falce and unperfect
Just as an aside, where does Diego Cantalupi's pdf of Kapsberger III fit in? Unlike Stewart, I wouldn't want a lot of facsimiles, as the ones I have or have had I find difficult to read (I think this comes out in the practical reproduction difficulties both with Welde and with Tree editions), not to mention a bit falce and unperfect. I therefore need to transcribe them, hopefully without error... Tony
Re: falce and unperfect
Dear Tony, It is the "falce and unperfect" aspect of modern editions, which make me want to look at facsimiles. I want to get as close as possible to the original text to learn as much as I can about the music. It's an academic thing, I suppose. During the recent thread some people have complained that some facsimiles are no more than photocopies. Certainly the quality varies from one publisher to the next. It seems ironic that Minkoff editions, which are often the most expensive, often have no editorial material, or at most a perfunctory list of contents. Perhaps they make up for that deficit by reproducing so much music. I have a facsimile edition of some baroque music published by Schott, much of which I can hardly read at all. Boethius facsimiles, on the other hand, are very legible, and have extremely useful editorial material - concordances, information on dating, watermarks, etc. Editions Ophee have useful information supplied by the editors too, and the quality of the paper is excellent. The Welde facsimile is not yet ready to be published, but we are well on the way. My wish is that people should be able to read every note in the facsimile, including the notes which are now invisible, and so we propose including in the introduction detailed information about illegible passages. I don't know if this has ever been done before, at least to the extent we propose doing. For those who are unaware of the significance of your question about Diego Cantalupi's pdf of Kapsberger III, I should explain that his recent CD of music from Kapsberger's _Terzo Libro_ contains a facsimile of the music, which you can read on your computer screen. I imagine one's attitude to copyright would be no different for this unusual CD than for any other. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lutelist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:25 PM Subject: falce and unperfect > Just as an aside, where does Diego Cantalupi's pdf of Kapsberger III fit in? > > Unlike Stewart, I wouldn't want a lot of facsimiles, as the ones I have or > have had I find difficult to read (I think this comes out in the practical > reproduction difficulties both with Welde and with Tree editions), not to > mention a bit falce and unperfect. I therefore need to transcribe them, > hopefully without error... > > Tony
Re: falce and unperfect
Dear Stewart, > > It is the "falce and unperfect" aspect of modern editions, which > make me want to look at facsimiles. I want to get as close as > possible to the original text to learn as much as I can about the > music. It's an academic thing, I suppose. It is also admirably professional, and that may be what lies behind a lot of the nastiness on this thread. The fact that one and the same piece may exist in several different versions and with several names is of vague academic interest to me, but I have other cats to whip, as they say rather picturesquely round here. At my end of the scale, hopelessly looking for pieces I can actually play and never finding the time to practice the ones I've got, the couple of facsimiles I do have are of a more plastic interest - I like looking at them. I'm not in the least interested in having something between a facsimile with that 'feel' and a retranscription, i.e. a photocopy, unless it seems 'free', like the Kapsberger PDF which came like a free gift in a cereal packet. At that same end of the scale, manuscripts would drive me mad. It took me ages to sort out the one page Willow Song that was floating around on the net, and it gave me great pleasure, but even five pages would be a chore for me. Put another way, and taking the gamut of the list which runs from the professional to the rank amateur, how people see the facsimile is going to be very different, and maybe it would not be a bad idea for the publishers (seeing as two of them are on the list) to explain their market (and I don't mean by this "justify their prices"). What a print run on the average facsimile is, who buys it, etc. From what Mr Reyermann said the cost of production must be extremely difficult to recuperate if the market is represented by lutelisters or even if it only represents a percentage of players, but this isn't really just a matter of profit. It would be of no interest to publish something that wouldn't be bought because the price was too high. I may not be prepared to pay that price for that object, but that simply proves that I am not part of the target public. > snip< Certainly the quality > varies from one publisher to the next. It seems ironic that Minkoff > editions, which are often the most expensive, often have no > editorial material, or at most a perfunctory list of contents. > Perhaps they make up for that deficit by reproducing so much music. > I have a facsimile edition of some baroque music published by > Schott, much of which I can hardly read at all. Boethius facsimiles, > on the other hand, are very legible, and have extremely