TubeNet

Hello all,

I've been planning on playing the Broughton on an upcoming recital for a while now. I've been turned down by every accompanist in the area, all citing the same reason.

Basically, the piano part looks like garbage and is incredible hard to read, navigate, figure out which notes to play, etc.

As bad as this part is, has anyone taken the time to plug this into finale or know where I can get a cleaner part for purchase? It would be very good, as I love the piece (especially mvt. II).

Of course, I would be willing to pay for the new clean copy, provide proof that I have already purchased this piece, or do whatever necessary to meet all the legalities, BASICALLY, I just need a better version of the piano accomp.

Help?

That ain't good enough. You can pay all you want to have it done, but unless you get the appropriate permissions it's flat out illegal.

Funny, I did the Broughton in the early 80s, not long after it was first published. I had no trouble from the accompanist...of course, Barbara Young, even at that time, had read about everything there was to read! I did it again a few years later though, and again no complaints.

I'm not so sure that there would be legal consequences as this re-adaptation would be like someone making a copy of something they already own....for educational purposes. It would be like dubbing a tape or burning a CD that you already own. Heck, it would be like making a xerox of something that you already have purchased for your own use (say, to facilitate a page turn). In the olden days (before copiers) I'm sure folks wrote out other copies by hand if, say, their original got ripped or messed up somehow.

Either way, if someone out there has already done this (Finale-ized the Broughton), I'm sure Wes would love to get his hands on it. The gripe about the piano part is certainly legit--this thing is a mess. Shame on the publisher for not updating this manuscript. The piano part is challenging enough without having to decipher the hand-written quality of the manuscript. I too have performed this work many times, and have heard every pianist I've worked with make some comment regarding the illegibility of the work.

On another topic regarding the publishing of this work--it seems quite odd to me that the key (1 sharp) is naturalized practically every time it appears in the first movement and there are quite a few E-flats and B-flats. Knowing that Brougton was a Salvation Army man, my bet is that this solo was originally written for E-flat TREBLE CLEF bass (transposed key signature as well)...then, the publisher readapted to Bass Clef, but forgot to change the key signature!! Another reason, this work should be revisited and professionally re-engraved by publisher.

Just my thoughts,
Mike

I have a computer printed manuscript that Tommy Johnson created that is much easier to read than the hand-scripted version. I don't know who has access to Tommy's computer files, but I know he made one at some point. Jim Self may be the one to ask.

-DK

Mike Forbes wrote:On another topic regarding the publishing of this work--it seems quite odd to me that the key (1 sharp) is naturalized practically every time it appears in the first movement and there are quite a few E-flats and B-flats. Knowing that Brougton was a Salvation Army man, my bet is that this solo was originally written for E-flat TREBLE CLEF bass (transposed key signature as well)...then, the publisher readapted to Bass Clef, but forgot to change the key signature!! Another reason, this work should be revisited and professionally re-engraved by publisher.

My understanding is that when Bruce Broughton wrote the Sonata, he wrote it for a brass quintet recital (possibly the Los Angeles Brass Quintet) in which each member of the quintet played a solo. Tommy asked Bruce (they were long time friends) to write a solo for him to play on this recital. Tommy premiered it with Bruce playing the piano part. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that this solo was always written with Tommy's CC tuba in mind, as were the numerous tuba solos that Bruce wrote in his film scores (most notably "Silverado"). The key signature is reflective of the key in which the primary theme is written, which is G major, though it doesn't hang out in that key for very long at any given time!

It may be interesting to note that the manuscript in question is by Bruce Broughton's own hand.

By the way, last I heard, John Van Houten had all of Tommy's computer files. That's quite a collection...

Hope this helps!
Scott

1) Doing a reproduction of the piano part is NOT legitimate. ESPECIALLY if you intend to give it to someone else. At least not without permission of the rights holder.

2) It's called modal.

3) It was written for Tommy Johnson, who is NOT a SA guy.

I never said Tommy Johnson was an SA guy--it was my understanding that Broughton is/was, however. Interesting that Tommy Johnson has a computer version of this work on his computer--this would confirm that even he thought the manuscript needed to be engraved professionally. I will have Wes contact Jim Self.

