I have read the recent thread here on copying music and I am posting a closely related question that John has grazed upon. The question is: When is a piece of music that I heavily edit, my property to give away or post on the web? To clarify: CASE 1 I took an edition of the Bach keyboard works, and used this to craft (in Finale) a set of solo practice works for the violin. I started with a copyrighted score from which I laboriously keyed in all of the "melody" notes, selecting only those that maintain the musical idea. Any fingerings, dynamics etc is totally mine. Of course the original "melody" was probably carefully transfered from Bach's original manuscript by the editor, with some deal of effort. CASE2 I copied the instrument lines from some arias in the Bach Christmas oratorio, and then figured my own bass for the harpsichord. Again none of the usual editorial/articulations, dynamics etc was transfered CASE3
>From an edition of the Fitzwilliam virginal book, I separated many of
the keyboard threads in a work and assigned them to various instruments in our consort, sometimes transposing sections etc, alternating instruments, repeating some lines etc. Again my own articulations etc.
Obvisously cases I and III are quite removed from the original source. Case II is a little less clear since I don't know how the instrumentation was derived from the original manuscript. I certainly could have gone to a 100 year old edition for the basic "melody" or bass line material to accomplish all of this but I did not have such scores on hand. (Yes-my score library is completely paid up and legal)
I have been asked by various people if they can have/play these materials (we are predominantly amateurs) and it would save me a lot of time to just put them on our web page. This question is referenced to laws in the US although the originals are from various nations. I cannot find much legal material on the web which discusses this and expect that this is something which a lawyer would best explain. I was hoping perhaps there is some critera such as more than some percentage of the score was edited by the new authors, the "melody" being in the Public Domain. Hopefully this is not one of those issues that follows the current practice here of "inventing the law as we go along in the court room".
Any resources which would answer this question would be appreciated
These cases are actually quite straightforward, because the complete works of Bach IN THE BG EDITION are public domain, and wide open for anyone's use, available in just about any university library, and also available from some sources either in print as miniature scores or as pdf files on CDs. In case 1, if you used a copyrighted edition, just go back and reference the BG edition to clear yourself in case of any question. I must admit that I don't understand what you mean by putting "melody" in quotes.
In case 2, it isn't clear what you mean by "copied the instrument lines from some arias." From a score? Or from a keyboard reduction in a vocal score? But I'm not sure it makes a difference. Again, reference the BG edition and you're all set.
In case 3, I assume that you are using the Dover reprint of Fitz, which is public domain except for the editorial comments. If not, get that edition and reference it and you're all set.
In all 3 cases, you may copyright your edited edition because it is based on public domain material. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice!)
Just to clarify, if you were to do any similar editing on a copyrighted work, or if you were to base your edition on a copyrighted edition, you would have to ask the copyright owner for permission, and in the absence of that permission your work would NOT belong to you and you could NOT sell or otherwise distribute copies of it. That's why you work from a PD edition.
This all goes back to "things we should have learned in kindergarten: if you want to play with someone else's toys, ask permission."
John
At 10:15 AM -0800 11/26/06, sonni...@berkshire.net wrote:
>I have read the recent thread here on copying music and I am posting a >closely related question that John has grazed upon. The question is: > When is a piece of music that I heavily edit, my property to give >away or post on the web? >To clarify: >CASE 1 > I took an edition of the Bach keyboard works, and used this to craft >(in Finale) a set of solo practice works for the violin. I started with >a copyrighted score from which I laboriously keyed in all of the >"melody" notes, selecting only those that maintain the musical idea. >Any fingerings, dynamics etc is totally mine. Of course the original >"melody" was probably carefully transfered from Bach's original >manuscript by the editor, with some deal of effort. >CASE2 >I copied the instrument lines from some arias in the Bach Christmas >oratorio, and then figured my own bass for the harpsichord. Again none >of the usual editorial/articulations, dynamics etc was transfered >CASE3 >>From an edition of the Fitzwilliam virginal book, I separated many of >the keyboard threads in a work and assigned them to various instruments >in our consort, sometimes transposing sections etc, alternating >instruments, repeating some lines etc. Again my own articulations etc.
