Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[George]

With the help of Jens's Ionarts Beethoven project, I have at last ordered a new copy of the Backhaus Beethoven sonatas!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Seems to me at the very least people should pay for music.

Yes, but who is being paid? Should I pay an inflated $300 for a used copy that the original buyer likely bought for less than $100, when in fact no additional royalties are going to the artist, the engineer, the album-notes writer, the CD-package designer, the record company, etc.? And what if all I want are the digital files, in whatever format (WAV, MP3, FLAC) I prefer? If the company produces only so many sets and won't make any more due to poor sales, wouldn't it be in the company's best interest to let me buy a set of downloaded files? I'm not saying such a step would eliminate piracy, because it's always fun for a pirate to try to get away with stealing, but I think if more companies would acknowledge the gap and just allowed a willing user to purchase the files for a reasonable price, your objection would largely be met.

[Brian]

Yes, but who is being paid? Should I pay an inflated $300 for a used copy that the original buyer likely bought for less than $100,

Can confirm: I got a new copy for under $40 when the box set was originally released.

Books are not music, of course, but I had an advisor in graduate school who said she wished that her publisher would post all her out-of-print books (which are numerous) online as PDFs, for free for anybody who wants to download them. "That way at least people will still read them!"

[(poco) Sforzando]

Can confirm: I got a new copy for under $40 when the box set was originally released.

Books are not music, of course, but I had an advisor in graduate school who said she wished that her publisher would post all her out-of-print books (which are numerous) online as PDFs, for free for anybody who wants to download them. "That way at least people will still read them!"

The problem applies to all the arts, and to the visual arts perhaps above all. But staying with music and books for the moment, which are almost always produced in multiple copies, once a copy is originally sold, it can be legally resold by the original buyer at whatever price is asked and met. And yet to the publisher and whoever else would have gotten royalties, this accrues no additional income, so I can see no greater objection to "illegal" downloads than to used copies being bought and sold.

And in this electronic age, digital music files and MS Word or PDF copies of books are infinitely reproducible. In the visual arts, an even greater problem is created in that many paintings and sculptures are one of a kind, or often (as with lithographs, prints, and even some sculptures) in limited editions. I have seen photographs and prints where the edition has been limited to as few as three copies. But after the original sale if the artwork appreciates (which means only that people are willing to pay more for it), it can be resold on the after-market with no benefit to the artist or gallerist. I remember a little sculpture I wanted that was originally made in an edition of 100 selling for $100 each; unfortunately I didn't act fast enough, but a few years later I saw a copy on eBay for $700. And then I certainly didn't act.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Can confirm: I got a new copy for under $40 when the box set was originally released.

And there is nothing (other than your sense of legality and conscience) that would preclude you from ripping all those CDs to lossless or lossy files using a tool like Exact Audio Copy, and giving or selling those files to whoever you choose and whatever price or not you wish. (Not that I'm asking; I have his 14/29 disc, and being you might say the anti-Todd the last thing I want is yet another copy of the Beethoven sonatas. I'd rather sit at the piano and open the book.) My point is just to illustrate that in practical terms, there is no limitation on the number of potential copies of the material. Digital storage changes everything.

[merlin]

Only streaming unfortunately. If you can find an MP3 in 320 kb/s then you might as well go for it. I can't hear the difference between that and a CD unless the CD is one that has outstanding sound quality. There might also be downloadable FLAC versions out there.

amazon digital music is VBR, at most 256 kbps, and therefore not much better than youtube.  If I could find a set at 320 kbps, I would jump on it.  Same for a reasonably-priced used copy (e.g. not USD 230!).

No torrents for at least 16/44 flacs exist, afaik.

[Mandryka]

All of Andrea Lucchesini's sonata recordings are available on youtube.  Although, unfortunately, each entry is only one movement, I can download them to my computer for easier listening.  Definitely NOT CD quality, though!

You can get this from googleplay in good quality mp3.

[merlin]

You can download Lucchesini at 192 on darkmp3.  I must say, my ears are crap and, for solo piano, that's all I need.