I don't hear this work as in a mode necessarily. In a G major key signature and hangin' out in G minor/B-flat major most of the time wouldn't really count as G aeolian. And if it did, then why not just write it with a 2 flats in the signature? The other closely related mode would be Dorian, but I don't see that really either. Interesting idea, though. Very curious things going on here. My hunch is that if it's not intended for E-flat Treble Clef, then perhaps it was simply initially thought of in G major and just never really got there. Very good piece, nonetheless--just needs some help in the publishing department IMO. Very puzzling indeed. I'm always interested when composers who write outside of a key signature choose to use one...or more puzzling: when composers who are truly writing IN a key, REFUSE to use a signature...a more common sin.

Finally, if someone owns a piece of music, and copies a page of it to avoid a page-turn issue, that can't be seen as a legal problem. Then if a friend of this person who also owns his own copy of that said piece of music, takes that copied "page-turn" page and uses it for his own use, I can't see where there would be a legal problem there. Furthermore, if a publishing company had the time and resources to track down this kind of activity, I'm sure it would be counterproductive and the company would go bankrupt.

Are there photo copies of my stuff out there? Certainly. Is it always to avoid page turn issues? Probably not. Am I upset about it? Nope. Am I going to track these folks down? Nope. Do I want people to copy my stuff? Nope. I want people to support the creators and publishers of music in morally going about doing the right thing....every copy someone makes, I lose out on a sale which keeps me from having the time/money to create more works. In this case, Wes already made the sale, he just wants to perform the work that he purchased. This great work by Bruce Broughton will NOT be performed, unfortunately, simply because the piece is illegible to the accompanist. This is a publisher problem, and Bruce Broughton is missing out on reaching more listeners and a broader audience. It's in Bruce's best interest to have this re-engraved (and it's in the publisher's interest as well in order to sell more copies).

Off to contact Jim Self,
Mike

Mike Forbes wrote:Are there photo copies of my stuff out there? Certainly. Is it always to avoid page turn issues? Probably not. Am I upset about it? Nope. Am I going to track these folks down? Nope. Do I want people to copy my stuff? Nope. I want people to support the creators and publishers of music in morally going about doing the right thing....every copy someone makes, I lose out on a sale which keeps me from having the time/money to create more works. In this case, Wes already made the sale, he just wants to perform the work that he purchased. This great work by Bruce Broughton will NOT be performed, unfortunately, simply because the piece is illegible to the accompanist. This is a publisher problem, and Bruce Broughton is missing out on reaching more listeners and a broader audience. It's in Bruce's best interest to have this re-engraved (and it's in the publisher's interest as well in order to sell more copies).

Mike is a very good composer and has lots of stuff published, and I would go out on a limb and say that what he wrote speaks for many such people. Forgive me, board, but there is a certain knee-jerk reaction here to the issue of copyright that has bothered me for a long time. Being that this has been the first stop for many many individuals fishing for others willing to email them free copies of things, this is somewhat understandable, and in the past, those people seem to have gotten what's coming to them in the form of a stern rebuke from the board.
I don't think that's necessary here, and I'm thoroughly baffled that this thread has gone in that direction. The stated problem is very simple, very common, and eminently solvable, but playing Captain Obvious about copyright doesn't solve it. As a crime (if that's what it is), this is less serious than jaywalking.

P.S. Just to make everyone jealous, the last pianist I played this piece with sight read it reasonably well at the first rehearsal. He also refused a page turner for the performances, choosing instead to photocopy many of the pages and create 4- or 5-page units which he turned himself. Playing from memory, I almost crapped my pants when the whole mess nearly capsized on his stand during one of our recitals. You win some, you lose some.

Ahh....the beauty of the internet! How fantastic that Bruce got to comment on this thread--we are forever indebted to him for writing such a fantastic piece, and indeed, the accidentals are not a problem...just a curiousity. Glad to hear that it might be re-engraved and re-released--to help our extremely busy accompanist friends leap this initial hurdle to performing this challenging work.

Mike