Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Free sheet music

This was inspired by some posts we've had in the last few months about getting free music on the Internet or from fellow forum members.

Part of the enjoyment from being a pianist or just playing for fun is amassing a nice library of scores and other music books that you can call your own. I guess it's the same reason why people keep literature that they have bought, even sometimes keeping the things that they bought while in college (if they hadn't sold them to buy Ramen noodles and pay rent).

The Internet adds an interesting perspective to this. On various newsgroups and certain websites, it is possible to download certain scores for no charge. Various publishing firms, entirely cognizant of the money that they could be (and probably are) losing to this, are now offering the option of downloading the "official" score for a price.

Sheetmusicarchive.net is another story - they reproduce pieces that are in the public domain or whose copyrights have expired. In fact, many of the pieces that they "publish" are quite erroneous in their editing.

I really don't understand why some people don't want to pay a measly $10 for a Dover edition of something that they need. It's one thing to be skeptical about shelling out $120 for a hardbound Henle edition of the Beethoven Sonatas or $40 for a Henle edition of Liszt's Annees de Pelerinage (both sets being available in more affordable editions); expecting to leech a piece out of a book that would cost $8.95 is outright cheap.

Moral: use of the Internet does not entitle anyone to free sheet music. Go out and buy the book.

Well, for me, sheetmusicarchive.net is a nice tryout source. I download them and print them out just to see if I could play it.
If I like it and it's within my technical abilities and if it isn't too expensive, I'll buy it.

For that, it's quite useful.

For everything else I agree with Brendan.

Amen Brendan! If there's one thing I hate more, it's a downloaded score or a photocopy. I mean, this is a piece of music that you're going to put your heart in soul into and to watch someone playing it off a photocopy, it just hurts. I mean, I should judge them by what I hear, but telling that they didn't even go out to buy the music makes me think that they didn't really WANT to learn it, they just picked it up.

Yes, I know you're not a Rachmaninoff fan, but as an example, you can get his third concerto right off the internet in full score for free, buy the Schirmer for 2 pianos for $8, or the Boosey for $35. You know which one I would choose when the time comes to learn it? The Boosey of course! If I'm going to spend well over a year or two learning that concerto, then what's $35 and if time should come that I play it with an orchestra then you can bet I'll buy the full score from Boosey for $125.

Yeah, maybe you want to learn a movement of a Beethoven Sonata and don't want to pay $30 for half of them in one volume. That's fine, but unless you give up piano, you can be sure that book will serve you for a lifetime plus the ownership of beautiful music is very fulfilling for me. Suddenly, when you think about how beautiful playing piano and the music you make is, money isn't much of an issue.

Just my $.02.

Mike

I agree with you Brendan, if everyone copies sheetmusic from one another, one day there won't be any more sheetmusic published.
BUT
Downloading PDF scores off the web is useful when you only want let's say a particular piece, and do not want to buy a huge book full of scores that you cannot play.
For example I have been looking for the sheetmusic for Debussy's Masques. I want that piece and only that piece, but I haven't been able to find an edition that prints that piece by itself. It's always in a book with other Debussys that of course are too hard for me and sound way awkward.

That said, I believe this forum is not the ideal place to start a "sheetmusic exchange".

I think we need to spell out what's good and bad about Sheet Music Archive. The Bach Inventions and Mozart Sonatas are terrible. But, the Bach WTC and the Beethoven Sonatas are quite acceptable (the Beethoven Sonatas are an old Peters edition, not sure about the Bach WTC, but it appears to be OK), as well as most of the Chopin, Grieg, and Mendelssohn. What about the Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms?

It would be nice if Sheet Music Archives stated sources.

Of course it does. Just be aware that it may be worth little more than you've paid for it.

I really like sheet music archive. It's nice to find the music so I can read along when I'm listening to a CD. As for printing it out to play, forget it. Around here, if it's not bound into a book, it'll get lost, separated from the other pages of the piece, mixed up with the phone messages, left at my piano teacher's house, used as a bookmark, turned into origami...... :rolleyes: I often buy the whole book of music just for one piece. And I'm optimistic enough to believe that one day, I'll play all the other pieces in the book, too.

Anyone studying a work of art needs the best urtext score possible. I'm in a fortunate position where I can compare Peters "urtext" vs. Henle vs. Universal and all the others. Yes, there is a difference, often times a considerable difference. Getting a public domain print out is perhaps interesting, but not if you're seriously going to spend months learning the work.

As for downloads, it's backfired to some extent. Publishers that have download sites hoped to make zillions on such a clever idea, but as has been pointed out above, a musician has a "love affair" going with the work, and a printed-out second rate score just seems cheap. And, after awhile, having hundreds of pages of 8.5 X 11 individual printouts laying around is not all that neat either.

What IS neat, is being able to transpose a score, which is great for vocalists/instrumentalists. But, these folks are a very small percentage of the music-buying public, so the returns are not all that impressive. From what I've been told, the downloads offered by Hal Leonard/Music Sales are not making the $ they hoped, as people tend to try it a bit, then want the real thing.

As for public domain, I'm sure most people realize this, but to state that one is using a public domain work, one has to have a public domain source. You cannot offer "Fur Elise" as a public domain download for example, unless you have a score in your posession that is over 75 years old, or has been deemed public domain by that particular publisher.

Gotta say, from a musical point of view at least, I disagree with views such as mkesfahni's. Any medium that gets music to the musician and encourages them in their studies can do nothing but further their musicality, can't it? My piano teacher always gives me sheet music, and says, if you like this piece, you can get the book. More often than not, the photocopy sparks my musical interest and I rush out to buy the book myself. But each time I want to learn something new I can't afford to to just grab a £30 book.

I don't see why it's so wrong when it comes to just sheet music, either. Millions of people (most of you included, probably) download mp3's of classical and popular music all the time. For me, it's too expensive to go out buying CD's all the time.

I suppose that is equally wrong, but I don't see how it can do any harm, and it works as a solution for us poor people, at least for the time being. Whether it matters if you have sheet music or a book, in all other regards, seems utterly irrelevant.

The only thing I use now when I play is photocopies, strategically joined together with scotch tape. The first "joint" (i.e., between pages 1 and 2)has the tape on the back side, the second on the front, the 3rd on the back,.. etc. So you can stretch an entire Mozart sonata out like an accordion basically. It all lays so flat, unlike many books out there that want to close on you unless you prop them open with something (which makes the page-turning even more difficult!). And with this arrangement, it's sooo easy to turn the pages! Plus, I can carry all 25 or 30 of my pieces around in a stack only one inch thick. Of course, almost all of these sheets were copied from books that I actually purchased. I couldn't stand the thoughts of going back to "real-time" music book usage.

Rick

Careful, Victor Borge had a routine with an accordian-fold score, ended up on the floor.

;-) Ê Ê 8) 8-)
:b :-b :p Ê Ê :\ :-\
> >:-( Ê Ê :| :-

Brenden I have not bought a single sheet of music.
I always get it off the internet for free.

Why would I want to pay 20 dollars when I can get it for free??

I did this once when my daughter and I were playing a duet together. No fighting over who had to turn the page. But there were enough sheets that,when taped together, it was as long as the keyboard. We both had to lean WAAAAAY to the left to read the beginning of the piece and lean together WAAAAY to the right to see the notes at the end of the piece. And when the wind blew, the whole "accordian" fluttered off the music desk.

To support the publishers. Without Schott, there would be no Hindemith or Ligeti. Without Boosey, there would be no Bartok or Copland. Without Presser, there would be no Muczynski or Liebermann. Without Schirmer, there would be no Barber or Ives. Without Peters, there would be no Crumb.

Publishers tend to make their money by selling editions of standard, popular works, and this enables them to bring us a great deal of wonderful music by composers like the ones I listed above - composers whose music is still under copyright and not legally availably online for free. I think it's worth the extra $20 to keep them alive.

