Page 2 of 3

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:01 pm
by Yagan Kiely
Why talk about Kindle instead of Sony Reader?
Apart from the deal with Amazon, it's mention, as opposed to other ebooks, is that it has been getting a LOT of press coverage (recently, quite negative), so it is generally well known.

gibarian, you've got to realise, Wikipedia's management get paid but it is still non-profit. Just because there is income, doesn't mean it is for-profit.

In terms of alternative ebook readers, I like the looks of http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/25/plas ... arly-2010/ tied to Barnes and Noble/AT&T though (I think).

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:15 pm
by coulonnus
perlnerd666 wrote:The IMSLP has a new and exciting venture: publishing works in hard copies, for distribution on Amazon.com[...]


How will the binding of these hard copies look like? Shall we have to wrestle against the score
to keep it open, like a Dover score? Will the double-pages be bound by only two staples, like a Kalmus edition? Will the single pages be bound together with hot glue, like an Ars Musicae edition?

Otherwise hard copies may have advantages over the batch of pages you obtain with your printer.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:37 pm
by jfarrington
perlnerd666 wrote:
gibarian wrote:In addition, has anyone spoken with some of the research libraries who have so generously contributed to this site? Their universities may have policies against contributing their resources to other companies for profit.

It is not for profit! That is the whole point of this website! And we have already been specifically asked by certain libraries (i.e. Sibley) to mirror their content. Before you go around accusing us, please read the "mission statement." IMSLP will always be available for free, and therefore it should be clear that we are not a for-profit business model (that would be a pretty aweful one).
Also, if you saw users' reaction when a certain website did, indeed use IMSLP's content for profit, then it should be clear to you why we wouldn't try that.


I can't speak for other digital music projects at other libraries, but I can verify that at Sibley we put our work out there for anyone to use, for profit or not. A couple of years ago we stumbled across some guy on eBay selling DVDs full of scores that we had digitized. After some thought, although it would have been collegial for him to at least ask permission, we decided to ignore it. If someone wants to buy something that they can get for free, either they aren't very diligent in their searching or perhaps they find some value in what is being sold. In the case of this IMSLP venture, there is tremendous value to many in paper copies for purchase. Indeed, we still print out (on whatever size paper the original was on) many of the scores we digitize because we recognize that many of our students and faculty want to be able to borrow a high-quality paper copy from which to practice or perform. And if IMSLP wants to sell copies of things we've digitized and make a little $ that will help keep it going, then that's fine with us. Better IMSLP than some huckster on eBay.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:35 am
by imslp
Just a note to clarify that IMSLP is not the one actually printing the scores. The scans that are printed do come from IMSLP, and in exchange IMSLP gets 10% of the retail price as a sort of "royalty" (of course not legally so). The Petrucci Library Press is not technically owned by IMSLP (or IMSLP's owner company for that matter), and so IMSLP (or its owner company, which we are still trying to convert into a real nonprofit) is not exactly going the for-profit way.

For me, it just seems like a nice thing to have some of the rarer scores printed (and especially linked to IMSLP), and the extra few dollars do help with various costs of maintaining the site and related expenses (like the travelling expenses for the upcoming MERLOT conference/award). PLP will probably just reprint stuff that Dover stopped reprinting. We are also obviously not going to make a fortune off of this, nor do we really want to. The goal of IMSLP is not to steal people's wallets, but to enrich their minds! :) (that sounded corny...)

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:26 am
by steltz
Like Coulonnus, I would like to ask that binding be looked at carefully. He doesn't mention ring binding, but several publishing companies have started using it, like Southern Music Company.

Our library is reluctant to buy these editions, but sometimes we have to if it's the only edition available. The binding eventually gets squashed in the shelves, and then the page turns are not nice.

From my experience, stitched binding is the best. It probably is more expensive, but if this is a not-for-profit venture, the editions might still come out very reasonably priced.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:32 pm
by coulonnus
steltz wrote:From my experience, stitched binding is the best[...]


I do agree! I know how to combine the pages of any ISMSP score - scanned or typeset - to A3 so that if you have access to an A3 duplex printer you can print it and stitch the sheets so it looks like a professional score. I've uploaded such a version of Dussek's Sonata No.13, Op35 No.3http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.13,_Op.35_No.3_%28Dussek,_Jan_Ladislav%29 for the demo. Read The Fine Note before you print it!

If there is some interest I'll post my recipe into the Scanning and PDF creation forum.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:47 am
by Carolus
Stitched binding is indeed the best. However, digital printers haven't made this binding option available yet. The only type of binding they have available at present is what us called "perfect" binding, a glued binding where the glue is applied after the book-block spine is notched. It's much more durable than it used to be, though things do not lie perfectly flat. Also, the minimum page count for major printer used is 48 pages. The present limited binding, size and paper options will hopefully change over time. Right now, we really cannot do stitched quarto-sized piano scores (the traditional size and binding used a century ago). The latest digital printing presses, like the Xerox iGen 3, can actually run sheets large enough to fold and stitch in this manner. I also wish they had off-white paper available. Again, as time goes on more of these options will become available.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:38 pm
by coulonnus
Carolus wrote:Stitched binding is indeed the best. However, digital printers haven't made this binding option available yet. The only type of binding they have available at present is what us called "perfect" binding, a glued binding where the glue is applied after the book-block spine is notched. It's much more durable than it used to be, though things do not lie perfectly flat.


I agree.

Carolus wrote:Also, the minimum page count for major printer used is 48 pages. The present limited binding, size and paper options will hopefully change over time.


But then what do you recommend for an average piano sonata?

Carolus wrote:Right now, we really cannot do stitched quarto-sized piano scores (the traditional size and binding used a century ago) [...]


These 19C piano scores had unnecessary margins more than one inch wide, so the useful
part fits into an A4 or letter area. I guess such margins were a technical constraint with the 19C paper quality and the copper-plate engraving practices of that time. There are all right for a pianist who stays home all day long but they get rapidly ruined when you put them into your bag and go to your rehearsal frequently.

Nothing prevents you from putting yellowish paper into your A3 printer if you want. In 19C our grand-grand... dads and moms would have their 20 or 30 favorite piano pieces bound into a beautiful hard cover - called a fake book AFAIK. Perhaps our hard-copy-candidate Serenissima should offer such a service with the IMSLP scores on request!

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:42 pm
by Mazin
It would be nice if a Serenissima representative would add some details in this forum about their printing process, planned catalog size, company, etc.

This reminds me of the Mutopia project, who offer a similar service. Mutopia offer printed scores (although they barely have anything right now) in conjunction with Lulu (an on-demand publisher I have used before). Mutopia have the advantage that their scores are typeset in Lilypond, so they can easily get arbitrary page sizes and font sizes typeset by simply recompiling the script. Far from a greedy, exploitative business, it's obvious that offering printed scores is a valuable service to our users. I assume that there will be a linking system to link users from work pages to where they can purchase a print?

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:40 am
by Carolus
Yes, the links are at the bottom of the main part of the file listing. They are identical with the other Amazon links for scores. Go to any page for the Beethoven symphonies and you will see the item like "Amazon: Full score: US CA UK DE FR - Dover vol. (reprint)". We have such Amazon links for nearly all of the Dover scores, for example.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:12 pm
by allegroamabile
defiantly the various piano reductions of orchestral/chamber music works. The reduction to the Brahms's Clarinet Quintet would be an excellent choice since they probably don't sell it anywhere else.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:25 pm
by Lyle Neff
allegroamabile wrote:defiantly the various piano reductions of orchestral/chamber music works. [...]

"defiantly"?

:shock:

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:15 am
by allegroamabile
You can't find them anywhere else. Come on, I love those things.

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:09 am
by steltz
Didn't you mean 'definitely'?

Re: Petrucci Library Press

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:55 am
by allegroamabile
Indeed I did.

That's pretty funny.