>Obvisously cases I and III are quite removed from the original source. >Case II is a little less clear since I don't know how the >instrumentation was derived from the original manuscript. I certainly >could have gone to a 100 year old edition for the basic "melody" or >bass line material to accomplish all of this but I did not have such >scores on hand. (Yes-my score library is completely paid up and legal)
> I have been asked by various people if they can have/play these >materials (we are predominantly amateurs) and it would save me a lot of >time to just put them on our web page. > This question is referenced to laws in the US although the originals >are from various nations. I cannot find much legal material on the web >which discusses this and expect that this is something which a lawyer >would best explain. I was hoping perhaps there is some critera such as >more than some percentage of the score was edited by the new authors, >the "melody" being in the Public Domain. Hopefully this is not one of >those issues that follows the current practice here of "inventing the >law as we go along in the court room".
>Any resources which would answer this question would be appreciated
-- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:John.How...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
I have always worked under the belief that to be safe, one should use a public domain original. The copyrighted edition might have editorial additions that are protected. But with Bach, it is easy to get copies from the Bach Gesellschaft Ausgaabe that are now public domain. It surely must contain 99% of Bach's output.
I understand copyrighhts are often reciprocal by treaty. So the U.S. laws respect a work copyrighted in Germany fopr the German duration, even if the same work if published in the U.S. would now be public domain. According to some law cited in a Minkoff edition even the image of a public domain work is protected in Switzerland. But you can always go to the original, rather than the protected image published by Mrs. Minkoff.
These are of couse, just the way this layperson understands the law. If there is a question, it would best to seek the assistance of a copyright attorney. ==ajn ============================
>I have read the recent thread here on copying music and I am posting a > closely related question that John has grazed upon. The question is: > When is a piece of music that I heavily edit, my property to give > away or post on the web? > To clarify: > CASE 1 > I took an edition of the Bach keyboard works, and used this to craft > (in Finale) a set of solo practice works for the violin. I started with > a copyrighted score from which I laboriously keyed in all of the > "melody" notes, selecting only those that maintain the musical idea. > Any fingerings, dynamics etc is totally mine. Of course the original > "melody" was probably carefully transfered from Bach's original > manuscript by the editor, with some deal of effort. > CASE2 > I copied the instrument lines from some arias in the Bach Christmas > oratorio, and then figured my own bass for the harpsichord. Again none > of the usual editorial/articulations, dynamics etc was transfered > CASE3 >>From an edition of the Fitzwilliam virginal book, I separated many of > the keyboard threads in a work and assigned them to various instruments > in our consort, sometimes transposing sections etc, alternating > instruments, repeating some lines etc. Again my own articulations etc.
> Obvisously cases I and III are quite removed from the original source. > Case II is a little less clear since I don't know how the > instrumentation was derived from the original manuscript. I certainly > could have gone to a 100 year old edition for the basic "melody" or > bass line material to accomplish all of this but I did not have such > scores on hand. (Yes-my score library is completely paid up and legal)
> I have been asked by various people if they can have/play these > materials (we are predominantly amateurs) and it would save me a lot of > time to just put them on our web page. > This question is referenced to laws in the US although the originals > are from various nations. I cannot find much legal material on the web > which discusses this and expect that this is something which a lawyer > would best explain. I was hoping perhaps there is some critera such as > more than some percentage of the score was edited by the new authors, > the "melody" being in the Public Domain. Hopefully this is not one of > those issues that follows the current practice here of "inventing the > law as we go along in the court room".
> Any resources which would answer this question would be appreciated
I think that this thread makes it clear that one can edit and distribute their own scores if the original material is from a Public Domain score. I am aware of the Bach "Ausgabe", however it would obviously be useful to have other such resources, especially in my case for earlier composers. Praetorious, Susato and others come to mind who collected and scored early dances for example. If there exists, some bibliography of early music scores, now in the public domain, that would be very useful to those of us seeking material from which to cut our own scores.
Arthur Ness wrote: > I understand copyrighhts are often reciprocal by treaty. So the U.S. laws > respect a work copyrighted in Germany fopr the German duration, even if the > same work if published in the U.S. would now be public domain. According to > some law cited in a Minkoff edition even the image of a public domain work > is protected in Switzerland. But you can always go to the original, rather > than the protected image published by Mrs. Minkoff.
