IMSLP Forums

Is it possible to find the orchestral score in a pdf format anywhere? The one on imslp only has piano parts with orchestral cues.

Gershwin is very problematic - even for Canadian copyright. Some of the major works (Rhapsody in Blue, Piano Concerto, etc.) were actually published in arrangements made by others - who lived a much longer time than the composer. Ferde Grofé (d.1972) was the orchestrator of several versions of the ''Rhapsody in Blue'' while Frank Campbell-Watson (d.1980) was responsible for other works - so they aren't free even in Canada. Gershwin's original manuscripts (some of which were published in facsimile) should be fine, provided they don't include additions by other hands. The well-known pieces with names like Grofé and Campbell-Watson attached are not allowed, for obvious reasons.

Carolus wrote: (some of which were published in facsimile) should be fine, provided they don't include additions by other hands

I own a couple of these facsimiles. Unfortunately, they are monochrome and not very good reproductions at that. They are good enough to make out the handwriting but not good enough for someone not an expert in Gershwin's hand to distinguish his corrections from anybody elses (which is normally done by noting the use of a different pen or pencil). Gershwin's hand is not as distinctive as Bach's or Beethoven's, for example. I have not yet compared any of these facsimiles to an engraved published score. But even then, without the further ability to trace the publishing history of a piece (via copies of a work used by the engraver or other editor such as Campbell-Watson) I still think it would be difficult to disentangle what might be public domain from what isn't. This would be a perfect project for a grad (or even advanced undergrad) student in musicology. Hint, hint.

--Pop

There's an excellent study score published for sale; it costs money, that stuff that people usually hope to earn when they work. Perhaps you might think about spending some money and buying it, rather than deceiving yourself that downloading it is morally defensible.

BTW, I have read with interest the many discussions on these forums about music publishers and their greed and venality. How dare they profit from those poor dead composers? How dare they ask to be paid for printed music for works that they published so many years ago? Well gee, lots of reasons, including the obvious, which is that when no one had ever heard of Stravinsky or Messiaen or Szymanowski, these companies felt they were worthwhile, so they spent money and published them, promoted them, got performances of their music for them, and paid them royalties for their works.

Those of you who believe that not purchasing music but getting it for free is somehow akin to striking a blow for freedom are deluding yourselves and rationalizing selfish behavior. If you want to do some actual good in the world, help musicians fight to get paid what they are really worth, lobby to restore arts funding, insist that music education be put back in schools, and act on the belief that everyone who works or creates should be paid a living wage.

Heidi Rogers, owner of Frank Music Company, NYC

I dunno, why it it so horrible to want to DL Gershwin's 1925 work for free but perfectly fine to DL a public domain everywhere work written and published in 1920?

I dunno, why it it so horrible to want to DL Gershwin's 1925 work for free but perfectly fine to DL a public domain everywhere work written and published in 1920?

Because you're breaking the law with the former but not with the latter*.

And a big +1 to Heidi Rogers' post.

*Depending on where you live and the contributing author(s), it is still possible for a piece published in 1920 to be copyright in your country.

I'm not talking about the law. I'm asking why such an attitude toward wanting a piece that old, especially when it's not that different in age from ones that ARE ok. The OP I'm sure had absolutely no idea about the status of the piece, and to flame in such a way is really unfair.

I don't regard any of the responses here as "flaming." Does the OP? Also, consider that the Gershwin question has been asked MANY times as there are at least three other posts that detail what and why. Perhaps the forum rules should be amended to include a clause about searching before posting. Regardless, I'm sure we'll respond to this issue in the future. It might also be a good idea to include a small link on the relevant Gershwin pages that redirects to the Gershwin talk page that lays all of this out.

heidirogers wrote:There's an excellent study score published for sale;

I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the study score I purchased (edited by Campbell-Watson) as "excellent." It doesn't come near to satisfying even the most basic, modern, text-critical musicological standards. For instance, nowhere are we told in the score, or anywhere else, just what Campbell-Watson's interventions (and, possibly, inventions) are. There's no editorial report detailing the deviations of the printed score from other sources, such as Gershwin's autograph. Publishers have lavished such attention on the greats of the past (Mozart, Bach etc.) and even to some of Gershwin's contemporaries, such as Holst and Shostakovich. Perhaps Gershwin's publishers should start earning the money we still keep paying them by treating Gershwin like the great composer he is. As it is, we're now stuck with inadequate editions dating the 20s while some masterpieces, such as Porgy and Bess, have yet to be available in a non-rental engraved full score, much less a modern critical edition. Even Debussy's Pelleas and Melisande has finally gotten this treatment, and from that most shoddy of the great publishers, Durand.

And before we again lobby our representatives to not cut funds for music education (much of which ultimately ends up in the hands of music publishers) when was the last time you heard of any music publisher donating money to support medical research that will prevent future Gershwin's from dying of brain tumors?

--Sixtus



http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Con ... -F/1495399

daphnis wrote:I don't regard any of the responses here as "flaming." Does the OP?

Maybe not flaming, ok. But is "Perhaps you might think about spending some money and buying it, rather than deceiving yourself that downloading it is morally defensible." really a necessary response? Especially when one considers the fact there's tons of 1920s era music that IS DLable for free on the site, it's hardly odd that someone might wonder why x piece they love and is popular isn't.

I don't think it's flaming. I do think it would have been helpful if Heidi Rogers differentiated between some of the more inexperienced posters who are unaware of copyright basics - and naively think everything should be freely available for download - and those of us who have legitimate philosophical disputes with the ever-lengthening term of copyright in the USA (and elsewhere). Gershwin's Piano Concerto is a classic case of this. When the work was published in 1925, its term of copyright protection would have expired in 1982 in the USA (56 years from publication). In 1978, the term was extended to 75 years from publication, which would have expired on 1/1/2001. Unfortunately, the Congress - largely in response to Disney CEO Michael Eisner's handing out approximately 600K in "campaign contributions" - extended the term another 20 years with the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Law", so those of us in the USA are stuck with the so-so Campbell-Watson edition of the score until 2021 (assuming Eisner's successor doesn't show up to hand out a couple of million in "donations"). Gershwin's original manuscript is free in the rest of the world. It's been free since 1/1/1988 in Canada and most of the world, since 1/1/2008 in the EU and other 70 pma countries.

For what it's worth, the price being charged for the Cambell-Watson study score is quite reasonable. I don't think one could justifiably accuse the publishers of "gouging" in this case. They seem to be producing the score in sufficient quantity that the price is quite affordable.