Slashdot Mirror
Open Well-Tempered Clavier: a Kickstarter Campaign For Open Source Bach
rDouglass writes "The Open Goldberg Variations team has launched a new project to make an open source, public domain version of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. The work is significant because of its enormous influence on musicians and composers throughout history. A new studio recording, a new digital MuseScore score (with support for MusicXML and MIDI), as well as all source materials (multitrack WAV, lossless FLAC) will be provided as libre and gratis downloads. New to the project are publisher GRIN Verlag, as well as record label PARMA Recordings. GRIN and PARMA will produce and distribute the physical score and double CD, even though the digital versions are to be widely available and in the public domain. Their enthusiasm for the project runs counter to the general publishing and music industry's fear of digital file sharing, and shows growing momentum for finding new models to make free music commercially sustainable."
There also exists public domain recording by musopen.org, which will probably pale in comparison, but nonetheless it's great that these efforts exist.
It's true Bach didn't perform on a piano, though to be pedantic, the word clavier doesn't denote a specific kind of instrument. It's just a traditional name for keyboard instruments, and sometimes the piano is considered in the family. Bach himself apparently performed on both the harpsichord and clavichord, though his work is most associated with the harpsichord.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Le sigh.
Open source and public domain are not mutual, nor is one needed for the other. Public domain means anyone can have it for free as long as they don't try and sell it
No. Public domain means that it's in the public domain: that means nobody owns it, and anybody can do whatever they like with it.
(under most licenses, EG Creative Commons),
If you have to agree to a license to use it, it's not public domain.
while open source means anyone can try and make it better. You can have one without the other, and vice versa.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
For $500 you might get a proficient high schooled player – but not a professional musician. Then factor in rehearsal time.
Which gets back to the “making it better” and the Creative Commons license – specially the “No Derivative Works” section. They want attribution. They don’t want people dropping out a section and replacing it with another. I think both requests are resonable.
Remember, we are talking about classic works here. You may not be able to hear the difference between on performer verse another but those who are passionate can.
Don't forget a lot of "piano" music we associate with Beethoven and back was written on the harpsichord and organ. The piano didn't exist.
I'll assume you meant "Bach" -- Beethoven certainly played and composed for the piano
(See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortepiano).
As far as the suitability of playing Bach on a piano (or any other instrument) ... this controversy has been around for awhile. Striving for "historic authenticity" in performance is a relatively recent phenomenon, representing trends in Musicology and research into the construction of period instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historically_informed_performance)
Nobody probably thought much of someone releasing a recording of something like the WTC played on piano 50 years ago, but in today's artistic climate, it's regarded as being a bit tasteless, as Bach certainly wrote his contrapuntal keyboard works for the keyboards of his day (be they harpsichord, clavier, or organ).
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Companies like Peters that do sell good accurate scores of Bach are so behind the times they literally cannot see the forest because the trees are still being cut down. It is entirely possible for them to distribute decent editions for sale in e-pub and the technology to put scores on e-ink could be made usable with essentially e-reader technology that is score sized instead of pocket book. I would gladly pay for a decent music e-ink reader that would work on my music stand. The information age is slogging along and eventually the real potential of digital music notation will happen. But unfortunately we still have those who have their heads up their assets in the music publishing industry.
Werner was a stickler for accurate notation and much of what is there on the historic digital archive, especially the Bach section, is very accurate. Unfortunately since his death others have corrupted what he started and some of the archive is not good or even accurate notation, however most of the Bach is excellent and done by people who understand the importance of accuracy in music notation. Many of the scores adhere to original source where ever possible. Which can be very difficult as in the time of the great champions of Bach's music during the late classical era much of Bach's sheet music had fallen into oblivion.
For instance a friend of Felix Mendelssohn actually found music scores by Bach being used by a butcher to wrap meats! So the digitizing for all time of all our great heritage of written music is as important as project Gutenberg. Werner understood this as many others do and either the existing music publishing houses will get on board or they will be a footnote in the history of written music.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
The artist, Kimiko Ishizaka, is easily at-or-above par with Juilliard students. The producer, Anne-Marie Sylvestre, is A-OK at what she does. The studio and staff are top-notch. The instrument will be kick-ass. Etc.
And, there's a track record for this project -- the Goldberg Variations recordings they've already done are fine.
Maybe you have an axe to grind with Drupal geeks? ;-)
education is no substitute for intelligence