Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
Dear Jerzy, I can't remember if you did ever get a reply from the List about the Castelfranco discovery. I don't know how easy it would be to get hold of, but there was a Festschrift published a few years ago, with information about it all: _Trent' Anni di Ricerche Musicologiche - Studi in onore di F. Alberto Gallo_ edited by Patrizia Dalla Vecchia and Donatella Restani (Rome: Edizioni Torre d'Orfeo, 1996). One of the articles is by Franco Rossi, "Pacolini da Borgotaro _versus_ Pacalone da Padova. Francesco da Milano nell' Antologia Manoscritta di Castelfranco Veneto." The article is in Italian. Rossi provides a list of contents of the manuscript, and the music (transcribed into staff notation) of a lute duet by Francesco da Milano. Best wishes, Stewart. - Original Message - From: "Jerzy ZAK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.) > Dear Matanya, > > I feel a little uncomfortable sending my question to the List - and > that way obviously to you as well - again. Some time ago, when I joined > the List, I was mainly expecting fresh news and knowledge in small bits > shared by people dealing with all aspects of lute and it's music. But > time showed that some people prefer wasting time - ours, mine, on > personal quarrels. Lets to the point, then. May I ask you again (you > could just overlooked my small posting, but you were present on the > list in the meantime): > > What are the discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco, and other recent > discoveries? > > Best regards, > Jerzy > > > On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 01:42 Europe/Warsaw, Jerzy ZAK wrote: > > > On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 23:04 Europe/Warsaw, Matanya Ophee wrote: > > > >> But should new material come to light, > >> there is no chance it will enter into general circulation any time > >> soon. > >> Viz. the availability to the Francesco Castelfranco new discoveries. > >> And > >> this is only one of the more recent discoveries that will be a long > >> time in > >> hiding from the lute community. > > > > What are the new discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco? > > What are the other more recent discoveries?? > > > > Jerzy > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.(for Herbert)
Dear Herbert:
You wrote: We largely agrees -- if you'll look at my original message,
you'll see I said "best government",
> not "best general philosophy of government".
I think we are stumbling over the word "best". I look at the term "best" as
being mutually beneficial to all involved. On that one word I still have to
disagree, there is nothing good about a dictatorship. However; if one were
to replace" best" with "efficient" then we could agree. Dictatorships are
efficient because no opposing point of view is entertained or tolerated
therefore things get done quickly, and even brutally. However; Efficiency
is also an embodiment of pragmatism where in the outcome is the only judge
of the methods used to get to a particular point, regardless of who gets
hurt or stepped on.
Vance Wood.
- Original Message -
From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc.
>
>
> > I cannot believe that anyone would possible believe that a dictatorship
> > is the best form of government.
>
> My world history book says that a priciple reason for the demise of
> ancient Greece was the indecisive nature of their semi-democratic
> city-state ("polis") governments, in the face of onslaughts from
> surrounding nations with strong leaders.
>
> It also says that one of the primary acheivements of civilization's cradle
> (Mesopotamia) was techniques (religious support, tax, laws, law
> enforcement, ...) for leadership of a single powerful king.
>
> > dictatorship, the two terms are mutually exclusive, the concept is only
> > a pipe dream.
>
> Good point. Power corrupts. Both Shakespeare and Jesus thought along
> these lines, and I dislike authoritarian bigots as much as anyone, I'm
> sure.
>
> > what principle or force is in place that would preclude the rise of a
> > malevolent dictatorship as a successor to the previous regime?
>
> Nothing at all. In fact, this happened many times in the succession of
> Roman emperors (good: Diocletian, bad: Nero).
>
> We largely agrees -- if you'll look at my original message, you'll see I
said "best government",
> not "best general philosophy of government".
>
>
Re: Facsimeles etc.
The apology wasn't mine. Michael's mail-client doesn't insert *>* before quotations, so it gets hard to distinguish who whore what Actually I got sucked back into it. What can I say, Now that I've followed this thing to the end, I retract my apologies, He is an Ape! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > Not meaning to get in to the fray and continue the hemorrhaging , but what > > effect does an apology in the first part of the attached message have, if > > you conclude in the end with another insult? Does that make the previous > > apology null and void? Is this not just a parting shot across the bow? > > > > Vance Wood. > The apology wasn't mine. Michael's mail-client doesn't insert *>* before > quotations, so it gets hard to distinguish who whore what. > > Thames: > >>> To all, > >>> Your all right, I have been stupid to call MO these these names, and I > >>> apologies the the list. I'm actually am quite surprised at my self, > > although > >>> it felt really good a couple of times. It seems this is my coming of > > age on > >>> the list and a lost of innocence, that a least according to allot of > > private > >>> email to me, most people have gone through at some point or another. > >>> I think I will do what Thomas does. Anything from MO will be directly > >>> cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email > > blocker > >>> for one individual on the list? > > Turovsky: > >> Actually YES. That is why I get only secondary winds [pun intended] of MO > >> exploits. > >> RT > RT > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Jon, Thanks for the very insightful, thoughtful, and sober assessment of our situation as a whole community. At the beginning, I simply asked, can I post a copy of a copy of Bach's music on the internet? I have admitted I was naive, concerning the legalities, morals etc. Well, I got a little more information than I needed. It seems this thought has occurred to quite a few others as well. Jon, your spot on, about coping CD's and printed music to promote the very artist's your "ripping off". I have BOUGHT the entire London Manuscript 10 volumes by Michel Cardin, to give to a dear friend of mine, simply to turn him on to Weiss, as he has bought 7 or 8 guitars over the years my motive was not self promotion. The only reason I didn't burn one is because I haven't figured out how to do it yet. My daytime job is making guitars, and my passion and hobby is the lute. As a guitar maker I am in a unique position to promote the lute and it's history. As a direct result of my contagious passion, Both Oberlin conservatory and Academy High school in Albuq. (70) guitar students, have ordered lutes for their schools. As well as guitarist's I'm connected with. We also talked about bring Nigel North to album. as well as Ron MacFarlene and Kenneth Be. I know some person's "in the know" will trivialize this and turn it into a selfish motivation on my part, but my only offence is to want to hear more Dowland Weiss etc. God Forbid! we all turn into a bunch of '' monkeys" that see, hear and speak no evil. Believe me I've deleted plenty of stuff that I've found incredibly boring. In the end I feel a connection with everyone including, Matanya, and Albert etc. It's all in good fun we should all lighting up a little. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Euge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > I am doomed to Hell, I promised myself to stay out of this thread forever. > But I must reply to Eugene. > > There is legality and there is equity. The US copyright law is different > from most of the European, admittedly. But both consider "fair use". My harp > ensemble (a group of from 6 to 10, depending on the season and the > committments) routinely violates the copyright law. We shamelessly copy > arrangements from current books written by fellow harpists who need the > money from their publications. My folio of arrangements is mainly xerox > copies. But at the same time we also routinely hire those same harpist as > workshop teachers when they come to our area. The ensemble is amateur, we > donate our music to nursing homes and such. The arranger/publishers have no > objection as the promulgation of their music means more sales in the long > run. But that may be possible as the harp community in the US is quite > united and has nothing to argue about. There are more differences between > harps than there are between Thorbos and Lutes, but we consider ourselves a > community. > > The point is this, as a community we support each other, but we also steal > from each other in a technical sense. My ensemble is in New Jersey, and once > a year the harp community descends on Somerset, NJ from all of North > America. The arrangers/publishers gain from the interest created by groups > such as ours, and we gain by having them there. The openness of the Harp > Society should be a model for the Lute Societies, if we want to promote the > music and sound. Fifteen years ago the harp was rare in the world (not > counting the orchestral pedal harps) except in Ireland. Now we get five > thousand visitor at the local Somerset festival, and many buy harps and > music. I have no commercial axe to grind, I help out for the joy of it. But > even a lutenist should want to see the understanding of his music expanded, > if only for his own ego at being at the center of it. > > It is a delicate balance between the "fair use" and promulgation, and the > rights of the arranger/publisher. But I have little sympathy with one who > might say "It's mine, cause I found it" and then demand an exhorbitant > price. No skin off my ass, it will be years before I'm interested in the > more esoteric facsimiles, if ever. I have to learn to play this beatie > first. > > Best, Jon >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> Not meaning to get in to the fray and continue the hemorrhaging , but what > effect does an apology in the first part of the attached message have, if > you conclude in the end with another insult? Does that make the previous > apology null and void? Is this not just a parting shot across the bow? > > Vance Wood. The apology wasn't mine. Michael's mail-client doesn't insert *>* before quotations, so it gets hard to distinguish who whore what. Thames: >>> To all, >>> Your all right, I have been stupid to call MO these these names, and I >>> apologies the the list. I'm actually am quite surprised at my self, > although >>> it felt really good a couple of times. It seems this is my coming of > age on >>> the list and a lost of innocence, that a least according to allot of > private >>> email to me, most people have gone through at some point or another. >>> I think I will do what Thomas does. Anything from MO will be directly >>> cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email > blocker >>> for one individual on the list? Turovsky: >> Actually YES. That is why I get only secondary winds [pun intended] of MO >> exploits. >> RT RT
Re: Facsimeles etc.
I meant to say: > Not meaning to get in to the fray and continue the hemorrhaging , but what > effect does an apology in the first part of the attached message have, if > you conclude in the end with another insult? Does that make the previous > apology null and void? Is this not just a parting shot across the bow? > > Vance Wood. The apology wasn't mine. Michael's mail-client doesn't insert *>* before quotations, so it gets hard to distinguish who WROTE what. Thames: >>> To all, >>> Your all right, I have been stupid to call MO these these names, and I >>> apologies the the list. I'm actually am quite surprised at my self, > although >>> it felt really good a couple of times. It seems this is my coming of > age on >>> the list and a lost of innocence, that a least according to allot of > private >>> email to me, most people have gone through at some point or another. >>> I think I will do what Thomas does. Anything from MO will be directly >>> cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email > blocker >>> for one individual on the list? Turovsky: >> Actually YES. That is why I get only secondary winds [pun intended] of MO >> exploits. >> RT RT
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Hello Jon, At 01:17 AM 12/6/03 -0500, Jon Murphy wrote: >There is legality and there is equity. The US copyright law is different >from most of the European, admittedly. But both consider "fair use". My harp >ensemble (a group of from 6 to 10, depending on the season and the >committments) routinely violates the copyright law. We shamelessly copy >arrangements from current books written by fellow harpists who need the >money from their publications. My folio of arrangements is mainly xerox >copies. But at the same time we also routinely hire those same harpist as >workshop teachers when they come to our area. The ensemble is amateur, we >donate our music to nursing homes and such. The arranger/publishers have no >objection as the promulgation of their music means more sales in the long >run. But that may be possible as the harp community in the US is quite >united and has nothing to argue about. There are more differences between >harps than there are between Thorbos and Lutes, but we consider ourselves a >community. I'm not certain of the legality here, but I believe if someone amongst your players has bought the arrangement, making some copies to assist his/her performance qualifies as "fair use" and is legal. Is there somebody out there who knows? >But even a lutenist should want to see the understanding of his music >expanded, >if only for his own ego at being at the center of it. I don't have enough skill with any instrument to justify any ego, but I would like understanding of the music for any of my instruments expanded, of course. Fortunately, the bulk of the lute repertoire, almost all of it, is in public domain. This is where one's personal sense of ethics dictates xerographic practices. >It is a delicate balance between the "fair use" and promulgation, and the >rights of the arranger/publisher. But I have little sympathy with one who >might say "It's mine, cause I found it" and then demand an exhorbitant >price. No skin off my ass, it will be years before I'm interested in the >more esoteric facsimiles, if ever. I have to learn to play this beatie >first. Even when you do decide to pursue esoteric facsimiles, be aware that nobody can claim "It's mine, 'cause I found it" with material in the public domain, only the physical manifestations of that material can be owned. The facsimiles cannot be copyrighted in the US, only new material surrounding publication of a PD facsimile can be copyrighted. For example, if I find the lost Santiago de Murcia manuscript of Greater Hooplah at a garage sale and purchase it for US$4.37, that physical book is mine, I can restrict access to it as I see fit, but I cannot own the music it contains. de Murcia wrote it a great long time ago and the world at large owns it. If such a thing ever happened to me, I would probably make a copy for my personal use, allow a publishing co. that generates product I like (e.g., Editions Orphee) to copy it because such a firm has a greater ability than I to disseminate this material to the world at large, and then donate the manuscript to a public collection. Any publisher to print my find could copyright any supportive text to come of his/her modern research, new cover art, etc. associated with a publication, but not the facsimiles themselves. If you must have that material, you could either decide to buy the handsomely-bound modern printing of the facsimile with its historic text and new cover art or pursue it through the public collection where it was donated (or write to me before I part company with it and I'd be happy to swap for other copies of PD stuff not originating in a modern publication). Here is where the personal ethic thing comes in: I would not condone xeroxing the facsimile pages from the modern edition, even if legal, because that diminishes the publisher's ability to recoup expenses associated with publishing such a work. I don't believe that's right. You can decide for yourself. Sincerest wishes of luck to you and your harpers, Eugene
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Roman: Not meaning to get in to the fray and continue the hemorrhaging , but what effect does an apology in the first part of the attached message have, if you conclude in the end with another insult? Does that make the previous apology null and void? Is this not just a parting shot across the bow? Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "LUTE-LIST" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:52 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > To all, > > Your all right, I have been stupid to call MO these these names, and I > > apologies the the list. I'm actually am quite surprised at my self, although > > it felt really good a couple of times. It seems this is my coming of age on > > the list and a lost of innocence, that a least according to allot of private > > email to me, most people have gone through at some point or another. > > I think I will do what Thomas does. Anything from MO will be directly > > cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email blocker > > for one individual on the list? > Actually YES. That is why I get only secondary winds [pun intended] of MO > exploits. > RT > > > > From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:20 AM > > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > > > > >>>> As far as name calling goes, As soon as MO rises into the upper = > >>>> realm of human beings, and starts showing respect for others, and some > >>>> = civility, I will confer on him the title of Human. Michael Thames > >>> Dear Michael, > >>> it should have occurred to you that namecalling is not the > >>> kind of communication which grounds on respect either. > >>> Best wishes, > >>> Stephan > >> Indeed, that particular monopoly can be happily left to MO. > >> RT > >> __ > >> Roman M. Turovsky > >> http://turovsky.org > >> http://polyhymnion.org > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
James: I am not offended, I am in fact amused, but to a greater degree I am saddened. I know there is a healthy serving of ego around here seasoned with testosterone and good old fashioned hard headed I'm right and you're wrong. The Lute community is too small to harbor this kind of thing among individuals who, from what I can see are making, or have made, significant contributions to the world of the Lute. Making instruments and publishing facsimiles are both important engines that fuel this tiny universe of Early Music. I would hate for any of these individuals to get so "pissed off" that they discontinue contributing to this site, in particular, and abandon the Lute world, in general. By now it is quite obvious that no one is going to agree with the other and the debate can only get more ugly. Or as some of our local news anchors, aka talking heads, would say " More uglier". (Yes they get paid to be that dense) Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > To all, > > Am I the only one who finds the name calling, and tone of some of these > e-mail exchanges offensive? It's great to be passionate and have strong feelings > about a subject, but how about a modicum of civility? I know, "if you don't > like it, don't read it"; but the subject matter is interesting, so, I read. > > Sincerely, > > James > > --
Re: Facsimeles etc.
I am doomed to Hell, I promised myself to stay out of this thread forever. But I must reply to Eugene. There is legality and there is equity. The US copyright law is different from most of the European, admittedly. But both consider "fair use". My harp ensemble (a group of from 6 to 10, depending on the season and the committments) routinely violates the copyright law. We shamelessly copy arrangements from current books written by fellow harpists who need the money from their publications. My folio of arrangements is mainly xerox copies. But at the same time we also routinely hire those same harpist as workshop teachers when they come to our area. The ensemble is amateur, we donate our music to nursing homes and such. The arranger/publishers have no objection as the promulgation of their music means more sales in the long run. But that may be possible as the harp community in the US is quite united and has nothing to argue about. There are more differences between harps than there are between Thorbos and Lutes, but we consider ourselves a community. The point is this, as a community we support each other, but we also steal from each other in a technical sense. My ensemble is in New Jersey, and once a year the harp community descends on Somerset, NJ from all of North America. The arrangers/publishers gain from the interest created by groups such as ours, and we gain by having them there. The openness of the Harp Society should be a model for the Lute Societies, if we want to promote the music and sound. Fifteen years ago the harp was rare in the world (not counting the orchestral pedal harps) except in Ireland. Now we get five thousand visitor at the local Somerset festival, and many buy harps and music. I have no commercial axe to grind, I help out for the joy of it. But even a lutenist should want to see the understanding of his music expanded, if only for his own ego at being at the center of it. It is a delicate balance between the "fair use" and promulgation, and the rights of the arranger/publisher. But I have little sympathy with one who might say "It's mine, cause I found it" and then demand an exhorbitant price. No skin off my ass, it will be years before I'm interested in the more esoteric facsimiles, if ever. I have to learn to play this beatie first. Best, Jon
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Michael, and all, > cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email blocker > for one individual on the list? Yes, it is possible. Depending on the email client software you use. I can tell you how to do it with M$ Outlook or Outlook express, which you are probably using unless you are using proprietary AOL software or some other of the sort. Go to Tools on the top line of your email page, go to Message Rules, then slide over to the sub set that offers Mail Rules, Newsgroup Rules and something else. Select Mail Rules, then New in that menu. You can select a From address and send it anywhere you want, including the Delete Bin. You can also make selections from the Subject Line, or from words in the body of the message. And the rule can have multiple criteria for one final destination. The only soft point is that you can't use the CC: line as a criterion. And many on this list use "reply all" without editing the To: line, so much of the Lute List traffic I try to trap to my specific Lute List folder comes through to my Inbox as the word Lute is in the CC: line. Another little hint. Your list of email folders is alphabetical except for the embedded M$ folders (Inbox, Outbox, Sent, Deleted, Drafts). To keep the new messages from the lists I belong to (harp and lute) I route the new messages to "About Harp" and "About Lute" which puts them near the top where I'll see them - then if I want to save them after reading they go into the Music folder in the subfolders Harp and Lute. The only thing that sorts above them is the folder I keep for things I can't handle tonight but want to look back at the next day. They go in "Aah So, need to read". That places the "current" things just below the M$ embedded set of folders where I'll notice them. There are probably ways to block a sender in all email clients, the reason one can't block spam with that is that they always change sending addresses. Best, Jon
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Roland, you asked: > I am tired of deleting all the messages on this subject. Why don't you > who wish to pursue it go off line? Well the same with me! I sincerely wish that the theoretical copyright thinkers choose to change to private e-mail communication! All the best... ;-) Arto
Re: Facsimeles etc.
