Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Project To Turn Classical Scores Into Copyright-Free Music Completed

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the music-of-the-masses dept.

Music 290

yourlord writes "Just under two years ago Musopen launched a Kickstarter campaign covered here on Slashdot. Today that project is complete with the release of a large amount of classical recordings into the public domain. This brings an extensive collection of high quality classical music into the public domain. The project music is hosted on the Musopen site, and on archive.org."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020175)

ArminAss

Re:GNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020247)

So I made my GNAA first post, joined the channel on IRC.

Apparently they don't even have a quiz on Gayniggers from Outerspace anymore and haven't since 2006. I guess I finally realized how stupid this all is. I don't even want to join GNAA anymore. I just deleted the movie from my HD. I've seen it like 20 times, what a waste.

Re:GNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020387)

The GNAA went downhill since CmdrTaco (aka TimeCop) was fired from /. It's like he doesn't even want to suck gay black dick anymore.

Re:GNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020667)

It's the same guy?

It was me! (5, Interesting)

garglebutt (766885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020187)

I invested in this. Great idea to set music free. Enjoy the downloads.

Re:It was me! (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020241)

Me too! Best $$ I've ever spent for music I think.

Re:It was me! (0)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020723)

I am thinking of a couple of billionaire so-called philanthropists, and wonder if they can honestly say "it was me!" about anything half so fundamentally important.

Re:It was me! (4, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020761)

which ones? the billionaire philanthropist that springs most easily to my mind is trying to eliminate malaria, solve the energy problem and thus mitigate climate change, and his wife's attempting to fix population problems in countries that can't sustain their birth rates.

but i listen to Beethoven every now and then i suppose...

Re:It was me! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020859)

and the only reason he's doing it, is because he'll get better tax rates...

Re:It was me! (5, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021225)

I think the main reason he's doing it is because Microsoft became really boring.

Operating Systems? Meh. Office? Meh.

What, in the world of pure software, is going to make a real difference in peoples lives (not just a marginal difference)? Or a real difference to his bank balance?

if I was even 1 / 10,000th as rich as Bill Gates (a respectable $6,000,000 dollars) I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to gild my corporate cage a bit more ; I'd be working on problems that interest me.

Re:It was me! (5, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021251)

How do you figure... giving 100,000 of income to charity is at most a tax break of 50,000 or so.... would 100,000 not be more than the 50,000 in taxes? I always hate arguments like this.... donations are not 1:1 deductible from taxes.

Re:It was me! (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021269)

No, he's doing it because it allows him to push IP treaties onto countries with growing economies and emerging markets that benefit his other investments.

Nicely done! (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020191)

Fantastic. Now let's do it again until more classical works are liberated. And visit their "donate" button.

Re:Nicely done! (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020269)

I might be persuaded to donate if there wasnt coughing and other noise in moonlight sonata

Re:Nicely done! (5, Informative)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020391)

Indeed. I remember the kickstart project and all, and how the project went from "With a few grand we can do this" to "Oh wow, we've got 7 times what we asked for, let's do more".

I don't think they should've done more than they originally set out, they should've increased the planned quality. What I mean by that is that it is likely the initial budget they asked for was way too low, anyway, for what they wanted to do.

Indeed, the quality of the recordings is poor, at best, and there are a great number of mistakes in the performances. Yet none of those care, because for maybe one of the first times, there are actual, recent recordings in the public domains. But coughing? Seriously?

Anyway, I'd like for MusOpen to take this chance to also distribute the works in the raw format they have, or .wav, or any other kind of lossless format, preferably not encumbered by patents or licensing issues. I'll even go ahead and offer a lot of bandwidth to help MusOpen achieve that goal.

Re:Nicely done! (3, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020425)

Yet none of those care, because for maybe one of the first times, there are actual, recent recordings in the public domains. But coughing? Seriously?

Seriously.. 1st movement, after playing begins.. a cough...

Apparently its someones recital.. sounds like a tape player is used to record it.. where you can even hear the noise of the spinning tape...

