> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Howell > Sent: 24 June 2006 23:03 > To: finale@shsu.edu > Subject: Re: [Finale] 20th century notations (was Tremolos) > > > At 4:12 PM -0400 6/24/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > >At 02:14 PM 6/24/06 -0400, John Howell wrote: > >>And let's not forget that the development of non-traditional > >>notations in the 20th century was driven by one and only one > >>non-musical requirement: music could not be copyrighted unless it > >>could be represented on paper. Since it WAS necessary, composers > >>developed those notations, but except for that copyright requirement > >>those composers might have dropped notation entirely as being too > >>inexact for what they wanted to express. > > > >Where did you ever come up with that? I have never in my > life heard that > >theory, and have never known a composer who has said that > was the reason > >they have added to the symbolic vocabulary. Was this > somebody's PhD thesis? :) > > No, just my own logical inference, based on no research whatsoever. > > Item: U.S. copyright law of 1909 only covered music rendered on > paper. (I don't know whether the law in other countries was similar.) > Item: 20th century composers developed new notations--on > paper--without which their work could not have been covered by > copyright. > Conclusion: The need for copyright protection, probably among other > needs, influenced personal decisions to develop new paper notations. > > Are you suggesting that this was NOT one factor, whether anyone spoke > about it or not (since it was simply a legal given for most of the > 20th century)? >
'One' factor is very different from 'the one and only'. And any notated composition would be covered by copyright irrespective of notational novelties. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