Talking of which though, I've been listening to the Gulda Spielt Beethoven Box Set (the 2006 remastering of the Amadeo Set) and the sound really does sound so much better (to me anyway)

Thanks for the link, but the download option did not work for me.  And 192 is clearly no better than youtube, and probably worse!

The Gulda set has generally excellent sound, but I mostly find his playing to be much too fast to evoke the feelings and responses of Lucchesini's interpretations.

[Cato]

With the help of Jens's Ionarts Beethoven project, I have at last ordered a new copy of the Backhaus Beethoven sonatas!

Does his website sell that set and others?

[George]

Does his website sell that set and others?

Nope, but it links to places where you can buy stuff.

[jlaurson]

Does his website sell that set and others?

FYI, here it is (the first part, which links to all the subsequent parts):


Beethoven Sonatas - A Survey of Complete Cycles
Part 1, 1935 - 1969



http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2009/05/beethoven-sonatas-survey-of-complete.html

[Gurn Blanston]

Regardless of any or all moral arguments, this forum cannot be complicit in aiding or abetting illegal downloads. It is the forum owner who assumes that liability, not the poster. And even if he wants to assume it (he doesn't), I won't let him. So, let's just not do this publicly, if you all please.

GB

[(poco) Sforzando]

Regardless of any or all moral arguments, this forum cannot be complicit in aiding or abetting illegal downloads. It is the forum owner who assumes that liability, not the poster. And even if he wants to assume it (he doesn't), I won't let him. So, let's just not do this publicly, if you all please.

GB

For those as wants their Lucchesini as legal downloadable files, try here:
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Stradivarius/STR33669#download

You have a choice of MP3 or FLAC, but still the prices for the entire album are high ($80 for MP3s and $112 for FLACS). For most of the "songs," you can buy individual tracks, but for the longer songs like the variations from 111, you have to buy the entire album. You can also buy the songs from iTunes.

[San Antone]

MP3s are less than $50 from Amazon US

[George]

MP3s are less than $50 from Amazon US

Am I alone in thinking that all downloads should be lossless? That way, you convert to the format of your choice. Storage is no longer an issue.

[merlin]

MP3s are less than $50 from Amazon US

Yes, but as I wrote earlier, they are no more than 256 kbps.  Rather poor SQ, to my ears, even compared with 320 kbps mp3s, let alone CDs and 16/44 flacs.

[Holden]

The other thing to be aware of is that the quality of the original material uploaded to whoever is providing the digital download will affect the quality. This is certainly so with older material supplied by iTunes and I suspect by other providers as well. This therefore makes a FLAC download a no brainer. The iTunes AAC 256kb/s  file is going for over $200 so maybe they're not the best option for that and the reason listed above.

This leads to another thought. My ISP gives me 100 gigs a month in download/upload allowance. How much of that would the 16/44.1 FLAC download chew through? How long would it take at 35 Mb/s?

[amw]

This leads to another thought. My ISP gives me 100 gigs a month in download/upload allowance. How much of that would the 16/44.1 FLAC download chew through? How long would it take at 35 Mb/s?

About 2 GB (depending on how the files were encoded) and... hard to predict. My ISP claims to offer 8-10 MB/s, but a single CD in FLAC (~300 MB) generally takes 15-30 minutes to download from Qobuz or eClassical. (Never tried Presto's download service.)

I should note that for piano music, due to the relative lack of higher frequencies, a well-encoded MP3 of sufficient bitrate (256kbps+) should be close to indistinguishable from lossless—at least according to the spectra.

[merlin]

I should note that for piano music, due to the relative lack of higher frequencies, a well-encoded MP3 of sufficient bitrate (256kbps+) should be close to indistinguishable from lossless—at least according to the spectra.

Not too certain of this, sad to say.  A piano has LOTS of overtones that are easily lost with any kind of compression.  But of course it depends totally upon the original recordings/masters, and the acuteness of the listener's hearing.

[George]

My copy of the 1992 Decca Japanese issue of the Backhaus mono set arrived today. It has a different mastering than the 2002 Italian issue of the same performances:



The Japan issue sounds better, as it has more high frequency information.