Re:Nicely done! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020585)

the ones they recorded are performed by "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" [musopen.org]

everything else on their site is a crapshoot from other sources.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020749)

Seriously.. 1st movement, after playing begins.. a cough...

Please quite whining, go get a sound editor and edit it out. It's easy and that's exactly what a big label would do.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020779)

they'd likely have recorded 2 or more performances as well. between all of them a cough can be got rid of without the digital spectral scar that a surgical editor would leave behind.

though with a skilled operator, you can fix things and leave no sign at all behind. usually the music gets a bit fudgy though - best splice in something clean and make sure tempos match (in this day and age, an orchestra such as this should have earphones with click-tracks or something similar - conductors can get carried away)

Re:Nicely done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021053)

Click tracks for orchestra members..? Why not simply send a MIDI file to your sound synthesizer instead? Much cheaper, and less risk of interpretational variations.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

drkim (1559875) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021143)

This can be done by looking at the audio spectrum and 'healing' just the area of the cough. Not hard. (Adobe Audition)

Re:Nicely done! (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021237)

in this day and age, an orchestra such as this should have earphones with click-tracks or something similar - conductors can get carried away

You are quite the comedian, aren't you? But decent commentary on the sound editing. It's hardly rocket science.

No it isn't (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021349)

Sound editors aren't magic, you can't take a bad performance and make it great, and you can't edit out systemic noise like wow and flutter from a tape. You also can't edit out a sound from under another sound, without major audible artifacts.

What a big label would do is go and use better quality equipment to record the track. It isn't even that expensive these days. Then they would record multiple takes as necessary and edit those together.

Hell forget big labels, this is what a university recording studio would do. It is not too much to ask that if the idea is to get "open" replacements to professional music that a professional job of it is done.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020435)

It truly captures the open source experience!

Re:Nicely done! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020587)

As far as I can tell, this [musopen.org] is what Kickstarter was about. The rest is just hosted there by MusOpen and comes from all kinds of sources, including college orchestras, army bands and this guy [musopen.org] you might know from Slashdot (well, his braver cousin, anyways).

Re:Nicely done! (5, Interesting)

Swistak (899225) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021177)

wav is not only losless format. Files are distrubuted also in m4f and flac ( http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7536456/2012_Musopen_Kickstarter_Project_%5BFLAC%5D [thepiratebay.se] ) Quality of recordings done by kickstarter campaign is excellent. And there was poll amongst backers what to do with money. I as one of backers (overwheliming majority) decided we want to have more music with good quality, then one or two tracks with perfect quality. If you want perfect recording from best orchestra in the world, go and buy it on dvd.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021205)

You can get the full ProTools files, with umpteen mics, if you want to. The project made them available as a torrent (quite a long time ago actually - the mixing took time, and apparently wasn't as good as it could have been). It's still superpermissively licensed, so you can fix it up yourself if you want to.

I assure you all non-live classical recordings have similar fix ups.

Aaron Dunn asked the contributors many times during the project how he should go at it - big name orchestra, or solid low-cost eastern european one? He even arranged blind listening tests. It took longer time than expected, in part due to things like orchestras and conductors bowing out at the last moment, but all in all I'm very happy with the project. If you aren't, hey, maybe you should have contributed to it ;)

Re:Nicely done! (3, Informative)

anom (809433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020481)

From my understanding the moonlight sonata wasn't even one of the pieces performed by the orchestra in the kickstarter campaign? It isn't listed at any of the links in the article. Musopen compiles a bunch of different music from many sources and so some if it is complete crap, but my impression was that the point of this project was to get some better recordings of a select group of pieces.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020789)

you could play moonlight sonata on an iphone with no musical training. it's not the most complex of tracks.

which isn't to say it's not beautiful. just simple, like an Italian meal.

Re:Nicely done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021065)

Sounds about right, I can play portions of it by ear with literally no training at all on the piano. I mean truly no training at all, I can't even play chopsticks. But the parts that most people think of are haunting in large part due to their simplicity.

But, in some ways the more simple music is the most difficult to play sometimes as you can't get away with any errors as everybody notices them. More complex music allows for a certain amount of masking to take place over minor mistakes.

Re:Nicely done! (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021219)

you could play moonlight sonata on an iphone with no musical training.

I'd like to see that. Maybe you could play a few bars of the most famous part.

Re:Nicely done! (4, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020359)

And visit their "donate" [musopen.org] button.

FTFY (rationale: I read some comments indicating some have difficulties in finding their way on the site).

There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (4, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020199)

The great weakness with this is that the value of sheet music is in the edition. Just as books benefit from a good editor, so does music.

My girlfriend has a music degree, and is an accomplished teacher of piano. She pulls her hair out whenever a student shows up with something downloaded from the Internet, or even worse, one of those oddball cheap Chinese editions. How the music is edited really does affect how it is played.

Aside from that, it's weird that the music listings aren't by composer. Do these folks not know how many "String Quartets in C major" have been written?

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (5, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020283)

The composition has to be a relatively ancient edit to qualify for public domain status in the performed work.

At the bottom you will see the option to filter by composer.

And of course you're welcome to repeat the effort if this one doesn't suit your standard. In the meantime the rest of us will set about setting our slideshows, presentations, home movies and youtube clips to this public domain classical music.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020355)

In the meantime the rest of us will set about setting our slideshows, presentations, home movies and youtube clips to this public domain classical music.

And probably will get it taken down or muted because Youtube's filter system isn't smart enough to know the difference.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (4, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020787)

All the better, enough complaints that legitimate music has been blocked may perhaps force them to come up with a better system.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (3, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021263)

Probably not. The reason they have such a draconian system is that music companies insisted on it in order not to sue all of YouTube into pieces.

I'm hoping one day Google will give the treatment to music companies that they're giving to broadband companies in Kansas city.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020811)

i think google would do well to release a (reasonably feature-complete) video editor for the purpose of embedding it's clips with metadata in case it's filter fails.

it would be very nice to be able to use whatever you want and get warned about possible filterage beforehand - and override it with relevant citations, right there in your editor's media bin.

also, the tightars- uhm, FOSS world needs a good video editor. blender's sequence editor is the best there is and it's a piece of shit - completely inadequate for proper editing.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020865)

I tried just about every non-linear video editor I could find in the Ubuntu package repository a couple of years ago and settled on Kdenlive. I didn't realise Blender had one, though. What does Blender's do better?

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (5, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020303)

It's weird that the article doesn't link to the Homepage of the project [musopen.org] or at least to the main music browsing page [musopen.org] which features, besides others, a list of composers to select from.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020305)

Aside from that, it's weird that the music listings aren't by composer. Do these folks not know how many "String Quartets in C major" have been written?

Here's some assistance for the vision/browsing impaired [musopen.org] - pick your criterion.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (3, Informative)

darkfeline (1890882) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020395)

Indeed. I've been using Lilypond for a while now, and when you actually arrange and play your own music, you are enlightened to all the little details that unconsciously distract or help you. But note that it also depends on the person to a certain degree as well, e.g. some people just happen to read music written one way better.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (2)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020403)

If by "great weakness with this" you mean, "inherent problem with the Internet, which focused, thoughtful projects by people who care about quality - like this one right here - are solving", then sure, I agree with you.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020623)

You think the weakness is the quality of the sheetmusic? Did you actually listen to any of the performances? For example, see if you can listen to the first movement of Beethoven's fifth here [musopen.org] , without cringing. People are out of tune, off beat, and at times sound like they are overwhelmed by the difficulty of the piece (listen at 1:19, the horns don't have a consistent tone, sound squeaky at times, with the strings in the background poorly articulating their notes, some of the instruments are out of tune, and the wrong parts are emphasized).

And those are just technical details. Even if they reach perfection in the execution of the notes, they are completely missing the interpretation. I would gladly pay money to hear Bernstein's interpretation of [youtube.com] the second movement of the 5th symphony. No one else even comes close to the softness and love of his interpretation.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021195)

You realize that was performed a by a college orchestra and has NOTHING to do with the recordings financed with the kickstarter, right?