> These are of couse, just the way this layperson understands the law. If > there is a question, it would best to seek the assistance of a copyright > attorney.
There has not, in fact been much reciprocity in copyright laws as far as the U.S. is concerned; I understand that there is substantially reciprocity in the EU. I know of works of Vaughan Williams which are in the public domain in the U.S., because they were published in 1922 and earlier, but which are copyright in the EU for another twenty years or so; I also know of works by Charles Wood which are in the public domain in the UK, but are still copyright in the U.S. For example, the UK has no provision in its copyright law for the concept of a "work for hire", and the U.S. has no provision in copyright law for a "typographical copyright".
> I am aware of the Bach "Ausgabe", however it would obviously be >useful to have other such resources, especially in my case for earlier >composers. Praetorious, Susato and others come to mind who collected >and scored early dances for example. If there exists, some bibliography >of early music scores, now in the public domain, that would be very >useful to those of us seeking material from which to cut our own >scores.
Howard Mayer Brown, Instrumental Music Printed Before 1600 Harvard University Press, 1965 hardcover reprinted in paperback 1999/2000 ISBN 1583485252 would be a good start for Renaissance music.
It's listed at http://www.bn.com for $26.95 and is available through Amazon.com too.
Check your local library or ask for it through interlibrary loan...
Sheila B -- Sheila Beardslee Bosworth sheil...@earthlink.net 29 Main St, Acton MA 01720
Actually it is not a matter of written law, but rather a court decision. A federal court held that photographing a sheet of music was not "creative" enough to deserve copyright protection. So a facsimile of a public domain work is not protected if published in the U.S.
But images can be copywritten in some countries, e.g., Switzerland (notice on a Minkoff facsimile): "This publication is protected by Swiss law on copyright. Any reproduction or transcription--even partial--by any means would constitute a counterfeiting punished by article 42 ff of said law. PHOTOCOPYING PROHIBITED." The music itself is in the public domain. And if you get the original, you can copy it to your heart's content. Just don't copy from Mrs. Minkoff's publication.
According to something publisher Albert Ryermann wrote, I believe German copyright law also protects images. It's really a complex problem, copyright laws.
>Actually it is not a matter of written law, but rather a court decision. A >federal court held that photographing a sheet of music was not "creative" >enough to deserve copyright protection. So a facsimile of a public domain >work is not protected if published in the U.S.
Well, in a sense it IS a matter of written law, because no place in the U.S. law does it state that layout or typography can be copyrighted. It's what's omitted rather than what's said. But you're quite right in that law is not what Congress thought it was, or what we think it should be, but what the courts interpret it to be. Pretty darned clever, those founding fathers of ours!
But this thread is the first time I learned that European law does not recognize works done "for hire." How are they handled, then?
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:John.How...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
John Howell wrote: > At 10:30 PM +0000 11/27/06, Arthur Ness wrote: >> Actually it is not a matter of written law, but rather a court >> decision. A federal court held that photographing a sheet of music >> was not "creative" enough to deserve copyright protection. So a >> facsimile of a public domain work is not protected if published in >> the U.S.
> Well, in a sense it IS a matter of written law, because no place in > the U.S. law does it state that layout or typography can be > copyrighted. It's what's omitted rather than what's said. But > you're quite right in that law is not what Congress thought it was, > or what we think it should be, but what the courts interpret it to > be. Pretty darned clever, those founding fathers of ours!
> But this thread is the first time I learned that European law does > not recognize works done "for hire." How are they handled, then?
Tell us what you mean, and we will do our best to answer! -- John Briggs
RT wrote: >> and the U.S. has no provision in copyright law for a "typographical >> copyright".
> Thankfully.
And the effect of that is that the publishers insist on the author's copyright being transferred to them - which isn't normal in Europe. -- John Briggs
> RT wrote: >>> and the U.S. has no provision in copyright law for a "typographical >>> copyright".
>> Thankfully.
> And the effect of that is that the publishers insist on the author's > copyright being transferred to them - which isn't normal in Europe. > -- > John Briggs
Shared or joint copyright may be an option in some cases (i.e., if the composer can convince the publisher that they're worth it). Such a provision allows either party to grant copy permission and similar privileges, though there may be some restrictions. This sort of contract is sometimes available for scholarly publications in journals, as well as for larger monographs and books (though the publishers don't always put it in big type, and some probably don't allow it).
Best, Jonathan
---------------------
Jonathan Shull Musicology Department Indiana University jsh...@indiana.edu
John Howell wrote: > In case 3, I assume that you are using the Dover reprint of Fitz, which > is public domain except for the editorial comments. If not, get that > edition and reference it and you're all set.
> In all 3 cases, you may copyright your edited edition because it is > based on public domain material. (I am not a lawyer and this is not > legal advice!)
Hi John, are you sure that Dover edition is PD (obviously except the Blanche Winogron's preface)? I quote few lines from my book:
- first page: "Corrected, Edited (...)" - last page: "For this extensively revised and corrected (...). Numerous minor errors, (..) have been corrected (...). - preface: "major reconstruction(...)" and "In addition to restoring the many omitted notes (...)"
So, from what I understood (not much!), 1899 Breitkopf&Hartel edition is PD (ok) and everything taken from this, too. But the 'new notes' from the original manuscript added in Dover edition? These are published in 1979 (for the first time in 'modern' notation), should be under copyright. Maybe I missed something.
Sorry for the silly answer but I'm a little confused.
>Hi John, are you sure that Dover edition is PD (obviously except the >Blanche Winogron's preface)? >I quote few lines from my book:
>- first page: "Corrected, Edited (...)" >- last page: "For this extensively revised and corrected (...). Numerous >minor errors, (..) have been corrected (...). >- preface: "major reconstruction(...)" and "In addition to restoring the >many omitted notes (...)"
>So, from what I understood (not much!), 1899 Breitkopf&Hartel edition is >PD (ok) and everything taken from this, too. But the 'new notes' from >the original manuscript added in Dover edition? These are published in >1979 (for the first time in 'modern' notation), should be under >copyright. Maybe I missed something.
1979? I thought the Dover edition was at least 10 years older, if not 20! But my comment was based on the fact that for a long time Dover, like Kalmus, published ONLY copies of PD music.
The answer should be easy enough to find, if you have a copy handy. Is there a copyright notice? If so, then it does cover the editorial work. If not, the question is answered, because whenever it actually was published (well before 1979 as far as my memory goes), if it was published without copyright notice it's PD, lock, stock & barrel.
If I'm wrong, I certainly apologize for giving bad advice when our copy is packed away somewhere inaccessible.
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:John.How...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
John Howell wrote: > At 10:18 PM +0000 12/2/06, ABmusic wrote:
>> Hi John, are you sure that Dover edition is PD (obviously except the >> Blanche Winogron's preface)? >> I quote few lines from my book:
>> - first page: "Corrected, Edited (...)" >> - last page: "For this extensively revised and corrected (...). Numerous >> minor errors, (..) have been corrected (...). >> - preface: "major reconstruction(...)" and "In addition to restoring the >> many omitted notes (...)"
>> So, from what I understood (not much!), 1899 Breitkopf&Hartel edition is >> PD (ok) and everything taken from this, too. But the 'new notes' from >> the original manuscript added in Dover edition? These are published in >> 1979 (for the first time in 'modern' notation), should be under >> copyright. Maybe I missed something.
> 1979? I thought the Dover edition was at least 10 years older, if not > 20! But my comment was based on the fact that for a long time Dover, > like Kalmus, published ONLY copies of PD music.
Hi John, thank you for reply. "(...) first published in 1979-80 (...)" Maybe they waited that 1899 B&H's edition become PD.
> The answer should be easy enough to find, if you have a copy handy.
I got a copy but the answer's not easy to find!
> Is > there a copyright notice? If so, then it does cover the editorial > work. If not, the question is answered, because whenever it actually > was published (well before 1979 as far as my memory goes), if it was > published without copyright notice it's PD, lock, stock & barrel.
Yes, there is a copyright notice...but is this applied just to corrections?
> If I'm wrong, I certainly apologize for giving bad advice when our copy > is packed away somewhere inaccessible.