useful > editorial material - concordances, information on dating, > watermarks, etc. Editions Ophee have useful information supplied by > the editors too, and the quality of the paper is excellent. Perhaps perversely, I think I would want a facsimile to be just that, with nothing else added. Good paper, yes, and as clear a print as the original allows, but nothing esle in the volume itself. I've got what I find a nice idea which could have been done better in a Marin Marais suite. A modern edition with a realisation of the figured bass, and in it are tucked the two facsimiles. > > The Welde facsimile is not yet ready to be published, but we are > well on the way. My wish is that people should be able to read every > note in the facsimile, including the notes which are now invisible, > and so we propose including in the introduction detailed information > about illegible passages. I don't know if this has ever been done > before, at least to the extent we propose doing. Aha! a sort of 'time machine facsimile' - I bet you're enjoying doing it. Yours, Tony > > For those who are unaware of the significance of your question about > Diego Cantalupi's pdf of Kapsberger III, I should explain that his > recent CD of music from Kapsberger's _Terzo Libro_ contains a > facsimile of the music, which you can read on your computer screen. > I imagine one's attitude to copyright would be no different for this > unusual CD than for any other. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lutelist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:25 PM > Subject: falce and unperfect > > > > Just as an aside, where does Diego Cantalupi's pdf of Kapsberger > III fit in? > > > > Unlike Stewart, I wouldn't want a lot of facsimiles, as the ones I > have or > > have had I find difficult to read (I think this comes out in the > practical > > reproduction difficulties both with Welde and with Tree editions), > not to > > mention a bit falce and unperfect. I therefore need to transcribe > them, > > hopefully without error... > > > > Tony > > >
Re: falce and unperfect
> Put another way, and taking the gamut of the list which runs from the > professional to the rank amateur, how people see the facsimile is going to > be very different, and maybe it would not be a bad idea for the publishers > (seeing as two of them are on the list) to explain their market (and I don't > mean by this "justify their prices"). What a print run on the average > facsimile is, who buys it, etc. From what Mr Reyermann said the cost of > production must be extremely difficult to recuperate if the market is > represented by lutelisters or even if it only represents a percentage of > players, but this isn't really just a matter of profit. It would be of no > interest to publish something that wouldn't be bought because the price was > too high. I may not be prepared to pay that price for that object, but that > simply proves that I am not part of the target public. Lutenists have NEVER been the target public, with them being 3000 worldwide max. All such publications are made for university libraries. The prices are set to compensate future losses from students' copying. Blank CD's sold "for music" are priced in the same way in the US. RT
Re: falce and unperfect
At 07:02 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, Tony Chalkley wrote: >maybe it would not be a bad idea for the publishers >(seeing as two of them are on the list) to explain their market (and I don't >mean by this "justify their prices"). What a print run on the average >facsimile is, who buys it, etc. Justifying the prices is part and parcel of any project. The target audience for any project varies. Many years ago, in a thread called How Much Does it Cost? right here in this group, someone complained about the price of a particular Minkoff facsimile. It was quite a lengthy thread and among others, I posted there a lengthy article about one of my facsimiles. I did not identify it by name at the time, but at a later time I made it clear that reference was made to the St. Petersburg Swan Manuscript. Here is the story in a nut shell. It cost me, out of my own private pocket, $16,000.- to produce this facsimile. I printed 500 copies. The traditional rule of thumb in the publishing industry is that the suggested price list should by 7 times the cost. The reason for that is that very few copies are sold directly to the end users. It happens sometimes, but the distribution scheme in place is comprised of the publisher>main distributor>subsidiary distributors>dealers. They all get a cut. The cost per copy is $32.- Applying the rule, the list price should be $224. As you can tell from my on line catalogue, the suggested list price for this book is $98.- In my estimation then, there was no way I could sell the book at all if the price was over the watershed number of a $100.- Now if I sell the book directly, I make a few bucks on this one copy. If I sell it through the distribution scheme, my average take is about 28% off the list price, i.e., $27.44 which is below what it cost me to produce. I lose money. On the average, most of my sales are through my distributors. very few of them have been directly. I ceased my mail order operations in 1996, and only in the last couple of month I finally established a shopping cart on my web site. So far, I sold one copy of this book through the web site. Thank you friend, you know who you are. You can easily calculate how many copies I need to sell in order to recuperate my investment, and that is _before_ I made in single dime on the deal. Unfortunately, since its publication in 1994, nine years ago I sold a grand total of 120 copies, most of it in the first couple of years. Since then, the rate of sales is about 3-4 copies every year. which is not enough to generate any royalties to the two editors, Tim Crawford and Pierre-François Goy who did a tremendous amount of work in preparing it. It will be many years before I cover my costs on this book, and many more before I see any profit at all. That is why all this bravado about greed, monopoly, tyranny, is so hurtful and so unfair. And that is why there is no chance I will ever publish another facsimile. As soon as I did, the predators will be on it, if it is was sexy enough. The only think that protects me from them in the case of the Swan is that it is not a well known or well understood source. 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
> but the distribution > scheme in place is comprised of the publisher>main distributor>subsidiary > distributors>dealers. They all get a cut. > > The cost per copy is $32.- Applying the rule, the list price should be > $224. As you can tell from my on line catalogue, the suggested list price > for this book is $98.- In my estimation then, there was no way I could sell > the book at all if the price was over the watershed number of a $100.- My experience with distributors and dealers is that they add 1/3 of their cost to the price and pass it onto the next level. So a "$32 MO book" would be $44 at the first distributor, and $60 at the HYPOTHETICAL second distributor, $80 for the end user, but only if the second distributor ever existed. So an MO book that costs $100 at the dealer- costs $67 at Theodor Presser, i.e. MO got $45 for it- and made a $15 profit. If the MO cost is indeed authentic (the man's tongue in notably forked [allow me to refrain from further biological considerations]) then his take home pay is not insignificant (his rule of thumb of "7 times the cost" is pure fantasy). However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: falce and unperfect
However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. RT You do have a way with words, well said !!! Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: Re: falce and unperfect > > but the distribution > > scheme in place is comprised of the publisher>main distributor>subsidiary > > distributors>dealers. They all get a cut. > > > > The cost per copy is $32.- Applying the rule, the list price should be > > $224. As you can tell from my on line catalogue, the suggested list price > > for this book is $98.- In my estimation then, there was no way I could sell > > the book at all if the price was over the watershed number of a $100.- > My experience with distributors and dealers is that they add 1/3 of their > cost to the price and pass it onto the next level. > So a "$32 MO book" would be $44 at the first distributor, and $60 at the > HYPOTHETICAL second distributor, $80 for the end user, but only if the > second distributor ever existed. > So an MO book that costs $100 at the dealer- costs $67 at Theodor Presser, > i.e. MO got $45 for it- and made a $15 profit. > If the MO cost is indeed authentic (the man's tongue in notably forked > [allow me to refrain from further biological considerations]) then his take > home pay is not insignificant (his rule of thumb of "7 times the cost" is > pure fantasy). > However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles > make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the > facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. > RT > > __ > Roman M. Turovsky > http://turovsky.org > http://polyhymnion.org > > >
Re: falce and unperfect
At 04:26 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > but the distribution > > scheme in place is comprised of the publisher>main distributor>subsidiary > > distributors>dealers. They all get a cut. > > > > The cost per copy is $32.- Applying the rule, the list price should be > > $224. As you can tell from my on line catalogue, the suggested list price > > for this book is $98.- In my estimation then, there was no way I could sell > > the book at all if the price was over the watershed number of a $100.- >My experience with distributors and dealers is that they add 1/3 of their >cost to the price and pass it onto the next level. >So a "$32 MO book" would be $44 at the first distributor, and $60 at the >HYPOTHETICAL second distributor, $80 for the end user, but only if the >second distributor ever existed. Obviously your experience with dealers and distributors is not the same as mine and as that of the rest of the world in the music publishing business. Nevertheless, you completely misunderstand the difference between costs of production and commercial discount. My $32.- dollars is what it took to produce the book. Period. Out of pocket expenses. Distributors and dealers get their discounts off the official "suggested list price". In the US, it is against the law to fix prices, but in Europe it is against the law to charge anything other than the price fixed by the publisher. IOW, my distributor sells books to their secondary distributors in various countries, and they in turn sell them to the shops. The discount structure of my distributor, the Theodore presser Company, is stated in their policy and if you want to know what it is, please apply to them and ask for their sales terms. I am sure they will be happy to oblige. It is based on the official suggested list price, the price that I decide what it will be for each individual edition. >So an MO book that costs $100 at the dealer- costs $67 at Theodor Presser, >i.e. MO got $45 for it- and made a $15 profit. Bullshit calculation based on ignorant assumptions. >If the MO cost is indeed authentic (the man's tongue in notably forked >[allow me to refrain from further biological considerations]) then his take >home pay is not insignificant (his rule of thumb of "7 times the cost" is >pure fantasy). yes of course. Not insignificant. Actually when I sell the book at full price directly to an individual, I make a killing, greedy bastard that I am. A killing that occurs about one every couple of years for this particular book. That and a buck 95 will not even get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. The fantasy above mentioned is used by the majority of commercial publishers world wide. Of course there are variations. Sometimes the price is 10 times cost, and sometimes it is 3 times cost. I have been using this rule of thumb for the last 25 years, and it was not my invention. I was given the secret of it by one Brian Jeffery. >However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles >make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the >facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. So a publisher that does nothing but facsimiles, like Minkoff for example, is using facsimiles to promotes facsimiles? The formula is different. Large publishers rely mostly on their popular music fodder to bring in the bread, but they do money losing prestigious editions as a service to the community, not as advertising. Publishers who do not do _any_ popular music, no country Western, no rock'n'roll, do not have the luxury of being able to afford community service and must rely on ALL their editions to at least break even. Besides, the idea of expensive facsimiles used as advertising material is laughable. The people who buy my classical guitar music, with few exceptions of course, have no interest in lute tablature in any format. And definitely not in facsimiles which they cannot read anyway. But may be you have something there. I can start a program of bonus giveaways. You buy one copy of my Tango book, and you get the Swan manuscript for free. Will surely be a better use for the paper than macerating it into toilet paper and shopping bags. 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
> Distributors and dealers get their discounts off the official "suggested > list price". MO, we are not children here, and we know that this "suggested list price" is a myth designed to make palatable eventual "NICE PRICE!!! 20% OFF!!!" label. Moreover, it is determined by marketing research. If the market can bear $100 tag: then limit your production costs to $32 or less. RT
Re: falce and unperfect
> > So a publisher that does nothing but facsimiles, like Minkoff for example, > is using facsimiles to promotes facsimiles? Madam Minkoff produces NOT facsimilia, BUT replicas of antique books of various sorts, not necessarily with artistic content, for a totally different and much larger market. RT
Re: falce and unperfect
At 03:18 PM 12/5/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles >make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the >facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. >RT > > You do have a way with words, well said !!! Indeed he does. Every demagogue who speaks out of ignorance has a way with words. Turovsky is no different. 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
>> However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles >> make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the >> facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. >> RT >> You do have a way with words, well said !!! > Indeed he does. Every demagogue who speaks out of ignorance has a way with > words. Turovsky is no different. > Matanya Ophee I'd rather be a professional socialist, than an amateur capitalist RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: falce and unperfect
At 06:03 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Distributors and dealers get their discounts off the official "suggested > > list price". >MO, we are not children here, When I see grown men drawn into silly displays of foolish indulgence in areas they know nothing about for the sole purpose of exacting revenge from one who had criticized them in that past, I wonder how mature and sincere these people are. >and we know that this "suggested list price" >is a myth designed to make palatable eventual "NICE PRICE!!! 20% OFF!!!" >label. It is not a myth, but a reaction to existing anti-trust and anti price-fixing laws. There is nothing better the large corporations would have liked then the removal of competition enhancing regulations as the Europeans do. We little guys, are stuck in the same groove. >Moreover, it is determined by marketing research. If the market can >bear $100 tag: then limit your production costs to $32 or less. Thank you for understanding the dilemma. In principle, when the product is a dishwasher, or a car or some other utilitarian product, or even a book of music one has complete control on the costs, then you are of course correct. In the case of the Swan manuscript this was different. I proceeded to publish the book, of which I personally knew nothing at all, because I was told by its editor that this was an important book that must be made available to the lute community, before it disappears in another spectacular fire like the one that consumed a large part of the holdings of the library of the St. Petersburg Akademia Nauk in 1990. I am not a lute scholar myself, and I have to rely on the advise of my editors in deciding what to publish and how. Had I known what I know now, that the market for this particular book is insignificant, I would not have bothered. But once I started, the only way to limit the costs was to drop the project. The costs were mainly imposed on me by the library. This was Russia after the Putch and these people were incredibly incompetent, and demanding. It was a take it or leave it situation. The details of this sordid affair were described at great length in my posting on the How Much Does it Cost? thread. 1995-96 I guess. With your superior investigatory skills I am sure you can find it in the Archives in no time at all. 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
> bothered. But once I started, the only way to limit the costs was to drop > the project. The costs were mainly imposed on me by the library. Whopping 2 bottles of cognac RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: falce and unperfect
well said! Don't you get tired of that - how do you call it? Dog fights? There is no sense discussing with Mantanya - he is an ignorant person mixing truth and lie at his will. And as a scientist ... better don't try to decrease on his level of discussion. Actually I don't believe TREE for instance produces facsimiles as promotional material. This will apply to other fields of production but not to lute related material. I have to admit that I don't follow the discussion closely and just by accident jumped into this thread (MO's messages are immediatly deleted) Thomas Am Sam, 2003-12-06 um 00.21 schrieb Roman Turovsky: > >> However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles > >> make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the > >> facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. > >> RT > >> You do have a way with words, well said !!! > > Indeed he does. Every demagogue who speaks out of ignorance has a way with > > words. Turovsky is no different. > > Matanya Ophee > I'd rather be a professional socialist, than an amateur > capitalist > RT > __ > Roman M. Turovsky > http://turovsky.org > http://polyhymnion.org > -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss --
Re: falce and unperfect
At 03:18 PM 12/5/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles >make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the >facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. >RT > > You do have a way with words, well said !!! Indeed he does. Every demagogue who speaks out of ignorance has a way with words. Turovsky is no different. Mo, are you drinking again? Michael Thames Luthier www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com Site design by Natalina Calia-Thames - Original Message - From: "Matanya Ophee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: Re: falce and unperfect > At 03:18 PM 12/5/2003 -0600, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles > >make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the > >facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. > >RT > > > > You do have a way with words, well said !!! > > > Indeed he does. Every demagogue who speaks out of ignorance has a way with > words. Turovsky is no different. > > > 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
However the publishers produce facsimiles not to make money. The facsimiles make their OTHER books look trustworthy and sellable. In other words the facsimiles are promotional material to a large degree. RT You do have a way with words, well said !!! >>> Indeed he does. Every demagogue who speaks out of ignorance has a way with >>> words. Turovsky is no different. >>> Matanya Ophee >> I'd rather be a professional socialist, than an amateur >> capitalist > well said! Thanks > Don't you get tired of that - how do you call it? Dog fights? > There is no sense discussing with Mantanya - he is an ignorant person > mixing truth and lie at his will. And as a scientist ... better don't > try to decrease on his level of discussion. I would have ignored MO, but I see him as an insidious embodiment of small-hearted/minded positivist thinking with no morals, whose half-truths are capable of infecting those who are less vigilant. > > Actually I don't believe TREE for instance produces facsimiles as > promotional material. This will apply to other fields of production but > not to lute related material. I have plenty of respect for Albert, even if he did facsimiles for image building purposes. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT (My transcriptions serve a similar purpose, not primarily though: I only transcribe what I love in the first place, and I frankly think they are no worse (i.e. a lot better) than the ones in Augsburg Ms.). To put is simply: he shouldn't consider us sheep following HIS middleclass+ status quo protocol. We are people with beliefs that may be different from his, and also with an understanding that such protocols are not conducive to the survival of lutenistic species (on top of being legally meaningless). Besides: submitting oneself to convention is not my idea of an interesting life. > > I have to admit that I don't follow the discussion closely and just by > accident jumped into this thread (MO's messages are immediatly deleted) Likewise, a couple of dozen list messages never reached me, so I went to check Mailarchive. The rest is history. It seems though that the dogfight cured my flu. RT
Re: falce and unperfect
At 06:21 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'd rather be a professional socialist, than an amateur >capitalist I have no idea what is a professional socialist, but I do know something about capitalism. I am glad you acknowledge the fact that I am only an amateur in that endeavor. I am proud to count among my fellow amateur capitalists many lute makers who charge money for their lutes, many lutenists performers who charge money for their performances and for their CDs, and many lute teachers who charge money for their teaching. Also some really petty amateur capitalists like Lute Societies who charge money for membership, and money for _their_ editions of lute music. Ore for that matter, other amateur capitalists who sell their paintings for money. 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
At 08:35 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have to admit that I don't follow the discussion closely and just by > > accident jumped into this thread (MO's messages are immediatly deleted) >Likewise, a couple of dozen list messages never reached me, so I went to >check Mailarchive. Never reached you because you declared here and elsewhere that you put me in your kill-file. Glad to know you finally figured out how stupid this maneuver is. Now that you removed me form your kill file, you can get the full flavor of that wind, smack in your face. As for Thomas: hiding behind _his_ kill file, he still does not hesitate to lob at me insults, without having read and considered anything that I have said. I can't imagine a more puerile instance of cowardice. That's the nature of this vindictiveness of yours. Once I committed the faux-pas of telling you that your Sautscheck joke is stupid, you will forever hound me with your moralistic condescension. It does not matter any more what it was we were talking about here, and the lute and its future is the last thing that matters to you. What matters is settling accounts. 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
MO, there is a Paul Revere Trophy "for the unsurpassed excellence in e-mail" in the snail-mail for you. It is yours to keep forever. We are just non interested anymore. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org >>> I have to admit that I don't follow the discussion closely and just by >>> accident jumped into this thread (MO's messages are immediatly deleted) >> Likewise, a couple of dozen list messages never reached me, so I went to >> check Mailarchive. > > Never reached you because you declared here and elsewhere that you put me > in your kill-file. Glad to know you finally figured out how stupid this > maneuver is. Now that you removed me form your kill file, you can get the > full flavor of that wind, smack in your face. As for Thomas: hiding behind > _his_ kill file, he still does not hesitate to lob at me insults, without > having read and considered anything that I have said. I can't imagine a > more puerile instance of cowardice. > > That's the nature of this vindictiveness of yours. Once I committed the > faux-pas of telling you that your Sautscheck joke is stupid, you will > forever hound me with your moralistic condescension. It does not matter any > more what it was we were talking about here, and the lute and its future is > the last thing that matters to you. What matters is settling accounts. > > 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
At 09:37 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >MO, there is a Paul Revere Trophy "for the unsurpassed excellence in e-mail" >in the snail-mail for you. It is yours to keep forever. We are just non >interested anymore. Best news I heard all day! Just keep this non-interest in my postings for as long as you can. Perhaps when your school-girlish acrimony will blow off with your phoney bluster, there will be room here for discussions for what really matters. Somehow I suspect that you will be able to resist the urge to attack me, once you get more of that second-hand whiff of wind... see you later, boychik. BTW, you did notice that your buddy and chief sycophant (to borrow your own underhanded compliments) Michael Thames, have expressed a good opinion of DAS' book? Any particular reason you are not giving him the same treatment as you gave me on the same subject? or your high moral principles are easily manipulated by sycophancy? 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
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: 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: 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: 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 -0000 >> 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.
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
