At 7:49 PM +0100 2/5/07, shirling & neueweise wrote:
interesting, if what you suggest were the case, then the first payment originally went in the other direction (!), to secure the rights of exclusive exploitation for the rights holder for a defined time period. this was certainly typical for objects, inventions, but doesn't quite apply to music, at least it wouldn't seem so.
Au contraire! Petrucci, in Venice, held a monopoly lasting 20 years on the printing of part music and lute tablature, with his first print ("Odhecaton A") appearing in 1501. And I think it was Tallis and his student, Byrd, who had Liz's monopoly on the printing of music and music paper, later passed on to Byrd and HIS student Morley.
in any case, according to others' definitions and the little i've found on the web (specific to the word itself), there seems to be a gap between the "royal" connection of such rights and its recorded use to mean payments made to rights holder.
Not exactly the same, no, but similar in guaranteeing a profit to the holder. Of course I'm making all this up!! John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
