If anyone has experience with purchasing downloadable sheet music I would like to hear about it. Here and there it has been discussed on the internet and it seems that most often the experience is negative. This seems especially true for the sheet music CD's and services such as everynote.com.

We have done much research into digital music, particularly as relates to guitar music. I don't see many standards out there for quality and security, but at least the PDF format seems to be most common. Distributing by making JPG or GIF image files available is not a proper solution in my mind because metadata must then be kept separate from the content. There is some work in the library community on JPEG2000 which supports embedded XML data structures, but then again you are dealing with a file for each page. There is multi-page support in higher levels of JPEG2000, but the format is not widespread enough to be a viable alternative to PDF.

I'm getting a bit technical here so I'll stop here and leave that discussion for the Digital Archive forum.

Please feel free to voice your opinions. They will be taken into consideration for our future projects.

Thanks for starting this, Bob. I look forward to your project. I note that Mel Bay has begun to have scores for download in pdf format. Go to:

downloads.melbay.com/sheet.asp

I have not tried any of these but I do know that they are pdfs of the original, hard copy editions that Mel Bay sells.

Richard Yates

They have an interesting security method. They state on their help page you have 5 hours to print up to two copies and then two sentences later they say 2 hours. After that the file is essentially dead because it is authorized over the internet. So basically you are not getting an electronic file, but just a quick way to print something off your printer. So then you have a $6.95 computer printout.

I guess this is a good example of what I mentioned before that there is not a good standard for security on downloadable sheet music yet. Some other sites use proprietary software, but that has its inherent limitations too, especially if you would like to keep what you paid for over a long time without worrying about the software not being supported in the future.

Other than free sheet music downloads (REX & various other sites, like Dirk's page), I've only used one site that allowed me to buy a PDF file of the music. When the transaction was complete, the purchase went thru PayPal, I was allowed to download a locked PDF file. The site (http://www.clearnote.net/idh38.html) then sent the file's password in an email. I'd guess that'd be considered a secure purchase.

Can you give us a link to Dirk's page that you mentioned?

Password protection is certainly an option, but that means you have to enter it each time you want to access the file. If each file has a different password then that becomes a big hassle keeping track of them. If each file has the same password then one public post of that code and any files connected to the code will compromise the security.

That is certainly something I've considered. There is work being done on archival PDF standards, but they don't implement security yet. I guess it will still be some time before a file format more appropriate to long-term storage and usage with good security is available. I would still like to hear about other people's experiences and possible suggestions.

Archivist wrote:

Please feel free to voice your opinions. They will be taken into consideration for our future projects.

Richard Yates and I have debated this issue at some length on the RMCG NG some years back. I am not sure that either one of us have changed minds since then, but allow me to state my point of view, in the context of your current inquiry.

There are several points to consider:

1. on line archiving of Public Domain music.
2. on line archiving of transcriptions by contemporary transcribers
3. on line archiving of original music by contemporary composers.

My comments:

1. As you noted, this is a growing trend. I published the Complete catalogue of the R&B-S collection in the Royal Library in Copenhagen in 1989, i.e., 16 years ago. According to the OCLC data-base the book is owned by 55 libraries world wide. According to my sales record, perhaps a couple hundred more copies are in private hands. Not exactly a best seller, and a clear indication that in general, there was very little scholarly interest in that collection. This was the reason why I have not pursued the publication of more similar catalogues. There was a discussion at one time of publishing the catalogue of the Royal Academy of Music in Stockholm, whose guitar holdings are at least five times larger than Copenhagen's. But they did not have the money to invest in preparing the data, and I was disappointed from the poor showing of the R&B-S catalogue.

In those days, for any one to obtain copies, it was necessary to write to the library, and make a specific request. That was an expensive and time consuming process. Now, with the entire thing available on line, it is much easier, particularly with using your utility (which, BTW, I have never used since I have on hand the entire collection in xerox copies anyway...)

No we hear of a lot of people making use of that resource. How many exactly?

I would suggest that the only reliable figure can come from the library itself. Only they can tell exactly how many down loads have been made. Whether the current level of downloads is more or less or the same as that which the library had to process through their photo-duplicating department, is an open question.

But consider this: the Royal Library of Copenhagen is a state agency whose budget is controlled by the state. Right now, they were able to devote a large budget for preparing the PDFs and offering them for free. But, Danish politics being no different than any other politics, it is entirely possible that when the next budget crunch comes, this whole thing will collapse and they will elect to generate income through the photo-duplicating service. So get your downloads while the going is good.

Then of course is the major question: what do you do with PDFs you downloaded?

So you have a laser printer and you print. Usually on one side of the paper (few people have access to duplex printers), and then you have to collate the individual pages, bind them somehow, before you can use the music. Leaving them in individual pages is an invitation for disaster. Trust me, I know.

But the worst part of it is that what you get, is what the library has, warts and all. Early editions were full of mistakes, mostly made by publishers and engravers, and over which the composer had no control or repsonsibility. To take these editions as if they were "what the composer wrote" is a serious mistake. See my article on this subject in GALI, On The Textual Authority of Old Editions.

Then, the direct benefit to the user from these downloads depends on the user's competence in editing the originals in accordance with some reasonable editorial policy that can correct mistakes and make suitable changes where needed.

I think it would be safe to say that the great majority of downloaders do not possess the necessary qualifications or competence to understand what they are getting, and therefore, if they make actual use of the material in performance and recordings or in teaching, chances are that the general level of erudition in our field will be susceptible to a considerable degradation and confusion.

I will deal with points 2 & 3 at a later time.

Continuing.

2. on line archiving of transcriptions by contemporary transcribers

That is a sore subject for me, and for professional print publishers in general. The issue is simple: a proliferation of free music on the Internet, good, bad or indifferent, is a direct threat to our survival. When people can make the choice between paying for something or getting something else for free, they will choose the free option. What that option might be is not always clear. In some cases, like in Richard Yates's free offerings, some of the transcriptions offered are first class. In other instances they are sophomoric and insulting to the memory of the composers.

There is no right or wrong here, just a simple observation of the conflict of interests, and a prognostication of what might happen to a venerated old industry when the tendency to get something for nothing overtakes the habit of placing a well produced and well edited edition on music stand. On the bright side of this, is the observation that so far, and do correct me if I am wrong, no transcription published on the Internet for free has entered the standard repertoire, and performed and recorded by the leading players today.

IOW, my own dire predictions are probably too melodramatic to be believed, because at the end of the day, what will remain in the consciousness of performers would be music in print.

To be continued later.

Continuing.

3. on line archiving of original music by contemporary composers.

There are several sites where this is conducted on a grand scale. The two main ones are the Sibelius Scorch site and the Finale Showcase. These outlets are provided by the respective software companies, as, I suspect, a marketing device to promote their software products. Then there are the many stand alone sites where individual composers either hawk their products or give them away for free. Just as in the free transcriptions category, I am not aware of any such compositions that have made their way into the standard repertoire and have been performed and recorded by the important players in the field. To be fair, I must point out that there are also a lot of compositions that have been published in print and that have not been performed or recorded. But that is another story.

There are two main difficulties for on line publications:

1. While one may claim copyright to them, it is nigh impossible to register it. I stand to be corrected on this point if my information is not up to date.

2. Such compositions will not be acquired by libraries and will not be catalogued. IOW, as soon as the web site on which they are posted ceases to exist, these compositions will disappear. I supposed some printouts of them will be preserved in private hands, but the chance of these printouts ever making their way out into the collective knowledge of the human race, is in my estimation quite remote.

One final thought: the entire issue of print versus on line merchandising, besides the question of the esthetics of a finished well crafted object against a bunch of printouts, is one of distribution and the price per page. The one takes a while to obtain and its delivery depends on the efficient handling of the order by the publisher and his distribution chain. The other one is instantly available through the manipulations of a mouse cursor and a few keyboard strokes.

What is to be weighed here, by both merchant and customer, is what it would be that the customer will get, how soon, and how much it will cost. I suppose that in case of a small pagination like an 8 or a 12 page signature, it will always be cheaper to get it on line. But when you buy a 96 page anthology for $39.99 containing 100 pieces, you are paying 41 cent a page and 40 cents per piece of music. And you get a beautiful book you can enjoy holding.

Hold it, one minute. If the same 96 page anthology was broken up and each of its 100 pieces was sold separately on line, it would not cost the buyer $39.99, but a small fraction of it. Right?

Right. But eCommerce is such that it costs a hell of a lot of time and money to process an order. These costs are the same whether the order is for $39.99, or for $6.95. We are not counting here the charges by the credit card processor which are a direct function of the dollar value, but all the accounting chores associated with processing the order. In other words, it would be utter folly to sell each of the 100 pieces at 40 cents each, when it will cost the merchant at least a dollar and a half to process the order. So you will be forced to sell a one page piece for at least $3.- to make an economic sense out of the transaction. That would be highway robbery.

In short, in spite of the dire projections of various Internet prophets, print music will be around for a long time to come. Remember the prediction of the demise of the LP when CDs came out?

Just the other day I needed to buy something in Radio Shack and saw there a brand new audio center with a built in turn table and disk exchanger. Looked pretty much like the Garrard turn table I had in the mid 1950s!

On the bright side of this, is the observation that so far, and do correct me if I am wrong, no transcription published on the Internet for free has entered the standard repertoire, and performed and recorded by the leading players today.


I wonder though Mo, wether this will always be true. John Williams or David Russell may not be inclined to do this, but a player raised on the internet culture, probably would be more likely too. I would think that in 5 or 10 years a major player may well decide to do this, a player we have either yet to hear from or who is just starting his/her career.

Anonymous wrote:

On the bright side of this, is the observation that so far, and do correct me if I am wrong, no transcription published on the Internet for free has entered the standard repertoire, and performed and recorded by the leading players today. I wonder though Mo, wether this will always be true. John Williams or David Russell may not be inclined to do this, but a player raised on the internet culture, probably would be more likely too. I would think that in 5 or 10 years a major player may well decide to do this, a player we have either yet to hear from or who is just starting his/her career.

Sorry MO & everybody. I never signed in and never gave it a thought, so that post was accidentally anonymous. It wasn't meant to be.

Cheers
Brian Gardiner

Thank you, Matanya, for your erudite and detailed posts. I agree with pretty much everything you said, but it will be hard to follow if I reply to each post, so I'll just add in some of the information I have that may fill out some of the points you made.

1. Your R&B-S catalog was indispensable to me in going through the online files. In fact, I sent them many corrections to their database entries and there is still one piece listed in the database which does not have a corresponding digital file. Apparently the original is lost (a Moreno-Torroba I think).

The reasons for the collection's digitization fall very much in line with what other libraries are doing. There is a general digitization initiative passed down to the library from the government and why exactly the R&B-S was chosen I'm not sure, but this was the second project for the music department at the library. The first was the Lumbye Online. Different digitizing machines and methods were used for each project.

Generally there are no standards amongst libraries for digitizing. Cornell seems to be at the forefront of developing something seriously. Most libraries start completely on their own and often have to switch methods in the middle of a project, or a project shuts down because funding ended. So a digital archive may not be consistent in quality or even complete. The publicly available files may not even be the same quality as what was scanned (this is the case of the R&B-S files). Also, though many libraries want to offer these things for free there is a small but growing movement in the library community to begin charging fees for access.

2. I don't have much to add here except I agree. The only way for online editions at this point in time to carry any weight is to accompany something that is in print. I think there is a similarity to online music where the online version carries more validity if there is a physical CD also available. However, print carries aspects of usability, visual quality, durability, etc. that in comparison to a digital version makes the digital version seem like a cheap throw-away. I do believe that a digital version can stand on its own if it is more than simply a visual representation of the print edition. That is beyond the interest of libraries providing these files, but I believe it is possible. I would like to try some ideas out in the near future regarding this. I'll post news when something is ready. Still, I do not believe digital editions can stand well on their own - they must be an extension of something else (perhaps like those editions with attached CD's).

3. Not much to add.

Anonymous wrote:

I wonder though Mo, wether this will always be true. John Williams or David Russell may not be inclined to do this, but a player raised on the internet culture, probably would be more likely too. I would think that in 5 or 10 years a major player may well decide to do this, a player we have either yet to hear from or who is just starting his/her career.

Neither you nor I have a late model crystal ball which can tell us what will happen in the future. Thus, your prognostication is just as valid or invalid as mine. But let me point out this: on line freebies are not exactly a new phenomenon. The Internet has been in existence for well over 20 years by now, and the WWW followed soon after.

The main hindrance for on line freebies to enter the standard repertoire is the same as for print music: people play that which their current matinee idol is playing, nothing else. I often repeated the notion that out of the 8,000 or so high quality works for the classical guitar that are available in print, all you hear in concerts and recordings is not more than 50-60 works.

The only way an on-line freebie can enter the repertoire is if it was produced by a major artist who recorded it, played it in concerts and gave it away for free. Major artists are people who make a living out of their art and they are not likely to give away for free anything, except the occasional benefit concert for this or that cause.

And why should a major artist adopt a piece which was created by someone else?

It is bad enough when they take published transcriptions, change a few notes here and there and put their own name on it. Thus, they are not obliged to pay mechanical royalties to anyone. Happened to me and my own editions more times than I care to think about.

Archivist wrote:

I do believe that a digital version can stand on its own if it is more than simply a visual representation of the print edition.

Which is all that a PDF is. I once floated the idea that the only way digital music can become a real alternative to print music, is if it was possible for the process to produce print music. Thus:

The digital file contains not only the visual image of the music, but also the visual image of the cover. You download it into a printer that is capable of printing the music on 12 x 18 paper on both sides, the pages automatically impositioned in the correct sequence, the cover is printed seperatly in color, and the whole is automatically folded and saddle stitched. Voilá!

Such machines do not exist, but the technology for producing them is already here. Now, for the money one would need to lay out for such a machine, it should be possible to buy a couple of Royal Libraries in their entirety.

OK, so instead of personal ownership of the machine, they are owned by public libraries, music store, Kinko's etc. You go there, or send them an e-mail with the precise URL and a credit card, and you can pick up the finished product on your way to work.

One reason why this will never come about is that such machines will be so expensive, that the projected potential of the market will never be sufficient to amortize them, even if the price charged for the download and printing is less than the price for an equivalent piece of traditionally printed music.

I guess I should explain my definition of a digital edition. I had wriiten a lot more in this response, but deleted it. It is probably better to follow up when I have something more tangible that will better explain my ideas. That's not to say my ideas are perfect. I'd like to use this site as kind of a testing ground. I have not seen any digital version of music out there that I would purchase over a printed copy. The only time I did that was when Elibron had something that was not available in a print version. Their print versions are not much more than bound laser copies in my opinion.

One of my ideas has to do with security so it will take me a bit to work on the code for that, so when I've got something ready everyone can take a look and then make comments based on that.

Matanya wrote:

Neither you nor I have a late model crystal ball which can tell us what will happen in the future. Thus, your prognostication is just as valid or invalid as mine. But let me point out this: on line freebies are not exactly a new phenomenon. The Internet has been in existence for well over 20 years by now, and the WWW followed soon after.

I must protest, I wasn't prognosticating so much as pondering. As to how long the internet has been around, I was more suggesting that someone brought up on the web culture may be more likely to use on on-line freeby. Those people are just starting their careers now.

No argument on the rest of your points.