I am tired of deleting all the messages on this subject. Why don't you who wish to pursue it go off line? R. -- Original Message -- From: Matanya Ophee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:06:54 -0500 >At 11:43 AM 12/5/2003 -0600, Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matanya Ophee wrote: >> > Quite the contrary. Sky writing, ..., have a very secure business model >> > where the >> >>I simply meant (with some poetic license required, perhaps) that you can't >>sell tickets to a sky-writing show. > >They buy the tickets to the football game, placing thousands of potential >buyers in one location, which gives advertisers the venue to sell their >product. Sky writers, like banner draggers, have a secure income form that, >weather permitting of course. > >> > ... the street beggars in the swampy slums of Bangladesh are not part of >> > this new fangled accessibility to music, yet they constitute a >> > considerable portion of this thing you call "mankind". >> >>Anyone who reads National Geographic knows that very few people in the >>world are unaffected by modern electronic entertainment. > > >Yes of course. They all own computers and CD burners. > > >>If file swapping kills Columbia Records, RIAA, and MGM Studios, I think >>that mankind as a whole will indeed benefit, including the half-starved >>rat-hunters, whether or not they are part of the kill mechanism. > >Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. > >> >> > What we are really talking about is the replacement of commerciality with >> >>You're twisting my subject, and then implying that I was confused about >>what the subject was. > > >Not at all. we are talking about the same thing. > > >Matanya Ophee >Editions Orphe'e, Inc., >1240 Clubview Blvd. N. >Columbus, OH 43235-1226 >Phone: 614-846-9517 >Fax: 614-846-9794 >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.orphee.com > > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 11:43 AM 12/5/2003 -0600, Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matanya Ophee wrote: > > Quite the contrary. Sky writing, ..., have a very secure business model > > where the > >I simply meant (with some poetic license required, perhaps) that you can't >sell tickets to a sky-writing show. They buy the tickets to the football game, placing thousands of potential buyers in one location, which gives advertisers the venue to sell their product. Sky writers, like banner draggers, have a secure income form that, weather permitting of course. > > ... the street beggars in the swampy slums of Bangladesh are not part of > > this new fangled accessibility to music, yet they constitute a > > considerable portion of this thing you call "mankind". > >Anyone who reads National Geographic knows that very few people in the >world are unaffected by modern electronic entertainment. Yes of course. They all own computers and CD burners. >If file swapping kills Columbia Records, RIAA, and MGM Studios, I think >that mankind as a whole will indeed benefit, including the half-starved >rat-hunters, whether or not they are part of the kill mechanism. Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. > > > What we are really talking about is the replacement of commerciality with > >You're twisting my subject, and then implying that I was confused about >what the subject was. Not at all. we are talking about the same thing. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
At 12:24 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'll ask Sasha Batov about this. >RT > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02059.html Good idea. I hope you have better luck getting hold of him than I did last August. Batov was working in the Leningrad Museum of Musical Instruments at the time. That's when I met him. The Manuscript in question was in another library. But as an active lutenist in Leningrad at the same time, he should know of this manuscript and what it was. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 09:20 AM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If you feel they do not, strive to > >> change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them. I don't > >> believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite > >> enough to justify a label of tyranny. >Production is not questioned here, but rather an attempt to monopolize PD >material by repackaging it. That is a weak argument that does not reflect the realities of the market place. Repackaging a facsimile is not a monopoly. The Mudarra book is published in facsimile by both Chanterelle and Minkoff. The Sanz book is published in facsimile By Minkoff, Abrines and Rodrigo de Zayas, the Moscow Weiss Manuscript is published in facsimile by Zen-On (Manabe) and Orphee (Crawford). There is nothing to prevent anyone from re-publishing any manuscript in facsimile, as long as they obtain it from the original source. >IT IS VERY SIMPLE: In order to publish a classic novel one has no obligation >or necessity to pay a single penny to the library or an individual that >holds the manuscript. PERIOD. >Lute tabulatures are no different. They are different. The proper analogy here would be the re-publication of the _music_ contained in the tablature, not the image of the tablature itself. If I want to re-publish the complete works of Shakespeare, I have two choices. Take any of the available sources, off the shelf at Barnes & Noble if need be, re-typeset it and publish it. No problem. The other choice is to do a facsimile, let's say, of the first edition. In that case, I need to obtain the permission of the holder of that source, if there is only one. If there are many such sources, I may try to obtain one myself (Sotheby's for example) or negotiate with any of the known holders. Once I published this facsimile, anyone who wishes to throw good money after bad is welcome to repeat the process. All I am asking is that if you want to produce a facsimile of something I published, please retrace my steps and invest the same kind of time and money I did. Don't rip me off. The reprint industry is far more extensive than just the manufacturers of lute tablature facsimiles. Minkoff is one of the smaller operators in the field. Other well known ones are Dover Publications of New York, Da Capo Press, Olms verlag in Hildesheim, Slatkine Reprints (also in Geneva) and many others. What RT is insinuating is that by publishing a facsimile, the _intent_ of the publisher is to monopolize the market. That is utter nonsense since he has no way of knowing if this is in fact the case, particularly when the market place reality is indicates no such monopoly exists. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Re: Facsimeles etc.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matanya Ophee wrote: > Quite the contrary. Sky writing, ..., have a very secure business model > where the I simply meant (with some poetic license required, perhaps) that you can't sell tickets to a sky-writing show. > ... the street beggars in the swampy slums of Bangladesh are not part of > this new fangled accessibility to music, yet they constitute a > considerable portion of this thing you call "mankind". Anyone who reads National Geographic knows that very few people in the world are unaffected by modern electronic entertainment. If file swapping kills Columbia Records, RIAA, and MGM Studios, I think that mankind as a whole will indeed benefit, including the half-starved rat-hunters, whether or not they are part of the kill mechanism. > What we are really talking about is the replacement of commerciality with You're twisting my subject, and then implying that I was confused about what the subject was. ???
Re: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
I'll ask Sasha Batov about this. RT http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02059.html lute <-- Chronological --> FindĀ <-- Thread --> Re: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.) > > For example, many years ago, I photographed in Leningrad., when it was > > still Leningrad, a lute manuscript in one library. ... One of these > > days, when I am in a better mood and > > when I can deal with lute music and lutenists directly, without regard > > to > > my so-called reputation, I may investigate this further. > >Don't cry Mataniy, don't wait for a better mood - lutenists are all the >same as guitarists, flutists, programers and bankers. Find a distance, >don't get involved in particulars... Good idea. You see, not all lutenists on this listare of the same mindset as Messrs. Abramovich, Thames and Turovsky. Obviously, there are some reasonable people here who understand that the issue of the survival of the lute is not one of instant gratification by free downloading, but one of study and research. I even have some friends in this list. I fully understand why they choose to encourage me in private messages, and not expose themselves to the kind of scatological (Yes, Jon Murphy, scatological. Just check out Turovsky's first post in this thread!) character assassination that goes on in here. People who have done so publicly in other forums, have been accused by Roman of being MO sycophants, among other expletives. >Tell us what's on the film and >either publish it (perhaps not in USA or Switzerland, if you don't want >to complain about sales) or leave to someone for a Ph.D. elaboration, >if that's better destination. Don't hide, we are looking forward. I know where it is, but I assure you, I have more urgent issues on the front burner, some even have to do with the lute. They will be announced as soon as they are ready for publication.
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> I contributed what little I know of this topic very early on and in very > short order grew mighty tired of all the scatological nonsense and > inappropriate misidentification of hominids to follow (as a professional > biologist, this latter offense was particularly troubling). Actually I took an exception (as a simian of impeccable pedigree) to calling MO a monkey because it is painfully insulting to see him perceived as of same kind as myself. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> At 09:20 AM 12/5/03 -0500, Roman Turovsky wrote: If you feel they do not, strive to change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them. I don't believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite enough to justify a label of tyranny. >> Production is not questioned here, but rather an attempt to monopolize PD >> material by repackaging it. > There are many publishers. Some charge more than less. Some are supported by grants from the Ministry of Culture, in the lucky countries that have such entities. > None hold a > monopoly on PD lute tablatures. Certainly. It's just that some local vested interests are trying to trick us into limiting our liberty to share PD material, in favor of having us pay for their versions of the same. > As I understand it, if a publisher does > risk reproduction of a facsimile, repackage it, and sell it, I can xerox a > friend's bought copy it and use it in the US if I don't reproduce > introductory text, cover art...anything that may be > copyrighted. Personally, I don't do this because I believe I should > not. I do it > > >> IT IS VERY SIMPLE: In order to publish a classic novel one has no obligation >> or necessity to pay a single penny to the library or an individual that >> holds the manuscript. PERIOD. >> Lute tabulatures are no different. > I don't think this is in doubt. By definition, public domain material is > not protected by copyright. If anybody lays hands to the material, he/she > can disseminate it at will assuming he/she hasn't willingly agreed to > legally binding restrictions in obtaining the material. If I own a rare > and beautiful thing, I have the right to restrict access to it, to share it > with friends and hide it from local street toughs, etc. In general, I'm > pretty liberal about sharing my scant stash of music and ephemera with the > world at large. Unlike many of the world's libraries, I am fortunate that > my sustained existence doesn't depend upon such things. I have been pretty > successful in accessing public collections without exorbitant fees...but I > have done so to satiate my own curiosity, not with the intent to > publish...and, I must say, I am a rather charming character. You also have some academic credentials. My wife thinks I'm extremely charming, but my access to the goodies has not been that smooth, with the exception of NYPL. > I understand > your argument; I am just a little more sympathetic to the institutions that > protect the physical manifestations of this material to the benefit of > future users and, when faced with ever-diminishing public funds, must > survive to the benefit of all. I support these institutions too, as long as they don't cross into gentrification of knowledge. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 11:20 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: >As we have witnessed, a moral case could be made either way. I for one, >am in favor of all facsimiles in the public domain to be copyright free. As >far as everything else is concerned I really don't care. As I understand it, at least in the US, all facsimiles in the public domain _are_ copyright free. They may be protected by contractual agreement with the holder of the original, but the holder of the original cannot hold a US-registered copyright on them. If somebody has a richer understanding of copyright law, I'm happy to receive correction. Even if legal, I believe copying such stuff from a modern publication is wrong, so I don't do it, and I don't like that it's sometimes done. That's my decision to make. Eugene Dear Eugene, If some lute manuscript were past down to me in my family lineage, I own it legally. Or if I went to an action and bought it. I own it. I have nothing to say about that. However, if a museum owns it they have a moral obligation to free it to the public domain, as I guess is reflected in the copyright laws in the US, as you say. Maybe this is true, I don't know. based on my own experience from copying both the Yale Jauck and The Boston Berr, I can say that both museums were extremely generous with me, in both there time, and support. Not once did I hear anything about copyright issues, nor did I at any point sign a legal document with them restricting me in anyway from releasing the plans I made. Now, that I've obtained the plans, it is then my choice whether I sell them for profit or not, isn't it? I've chosen not to, regardless of the expence involved, but others have chosen to make money That's the moral issue involved here. I don't see the world so black and white. Why is it that in poorer countries they don't have these kinds of restriction and in richer ones they do. The morals you proclaim have no solid base, because from one place to an other they change. You can't condem everyone, who lives outside the US or Europe criminals because they have a different take on things. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Euge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:55 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 11:20 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: > >As we have witnessed, a moral case could be made either way. I for one, > >am in favor of all facsimiles in the public domain to be copyright free. As > >far as everything else is concerned I really don't care. > > > As I understand it, at least in the US, all facsimiles in the public domain > _are_ copyright free. They may be protected by contractual agreement with > the holder of the original, but the holder of the original cannot hold a > US-registered copyright on them. If somebody has a richer understanding of > copyright law, I'm happy to receive correction. Even if legal, I believe > copying such stuff from a modern publication is wrong, so I don't do it, > and I don't like that it's sometimes done. That's my decision to make. > > Eugene >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 09:20 AM 12/5/03 -0500, Roman Turovsky wrote: > >> If you feel they do not, strive to > >> change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them. I don't > >> believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite > >> enough to justify a label of tyranny. >Production is not questioned here, but rather an attempt to monopolize PD >material by repackaging it. There are many publishers. Some charge more than less. None hold a monopoly on PD lute tablatures. As I understand it, if a publisher does risk reproduction of a facsimile, repackage it, and sell it, I can xerox a friend's bought copy it and use it in the US if I don't reproduce introductory text, cover art...anything that may be copyrighted. Personally, I don't do this because I believe I should not. Again, I am happy to receive correction from those who really know something about copyright law. >IT IS VERY SIMPLE: In order to publish a classic novel one has no obligation >or necessity to pay a single penny to the library or an individual that >holds the manuscript. PERIOD. >Lute tabulatures are no different. I don't think this is in doubt. By definition, public domain material is not protected by copyright. If anybody lays hands to the material, he/she can disseminate it at will assuming he/she hasn't willingly agreed to legally binding restrictions in obtaining the material. If I own a rare and beautiful thing, I have the right to restrict access to it, to share it with friends and hide it from local street toughs, etc. In general, I'm pretty liberal about sharing my scant stash of music and ephemera with the world at large. Unlike many of the world's libraries, I am fortunate that my sustained existence doesn't depend upon such things. I have been pretty successful in accessing public collections without exorbitant fees...but I have done so to satiate my own curiosity, not with the intent to publish...and, I must say, I am a rather charming character. I understand your argument; I am just a little more sympathetic to the institutions that protect the physical manifestations of this material to the benefit of future users and, when faced with ever-diminishing public funds, must survive to the benefit of all.
Re: Facsimeles etc.
>> Barring obvious cases of tyranny, law should >> reflect the social norms of a society. Since when tyranny does not reflect the social norms of a society??? There is a maxim: "Every people deserves its government". >> If you feel they do not, strive to >> change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them. I don't >> believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite >> enough to justify a label of tyranny. Production is not questioned here, but rather an attempt to monopolize PD material by repackaging it. IT IS VERY SIMPLE: In order to publish a classic novel one has no obligation or necessity to pay a single penny to the library or an individual that holds the manuscript. PERIOD. Lute tabulatures are no different. RT
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 11:20 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: >As we have witnessed, a moral case could be made either way. I for one, >am in favor of all facsimiles in the public domain to be copyright free. As >far as everything else is concerned I really don't care. As I understand it, at least in the US, all facsimiles in the public domain _are_ copyright free. They may be protected by contractual agreement with the holder of the original, but the holder of the original cannot hold a US-registered copyright on them. If somebody has a richer understanding of copyright law, I'm happy to receive correction. Even if legal, I believe copying such stuff from a modern publication is wrong, so I don't do it, and I don't like that it's sometimes done. That's my decision to make. Eugene
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Jon Murphy wrote to Stewart, The point is that there is no insult if there is no intent, and that even the most mannerly language can convey insult if the intent is there Dear Stewart, Calling some an Ape or Monkey really doesn't convey much other than a general insult which really doesn't describe a particular fault or flaw. I just economized a little on the amount of flowery words needed to get the point across.. unlike you who worked far to hard to lower me in status below you. Your words were directed at me to describe in great detail my character flaws. Next time I would prefer if you simply called me an Ape! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > Stewart, > > I both agree and disagree. It is a matter of the intent. > > > b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, > > e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. > > McCoy for me. > > > > Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, > > and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is > > designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably > > the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the > > paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it > > would stop. > > > > I referred to you as Stew one time, and you corrected me. Point well taken. > But my name is Jonathan and I prefer to be called Jon (or Murph by those I > know well - in fact I sign differently to close friends and those who are > friends but less close). I wrote Matthias and addressed him as "Mat", before > I was aware that Europeans don't take the familiar as easily as Americans > do. But his reaction was "I rather enjoy that". It is an individual thing, > and the individual desires should be respected. > > So I agree that it is puerile to use a name other than the accepted one, but > the accepted one may be a nickname rather than the "correct" one if the > purpose is well intended. There is no rule except manners, and the form of > address should be dictated by the desire of the addressee. > > If you want to call me Uncle Murph with a "tongue in cheek" reference to my > avuncular pontification I would find it amusing, but if you do it with spite > then I will be annoyed. A classic line from western movies is "When you say > that Mister, smile". It is a misquote of a fine and definitive novel of the > difference of the culture of the American West and the older East Coast. The > Virginian (Owen Wister, last edition 1902), a story of an Easterner being > escorted west for his health by a cowboy originally from Virginia. That line > came during a poker game where the Virginian was challenged - Trampas spoke > "You bet, you son of a bitch". The Virginian lays his pistol on the table > and says "When you call me that, smile". The amazement of the Easterner > comes because just a while before an old friend had called the Virginian > "You old son of a bitch" and he was surprised there was no reaction to these > "fighting words". > > OK, too much exposition, but I recommend the original book. It is an > exercise in naivite and has to be read as a creature of its time, but many > of the cliches of modern life come from it - and the author's effort to > explain the culture of the American west to the American east is a first > (the predecessors were the "penny dreadfuls" glorifying Buffalo Bill and > other, the Buntlines). > > The point is that there is no insult if there is no intent, and that even > the most mannerly language can convey insult if the intent is there. > > Best, Jon, (Murph), (Jonathan W. Murphy), (or anything else meant with good > will). > > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Eugene, I appreciate the tone and view point of your letter, it seems then to be an issue of morels and legalities. The moral question I guess is in the eye of the beholder, and laws often don't reflect the common good of the majority, but the special interest of a few. As we have witnessed, a moral case could be made either way. I for one, am in favor of all facsimiles in the public domain to be copyright free. As far as everything else is concerned I really don't care. During my lifetime, I have NEVER copied anyone else's music or arrangements or editing of editions of facsimiles. And I don't intend to. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Euge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:06 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > I contributed what little I know of this topic very early on and in very > short order grew mighty tired of all the scatological nonsense and > inappropriate misidentification of hominids to follow (as a professional > biologist, this latter offense was particularly troubling). > > I said this the last too-recent time this same debate raged through the > list: if an activity is legal, feel free to do it; if its morality is > suspect, you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not you should > feel guilty afterwards. Barring obvious cases of tyranny, law should > reflect the social norms of a society. If you feel they do not, strive to > change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them. I don't > believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite enough > to justify a label of tyranny. Too black and white, passionless, oblivious > to the beauty of the art: maybe, but that's who I am in such > debates. Distributing xerographic copies of published facsimiles may often > be perfectly legal in the US in many cases, but I personally feel doing so > is unethical in increasing the risk inherent in publishing facsimiles...so > I don't...and I do engage in plenty of swapping for PD material, both old > publications that are no longer in print and, occasionally, manuscript > facsimiles that did not originate in a modern publication. > > > At 08:26 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: > > If He doesn't do it, believe me there are a hindered others who will. > >And maybe they'll do it with a spirit of generosity, and quit complaining if > >they can't make a profit. > > > I believe this spirit is amply demonstrated by almost every publisher who > has endeavored to bring a facsimile to print. If you don't like a > particular publisher, voice your dissent with your dollars and buy > something else. Cold and passionless again, but my money simply goes to > products I like. > > > > Before this storm it, I was ambivalent about the whole thing. But now > >thanks to you know who... I can say with absolute resolve, that anyone who > >is stupid enough to publish a facsimile of an original manuscript and expect > >to make a profit, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. > > > I don't believe this describes anybody who has ever published a facsimile > edition. > > > >That being said, If they were to put the copies into a well thought out > >informative beautiful edition, and make it appealing for consumers of music, > >people would buy it, that's how it works. An example is Frank Koonces's > >editions of Bach, and anything that is added onto and edited. > > > Even so, as I have--as we all have--read here very frequently over the past > week, beautifully bound facsimile editions of lute music--even those > well-endowed with well-researched, supportive, informative text and > informed corrections--_still_ can't be expected to turn profit. Perhaps > these especially cannot be expected to generate profit given the amount of > work and scholarship they require to produce. > > > > You publishing types, seem to represent the most extreme swing of > >capitalism, thinking the only time anyone does anything is for money, shame > >on you, and the stupid sheep that follow them. > >These publishers are very smart, it's the ones that follow them that are > >stupid! > > > Again, I have yet to hear of any modern publication of lute tablature > generating massive profit and universal fame for its publisher. The > highest aspiration such a publication can realistically have is to > generously disseminate valuable information to a buying public and, in so > doing, hope to reclaim a portion of the expense of production. Ex
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Stewart, I both agree and disagree. It is a matter of the intent. > b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, > e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. > McCoy for me. > > Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, > and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is > designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably > the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the > paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it > would stop. > I referred to you as Stew one time, and you corrected me. Point well taken. But my name is Jonathan and I prefer to be called Jon (or Murph by those I know well - in fact I sign differently to close friends and those who are friends but less close). I wrote Matthias and addressed him as "Mat", before I was aware that Europeans don't take the familiar as easily as Americans do. But his reaction was "I rather enjoy that". It is an individual thing, and the individual desires should be respected. So I agree that it is puerile to use a name other than the accepted one, but the accepted one may be a nickname rather than the "correct" one if the purpose is well intended. There is no rule except manners, and the form of address should be dictated by the desire of the addressee. If you want to call me Uncle Murph with a "tongue in cheek" reference to my avuncular pontification I would find it amusing, but if you do it with spite then I will be annoyed. A classic line from western movies is "When you say that Mister, smile". It is a misquote of a fine and definitive novel of the difference of the culture of the American West and the older East Coast. The Virginian (Owen Wister, last edition 1902), a story of an Easterner being escorted west for his health by a cowboy originally from Virginia. That line came during a poker game where the Virginian was challenged - Trampas spoke "You bet, you son of a bitch". The Virginian lays his pistol on the table and says "When you call me that, smile". The amazement of the Easterner comes because just a while before an old friend had called the Virginian "You old son of a bitch" and he was surprised there was no reaction to these "fighting words". OK, too much exposition, but I recommend the original book. It is an exercise in naivite and has to be read as a creature of its time, but many of the cliches of modern life come from it - and the author's effort to explain the culture of the American west to the American east is a first (the predecessors were the "penny dreadfuls" glorifying Buffalo Bill and other, the Buntlines). The point is that there is no insult if there is no intent, and that even the most mannerly language can convey insult if the intent is there. Best, Jon, (Murph), (Jonathan W. Murphy), (or anything else meant with good will).
Re: Facsimeles etc.
I contributed what little I know of this topic very early on and in very short order grew mighty tired of all the scatological nonsense and inappropriate misidentification of hominids to follow (as a professional biologist, this latter offense was particularly troubling). I said this the last too-recent time this same debate raged through the list: if an activity is legal, feel free to do it; if its morality is suspect, you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not you should feel guilty afterwards. Barring obvious cases of tyranny, law should reflect the social norms of a society. If you feel they do not, strive to change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them. I don't believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite enough to justify a label of tyranny. Too black and white, passionless, oblivious to the beauty of the art: maybe, but that's who I am in such debates. Distributing xerographic copies of published facsimiles may often be perfectly legal in the US in many cases, but I personally feel doing so is unethical in increasing the risk inherent in publishing facsimiles...so I don't...and I do engage in plenty of swapping for PD material, both old publications that are no longer in print and, occasionally, manuscript facsimiles that did not originate in a modern publication. At 08:26 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: > If He doesn't do it, believe me there are a hindered others who will. >And maybe they'll do it with a spirit of generosity, and quit complaining if >they can't make a profit. I believe this spirit is amply demonstrated by almost every publisher who has endeavored to bring a facsimile to print. If you don't like a particular publisher, voice your dissent with your dollars and buy something else. Cold and passionless again, but my money simply goes to products I like. > Before this storm it, I was ambivalent about the whole thing. But now >thanks to you know who... I can say with absolute resolve, that anyone who >is stupid enough to publish a facsimile of an original manuscript and expect >to make a profit, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. I don't believe this describes anybody who has ever published a facsimile edition. >That being said, If they were to put the copies into a well thought out >informative beautiful edition, and make it appealing for consumers of music, >people would buy it, that's how it works. An example is Frank Koonces's >editions of Bach, and anything that is added onto and edited. Even so, as I have--as we all have--read here very frequently over the past week, beautifully bound facsimile editions of lute music--even those well-endowed with well-researched, supportive, informative text and informed corrections--_still_ can't be expected to turn profit. Perhaps these especially cannot be expected to generate profit given the amount of work and scholarship they require to produce. > You publishing types, seem to represent the most extreme swing of >capitalism, thinking the only time anyone does anything is for money, shame >on you, and the stupid sheep that follow them. >These publishers are very smart, it's the ones that follow them that are >stupid! Again, I have yet to hear of any modern publication of lute tablature generating massive profit and universal fame for its publisher. The highest aspiration such a publication can realistically have is to generously disseminate valuable information to a buying public and, in so doing, hope to reclaim a portion of the expense of production. Excessive copying of such stuff, even if legal, increases the risk inherent in their publication making it less likely to occur in the future to the detriment of all. I happily either buy or properly borrow from libraries those such publications that contain material I would like to access. Maybe I am naive, idealistic (these are my ideals, not necessarily anybody else's and do not dictate anybody else's behavior), Mr. Rogers-like, I'd like to imagine that I'm not quite to a level of stupid even though I am buying into the schemes of smart publishers...I am almost certainly not saintly (I often keep my library books longer than I should). I feel obliged to say this again: if an activity is legal, feel free to do it; if its morality is suspect, you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not you should feel guilty afterwards...but don't expect everybody else around you to like what you've done. I might not be a fan of what you've done, but I won't take offense unless it is illegal. As I wrote some time ago, what little I know relevant to the topic at hand was offered at that time and gleaned from a casual conversation I had with a friend in the US Library of Congress's Copyright Office. I really have no more to say on this topic unless I am specifically addressed, but please don't confuse me with excreme
Re: Facsimeles etc.
hope that Napster et. al. will have the effect of reducing the overall
commerciality of music, to mankind's great benefit. But, as our publisher
friend pointed out, collapse of the tree in which facsimile publishing is
perched may not be beneficial
If He doesn't do it, believe me there are a hindered others who will.
And maybe they'll do it with a spirit of generosity, and quit complaining if
they can't make a profit. Maybe if there's a void...God forbid!... it might
occur to some to set up foundations, not much different than the Dowland MS.
project... or what Dr. Candice Mager offered as a possible solution.
Before this storm it, I was ambivalent about the whole thing. But now
thanks to you know who... I can say with absolute resolve, that anyone who
is stupid enough to publish a facsimile of an original manuscript and expect
to make a profit, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
That being said, If they were to put the copies into a well thought out
informative beautiful edition, and make it appealing for consumers of music,
people would buy it, that's how it works. An example is Frank Koonces's
editions of Bach, and anything that is added onto and edited.
How many lute players, out there, at the age of 18 decided to give up
business collage and choose a career in lute because there's more money in
playing the lute instead? How many lutemakers got into lute making as a
profitable business in the beginning? The point is don't quit your day
job,just yet.
Look at Douglas Anton Smith '' A history of the Lute'' for god's sake,
a lifetime of work. Do you think he will ever be compensated for his time
and energy? Do you think his motivation was to get rich? Or for that
matter break even? NO it was because he probably couldn't do anything else
because of his passion for the lute.
You publishing types, seem to represent the most extreme swing of
capitalism, thinking the only time anyone does anything is for money, shame
on you, and the stupid sheep that follow them.
These publishers are very smart, it's the ones that follow them that are
stupid!
Michael Thames
Luthier
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames
- Original Message -
From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc.
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Vance Wood wrote:
> > ... what would the collective reaction be if I then put the hand copied
> > collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the ongoing
> > debate?
>
> Some industries just naturally have an insecure business model. Examples
> include artistic sky writing, emergency-room medical care, sheet-music
> publishing (in the era of xerox/internet), and the marketing of CDs (in
> the era of Napster and its recent more-advanced offshoots).
>
> Solutions are few and far between. A recent article in the Washington
> Post said that the war between RIAA and the internet music swappers is
> basically over, and that the swappers won -- there is no real way to stop
> them.
>
> One solution is the "benevolent dictatorship", which many historians think
> is the best form of government. For example, the famous historian Edward
> Gibbons ("Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire") thought that the era
> when human happiness was greatest was definitely the Pax Romana.
>
> I hope that Napster et. al. will have the effect of reducing the overall
> commerciality of music, to mankind's great benefit. But, as our publisher
> friend pointed out, collapse of the tree in which facsimile publishing is
> perched may not be beneficial.
>
>
>
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> Here is a little wrench to throw in to the collective works. For arguments > sake let us assume that I was to purchase, or otherwise obtain a copy of > Mr. Reyerman's publication. Over time, if Iwere to hand copy each > piece in the book, what would the collective reaction be if I then put the > hand copied collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the > ongoing debate? There would be no debate, except MO would probably criticize you for unscholarly handwriting and other types of hypocritical anti-capitalist behavior. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org > > > > Vance Wood > > Vance that is an excellent idea, and one that seems to be well within > historical practice. While one writes the tablature down, you could imagine > you were a visiting lute player to a household and left behind a token of > goodwill and enjoyment for all future generations. > Actually if you don't do it I will. One could find a good copyist blow > up the originals so it's easier to copy, it and then reduce it back down to > it's original size, with all the ink stains copy perfectly. No one could > tell the difference. > Michael Thames > Luthier > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames > - Original Message - > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:41 PM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > >> Here is a little wrench to throw in to the collective works. For > arguments >> sake let us assume that I was to purchase, or otherwise obtain a copy of >> Mr. Reyerman's publication. Over time, if Iwere to hand copy each >> piece in the book, what would the collective reaction be if I then put > the >> hand copied collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the >> ongoing debate? >> >> Vance Wood. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:32 PM >> Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. >> >> >>> No it isn't a crime. And legalities have nothing to do with what Albert > is >>> talking about. Fairness is the issue. He invested a great deal of time > and >>> money in creating this book, and you publicly declare that you intend to >>> rip him off. That was not a crime, but a stupid thing to do. Take > example >>> from your like-minded perps. There are quite a few of them around. Say >>> nothing and do what you have to do. If what you did stinks, you'll have > to >>> live with it >>> Hey fellow, >>> First of all I stated my intentions were to post the facsimiles, and > ask >>> people what they thought, I then said I'd take the matter to heart. >> Incase >>> you don't have a heart, I'll translate that into, I will listen to what >>> everyone said. >>> I then made a decision that the right thing to do was to contact > Albert >>> and propose an idea, which is not to far different than Thomas Schell's >>> site. >>> Then all hell broke loose! No where did I " publicly declare that " I >>> intend to >>> rip him off " Those are you words. At no time did I say I would post the >>> facsimiles regardless of Albert's wishes, and quite frankly I won't, > based >>> not so much on legality, but to respect his wishes. In the end I don't >> want >>> to piss off anymore human beings,than I have to, except you! I asked >> some >>> alarming questions again out of my naivety which you seem to enjoy >> pointing >>> out. >>> Also, concerning young guitars students, I have noticed that hardly >> any >>> of them play baroque or ren music these, it's mostly modern. >>> In one local private high school in Albuq. there are 70 guitar >> students. >>> Being that I only play Baroque lute, that does alarm me, in a selfish > kind >>> of way. So I don't know what planet your from, but as you claim to be > in >>> tune with the guitar world you obviously are not. This without a dought >> is >>> what these young kids are into. wake up and smell the coffee! my > friend. >>> Also, concerning my website and posting Facsimiles. I could care > less >>> about another Bach version of a lute suite for guitar, I ju
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Here is a little wrench to throw in to the collective works. For arguments sake let us assume that I was to purchase, or otherwise obtain a copy of Mr. Reyerman's publication. Over time, if Iwere to hand copy each piece in the book, what would the collective reaction be if I then put the hand copied collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the ongoing debate? Vance Wood Vance that is an excellent idea, and one that seems to be well within historical practice. While one writes the tablature down, you could imagine you were a visiting lute player to a household and left behind a token of goodwill and enjoyment for all future generations. Actually if you don't do it I will. One could find a good copyist blow up the originals so it's easier to copy, it and then reduce it back down to it's original size, with all the ink stains copy perfectly. No one could tell the difference. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > Here is a little wrench to throw in to the collective works. For arguments > sake let us assume that I was to purchase, or otherwise obtain a copy of > Mr. Reyerman's publication. Over time, if Iwere to hand copy each > piece in the book, what would the collective reaction be if I then put the > hand copied collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the > ongoing debate? > > Vance Wood. > > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:32 PM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > > > No it isn't a crime. And legalities have nothing to do with what Albert is > > talking about. Fairness is the issue. He invested a great deal of time and > > money in creating this book, and you publicly declare that you intend to > > rip him off. That was not a crime, but a stupid thing to do. Take example > > from your like-minded perps. There are quite a few of them around. Say > > nothing and do what you have to do. If what you did stinks, you'll have to > > live with it > > Hey fellow, > > First of all I stated my intentions were to post the facsimiles, and ask > > people what they thought, I then said I'd take the matter to heart. > Incase > > you don't have a heart, I'll translate that into, I will listen to what > > everyone said. > > I then made a decision that the right thing to do was to contact Albert > > and propose an idea, which is not to far different than Thomas Schell's > > site. > >Then all hell broke loose! No where did I " publicly declare that " I > > intend to > > rip him off " Those are you words. At no time did I say I would post the > > facsimiles regardless of Albert's wishes, and quite frankly I won't, based > > not so much on legality, but to respect his wishes. In the end I don't > want > > to piss off anymore human beings,than I have to, except you! I asked > some > > alarming questions again out of my naivety which you seem to enjoy > pointing > > out. > > Also, concerning young guitars students, I have noticed that hardly > any > > of them play baroque or ren music these, it's mostly modern. > >In one local private high school in Albuq. there are 70 guitar > students. > > Being that I only play Baroque lute, that does alarm me, in a selfish kind > > of way. So I don't know what planet your from, but as you claim to be in > > tune with the guitar world you obviously are not. This without a dought > is > > what these young kids are into. wake up and smell the coffee! my friend. > > Also, concerning my website and posting Facsimiles. I could care less > > about another Bach version of a lute suite for guitar, I just like seeing > > the facsimile, and if it draws guitarists to my site all the better for > me. > > But I do want to help these kids as well Believe me or not. > > In the end, I don;t give a rats ass if you ever heard of me or not. > I > > conceder that to be a blessing. Go and get some help my friend! > > > > Michael Thames > > Luthier > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames > > - Original Message - > > From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL P
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Herbert wrote: I hope that Napster et. al. will have the effect of reducing
the overall
commerciality of music, to mankind's great benefit. But, as our publisher
friend pointed out, collapse of the tree in which facsimile publishing is
perched may not be beneficial.
I agree with this sentiment 100%. It would be a beautiful thing if all
things worth having could be gotten free of charge. But if that was the
case no one would be able to afford to provide those services and or
products to the public. The concept of community property amounts to every
body having exactly the same thing, and that is usually nothing. The best
you can hope to accomplish under this kind of philosophy is mediocrity.
Herbert also wrote: One solution is the "benevolent dictatorship", which
many historians think
> is the best form of government. For example, the famous historian Edward
> Gibbons ("Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire") thought that the era
> when human happiness was greatest was definitely the Pax Romana.
I cannot believe that anyone would possible believe that a dictatorship is
the best form of government. There is no such thing as a benevolent
dictatorship, the two terms are mutually exclusive, the concept is only a
pipe dream. Understanding that human beings only have a limited life span
and the benevolent dictatorship were possible, what principle or force is in
place that would preclude the rise of a malevolent dictatorship as a
successor to the previous regime?
As bad as systems of trade and reward are, and as perverted as they can
become, those forms of governance are still far more fair and just than
those other forms that impose restrictions and demand output. They amount
to slavery. That was the Pax Romana. That was the Third Riche, and that
was Sadam's Iraq.
In short it would be nice to get all this stuff for free, but if you want
your milk for free you have to own the cow, or take it from someone else's
cow, or someone take it from your cow. In the end you raise, feed and care
for the cow but you never get any of the milk. So why go to the trouble of
taking care of a cow in the first place? I think you see how it goes, you
no longer have a cow and no one gets the milk.
Vance Wood.
- Original Message -
From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc.
>
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 04:04 PM 12/4/2003 -0600, Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Some industries just naturally have an insecure business model. Examples >include artistic sky writing, Quite the contrary. Sky writing, like the manufacture of toilet paper and strings for instruments, have a very secure business model where the product has a very short life span. As soon as the writing in the sky blows away with the wind, you have to do it all over again. I used to do that kind of flying in my younger days. >I hope that Napster et. al. will have the effect of reducing the overall >commerciality of music, to mankind's great benefit. The difference between commerciality and patronage is that one makes music available to a large number of people and the other only to a select few. As for the effect of free exchange of music, it is good to bear in mind that the indigenous residents of the Kalahari desert, the rice farmers of India and China, or the street beggars in the swampy slums of Bangladesh are not part of this new fangled accessibility to music, yet they constitute a considerable portion of this thing you call "mankind". What we are really talking about is the replacement of commerciality with free access to music by a very small segment of humanity, the one that is rich enough to own personal computers and afford Internet access. The reason Napster has not put out the big labels and the concerts promotes out of business yet, is that the consumption of music in general in this world is far higher than the part of it which is consumed by pimply rich kids in US suburbia. But as Hernan Mouro described to us the situation in Argentina, we can see the writing on the wall when it comes to our little corner of the world. Soon enough, we all close our doors and go put our money in real estate or stocks and bonds, and what musicians will have to put up with is an endless circulation of the same stuff. Nothing new will come about. Not in contemporary music, and not in early music. > But, as our publisher >friend pointed out, collapse of the tree in which facsimile publishing is >perched may not be beneficial. I think it will very beneficial for me to have this tree collapse. At least that branch of it on which I am sitting. Just to imagine all the time in the world I will have then to do the things that really matter, like playing the guitar. And who knows, I may even buy back that lute Hans Jordan made for me in 1960, on the recommendation of Diana Poulton. It's available. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
At 09:59 PM 12/4/2003 +0100, Jerzy ZAK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For example, many years ago, I photographed in Leningrad., when it was > > still Leningrad, a lute manuscript in one library. ... One of these > > days, when I am in a better mood and > > when I can deal with lute music and lutenists directly, without regard > > to > > my so-called reputation, I may investigate this further. > >Don't cry Mataniy, don't wait for a better mood - lutenists are all the >same as guitarists, flutists, programers and bankers. Find a distance, >don't get involved in particulars... Good idea. You see, not all lutenists on this listare of the same mindset as Messrs. Abramovich, Thames and Turovsky. Obviously, there are some reasonable people here who understand that the issue of the survival of the lute is not one of instant gratification by free downloading, but one of study and research. I even have some friends in this list. I fully understand why they choose to encourage me in private messages, and not expose themselves to the kind of scatological (Yes, Jon Murphy, scatological. Just check out Turovsky's first post in this thread!) character assassination that goes on in here. People who have done so publicly in other forums, have been accused by Roman of being MO sycophants, among other expletives. >Tell us what's on the film and >either publish it (perhaps not in USA or Switzerland, if you don't want >to complain about sales) or leave to someone for a Ph.D. elaboration, >if that's better destination. Don't hide, we are looking forward. I know where it is, but I assure you, I have more urgent issues on the front burner, some even have to do with the lute. They will be announced as soon as they are ready for publication. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Vance Wood wrote:
> ... what would the collective reaction be if I then put the hand copied
> collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the ongoing
> debate?
Some industries just naturally have an insecure business model. Examples
include artistic sky writing, emergency-room medical care, sheet-music
publishing (in the era of xerox/internet), and the marketing of CDs (in
the era of Napster and its recent more-advanced offshoots).
Solutions are few and far between. A recent article in the Washington
Post said that the war between RIAA and the internet music swappers is
basically over, and that the swappers won -- there is no real way to stop
them.
One solution is the "benevolent dictatorship", which many historians think
is the best form of government. For example, the famous historian Edward
Gibbons ("Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire") thought that the era
when human happiness was greatest was definitely the Pax Romana.
I hope that Napster et. al. will have the effect of reducing the overall
commerciality of music, to mankind's great benefit. But, as our publisher
friend pointed out, collapse of the tree in which facsimile publishing is
perched may not be beneficial.
Re: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
Dear Matanya, Thank you for your answer. On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 19:43 Europe/Warsaw, Matanya Ophee wrote: > At 06:14 PM 12/4/2003 +0100, Jerzy ZAK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dear Matanya, >> ... But time showed that some people prefer wasting time - ours, >> mine, on >> personal quarrels. > This last quarrel was not personal. I avoided the thread until Albert > Reyerman had a chance to defend himself ... The rest of > this ugly affair is in no need of being mentioned. I understand your point and am the last to continue in that spirit. >> ... What are the discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco, and other >> recent >> discoveries? > ... The subject has been mentioned here before, mostly by Arthur Ness > who will be better informed about this than I am. > > As for other discoveries, it is only a simple postulate that argues > that we > have no way of knowing what it is we do not know. New things come up > for > air all the time. This is obvious. I was personally a wittness of more then one ''discovery'' or ''rediscovery'' of a lute MS in Poland and all this happend outside of RISM (Repertoire International des Sources Musicales) network and operations - I'll reftrain from commenting on that organization. All this happens by chance or through someones often ''controversial'' activity... > For example, many years ago, I photographed in Leningrad., when it was > still Leningrad, a lute manuscript in one library. ... One of these > days, when I am in a better mood and > when I can deal with lute music and lutenists directly, without regard > to > my so-called reputation, I may investigate this further. Don't cry Mataniy, don't wait for a better mood - lutenists are all the same as guitarists, flutists, programers and bankers. Find a distance, don't get involved in particulars... Tell us what's on the film and either publish it (perhaps not in USA or Switzerland, if you don't want to complain about sales) or leave to someone for a Ph.D. elaboration, if that's better destination. Don't hide, we are looking forward. As to the situation in either Mascow or St Petersburg archives, it's a mine of new or forgotten things - I asure you! I can publically say only so, I'm not of the power of Christoph Wolff who could have done a mega-move of the whole one of the old Berlin archives from Kijev back to Berlin - few years ago! Does anybody know if the catalogue, as promised, is already available? Ears up, Matanya (as we say here), find that film! Yours, Jerzy
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Here is a little wrench to throw in to the collective works. For arguments sake let us assume that I was to purchase, or otherwise obtain a copy of Mr. Reyerman's publication. Over time, if Iwere to hand copy each piece in the book, what would the collective reaction be if I then put the hand copied collection on the net? How would this scenario stand in the ongoing debate? Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:32 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > No it isn't a crime. And legalities have nothing to do with what Albert is > talking about. Fairness is the issue. He invested a great deal of time and > money in creating this book, and you publicly declare that you intend to > rip him off. That was not a crime, but a stupid thing to do. Take example > from your like-minded perps. There are quite a few of them around. Say > nothing and do what you have to do. If what you did stinks, you'll have to > live with it > Hey fellow, > First of all I stated my intentions were to post the facsimiles, and ask > people what they thought, I then said I'd take the matter to heart. Incase > you don't have a heart, I'll translate that into, I will listen to what > everyone said. > I then made a decision that the right thing to do was to contact Albert > and propose an idea, which is not to far different than Thomas Schell's > site. >Then all hell broke loose! No where did I " publicly declare that " I > intend to > rip him off " Those are you words. At no time did I say I would post the > facsimiles regardless of Albert's wishes, and quite frankly I won't, based > not so much on legality, but to respect his wishes. In the end I don't want > to piss off anymore human beings,than I have to, except you! I asked some > alarming questions again out of my naivety which you seem to enjoy pointing > out. > Also, concerning young guitars students, I have noticed that hardly any > of them play baroque or ren music these, it's mostly modern. >In one local private high school in Albuq. there are 70 guitar students. > Being that I only play Baroque lute, that does alarm me, in a selfish kind > of way. So I don't know what planet your from, but as you claim to be in > tune with the guitar world you obviously are not. This without a dought is > what these young kids are into. wake up and smell the coffee! my friend. > Also, concerning my website and posting Facsimiles. I could care less > about another Bach version of a lute suite for guitar, I just like seeing > the facsimile, and if it draws guitarists to my site all the better for me. > But I do want to help these kids as well Believe me or not. > In the end, I don;t give a rats ass if you ever heard of me or not. I > conceder that to be a blessing. Go and get some help my friend! > > Michael Thames > Luthier > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames > - Original Message - > From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:53 PM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > > > At 09:56 PM 12/2/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Relax Montana, > > > > That can work both ways, distorting people's names intentionally. But I > > will resist the urge to engage in this juvenile silliness. > > > > > > >I see you have quite alot of baggage with this issue, to go after me > with > > >your well known guile, and considering remarks. You truly take the prize > > >for vileness, your reputation precedes you. > > > > Glad you noticed. > > > > >Again, glad to be the scapegoat for you Publishing kind of guys, > but > > >as you say this is getting old, isn't it. > > >If I were your mother I'd take you over my knee and give a good > > >whacking! But since this is your only source of income I'll forgive > you! > > > > That's bullshit number one. Publishing is not my source of income at all. > > It is only the source of my _losses_ over the years. If had to live the > way > > I do from music publishing, this business would have gone down the drain > > decades ago. Do check my biography more carefully. > > > > > Lets put all exchanges of pleasantries aside, Please tell me the > > >crime I'm guilty of, what have I done other than ask a few "uncomfortable > &quo
Re: Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
At 06:14 PM 12/4/2003 +0100, Jerzy ZAK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dear Matanya, > >I feel a little uncomfortable sending my question to the List - and >that way obviously to you as well - again. Some time ago, when I joined >the List, I was mainly expecting fresh news and knowledge in small bits >shared by people dealing with all aspects of lute and it's music. But >time showed that some people prefer wasting time - ours, mine, on >personal quarrels. This last quarrel was not personal. I avoided the thread until Albert Reyerman had a chance to defend himself. I think he did a marvelously clear job, and it was then that he was attacked personally. I intervened on his behalf, not because he is a friend of mine, but because he is a colleague, and even though his edition of the John Johnson competes directly with mine, I know exactly from my own experience how difficult it is to publish lute music and how unfair the charge of greed is. My intervention was mild by all accounts, but it still generated an ad hominem attack on me, starting with a distortion of my name, and referring to my _reputation_ as a justification for classifying my current statement as vile. The rest of this ugly affair is in no need of being mentioned. > Lets to the point, then. May I ask you again (you >could just overlooked my small posting, but you were present on the >list in the meantime): > >What are the discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco, and other recent >discoveries? I know very little about it directly. I heard that 2 new pieces by Francesco da Milano were discovered in Castelfranco something or other in Italy. Paul O'Dette is said to have recorded them, and there are copies circulating in the lute grape vine. Ron Andrico once told me he had them. I have not seen one myself. The subject has been mentioned here before, mostly by Arthur Ness who will be better informed about this than I am. As for other discoveries, it is only a simple postulate that argues that we have no way of knowing what it is we do not know. New things come up for air all the time. For example, many years ago, I photographed in Leningrad., when it was still Leningrad, a lute manuscript in one library. In a more recent attempt to get an official copy of it, I was told the manuscript does not exist there anymore, and they would not tell me where it is now. For all I know, my photographic copy of this manuscript may be the only existing copy of it. I really do not know anything about this manuscript, and I have not looked at the film in many years. It may be something that is very well known, or that was known to people like Kosak and Neeman, or it may be an entirely new discovery. One of these days, when I am in a better mood and when I can deal with lute music and lutenists directly, without regard to my so-called reputation, I may investigate this further. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Recent discoveries (Facsimeles etc.)
Dear Matanya, I feel a little uncomfortable sending my question to the List - and that way obviously to you as well - again. Some time ago, when I joined the List, I was mainly expecting fresh news and knowledge in small bits shared by people dealing with all aspects of lute and it's music. But time showed that some people prefer wasting time - ours, mine, on personal quarrels. Lets to the point, then. May I ask you again (you could just overlooked my small posting, but you were present on the list in the meantime): What are the discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco, and other recent discoveries? Best regards, Jerzy On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 01:42 Europe/Warsaw, Jerzy ZAK wrote: > On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 23:04 Europe/Warsaw, Matanya Ophee wrote: > >> But should new material come to light, >> there is no chance it will enter into general circulation any time >> soon. >> Viz. the availability to the Francesco Castelfranco new discoveries. >> And >> this is only one of the more recent discoveries that will be a long >> time in >> hiding from the lute community. > > What are the new discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco? > What are the other more recent discoveries?? > > Jerzy
Facsimilia Was: Facsimeles etc.
> acronym "BO"). > "St.McCoy" on the other hand is designed to convey the saintliness of the > subject. I'd have thouhgt that Stewart is a "Mr.Rogers" of the lutenists' > neighborhood, if I didn't know what he looked like. > RT >>> Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, >>> and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is >>> designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably >>> the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the >>> paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it >>> would stop. >>> Best wishes, >>> Stewart McCoy > Stewart, > I haven't had any real correspondence with you other than this > occasion, but I do find your take on all this rather haughty and holier > than thou. > I guess there two ways to insult people. One is flat out in your face > and obvious, and the other in my humble opinion, a little more insidious, > attack there character, motivation, intelligence, etc. resulting in the > purist form of un just discrimination, simply because one has a different > view on something. This slowly starts to build up and take root > producing cancerous result. > As I said, I was a bit over the top, I think once or twice calling him > an ape would have done the trick just fine, and I should have left it at > that. > I'm really amazed at how people read the words and only see the > obvious, however the intent and essence seems to go unnoticed. > Everyone in the end who had a problem with the way I handled it, had > little to say while the exchange was taking place. The sign of a true > critic. > I am rather direct and obvious in all matters in my life, for good or > bad, and have little patience for this kind of character assassination, > while at the same time I do enjoy an intelligent exchange of ideas, but to > have that happen you need two or more reasonable people. > All the best, > Michael Well, there are some potential linguistic pitfalls, stemming from the differences between American and British versions of English, as well as considerable differences in thinking patterns: people tend to be A BIT more elliptical in Midlands than in Iowa, and a direct statement American style could get them discombobulated. Having said that, I DO NOT think that Stewart is capable of that deadly half-smile of condecsension for which I fondly remember Sir Nigel North. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org > Michael Thames > Luthier > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames > - Original Message - > From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "LUTE-LIST" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > >>>> No, you are not alone. I suppose people forget that, when we send >>>> messages addressed to particular individuals, we are also sending >>>> that same message to everyone else on the list. If you aim a bucket >>>> of water at someone, everyone else gets soaked in the process. >>>> >>>> There have been two kinds of name-calling in the last few days: >>>> >>>> a) Using an offensive word like "monkey" or "ape"; >>>> >>>> b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, >>>> e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. >>>> McCoy for me. >> I personally find the use of initials a term of endearment, even for such > a >> sklochnik as MO (there is also an added analogy here with an American >> acronym "BO"). >> "St.McCoy" on the other hand is designed to convey the saintliness of the >> subject. I'd have thouhgt that Stewart is a "Mr.Rogers" of the lutenists' >> neighborhood, if I didn't know what he looked like. >> RT >>>> Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, >>>> and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is >>>> designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably >>>> the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the >>>> paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it >>>> would stop. >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Stewart McCoy. >> >> > >
Respuesta: Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Michael, I've learned the lesson too late (no one warned me), but seriously: this doesn't make any sense. It is not about an exchange, as it wasn't the last time we had a similar episode... Many of us would agree with many of your points, as you had the chance to see. We'll keep doing what we think is fair, and that's it. We should keep the explanations and questions for receptive individuals, and avoid any nonsense confrontation. Just an idea. Saludos, Ariel.
