[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread G. C.
   I know, that's what I'm saying, thanks Antonio! Newsidler's book of
   1536 on page 2 is also a letter from the "king" giving him personally
   the privileges, with threats of fines to those who try to copy. Half to
   the king, and half to Neusiedler.The printer is mentioned at the end of
   the book, with just a single name, and as I see it in Newsidler's
   employment.
   G.
   On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Antonio Corona
   <[1]abcor...@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
  Not quite, at least in Spain. The Royal/Imperial "privilegios"
   granted
  to Valderrà ¡bano, Pisador, Fuenllana and Daza were not adressed to
   the
  printers, but to the composers themselves (or whoever had their
   power
  of attorney). In fact, there is some evidence of a pirate edition of
  Fuenllana's Orphenica Lyra by MartÃn de Montesdoca, the printer of
   the
  original edition ...
  Best wishes
  Antonio

   --

References

   1. mailto:abcor...@cs.dartmouth.edu


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread Alain Veylit
   Interesting. The first example I heard of of a printer/publisher
   pirating himself :)

   On 02/21/2018 12:04 PM, Antonio Corona wrote:

   Not quite, at least in Spain. The Royal/Imperial "privilegios" granted
   to Valderrábano, Pisador, Fuenllana and Daza were not adressed to the
   printers, but to the composers themselves (or whoever had their power
   of attorney). In fact, there is some evidence of a pirate edition of
   Fuenllana's Orphenica Lyra by Martín de Montesdoca, the printer of the
   original edition ...
   Best wishes
   Antonio
 __

   From: Alain Veylit [1]<al...@musickshandmade.com>
   To: Lutelist [2]<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 11:30
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema
   Privileges were granted to the printers, not the authors/composers, who
   usually got none of the profits of sales. In fact copyright laws were
   created because of this very fact, in the 18th century. Pirated copies
   of course included the privilege page and the name of the authorized
   publisher - think about xeroxing a book and selling it as the
   authorized
   copy... It's a fascinating history with many twists that has been going
   on for as long as publishing has been in existence. In 16th century
   England, the King's printers were French, and pirated copies of
   official
   documents by English printers were common and an act of patriotism ...
   -
   Authors relied on subscriptions and patronage to publish their works,
   or
   just plain old vanity publishing at their own cost. If I remember
   correctly, very few pieces published with an attribution to Henry
   Purcell were actually by that composer: pieces with his name on them
   sold better than those attributed to Anonymous. In other words, authors
   and composers had  little to zero control over their works. Yet,
   without
   unauthorized manuscript copies and piracies, we would know very little
   about the lute repertoire of the time, so perhaps we should be thankful
   to those early hackers...

   --

References

   1. mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com
   2. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread Antonio Corona
   Not quite, at least in Spain. The Royal/Imperial "privilegios" granted
   to Valderrábano, Pisador, Fuenllana and Daza were not adressed to the
   printers, but to the composers themselves (or whoever had their power
   of attorney). In fact, there is some evidence of a pirate edition of
   Fuenllana's Orphenica Lyra by MartÃn de Montesdoca, the printer of the
   original edition ...
   Best wishes
   Antonio
 __

   From: Alain Veylit <al...@musickshandmade.com>
   To: Lutelist <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 11:30
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema
   Privileges were granted to the printers, not the authors/composers, who
   usually got none of the profits of sales. In fact copyright laws were
   created because of this very fact, in the 18th century. Pirated copies
   of course included the privilege page and the name of the authorized
   publisher - think about xeroxing a book and selling it as the
   authorized
   copy... It's a fascinating history with many twists that has been going
   on for as long as publishing has been in existence. In 16th century
   England, the King's printers were French, and pirated copies of
   official
   documents by English printers were common and an act of patriotism ...
   -
   Authors relied on subscriptions and patronage to publish their works,
   or
   just plain old vanity publishing at their own cost. If I remember
   correctly, very few pieces published with an attribution to Henry
   Purcell were actually by that composer: pieces with his name on them
   sold better than those attributed to Anonymous. In other words, authors
   and composers had  little to zero control over their works. Yet,
   without
   unauthorized manuscript copies and piracies, we would know very little
   about the lute repertoire of the time, so perhaps we should be thankful
   to those early hackers...

   --


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread Alain Veylit
Privileges were granted to the printers, not the authors/composers, who 
usually got none of the profits of sales. In fact copyright laws were 
created because of this very fact, in the 18th century. Pirated copies 
of course included the privilege page and the name of the authorized 
publisher - think about xeroxing a book and selling it as the authorized 
copy... It's a fascinating history with many twists that has been going 
on for as long as publishing has been in existence. In 16th century 
England, the King's printers were French, and pirated copies of official 
documents by English printers were common and an act of patriotism ... - 
Authors relied on subscriptions and patronage to publish their works, or 
just plain old vanity publishing at their own cost. If I remember 
correctly, very few pieces published with an attribution to Henry 
Purcell were actually by that composer: pieces with his name on them 
sold better than those attributed to Anonymous. In other words, authors 
and composers had  little to zero control over their works. Yet, without 
unauthorized manuscript copies and piracies, we would know very little 
about the lute repertoire of the time, so perhaps we should be thankful 
to those early hackers...


But I think it is wrong to talk about copyright before 1710. Publishers 
made good use of the public domain as soon as they could, 75 years after 
the first copyright law, with large collections of the "Classics of 
English literature" by Swift, Pope, Defoe etc. that fell out of 
copyright at that time. Funnily enough at about the same time as we 
start talking about "Classical music", although "old fashioned" music 
was less susceptible to be reprinted - at least for a while longer than 
literature.




On 02/21/2018 02:39 AM, G. C. wrote:

-- Forwarded message --
From: G. C. <[1]kalei...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM
    Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema
To: Alain Veylit <[2]al...@musickshandmade.com>
When you read the foreword of old prints, there is often a line about
"a five year copyright by royal decree", already in the early vihuela
books. And what about 1536, when the Gardano (?) copyright ended and a
deluge of prints ensued. And that was more like really having
monopolized the market for a very long time! But plagiarism and
copyright are 2 different things. No doubt, there was a lot of "common"
material, runs, chord changes, modulations, counterpoint, etc. which
could be put in here and there where convenient without being
considered plagiarism. Quotes of "Susanne un jour" seem to have been
especially popular! (See f. ex. Ness #83)
And in this context, was Phalese really "pirating" (which has been
generally claimed), or just printing works which had ceased to be in "a
five year copyright by royal decree" or some such formulation?

G.

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Alain Veylit
<[3]al...@musickshandmade.com> wrote:
If I remember correctly the first copyright law appeared in England ca.
1714. Pirated editions made the bread and butter of many printers
before then. But, it is only when copyrights were in force that authors
started to make a living out of their published works. Before that it
was a system of sponsorship and patronage (cf the lavish dedications in
most works of the 16th and 17th century). On a somewhat ironic note,
Alexander is supposed to have met secretly with the publisher who had
systematically pirated his editions, to provide him with a "stolen"
copy of his own forthcoming poetry. Being pirated was good publicity.
Dowland bitched quite a bit about incorrect versions of his pieces
being in circulation, but I don't think this really affected his bottom
line. I can be wrong.
Alain

--

References

1. mailto:kalei...@gmail.com
2. mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com
3. mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html





[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread Matthew Daillie

Additional reading:

'Print Culture and Music in Sixteenth-Century Venice' by Jane Bernstein, 
published by Oxford University Press.


Best,

Matthew

On 21/02/2018 13:01, Ron Andrico wrote:

Daniel Heartz wrote a monograph on the role of Attaingnant as music
publisher, _Pierre Attaingnant Royal Printer of Music a Historical
Study and Bibliographical Catalogue_, and a more recent book on later
shenanigans is_Thomas Morley: Elizabethan Music Publisher_  by Tessa
Murray.  Both texts give excellent background on music publishing
practices throughout the sixteenth century.





