Slashdot Mirror


Orchestra To Turn Copyright-Free Classical Scores Into Copyright-Free Music

destinyland writes "An online music site has raised over $13,000 to hire a full orchestra to record royalty-free classical music. ('"Although the actual symphonies are long out of copyright, there is separate protection for every individual performance by an orchestra," notes one technology site.') MusOpen has reached their fundraising goal for both the orchestra and a recording facility, and will now record the complete symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius and Tchaikovsky. And because their fundraising deadline doesn't end until Tuesday, they've promised to add additional recordings for every additional $1,000 raised."

34 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. First by hcpxvi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Beethoven symphony! (I for one do actually welcome our new free-music-producing overlords).

    1. Re:First by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Great effort in a noble cause. However, they note in the original article that:

      'Right now, if you were to buy a CD of Beethoven's 9th symphony, you would not be legally allowed to do anything but listen to it. You wouldn't be able to share it, upload it, or use it as a soundtrack to your indie film- yet Beethoven has been dead for 183 years and his music is no longer copyrighted. There is a lifetime of music out there, legally in the public domain, but it has yet to be recorded and released to the public.'

      Here in the UK, the copyright term on recorded music is currently only 50 years. This means that most of the core classical repertoire is already available in this form, often as very high quality recordings (they knew what they were doing by the 50s!) of great performances. Now that the cash cows of the 60s are about to fall into the public domain, the record industry has lobbied for an extension, and draft EU legislation aims to push back the term to 70 years:

      http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/music-copyright-divisive-despite-meps-backing/article-181703

      There are still some great performances of that Beethoven symphony from the 1930s, of course, but the 60s recordings in near-modern sound will be off limits for another couple of decades.

    2. Re:First by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How in blazes does a *retroactive* copyright extension encourage the creation of the work? Has everybody in power forgotten the whole frapping point of copyright??

    3. Re:First by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How in blazes does a *retroactive* copyright extension encourage the creation of the work? Has everybody in power forgotten the whole frapping point of copyright??

      To appease your donors and get re-elected? Nope. They still remember.

    4. Re:First by darthdavid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep, who needs an MP3 player, just cart around a 3 ring binder full of sheet music. Fun for the whole family!

    5. Re:First by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say it's pretty straightforward. If I know I stand a good chance of receiving the benefits of a retroactive copyright extension, I'll then be more likely to create and publish a work, because I'll have reason to believe my income from doing so will be greater.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:First by RDW · · Score: 3, Funny

      'Yep, who needs an MP3 player, just cart around a 3 ring binder full of sheet music. Fun for the whole family!'

      Don't be silly, you just download http://imslp.org/ to your iPad and sit on the train, nodding thoughtfully to yourself while humming the viola part. This also ensures that the seat next to you will be free, giving you more space to stretch out.

    7. Re:First by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Informative

      As for the "point" of copyright, it is to give authors a temporary monopoly as incentive to create art that will eventually fall into the possession of all the People & enrich everybody.

      It seems some in the US Congress and EU Parliament have forgotten that.

      I'm not sure that's true outside of the US. Here that is the purpose ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"), but I think originally it was supposed to help by replacing previous stronger but more ad-hoc monopoly rights.

      That page also has an interesting (anonymous) quote from when the first copyrights started to expire in 1735: "I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.".

    8. Re:First by phaggood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >I don't think the media industry can possibly be sufficiently significant donor
      You sir have an out-sized idea of how little it actually takes to purchase a politician.

  2. Open your wallets by spikenerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every quality song that is released to the public domain makes a future where it will be slightly more difficult for the RIAA to survive. Is there be a more noble cause anywhere on this planet?

    1. Re:Open your wallets by Barrinmw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not even saving abandoned puppies me thinks.

    2. Re:Open your wallets by pronobozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is along my train of thought. I think people should stop complaining about copyright and start taking action and put their own works under creative commons. It's a free world, if someone wants to restrict their work, they should have the right. If you don't like their system, start creating things and put it under some type of free license. We can live in a world where both systems exists and guess what, it already does! If enough people support it, it'll drown out your hated restricted content. Heck, all my work is under a reasonable CC license and it has only ever benefited me. I've had more than 500,000 free downloads, and amazingly, it hasn't made my life worse or destroyed the planet :-)

      --
      ------
      insert sig here,here, and here
    3. Re:Open your wallets by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not even saving abandoned puppies me thinks.

      Thank goodness for Tupperware!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    4. Re:Open your wallets by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're for releasing to the public domain then why do you care if the RIAA survives? Think about it.

      I can not find the link, but a bar was fined almost out of business for allowing a musician to play his own music (written by him) without paying a performance royalty to ASCAP. So that is why I want them gone. I actually would not mind paying for music, as long as none of the money goes to those marauding bastards.

    5. Re:Open your wallets by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is there be a more noble cause anywhere on this planet?

      You mean, I make him better, Humperdinck suffers? Ha ha ha! That is a noble cause!

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    6. Re:Open your wallets by XorNand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure there's more to the story than that. Did the musician assign the copyright of his songs to a recording company? If so, then I'm sure he was monetarily compensated for doing so when he signed that agreement and understood that they were no longer "his" songs. And did the ASCAP have some sort of agreement with the bar that the owners were to ensure that no unauthorized performances were conducted?

      I'm not saying that these terms weren't laughably restrictive and counter to free culture. But the situation likely boils down a contract dispute--one that was entered into freely by all parties involved. If that's the case, there's enough blame to be spread around for agreeing to such terms. The ASCAP would not have had standing to sue if some random songwriter was performing in some random bar.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    7. Re:Open your wallets by gizmonic · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had never actually heard of this before, but man, what complete bullshit. And a single google search provides tons of examples, if not that specific case:

      http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/06/09/pay_to_play/
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100518/2341299481.shtml
      http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

      At least Bruce seems to have some common sense (make sure you read the update):

      http://gothamist.com/2010/02/04/the_boss_sues_midtown_pub.php

      That pretty much represents the final straw on the camel's back for me. From this point forward, I will only ever pay for independent music. If your band is a member of any of those organizations, I will be performing civil disobedience against unwarranted extortion, and just pirate your shit if I want to have it. If you don't like it, leave those groups, and I'll buy it. And for the record, this is coming from someone who legally owns nearly 1000 CDs, and a good couple thousand iTunes songs (where the 99 cents was worth more than buying a full cd for one or two songs). But fuck it. I went to a lot of trouble (and expense, over the years) to do what I thought was the right thing. Apparently, I was wrong, since I was merely funding the absurdities of this kind of bullshit. My apologies to everyone else for helping promote this situation with my purchases. It won't happen again.

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
    8. Re:Open your wallets by jimicus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can well believe it. Search around small business forums, you'll find dozens of examples worldwide of small businesses being hassled by ASCAP or their local equivalent.

      IANAL, so I'm not going to go into the legal rights or wrongs, but AFAICT the general form is that if the business owner says that they don't need to pay eg. because their music is all composed and performed by the live singer who comes in every Tuesday, they get shown a piece of legislation that suggests otherwise and given an ultimatum - pay up, stop the music or we'll see you in court for so many hundreds of thousands of ${CURRENCY} you'll have no choice but to declare yourself bankrupt.

      Most small business owners are more interested in running their business than fighting a lengthy court battle - if you're in court for a day that's a day when you're not actually working on the thing that's supposed to provide your living - and so fold.

  3. this is great! by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Funny

    when they finish i hope to find another story here at /. linking to BitTorrent files to the music :)

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  4. Broadway? by pizzach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why aren't they doing what broadway did? They can replace the musicians with synthesizers and record MORE music to protect copyrights.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    1. Re:Broadway? by mitchells00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Synthesizers are never as good as the real thing, they don't have the ability to add certain qualities to the music like emotion. Any true musician would understand the passion that flows through their instrument as they play; very much like having sex. Yes the synths can sound very convincing, but they're just not the same thing. They don't have the level of human error and randomness built in.