I'm not sure you're wrong, at least, when the notes are the same than in the B&H edition, should be in PD. (quote) "(..) has written a Preface expecially for the Dover Edition in which she comments on the corrections." So, if Fritz uses the pieces with no correction, should not be in trouble. Am I wrong? And, if it's so, if there aren't comments in the Preface could we assume that there aren't corrections?
My Dover edition dated 1963 is an "exact" reprint of the 1899 B&H edition, according to a note on the verso of the t.p. It does not include the Blanche's "corrections" you mention. (I paid $3.50/vol. in 1969<g>). if notes in tghe music are corrected also, they are covered by copytight, I would expect. So you need the 1963 Dover edition.
Absence of a copyright notice does not necessarily indicate that the work has no protection. This was once true with U.S. copyright. But such works may obtain retroactive protection according to recent legislation (section 405 of USC 17). Some countries do not require a copyright notice but under the Berne Convention would nevertheless enjoy protection in the U.S. (As I understand the law as a layperson). Germany once had no requirement for a copyright notice.
Not all Kalmus works were PD, although many were/are. "Most" one might say.
But during WW_II the U.S. government seized the properties of C.F. Peters (and the firns they served as U.S. agents) and several other large German publishers. The government, then permitted U.S. firms like Kalmus to reprint their copyrioghted editions. That is why, I understabnd, many Kalmus editions have been withdrawn, when after lawsuitrs the German firms regained their copyrights. ("Permanently Out-of-Print" is what you hear from Kalmus.)
GATT also provides for retroactive copyright protection for works copyrighted under the Warsaw convention amd the So. American one. It's a mess, and the Copyright Office has a special brochure devoted to GATT. I heard an official say that G. Schirmer had to send tons of Russian music back to the Russian publishers who obtained retroactive copyright protection under GATT. The Russians then put a label oever thde Schirmer imprint, and sold the scores.<g>
>>Hi John, are you sure that Dover edition is PD (obviously except the >>Blanche Winogron's preface)? >>I quote few lines from my book:
>>- first page: "Corrected, Edited (...)" >>- last page: "For this extensively revised and corrected (...). Numerous >>minor errors, (..) have been corrected (...). >>- preface: "major reconstruction(...)" and "In addition to restoring the >>many omitted notes (...)"
>>So, from what I understood (not much!), 1899 Breitkopf&Hartel edition is >>PD (ok) and everything taken from this, too. But the 'new notes' from >>the original manuscript added in Dover edition? These are published in >>1979 (for the first time in 'modern' notation), should be under >>copyright. Maybe I missed something.
> 1979? I thought the Dover edition was at least 10 years older, if not 20! > But my comment was based on the fact that for a long time Dover, like > Kalmus, published ONLY copies of PD music.
> The answer should be easy enough to find, if you have a copy handy. Is > there a copyright notice? If so, then it does cover the editorial work. > If not, the question is answered, because whenever it actually was > published (well before 1979 as far as my memory goes), if it was published > without copyright notice it's PD, lock, stock & barrel.
> If I'm wrong, I certainly apologize for giving bad advice when our copy is > packed away somewhere inaccessible.
> 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:John.How...@vt.edu) > http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
>My Dover edition dated 1963 is an "exact" reprint of the 1899 B&H edition, >according to a note on the verso of the t.p. It does not include the >Blanche's "corrections" you mention. (I paid $3.50/vol. in 1969<g>). if >notes in tghe music are corrected also, they are covered by copytight, I >would expect. So you need the 1963 Dover edition.
Thank you, Arthur. I knew we had a copy of Fitz long before 1979. 1963 sounds about right.
>Absence of a copyright notice does not necessarily indicate that the work >has no protection. This was once true with U.S. copyright.
Specifically, it was true under the 1909 U.S. copyright law. In fact, publication WITHOUT a copyright notice led to immediate and permanent loss of copyright. What I'm not sure about is whether that changed on January 1, 1978, or whether Congress diddled with it during the runup to that 1976 revision. But LC has a very interesting list of works that were PD in the U.S. because they had been published without a copyright notice, including the 1928 edition of the Oxford Book of Carols. (Oxford's solicitors dropped the ball on that one big time!)