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (5, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021301)

The Beethoven's fifth you linked to is performed by a small town college orchestra, not the Musopen Symphony Orchestra (really the Czech National Symphony Orchestra, but I don't know if Musopen are allowed to say that in advertising!). Anyone can contribute to Musopen - you'll even find midi keyboard renditions there. It's better than nothing, is Musopen's philosophy.

During the Kickstarter, Aaron Dunn wrote to us and we discussed extensively whether we should get a few works by a "big name" orchestra, or several from a less-known one. We did blind listening tests, too.

You still have the option to pay money to hear Bernstein's interpretations. In fact, you probably will always have to pay money to hear Bernstein's interpretations, the way copyrights are being extended... but now you also have the option of hearing some solid renditions of Brahms symphonies by a professional Czech orchestra, for free. For ever.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (3, Informative)

deek (22697) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020643)

I've never had a problem with using urtext sheet music; by definition, untouched by an editor. Your girlfriend should have no problem with students that show up with urtext copies, many of which are freely available on the internet. She is a teacher, so should help them to interpret the piece which is played, not play along with the interpretation of some editor. Besides, interpretation can be a very subjective thing; I've often disagreed with edited music and the changes they've made to the original piece. Then again, I've been known to disagree with the original composer, preferring to play dynamics in my own way, or to go with a staccato feel, rather than the legato that's marked on the music, or change a dozen other possible things you can when playing music.

In that way, editing music is very much different to editing a book. You can't play around with written passages the way you can with music. Music is much more open to interpretation and change. It's why it is so fascinating listening to different performers play the same piece of music, and not so interesting listening to the same prose read by different people.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (2)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020839)

I've never had a problem with using urtext sheet music; by definition, untouched by an editor...

Not bad post, especially considering the nonsense you responded to, however... you're not right about the definition of urtext. Perhaps you have not heard of Wiener Urtext Edition? [wiener-urtext.com] And by the way, I always play from urtext when I can get it. It is very definitely an edition.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (3, Interesting)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020651)

hmmm.... I found a page for sheet music listed by composer, and the search function will hit on composer names.

As to editions, my daughter plays violin, so yeah, I understand the edition issue -- editing is huge with string instruments because the editor usually puts in bowings and sometimes suggested fingerings. But in the case of one Pablo de Sarasate piece that I looked up, it looked like the sheet music was a scan of an out-of-copyright edition from a prominent 19th Century German publisher. So the edition question probably hangs on what they managed to find where the copyright hasn't been kept up. Anyway, that's my one data point, so this being slashdot and all, one data point seems more than sufficient to jump to a conclusion. Excessive, even.

Aside about editions: my daughter is currently studying the Bach sonatas and partitas for violin -- the edition our teacher recommended has both edited music in modern (OK, 80 or so year old) engraving and a facsimile of the original manuscript. It is interesting to look at the differences -- the original was very spare in terms of even the most basic articulations. I wonder if the Musopen project will be scanning facsimiles? For serious students being able to compare editions not only to each other but to the original manuscript is useful and sometimes important.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020801)

The great weakness with this is that the value of sheet music is in the edition. Just as books benefit from a good editor, so does music. My girlfriend has a music degree, and blah blah blah drivel drivel [appeal to authority]...

Well I have a music degree and I just read through a good chunk of the Goldberg variations and I am pleased with the quality of it. I will print it out and enjoy playing it. As for your Slashdot post, I would respectfully ask you to refrain from further damaging your own credibility with respect to this subject, of which you are by all appearances completely ignorant.

Re:There's Sheet Music, and Sheet Music (2)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021247)

Editions typeset in Lilypond are usually very good. They're almost always better than the stuff musicians print out from Finale from their own purposes, and they're on average better than professionally set editions printed today. Old editions can measure up well, but new ones, not so much IMO.

Awesome! (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020207)

Nothing puts me in the right frame of mind for some serious coding than classical music. Can't wait to check this one out.

Re:Awesome! (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020489)

Nothing puts me in the right frame of mind for some serious coding than classical music. Can't wait to check this one out.

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer video game music and VG remixes, eg: Stuff from Rainwave and OCR. [rainwave.cc]
Sometimes just environmental electro. I "graduated" from classical when I was a teen, just got burned out on the same tunes and themes.

One thing I have found is that few coders I know prefer lyrics in their programming music...

Oh, and before you think I've abandoned that great orchestral sound altogether, right now I'm listening to the London Philharmonic Orchestra and Andrew Skeet: Legend of Zelda: Suite [youtube.com]
May the Triforce be with you.

Re:Awesome! (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020581)

Right on bro...whatever does it for you. When I listen to music with lyrics or something really intense I focus more on the music than the task at hand. But yeah, it's good to mix it up a bit sometime to keep things interesting.

But how did he make money?! (4, Funny)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020215)

I thought the recording industry had definitively proved that if you didn't assert copyrights, there was no possible way for the starving artists* to be compensated for their hard work, and it would spell the end of recorded music?

* all artists are starving. That's why they look good in music videos.

Re:But how did he make money?! (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020265)

* all artists are starving. That's why they look good in music videos.

I thought it was because they regularly vomit in the bathroom, take a lot of laxatives, and eat adderall like it's candy...

Re:But how did he make money?! (3, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020295)

Some people starve because they don't have enough food. Others because they're just stupid.

Re:But how did he make money?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020695)

Copyrights don't have to be asserted -- you're probably thinking of trade marks.

Copyright is not granted for 'hard work' or 'sweat of the brow'. It's a protection for artistic form, and (internationally) there is not even a requirement that it has to be registered or that it has to be 'good' in any usual sene of the word.

And artists are compensated by their own work (selling their own music), or the contracts they write with the music industry. If they are not adept in creating those contracts, and end up in a situation where they think they don't benefit from the contract, it is almost always possible to renegotiate or terminate it.

Re:But how did he make money?! (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020741)

No, I'm thinking of copyrights, although I may not have used "assert' in the technical, legal sense. But by explicitly placing the works into the public domain, he has deliberately declined to assert his copyright.

And artists are compensated by their own work (selling their own music), or the contracts they write with the music industry.

And the music industry has stated that without copyright enforcement, those sales would not happen, and those contracts would not be written. This guy has demonstrated that that claim is false.

Re:But how did he make money?! (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020931)

You realize that since this is classical music that the composers are dead, right? So this whole starving thing is a bit off topic...

Re:But how did he make money?! (2, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021171)

You do realize that the orchestral performers are still artists, right?

FLAC (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020235)

Unfortunately, Musopen provided the content in Apple lossless format instead of a widely used, open, non-patent-encumbered format such as FLAC. Plus, the official torrent contains a single gigantic zip file.

There is a torrent containing all 145 separate tracks in FLAC format here:
http://pirateproxy.net/torrent/7536456/2012_Musopen_Kickstarter_Project_[FLAC]

Re:FLAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020503)

But a good torrent program will let you pick a choose what files from the torrent you want. You don't have to download the whole collection all at once.

Re:FLAC (2)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020631)

But a good torrent program will let you pick a choose what files from the torrent you want. You don't have to download the whole collection all at once.

Uhhh... that was the OP's point:

the official torrent contains a single gigantic zip file

No matter how good it is, no torrent client will allow you to choose the files inside a zip file inside the torrent.

Re:FLAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020721)

I believe there was some client which could do this, probably a plugin for Azureus/Vuze.

After you've downloaded ZIP file's header and file catalog, you can calculate which pieces contain which block, and partially damaged ZIP archives can be processed, so it's doable.

Re:FLAC (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020795)

The ALAC decoder and encoder is opensource under the Apache 2.0 license, which essentially grants a world wide cost free and irrevocable* patent license in addition to the copyright license for the code itself.

Claiming ALAC is patent encumbered is just plain bullshit, since patent licenses are granted free of charge. Claiming ALAC is not open is also clearly pure bullshit as the reference encoder and decoder is freely available.

* Unless you decide to sue Apple for patent infringement, in which case your license will be revoked.

