing of music in the public domain. We strongly support their activities in this regard, especially as some of the music so circulated is hard to obtain by any other means.

We recognise that the cost of obtaining certain of Sorabji's large scores is high, but this is an unavoidable consequence of their sheer size and scope; Opus Clavicembalisticum, for example, is 260 A3 landscape pages and the new edition of the 100 Transcendental Studies comes in at 864 of the same kinds of page. Many of his scores are much smaller than these, of course and are accordingly much less expensive.

We have no desire to be killjoys as a conseqence of our stance on this; indeed, our principal purpose is to ensure the distribution of Sorabji's remarkable music as widely as possible and to encourage editions, performances and research.  As we have stated, most people who have Sorabji scores - including those who scan and distribute them illegally - will originally have obtained them from us; there is accordingly no such thing as a "free" score, as the scores that we are able to supply have inevitably involved us in considerable costs to source and make.

Best regards,

Alistair

[aqu01rius]

I got the full score for Opus Clavicembalisticum
17 MB! 

Does anyone have the recording for this piece? thanks!

[prometheus]

Lets say I wanted to buy all of Sorbjis major works through the proper way, how much would that cost me?

[ahinton]

I got the full score for Opus Clavicembalisticum
17 MB! 

Does anyone have the recording for this piece? thanks!

Yes, we do; it's the one recorded by John Ogdon on Altarus Records (AIR-CD-9075[5]) and is supplied as a 5-CD boxed set for the price of four and has an accompanying book of some 100 pages.

Is the score that you have of the "Working Copy" of OC?

Alistair

[ahinton]

Lets say I wanted to buy all of Sorbjis major works through the proper way, how much would that cost me?

We will of course be happy to help by answering your question but cannot give a specific quote other than for a specific order, as we are sure you will appreciate. If you wish us to email you a brochure which includes prices for everything that we supply, please request one on
sorabji-archive@lineone.net
and we will email it to you promptly. All prices quoted therein include shipping within UK (supplements are added to cover the difference between UK and foreign shipping costs and are quoted for each individual order).

Best regards,

Alistair

[Etude]

Mr. Hinton, is there any way at all to obtain the recording of G.D. Madge's first performance of Opus Clavicembalisticum?  I'd be interested in hearing it if it's possible.  I'm also having great difficulty in obtaining a recording of the Organ Symphony no. 1.  I haven't been able to find a site that has these recordings available for purchase.  Would I be able to get either of them through the archive?

[prometheus]

I was just wondering if it is even possible for a music student, living off a study loan, to acquire them 'legally'.

I may order some scores in the future, but in no way am I able to buy all those scores tomorrow, thats just insane. I saw that the OC score is listed at 75 pounds. So it is just not possible for most people to get the scores legally.

I was looking at this book, Sorabji: A critical celebration. It costs 110 euro... And the orchestra and piano version: 230 pounds...

I am not saying these prices are unreasonable. But as a music student these prices are out of my buget by 1000%

[ahinton]

Mr. Hinton, is there any way at all to obtain the recording of G.D. Madge's first performance of Opus Clavicembalisticum?  I'd be interested in hearing it if it's possible.  I'm also having great difficulty in obtaining a recording of the Organ Symphony no. 1.  I haven't been able to find a site that has these recordings available for purchase.  Would I be able to get either of them through the archive?

Sadly, the answer in both cases is no. We have never sold the Madge LPs and they have in any case been unavailable for at least 13 years, to the best of our knowledge. We used to supply the First Organ Symphony 2-CD set until we had sold out and this, too, has been unavailable for several years so, unless you can find a store or other source that still has one for sale, I fear that your search will be unsuccessful. We are sorry that we cannot help you with either of these.

Best regards,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I was just wondering if it is even possible for a music student, living off a study loan, to acquire them 'legally'.

I may order some scores in the future, but in no way am I able to buy all those scores tomorrow, thats just insane. I saw that the OP score is listed at 75 pounds. So it is just not possible for most people to get the scores legally.

I was looking at this book, Sorabji: A critical celebration. It costs 110 euro... And the orchestra and piano version: 230 pounds...

I am not saying these prices are unreasonable. But as a music student these prices are out of my buget by 1000%

We sympathise entirely with your financial plight as a student. I was myself a student once and I received no state grant aid of any kind towards my study (although fortunately I did manage to benefit from a private scholarship), so I know exactly where you are coming from. We are not exactly making a fortune from the sale of scores ourselves, although this fact does not affect the setup and production costs - but then the object of setting up this archive was not the creation of large profits to be spent on private luxuries but the distribution and dissemination of the music for which we are responsible. We are sure that you can appreciate this fact and are pleased that you are not suggesting that our prices are unreasonable; that said, it is not correct to state, as you do, that it is "just not possible for most people to get the scores legally", for it that were the case, we would be selling very few of them!

We appreciate that many of Sorabji's larger scores may be beyond your present budget or that of other students, but we can control and influence the incomes of students no more than we can control the production costs of what we supply. Do bear in mind, however, that all your references are to these large scores; there are 117 items in our scores catalogue which are priced at £20 or less, inclusive of hard cover binding and shipping within UK.

Best regards,

Alistair

[xvimbi]

I was just wondering if it is even possible for a music student, living off a study loan, to acquire them 'legally'.

I may order some scores in the future, but in no way am I able to buy all those scores tomorrow, thats just insane. I saw that the OC score is listed at 75 pounds. So it is just not possible for most people to get the scores legally.

I was looking at this book, Sorabji: A critical celebration. It costs 110 euro... And the orchestra and piano version: 230 pounds...

I am not saying these prices are unreasonable. But as a music student these prices are out of my buget by 1000%

I have always been a big enemy of making illegal copies. It may be difficult for students to buy certain things, but it even more difficult for someone who makes a living by selling what they "create", if people make illegal copies.

Anyhow, there is a number of ways for music students to get their hands on pretty much any score or any recording. For example, ask your library to purchase what you are looking for. Use inter-library loan services. Go to your faculty and see if they have it. They will be more than willing to let you take a look. If you want to play it, buy it! If you want to analyze it, buy it. If you want to listen to it more than once, buy it. If you are really serious about it, you'll find a way. I have been in the same situation many times.

I don't think there is really any excuse for making illegal copies.

[prometheus]

Without internet no one would know anything.

I don't see anything wrong with making copies. The problem is not spending your money on music.

There really is no moral justification to make 'intellectual property' property at all, it is a paradox. The fact that making a copy equals stealing is shocking to me. Copyrights should be done away with.

Also, there is no law on the internet anyway. Nothing can be illegal. And even if you apply the law of a country, in my country it isn't even illegal to download an 'illegal' copy.

I really look forward to supporting Sorabji's works and the people recording and taking care of the scores. But don't give me the 'illegal' lecture...

[xvimbi]

Without internet no one would know anything.

I don't see anything wrong with making copies. The problem is not spending your money on music.

There really is no moral justification to make 'intellectual property' property at all, it is a paradox. The fact that making a copy equals stealing is shocking to me. Copyrights should be done away with.

Also, there is no law on the internet anyway. Nothing can be illegal. And even if you apply the law of a country, in my country it isn't even illegal to download an 'illegal' copy.

I really look forward to supporting Sorabji's works and the people recording and taking care of the scores. But don't give me the 'illegal' lecture...

Sorry, but you have a quite unreasonable attitude, IMO. Let's say you write a big symphony. Your only one; and you record it; it's a big hit. Everyone loves it. You publish both the recording and the score. One person buys them, then makes copies and distributes them to millions of people. How would you feel? Don't tell me that you'd be delighted that so many people like your music. If your income depends on this, you'd be hiring lawers left and right to defend your 'intellectual property'. Same thing with software. Countless hours went into it to write it, to design algorithms, etc. Are you telling me, you wouldn't want to be compensated for that?

[pies]

­

[xvimbi]

I don't see why anyone would willingly purchase Sorabji scores for exuberant prices.  Why should others make money off of Sorabji's work? This should be free. My belief is that when the composer dies, his/her works automatically go into public domain. *** your intellectual copyrights.

Thank God for the Internet. Saving me so much time and money.

I don't think you understand the least bit about this issue. Perhaps, you should take on 1000 pages of autographs, research that score, clean it up, typeset it, have it printed and distributed. How long will that take you? Let's say one year, 8 hours a day. You finally lean back and see your work put on the market. You sell a single copy, thousands are distributed illegally. You get, say, $100 for one year's worth of labor. If you still don't understand that, then I am at a loss.

[thalbergmad]

I don't see why anyone would willingly purchase Sorabji scores for exuberant prices.  Why should others make money off of Sorabji's work? This should be free. My belief is that when the composer dies, his/her works automatically go into public domain. *** your intellectual copyrights.

Thank God for the Internet. Saving me so much time and money.

Composers do marry and do have children.

Should not they benefit from the hard work??

[jeremyjchilds]

If nobody is going to make any money producing high quality editions, then nobody will...we will be left with what we have now.

[stevie]

I don't think you understand the least bit about this issue. Perhaps, you should take on 1000 pages of autographs, research that score, clean it up, typeset it, have it printed and distributed. How long will that take you? Let's say one year, 8 hours a day. You finally lean back and see your work put on the market. You sell a single copy, thousands are distributed illegally. You get, say, $100 for one year's worth of labor. If you still don't understand that, then I am at a loss.

i agree with the principle, but in reality i get what i can get.

i only live once, and if i can get something for free, i get it.

[prometheus]

Maybe I am crazy. But I am afraid you are incorrect xvimbi. I don't know if you are greedy or I am stupid.

If you claim copyrights are put in place to benefit the musicians. Well, then copyrights are failing since the musicians get almost nothing. So that argument is flawed.

The prices of the sorabji archive are so expensive because of the costs of making the copies are perserving the scores. If someone would just publish them it would be fixed. But because of copyrights the music industry is dirty and it doesn't work that way because no money would be made.

When I buy a CD of music I am paying mostly for the marketing campaign of the new 'star' of classical music.

I am not saying no one should spend money on music, I spend all my money on it. But don't lecture about how bad sharing stuff through the internet is because apperently it is bad for the musician. All major pop and rock artists were ripped off by the record companies. If you really care for musicians you wouldn't give them a penny.

Also, I don't seen how someone can buy copyrights from another person.

Another funny thing. Most artists don't care if people get their music for free. It's always the children, parents, family, friends or other guardians after the musician died that are very concerned about this. I have seen this several times. I don't think this is wrong but it definitely happens.


Lets face it, the copyright laws were put in place so that money can be made. That's it. It doens't exist because of the musicians and their children or good high quality editions.


About software. GNU seems to work pretty well.

[xvimbi]

i agree with the principle, but in reality i get what i can get.

i only live once, and if i can get something for free, i get it.

Believe me, I like getting stuff for free as well - as long as it is intended to be given to me for free. However, if it is not, then it is stealing.

[xvimbi]

Maybe I am crazy. But I am afraid you are incorrect xvimbi. I don't know if you are greedy or I am stupid.

It has nothing to do with either.

If you claim copyrights are put in place to benefit the musicians. Well, then copyrights are failing since the musicians get almost nothing. So that argument is flawed.

I have claimed nothing like that, and I have said nothing about musicians. I have only said something about someone putting in labor and getting compensated for it. I don't agree either with the fact that the creative people get a smaller share than those who simply market and distribute the products, but that is a consequence of how the market works. It does not, however, change the underlying principle.

The prices of the sorabji archive are so expensive because of the costs of making the copies are perserving the scores. If someone would just publish them it would be fixed. But because of copyrights the music industry is dirty and it doesn't work that way because no money would be made.

When I buy a CD of music I am paying mostly for the marketing campaign of the new 'star' of classical music.

I am not saying no one should spend money on music, I spend all my money on it. But don't lecture about how bad sharing stuff through the internet is because apperently it is bad for the musician. All major pop and rock artists were ripped off by the record companies. If you really care for musicians you wouldn't give them a penny.

See above. I have said nothing about "how bad it is for the musician", so don't patronize me. Do you actually care about the musician?

Also, I don't seen how someone can buy copyrights from another person.

The rights to make money off a product can of course be transferred. What is the problem with this concept?

Another funny thing. Most artists don't care if people get their music for free. It's always the children, parents, family, friends or other guardians after the musician died that are very concerned about this. I have seen this several times. I don't think this is wrong but it definitely happens.

There are indeed artists who give away their music for free. Not those, however, who make a living from it. That is the big difference. If you make copies of their music, you reduce their income and thus steal from them.

Lets face it, the copyright laws were put in place so that money can be made. That's it. It doens't exist because of the musicians and their children or good high quality editions.

Duh! Of course. The same with patents. Do you object to those as well? Copyrights and patents are means to protect something of value so that one has some time to make money from it, most often in order to recoup R&D costs or simply labor, everything else is profit.
 

About software. GNU seems to work pretty well.

Sure. As I said, if somebody is happy to donate their time and efforts to the community for free, then great. Those people obviously have other sources of income to make their living. If someone expects to be compensated for it, however, and then one should pay, or not get the product.

We are going in circles. If you don't see the logic behind it, then I can't help you. You will only realize it when it happens to you.

[stevie]

Believe me, I like getting stuff for free as well - as long as it is intended to be given to me for free. However, if it is not, then it is stealing.

i am not really taking anything away from anyone when i download scores.

i spend ALL of my free money of DVDs, CDs and sheet music...the thing is i just dont have that much free money.

with the internet i can get lots of stuff for free, that i wouldnt BUY anyway...nobody is losing any profits by me getting them.

i still dont think what i did (getting the opus clavicembaliticum for free) was morally wrong.

[ahinton]

Without internet no one would know anything.

I don't see anything wrong with making copies. The problem is not spending your money on music.

There really is no moral justification to make 'intellectual property' property at all, it is a paradox. The fact that making a copy equals stealing is shocking to me. Copyrights should be done away with.

Also, there is no law on the internet anyway. Nothing can be illegal. And even if you apply the law of a country, in my country it isn't even illegal to download an 'illegal' copy.

I really look forward to supporting Sorabji's works and the people recording and taking care of the scores. But don't give me the 'illegal' lecture...

You have your personal view about the rights and wrongs of intellectual property law (which of course varies from country to country and from time to time in any case) and you are entitled to it. International intellectual property issues are, as we all know, extremely complex for a number of reasons, not least those to which you quite rightly draw attention in terms of what may be deemed legal in one country but may not in another. The internet, however, makes no material difference here, since the internet is not itself a legislative organisation, so it can only make things possible; it cannot make anything "legal" or "illegal" in any jurisdiction; in that sense, there is indeed "no law on the internet", as you rightly state, but that does not of itself mean that the internet is accordingly able to override laws that already exist in various jurisdictions.

We are pleased that you want to support Sorabji and his work and we have no intention of "lecturing" anyone about anything; we have merely reproduced facts. However, if you are genuine about that support, you will surely underatand that, as we have previously stated, there is no such thing as a "free" score; someone has to pay for its production. In this instance, that someone is us.

End of non-lecture!

Best regards,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't see why anyone would willingly purchase Sorabji scores for exuberant prices.  Why should others make money off of Sorabji's work? This should be free. My belief is that when the composer dies, his/her works automatically go into public domain. *** your intellectual copyrights.

Thank God for the Internet. Saving me so much time and money.

You are forgetting someting vitally important here. Whatever your moral views about copyright issues (and, regardless of the laws of any country you may or may not care to name, you are still entitled to those views), someone, somewhere, has first to make available the scores that you believe should be distributable for "free". If we felt at the outset that all our work in setting up The Sorabji Archive and making these scores available for free distribution outside our control, we would never have been able to consider doing it at all; in such a case, you'd have had no Sorabji scores to talk about, let alone expect for free download. You ask why anyone should make money off Sorabji's work after his death. We presume from this that you are therefore against publishers of any kind selling any scores for money after their composers have died. Has it also occurred to you to wonder why anyone should spend money making this material available in the first place?

Best regards,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i agree with the principle, but in reality i get what i can get.

i only live once, and if i can get something for free, i get it.

But you soon won't be able to if we simply stop issuing anything.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Maybe I am crazy. But I am afraid you are incorrect xvimbi. I don't know if you are greedy or I am stupid.

If you claim copyrights are put in place to benefit the musicians. Well, then copyrights are failing since the musicians get almost nothing. So that argument is flawed.

The prices of the sorabji archive are so expensive because of the costs of making the copies are perserving the scores. If someone would just publish them it would be fixed. But because of copyrights the music industry is dirty and it doesn't work that way because no money would be made.

When I buy a CD of music I am paying mostly for the marketing campaign of the new 'star' of classical music.

I am not saying no one should spend money on music, I spend all my money on it. But don't lecture about how bad sharing stuff through the internet is because apperently it is bad for the musician. All major pop and rock artists were ripped off by the record companies. If you really care for musicians you wouldn't give them a penny.

Also, I don't seen how someone can buy copyrights from another person.

Another funny thing. Most artists don't care if people get their music for free. It's always the children, parents, family, friends or other guardians after the musician died that are very concerned about this. I have seen this several times. I don't think this is wrong but it definitely happens.


Lets face it, the copyright laws were put in place so that money can be made. That's it. It doens't exist because of the musicians and their children or good high quality editions.


About software. GNU seems to work pretty well.

The costs of the scores that we supply are what they are because they are what they are. We undertook extensive reserach of the market place before we ever put a songle score on the market and, unlike many publishing organisations, we have made very few increases to those prices since our inception, despite increases in material and shipping costs.

It seems from your attempted argument that we are being singled out for doing something of which you do not apprive, whereas establied publishers can do just the same (and some of them charging more than we would do) and that - by implication at least - would appear to be OK.

Anyone can but intellectual property rights from anyone who owns them if the owners choose to sell them. Whatever you may feel to be the moral rights and wrongs of this fact, we can assure you that we did not purchase the rights to the music of Sorabji.

As others have observed on this forum, it is questionable to expect to get material for free when someone has first had to invest funds in order to make that possible.

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

But you soon won't be able to if we simply stop issuing anything.

Best,

Alistair

yes, but in the case of the opus clavicembalisticum, i simply couldnt affor the price, and didnt even want to play it, i just wanted to take a look at the score.
downloading it was my only option, either that or not getting it at all.
i hope you understand that i wasnt trying to rob anyone of anything.

there are MANY people here who have done exactly what i have done, but i am willing to admit it...

[ahinton]

i am not really taking anything away from anyone when i download scores.

i spend ALL of my free money of DVDs, CDs and sheet music...the thing is i just dont have that much free money.

with the internet i can get lots of stuff for free, that i wouldnt BUY anyway...nobody is losing any profits by me getting them.

i still dont think what i did (getting the opus clavicembaliticum for free) was morally wrong.

Maybe you don't - but just remember that someone had to pay first in order to make that possible - so it was "free" onoy to you when you downloaded it and, had we never issued any copies of it in the first place, then you would not have been able to do this.

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

Maybe you don't - but just remember that someone had to pay first in order to make that possible - so it was "free" onoy to you when you downloaded it and, had we never issued any copies of it in the first place, then you would not have been able to do this.

Best,

Alistair

yes i do realise this, and i have bought the hamelin scores, because i actually intended to play them and i could afford them...

[ahinton]

yes, but in the case of the opus clavicembalisticum, i simply couldnt affor the price, and didnt even want to play it, i just wanted to take a look at the score.
downloading it was my only option, either that or not getting it at all.
i hope you understand that i wasnt trying to rob anyone of anything.

there are MANY people here who have done exactly what i have done, but i am willing to admit it...

We are not trying to impute that your motive was consciously bad, but this does not alter the facts. Fortunately, not that many peiople have done this with Sorabji's music, otherwise our sales would have plummeted to almost nothing. If that did happen, we would have to fold - and then neither you nor anyone else would ever be able to take advantage of new editions of Sorabji's music. It is worth remembering that most of Sorabji's work was in manuscript only before the editors began their work at around the time of the composer's death; most of these manuscripts are impossible to perform from and, whilst immensely valuable of themselves, they are of little use beyond their research document value. Editions have to be made so that accurate, legible scores can be put in front not only of potential performers but of people who just want to have a good look at them and be able to read what is in them.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

yes i do realise this, and i have bought the hamelin scores, because i actually intended to play them and i could afford them...

Fair enough - but, as we have observed previously, we cannot reasonably expect to have to be held to ransom just because some of Sorabji's scores are expensive (because of their size) and others (most of them, in fact - as we have mentioned earlier) are not; we have to price according to cost, like everyone else in and out of the music profession. I doubt it you would complain that because you could not afford a Mercedes you wouldn't buy a car at all because most cars were too expensive - you'd buy a car you could afford...

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

We are not trying to impute that your motive was consciously bad, but this does not alter the facts. Fortunately, not that many peiople have done this with Sorabji's music, otherwise our sales would have plummeted to almost nothing.

youd be surprised at the amount of people trading scores like this online.

i completely understand what you mean, and yes those who are SEROUS about actually playing the work, or at least studying it in some way, they will be the ones who actually purchase it.

many people just want to see what this notorious piece looks like, they dont have the interest to pay lots of money for it, they just want to see what all the fuss is about.

i was the same, and a friend had the score in PDF, so i got it and looked at it a few times, simple as that.

i do wish you success though in your endevours to promote and distribute sorabji's music.
personally i cant really get into the longer works, but i love some of the pastiches and other shorter works, some great exotic harmonies.

actually, forums like this have made sorabji's name quite well known, there is always big ongoing debates about the 'hardest' and 'longest' piano piece ever composed, and this has cause a great deal of curiosity about him and his music.

[Siberian Husky]

i download ALL my scores...ever since day one

but for instance..when i was finished with the first 2 moonlight movments..i went and bought the score..just cause i thought it was a neat little thing to have..after learning noc 9/2..i bought shirmer's complete set of chopin nocturnes..same with the mozart sonatas...i dont buy right away..because if i change my mind about a piece and dont want to play..its a waste..i usually buy the score AFTER i learn..weird but whateva..oh yeah..i have the OC cause i wanted to see what the fuss was about myself..

[ahinton]

youd be surprised at the amount of people trading scores like this online.

i completely understand what you mean, and yes those who are SEROUS about actually playing the work, or at least studying it in some way, they will be the ones who actually purchase it.

many people just want to see what this notorious piece looks like, they dont have the interest to pay lots of money for it, they just want to see what all the fuss is about.

i was the same, and a friend had the score in PDF, so i got it and looked at it a few times, simple as that.

i do wish you success though in your endevours to promote and distribute sorabji's music.
personally i cant really get into the longer works, but i love some of the pastiches and other shorter works, some great exotic harmonies.

actually, forums like this have made sorabji's name quite well known, there is always big ongoing debates about the 'hardest' and 'longest' piano piece ever composed, and this has cause a great deal of curiosity about him and his music.

No, we wouldn't be surprised by this kind of activity, actually. We are aware of the forums that do it and, for the most part, they stick to public domain music. Yes, of course, there will always be someone out there who will seek to provide copyright works without authorisation - but then there will always be someone out there who won't be averse to stealing - or maybe even just "borrowing" - a car; fortunately, this kind of thing remains the exception rather than the rule, otherwise publishers, car manufacturers and the rest would be going to the wall one by one.

Of course there will be those who merely want to have a glance at a Sorabji score just to see what it might be like. This is what the public library is for. I am not even suggesting that we should necessarily be encouraging the use of the public library over and above that of the internet for this particular purpose; what we do point out, however, is that public libraries have to pay to acquire the material that they lend and, if the "free" acquisition of material to satisfy this desire were to become the norm, many of those who spend money on preparing and providing the material in the first place would go out of business, with the obvious result that less and less material would be made available.

We are, of course, pleased that you and other contributors understand and support what we are endeavouring to do. We likewise support these kinds of forum in what they are trying to do, subject to the proviso we have already mentioned; they provide a most valuable service. Furthermore, we can confirm that we have sold quite a few copies of Sorabji scores to people with whom we have corresponded in such fora, so there can be no question that the fora members are all out to get something for "free" just because, in certain circumstances, they can. Some of the debate does ineed inspire people's curiosity, which can only be a good thing (even though some of the "hardest" and "longest" material can be rather tiresome, especially when these kinds of statistic are the lest interesting aspects of Sorabji's best work). All the more reason, then, why we support the principle behind their activity.

Thank you for your kind words.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't see why anyone would willingly purchase Sorabji scores for exuberant prices.  Why should others make money off of Sorabji's work? This should be free. My belief is that when the composer dies, his/her works automatically go into public domain. *** your intellectual copyrights.

Thank God for the Internet. Saving me so much time and money.

For "exuberant" we presume you to mean "exorbitant". Has it not occurred to you, however, that in cases such as Sorabji, whose music was rarely played at all until near the end of his long life, the music should still be provided for "free" even though someone has to start the ball rolling by making it possible to distribute the material - something which cannot itself be done for "free"?

Furthermore, have you thought how it will become possible for you or anyone else to obtain all the new edition scores of Sorabji's music which are being prepared?

We are sure that, whatever your views on copyright issues, you would not seek to encourage a situation in which this music became inaccessible again because no one would distribute new editions of it for fear that those editions would simply then be circulated by others for "free".

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The prices of the sorabji archive are so expensive because of the costs of making the copies are perserving the scores. If someone would just publish them it would be fixed. But because of copyrights the music industry is dirty and it doesn't work that way because no money would be made.

When I buy a CD of music I am paying mostly for the marketing campaign of the new 'star' of classical music.

Two issues here. What exactly do you mean by "publish"? Isn't that precisely what we ourselves are doing? Why would you assume that, if one of the major established music publishers published the work instead of us, it could then be obtained for "free"? Such publishers sell their publications just as we do - for money. So - what exactly would this "fix" (as you put it)?

There are various views about copyright, including but not limited to the following:
1. copyright laws and the principles governing their existence are OK as they stand
2. principles governing the existence of copyright laws are OK but copyright periods are overlong
3. copyright should die with the originator (this is your own view, I think)
4. copyright should be abolished altogether, even during the originator's lifetime.
4. is an extreme stance, of course, but we have nevertheless encountered it on occasion. Implementing it would mean that no composer would ever derive income from royalties from or sales of his/her work and would accordingly have then to depend entirely upon commission fees or be otherwise self-supporting. The only conceivable response to such a view would be "welcome to the real world!" and the only imaginable result a serious dwindling of new music creation.
3. is all very well in certain cases but is singularly inappropriate in instances such as Sorabji, Alkan or others (many others, indeed) whose work received little recognition during the composer's lifetime; it often tends also to help to discourage the revival of work by deceased composers that has fallen on hard times in the years immediately following their deaths (by no means an uncommon phenomenon).

In all of this, whatever our individual views may be, it is important to understand that the internet - wonderful public resource that it is - neither flouts nor creates legislation, nor is it above the law; it is an access tool - and a very valuable one at that, especially when used appropriately. It is, however, no more than that ; the suggestion on this forum that there was no knowledge prior to its existence is plainly absurd.

The second point concerns "classical" CDs. We have no idea what CDs you buy, but if, when you make CD purchases, you are truly "paying mostly for the marketing campaign of the new 'star' of classical music", you obviously don't buy the kinds of CDs that we sell! We do not deny that such CDs exist, of course, but that factor most certainly does not apply across all such CDs in the market place.

Let's take an example. Altarus Records currently has an ongoing series of CDs of Sorabji's piano music. Altarus is based in America. The pianist in the series, Jonathan Powell, is based in London. The record company would either have to come to England (as has happened so far) or the pianist have to go to America to make the recordings. Either way, costs are involved (air-fares, car hire, equipment transportation, accommodation, etc.). The pianist has to be paid something for his trouble. Someone has to pay to hire a fine piano, piano technician, recording venue, etc. Someone has to pay for the consumables involved. Someone has to undertake the editing afterwards. Someone has to pay for the CD book to be produced. Someone has to pay to have the CDs manufactured. At that stage, the various record distributing companies have to be paid to distribute the end product and the retailers who buy it from those distributors have to make a profit from selling it. Then someone has to be paid to do the accounts. Finally, if any profit is left after all this, there's a willing taxman at the ready to collect his share of the proceedings. Altarus is not exactly a big-shot record company with multiple releases each month; it is also not exactly producing the kinds of recording that they or anyone else expects to sell in vast quantities, thereby recouping large profits.

Almost everyone who has heard him will testify to the fact that Jonathan Powell is indeed a real "star" of "classical" music; in a scenario such as the above, however, just how much money do you suppose might be left over for the "marketing campaign" of which you write? No - buy any CD whose creation fits into most of the above parameters and you may be assured that you are paying only a very small proportion, if indeed anything at all, for a "marketing campaign", almost all of what you pay being for the recording itself.

Of course, certain people then complain - in spite of all this - that some of these CDs are "too expensive". Others go farther and expect to be able to download them for "free" as a divine right. The same arguments apply here as they do to scores.

Finally, we note that you quote Liszt as having said "As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art"; you don't do it by selling Sorabji scores and CDs either - a fact that would doubtless not have been lost on Liszt had he been around nowadays...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

I wasn't talking about the Sorabji Archive or Altarus, but about music in general. I wouldn't have begun about it if xvimbi started his posts.

[stevie]

i wonder what sorabji himself would have thought of this debate.

from what i have gathered he did very little to promote his own music.
would he really care if his work became well known or not?

i know about the common misconception that sorabji banned public performance of his music,  when i read this i thought he was a bit of an idiot who deserved his obscurity.
but as i learned more, i realised he didnt ban, he just prohibited performance of his works without permission.
and i have a good idea why he did this, to have some 'quality-control' over the performances of his music, to make sure noone misrepresented his music.

i just wonder, if he were alive today, what he would say about this debate(and about the treatment and increasing popularity of his music today).

[bernhard]

First let me say that I do agree with xvimbi and ahinton on the basic issues of copywriting, paying for scores and so on.

However, it seems to me that a misleading point is being made here, and this is the correlation of the price of a product with its production costs. Sure, producing, distributing and marketing a CD, or a score costs some money (sometimes a huge amount of money). However, it is disingenuous to suggest that the price of the product is a reflection of the producing costs. This is only the case if the product is handcrafted. For an industrial product (such as CDs and scores), the production costs tend to zero as industrial production tends to infinity.

Take the Star Wars movies. Sure, a single one of them may have cost a staggering US$ 100 million to produce and distribute. However, this investment was more than recovered in the first one or two weeks of showing. Thirty years after the first movie, I am still paying exactly the same ticket price for it. Surely you cannot claim that my ticket price is to cover production costs. This has been covered a long time ago.

It would be more honest to say that the ticket price is justified because it affords the movie industry to continue investing in new projects - including some that maybe will never recover its investment. And of course to afford the producer / director / main actors a princely lifestyle. And there is nothing wrong with that.

So I am sorry, but I cannot buy the argument that the price of an industrial product is set by its production costs. It is not. It is set according to the price the market is willing to pay for it. If the price of an industrial product was set by its production costs, once such production costs have been recovered we would see a decrease in price (which in an ideal world would be taken for granted – and is in fact something we actually see on the technology industry – like computers, cameras, etc. whose price has been consistently going down as the sheer numbers of the product offset the initial investments, yet they are kept market high in order to provide the industry with extra money).

Again, this reasoning in no way condones “stealing” copyrighted material, but in the immortal words of Bruce Willis (“Last man standing”): “You may piss on my back, but don’t tell me it is raining”.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[xvimbi]

I wasn't talking about the Sorabji Archive or Altarus, but about music in general. I wouldn't have begun about it if xvimbi started his posts.

Nice try. My first post was intended as a friendly warning to those who distribute something illegally right under the eyes of the owner. You then remarked that it is impossible for you to do this legally. From that you concluded that it is OK to do it illegally, to which I pointed out alternatives.

My arguments, which you obviously don't agree with, match exactly what Alistair is saying. This is however your problem (and Alistair's), not mine.

[xvimbi]

However, it seems to me that a misleading point is being made here, and this is the correlation of the price of a product with its production costs. Sure, producing, distributing and marketing a CD, or a score costs some money (sometimes a huge amount of money). However, it is disingenuous to suggest that the price of the product is a reflection of the producing costs. This is only the case if the product is handcrafted. For an industrial product (such as CDs and scores), the production costs tend to zero as industrial production tends to infinity.

I tried to stay out of what the real worth of a product is, because I don't know enough about the whole process. There are however two things I'd like to mention.

First, it's not just production costs that go into the final price, but all the R&D and setting up the facilities to make the final product. Those costs need to be recouped as well. The perfect example is computer processors (CPU's). They costs extremely little to make, but research and development as well as building the plants to manufacturer them cost several hundreds of millions of $$. Another example is drugs. It costs about $1Billion of get a drug to the market. Producing the tablets themselves costs only a fraction of a penny, but obviously, one would not sell them for that little.

Second, a common solution to the problem that certain products may be too expensive is to offer them for drastically reduced prices to certain groups of people, such as students and educators. Perhaps, Mr. Hinton would be willing to consider this option (I have never seen the prices, so it could easily be that student pricing is already available for his scores).

[bernhard]

It would be more honest to say that the ticket price is justified because it affords the movie industry to continue investing in new projects - including some that maybe will never recover its investment. And of course to afford the producer / director / main actors a princely lifestyle. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Pretty much my point.