    2. Re:Broadway? by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've met a fair few classical music fans who prefer MIDI versions of various piano repertoire to human performances. Some of them are musicians themselves.

    3. Re:Broadway? by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes the synths can sound very convincing, but they're just not the same thing. They don't have the level of human error and randomness built in.

      IIRC during the early 1970s one of the prog rock bands (I think it was Yes) had an early analogue synth that was extremely tempramental and unreliable. One evening in the middle of a concert it picked up a radio transmission of an announcer reading out the football results.

      Now, you were saying...? :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  5. Great! by FritzTheCat1030 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is great news, but that's 26 complete symphonies, probably something along the lines of 17 hours of music (at an average of 40 minutes each...that's probably a little low actually). Add in rehearsal times and I have serious doubts about the feasibility of doing this for $13,000. I wish them luck, but I'd rather have less music at a higher quality than more with an amateur-level ensemble.

    1. Re:Great! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's what I was thinking too, in the comments it was asked but the answers are fuzzy:

      1. What orchestra(s) are you planning on using
      2. Who is conducting?
      3. Who is mixing the recording?

      1. orchestra depends on total raised. I'm hoping for a mixture of conservatories + professional orchestra to lower cost and increase total music, but it depends on what we can negotiate and the total raised. Some orchestras we are considering include London Symphony, Czech Philharmonic and several others that regularly record movie soundtracks.
      2. I have several contacts who would conduct for free, I'd also like to try contacting some well known conductors to see if they would be interested. My backup would be a for hire's conductor that orchestras use to record with
      3. Several orchestras we've spoken to include those kinds of services as they regularly record for movie soundtracks

      I read that as "might possibly be considering it for one of them if we exceed our budget, I doubt you'll get the London Symphony to record it for $500/symphony...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Great! by fizzup · · Score: 3, Informative

      At 7:00 this morning, they were at $13K. Now, it's 11:00 and they are nearly at $23K, velocity is over $2,000 per hour right now, and there are over 50 hours remaining. Now that this is on slashdot, it's only a matter of time before it gets on digg, reddit, and becomes a twitternado.

      If they raise $100K, that's starting to get into the range of reasonable contracts to have great orchestras record 26 symphonies with named-above-the-orchestra conductors. Even if Naxos has a kitten over this and starts to strong-arm, $100K will turn some heads.

      Should you choose to part with three CDs worth of your hard earned money - $50 - that will get you a dvd of everything musopen has ever recorded in this way. Lossless. And if you have some doubts about the quality of their recordings, download a few before you give money. It's public domain, yeah?

  6. Not so fast by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Sir or Madame,

    I represent the estate of Mr. Ludwig van Beethoven.

    We see that you have downloaded a copy of Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67 by Ludwig van Beethoven from www.musopen.com. Enclosed is a bill for $500, payable immediately.

    We are aware that the site you have downloaded our client's work from represents it to be "copyright-free"; however, the musicians who recorded this work did so only after listening to a copyrighted recording of our client's work. Thus, this new work is a derivative work of Mr. Beethoven's and is covered under our copyright.

    regards,

    H. G. Reckshun, Esq.
    Dewey, Cheatham, Howe, and Reckshun

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  7. it's about the performances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I certainly applaud what they're doing, I just wanted to point out that classical music is generally about the quality of the performances themselves. So what orchestra are they hiring? How much practice/exposure to some of these pieces will they have? Will they be sight-reading some of them? It will be nice to have recordings out there that are free of any copyright issues, but it won't mean much if the performances are mediocre or have glaring mistakes (wrong notes, missed entrances, etc). I'm curious if anyone has asked any city/community or college orchestras if they'd be interested in releasing some of their recordings into the public domain.

  8. Classical is one big copyright trick by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most symphony orchestras get taxpayer support. When they record, it's often subsidised by the federal government, or state and local ones. In many cases, the people who manage and broker deals for these orchestras artificially split the funding, so that all the necessary preliminaries to album sales are supposedly based on private investment/contributions. They treat it like all the practice sessions for a live performance are taxpayer subsidised, but the practice sessions for the album are paid for by private sources, so that the law is technically being observed. It's part of that whole "socialise the costs and privatise the profits" school of economics. It makes no sense as a matter of fact instead of law - does anyone really want to claim that they practiced the same piece for live performance and recording, but only put the part of that practice that was funded by one method or the other into their performances. "Yeah, I deliberately held back on that Oboe cadenza, so it didn't sound like all the practice I had contributed to my leet symphonizing skillz!".
              What the federal government funds is normally held in the public trust, not subject to copyright. I know several symphony soloists and conductors who are generally uncomfortable with this legal ruse, and have heard accounts of many more. Most orchestras don't have the stature to sell a lot of recordings, and taxpayer funding generally takes any profit from CD sales into account, so it seldom benefits the performers much, if at all. It's more likely they see the same overall pay, with a shift in just when they get each check because some of it is coming as royalties after sales figures are processed. It makes bookkeeping for symphonies much more complex, and some managing directors see it as a big gamble, where they might get lucky and see really impressive sales, but doing classical music at the major orchestra level isn't gambling to most people, it's a steady job with a safe floor for income. Just like some people in rock/pop/rap/whatever become studio musicians because they want a steady paycheck instead of a high risk venture, people who shoot for a job in the second row violins for the New York Philharmonic want a reliable career instead of a 1 in 10,000 chance of a mansion with leopard skin covered volleyball courts.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  9. Re:Yawn . . . by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

    For everyone here, content is supposed to be free for the taking, yet no one wants to pay for the "creating" of it. Interesting.

    Actually, 363 people want to pay for creating it. At least when I checked... More now I am sure.

  10. This won't be in the public domain by phiz187 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Under U.S. law, these commissioned works won't be in the public domain. There is no way to "create" a work into the public domain. Work only enters the public domain upon expiration of the copyright term. (The one way to create a work into the public domain, is that governmental works are not subject to copyright.)

    What the project can do is create a contractual license that says that all-comers are granted a perpetual, non-exclusive license. Even then, presumably the resulting works would be works of joint authorship, with copyright residing in all of the authors. And under the reversion provisions of US copyright law, those orchestra members, or their families, could have the licenses terminated after about 30 years.

    --
    Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
  11. And they are hard to make sound good by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I play around with sampled music all the time because it is a lot of fun, and I CAN'T afford to hire out an orchestra just to goof around. If you want to check it out go to soundsonline.com, they are the samples I like. Very realistic. You can do some amazingly realistic performances with them too... But it is a real pain. To do so you have to spend a lot of time programming (MIDI programming, not computer programming). It requires a lot of adjusting what sample is used, the various data (modulation, expression, etc) sent to the sampler and so on. So you probably can make something that sounds convincingly real, if you spend a lot of time.

    However with a musician, you just tell them what you want and they give it to you. You can say "Make it sadder," or "I need this part to be light, this part to be heavy." You can be vague and use emotional terms, and they can handle that and give you what you want.

    So unless you are really skilled with your sequencer and have tons of time on your hands, you aren't going to get a highly realistic sound. I sure can't. I can get it pretty realistic, which is all I want for fooling around, but I could have something sound much better and much more like I want just by giving it to an orchestra along with some instructions. As it stands I can spend an hour choosing string samples and mixing them to try and get the sound I want, where a real strings section would take 5 minutes and get it right on.

  12. Double the funding by voting by jensend · · Score: 4, Informative

    The donations are now nearly up to $25000- that could be doubled if people vote for Musopen in Pepsi's "Refresh Project."

  13. Soviet-era copyright-free recordings? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought there was an extensive library of high-quality copyright-free classical music recorded by Soviet, Eastern-bloc, and Chinese orchestras prior to 1989. None of those countries were Berne Convention signatories at the time and no copyright was ever claimed nor desired since they were "the people's" orchestras performing for the people. If I remember correctly, Muzak used to use Czech orchestral performances as they were copyright-free in the 70s and 80s. Why not use those recordings?