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:John.How...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
Arthur Ness wrote: > My Dover edition dated 1963 is an "exact" reprint of the 1899 B&H edition, > according to a note on the verso of the t.p. It does not include the > Blanche's "corrections" you mention. (I paid $3.50/vol. in 1969<g>).
Oh well, I paid more for the wrong book! ;-)
> if > notes in tghe music are corrected also, they are covered by copytight, I > would expect. So you need the 1963 Dover edition.
Seeem that there are many book shops on the internet with wrong infos: the pub. date of my book (isbn 0-486-21068-5) isn't 1963. I'm sure these books are very hard to find but, do you know the ISBN of your edition? Obviously if you have your copy handy. Thanks.
> Arthur Ness wrote: >> My Dover edition dated 1963 is an "exact" reprint of the 1899 B&H >> edition, >> according to a note on the verso of the t.p. It does not include the >> Blanche's "corrections" you mention. (I paid $3.50/vol. in 1969<g>).
> Oh well, I paid more for the wrong book! ;-)
>> if >> notes in tghe music are corrected also, they are covered by copytight, I >> would expect. So you need the 1963 Dover edition.
> Seeem that there are many book shops on the internet with wrong infos: the > pub. date of my book (isbn 0-486-21068-5) isn't 1963. > I'm sure these books are very hard to find but, do you know the ISBN of > your edition? Obviously if you have your copy handy. > Thanks.
> AB
====================================================== My copy dates from before the advent of ISBN. On the verso of the title page it reads, "This Dover edition, first published in 1963, is an unabridged and unaltered republication of the work published by Breitkopf and <sic> Härtel in 1899. . . . Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 63-19495." The LoC card number serves as a kind of ISBN, before ISBN's were established.
Here is the library citation: ------------------------------------------------------- Other Author(s): Fuller-Maitland, J. A. (John Alexander), 1856-1936. Squire, William Barclay, 1855-1927. Winogron, Blanche. Title: The Fitzwilliam virginal book / edited from the original manuscript with an introduction and notes by J. A. Fuller Maitland and W. Barclay Squire ; revised Dover edition corrected, edited and with a preface by Blanche Winogron. Publisher: New York : Dover, c1980. Description: Revised Dover ed. 2 v. ; 29 cm. Notes: "An unabridged and unaltered republication of the work published in 1899 by Breitkopf and HaÌ^rtel that incorporates numerous corrections." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ I am pleasantly amused by how book prices have skyrocketed. I just now located a copy of my 1963 edition of the FVB for sale at a used book store for $35.40. That's an increase of 1000% (!!). I have recently been checking the current value of some books I purchased when a student, and the 1000% increase is not unusual.
To check used book prices, use the Karlsruhe Connection (last column):
By the way, the cover of my edition has that engraving from Parthenia (London 1613). Should you draw any conclusions about fingerings from the position of her hands? Perhaps not. The engraving is made "after" a painting of St. Cecilia playing the harp!
>>>My Dover edition dated 1963 is an "exact" reprint of the 1899 B&H >>>edition, >>>according to a note on the verso of the t.p. It does not include the >>>Blanche's "corrections" you mention. (I paid $3.50/vol. in 1969<g>).
>>Oh well, I paid more for the wrong book! ;-)
>>> if >>>notes in tghe music are corrected also, they are covered by copytight, I >>>would expect. So you need the 1963 Dover edition.
>>Seeem that there are many book shops on the internet with wrong infos: the >>pub. date of my book (isbn 0-486-21068-5) isn't 1963. >>I'm sure these books are very hard to find but, do you know the ISBN of >>your edition? Obviously if you have your copy handy. >>Thanks.
>>AB
> ====================================================== > My copy dates from before the advent of ISBN. On the verso of the title page > it reads, "This Dover edition, first published in 1963, is an unabridged and > unaltered republication of the work published by Breitkopf and <sic> Härtel > in 1899. . . . Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 63-19495." The LoC > card number serves as a kind of ISBN, before ISBN's were established.
