TubeNet

I'll buy one when it learns to transpose and the cost is down to $100.

TubaTinker wrote:I'll buy one when it learns to transpose and the cost is down to $100.

...and when it'll survive a drop from your stand to the floor in good shape.

These are neat little toys, but I can't see any advantage to this that would even remotely justify the price. If light was the issue, I would probably just invest in a nice portable standlight which could be had for a fraction of the price.

You will also notice that there are no guarantees against "lock ups" or crashes with the system. They ARE running off of linux, if i am not mistaken, so they should, in theory, be a little more reliable, but it would really stink to be in the middle of a chamber music gig and have the screen go black.

FWIW

Kyle

I have used one quite a bit while subbing with a brass quintet based in San Diego, mostly on tour. Once you get used to the foot pedal operation and get it programmed right, it really is wonderfully convenient, both in dark and windy environments. You can draw on it with a stylus and store those markings so that others do not see them. Theoretically, I am told, one pad will hold up to 5000 pages of music. Of course, you have to scan the music into the pad, via pdf or tif. The price is exhorbitant (about $1,000), but worth it if you gig a lot or have to play in the dark. I believe you can link the pads together so that all can see what one is marking (good for violins).

If you want to know more, get in touch with Barry Toombs of the Westwind Brass based in San Diego. The Westwind Brass uses the pads around the United States on tour.

Before these things came out I imagined something like this. I thought how nice it would be to have my entire band library on it. I would never have to worry about lost or destroyed music. Handing it out. But it would cost at least $60000 to use it for a band. So forget it.

Stefan

Yes, that's true

Stefan

I wonder how the copyright police and attorneys are dealing with these things.

Chuck(G) wrote:

TubaTinker wrote:I'll buy one when it learns to transpose and the cost is down to $100.

...and when it'll survive a drop from your stand to the floor in good shape.

It should survive that drop. Check the forums there. One thread mentioned surviving 3ft. drops.

It just a tablet PC. A notebook computer using a Flash device instead of a hard drive, and a touch screen. I don't care for the glass used on the touchscreen though. If it breaks the whole display has to be replaced. I think I'de brefew a plexiglass cover on the LCD and a light pen in stad of a touchscreen.

But they are at the mercy of the vendors. The tablet device is made somewhere else, they just controll the software and storage. Liek the current '+' version was supposed to have 64MB flash, but the couldn't get the chips. So they stuck with 32MB and added a 64MB USB drive.

If you look around you can probably find the tablet maker's specs for a shock rating.

navy band southwest brass quintet tried them for a few weeks...

all five voted not to get them for Many reasons...

TubaTinker wrote:I wonder how the copyright police and attorneys are dealing with these things.

I imagine that isn't much of a problem. You can photocopy music as long as you paid for it, and plus I think anyone who has the money for one of these isn't stealing a 15 dollar piece of music!

Ryan_Beucke wrote:

TubaTinker wrote:I wonder how the copyright police and attorneys are dealing with these things.

I imagine that isn't much of a problem. You can photocopy music as long as you paid for it,

What fly-by-night attorney gave you THAT information? Photo-copying, scanning, or electronicaly reproducing copyrighted materials is illegal... any way you look at it... except in a couple of very defined situations. The fact that you paid for music has nothing to do with it unless you also bought the specific right to copy it. There are a few composers who are now selling downloadable scores with licenses to copy parts and also perform the material. I think (hope) this is probably the wave of the future.

TubaTinker wrote:I wonder how the copyright police and attorneys are dealing with these things.

They'll probably get a court order that the maker sell a scanner-with-built-in-paper-shredder with the unit.

TubaTinker wrote:

Ryan_Beucke wrote:

TubaTinker wrote:I wonder how the copyright police and attorneys are dealing with these things.

I imagine that isn't much of a problem. You can photocopy music as long as you paid for it,

What fly-by-night attorney gave you THAT information? Photo-copying, scanning, or electronicaly reproducing copyrighted materials is illegal... any way you look at it... except in a couple of very defined situations. The fact that you paid for music has nothing to do with it unless you also bought the specific right to copy it. There are a few composers who are now selling downloadable scores with licenses to copy parts and also perform the material. I think (hope) this is probably the wave of the future.

I can't really defend the legality of photocopying with any real "laws" or whatever it is you people call it but that's what we've always been taught by our teachers, that if you need to photocopy music (say for a page turn) it is legal as long as you OWN the music. Another example for that is digital music. You (presumably) are allowed to copy CDs that you bought into MP3 format to put on your own personal MP3 player, because you bought the music. Otherwise, MP3 players would all be illegally used unless they all contained music purchased already in MP3 format.

You may be right about the photocopying laws, but even if you are, I imagine the widespread misunderstanding and lack of reinforcing of that law is probably a sign that there wouldn't be much commotion if people scanned their purchased music into these pads.


Edit: I just whipped out a piece of music and read the copyright paragraph on the bottom (funny how I missed that for 15 years...) and see that you're right about photocopying being illegal.

Ryan_Beucke wrote:Edit: I just whipped out a piece of music and read the copyright paragraph on the bottom (funny how I missed that for 15 years...) and see that you're right about photocopying being illegal.

I've got a couple of charts where the publisher has rubber-stamped the "no photocopying" admonition in red right on top of the music.

I necver understoo the "no copying" stuff. One, it should be legl to make a backup copy. Very handy for music. That way you can make performace notes and changes on the copyies without damaging the originals. The there are the case where the you need to change the istrumentation. It comes with 2 baritone parts, 1 copy of each. But you have 6 players. 3 people sharing a single print no going to work.

You just need to collect the copies, and keep them in the library. You cannot sell trhe original but keep the copies, or sell the copies.

And what about those old works no longer published? Do you risk destroying the originals, or work with copies to preerve the originals. I've seen stuff in libraries that are falling apart, yellowed and brittle. The could be carefullly copied and (the copies) played for years, or maybe played once in their current state before being destroyed.

Would you consider had written duplicates different for photocopies? Or entering them into a computer tool? That would bypass the "no photocopying" restriction and still get a copy. Or perhaps scan and use recognition tools to automate the conversion. Seams to me to be the same, even if not as simple. Follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit.