BaL 12.02.22 - Ravel: Daphnis & Chloé

[BBMmk2]

A very good BaL, edition. Without too many interruptions from AMc!

[EnemyoftheStoat]

A very good BaL, edition. Without too many interruptions from AMc!

Purely coincidence of course.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As I said earlier, I did have the Monteux on LP. On the recommendation of posters here, I decided to hunt down a CD version, which arrived on my doormat this morning. It is indeed a fine performance, and the recording is stunning for 62 year-old production. Just a hint of glassiness in the high violins near the beginning - a characteristic I've been aware of, in the Solti Das Rheingold of a similar vintage.

[Barbirollians]

As I said earlier, I did have the Monteux on LP. On the recommendation of posters here, I decided to hunt down a CD version, which arrived on my doormat this morning. It is indeed a fine performance, and the recording is stunning for 62 year-old production. Just a hint of glassiness in the high violins near the beginning - a characteristic I've been aware of, in the Solti Das Rheingold of a similar vintage.

Of the versions played that I do not have I really liked the Munch- sadly it seems that secondhand copies even are prohibitively expensive.

[HighlandDougie]

Of the versions played that I do not have I really liked the Munch- sadly it seems that secondhand copies even are prohibitively expensive.

Try:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/194782943849?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

[Maclintick]

Of the versions played that I do not have I really liked the Munch- sadly it seems that secondhand copies even are prohibitively expensive.

Presto have it as a reasonably-priced download --from which you could burn a CD for your personal use. However, if you passed your CD copy on to a friend, this would be illegal ( assuming UK law is identical in this regard to US statutes. I'm not a lawyer, so am happy to be corrected if this is not the case here )

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8189756--ravel-daphnis-et-chloe

[HighlandDougie]

Presto have it as a reasonably-priced download --from which you could burn a CD for your personal use. However, if you passed your CD copy on to a friend, this would be illegal ( assuming UK law is identical in this regard to US statutes. I'm not a lawyer, so am happy to be corrected if this is not the case here )

https://www.prestomusic.com/classica...phnis-et-chloe

Not sure if there is much of a difference between the 1955 and 1961 performances but RCA Victor LSC2568 (as in the Presto listing) is the 1961 recording. Can anyone elucidate on later vs earlier or vice versa?

[makropulos]

Not sure if there is much of a difference between the 1955 and 1961 performances but RCA Victor LSC2568 (as in the Presto listing) is the 1961 recording. Can anyone elucidate on later vs earlier or vice versa?

I have both of them. The differences are pretty marginal, but I suppose I've a slight preference for the 1955 performance because I got to know the work well from it. Having said that, I wouldn't want to be without either. Sound is extraordinary on 1955, and slightly richer and warmer on 1961. Both are pretty phenomenal.

[LHC]

Presto have it as a reasonably-priced download --from which you could burn a CD for your personal use. However, if you passed your CD copy on to a friend, this would be illegal ( assuming UK law is identical in this regard to US statutes. I'm not a lawyer, so am happy to be corrected if this is not the case here )

https://www.prestomusic.com/classica...phnis-et-chloe

In the UK there is no exemption from copyright law for personal use, so any copy made is technically a breach of copyright. That includes CDs burned from downloads and transfers of CDs to hard drives. This is different from the US where copies for personal use are allowed.

[cloughie]

In the UK there is no exemption from copyright law for personal use, so any copy made is technically a breach of copyright. That includes CDs burned from downloads and transfers of CDs to hard drives. This is different from the US where copies for personal use are allowed.

I think you are wrong in this - see below in the UK legislation section.

https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/private-copying/

[LHC]

I think you are wrong in this - see below in the UK legislation section.
https://www.copyrightuser.org/unders...ivate-copying/

As it says in the preamble to that article:

following a judicial review filed against the UK government, on 17 July 2015 the High Court quashed the regulations introducing the exception. As a result, the private copying exception is no longer part of UK copyright law, and the commentary below no longer represents the current state of the law on private copying.

[Ein Heldenleben]

As it says in the preamble to that article:

following a judicial review filed against the UK government, on 17 July 2015 the High Court quashed the regulations introducing the exception. As a result, the private copying exception is no longer part of UK copyright law, and the commentary below no longer represents the current state of the law on private copying.

To all and intents and purposes the copying of copyright material for private purposes is ok. You are extremely unlikely to get sued even if you post the material on the internet e.g. YouTube - though that’s not without risk - the copyright holder would usually ask YouTube to take the material down . There’s just no point pursuing a private individual . If you decide to run off CDs , DVDs and sell them on eBay that’s an entirely different matter.

[Maclintick]

As it says in the preamble to that article:

following a judicial review filed against the UK government, on 17 July 2015 the High Court quashed the regulations introducing the exception. As a result, the private copying exception is no longer part of UK copyright law, and the commentary below no longer represents the current state of the law on private copying.

Thanks for the clarification, LHC. It would seem that the use of equipment specifically designed for CD ripping & storage is technically in breach of the High Court's 2015 ruling ? I wonder where this leaves products such as this...

https://www.brennan.co.uk/

[LHC]

Thanks for the clarification, LHC. It would seem that the use of equipment specifically designed for CD ripping & storage is technically in breach of the High Court's 2015 ruling ? I wonder where this leaves products such as this...

https://www.brennan.co.uk/

Yes, but as EH has noted, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for ripping and storing CDs they own. The Government has indicated that they would like to bring in an exception for private use, but as their first attempt was struck down. they have yet to do so.

Products like the Brennan used to include small print in their manuals pointing out that copying copyright material was prohibited in the UK and was undertaken at the owners own risk, while also providing clear instructions on how to do so. I can't see any such statement on their website, so perhaps they and others have given up using this particular fig leaf.

It also worth noting that the UK is something of an outlier on this point. The US and most if not all EU countries have private use exceptions.

[Cockney Sparrow]

From that website page - the reason the government created the (now struck out) private copying exception:
"…..by limiting the exception to these narrow uses, the UK government has tried to avoid the creation of a complex system of fair compensation as implemented in many EU countries."

Decades ago I acquired a CD copier - Pioneer make - real time, load the CD, come back for the copy later on. Its quite a while ago now, but IIRC I had to buy blank "Music CD-Rs" and they were more expensive. I think in Europe there might be levies on - for example, blank CD-Rs, tapes (coming back....) and maybe more.

Seems to me that I bought the piece of plastic and the right to play that in a CD player, but in the UK, not the right to copy/convert it into any other form or into a duplicate CD. If our government had implemented a levy system to compensate the copyright holder for the copying, I would have that right of private exemption. But in the UK I would be technically transgressing....... Though I do agree with Heldenlaben about the practical position for us users vis-a-vis the record companies.

Choral singers can find websites with user generated midi files for works, often with the sound emphasised for their voice part. A great benefit for singers wanting to familiarise themselves with their part and a help with difficult passages. On the site I've visited, works from one of the major publishers are listed but labelled "not available" as I think I have read they have asserted their copyright. For a composer earlier in his career, would he/she/they object if it helped to get their works performed?

Other major publishers haven't objected - how can it help to make performances more difficult and only easier works to be performed? Somewhat like You Tube - I imagine for many artists appearing on YouTube is a means of gaining exposure and interest that may lead to performing/recording opportunities with consequent support from their audience. OTOH a performer / publisher who feels their income is being undermined and outweighs any benefit, can have the video taken down........