Hi Arthur, thank you very much for this info...but I'm still confused. It's the same LoCCCN printed in my books: 63-19495. Two different editions with the same catalogue number? Is it correct or am I missing something? Obviously I'm not an expert but this sounds like a tritone! :-)
> Here is the library citation: > ------------------------------------------------------- > Other Author(s): Fuller-Maitland, J. A. (John Alexander), 1856-1936. > Squire, William Barclay, 1855-1927. > Winogron, Blanche. > Title: The Fitzwilliam virginal book / edited from the original > manuscript with an introduction and notes by J. A. > Fuller Maitland and W. Barclay Squire ; revised Dover > edition corrected, edited and with a preface by > Blanche Winogron. > Publisher: New York : Dover, c1980. > Description: Revised Dover ed. > 2 v. ; 29 cm. > Notes: "An unabridged and unaltered republication of the work > published in 1899 by Breitkopf and HaÌ^rtel that > incorporates numerous corrections." > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
Yes, my books.
> I am pleasantly amused by how book prices have skyrocketed. I just now > located a copy of my 1963 edition of the FVB for sale at a used book store > for $35.40. That's an increase of 1000% (!!). I have recently been > checking the current value of some books I purchased when a student, and the > 1000% increase is not unusual.
> To check used book prices, use the Karlsruhe Connection (last column):
Seem the right edition (1963), but ISBNs are the same that mine. Is there a way to distinguish the two editions?
> By the way, the cover of my edition has that engraving from Parthenia > (London 1613). Should you draw any conclusions about fingerings from the > position of her hands? Perhaps not. The engraving is made "after" a > painting of St. Cecilia playing the harp!
Some libraries have the revised vol. 1 and vol. 2 from the 1963 printing. The distinguishing element apparently being the "insertion." Since we do not have the "revised" edition to examine, it's hard to say what the differences are. And where the ISBN's appear. I think my (our??) information that Winogron changed notes in the musical text is probably not correct.
I think the booksellers you cited just wanted to lump all editions together.
I've seen a photograph of the original oil painting depicting St. Cecila with harp. The only essential difference is the instrument. That surely has to be an expression of utter, sublime peace, be the person depicted a saint or a virgin ("Parthenia or the Mayden-head of Music").
You know the pun edition, of course. A book of Elizabethan music for viols titled "Parthenia in-violata."
>>>>My Dover edition dated 1963 is an "exact" reprint of the 1899 B&H >>>>edition, >>>>according to a note on the verso of the t.p. It does not include the >>>>Blanche's "corrections" you mention. (I paid $3.50/vol. in 1969<g>).
>>>Oh well, I paid more for the wrong book! ;-)
>>>> if >>>>notes in tghe music are corrected also, they are covered by copytight, I >>>>would expect. So you need the 1963 Dover edition.
>>>Seeem that there are many book shops on the internet with wrong infos: >>>the >>>pub. date of my book (isbn 0-486-21068-5) isn't 1963. >>>I'm sure these books are very hard to find but, do you know the ISBN of >>>your edition? Obviously if you have your copy handy. >>>Thanks.
>>>AB
>> ====================================================== >> My copy dates from before the advent of ISBN. On the verso of the title >> page >> it reads, "This Dover edition, first published in 1963, is an unabridged >> and >> unaltered republication of the work published by Breitkopf and <sic> >> Härtel >> in 1899. . . . Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 63-19495." The >> LoC >> card number serves as a kind of ISBN, before ISBN's were established.
> Hi Arthur, thank you very much for this info...but I'm still confused. > It's the same LoCCCN printed in my books: 63-19495. Two different editions > with the same catalogue number? Is it correct or am I missing something? > Obviously I'm not an expert but this sounds like a tritone! :-)
>> Here is the library citation: >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> Other Author(s): Fuller-Maitland, J. A. (John Alexander), 1856-1936. >> Squire, William Barclay, 1855-1927. >> Winogron, Blanche. >> Title: The Fitzwilliam virginal book / edited from the >> original >> manuscript with an introduction and notes by J. A. >> Fuller Maitland and W. Barclay Squire ; revised >> Dover >> edition corrected, edited and with a preface by >> Blanche Winogron. >> Publisher: New York : Dover, c1980. >> Description: Revised Dover ed. >> 2 v. ; 29 cm. >> Notes: "An unabridged and unaltered republication of the work >> published in 1899 by Breitkopf and HaÌ^rtel that >> incorporates numerous corrections." >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
> Yes, my books.