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread G. C.
   Dear Ron,
   look at the recently mentioned "Ein Newgeordent..." by Newsidler. It
   says at the bottom of the introductory page:
   Mit Roemischen Kaiser und Koeniglichen Majestaet, freyheit/ in funff
   iaren nit nach zu drucken / begnadet.
   What is this but a royally decreed copyright? And I recall having seen
   similar notices in spanish, french and other prints.
   Best
   G.
   On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Ron Andrico <[1]praelu...@hotmail.com>
   wrote:
   I don't recall the (translated) word copyright appearing in any of the
   earlier prints of lute music.   I think music was published according
   to privilege, royal or otherwise.

   --

References

   1. mailto:praelu...@hotmail.com


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-21 Thread G. C.
   -- Forwarded message --
   From: G. C. <[1]kalei...@gmail.com>
   Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM
   Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema
   To: Alain Veylit <[2]al...@musickshandmade.com>
   When you read the foreword of old prints, there is often a line about
   "a five year copyright by royal decree", already in the early vihuela
   books. And what about 1536, when the Gardano (?) copyright ended and a
   deluge of prints ensued. And that was more like really having
   monopolized the market for a very long time! But plagiarism and
   copyright are 2 different things. No doubt, there was a lot of "common"
   material, runs, chord changes, modulations, counterpoint, etc. which
   could be put in here and there where convenient without being
   considered plagiarism. Quotes of "Susanne un jour" seem to have been
   especially popular! (See f. ex. Ness #83)
   And in this context, was Phalese really "pirating" (which has been
   generally claimed), or just printing works which had ceased to be in "a
   five year copyright by royal decree" or some such formulation?

   G.

   On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Alain Veylit
   <[3]al...@musickshandmade.com> wrote:
   If I remember correctly the first copyright law appeared in England ca.
   1714. Pirated editions made the bread and butter of many printers
   before then. But, it is only when copyrights were in force that authors
   started to make a living out of their published works. Before that it
   was a system of sponsorship and patronage (cf the lavish dedications in
   most works of the 16th and 17th century). On a somewhat ironic note,
   Alexander is supposed to have met secretly with the publisher who had
   systematically pirated his editions, to provide him with a "stolen"
   copy of his own forthcoming poetry. Being pirated was good publicity.
   Dowland bitched quite a bit about incorrect versions of his pieces
   being in circulation, but I don't think this really affected his bottom
   line. I can be wrong.
   Alain

   --

References

   1. mailto:kalei...@gmail.com
   2. mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com
   3. mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-20 Thread Alain Veylit
If I remember correctly the first copyright law appeared in England ca. 
1714. Pirated editions made the bread and butter of many printers before 
then. But, it is only when copyrights were in force that authors started 
to make a living out of their published works. Before that it was a 
system of sponsorship and patronage (cf the lavish dedications in most 
works of the 16th and 17th century). On a somewhat ironic note, 
Alexander is supposed to have met secretly with the publisher who had 
systematically pirated his editions, to provide him with a "stolen" copy 
of his own forthcoming poetry. Being pirated was good publicity.


Dowland bitched quite a bit about incorrect versions of his pieces being 
in circulation, but I don't think this really affected his bottom line. 
I can be wrong.


Alain


On 02/20/2018 12:45 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:

Hi Leonard,

They could be derived from a common model, such as a recercar by 
Giulio Segni (da Modena).  A more explicit case of this is Ness 88, 
which is very close to no.16 in DaCrema's 1548 book, where it is 
attributed to Julio da Modena.  It appears in Ness as Appendix 15.  
Julio Segni (1498-1561) was a highly regarded organist who worked at 
St Mark's in Venice from 1530-1533, and subsequently worked in Rome.  
Very little of his music survives, but his works had a considerable 
influence on many lutenists.


Ness 84 also has some passages in common with Ness 51 and Ness 73 as 
well - some ideas seem to be common currency.


Best wishes,

Martin

On 19/02/2018 22:35, Leonard Williams wrote:
I’ve just been playing through some recent da Crema recercars 
(Lutezine Supp 123) and found No. 11 (p 37) remarkably similar to 
Francesco da Milano's  (Ness) No. 84 (Lute News 107 Supp).  I believe 
the only difference is barring and the last couple of measures.
Could someone more musicologically savvy than I put ears and eyes 
to these and tell me whose compositions they are?


Thanks and regards,
Leonard Williams



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus







[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-20 Thread Roman Turovsky
I recall a conversation with Pat O'Brien about dC many years ago, and he 
said there was a lot of plagiarism in his works.

RT


On 2/20/2018 3:45 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:

Hi Leonard,

They could be derived from a common model, such as a recercar by 
Giulio Segni (da Modena).  A more explicit case of this is Ness 88, 
which is very close to no.16 in DaCrema's 1548 book, where it is 
attributed to Julio da Modena.  It appears in Ness as Appendix 15.  
Julio Segni (1498-1561) was a highly regarded organist who worked at 
St Mark's in Venice from 1530-1533, and subsequently worked in Rome.  
Very little of his music survives, but his works had a considerable 
influence on many lutenists.


Ness 84 also has some passages in common with Ness 51 and Ness 73 as 
well - some ideas seem to be common currency.


Best wishes,

Martin

On 19/02/2018 22:35, Leonard Williams wrote:
I’ve just been playing through some recent da Crema recercars 
(Lutezine Supp 123) and found No. 11 (p 37) remarkably similar to 
Francesco da Milano's  (Ness) No. 84 (Lute News 107 Supp).  I believe 
the only difference is barring and the last couple of measures.
Could someone more musicologically savvy than I put ears and eyes 
to these and tell me whose compositions they are?


Thanks and regards,
Leonard Williams



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus







[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-20 Thread Martin Shepherd

Hi Leonard,

They could be derived from a common model, such as a recercar by Giulio 
Segni (da Modena).  A more explicit case of this is Ness 88, which is 
very close to no.16 in DaCrema's 1548 book, where it is attributed to 
Julio da Modena.  It appears in Ness as Appendix 15.  Julio Segni 
(1498-1561) was a highly regarded organist who worked at St Mark's in 
Venice from 1530-1533, and subsequently worked in Rome.  Very little of 
his music survives, but his works had a considerable influence on many 
lutenists.


Ness 84 also has some passages in common with Ness 51 and Ness 73 as 
well - some ideas seem to be common currency.


Best wishes,

Martin

On 19/02/2018 22:35, Leonard Williams wrote:

I’ve just been playing through some recent da Crema recercars (Lutezine 
Supp 123) and found No. 11 (p 37) remarkably similar to Francesco da Milano's  
(Ness) No. 84 (Lute News 107 Supp).  I believe the only difference is barring 
and the last couple of measures.
Could someone more musicologically savvy than I put ears and eyes to 
these and tell me whose compositions they are?

Thanks and regards,
Leonard Williams



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




[LUTE] Re: Francesco or da Crema

2018-02-19 Thread Leonard Williams
   I've exaggerated: there are a number of differences, but I believe
   the similarities outweigh them.  Perhaps two different recercari based
   on the same motif, sacred or otherwise?

   Leonard
   -Original Message-
   From: Leonard Williams 
   To: Lute List 
   Sent: Mon, Feb 19, 2018 4:36 pm
   Subject: [LUTE] Francesco or da Crema
   I've just been playing through some recent da Crema recercars (Lutezine
   Supp 123) and found No. 11 (p 37) remarkably similar to Francesco da
   Milano's (Ness) No. 84 (Lute News 107 Supp). I believe the only
   difference is barring and the last couple of measures.
   Could someone more musicologically savvy than I put ears and eyes to
   these and tell me whose compositions they are?
   Thanks and regards,
   Leonard Williams
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html