All:
As stated before, I have seen neither the Leloir (full
score or piano reduction - in fact, I was unaware of
their existence prior to being kindly informed by
Professor Pizka) nor the Musica Rara scores to the
Haydn double concerto. Certainly, my intention is not
to plagarize the work of other horn players. My
intention from the beginning was simply to create a
very playable, pianistic reduction. In fact, I'll
wager that my reduction is better than most out there
-horn players do not always create the best
reductions, regardless of their skill as a hornist
(and Leloir's talents are well known and speak for
themselves.) Think of most of the terrible piano
reductions of the Mozart concertos out there - I'm
quite sure that most horn players on this list have
experiences with them. Many of these "so-called"
reductions are scored far too heavily and lack the
period-correct transparency of Haydn's piano writing.
Being a pianist myself (since age five - long before
coming to the horn at age 13), having played many
piano works by Haydn, I think I have a unique
contribution and perspective on the problem at hand.
Be that as it may, I don't want to offend other
listers or Professor Pizka, who's contributions to the
list are valuable beyond my own. Therefore, I would
suggest that those who are interested in obtaining a
piano reduction order the Leloir edition from
Professor Pizka's Music Site. I offer apologies to
anyone on this list who is inconvenienced by this turn
of events.
Cordially, Scott
--- "Peter W. Schroth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hans Pizka wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Amy, if Scott uses the scores available on
> the
> > market (edited by Edmond Leloir - former KaWe or
> the
> > other score from Musica Rara) instead of any score
> from
> > complete Haydn Works (I do not know it yet), he is
> > breaching the copyright law, as he is using
> copyrighted
> > materal. If he travels to Germany to see the set
> of
> > parts from the Oettingen Wallerstein Collection,
> > writing his own score & making his own piano
> reduction
> > from material he prepared himself, well, no
> objection
> > at all. But the two scores mentioned above, are
> protected,
> > as Leloir & von Pringsheim invested a lot of work
> to
> > eliminate writing errors, set better clear
> phrasings etc.
> >
>
> There is some overstatement in this, although the
> law of
> copyright is complicated and varies somewhat from
> country to
> country. A basic point is the distinction between
> the
> subjective and the objective aspect of a work: the
> objective, or "factual," cannot be copyrighted and
> is
> available freely to all, but the subjective, or
> "creative,"
> can be protected as a monopoly of its author. In
> the
> particular case, to the extent that Leloir studied
> and
> discovered the facts of Haydn's intentions, or
> discovered
> and corrected errors, his results cannot be
> protected by
> copyright (whether he is right or wrong). However,
> to the
> extent that he added something of his own creation,
> such as
> a choice of voicing or fingering or phrasing that is
> his own
> and not Haydn's, his work can be protected by
> copyright.
> The typesetting and the appearance of the printed
> page can
> also be protected.
>
> Access is a different point; Mr. Pappal said he was
> unaware
> of the Leloir transcription and therefore could not
> have
> copied it. If, by coincidence, there are some
> points of
> similarity between the Leloir transcription and the
> Pappal
> transcription, that does not constitute a violation
> of
> copyright. (If there are a great many points of
> similarity,
> the court is not likely to believe the claim that he
> never
> saw the Leloir transcription.) One of the greatest
> American
> judges, Learned Hand, put it this way:
>
> "Borrowed the work must indeed not be, for a
> plagiarist is
> not himself pro tanto an 'author'; but if by some
> magic a
> man who had never known it were to compose anew
> Keats's Ode
> on a Grecian Urn, he would be an 'author,' and, if
> he
> copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem,
> though they
> might of course copy Keats's."
>
> Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49,
> 54 (2d
> Cir. 1936), aff'd, 309 U.S. 390 (1940).
>
> If -- contrary to the facts of Mr. Pappal's case --
> the
> second transcriber has access to the work of the
> first, he
> can still make and copyright his own transcription,
> freely
> making use of the objective or "factual" information
> in the
> first transcription. However, in that case,
> coincidences in
> the subjective or "creative" aspects are more likely
> to be
> treated as copyright violations by the court.
>
> Peter W. Schroth
>
> ___
> post: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> unsubscribe or set options at
>
http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/hornhog%40yahoo.com
>
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send