Re:FLAC (0)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020845)

Unfortunately, Musopen provided the content in Apple lossless format instead of a widely used, open, non-patent-encumbered format such as FLAC.

It's lossless, duh. Transcode it.

Re:FLAC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021097)

It's lossless, duh. Transcode it.

The files are 24-bit and support for decoding 24-bit Apple lossless in Linux is lacking. Being lossless is nice only if it's in a usable format.

Re:FLAC (1, Insightful)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021203)

It's lossless, duh. Transcode it.

The files are 24-bit and support for decoding 24-bit Apple lossless in Linux is lacking. Being lossless is nice only if it's in a usable format.

More whining, it's getting old. Transcode it on an Apple computer if you must. Feh, what kind of geek are you.

Re:FLAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021131)

And if unless I'm missing something the GP is free to transcode the collection to something else and put it up as a torrent.

Score! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020297)

Finally! A Fifth completed! Ode to joy!

Re:Score! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020595)

That would be a ninth completed.

For those looking (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020307)

the torrent link is: http://archive.org/download/musopen-lossless-dvd/musopen-lossless-dvd_archive.torrent

What about quality? (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020315)

Last time I checked them (about 2 months ago), most of their music was in rather poor quality - lots of background noise, soundproofing issues and although I am not a music expert, the performance seemed lacking somewhat.

Whinge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020923)

Sounds fine to me. And even if it wasn't, what are you expecting? Stop being such a whiner.

Re:What about quality? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021315)

If you heard these works two months ago, you

1. are a contributer to the kickstarter, and
2. what you were listening to was the raw, unedited ProTools files. They were all that was available then (to backers only, I believe).

Maybe you're confusing this with all the other works on Musopen. They have widely varying quality, as anyone can contribute.

Dvorak (2)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020365)

If you browse the music [musopen.org] by composer, the list starts with Dvorak, Antonin... then Albaniz, Isaac and all the composers whose last names start with A... then Bach and the Bs... Chaliapin and the Cs... It looks familiar but not quite what we're accustomed to... like something is slightly off. Whoever created the list must have been using a Dvorak keyboard!

Re:Dvorak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021283)

Quite confusing also, Antonin is the firstname, then Albeniz is the last name...

Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (1)

drdrgivemethenews (1525877) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020483)

Possibly the project's initial goals were completed, but that's hardly what springs to mind when one hears the phrase in the context of the classical repertoire.

That said, I'm listening to Eroica, and it actually ain't bad.

WRT the print edition quality, most world-class musicians prefer autograph scores. Heavily edited scores are more suited for amateur performers. An exception is Sussmayer's version of Mozart's Requiem, which has a lot of rough spots, and is usually performed from later fixed up versions.

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (2)

drdrgivemethenews (1525877) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020559)

Wow, I take it back. Some of this music is pretty awful. A good MIDI performance expert could do better. Oh god, listen to the french horn in the 2nd promenade in Pictures at an Exhibition. Oh, and the violins at the end of that. Shiver. Ouch. Damn.

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (5, Informative)

anom (809433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020607)

A number of people seem to be confusing the overall musopen library with the recently completed project.

Musopen has been around for some time collecting non-copyrighted performances of various classic works from whatever source was available. For example, you'll note from the musopen page that the Pictures at an Exhibition was performed by the Skidmore College Orchestra.

The Kickstarter project musopen undertook was to professionally record a few of the classics. On the Musopen site, you'll see "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" listed as the performer -- those pieces are listed here: http://musopen.org/music/by/performer/Musopen-Symphony-Orchestra [musopen.org]

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020739)

And here [musopen.org] .

Full list with links to torrents is here [musopen.org]

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (1)

loneDreamer (1502073) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020911)

Mod parent up. If that's not informative I don't know what is.

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (4, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021363)

I'd like to add that the Musopen Symphony Orchestra is, in essence, the Czech National Sympony Orchestra [www.cnso.cz] . They're a very solid commercial symphony orchestra (i.e, mostly playing for films and commissioned concerts, as opposed to being attached to an institution or subscription program).

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020969)

Let me contrast your whining with what they say on the site:

Please feel free to share, edit, re-mix, download, and encourage others to do the same, thats the beauty of public domain music.

Now let's compare that with you:

Oh god, listen to the french horn in the 2nd promenade in Pictures at an Exhibition. Oh, and the violins at the end of that.

So tell us, are you this this boorish in real life or is it just an act you put on to impress people who have a boor-fetish?

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (3, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021337)

Yet another poster who has not understood what Musopen does or what this Kickstarter was. Pictures at an Exhibition was not recorded as part of this project. In fact it was freely contributed to Musopen by an amateur orchestra.

A good MIDI performance expert could do better.

Didn't it tip you off that a lot of the music on Musopen actually are midi performances? Anyone can contribute!

Re:Completed? That's a bit of a laugh (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020975)

WRT the print edition quality, most world-class musicians prefer autograph scores.

Eh, no they don't. This [flickr.com] is an autograph score.

Artistic quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020523)

I haven't been able to listen yet, I was curious how the artistic quality is compared famous recordings of these pieces?

Also I find it a very strange (but fixable) oversight that the composer is not in a browse column.

Re:Artistic quality? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020949)

I was looking at this too. As far as I can tell, you're not going to find any of the "name" orchestras or performers. There's a bunch of stuff by The Army Band, the Musopen Symphony Orchestra (!?), and the like. You wouldn't pay for these performances... but since they are free, you're not out anything (other than your time) if you download several and have a listen. It's always possible there's a hidden gem in there.

Re:Artistic quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021071)

Musopen Symphony Orchestra and Musopen String Quartet are recordings made for this Kickstarter project.

new problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020551)

All that openness being lost if the new international agreement comes into effect allowing the first broadcaster of a work to claim the rights to it. This will take things that are currently in public domain to be taken out and copy controlled, not quite copyrighted, simply by the process of having someone broadcast it.

And Such Small Portions! (4, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020675)

To quote Annie Hall [imdb.com] :

Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."

Reading the criticisms levied against the site is like listening to those two elderly women who just like to complain: "Boy, the music at this place is really terrible." "Yeah, I know; and there isn't nearly enough of it!"

I think quantity needed to be more important than quality for this project. Sure, they need to have a minimum standard of quality, but the idea was to free as much music as possible. Some kid somewhere in the world would never have heard this music because he's not going to pay $1.29 for some music he's never heard (that they're not playing on the radio) and the sheet music isn't exactly jumping off the page to ensnare his imagination. However, something that's well-written and decently-performed on this site may get his attention and maybe someday he'll perform a better version and give back to us all. But that won't ever happen if he never hears it. That first exposure is key.

The first time I heard Scheherazade [musopen.org] it was in a movie (The Man With One Red Shoe). I didn't know what it was, but it got my attention. I was about seven. Years later I came across it again as a track that was tacked onto a $3 budget classical CD, and it got my attention again. I suggested it to the orchestra director in my high school and hundreds of people got to hear it. It's all about the exposure.

If you want to be a snob about the quality, go pay for a performance and share it with the rest of us so we won't have to live our lives not knowing what good music sounds like. Frankly, I prefer the Scheherazade recording on that budget CD to any I've found on iTunes. The first performance of a piece is often the one you like best, because it's the one you fell in love with. I have a very old recording of Stokowski and the NY Philharmonic performing Stravinsky's Firebird suite [musopen.org] that is full of hiss and crackle, but I prefer it over a clean-sounding recording of Bernstein and the Israel Philharmonic performing the same piece. Bernstein's performance, which is well-done, just doesn't sound urgent enough to me because I heard Stokowski's first. Perhaps what you're really concerned about is the possibility that the masses may come to prefer a version other than what you like.

There's still a lot to be added, so go ahead and donate [musopen.org] . Sure, they've got Stravinsky's Firebird, but not The Rite of Spring. The Rite of Spring was so radical and jarring to the ears of the "more cultured representatives of society" at its 1913 premiere in Paris that the audience began yelling so loudly no one could hear the music. Eventually the scene devolved into chairs being thrown and fires set. So go ahead, throw your chairs at this new site in disgust because it doesn't agree with your notion of how the music should sound. The music that stripped away the cultured veneer of those Parisans is worth hearing, and a public domain music site that so-ruffled the feathers of the "free-as-in-beer" and "information wants to be free" slashdot crowd is worth visiting.

The power of fragrances to launch the madness (0)

perfumes (2709857) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020735)

Something that you place becomes your own statement, and surely this is the one that everyone will be following. The magical spray makes the world dance around you, and most importantly, act as the true indicator of your mood. From www.rightshopping.in/Perfumes-deo-india-online.html

Search sucks (2)

heikkile (111814) | more than 2 years ago | (#41020901)

It is really good to have music in the free. But it could be organized better. I tired to search for "Locatelli", a baroque composer I know a little about. The first hit found a "piece" with a headline "Battista, Locatelli & J.S Bach - Concetos". What passes for a comment for the music is some details about Vivaldi's life, and under that is a composer Bio, also of Vivaldi. The "piece" consists of four parts, starting with a Concerto Grosso by Vivaldi, followed by Pergolesi, something by Bach, and finally a single movement of a Locatelli concerto. Last there is a fact box that lists Vivaldi as the composer, and fails to mention anything about the performer or period...

IMSLP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41020993)

I don't see why there's musopen. The main internet site for free sheet music is IMSLP http://www.imslp.org/wiki/
They have 58,527 works 213,783 scores 20,183 recordings 7,838 composers 199 performers
That's a lot more than musopen. Could it be a kickstart scam? Should be easy to copy some stuff from IMSLP onto your website and sell it as something new to people who don't know.

For sources to sheet music (if you want to edit it), see Mutopia: http://www.mutopiaproject.org

I consider IMSLP valuable to look for music, but am aware that much of the content are scanned editions from the 1940s and earlier, due to copyright issues.
The available content does not reflect the current state-of-the-art of editions of classical music. In that time it was still popular that editors romanticize old music to adapt it to the taste of the time. Music from more recent composers like Shostakovich are not available ( http://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Shostakovich,_Dmitry ) either.
Of the music I want to play, therefore I usually buy good modern editions even if the sheet music is available on IMSLP.

Complete Bach Organ Works (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021161)

http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/ [blockmrecords.org] Played by James Kibbie, and as a quote from the website: "This project is sponsored by the University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance, with generous support from Dr. Barbara Furin Sloat in honor of J. Barry Sloat, and with additional support from the Office of Vice-President for Research, the University of Michigan."

Limited, non-free site. Bad quality... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021183)

I got my headphones to listen to some pieces, but I had to put them back earlier than I thougt:

Even if you register for free, you are limited to five downloads a day and you cannot download HQ content.

Only for $50/year you have unlimited access. The fee is tax deductible for US citizens but the rest of the world is left off.

If the music is really public domain, I hope someone will upload torrents so everyone will be able to enjoy this "free" music without restrictions.

Speaking of which, I listened to the recording of Diabelli's Sonatine for guitar & piano and the interpretation is awful. I know the piece well and it is very badly played. Half the notes are missing sometimes. So quality is also questionable, and the download limits prevent you for knowing what you really pay for...

Re:Limited, non-free site. Bad quality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41021385)

What site are you talking about? I did not see any download limit or fee. In fact, I just downloaded the full lossless (sic!) torrent linked from archive.org.

As for quality, Musopen contains public domain recordings from various sources. If you look carefully, you'll see that some recordings are by high-school orchestras! TFA talks about the completed kickstarted campaign which includes works recorded by professional symphonic orchestras, you can clearly identify these by looking at the performing artist.

Your complaint about lack of torrents and download limits suggests you are looking at a completely different website from the rest of us. Your whining is misplaced.

prior art (2)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#41021371)

Perhaps we can now start a project to match new popular music against this database, and figure out that all new music is just a shameless copy/basic rewrite of existing classical music.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?