eStand™ Electronic Music StandReview by: Jane CrossNotes, Second Series, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Mar., 2004), pp. 754-756Published by: Music Library AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4487226 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.205 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:41:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIGITAL MEDIA REVIEWS EDITED BY ALEC MCLANE

For information regarding the scope of this column, consult the headnote in the September 2003 issue (p. 234 of this volume).

eStandTM Electronic Music Stand. Stand-alone electronic score display device, available in several models. $4,500-$12,000 list price. eStand, Inc., Skokie, Ill. http://www.estand.com.

For the past year eStand, Inc. has been marketing an innovation with the potential to reshape our use of music notation in performance. Although eStand's Electronic Music StandTM was nine years in the mak- ing and is lauded by some of the world's leading musicians, many remain skeptical as to its benefits over paper. Inventor David Sitrick's company is fighting hard to in- crease its consumer base within the music world, but even with testimonials by Itzhak Perlman and John Williams, and field tests at institutions such as Northwestern Univer- sity, progress has been slow.

To display the music on computer screens built into electronic music stands, eStand handles several file formats, includ- ing PDF, JPEG, GIF, TIFF, and Finale. The typical eStand can store up to twenty thou- sand pages of music, and additional mem- ory can be purchased to increase capacity. The unit is manipulated primarily by a touch screen that allows the user to select music, eliminate margins, show or hide menus, turn pages, and mark changes. A stylus is used for marking the digital parts in a variety of colors and line widths, elimi- nating the need for different pencils, mark- ers, and highlighters. Marks can be saved, edited, erased, and distributed among play- ers, a function that the manufacturer publi- cizes as the machine's greatest time-saving benefit. The system can be set up to allow principal players to mark their sections' parts, yet not allow the back row instrumen- talists to send marks to the front row, or to anyone else. Since the technology allows marks to be exchanged only between iden-

tical files, conductor's marks from the score cannot be sent to individual players' parts. It is possible, however, for the conductor to store copies of the individual parts on the same unit containing the score, or for the players to each store a copy of the conduc- tor's score, in which case marks may be ex- changed between conductor and players through these files. The eStand has been touted as completely wireless, and multiple stands are indeed able to communicate via a wireless network. The appliances them- selves, however, require cords for power, as well as for the foot switches that trigger page turns.

Page turns can be accomplished by either touching the screen or tapping your foot on a long, narrow black strip of rubber rest- ing on the floor (best taped down during performance). Pages can be turned for- ward or backward, and bookmarks can be set to go back or forth several pages at once to accommodate repeated sections and codas. Considered the single best feature of the device by some players, electronic page turns are silent and leave the hands free to play, avoiding disruptions when half the vi- olin section drops out to make a page turn, as well as expensive studio time spent elimi- nating page turn noise on recordings. To minimize these problems even further, the eStand can be set to turn half a page at a time at a predetermined pace.

The smallest and least expensive unit is a portable Toshiba tablet with a 10.4" screen, loaded with the software, and priced at $4,500. The tablet can be placed on a tradi- tional music stand in performance, al-

754

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.205 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:41:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Digital Media Reviews 755

though bumping the stand in this case could have more expensive consequences than merely pages of sheet music fluttering about. A double-screen folding tablet is currently in development. At $6,000, the Performer model is a less portable single screen that weighs about thirteen pounds and locks onto its own custom-made stand. This unit is ruggedly constructed and well backlit. The screen can show the equivalent of an 8.5" x 11" page, or the equivalent of music viewable on a 9" x 12" sheet of music if the margins are eliminated. For twice the price, eStand, Inc., makes a double-screen model that weighs approximately twenty- five pounds. Although primarily intended for conductors, this more traditional look- ing two-page spread has also been preferred by many musicians. For conductors' scores that will not fit the 9" x 12" screens, such as those with tightly packed 11" x17" pages, a model could be custom developed and priced accordingly. Glare is not a problem when viewing music on the eStand as the screen can be tilted in almost any direction.

Foot switches are included on all models, but batteries are not. These stands will, in fact, take batteries lasting at least four hours, to ensure that the show will go on in the event of a power loss. Annual maintenance/ technical support contracts are available for an additional charge. (The prices quoted above were offered in June 2003 on a per unit basis. Please contact eStand, Inc., for current prices, possible options for bulk purchases, batteries, and support contracts. The customer service representatives I spoke with at eStand were extremely re- sponsive and eager to sell their product.)