Re: Facsimeles etc.
acronym "BO"). "St.McCoy" on the other hand is designed to convey the saintliness of the subject. I'd have thouhgt that Stewart is a "Mr.Rogers" of the lutenists' neighborhood, if I didn't know what he looked like. RT >> Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, >> and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is >> designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably >> the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the >> paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it >> would stop. >> Best wishes, >> >> Stewart McCoy Stewart, I haven't had any real correspondence with you other than this occasion, but I do find your take on all this rather haughty and holier than thou. I guess there two ways to insult people. One is flat out in your face and obvious, and the other in my humble opinion, a little more insidious, attack there character, motivation, intelligence, etc. resulting in the purist form of un just discrimination, simply because one has a different view on something. This slowly starts to build up and take root producing cancerous result. As I said, I was a bit over the top, I think once or twice calling him an ape would have done the trick just fine, and I should have left it at that. I'm really amassed at how people read the words and only see the obvious, however the intent and essence seems to go unnoticed. Everyone in the end who had a problem with the way I handled it, had little to say while the exchange was taking place. The sign of a true critic. I am rather direct and obvious in all matters in my life, for good or bad, and have little patience for this kind of character assassination, while at the same time I do enjoy an intelligent exchange of ideas, but to have that happen you need two or more reasonable people. All the best, Michael Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "LUTE-LIST" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > >> No, you are not alone. I suppose people forget that, when we send > >> messages addressed to particular individuals, we are also sending > >> that same message to everyone else on the list. If you aim a bucket > >> of water at someone, everyone else gets soaked in the process. > >> > >> There have been two kinds of name-calling in the last few days: > >> > >> a) Using an offensive word like "monkey" or "ape"; > >> > >> b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, > >> e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. > >> McCoy for me. > I personally find the use of initials a term of endearment, even for such a > sklochnik as MO (there is also an added analogy here with an American > acronym "BO"). > "St.McCoy" on the other hand is designed to convey the saintliness of the > subject. I'd have thouhgt that Stewart is a "Mr.Rogers" of the lutenists' > neighborhood, if I didn't know what he looked like. > RT > >> Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, > >> and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is > >> designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably > >> the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the > >> paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it > >> would stop. > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Stewart McCoy. > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
To all, Your all right, I have been stupid to call MO these these names, and I apologies the the list. I'm actually am quite surprised at my self, although it felt really good a couple of times. It seems this is my coming of age on the list and a lost of innocence, that a least according to allot of private email to me, most people have gone through at some point or another. I think I will do what Thomas does. Anything from MO will be directly cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email blocker for one individual on the list? again sorry to all! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > >> As far as name calling goes, As soon as MO rises into the upper = > >> realm of human beings, and starts showing respect for others, and some > >> = civility, I will confer on him the title of Human. Michael Thames > > Dear Michael, > > it should have occurred to you that namecalling is not the > > kind of communication which grounds on respect either. > > Best wishes, > > Stephan > Indeed, that particular monopoly can be happily left to MO. > RT > __ > Roman M. Turovsky > http://turovsky.org > http://polyhymnion.org > > >
Re: RV: Facsimeles etc.
> Yes, and that's why Hoppy comes to Argentina every now and then, we're > all very grateful to him for that. What I meant was, I'm not asking for > donations for my Conservatory's library or for me, there are no > lutenists in Bahia Blanca (700km away from Buenos Aires, 400km away from > Mar del Plata). I wish there were. But if you want to make any donations > I won't stop you. :-) Roman, you're doing enough already by making > available music for download. Thanks. I have the music, I'm sorry it's > not possible to download a lute. :-) Well, I'll just keep playing this > stuff on the guitar, then (sorry). I believe there will be contributions of plans, if you find a sympathetic luthier. Just ask. However, even if you have difficulties finding lutes, you still have morcillas, bife de chorizo, chimichurri and Carlos Gardel.. RT (green with envy...)
Re: Facsimeles etc.
>> As far as name calling goes, As soon as MO rises into the upper = >> realm of human beings, and starts showing respect for others, and some >> = civility, I will confer on him the title of Human. Michael Thames > Dear Michael, > it should have occurred to you that namecalling is not the > kind of communication which grounds on respect either. > Best wishes, > Stephan Indeed, that particular monopoly can be happily left to MO. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear James, No, you are not alone. I suppose people forget that, when we send messages addressed to particular individuals, we are also sending that same message to everyone else on the list. If you aim a bucket of water at someone, everyone else gets soaked in the process. There have been two kinds of name-calling in the last few days: a) Using an offensive word like "monkey" or "ape"; b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. McCoy for me. Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it would stop. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > To all, > > Am I the only one who finds the name calling, and tone of some of these > e-mail exchanges offensive? It's great to be passionate and have strong feelings > about a subject, but how about a modicum of civility? I know, "if you don't > like it, don't read it"; but the subject matter is interesting, so, I read. > > Sincerely, > > James
Re: Respuesta: Re: Facsimeles etc.
We'll keep doing what we think is fair, and that's it. We should keep the explanations and questions for receptive individuals, and avoid any nonsense confrontation. Dear Ariel, your point is well taken, and I will sign off on this thread, hopefully we can all get back to the love of music and the lute again. Sorry for causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. Just an idea. Saludos, Ariel. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Ariel Abramovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:45 AM Subject: Respuesta: Re: Facsimeles etc. > Dear Michael, > I've learned the lesson too late (no one warned me), but seriously: > this doesn't make any sense. > It is not about an exchange, as it wasn't the last time we had a > similar episode... > Many of us would agree with many of your points, as you had the chance > to see. > We'll keep doing what we think is fair, and that's it. We should keep > the explanations and questions for receptive individuals, and avoid > any nonsense confrontation. > Just an idea. > Saludos, > Ariel. > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> To all, > Your all right, I have been stupid to call MO these these names, and I > apologies the the list. I'm actually am quite surprised at my self, although > it felt really good a couple of times. It seems this is my coming of age on > the list and a lost of innocence, that a least according to allot of private > email to me, most people have gone through at some point or another. > I think I will do what Thomas does. Anything from MO will be directly > cycled into my Trash bin. Or is it possible to just have an email blocker > for one individual on the list? Actually YES. That is why I get only secondary winds [pun intended] of MO exploits. RT > From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:20 AM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > >>>> As far as name calling goes, As soon as MO rises into the upper = >>>> realm of human beings, and starts showing respect for others, and some >>>> = civility, I will confer on him the title of Human. Michael Thames >>> Dear Michael, >>> it should have occurred to you that namecalling is not the >>> kind of communication which grounds on respect either. >>> Best wishes, >>> Stephan >> Indeed, that particular monopoly can be happily left to MO. >> RT >> __ >> Roman M. Turovsky >> http://turovsky.org >> http://polyhymnion.org >> >> >> > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
>> No, you are not alone. I suppose people forget that, when we send >> messages addressed to particular individuals, we are also sending >> that same message to everyone else on the list. If you aim a bucket >> of water at someone, everyone else gets soaked in the process. >> >> There have been two kinds of name-calling in the last few days: >> >> a) Using an offensive word like "monkey" or "ape"; >> >> b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, >> e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. >> McCoy for me. I personally find the use of initials a term of endearment, even for such a sklochnik as MO (there is also an added analogy here with an American acronym "BO"). "St.McCoy" on the other hand is designed to convey the saintliness of the subject. I'd have thouhgt that Stewart is a "Mr.Rogers" of the lutenists' neighborhood, if I didn't know what he looked like. RT >> Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, >> and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is >> designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably >> the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the >> paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it >> would stop. >> Best wishes, >> >> Stewart McCoy.
Respuesta: RE: RV: Facsimeles etc.
Querido HernĆ”n, I wish I could write you in Spanish, but wouldn't be reasonable. > I'm not blaming composers for publishing abroad. They publish > where they > can. I blame myself for not supporting local companies, or even > foreign companies, by not buying what I would be able to buy. Does > Warner own > more than Editorial Lagos? I must confess I know nothing about that. The failure of our local and international companies has nothing to do with how much we support them. It is a bit more complex than that, and a logical explanation would necessary take us into an off-topic sub. (not again). Seems to be that most of us we do efforts to buy what we can buy (talking always about what weĀre talking). What doesnĀt seem to be so easy to understand for some of the respectable members of the list, is that thereĀre many different realities and perceptions of one same reality, depending of where you are and what you do. Muchos saludos, y a tu disposiciĆ³n para cualquier ayuda (viajo a Baires en febrero, si hiciera falta algo). Ariel. > > > There are no lutenists around here. > > > There should be half a dozen around metropolitan Buenos Aires, > right? > > And at least one in Mar del Plata. > > Yes, and that's why Hoppy comes to Argentina every now and then, we're > all very grateful to him for that. What I meant was, I'm not > asking for > donations for my Conservatory's library or for me, there are no > lutenists in Bahia Blanca (700km away from Buenos Aires, 400km > away from > Mar del Plata). I wish there were. But if you want to make any > donationsI won't stop you. :-) Roman, you're doing enough already > by making > available music for download. Thanks. I have the music, I'm sorry it's > not possible to download a lute. :-) Well, I'll just keep playing this > stuff on the guitar, then (sorry). > > Regards, > > HernĆ”n. > > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
James et al, Well stated. This tendency towards ad hominem attacks, and general incivility, is offensive, destructive and unfitting of an otherwise erudite and sophisticated community. Gregs - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > To all, > > Am I the only one who finds the name calling, and tone of some of these > e-mail exchanges offensive? It's great to be passionate and have strong feelings > about a subject, but how about a modicum of civility? I know, "if you don't > like it, don't read it"; but the subject matter is interesting, so, I read. > > Sincerely, > > James > > --
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Stewart and James-- Well stated. Thank you. - Original Message - From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:38 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > Dear James, > > No, you are not alone. I suppose people forget that, when we send > messages addressed to particular individuals, we are also sending > that same message to everyone else on the list. If you aim a bucket > of water at someone, everyone else gets soaked in the process. > > There have been two kinds of name-calling in the last few days: > > a) Using an offensive word like "monkey" or "ape"; > > b) Altering someone's name into some sort of sarcastic nickname, > e.g. MO for Matanya Ophee, Uncle Albert for Albert Reyerman, and St. > McCoy for me. > > Calling someone by a name other than their correct name is puerile, > and has the opposite effect from the one intended. Name-calling is > designed to hurt someone by making fun of them, but it is inevitably > the name-caller who ends up looking foolish, because it reflects the > paucity of his thought. It is all very tiresome, and I do wish it > would stop. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:58 AM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > > > To all, > > > > Am I the only one who finds the name calling, and tone of some > of these > > e-mail exchanges offensive? It's great to be passionate and have > strong feelings > > about a subject, but how about a modicum of civility? I know, "if > you don't > > like it, don't read it"; but the subject matter is interesting, > so, I read. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > James > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Am 4 Dec 2003 um 0:55 hat Michael Thames geschrieben: > As far as name calling goes, As soon as MO rises into the upper = > realm of human beings, and starts showing respect for others, and some > = civility, I will confer on him the title of Human. Michael Thames Dear Michael, it should have occurred to you that namecalling is not the kind of communication which grounds on respect either. Best wishes, Stephan
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear James, I understand your frustration. I've been on this list for two = years and have up to now, managed to stay clear of this tyrannical = monster. If you follow this thread to the beginning, you'll notice I = asked a question. The basic instinct and wholesome wish to see these = precious manuscripts in TRUE PUBLIC DOMAIN was lurking in the hearts = and minds of everyone of us on this lis,. whether we admit it or not. MO = said I was stupid for bringing this up, maybe, but it struck a cord in = everyone including MO. I've been witness to Roman and MO's exchanges on this list over the = past 2 years, and have to say I've slowly gained a great deal of = respect for Romans convictions and for what he stands for. At the same = time I respect anyone who has put the time and effort into editions, = worthy of buying. I have always bought nice editions and will continue = to. When I felt I was wrong about something, I apologized, is this not = being civil? Dealing with MO is like being in the movie "The = Terminator'' He doesn't stop but keeps coming at you, the only way to = survive is to fight back. As far as name calling goes, As soon as MO rises into the upper = realm of human beings, and starts showing respect for others, and some = civility, I will confer on him the title of Human. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message -=20 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:58 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. To all, Am I the only one who finds the name calling, and tone of some of = these e-mail exchanges offensive? It's great to be passionate and have = strong feelings about a subject, but how about a modicum of civility? I = know, "if you don't like it, don't read it"; but the subject matter is = interesting, so, I read. Sincerely, James --
Re: Facsimeles etc.
To all, Am I the only one who finds the name calling, and tone of some of these e-mail exchanges offensive? It's great to be passionate and have strong feelings about a subject, but how about a modicum of civility? I know, "if you don't like it, don't read it"; but the subject matter is interesting, so, I read. Sincerely, James --
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Better watch it fellow, your scatological delusions are getting ahead of you. You cannot possibly expect me to commit what I consider a crime, by photocopying a page from a book published by a friend of mine >never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are >those included in the Koonce edition. So which is it Ape, first you say you have them, now someone else has them. I don't want to exchange my plans for your music, have you been drinking agian? You called me a hypocrite for not downloading my plans for free, which I said I'd do. I challenged you do do the same with the Bach, and your weaseling your way out of it. HYPOCRITE! I buy my guitars from people like you. Just got a new one a couple of weeks ago from a young man in Quebec for whom I predict a great future. Name is Jean RomprƩ. Care to hear what it sounds like? Now you've done it! I'm crushed, and speechless, you went out a bought someone else's guitar, I thought we had a deal Dam it! And now your rubbing my face in it, more than I can bear. With you as his guiding light I'm sure he'll go far, No offence to your innocent victim, but I've heard enough guitar for today, thanks. How about it Ape, Free YOUR/HIS Bach, to the world! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 07:53 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >At 05:12 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > >never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are > > >those included in the Koonce edition. > > > > > > OK then those will do just fine. > > > > > >You don't need me for that. You can buy this book from all the usual > >sources. In case of difficulty, you can buy it directly from the publisher > > > >I thought we were exchanging free downloads, yours for mine. YOU > >HYPOCRITE!!! > > Better watch it fellow, your scatological delusions are getting ahead of > you. You cannot possibly expect me to commit what I consider a crime, by > photocopying a page from a book published by a friend of mine, who happens > to be a member of this here list, and send it to you in exchange for a > download that does not exist yet on your web site and for which I have > absolutely no need whatsoever. I am not a lute maker, and I am not even a > guitar maker. I am a guitar collector. I buy my guitars from people like > you. Just got a new one a couple of weeks ago from a young man in Quebec > for whom I predict a great future. Name is Jean RomprƩ. Care to hear what > it sounds like? go to my web site and look in GALI for Articles with Music. > > So I guess if you want a copy of the the Bach-Weybrauch manuscript, and you > care to tangle with a large American corporation, you'll just have to pay > up front $24.95. You can afford it. > > > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > > >
RE: RV: Facsimeles etc.
> Somehow I don't believe that the musicians are to blame for this. It > seemed that A LOT of music down there was being put out by Warner > Brothers "South American division. So I'm sure they contributed to the > demise of local houses. I'm not blaming composers for publishing abroad. They publish where they can. I blame myself for not supporting local companies, or even foreign companies, by not buying what I would be able to buy. Does Warner own more than Editorial Lagos? I must confess I know nothing about that. > > There are no lutenists around here. > There should be half a dozen around metropolitan Buenos Aires, right? > And at least one in Mar del Plata. Yes, and that's why Hoppy comes to Argentina every now and then, we're all very grateful to him for that. What I meant was, I'm not asking for donations for my Conservatory's library or for me, there are no lutenists in Bahia Blanca (700km away from Buenos Aires, 400km away from Mar del Plata). I wish there were. But if you want to make any donations I won't stop you. :-) Roman, you're doing enough already by making available music for download. Thanks. I have the music, I'm sorry it's not possible to download a lute. :-) Well, I'll just keep playing this stuff on the guitar, then (sorry). Regards, HernƔn.
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 07:53 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 05:12 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are > >those included in the Koonce edition. > > > > OK then those will do just fine. > > >You don't need me for that. You can buy this book from all the usual >sources. In case of difficulty, you can buy it directly from the publisher > >I thought we were exchanging free downloads, yours for mine. YOU >HYPOCRITE!!! Better watch it fellow, your scatological delusions are getting ahead of you. You cannot possibly expect me to commit what I consider a crime, by photocopying a page from a book published by a friend of mine, who happens to be a member of this here list, and send it to you in exchange for a download that does not exist yet on your web site and for which I have absolutely no need whatsoever. I am not a lute maker, and I am not even a guitar maker. I am a guitar collector. I buy my guitars from people like you. Just got a new one a couple of weeks ago from a young man in Quebec for whom I predict a great future. Name is Jean RomprƩ. Care to hear what it sounds like? go to my web site and look in GALI for Articles with Music. So I guess if you want a copy of the the Bach-Weybrauch manuscript, and you care to tangle with a large American corporation, you'll just have to pay up front $24.95. You can afford it. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 05:12 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are >those included in the Koonce edition. > > OK then those will do just fine. You don't need me for that. You can buy this book from all the usual sources. In case of difficulty, you can buy it directly from the publisher I thought we were exchanging free downloads, yours for mine. YOU HYPOCRITE!!! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 05:12 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are > >those included in the Koonce edition. > > > > OK then those will do just fine. > > > You don't need me for that. You can buy this book from all the usual > sources. In case of difficulty, you can buy it directly from the publisher at: > > http://www.kjos.com/ > > > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 05:12 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are >those included in the Koonce edition. > > OK then those will do just fine. You don't need me for that. You can buy this book from all the usual sources. In case of difficulty, you can buy it directly from the publisher at: http://www.kjos.com/ Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: RV: Facsimeles etc.
> Poor countries and access to resources: It is a difficult matter indeed. > What to do about it? I'm in the other end of the spectrum, the one > "benefited" from the free online resources or the donations. And the one > doing most illegal actions. > > I'll tell you what happens down here (Argentina): we freely exchange > sheet music in any form, especially by photocopies, but also--and by > those of us who are lucky enough to have a computer--by pdf files, by > sharing links to web sites we found with sheet music, etc. That's the > only way we're able to access material to produce guitarists, lutenists, > and musicians in general. Some of us fortunate to have money to make > copies or connect to the Internet: many students don't, and we have to > "donate" photocopies for them, they're that poor. Fortunately, they > don't have to pay for lessons, the Conservatory is free and paid by the > government. But sometimes, at the beginning of the year, you can find > students (9 or 10 year old) who go to the small kitchen in the > Conservatory, hoping to get some food, food they don't get at home. Yes, > it's that bad. > > BUT, some of us would be able to afford to buy a few items a year. We > don't do it, because we're caught in this photocopying frenzy. And > that's why you won't see any new editions coming from Argentina: we made > publishers die, publishers like Ricordi Americana, who once had a > incredible catalog of works. Composers in Argentina know this situation > well, and give away copies of their works to anyone who shows interest > in them without thinking it twice. And publish their works in foreign > countries. Somehow I don't believe that the musicians are to blame for this. It seemed that A LOT of music down there was being put out by Warner Brothers "South American division. So I'm sure they contributed to the demise of local houses. > About donations: I'm thankful to persons who are willing to donate > items. But I don't think we would be receiving the amounts we need. And > I'm sure anything you donate would be copied a thousand times, so keep > it in mind, it would surely end up as more illegal copies in the world, > not less. Of course, I'm speaking about musicians in general and > guitarists in particular. There are no lutenists around here. There should be half a dozen around metropolitan Buenos Aires, right? And at least one in M __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org ar del Plata. RT
Re: Facsimeles etc.
On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 23:04 Europe/Warsaw, Matanya Ophee wrote: > But should new material come to light, > there is no chance it will enter into general circulation any time > soon. > Viz. the availability to the Francesco Castelfranco new discoveries. > And > this is only one of the more recent discoveries that will be a long > time in > hiding from the lute community. What are the new discoveries of Francesco Castelfranco? What are the other more recent discoveries?? Jerzy
Re: Facsimeles etc.
never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are those included in the Koonce edition. OK then those will do just fine. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 01:43 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >That's very noble of you. Let me suggest that if indeed you are true to > >your ideals, you post them for free on _your_ web site. You don't know how > >to fit them on standard printer paper? I'll be happy to help you there > > > > That is a most generous offer! I will take you up on that. Just the > >other day I was wondering if that was possible. You have my word, I will do > >it, and offer them for free. > >However, no offence but I think you and I won't make a good match as far > >as a teacher/student relationship, maybe someone else can help me with that. > > I am sure there are many who can do this. The idea is very simple: you > divide the plan drawing to segments that can fit a standard printer page > size, bearing in mind the difference between the US and the European > standards sizes. Pick the smaller of the two. The segments have to be a bit > smaller than the selected paper size, since no printers can print a bleed, > i.e., to the edge of the paper and beyond. Then you save the scans as PDF > files, and some kind of an index which will tell the downloader in what > sequence they make up the plan. All they have to do when they downloaded > the bunch, is trim out the margins and paste the individual pages together. > Rube Goldbergish, no doubt, but simple. > > >I keeping in the same spirit, may I call on you to have a free > >download of a facsimile of the Bach/Weyrauch tablatures, and don't give me > >that crap that you don't own the rights, If you can sell them you certainly > >can give them away. > > I sell nothing of the kind. You must be confusing me with somebody else. I > already told you that there are no Lute Suites in my catalogue, and I have > never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are > those included in the Koonce edition. I suggest you apply to the Neil Kjos > Publishing Company in San Diego, those who published Frank Koonce edition. > Just one little friendly advise: this is a very large company, much larger > than my own little one man operation. Don't take them for granted. > > > > Sorry, I have no idea what baseball cards are. Outside my frame of > >reference. In 38 years in this US of A, I still do not understand what's > >happening on a baseball field and what's involved around that game. And > >what monopoly do I hold that you are referring to > > > >I would simply define monopoly, as one person having all the cookies. > > And what cookies might these be? > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > > >
Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc.
I wrote: >a facsimile is by definition not an original work. The >question has been decided in a published federal trial court decision, but >not by a federal court of appeal. Stewart McCoy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm afraid I don't know what the legal situation is in America. We > usually rely on Howard Posner's expertise when it comes to legal > matters. There's a scary thought. >If I remember right, his last e-mail on this subject seemed > to suggest that the situation wasn't absolutely clear. "seemed to suggest that the situation wasn't absolutely clear" is very well put. A trial court opinion is not the last word on the subject, but it's fairly persuasive authority when it's the only word on the subject. HP
Re: Facsimeles etc.
>What a load of crap! Making a book is a manufacturing operation and, per >se, does not involve any creativity. So is making a lute. Well Monkey, you certainly put your tail in your mouth this time, I wonder how many people would agree with.that! Stick to what you know best, how to revel in the creativity of others, and then stiff the rest of us! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 09:18 AM 12/3/2003 -0500, Doctor Oakroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That is a book, and it was made from scratch by > > > one > > > person who invested a great deal of time and money in creating it. > > > >What a load of crap! Making a book is a manufacturing operation and, per > >se, does not involve any creativity. > > So is making a lute. > > Incidentally, if Michael does not seem to understand the degree of > mendacity involved in his stance on this issue, perhaps he ought to look at > his own web page where he sells, for good money, plans of historical > instruments. > > He went to museums, obtained official permission from curators, spent many > hours in drawing these plans, and perhaps not a small amount of money in > travel and lodging expenses. He charges $40.- per plan which is not a large > amount of money, but certainly not one a poor lute maker in the Ukraine or > Zimbabwe can afford. So what will be Michael's reaction if someone bought > the plans from him and proceeded to post them on the WEB for free download > by indigenous lute makers? > > Surely Michael Thames cannot possibly claim copyright or patent protection > of the design of a Venere lute? > > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 01:00 PM 12/3/2003 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I have a good friend who runs a major library nearby and hear these same >concerns all of the time. My concern is where the need to make lute music >available and this funding crisis intersect. Some of the prices I've been >quoted to obtain a "license" from these libraries is really outrageous. To the >point that I don't see how any publisher can make money or break even paying >these fees. So, this licensing practice discourages lute music from being >published, especially obscure sources. Thank you for understanding the issue. This is a vicious circle. Lutenists balk at having to pay for books, preferring free photocopies ripped off publishers editions. Libraries are thus deprived of money they consider is due to them, so they raise the fee for making their material available, to the point that publishers no longer can afford it, thus cease publishing. No more lute music. All this is fine when the entire repertoire is known and exists in some form that can be exchanged for free. But should new material come to light, there is no chance it will enter into general circulation any time soon. Viz. the availability to the Francesco Castelfranco new discoveries. And this is only one of the more recent discoveries that will be a long time in hiding from the lute community. Hernan Mouro just gave us a perfect picture how this cycle killed the entire Argentine publishing industry. It will happen here too. Just give it time and enough phoney altruists. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 01:43 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >That's very noble of you. Let me suggest that if indeed you are true to >your ideals, you post them for free on _your_ web site. You don't know how >to fit them on standard printer paper? I'll be happy to help you there > > That is a most generous offer! I will take you up on that. Just the >other day I was wondering if that was possible. You have my word, I will do >it, and offer them for free. >However, no offence but I think you and I won't make a good match as far >as a teacher/student relationship, maybe someone else can help me with that. I am sure there are many who can do this. The idea is very simple: you divide the plan drawing to segments that can fit a standard printer page size, bearing in mind the difference between the US and the European standards sizes. Pick the smaller of the two. The segments have to be a bit smaller than the selected paper size, since no printers can print a bleed, i.e., to the edge of the paper and beyond. Then you save the scans as PDF files, and some kind of an index which will tell the downloader in what sequence they make up the plan. All they have to do when they downloaded the bunch, is trim out the margins and paste the individual pages together. Rube Goldbergish, no doubt, but simple. >I keeping in the same spirit, may I call on you to have a free >download of a facsimile of the Bach/Weyrauch tablatures, and don't give me >that crap that you don't own the rights, If you can sell them you certainly >can give them away. I sell nothing of the kind. You must be confusing me with somebody else. I already told you that there are no Lute Suites in my catalogue, and I have never owned a set of facsimiles of the Bach-Weyrauch myself. All I have are those included in the Koonce edition. I suggest you apply to the Neil Kjos Publishing Company in San Diego, those who published Frank Koonce edition. Just one little friendly advise: this is a very large company, much larger than my own little one man operation. Don't take them for granted. > Sorry, I have no idea what baseball cards are. Outside my frame of >reference. In 38 years in this US of A, I still do not understand what's >happening on a baseball field and what's involved around that game. And >what monopoly do I hold that you are referring to > >I would simply define monopoly, as one person having all the cookies. And what cookies might these be? Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
I have a good friend who runs a major library nearby and hear these same concerns all of the time. My concern is where the need to make lute music available and this funding crisis intersect. Some of the prices I've been quoted to obtain a "license" from these libraries is really outrageous. To the point that I don't see how any publisher can make money or break even paying these fees. So, this licensing practice discourages lute music from being published, especially obscure sources. --- Matanya Ophee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:24 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Matanya Ophee wrote: > > > ... always had to accept a condition imposed by the library that the > > > material will be used specifically for the purpose for which it was > > > obtained, > > > >What is the library's motivation for this? I would have thought that a > >non-profit library would be happy to promote the spread of non-copyright > >material. > > I would have thought so too, but in the real world, there are two forces at > work. Some librarians think that just because they own the keys to the > library, they own culture. You run into types like this every so often. But > the real motivation is that no matter what country, no matter what > political systems, libraries are under funded and they need to generate > income so they can pay the overhead. That's the case with public libraries > such as the BL, BN, LoC, etc. In the case of privately endowed libraries, > the motivation is even stronger. That's the Golden Rule: He who owns the > Gold, makes the Rules. The gold in our case are the manuscripts and old > editions we seek. > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > > = web: http://www.christopherschaub.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Facsimeles etc.
I Agree, Monkey, they cost me $20.00 to Xerox, Michael, MO is neither hominid nor a simian. He is not a marsupial either [unlike Michael Stitt]. Considering that his cultural sensitivity is that of a rhinocerotide he is suspected to be of that genus. I personally believe that from biochemical viewpoint MO is simply a mixture of fecal matter and yeast. That is the actual method for obtaining MO in laboratory conditions. I am not joking, that what we as children did to the outhouses of reviled neighbors. RT Roman, I finally had a laugh of a lifetime, and I'm on the floor, thanks I couldn't have said it better. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:48 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > I Agree, Monkey, they cost me $20.00 to Xerox, > Michael, MO is neither hominid nor a simian. He is not a marsupial either > [unlike Michael Stitt]. Considering that his cultural sensitivity is that of > a rhinocerotide he is suspected to be of that genus. > I personally believe that from biochemical viewpoint MO is simply a mixture > of fecal matter and yeast. That is the actual method for obtaining MO in > laboratory conditions. I am not joking, that what we as children did to the > outhouses of reviled neighbors. > RT > __ > Roman M. Turovsky > http://turovsky.org > http://polyhymnion.org > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
That's very noble of you. Let me suggest that if indeed you are true to your ideals, you post them for free on _your_ web site. You don't know how to fit them on standard printer paper? I'll be happy to help you there That is a most generous offer! I will take you up on that. Just the other day I was wondering if that was possible. You have my word, I will do it, and offer them for free. However, no offence but I think you and I won't make a good match as far as a teacher/student relationship, maybe someone else can help me with that. I keeping in the same spirit, may I call on you to have a free download of a facsimile of the Bach/Weyrauch tablatures, and don't give me that crap that you don't own the rights, If you can sell them you certainly can give them away. Sorry, I have no idea what baseball cards are. Outside my frame of reference. In 38 years in this US of A, I still do not understand what's happening on a baseball field and what's involved around that game. And what monopoly do I hold that you are referring to I would simply define monopoly, as one person having all the cookies. And maybe someone else can help you with baseball cards, that's really over my head. Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 10:53 AM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I Agree, Monkey, they cost me $20.00 to Xerox, buy a tube and ship > >worldwide, not mention the cost of travel, expertise involved, in drawing > >them up. But the shocking part Mr. Monkey is there's NO COPYRIGHT > >written anywhere on those plans. > > You buy one set, and that's all you pay, I don;to charge people 10% every > >they make a lute. > >So that means you are free to make copies and give them to your > >friends. So you see I am being true to my ideals, And if you would like a > >set I will send them to you free of charge. > > That's very noble of you. Let me suggest that if indeed you are true to > your ideals, you post them for free on _your_ web site. You don't know how > to fit them on standard printer paper? I'll be happy to help you there. > > >And for the record, there kind of like baseball cards I trade them > >for other lute plans, I've never sold a set to anyone, as a matter of fact > >I've given both the Boston Museum of Fine arts and Yale copies to sell as a > >donation to their foundations. I've also given them to 4 or 5 other > >lutemakers, so as not to hold a monopoly on them, like you. > >I call on you to do the same! you hypocrite! > > Sorry, I have no idea what baseball cards are. Outside my frame of > reference. In 38 years in this US of A, I still do not understand what's > happening on a baseball field and what's involved around that game. And > what monopoly do I hold that you are referring to? > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > >
RV: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Stewart, Roman, and all, Poor countries and access to resources: It is a difficult matter indeed. What to do about it? I'm in the other end of the spectrum, the one "benefited" from the free online resources or the donations. And the one doing most illegal actions. I'll tell you what happens down here (Argentina): we freely exchange sheet music in any form, especially by photocopies, but also--and by those of us who are lucky enough to have a computer--by pdf files, by sharing links to web sites we found with sheet music, etc. That's the only way we're able to access material to produce guitarists, lutenists, and musicians in general. Some of us fortunate to have money to make copies or connect to the Internet: many students don't, and we have to "donate" photocopies for them, they're that poor. Fortunately, they don't have to pay for lessons, the Conservatory is free and paid by the government. But sometimes, at the beginning of the year, you can find students (9 or 10 year old) who go to the small kitchen in the Conservatory, hoping to get some food, food they don't get at home. Yes, it's that bad. BUT, some of us would be able to afford to buy a few items a year. We don't do it, because we're caught in this photocopying frenzy. And that's why you won't see any new editions coming from Argentina: we made publishers die, publishers like Ricordi Americana, who once had a incredible catalog of works. Composers in Argentina know this situation well, and give away copies of their works to anyone who shows interest in them without thinking it twice. And publish their works in foreign countries. About donations: I'm thankful to persons who are willing to donate items. But I don't think we would be receiving the amounts we need. And I'm sure anything you donate would be copied a thousand times, so keep it in mind, it would surely end up as more illegal copies in the world, not less. Of course, I'm speaking about musicians in general and guitarists in particular. There are no lutenists around here. So, I don't know what should be done. I appreciate the time anyone takes to think about this. Hernan Mouro. Conservatorio de Musica de Bahia Blanca, Argentina. PS: I wish libraries had online facsimiles with free access themselves. No one could complain about that. > Dear Roman, > > I have every sympathy with what you say. Those of us who own > good instruments and expensive music are most fortunate, > whether it came by luck, by hard work, or because we happen > to live in affluent societies. Of course, I would love to own > more instruments, better instruments, more music > (particularly lute facsimiles), but even though I cannot > afford these things, what I have already is far more than > many others may have.
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 12:24 PM 12/3/2003 -0600, Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Matanya Ophee wrote: > > ... always had to accept a condition imposed by the library that the > > material will be used specifically for the purpose for which it was > > obtained, > >What is the library's motivation for this? I would have thought that a >non-profit library would be happy to promote the spread of non-copyright >material. I would have thought so too, but in the real world, there are two forces at work. Some librarians think that just because they own the keys to the library, they own culture. You run into types like this every so often. But the real motivation is that no matter what country, no matter what political systems, libraries are under funded and they need to generate income so they can pay the overhead. That's the case with public libraries such as the BL, BN, LoC, etc. In the case of privately endowed libraries, the motivation is even stronger. That's the Golden Rule: He who owns the Gold, makes the Rules. The gold in our case are the manuscripts and old editions we seek. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> I Agree, Monkey, they cost me $20.00 to Xerox, Michael, MO is neither hominid nor a simian. He is not a marsupial either [unlike Michael Stitt]. Considering that his cultural sensitivity is that of a rhinocerotide he is suspected to be of that genus. I personally believe that from biochemical viewpoint MO is simply a mixture of fecal matter and yeast. That is the actual method for obtaining MO in laboratory conditions. I am not joking, that what we as children did to the outhouses of reviled neighbors. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Facsimeles etc.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Matanya Ophee wrote: > ... always had to accept a condition imposed by the library that the > material will be used specifically for the purpose for which it was > obtained, What is the library's motivation for this? I would have thought that a non-profit library would be happy to promote the spread of non-copyright material.
Re: Facsimeles, etc
>> No, but you are believed to be a publisher of commercial ARRANGEMENTS. > Not exactly. > I self publish a few things for the lute that I WROTE and some that I > arranged, melodies that I harmonized and added variations to. There > is little market for such material from lutenists. Not the same as > selling facsililes. I mostly license my pieces to a publisher and > they sell them. This is what I do for a living. I'm a full time > composer and arranger. > I have many downloads of lute pieces on my site where there is no > charge. Good! >> I do not wish to open a second can of worms, but earlier I have >> expressed an opinion that an arrangement, although it is not a >> facsimile, should carry only a minimal price tag, because it is >> basically someone else's music, usually from public domain. RT > Then make arrangements and sell them for a minimal price or give them > away. > Simple And that' what I have been doing for years, no fee. RT
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 10:53 AM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I Agree, Monkey, they cost me $20.00 to Xerox, buy a tube and ship >worldwide, not mention the cost of travel, expertise involved, in drawing >them up. But the shocking part Mr. Monkey is there's NO COPYRIGHT >written anywhere on those plans. > You buy one set, and that's all you pay, I don;to charge people 10% every >they make a lute. >So that means you are free to make copies and give them to your >friends. So you see I am being true to my ideals, And if you would like a >set I will send them to you free of charge. That's very noble of you. Let me suggest that if indeed you are true to your ideals, you post them for free on _your_ web site. You don't know how to fit them on standard printer paper? I'll be happy to help you there. >And for the record, there kind of like baseball cards I trade them >for other lute plans, I've never sold a set to anyone, as a matter of fact >I've given both the Boston Museum of Fine arts and Yale copies to sell as a >donation to their foundations. I've also given them to 4 or 5 other >lutemakers, so as not to hold a monopoly on them, like you. >I call on you to do the same! you hypocrite! Sorry, I have no idea what baseball cards are. Outside my frame of reference. In 38 years in this US of A, I still do not understand what's happening on a baseball field and what's involved around that game. And what monopoly do I hold that you are referring to? Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc.
> Thanks, but it wasn't really point - as I said, I don't intend distributing > what I've got, with or without permission. It just struck me as odd that > the edition was so completely "anonymous", and I wondered why. > Tony How about intellectual honesty? RT > > >> Here are the Broude Bros contacts: >> >> Broude Brothers >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Broude Brothers Limited >> 141 White Oaks Road >> Williamstown, MA 01267 >> >> Dr. Ronald Broude, Dr. Gwen Broude >> Phone: (413) 458-8131 >> (800) 225 3197 >> Fax: (413) 458-5242 >> >> GJC >> >> Date sent: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:24:38 - >> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject:Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. >> >>> Dear Tony, >>> >>> If you wanted, you could probably track down an address for Broude >>> Bros via the Internet. >>> >>> I'm afraid I don't know what the legal situation is in America. We >>> usually rely on Howard Posner's expertise when it comes to legal >>> matters. If I remember right, his last e-mail on this subject seemed to >>> suggest that the situation wasn't absolutely clear. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Stewart McCoy. >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:08 PM >>> Subject: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. >>> >>> >>>> I think the same was true of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare. >>>> >>>> Where do Broude Performers' facsimiles fit in to this? I have >>> their >>>> Lachrimae table book (price in ink on the inside cover). Neither >>> the >>>> publisher's name nor a copyright mark appear anywhere in the book. >>> I do not >>>> have any intention of publishing any part of it on Internet - >>> (it's mine >>>> 'cos I paid for it), but if I had, and wanted to ask their >>> permission, I >>>> would find it very difficult as I can't imagine a letter to >>> 'Performers' >>>> Facsimiles, New York' would get there easily. >>>> >>>> Is this a question of US law, or is there a fundamental difference >>> in >>>> policy? >>>> >>>> Tony >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc.
Thanks, but it wasn't really point - as I said, I don't intend distributing what I've got, with or without permission. It just struck me as odd that the edition was so completely "anonymous", and I wondered why. Tony - Original Message - From: "Dr. Gordon J. Callon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:34 PM Subject: Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. > Here are the Broude Bros contacts: > > Broude Brothers > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Broude Brothers Limited > 141 White Oaks Road > Williamstown, MA 01267 > > Dr. Ronald Broude, Dr. Gwen Broude > Phone: (413) 458-8131 > (800) 225 3197 > Fax: (413) 458-5242 > > GJC > > Date sent: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:24:38 - > To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject:Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. > > > Dear Tony, > > > > If you wanted, you could probably track down an address for Broude > > Bros via the Internet. > > > > I'm afraid I don't know what the legal situation is in America. We > > usually rely on Howard Posner's expertise when it comes to legal > > matters. If I remember right, his last e-mail on this subject seemed to > > suggest that the situation wasn't absolutely clear. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Stewart McCoy. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:08 PM > > Subject: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. > > > > > > > I think the same was true of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare. > > > > > > Where do Broude Performers' facsimiles fit in to this? I have > > their > > > Lachrimae table book (price in ink on the inside cover). Neither > > the > > > publisher's name nor a copyright mark appear anywhere in the book. > > I do not > > > have any intention of publishing any part of it on Internet - > > (it's mine > > > 'cos I paid for it), but if I had, and wanted to ask their > > permission, I > > > would find it very difficult as I can't imagine a letter to > > 'Performers' > > > Facsimiles, New York' would get there easily. > > > > > > Is this a question of US law, or is there a fundamental difference > > in > > > policy? > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Incidentally, if Michael does not seem to understand the degree of mendacity involved in his stance on this issue, perhaps he ought to look at his own web page where he sells, for good money, plans of historical instruments I Agree, Monkey, they cost me $20.00 to Xerox, buy a tube and ship worldwide, not mention the cost of travel, expertise involved, in drawing them up. But the shocking part Mr. Monkey is there's NO COPYRIGHT ...written anywhere on those plans. You buy one set, and that's all you pay, I don;to charge people 10% every they make a lute. So that means you are free to make copies and give them to your friends. So you see I am being true to my ideals, And if you would like a set I will send them to you free of charge. And for the record, there kind of like baseball cards I trade them for other lute plans, I've never sold a set to anyone, as a matter of fact I've given both the Boston Museum of Fine arts and Yale copies to sell as a donation to their foundations. I've also given them to 4 or 5 other lutemakers, so as not to hold a monopoly on them, like you. I call on you to do the same! you hypocrite! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 09:18 AM 12/3/2003 -0500, Doctor Oakroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That is a book, and it was made from scratch by > > > one > > > person who invested a great deal of time and money in creating it. > > > >What a load of crap! Making a book is a manufacturing operation and, per > >se, does not involve any creativity. > > So is making a lute. > > Incidentally, if Michael does not seem to understand the degree of > mendacity involved in his stance on this issue, perhaps he ought to look at > his own web page where he sells, for good money, plans of historical > instruments. > > He went to museums, obtained official permission from curators, spent many > hours in drawing these plans, and perhaps not a small amount of money in > travel and lodging expenses. He charges $40.- per plan which is not a large > amount of money, but certainly not one a poor lute maker in the Ukraine or > Zimbabwe can afford. So what will be Michael's reaction if someone bought > the plans from him and proceeded to post them on the WEB for free download > by indigenous lute makers? > > Surely Michael Thames cannot possibly claim copyright or patent protection > of the design of a Venere lute? > > > > Matanya Ophee > Editions Orphe'e, Inc., > 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. > Columbus, OH 43235-1226 > Phone: 614-846-9517 > Fax: 614-846-9794 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.orphee.com > > >
Re: Facsimeles, etc
Hello Roman, > No, but you are believed to be a publisher of commercial ARRANGEMENTS. Not exactly. I self publish a few things for the lute that I WROTE and some that I arranged, melodies that I harmonized and added variations to. There is little market for such material from lutenists. Not the same as selling facsililes. I mostly license my pieces to a publisher and they sell them. This is what I do for a living. I'm a full time composer and arranger. I have many downloads of lute pieces on my site where there is no charge. > I do not wish to open a second can of worms, but earlier I have > expressed an opinion that an arrangement, although it is not a > facsimile, should carry only a minimal price tag, because it is > basically someone else's music, usually from public domain. RT Then make arrangements and sell them for a minimal price or give them away. Simple Allan www.fluteandguitar.com www.guitarandlute.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 12:32 AM 12/3/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >where did I " publicly declare that " I >intend to >rip him off " Those are you words. They are indeed. Considering your proposal, a rip-off operation is actually a mild and forgiving expletive. >At no time did I say I would post the >facsimiles regardless of Albert's wishes, and quite frankly I won't, based >not so much on legality, but to respect his wishes. You still do not seem to understand that Albert's wishes in this point are entirely besides the point. Many of us, scholars, publishers, performers, teachers, who have had occasion in the past to request permission from libraries, always had to accept a condition imposed by the library that the material will be used specifically for the purpose for which it was obtained, and under no circumstances one could make copies for other people, without the library's permission and agreement. This is not a legal condition, but a practical one. Those who defy the library's wishes, shoot themselves in the foot as they will surely black listed for any future material. Besides, each time this happens, the fee for bona fide researchers goes up. years ago I used to get copies from the British Library for a couple of shillings a page. Now the fee is 25 GBP per page. Albert cannot possibly give you permission to do what you want to do, since this would be a violation of his agreement with the library. Neither can Frank Koonce give you permission to copy _his_ facsimile of the same manuscript. The only person who can give you such permission is the librarian. What's so difficult about writing a letter and asking for it? > In the end I don't want >to piss off anymore human beings,than I have to, except you! I asked some >alarming questions again out of my naivety which you seem to enjoy pointing >out. Your questions were not alarming. They were plain stupid because they implied scavenging the work of someone else. Let me give you a taste of what this sounds like: Would you mind if I bought from you a set of plans for the Venere lute and posted it on my web site for free download by indigenous poor lute makers world wide? > Also, concerning young guitars students, I have noticed that hardly any >of them play baroque or ren music these, it's mostly modern. Thank you for stating the obvious. I have been in this business for 48 years by now and I am acutely aware of this. But this is not the forum to discuss this issue. I suggest you log on to rec.music.classical.guitar and check out their archives (on Google Groups) for the last ten years, and see how many times I, and many others, have discussed this issue. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
At 09:18 AM 12/3/2003 -0500, Doctor Oakroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is a book, and it was made from scratch by > > one > > person who invested a great deal of time and money in creating it. > >What a load of crap! Making a book is a manufacturing operation and, per >se, does not involve any creativity. So is making a lute. Incidentally, if Michael does not seem to understand the degree of mendacity involved in his stance on this issue, perhaps he ought to look at his own web page where he sells, for good money, plans of historical instruments. He went to museums, obtained official permission from curators, spent many hours in drawing these plans, and perhaps not a small amount of money in travel and lodging expenses. He charges $40.- per plan which is not a large amount of money, but certainly not one a poor lute maker in the Ukraine or Zimbabwe can afford. So what will be Michael's reaction if someone bought the plans from him and proceeded to post them on the WEB for free download by indigenous lute makers? Surely Michael Thames cannot possibly claim copyright or patent protection of the design of a Venere lute? Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com
Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc.
Here are the Broude Bros contacts: Broude Brothers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Broude Brothers Limited 141 White Oaks Road Williamstown, MA 01267 Dr. Ronald Broude, Dr. Gwen Broude Phone: (413) 458-8131 (800) 225 3197 Fax: (413) 458-5242 GJC Date sent: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:24:38 - To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. > Dear Tony, > > If you wanted, you could probably track down an address for Broude > Bros via the Internet. > > I'm afraid I don't know what the legal situation is in America. We > usually rely on Howard Posner's expertise when it comes to legal > matters. If I remember right, his last e-mail on this subject seemed to > suggest that the situation wasn't absolutely clear. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:08 PM > Subject: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. > > > > I think the same was true of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare. > > > > Where do Broude Performers' facsimiles fit in to this? I have > their > > Lachrimae table book (price in ink on the inside cover). Neither > the > > publisher's name nor a copyright mark appear anywhere in the book. > I do not > > have any intention of publishing any part of it on Internet - > (it's mine > > 'cos I paid for it), but if I had, and wanted to ask their > permission, I > > would find it very difficult as I can't imagine a letter to > 'Performers' > > Facsimiles, New York' would get there easily. > > > > Is this a question of US law, or is there a fundamental difference > in > > policy? > > > > Tony > > >
Re: Facsimeles etc.
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Stewart McCoy wrote: > Our medium of computers may be new, but the matter under discussion > most certainly is not. > There were various pirate editions of music in the 16th century, > > Would, say, Dowland have been surprised at 21st century culture, > where 99% > > of music is commercial and a ready source of litigation? > > > > Has there always been music of such aggressive crassness as is > heard (in > > abundant volume) on any city street corner? > > > > I'm not anti-Tree, but I do wonder whether this is related. > > >
Re: Facsimeles, etc
>>> Hello Albert, >>> Thanks, that was very clear. I agree with you. >>> Allan Alexander >> Back in the old country there is a saying: "Crows never peck each >> other's eyes". >> RT > Are you suggesting that I am a publisher of facsimiles? I have no > interest in this business. I think that if Albert publishes the book, > people should respect his publication and not copy and distribute it. > If they want to go get their own information, let them do it. No, but you are believed to be a publisher of commercial ARRANGEMENTS. I do not wish to open a second can of worms, but earlier I have expressed an opinion that an arrangement, although it is not a facsimile, should carry only a minimal price tag, because it is basically someone else's music, usually from public domain. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org > > Allan > >>> PLEASE, LET'S SPEAK ABOUT THOSE TOPICS WE KNOW WELL ! >> Actually I do know a few things about this, having published a book >> written by my father, and having worked "in the industry". > > It > is a >> real shame that Albert Reyerman had to explain with full details > > how >> much work it means publishing (= making public) something, in this >> >> case lute manuscripts. It is a shame because he had to, out of the >> >> feeling that his work was being neglected. > Besides, it is for me >> totally clear that Albert Reyerman is doing it not > for the > financial >> profit, -which is negligible, or even inexistent if he > counts his >> own time- but because of other compensations. The right of uncle >> Albert to bublish "his" Bach facsimile has never been questioned. > The >> interesting thing is Albert has no rights to control what happens > to >> these images after he publishes them, because they are common >> property, like Goethe or Shakespeare. >> >> >>> >>> I also would like to ask you for a favor, dear Michael Thames: >>> please stop using that sentence in which photography is > considered >>> only a matter of pressing a button. >> Manolo, I felt your pain, but both of us know that there is >> photography, and there is Photography, just like there are painting >> and Painting, and we know which category yours belongs to (Those > who >> don't know should at least try to find out). RT __ > Roman >> M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org >> >> >> > > > > www.fluteandguitar.com > www.guitarandlute.com
Re: Facsimeles, etc
Roman said: > > Hello Albert, > > Thanks, that was very clear. I agree with you. > > Allan Alexander > Back in the old country there is a saying: "Crows never peck each > other's eyes". RT Are you suggesting that I am a publisher of facsimiles? I have no interest in this business. I think that if Albert publishes the book, people should respect his publication and not copy and distribute it. If they want to go get their own information, let them do it. Allan > > PLEASE, LET'S SPEAK ABOUT THOSE TOPICS WE KNOW WELL ! > Actually I do know a few things about this, having published a book > written by my father, and having worked "in the industry". > > It is a > real shame that Albert Reyerman had to explain with full details > how > much work it means publishing (= making public) something, in this > > case lute manuscripts. It is a shame because he had to, out of the > > feeling that his work was being neglected. > Besides, it is for me > totally clear that Albert Reyerman is doing it not > for the financial > profit, -which is negligible, or even inexistent if he > counts his > own time- but because of other compensations. The right of uncle > Albert to bublish "his" Bach facsimile has never been questioned. The > interesting thing is Albert has no rights to control what happens to > these images after he publishes them, because they are common > property, like Goethe or Shakespeare. > > > > > > I also would like to ask you for a favor, dear Michael Thames: > > please stop using that sentence in which photography is considered > > only a matter of pressing a button. > Manolo, I felt your pain, but both of us know that there is > photography, and there is Photography, just like there are painting > and Painting, and we know which category yours belongs to (Those who > don't know should at least try to find out). RT __ Roman > M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org > > > www.fluteandguitar.com www.guitarandlute.com
Re: Facsimeles, etc
> PLEASE, LET'S SPEAK ABOUT THOSE TOPICS WE KNOW WELL ! Actually I do know a few things about this, having published a book written by my father, and having worked "in the industry". > > It is a real shame that Albert Reyerman had to explain with full details > how much work it means publishing (= making public) something, in this > case lute manuscripts. It is a shame because he had to, out of the > feeling that his work was being neglected. > Besides, it is for me totally clear that Albert Reyerman is doing it not > for the financial profit, -which is negligible, or even inexistent if he > counts his own time- but because of other compensations. The right of uncle Albert to bublish "his" Bach facsimile has never been questioned. The interesting thing is Albert has no rights to control what happens to these images after he publishes them, because they are common property, like Goethe or Shakespeare. > > I also would like to ask you for a favor, dear Michael Thames: please > stop using that sentence in which photography is considered only a > matter of pressing a button. Manolo, I felt your pain, but both of us know that there is photography, and there is Photography, just like there are painting and Painting, and we know which category yours belongs to (Those who don't know should at least try to find out). RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc.
