The Art-Music Forum
July 07, 2020, 04:23:05 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Here you may discover hundreds of little-known composers, hear thousands of long-forgotten compositions, contribute your own rare (non-copyright) recordings, and discuss all the Arts in an erudite and decorous atmosphere full of freedom and delight. To participate, simply log in or register.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

the dark side of YT "grandness"


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the dark side of YT "grandness"  (Read 1527 times)
guest140
Guest
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2013, 05:47:46 pm »

True story. But I presume the complete true story went this way...?

"Case study: one of my great discoveries of recent years [after downloading hundreds of OK to boring works] has been the music of Mikhail Nosyrev, which I initially downloaded from, yes, youtube.  At the first opportunity, however, I replaced my downloaded versions of the first two symphonies with the Arkiv reissue (of the very same original Olympia recordings), and I will do the same with the third and forth as soon as Arkiv gets around to reissuing them or I can find a decently priced used copy of the Olympia disc [but I do not replace the recordings of the OK pieces, only keep the downloads]."

 Huh
Report Spam   Logged
BrianA
Level 4
****

Times thanked: 28
Offline Offline

Posts: 262


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2013, 11:50:06 pm »

Not exactly.  Grin  My downloads tend to be of music I know to be otherwise unavailable.  If there's a choice between buying a commercial recording of Arnold Cooke's 5th symphony and downloading a copy of Arnold Cooke's 5th symphony, it's a no brainer.

I hope this is not starting to sound too sanctimonious.  Sound quality has at least as much to do with it as morality.  But generally speaking if I'm interested in a composer, I will seek out whatever commercial recordings are available before hitting the download circuit.  And yes, if the download is worth keeping, it's worth replacing as soon as a commercial recording becomes available.
Report Spam   Logged
dyn
Level 3
***

Times thanked: 1
Offline Offline

Posts: 135



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2013, 06:50:27 am »

I suspect this may be an unpopular view around here, but i believe that the already-flawed concept of "intellectual property" should not be appropriated by agencies other than the creator for profit. Thus, i will buy music directly from the composer/performer if that is an option, but not from record companies or publishers or the composer's estate. Though pirating commercial records has a negligible effect on music profits (in fact, none, as nothing is actually being stolen), i do it anyway in the hope of undermining the music industry so that it can be replaced with a more fair system, one that favours creators and artists, not wealthy executives and marketers. (In a typical recording contract the composer may make as much as 7 cents per $15 CD sold!) I believe creative works should enter the public domain immediately upon the death of the creator, and hope most creators will have the foresight to release at least some of their works under e.g. CC or some other form of copyleft during their lifetimes.

With all that out of the way... i like to rant the quality of the audio on youtube is typically too low to make it a good substitute for even an mp3 download, let alone a cd/flac. YT is no substitute for a high quality recording. It does work well as free advertising for classical composers/performers, although i feel it works better at this when used to publish videos of works that have been made commercially available in multiple versions already, since the classical audience is less likely to be satisfied with just a single recording of a composition.
Report Spam   Logged
Gauk
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 57
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2013, 08:30:59 am »

That depends on what you are going to play it on. You won't run a You Tube download through your hi-fi, but for listening via PC or similar, it may be adequate. Also, people have different attitudes to recording quality. If your main aim is to hear the notes as written, sound quality may be secondary.
Report Spam   Logged
dyn
Level 3
***

Times thanked: 1
Offline Offline

Posts: 135



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2013, 09:49:17 am »

That's true, but one thing i have observed is that classical listeners on the whole seem to enjoy comparing and contrasting different interpretations of works. Even if sound quality is a secondary concern to a classical listener, he or she will not necessarily be satisfied with listening to the one version of a composition that might be available on youtube and seek out versions recorded by different interpreters. Similarly, hearing an interpreter on youtube one likes may lead one to purchase other albums from that interpreter's discography that are not available for free. YT's free advertising potential only fails when the upload is the only available recording of a composition, or represents the complete catalogue of a particular performer, or similar.
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 27
Offline Offline

Posts: 853


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2013, 06:42:03 pm »

I suspect this may be an unpopular view around here, but i believe that the already-flawed concept of "intellectual property" should not be appropriated by agencies other than the creator for profit. Thus, i will buy music directly from the composer/performer if that is an option, but not from record companies or publishers or the composer's estate.
But that would surely obligate the composer to make his/her own recordings as well as self-publish his/her scores, would it not? - and also to be alive, so from whom would you expect to purchase recordings or scores of a composer's work if not from his/her estate or its representatives?

Though pirating commercial records has a negligible effect on music profits (in fact, none, as nothing is actually being stolen), i do it anyway in the hope of undermining the music industry so that it can be replaced with a more fair system, one that favours creators and artists, not wealthy executives and marketers. (In a typical recording contract the composer may make as much as 7 cents per $15 CD sold!) I believe creative works should enter the public domain immediately upon the death of the creator, and hope most creators will have the foresight to release at least some of their works under e.g. CC or some other form of copyleft during their lifetimes.
The problem with copyright expiry upon death is that a composer's last works and any others that may not have been performed during his/her lifetime will have little or no copyright term. Much contemporary "classical" music today and much other such music that's still in copyright would do very little to swell the wallets of "wealthy executives" anyway.
Report Spam   Logged
Gauk
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 57
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2013, 09:13:37 pm »

YT's free advertising potential only fails when the upload is the only available recording of a composition, or represents the complete catalogue of a particular performer, or similar.

Well, that is true of most of the repertoire we discuss here on this forum.
Report Spam   Logged
guest54
Guest
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2013, 04:18:55 pm »

Suppose for the sake of argument I wanted to write a set of "Variations on a theme of Hinton" - or on a theme of Boulez for that matter - does the question of copyright arise in such a case?
Report Spam   Logged
Gauk
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 57
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2013, 05:37:09 pm »

Suppose for the sake of argument I wanted to write a set of "Variations on a theme of Hinton" - or on a theme of Boulez for that matter - does the question of copyright arise in such a case?

Yes it does - you would need to get permission. Famously, in Petrushka Stravinsky unwittingly quoted a popular song and had to pay a small royalty for every time the ballet score was performed. It might be an arguable case in the case of a tone row. I'm not sure that the words "theme of Boulez" have ever appeared together like that before.  Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 27
Offline Offline

Posts: 853


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2013, 07:45:58 am »

Suppose for the sake of argument I wanted to write a set of "Variations on a theme of Hinton" - or on a theme of Boulez for that matter - does the question of copyright arise in such a case?
That would in the former case largely depend upon whether the subject matter of your variations would originally have been composed by Arthur Hinton or by some other Hinton who is either alive today or died within the past 70 years; what would happen in the latter case would at the very least be fascinating to the extent of being able to discover the nature and content of any response to a written request for such permission that Maître Boulez might provide...

But permission there needs nevertheless to be when the material upon which you might choose to compose variations remains in copyright. Whilst the case that I'm about to cite is not quite the same kind of situation, it does have some parallels. One of The Sorabji Archive's distinguished score editors - an internationally renowned Sorabji and Busoni scholar who has made typeset critical editions of most of Sorabji's songs for voice and piano - has wisely chosen to refrain from making such an edition of a song that is in fact the earliest known work by Sorabji (dating from the first half of 1915) on the grounds of his having been unable to locate all of the correct sources to which to apply for permission for its publication in respect of the English translation of the poem that Sorabji set in it; the translator in question died only in 1970 so his work will remain in copyright until the end 2040 and the poet himself only goes out of copyright at the end of this year; it might be argued that, in the absence of written evidence that Sorabji had sought the permission of the poet and the translator to use the material concerned in that setting, he should himself not have composed that song, but since he never published it and it was not performed in public until 2002, no obvious problem appears to have arisen as a consequence.
Report Spam   Logged
Gauk
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 57
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2013, 07:26:42 pm »

There is also a legal ruling as to how many consecutive notes define a quotation - oh, this has been gone into.

Reverting to the topic of the thread, I see Sterling have been going after channels that have posted their recordings on YT and getting them pulled.
Report Spam   Logged
relm1
Level 4
****

Times thanked: 23
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2013, 05:16:42 am »

Some might find this article written by Rachmaninov in 1931 somewhat related.  Rachmaninov was referring to radio but just replace radio with YouTube:
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/rachmaninov-on-radio
Report Spam   Logged
Jolly Roger
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 48
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2013, 10:45:06 pm »

. . . not a single word in the title or description that she is playing! . . .

That is as it should be. Compositions are the property of their composers. The executants are mere executants and as I see it have no rights at all. Far too much attention is accorded to performers these days. All glory should go to composers.

Unless they are dead and the copyright belongs to the BEETLES!!
Report Spam   Logged
Jolly Roger
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 48
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2013, 03:10:43 am »

It seems ironic that the Guardian (of all publications) should be able to lecture the rest of us on free enterprise, which they abhor.
Report Spam   Logged
Neil McGowan
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 78
Offline Offline

Posts: 1354



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2013, 10:43:47 am »

I suspect this may be an unpopular view around here, but i believe that the already-flawed concept of "intellectual property" should not be appropriated by agencies other than the creator for profit.

Does it bother you that the performers of these works are left unpaid for the use you've had?
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy