"Afro-Cuban Lullaby"
Sharon D.
ant...@aol.com (Antucco) wrote:
A|>A friend of mine made a Xerox copy of it without
A|>my knowledge and this hand written copy was eventually given to
Parkening.
A|>He recorded it and gave his uncle Jack Marshall credit for this
A|>arrangement.
A|>Brower did finally published this arrangement in 1978 under the
title:
A|>"Deux Themes Populaires Cubains". The publisher is Editions Max
Eschig (ME
A|>8182).
A|>Parkening went ahead an published this arrangement but it was
really
A|>pirated and the credit belongs to Leo Brower.
In the early 1970's, Mr. Parkening was given a hand-written copy of
"Afro-Cuban Lullaby." This copy had no credits, no copyright
information on it, and he assumed (and was told) that the tune was a
"public domain," traditional lullaby. He gave it to his cousin, Jack
Marshall, who made some small changes to it, and Mr. Parkening then
recorded it.
His publisher suggested that it be published, and so he did.
Neither Leo Brower, nor anyone else, has ever approached Mr. Parkening
about the origin of the piece, even though the recording and sheet
music has been out for many years.
By the way, Mr. Parkening has always given proper credit to every
arranger whose pieces he has recorded, including Andres Segovia, John
Williams, Rick Foster, Jerry Hyman, Chris Amelotte, Ronald
Ravenscroft, John and B.J. Sutherland, John Kull, Patrick Russ, Kurt
Kaiser, Brad Cooper, Tomas Geoghegan, Jacqueline Hairston, and Jack
Marshall.
A|>A Guitar Aficionado Interested in Fairness
Likewise, I'm sure. BTW, it would have been a bit more "ethical" if
you had inquired rather than assumed, before posting this bit of
libelous information.
Sharon
Secretary to Christopher Parkening
Spencer Doidge
TO add to Sharon's message:
> A|>Parkening went ahead an published this arrangement but it was
> really
> A|>pirated and the credit belongs to Leo Brower.
That's a crock. Arrangements have no intrinsic value and are fair game legally and ethically.
For example, anyone can download arrangements from my web site and do what they
like with them. Change one note, as I expect any self-respecting guitarist would,
and it's yours, not mine any more. Maybe someone wants to be a nice guy and credit it to me,
but I have no right to expect that.
Only the composer can claim anything. (That's why I only compose now.)
If I photocopy and sell someone's published arrangement, you might have a case. The value
is in the engraving and publishing cost, not the arrangement itself.
Who knows where Brouwer got his?
BTW, Sharon, kudos to you for sticking up for your boss.
-- Spencer Doidge
John Philip Dimick
[someone ill-advisedly claimed]
>>it was really pirated and the credit belongs to Leo Brower.
Spencer Doidge wrote:
>That's a crock. Arrangements have no intrinsic value and are fair game
>legally and ethically....The value is in the engraving and publishing
>cost, not the arrangement itself...BTW, Sharon, kudos to you for
>sticking up for your boss.
Well said, Spencer!
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
http://www.guitarist.com
Paul Fowles
>In the early 1970's, Mr. Parkening was given a hand-written copy of
>"Afro-Cuban Lullaby." This copy had no credits, no copyright
>information on it, and he assumed (and was told) that the tune was a
>"public domain," traditional lullaby. He gave it to his cousin, Jack
>Marshall, who made some small changes to it, and Mr. Parkening then
>recorded it.
Even if we accept that the melody is in the public domain (an
assumption which has yet to be verified), the harmonisation is very
obviously the work of a contemporary hand.
For Marshall, with Parkening as his accomplice, to claim this
harmonisation as his own shows a downright cavalier attitude to the
intellectual property of a living artist.
Regards,
Paul F.
Jonah Barabas
Paul Fowles <pfo...@gina.win-uk.net> wrote in article
<4...@gina.win-uk.net>...
> Even if we accept that the melody is in the public domain (an
> assumption which has yet to be verified), the harmonisation is very
> obviously the work of a contemporary hand.
>
First, I don't know the piece in question, but for future reference harmony
is not copyrightable.
Wouldn't we all be in a pickle is someone copyrighted I-IV-V-I ?
--
Jonah Barabas
http://www.tclock.com/jbarab.htm
Spencer Doidge
Paul Fowles wrote:
>
>
> In article <325c760a...@news.scvnet.com>, Sharon D. (Miss....@scvnet.com) writes:
>
> >In the early 1970's, Mr. Parkening was given a hand-written copy of
> >"Afro-Cuban Lullaby." This copy had no credits, no copyright
> >information on it, and he assumed (and was told) that the tune was a
> >"public domain," traditional lullaby. He gave it to his cousin, Jack
> >Marshall, who made some small changes to it, and Mr. Parkening then
> >recorded it.
>
> assumption which has yet to be verified)
By whom? Since no one has heard of or seen a copyright claim on it, it
is fair to assume none exists.
> the harmonisation is very
> obviously the work of a contemporary hand.
The issue is the melody. If the melody is copyrighted, no reproduction of it
is legal without permission. If the melody is not copyrighted, there is no issue.
You can't claim copyright on a harmonization of public domain material.
>
> For Marshall, with Parkening as his accomplice, to claim this
> harmonisation as his own shows a downright cavalier attitude to the
> intellectual property of a living artist.
What living artist? Has any living artist claimed this as their intellectual property?
There would be a problem if Parkening claimed copyright on the tune, which we know to have
existed before his recording. Has he made such a claim other than to the reproduction rights
of the book itself?
Charles Deering
Spencer,
Arrangements ARE legally protected by copyright law.
Jonah Barabas
I don't know if this is good netiquette to post twice, but I thought of a
few more things that I feel needed to be said.
(1) Sharon has stated that minor changes were made to the original
manuscript. I am assuming minor to mean the number of notes changed.
Marshall, or any other composer/arranger can significantly change a piece
of music by making slight changes in a few notes in structural places. For
example, a friend of mine wants me to arrange "Poor Wayfaring Stranger" for
him. The hymnal he gave me, from the 1930's, raised the b7th tone to the
leading tone in three places and lowered the 6 to the b6 degree. Only four
notes were changed in the melody. This took that beautiful example of
dorian harmony and placed is squarely in the minor key (Needless to say, my
arrangement changed them back). That is only one example of a significant
change made with only a few notes. You can think of a composition as jars
of baby food in the grocery store, with the notes being the jars. You can
remove or change some of the notes without having any impact or you can
change one single note and have alot of impact. Having played and heard
both Brower and Marshall music, my best guess would be structural changes
were made. Their style is different.
(2) The environment that Marshall worked in, that of popular music circa
1960-70, would allow someone to suggest a few changes in a song and be
listed as one of the writers. Have you ever wondered why some of the
popular music of the era had so many writers? This was, and may still be
for all I know, a common practice. It was a very natural, common practice
thing for Marshall to put his name on the arrangement. Also, please see
Spencer's prior post -- change an arrangement and it's yours.
Promise, this is my lost post on this subject, no matter what.
Jeff Rossman
In article <325D60...@teleport.com> Spencer Doidge <spen...@teleport.com> writes:
>From: Spencer Doidge <spen...@teleport.com>
>Subject: Re: "Afro-Cuban Lullaby"
>Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:46:49 -0700
>BTW, Sharon, kudos to you for sticking up for your boss.
>-- Spencer Doidge
Despite the anticipated screaming about freedom of speech and the Internet,
everyone needs to be aware of the difference of an honest opinion (as vicious
as that may be) and libel/defamation of character.
The original poster stated AS FACT, that Christopher Parkening stole a
composition/arrangement, recorded and published it without giving credit
to the "real" owners of that intellectual property. In other words, he
accused Mr. Parkening of committing a crime. This is not the same as saying
that you may think someone's playing stinks, he's overrated, etc. Someone
reading this may accept it as truth and Mr. Parkening's reputation and
character would be damaged. