chamber music parts.. no cost! no strings attached!

May 11, 2008 at 06:33 PM · Regarding chamber music parts.. no cost! no strings attached!

Download sheet music - chamber music mostly for strings with no strings attached there will be piano ensembles

violin-cello viola cello string trios quartets etc. mostly as pdf files Interesting arrangements. Here is the link..

Replies (30)

May 11, 2008 at 12:14 PM · the link is

If there is chamber music that interests you let me know and I will post it if possible - in a few days.

David

May 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM · People have been fascinated by `the missing link` for years.

Cheers,

Buri

May 11, 2008 at 11:39 PM · Buri, I think I missed that link.

Neil

May 11, 2008 at 11:57 PM · go to google then find google groups then type in the google groups search field - chamber music on-line - my group is usually the first group to be found in the search.

I get to my group search by selecting - more - in a drop down

associated with - web- select group and make search. I have plenty of music there and can add more where there is a specific request.

there are no strings attached. David

May 12, 2008 at 02:05 AM · http://groups.google.com/group/chamber-music-on-line/files

May 12, 2008 at 12:52 PM · Thanks .... this morning I downloaded the Haydn Duos which I had never played before!!!

May 17, 2008 at 08:19 PM · I do

May 20, 2008 at 10:11 PM · There's quite a bit of nice downloadable sheet music at http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ as well. I got the Mozart piano quartets there.

December 25, 2008 at 02:54 PM ·

Dear Sam,

 

There are so many scattered resources.  The on libraries offer Beethoven quartets, Mozart w/ & without piano quartets complete. Quintets etc.  I scan music on occasion and optimize the parts

printing when I have time by using Acrobat professional.  It facilitates cutting the blank spaces

around the music to allow larger printing.  The other program that does a great job and even makes the music align better is a Mac os X program called pages.  It talks a little longer to get the job done but to perfection.  I scan @ 300 dpi.  I have a list of links with free libraries to download from.

best,

 

blumchick

David 

December 25, 2008 at 09:02 PM ·

Shouldn't we be paying for music? What will happen when everyone gets used to the idea of free music? Maybe the publishers will stop publishing it. Look at the newspaper business as a model...

Here's another model for what happens when people get used to getting free stuff: the CD/recording industry. While people may cheer the fact that CD sales are way down (we can get it on i-tunes, right?), there are lots of negatives. For one thing, sound quality has suffered: a compressed file is not CD quality. For another, now you have to pay $1 for every movement, meaning you could end up paying more for lower quality.

So what will the consequences of free music be? Lower quality and higher price in the long run? Fewer publishers? Fewer risks on new music?

December 26, 2008 at 01:00 AM ·

I don't agree. The whole concept that you have to pay money for something in order for it to have value is misguided, especially where sheet music comes into play.

I am more than happy to buy music when it supports a living composer. The youth ensembles I conduct have started a program each year to commission both a new piece of music as well as providing funding to bring the composer in to work with the students, giving them some priceless insight (and opportunity for feedback) into the compositional process. My middle and elementary school students routinely play works that are written for their ability level and sold through major retailers like JWPepper and Sheet Music Plus.

At the same time, it doesn't make sense to pay hundreds of dollars to publishers that have held the works of long-dead composers hostage, who release poorly printed editions that look like tenth-generation photocopies. A lot of those free editions of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart available from Mutopia, IMSLP, and the like are the labor of love of many individuals who have taken public domain material, and input, typeset, edited, and proofed those editions and made them freely available, forever. In that way, this music is now much more accessible for many people, who may have access to a computer and a printer at a school, but no funds with which to purchase sheet music.

And let's not even dig into the mess that is the CD industry. An entire industry that has refused to expend any effort into developing a new content distribution methods, because they'd rather quash technological innovation that threatens their profits. From CD's where the signal is so loud it distorts, to corrupted formats that won't play on older machines, to Digital Rights Management software that opens up computers to outside attack (read about the Sony Rootkit fiasco) it's no wonder that consumers are fed up. Treat your customers as if they are criminals...it's no wonder that digital distribution is the preferred way to get content. CD sellers are free to do whatever they want, but it's not their RIGHT to make money from me, especially if their product is flawed!

The argument that compressed music doesn't sound as good no longer holds any water. That might have been the case twelve years ago with the first explosion in popularity of the MP3 format.... AAC, OGG, FLAC, and many new compressed formats today sound just as good as their original sources, especially considering the fact that most people listen to their music on consumer-grade headphones and speakers that are not able to reproduce the extremes of frequency ranges that professional studio equipment does where those differences might be noticeable. "CD Quality?" I know a few audiophiles that find the relatively low resolution format of the standard red book CD audio (44.1KHz, 650MB/74minute) to be awful. :P

December 26, 2008 at 02:30 AM ·

 Gene,

You have a point about poorly-printed editions. The Gershwin scores are criminal.

 

Scott

December 26, 2008 at 08:37 AM ·

The presumption that a monopoly is justified because the product would otherwise not continue to be available is plain nonsense. The presumption that copyright exists in order to allow a monopolist to provide a service or product which they otherwise would not be able to provide is also nonsense.

Modern intellectual property laws are based on the idea of a faustian bargain by which the public domain benefits in the long term. The sole reason patents and copyrights exist is to enrich the public domain. That is the only motivation there is. The law could not possibly care less about inventors, authors and composers for they deserve no special treatment before the law in relation to other professions, none whatsoever.

When you file a patent or register a copyright, you must disclose your invention or creation, you cannot keep it secret. In order to give an incentive for you to disclose, you are granted a time limited monopoly and ultimately it will become public domain. That is the bargain. You do not deserve the monopoly. It does not matter how much hard work it was, you still do not deserve anything. You are simply being enticed with a time limited monopoly so that you will give it to the public. That's all there is to it.

If the time limit in the monopoly is removed, then the bargain ceases to be a bargain and the public domain is cheated out of its benefit, so why should the public then grant a monopoly in the first place? There is no incentive anymore. The only reason why monopolies may be granted without such an incentive for the public is corrupt lawmakers and rulers.

However, lining the pockets of politicians and rulers is not a good reason to grant monopolies. In fact, the history of patents teaches us a somber lesson in just how disastrous the effect on the economy, and thereby on the public, will be when monopolies are granted as favours and without limits. During the reign of James I of England, the practise of granting and selling patents to raise cash for the crown had become so common and caused such a devastating effect on the economy that James I was forced to revoke all patents in existence. New laws were then passed which included limitations of scope and time, eventually leading to the modern interpretation of intellectual property rights.

For several centuries since, this lesson has been heeded fairly well and excesses have been fairly limited. In recent decades however, the abuse of intellectual property rights by rights holders and law makers has dramatically increased. Bogus patents are granted in droves and the time limit of copyright is routinely extended over and over again, ex post facto, in stark contrast to just about all other laws which generally take effect after they have been passed, not retroactively, amnesty laws traditionally having been the accepted exception to the rule.

The effect is that copyright is de facto no longer limited in time, which means the public domain is cheated out of its benefit and the bargain is no longer a bargain, but a favour granted by corrupt politicians to the rights holders. Eventually, the effects on the economy will lead to excesses that will force another reform as drastic as the one of James' I reign. Some of those effects are already visible, the writing is on the wall.

It is very unfortunate that many copyrighted works are being lost and will continue to be lost forever as a result of de facto perpetual copyright regime we have had for some time. Many works require maintenance to be preserved. Once a work is no longer a big money spinner the rights holders no longer invest in maintenance and often this leads to the work being lost forever because the media on which it is stored is no longer readable. The expiration of copyrights serves an important function in the preservation of cultural heritage as works which enter the public domain are often being maintained and saved by private initiative outside of the legal realm of the rights holder.

Expiration of copyright is an important requirement for the whole system to work. It is not some undesirable side effect that we should aim to eliminate.

December 27, 2008 at 02:58 PM ·

Interesting discussion,

Gene, I agree with what you're saying and also with how your youth orchestras are working with contemporary composers.

I too think it's ludicrous and frustrating that we have to pay so much for scores of composers that have long since been gone.  Is it fair for the publishers to capitalize on dead people that much?  At the same time, I have recently joined the world of arranging (although it's not quite composing) and would hope that my hard work would be able to provide something on the table for me.

From my understanding of copyright (although I am no expert), a lot of these issues, what some of us my consider a problem, have been perpetuated and made more extreme by Disney, which does not want Mickey Mouse and other logos and characters to go into the public domain, citing that they would lose X amount of millions of dollars or more.  So I do not blame the publishers as much as I would blame Disney for enabling this whole mess to continue to happen.  So much for family fun!

December 28, 2008 at 04:34 AM ·

"Is it fair for the publishers to capitalize on dead people that much?"

It is not fair if the works have received a copyright extension. Remember, copyright is a bargain. The bargain has two ends to it: receive a time limited monopoly in return for the protected work to become public domain. If the right holders ask for extensions of the copyright term, they are de facto cheating because they do not deliver their end of the bargain to the public.

"I have recently joined the world of arranging (although it's not quite composing) and would hope that my hard work would be able to provide something on the table for me."

In most jurisdictions, you are not even permitted to make arrangements of works under copyright for publication without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. A good illustration why copyright expiration is a good thing for the furthering of the arts.

 

"... perpetuated and made more extreme by Disney, which does not want Mickey Mouse and other logos and characters to go into the public domain ..."

that is correct, Disney is one of the major cheats out there who do not wish to deliver their end of the bargain to the public.

 

"... citing that they would lose X amount of millions of dollars or more."

which is no reason to grant them any monopoly beyond and above the original deal, a bargain they accepted and under which their characters would have become public domain a long time ago.

How about buying merchandise from Disney on loan (receive now - pay later) and after we have received the goods and sold it on for profit, we decide that we don't want to pay Disney for the goods after all, because it would leave less money on the table for ourselves. Would that be an acceptable argument? Absolutely not!

Besides, there are trademarks, which are renewable. Disney have a trademark on the name "Mickey Mouse" and the names of other main characters in their portfolio. That should be protection enough for them to continue to have a thriving business. Others would be able to copy the cartoon itself but they won't be able to call it Mickey Mouse.

December 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM ·

thanks! and with sincere gratitude.

curious: any particular reason why you would not upload to IMSLP? 

 

December 28, 2008 at 11:34 AM ·

I agree, I would much rather these be uploaded to IMSLP rather than your own Google group. Why? Firstly, IMSLP has set up methods to ensure that the files that are uploaded are correctly in the public domain. This gives me the assurance that if I download them and perform from them, no-one will question me, and if they do, I can direct them to IMSLP. With that Google group, I cannot vouch for whether or not anything that is added is in the public domain, as any Copyright markings that may have been on there you've cut off with your resizing. Therefore, if I download them and perform from them, and someone queries me, firstly I can't vouch for the file, as I don't know where it originated, and secondly, when I direct them to you, you are the one that is responsible and likely to be in line for legal action.

Now that's not saying that the outcome above is likely, or whether I agree with it or not. But it's a possibility.

Secondly, with IMSLP, the big thing is that it's searchable. Instead of scrolling down a list of files, hoping that it might be there, with IMSLP I can search and within 30 seconds know whether it has what I'm looking for or not.

Copyright may not be the best system for dealing with creative products, however it's what we have at the moment. We can promote other systems such as Creative Commons, and the like, but more than likely anything released under the Current system will remain in that system and we need to respect it.

December 28, 2008 at 02:08 PM ·

"Copyright may not be the best system for dealing with creative products, however it's what we have at the moment."

The trouble is not with copyright itself. Copyright is good. The problem is corrupt law makers who take bribes for acting against copyright. In the US for example, perpetual copyright is against the constitution and congress does not have the power to establish it. Yet they did it anyway. Way to go when you have law makers who sell out the constitution in return for bribes. And due to the importance of the US market, this has a knock on effect on other countries, too.

"We can promote other systems such as Creative Commons, and the like"

You are mistaken. Creative Commons it is not an alternative to copyright. Creative Commons is based on copyright. Just about all free-use licenses are based on copyright, without copyright these licenses would not work. Copyright is good. But it has to be respected by all parties involved, right holders, right users and politicians.

"more than likely anything released under the Current system will remain in that system and we need to respect it."

The current system is not respected by right holders nor by politicians. That is the problem. They have conspired to replace a good system with lawless corruption.

December 29, 2008 at 03:49 AM ·

My point is that even though it may not be respected by others, that's no reason for us not to respect it. My problem is that while you keep saying that the system doesn't work because people don't respect it, I haven't read any possible solutions for this. I don't know what it would be, I haven't really looked into it. But I do know that politicians are less likely to change something if it means they have to think of the solution. Figure out a better system, or a better way of doing something, in a way that makes them look good, and it's more likely to happen.

December 29, 2008 at 04:03 AM ·

 My problem isn't with the business model of printing music. It's with people expecting free music, whether it's getting gig music copies from a friend or downloading off the web. Has anyone really thought ahead to what the consequences of expecting freebies are?

December 29, 2008 at 06:10 AM ·

"My point is that even though it may not be respected by others, that's no reason for us not to respect it."

I'm afraid but for copyright falling under US jurisdiction, the matter is not as you present it here. Which part of the law do you suggest should be respected? The US constitution which says that copyright must not be perpetual, or the laws passed by congress which make copyright perpetual in violation of the constitution and in violation of their mandate spelt out in the constitution? You can't have it both ways.

That is not to say that we should risk fines or imprisonment for copying works in question, but at the very least we should speak out and call a spade a spade, instead of giving credibility to corruption by misrepresenting it.

"I haven't read any possible solutions for this. I don't know what it would be ... Figure out a better system ..."

I don't think there is a need for a better system (than copyright). The solution is to return to time limited copyright and let the system work as it was originally designed.

Also, as a composer or arranger of works, one can do something very practical by avoiding membership in a collection society (they own your soul once you become a member) and by releasing one's work under a license that spells out explicitly when it will go into the public domain, e.g. "no later than 20 years after my death" etc etc. Publishers may not like that, but why should they end up with the copyright anyway?

Copyright law is the very same for writers and musicians. Yet, authors of books generally retain their copyright and publishers print them under license. Authors and performers of music generally have to surrender their rights to the publishers. There is something wrong with that practise and perhaps it is time for musicians to adopt a stronger standing, like writers.

In any event, the erosion of the power publishers have is a good thing. In the age of the internet, publishers become less and less important. In the future, creators of copyrighted works are more likely to be publishers themselves and what used to be publishers will more likely be an industry that will then better be described as retailers who sell works in various forms but always under license from the creators of those works. Or in other words, the music industry appears to be undergoing an optimisation process in which a layer of middlemen that no longer adds value is being cut out. Perpetual copyright is only there to keep these middlemen alive for just a little longer than they would need to be around but it is unlikely to stop their eventual demise.

"... a better way of doing something, in a way that makes them look good, and it's more likely to happen."

Again, I don't think it will be necessary to work out any alternative system in order to return to sanity. The damage that arbitrary and perpetual monopolies do to the economy is of such a nature that eventually the whole abuse will hit a wall and has to be abandoned just like James I of England had no other choice than to declare all existing monopolies null and void at once and reform the system. All signs are that we are heading towards a rerun of that. Although, it is most likely that the flood of bogus patents we have now is going to crash the system, not perpetual copyright. However, when a reform is forced by reality, then that reform will in its course also rid us of perpetual copyright.

"My problem isn't with the business model of printing music. It's with people expecting free music, whether it's getting gig music copies from a friend or downloading off the web. Has anyone really thought ahead to what the consequences of expecting freebies are?"

Are you suggesting that for the sake of making a statement that music costs money, you propose giving some arbitrary party the rights to what had been created by somebody who has long been dead?

It seems to me that you have not thought of the consequences of perpetual monopolies. The historic evidence is generally interpreted and accepted by all scholars that perpetual monopolies are not only harmful to the economy as a whole but that they stifle progress because creators of protected goods and services no longer have any incentive to continue to innovate. When monopolies are granted in perpetuity the quality of goods and services goes down and prices go up. This also applies to the arts.

Of course if you make a copy of an urtext of Bach no longer under copyright, you should expect to pay for the paper and the printing itself, but you should not expect that cost to be inflated by a an arbitrary monopoly on the score.

December 29, 2008 at 09:15 AM ·

 Shouldn't we be paying for music? What will happen when everyone gets used to the idea of free music? Maybe the publishers will stop publishing it. Look at the newspaper business as a model...

So what will the consequences of free music be? Lower quality and higher price in the long run? Fewer publishers? Fewer risks on new music?

These are interesting questions. Publishers don't take too much risk on new music. As long as the copyright/protection system is in place and performing rights organizations are providing an income source to the publishers for perfomances or broadcasts, then new music will be published. Theoretically a publisher could lose money on the sale of the sheet music but still make a profit overall through performing rights income depending on who is performing the music and in which particular circumstances. For example, a high profile performer playing in big concert halls, or being broadcast nationally etc. is going to generate considerable income from performing rights (if rights apply to the music) to be split between publisher and composer. As long as this incentive exists then publishers will want to sign composers. 

December 29, 2008 at 04:30 PM ·

Benjamin,

What I'm simply saying is that when everyone gets and then expects stuff for free, it leads to changes in the market that may or may not eventually benefit the consumer. The point is, we don't yet know what will become of the music or news industries. We could benefit enormously with better music and news, or we could end up looking back with nostalgia.

Another example: because of the digital revolution, photographers everywhere are trying to give away their services. Just look at craigslist. What's the result? Young couples everywhere now have crappy, poorly exposed photos of their wedding day. And photographers with real talent and experience are making less money.

What about this? I play lots of weddings, as do many others on this forum. What happens when students everywhere start advertising their string quartets on craigslist, and do weddings for free, just for experience? We professionals will be out of business, and many a bride will walk down the isle to an out-of-tune Canon where the cello gets lost. But she won't know any better and will be perfectly happy.

Free music will have winners and losers.

 

 

December 29, 2008 at 05:15 PM ·

Scott, I disagree that the timely expiry of copyright will have the effect you seem to suggest to say it does. I also disagree with the notion of "better the devil you know than the one you don't" because the book industry is proof that works no longer under copyright can continue to be a thriving business, without any monopoly and despite competing against the availability of the same works as free downloads. In fact, it is far easier to get new prints of books which are no longer under copyright than it is to get hold of books which are still under copyright but out of print.

If there is anything that ought to be changed about copyright than it is the introduction of a use-it-or-lose-it doctrine (like trademarks). I know musicians who had surrendered their rights to publishers who no longer want to sell their music, neither on CD, nor online, nor license the music back to the musicians who recorded it while at the same time they get angry fan mail complaining that the recordings are no longer available. Publishers who do this sort of thing should lose the copyright, either for the rights to automatically revert back to the original creator or for the work to become public domain.

December 29, 2008 at 09:36 PM ·

Benjamin,

I haven't mentioned a word about copyrights. I'm just pointing out that getting things for free may be, in the end, more expensive than we thought. 

 

Scott

December 30, 2008 at 02:00 AM ·

Scott, I don't think anybody here advocated that all music should be free.

December 30, 2008 at 09:14 AM ·

I don't see the problem with freely available material.

Bach's Sonatas and Partitas are in the public domain, are available in an excellent free version edited by Werner Icking (http://icking-music-archive.org/), yet that has not stemmed the tide of various editions offered from editors too numerous to count (off the top of my head I can think of offerings by Henle, Barenreiter, International, Schirmer, CF Peters, sometimes in multiple printings with different editors from the same publisher). Just my personal experience here, but the available copies fly off the shelves (into the hands of willing consumers) at my local music stores.

Shakespeare's plays are in the public domain, are freely available from multiple online sources (look at http://shakespeare.mit.edu/), yet continues to sell very well in all sorts of edited and researched printed editions the world over.

December 30, 2008 at 03:47 PM ·

Benjamin,

in regards to:

"I have recently joined the world of arranging (although it's not quite composing) and would hope that my hard work would be able to provide something on the table for me."

In most jurisdictions, you are not even permitted to make arrangements of works under copyright for publication without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. A good illustration why copyright expiration is a good thing for the furthering of the arts.

I wasn't referring to arranging currently copyrighted material, but what I do arrange, in the particular way I arrange it (and all I have done is public domain), I would like to have some copyright and be able to make a living from that work.  MY SPECIFIC arrangement shouldn't be in public domain right away, because I am still alive and need an income.

December 30, 2008 at 04:49 PM ·

"I wasn't referring to arranging currently copyrighted material, but what I do arrange, in the particular way I arrange it (and all I have done is public domain)"

Fair enough, but my point is that for you to be able to do this, copyright had to be time limited for the works you arrange. Therefore, what you are doing is a prime example of how the arts benefit from expiration of copyright.

"I would like to have some copyright and be able to make a living from that work.  MY SPECIFIC arrangement shouldn't be in public domain right away, because I am still alive and need an income."

Nothing wrong with that, but the reasoning is off. Copyright is there to enrich the public domain and you are getting a bargain by which you donate into the public domain in return for a time limited monopoly, that's the reasoning behind copyright. The law couldn't care less about your need for income, as you deserve no more protection than any other profession, say a shoemaker or a baker or a butcher. The only reason you are being granted the time limited monopoly is to encourage you to publish and not keep your arrangement just for yourself, thus enrichment of the public domain as the sole purpose of copyright.

 

January 2, 2009 at 12:39 AM ·

Benjamin,

I understand your points, but the only thing is that I never said copyright shouldn't ever exist.  I had a problem with having copyright being extended forever.

This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.

Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Email

Violinist.com is made possible by...

Shar Music
Shar Music

Yamaha Silent Violin
Yamaha Silent Violin

Pirastro Strings
Pirastro Strings

Find a Summer Music Program
Find a Summer Music Program

Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases

Violinist.com Business Directory
Violinist.com Business Directory

Violinist.com Guide to Online Learning
Violinist.com Guide to Online Learning

Dominant Pro Strings

Antonio Strad Violin

Bay Fine Strings Violin Shop

Bobelock Cases

Fiddlerman.com

Fiddlershop

Los Angeles Violin Shop

Nazareth Gevorkian Violins

Violin-Strings.com

Metzler Violin Shop

Leatherwood Bespoke Rosin

Warchal

Barenreiter

Johnson String Instrument and Carriage House Violins

Potter Violins

String Masters

Bein & Company

Annapolis Bows & Violins

Laurie's Books

Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.

Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn

Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine

Subscribe