The footprint for the single-screen unit is slightly larger than a traditional music stand, which could pose a problem for small spaces, such as crowded orchestra pits. Additional time is needed for stage set- up and breakdown, and transporting eStands for tours would require special cases and much more cargo space. While the eStand is water resistant enough to withstand occasional water bottle incidents, it is not something you should risk in a downpour. Of course, neither would you risk traditional sheet music, as well as in- struments and sound equipment in a down- pour. But losses could be tripled by unfore- seen events such as a sprinkler system gone

wild, which disrupted a rehearsal of the Philadelphia Orchestra in 2002, or severe flooding, which ruined the Houston Sym- phony's library in 2001.

Where is the electronic repertoire to feed these digital music stands? One does not get very far with this question before issues of copyright are raised. One source for new repertoire could be digitally published music. The problem of illegal distribution of copyrighted material might be solved by publishers' development of technology to restrict file copying. Hypothetically, a li- brarian might license the number of parts needed. In the case of music rented for each performance, the technology might allow the files to expire after a certain date. Yet expiration would obliterate the various annotations to the score that these stands would seem to facilitate so effectively.

Repertoire already contained in the li- brary in print would of course have to be scanned. But this raises questions concern- ing the labor involved: Should each ensem- ble scan every piece in its library, thereby including its unique markings but also du- plicating the efforts of others? Or should some collective be entered into whereby an unmarked piece only need be scanned once and shared with others, who may then go back and add any unique marks? The collective effort could only be considered for music in the public domain. For pro- tected music, publishers may choose to trust libraries to scan, but not share the digital files (the liability resting with the libraries, not eStand, Inc.), or else digitally republish old works and ask customers to pay for the music again in a different for- mat. Related considerations for managing digital documents include the establish- ment of standards for digital preservation scanning (if necessary) and scheduled migration of digital formats.

The role of performance librarians would change considerably if their organizations moved to electronic music stand formats. They would become electronic file man- agers, implementing file-naming conven- tions, storage solutions, and backup strate- gies. Existing performance library database programs, such as OLISTM and the Orche- stra Planning and Administration System (OPAS), would need to be upgraded to help manage the electronic music files by

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.205 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:41:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

756 NOTES, March 2004

associating the graphic files with their cor- responding database records.

The general music preparation workflow would also change. In addition to scanning music or purchasing digital music, librari- ans and managers would have musicians bring in their stands to be loaded up with their parts before the first rehearsal, and then trust that no one forgets their stand and thus their music. This would run smoothly if every musician has his or her own stand. If they do not, librarians could find themselves preparing the traditional paper copies with all the necessary mark- ings for prerehearsal practice, and then doubling their work by digitally preparing the same music again for rehearsals and performances on the eStands. The latter scenario could be unacceptable for librari- ans operating at limited staffing levels and budgets, yet it might be more likely to occur since the eStand Performer models are not very portable and few organizations can afford the expense of providing portable tablets for each musician's home practice. These issues seem to have not yet been fully thought out by the people at eStand, Inc., since their demonstrations with ensembles have not involved a full concert cycle of preparation, rehearsals, and performance. Their assumed pro- cedure has been limited to scanning of ex- isting parts, loading up the stands, and

putting them in front of the musicians for a performance, ignoring the administrative and economic questions of maintaining large numbers of stands for rehearsals and outside preparation. It is possible that some of these questions can only be answered by significant reductions in price.

Widespread adoption of this innovative and expensive technology appears to be far in the future for orchestras and universities on limited budgets. Currently, the best ap- plications for these stands are in specialized settings such as recording studios, pit or- chestras, rock and jazz bands (especially those with vocalists), opera and ballet or- chestras, chamber music ensembles, and some private studios. As is the case with many other devices that replace our analog environments with digital ones at a signifi- cant price, however, electronic music stands must be able to face the question of whether it is technology for the sake of technology. In the case of eStand, this ques- tion can be best addressed through market- ing and pricing arrangements that take into account all the operations of institu- tional music ensembles, from storage of scores to rehearsals to performance, and not just performance alone.

GUNNERY SERGEANT JANE CROSS United States Marine Band Library

~L AL?

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.205 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:41:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions