On 16 Feb 2006 at 14:56, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 15 Feb 2006 at 10:35, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > > >> Editions are prepared all the time for reasons > >> irrelevant to or even in direct opposition to the composer's > >> intent. Simplified versions. Cut or excerpted versions. Modernized > >> versions. Speculative reconstructions. . . . > > > > Except for the latter, these are not "musicological editions." > > So, for example, Denis Stevens' edition of Monteverdi's 1610 Vespers, > which omits more than half of the piece under the theory that this > material was not part of the work as envisioned by Monteverdi, is not > a musicological edition? . . .
No, it is a musicological edition based on the methods used in producing it, not based on what kind of editorial decisions have been made. All your different types of versions could be musicological, but that is a parameter separate from the type of version. No musicology is needed to make those versions. All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies. > . . . An orchestral edition that substitutes tuba > for serpent on practical grounds, and says so, is not musicological no > matter what other standards are applied? You may say they are not, but > if so the world disagrees with you! I think it depends on the reasons for the changes and the methods used in preparing the edition. Performing editions that simply produce a practical performing text are not, in my opinion, musicological editions -- their aims are not to reproduce the composer's original work or intentions. They may intend to translate those intentions to modern conventions, and musicological methods may be used in the production of the edition, but the mere substitution of modern instrumetns for the old does not define the edition as "musicological." At least, not for any meaning of the term that I'm aware of, nor for the meaning I was clearly using when you replied to my comment about musicological editions. > >> The US experience simply does not bear that out. That edited > >> versions of old music are entitled to performance and mechanical > >> royalties is long established here (as, e.g., when Hildegarde Press > >> about 10 years ago successfully sued recording companies that used > >> its editions of Hildegarde von Bingen w.o credit or compensation) > >> and has put no crimp in performance or recording. > > > > For the gazillionth time, Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his > > edition. > > If so, forgive me. However I was under the distinct impression that > the issue was not about use, but about ownership. The balance of your > reply to me (snipped) seems to confirm that. I'm not entirely certain I understand your disctinction about use and ownership. Sawkins was asking for payment for use because he said he had a claim of ownership. They are not separable issues. I think anyone who has been interested enough in this subject to have participated in the discussion would really be better served by reading the two decisions -- they are actually quite interesting reading, full of actual musical discussion (though often cringeworthy in the way that terms are misconstrued). The original decision is here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2636/sawkins-v- hyperion.htm And the decision from the appeal is here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi- bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html You really have to read both decisions, as (with all appeals) the findings of fact from the first decision were accepted in their entirety by the appeals court, and it is precisely the huge errors in the findings of fact that, I believe, were what forced the appeals court to reach its decision on the law. If the facts had been correctly determined in regard to the question of "originality" I believe that Hyperion would have won the case. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