I think the same was true of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare. Where do Broude Performers' facsimiles fit in to this? I have their Lachrimae table book (price in ink on the inside cover). Neither the publisher's name nor a copyright mark appear anywhere in the book. I do not have any intention of publishing any part of it on Internet - (it's mine 'cos I paid for it), but if I had, and wanted to ask their permission, I would find it very difficult as I can't imagine a letter to 'Performers' Facsimiles, New York' would get there easily. Is this a question of US law, or is there a fundamental difference in policy? Tony - Original Message - From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:49 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > Dear Herbert, > > Our medium of computers may be new, but the matter under discussion > most certainly is not. > > There were various pirate editions of music in the 16th century, > with characters like Pierre Phalese dipping into other people's > books for inspiration. For example, music by Valderrabano was > "borrowed" by Phalese, and presumably Valderrabano didn't get a bean > for it. > > Funny that you should mention John Dowland. He was furious that > people published his music without his permission, introducing > mistakes in the process. This is what he had to say in the > introduction to _The First Booke of Songes_ (London, 1597): > > "There have bin divers Lute lessons of mine printed without my > knowledge, falce and unperfect ..." > > He was certainly not impressed by people stealing his music for > publication. It is thought that Dowland might have had William > Barley in mind, who had published a version of Dowland's Lachrimae > Pavan in 1596. > > We know about improper practices with regard to the printing and > selling of Dowland's _Second Booke of Songs or Ayres_ (London, > 1600), because it resulted in a court case. Information on all of > this may be found in Diana Poulton's _John Dowland_ (London: Faber > and Faber Limited, 1972). > > Maybe William Barley thought Lachrimae was in the public domain. > Maybe the printers who sold extra copies of Dowland's _Second Booke_ > on the sly thought they were helping the lute-playing world by > spreading Dowland's music to a wider audience. Who knows? The fact > remains that the plague of plagiarism is not new. If there be any > crassness, it belongs to those who underestimate the significance of > it all. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:11 PM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > > > > > Would, say, Dowland have been surprised at 21st century culture, > where 99% > > of music is commercial and a ready source of litigation? > > > > Has there always been music of such aggressive crassness as is > heard (in > > abundant volume) on any city street corner? > > > > I'm not anti-Tree, but I do wonder whether this is related. > > >
Re: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Tony, If you wanted, you could probably track down an address for Broude Bros via the Internet. I'm afraid I don't know what the legal situation is in America. We usually rely on Howard Posner's expertise when it comes to legal matters. If I remember right, his last e-mail on this subject seemed to suggest that the situation wasn't absolutely clear. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: Falce and unperfect: was: Facsimeles etc. > I think the same was true of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare. > > Where do Broude Performers' facsimiles fit in to this? I have their > Lachrimae table book (price in ink on the inside cover). Neither the > publisher's name nor a copyright mark appear anywhere in the book. I do not > have any intention of publishing any part of it on Internet - (it's mine > 'cos I paid for it), but if I had, and wanted to ask their permission, I > would find it very difficult as I can't imagine a letter to 'Performers' > Facsimiles, New York' would get there easily. > > Is this a question of US law, or is there a fundamental difference in > policy? > > Tony
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Matanya Ophee wrote: > At 09:20 PM 12/2/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > St. Michael the Liberator! I notice you don't give your guitars away. >> > Don't you think the world should be given free access to such fine >> > instruments? ;-) >> > >> > DR >>This is not an analogy, he MAKES them from scratch. >>RT >> Roman, thanks. I just didn't know what to say to someone like >> that. > > It's easy to grab at the straws RT supplies you with when your hypocrisy > is > staring you in the face. But Roman is wrong. The analogy is perfect. The > issue is not the music, but the object you hold in your hand when you put > it on the copy machine. That is a book, and it was made from scratch by > one > person who invested a great deal of time and money in creating it. What a load of crap! Making a book is a manufacturing operation and, per se, does not involve any creativity. There may be creativity in the content... but not when the content consists of facsimiles. There is no copyright in operating a copying machine no matter how inconvenient or expensive it was to obtain the source manuscript. -- Rough-edged songs from a dark place in the soul: http://DoctorOakroot.com
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dear Roman, > I have every sympathy with what you say. Those of us who own good > instruments and expensive music are most fortunate, whether it came > by luck, by hard work, or because we happen to live in affluent > societies. Of course, I would love to own more instruments, better > instruments, more music (particularly lute facsimiles), but even > though I cannot afford these things, what I have already is far more > than many others may have. Stewart, I have never doubted that you were a man with a heart. > Both of us have had first-hand experience of seeing the difficulties > faced by musicians in other countries, where the local currency may > (or may not) be sufficient to buy things produced locally, but > certainly cannot match the hard currency needed to buy books and > instruments from abroad. It is a serious issue, and I think you are > absolutely right to mention it, thinking and caring for others, as > you do. > > Where we disagree is what should be done about it. I don't think > putting Albert Reyerman's facsimile editions on a website is the > answer. That would be unfair to Albert, because it would be giving > away his work without his permission. My idea is that facsimile business MUST be made to function similarly to the Metropolitan Museum admissions: Pay what you wish (what is is worth to you, what you honestly can afford), minimum is a mere penny. I have done this a few times with my paintings and it generated no abuse. Besides, making his facsimiles > available on a website would be giving his work to everyone, rich > and poor alike, wherever they happened to live on this world. Albert > would get nothing, and that can't be right. He owns an AGFA-scanner, doedn't he? > > > Others reading this e-mail may care to remember your e-mail to the > list dated 3rd March 2003, "Re: Off Topic, but", in which you > give the names and addresses of musicians in Russia and the Ukraine, > who would appreciate help in the form of music and CD's. > > It is an extremely important issue, and I would be very interested > to hear what you and others may think, and what practical steps > might be taken. In recent months I have mailed more than a 100 CD, only 15 of them pirated to the old country. Ukraine now has half a dozen lutenists, and one luthier of some competence. "Adopt-a-lutenist" may sound condescending, but in reality is a good thing. I know for certain that a box of books I sent to St.Petersburg 15 years ago brought 2 people into the fold. An organization may have legitimate reservations about sending copied materials, but individuals have no reason to feel constrained. Anyone actually interested in helping, ask me off the list. I am compiling a russophone lutenists' directory (53 worldwide) and while it is hard to find contact information, there are a dozen or so lads worth helping. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org > - Original Message - > From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:16 AM > Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > >>> Why stop at facsimiles? Why not make all their published music >>> available for free downloading? This would be such a great > service >>> to everyone, wouldn't it, because then we wouldn't have the > trouble >>> and expense of actually acquiring the books legitimately > ourselves. >> A good and noble idea, actually (limited to dead composers, of > course). >> When we use words like "ourselves" we invariably limit the notion > to more or >> less prosperous European and American middle class types who > actually are >> able to afford said trouble and expense. >> This, however, is a rather callous worldview of a petit bourgeois, > and it is >> expected, as the lute microcosm is a scaled down version of the > larger >> world, and there is no added reason to expect any altruism from it > any more >> than from the larger one. >> The lute microcosm is nowhere near the idyll that uncle Albert, > MO, or >> St.McCoy imagine it to be. There are GREAT MANY lutenists that are > UNABLE to >> undertake the "trouble" of both access and affordability of lute > music, the >> reasons being their isolation of faraway places AND/OR places in > which a >> price of an item from even such "moderate" and "reasonable" > publisher as >> uncle Albert buys a week's worth of food. They have computers that > they >&
Re: Facsimeles etc.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello Albert, > Thanks, that was very clear. I agree with you. > Allan Alexander Back in the old country there is a saying: "Crows never peck each other's eyes". RT
Re: Facsimeles etc.
>>> But again: place YOURS and not MINE. >> That is grossly untrue: It is Bach's and Weyrauch's (i.e. belonging to the >> World), and you [Albert Reyermann] merely BORROWED it. And your noble >> purpose has no bearing on this matter. >> RT > > Now, now, it is Mr. Reyermanns FACSIMILE EDITION that he speaks of, and > also of Mr. Thames non-existant one. He doesn't claim ownership of the > actual music and you know it. And if you miss his arguement, go back and > read his email... > Brian Uncle Albert owns the paper and the ink, but not the arrangement of ink on paper. So he can only say "facsimile I produced" but not "my facsimile". This is linguistics, and has nothing to do with either economics or ethics. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Dear Roman, I have every sympathy with what you say. Those of us who own good instruments and expensive music are most fortunate, whether it came by luck, by hard work, or because we happen to live in affluent societies. Of course, I would love to own more instruments, better instruments, more music (particularly lute facsimiles), but even though I cannot afford these things, what I have already is far more than many others may have. Both of us have had first-hand experience of seeing the difficulties faced by musicians in other countries, where the local currency may (or may not) be sufficient to buy things produced locally, but certainly cannot match the hard currency needed to buy books and instruments from abroad. It is a serious issue, and I think you are absolutely right to mention it, thinking and caring for others, as you do. Where we disagree is what should be done about it. I don't think putting Albert Reyerman's facsimile editions on a website is the answer. That would be unfair to Albert, because it would be giving away his work without his permission. Besides, making his facsimiles available on a website would be giving his work to everyone, rich and poor alike, wherever they happened to live on this world. Albert would get nothing, and that can't be right. We cannot change the world economy, so we have to find a way of living within the system we have. There is nothing to stop us doing practical things like giving away books, CD's, strings and even instruments to people who genuinely need them. A few years ago, for example, Stephen Haynes (who was the Lute Society Administrator before Chris Goodwin took over) gave one of his lutes (one he had made himself) to some Latvian early music enthusiasts. There is a scheme organised by the Viola da Gamba Society (I think by the President, Alison Crum) to send editions of early music (strictly no photocopies) to the Czech Republic. There are bursaries in memory of Marco Fondella for foreign students to study the lute in Milan with Paul Beyer. No doubt there are many other ways various people with altruistic aims have done something to help musicians who genuinely need help. Others reading this e-mail may care to remember your e-mail to the list dated 3rd March 2003, "Re: Off Topic, but", in which you give the names and addresses of musicians in Russia and the Ukraine, who would appreciate help in the form of music and CD's. It is an extremely important issue, and I would be very interested to hear what you and others may think, and what practical steps might be taken. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:16 AM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > > Why stop at facsimiles? Why not make all their published music > > available for free downloading? This would be such a great service > > to everyone, wouldn't it, because then we wouldn't have the trouble > > and expense of actually acquiring the books legitimately ourselves. > A good and noble idea, actually (limited to dead composers, of course). > When we use words like "ourselves" we invariably limit the notion to more or > less prosperous European and American middle class types who actually are > able to afford said trouble and expense. > This, however, is a rather callous worldview of a petit bourgeois, and it is > expected, as the lute microcosm is a scaled down version of the larger > world, and there is no added reason to expect any altruism from it any more > than from the larger one. > The lute microcosm is nowhere near the idyll that uncle Albert, MO, or > St.McCoy imagine it to be. There are GREAT MANY lutenists that are UNABLE to > undertake the "trouble" of both access and affordability of lute music, the > reasons being their isolation of faraway places AND/OR places in which a > price of an item from even such "moderate" and "reasonable" publisher as > uncle Albert buys a week's worth of food. They have computers that they > largely build themselves, they share modems between half a dozen friends > when they can buy internet access cards, they sometimes have decent lutes > strung with unimaginable things, and they love music in general, as well as > lute music in particular. > I also have reasons to believe that hardship is not limited to the part of > the world associated with RT's birthplace. Thing are not much better in > South America (which has produced some of the finest lute-players to date). > So I consider it my sacred duty to make everything lutenistically relevant > available to these individuals, CD's copied and recopied, the same with > editions, and if y
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Good Lord, what am I to say. (And for the politically correct, I do not use the phrase Good Lord for any establishment of religion, merely as a gentle expletive). I do hope the lack of civility in this discussion thread isn't characteristic of the Lute List. I have gotten so much help here in my staggering efforts to come into the community. Let's look at the issues clearly. There is a difference between the downloading of audio files of performances by artists (although most of the files downloaded these days may be from those I wouldn't consider to be artists), and the downloading of the facsimile of the notation of early music, or even recent music. The former is a downloading in order to listen without paying for the performance. The latter may, or may not, be the search for pieces in public domain that one intends to play and interpret for oneself (and perhaps share that possibility with others by passing on the notation). And we accept that they are different? The download of a performance for personal use may be wrong, or just may be a way of sampling the artist's work in order to decide whether to buy the CD. That is a matter of personal honor and choice. The downloading of original material is another thing. Scribner's (or whoever now owns that venerable store) has the rights to the sheet music of Cole Porter, but that is long past copyright, it is used for commercial jingles now. It is public domain. Then we come to the fine line. The music that is public domain, but not generally available. To take it to an extreme suppose I discover a form of music made by Tibetan bells, and spend my money to go to Tibet and find the bell ringer's notation. Then I bring it to the western world, and there is a demand for it. I would think that I would deserve a copyright, or some other compensation, for my discovery and expense when the music is promulgated. But at the other extreme I can't see that there are rights to music that was generally sold years ago just because one has found a copy in a museum. I'll close this with an example. The great and prolific Irish harpist Turlough O'Carolan left hundred of pieces in the repertoire of whistlers, pipers and harpists. But none were written down as he was blind. A Planxty anything is probably an O'Carolan written of an evening in honor of his host of the night. (My favorite is Planxty George Brabazon, but his most famous is Eleanor Plunkett). So none of his music can retain rights, even the host's heirs can't say they have the original text as there is none. Enough, this is a tempest in a teapot. A thread that is neither warp nor woof, but is too warped by some, and has too much woofing by others. Let civility and good will reign, and give a bit of trust to your fellow lutenists. Best, Jon
Re: Facsimeles etc.
No it isn't a crime. And legalities have nothing to do with what Albert is talking about. Fairness is the issue. He invested a great deal of time and money in creating this book, and you publicly declare that you intend to rip him off. That was not a crime, but a stupid thing to do. Take example from your like-minded perps. There are quite a few of them around. Say nothing and do what you have to do. If what you did stinks, you'll have to live with it Hey fellow, First of all I stated my intentions were to post the facsimiles, and ask people what they thought, I then said I'd take the matter to heart. Incase you don't have a heart, I'll translate that into, I will listen to what everyone said. I then made a decision that the right thing to do was to contact Albert and propose an idea, which is not to far different than Thomas Schell's site. Then all hell broke loose! No where did I " publicly declare that " I intend to rip him off " Those are you words. At no time did I say I would post the facsimiles regardless of Albert's wishes, and quite frankly I won't, based not so much on legality, but to respect his wishes. In the end I don't want to piss off anymore human beings,than I have to, except you! I asked some alarming questions again out of my naivety which you seem to enjoy pointing out. Also, concerning young guitars students, I have noticed that hardly any of them play baroque or ren music these, it's mostly modern. In one local private high school in Albuq. there are 70 guitar students. Being that I only play Baroque lute, that does alarm me, in a selfish kind of way. So I don't know what planet your from, but as you claim to be in tune with the guitar world you obviously are not. This without a dought is what these young kids are into. wake up and smell the coffee! my friend. Also, concerning my website and posting Facsimiles. I could care less about another Bach version of a lute suite for guitar, I just like seeing the facsimile, and if it draws guitarists to my site all the better for me. But I do want to help these kids as well Believe me or not. In the end, I don;t give a rats ass if you ever heard of me or not. I conceder that to be a blessing. Go and get some help my friend! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:53 PM Subject: Re: Facsimeles etc. > At 09:56 PM 12/2/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Relax Montana, > > That can work both ways, distorting people's names intentionally. But I > will resist the urge to engage in this juvenile silliness. > > > >I see you have quite alot of baggage with this issue, to go after me with > >your well known guile, and considering remarks. You truly take the prize > >for vileness, your reputation precedes you. > > Glad you noticed. > > >Again, glad to be the scapegoat for you Publishing kind of guys, but > >as you say this is getting old, isn't it. > >If I were your mother I'd take you over my knee and give a good > >whacking! But since this is your only source of income I'll forgive you! > > That's bullshit number one. Publishing is not my source of income at all. > It is only the source of my _losses_ over the years. If had to live the way > I do from music publishing, this business would have gone down the drain > decades ago. Do check my biography more carefully. > > > Lets put all exchanges of pleasantries aside, Please tell me the > >crime I'm guilty of, what have I done other than ask a few "uncomfortable " > >questions. I've already admitted I'm stupid, and you've pointed that out > >again just in case everyone forgot. > >Is WANTING to post a facsimile a crime? > > No it isn't a crime. And legalities have nothing to do with what Albert is > talking about. Fairness is the issue. He invested a great deal of time and > money in creating this book, and you publicly declare that you intend to > rip him off. That was not a crime, but a stupid thing to do. Take example > from your like-minded perps. There are quite a few of them around. Say > nothing and do what you have to do. If what you did stinks, you'll have to > live with it. > > >As I stated, I asked Albert's permission. > > Wrong person to ask. He does not own the manuscript. He paid money for the > permission to publish it, and this is exactly what you should do: apply to > the library and ask for permission, and pay the fee. Then you do whatever > you want to do. Al
Re: Facsimeles etc.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 07:32 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > After this experience, You can bet I will do everything in my > power to > access these works of Bach, and free them to the world. God forbid > you > come across any Weiss, then I'll really get mad! I'm curious? Do you support the practice of downloading audio files off the internet for free, thus "freeing" the music of recording artists to the world? If not the latest John Williams CD, how about an important historical recording of, say, Segovia or Toscanini? All EMI or RCA did was set up a microphone or two. All the latest company did was to transfer them to CD... Brian
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Roman Turovsky wrote: > > > But again: place YOURS and not MINE. > That is grossly untrue: It is Bach's and Weyrauch's (i.e. belonging to the > World), and you [Albert Reyermann] merely BORROWED it. And your noble > purpose has no bearing on this matter. > RT Now, now, it is Mr. Reyermanns FACSIMILE EDITION that he speaks of, and also of Mr. Thames non-existant one. He doesn't claim ownership of the actual music and you know it. And if you miss his arguement, go back and read his email... Brian
Re: Facsimeles etc.
Interesting reading...umm.. Just to elaborate on Matanya's URL for free downloadable music, I have a download page at Bach Plucked! which includes other Bach and related music for free. See http://bachplucked.com/download.htm I have pondered on this subject and agree it raises many questions. I know that Frank Koonce has put a lot of time and effort on his Bach transcription of the lute suite music for classical guitar, including his second edition which I reviewed not so long ago. It includes new fingering for guitarists based on his many years as a university teacher of the classical guitar - time and experience as a teacher. Those interested in getting that professional knowledge will not find it in the free downloadable music, but in saying that I mean no disrespect for the efforts of these people too - just that his complete edition is so far reaching and holistic. Those many years of teaching and looking for easier and more effective ways to plays this technically difficult - but musically rewarding music - certainly is worthy of some return on a monetary basis. All Bach on guitar lovers have the opportunity to positively benefit from his work. I hope those who view his labour of love - will show respect. Regards, Michael Stitt Matanya Ophee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 09:20 PM 12/2/2003 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: > > St. Michael the Liberator! I notice you don't give your guitars away. > > Don't you think the world should be given free access to such fine > > instruments? ;-) > > > > DR >This is not an analogy, he MAKES them from scratch. >RT > Roman, thanks. I just didn't know what to say to someone like that. It's easy to grab at the straws RT supplies you with when your hypocrisy is staring you in the face. But Roman is wrong. The analogy is perfect. The issue is not the music, but the object you hold in your hand when you put it on the copy machine. That is a book, and it was made from scratch by one person who invested a great deal of time and money in creating it. And if it was not created by Albert, you would have had to find another such object made by someone else, like Frank Koonce, that contains the same image you want. BTW, regarding your intentions to make a guitar transcriptions: besides the many editions of this music on the market, by such editors/transcribers as Frederick Zigante, Josef Eotvoes, Jerry Willard, Tillmann Hopstock, to mention the better known ones, there is quite a bit of free, downloadable editions of this music available on the net. This is one remarkable example: http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/bach/bwv995/bwv995cg.pdf Clearly, there is nothing you can possibly contribute here that has not been done zillions of times before, in print and on the web. You are wasting your time. Try and come up with more creative ideas. I am sure brother Roman will be happy to supply with them. Matanya Ophee Editions Orphe'e, Inc., 1240 Clubview Blvd. N. Columbus, OH 43235-1226 Phone: 614-846-9517 Fax: 614-846-9794 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orphee.com - Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now --