>> I am pleasantly amused by how book prices have skyrocketed. I just now >> located a copy of my 1963 edition of the FVB for sale at a used book >> store >> for $35.40. That's an increase of 1000% (!!). I have recently been >> checking the current value of some books I purchased when a student, and >> the >> 1000% increase is not unusual.
>> To check used book prices, use the Karlsruhe Connection (last column):
> Seem the right edition (1963), but ISBNs are the same that mine. > Is there a way to distinguish the two editions?
>> By the way, the cover of my edition has that engraving from Parthenia >> (London 1613). Should you draw any conclusions about fingerings from the >> position of her hands? Perhaps not. The engraving is made "after" a >> painting of St. Cecilia playing the harp!
Hi Arthur, I'm not surprised...just one book's driving me mad!
> Here is the basic information for > the revised ed. with "corrections" by Winogon:
> ///------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- > [Rev. Dover ed.] / corrected and edited by Blanche > Winogron.
> New York : Dover Publications, [1980]
> 2 v. of music : facsims. ; 29 cm.
A little incomplete, should be: " Revisited Dover Edition, first published in 1979-80 [obviously not in 1963, like in your edition], is....
> "An unabridged and unaltered republication of the > work > published by Breitkopf and Härtel in 1899."
[then:] ...that incorporated numerous corrections by Blanche Winogron. Miss Winogron har written a Preface especially for the Dover Edition in whitch she comments on the corrections."
> v. 1 has "Preface to the > revised Dover ed.", [2] p., inserted.
> ISBN: 0486210685 (v.1) :
> ISBN: 0486210693 (v.2)
And the Library of Congress Catalog Number (63-19495) is the same than your 1963 edition.
> Some libraries have the revised vol. 1 and vol. 2 from the 1963 printing. > The distinguishing element apparently being the "insertion."
I agree...but without the books handy (like in an internet book shop), seems impossible to choose from the two editions.
> Since we do not > have the "revised" edition to examine, it's hard to say what the differences > are.
I got the 1980 edition!
> And where the ISBN's appear.
On the back-cover and in one of the firsts pages (in front of "To Her Most Gracious Majesty (...)"), with the copyright infos: Copyright 1979, 1980 by Dover. Just "1979-80", not "1963-79-80".
> I think my (our??) information that > Winogron changed notes in the musical text is probably not correct.
If it's wrong, it's just *my* fault 'cause I pointed out this informations to John in a previous post. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't incorrect, I just read Miss Winogron's Preface. I quote few lines: "There were not only innumerable "lapses", but a considerable number of misreading and misinterpretations of the manuscript previously unsospected." [she refers to the 1899 M&S book and (it seems) to the "two reprints of the original edition (have) appeared in the last twenty or more years"] Then there are many examples of 'mistakes': "placement of notes on wrong lines or spaces" "(...) causing several passages to be transcribed a third too high, too low or in the wrong rage (see for example, Vol. 1, page 66, line 5, measure 2; (...)" "(...) sometimes even without a cantus - Vol. 1, page 181, line 3, measure 1."
And so on. If you have few minutes, take a look to the last example: Vol. 1, page 181, line 3, measure 1. In your book shoudn't be the cantus. (notes: 1=4/4; 2=2/4; 4=1/4)
> I think the booksellers you cited just wanted to lump all editions together.
Yes, that's the problem!
> I've seen a photograph of the original oil painting depicting St. Cecila > with harp. The only essential difference is the instrument. That surely has > to be an expression of utter, sublime peace, be the person depicted a saint > or a virgin ("Parthenia or the Mayden-head of Music").
Mine was a joke, I meant "Saints don't care about fingering, they play like Gods"! Oh well, my sense of humor isn't appreciated!!! :-)
Seriusly, a very interesting information, thanks. Many times I wandered about the 'strange' fingering on the cover page. BTW, do you mean this paint? http://www.sindimusirs.com.br/cecilia_arpa.jpg Sorry but I didn't found a largest immage.