When I was younger, I played the Moonlight Sonata 1st. Getting back into piano, I decided to tackle the 3rd (and eventually) the 2nd movement to complete this masterpiece. I first downloaded the sonata, then decided to xerox other editions from the music library. So after having three different copies, what do I do?....haul off and buy the Henle urtext anyway. It is just more enjoyable to play from such a fine music text.

I cannot deny that free sheet music is appealing. HOWEVER, to consistently use "free" music without ever purchasing a score does much more harm than good. It undermines the value of composing, not to mention the value of the art itself. How many people have ever complained about not being paid enough for what they do? The same is true for composers. Sure, the ideal of freely sharing "art" for the joy of art is a wonderful thought, but it doesn't put food on the table.

Even beyond the realm of the actual composers, there are the publishers and distributors who don't work for free. And if you don't like the "business" aspect of sheet music, there are also the Mom & Pop music stores who depend on musicians for their livlihood. This particular aspect hits home for me, because as many of you know from my prior posts, I work in exactly that kind of music store. The owners love music and this store is the result of that. Of course profit is a factor, but that does not negate the art. I am simply a lowly hourly employee (not paid enough for what I do ), and sheet music is my department. If no one purchased musical scores, I would not have this job that I love (even though it's underpaid! ).

Copyright laws were designed to protect the artists. There are legal uses of copied material, and I believe that one is such as what someone mentioned above: photocopying music for your own personal use from a score you have already purchased. I think you may also use a copy if you have the same item on order. You can also write to the copyright divisions of most publishers to request permission to make a copy (mainly done for out of print materials).

Okay, I'm officially off my soap box. This subject hits right at the heart of two of the things I hold dear: Music and my paycheck!

April

Why would someone spend $120 for a hardcover Henle Beethoven Sonatas when you can get a real Urtext Edition, printed in Hungary on really nice paper, and distributed by Mel Bay, to which you can add a good comb binding so that they lay perfectly flat, for under $30 total (for all three volumes.)

No offense, but it sounds like you don't have respect for property. Maybe it's just my work ethic talking, but you really don't appreciate something until you've put forth the effort to purchase it yourself.

In high school, if you skip a class there aren't any consequences that you ultimately feel. In college, if you skip a class, you might as well throw $200 of your money in the toilet. Get the point?

I don't get the point at all. Beethoven's dead, Chopin's dead, J.S. Bach is dead, and they've long since gotten whatever money the laws of their times, or the generosity of their patrons, entitled them to, from the publication of their music. If I'm willing to put up with an 80 (or 120) year old edition downloaded for free from the internet, then I feel absolutely no guilt for not paying a publisher for a current printed edition. If, however, I'd prefer to have the best results of modern scholarship, then I will pay for it. (And generally I do; currently, I'm making my way through WTC I, and I collate the ABRMS, Henle, and Bärenreiter texts, which I paid for, before I settle on a performing version.) But I don't see that I have any obligation at all to do this. And if I want to check Czerny's edition, just to see how Beethoven played something, I'll download it (if I can find it) and pay the 5 cents a page it costs for paper and supplies, unless I figure out that that's more than the printed Schirmer text.

On photocopying: after destroying a few bound volumes through overuse, I've decided to photocopy. Courts have ruled this "fair use," not in violation of copyright laws. I don't give them out to others, and it keeps the original copies intact. I can make all the marginal notes I need without feeling guilt at ruining a good printed copy. Don't assume that someone playing from copied material has stolen it.

Shantinik:
Why would someone spend $120 for a hardcover Henle Beethoven Sonatas when you can get a real Urtext Edition, printed in Hungary on really nice paper, and distributed by Mel Bay, to which you can add a good comb binding so that they lay perfectly flat, for under $30 total (for all three volumes.)

Hardcover has nothing to do with anything. You add that as part of your argument, when it is totally irrelevant. Henle also of course publishes the same editions in softcover.

The only thing you point out in the above that is of any real significance is the possibility that your Hungarian edition might be considered by some to be "urtext." What do you mean by "real urtext edition?"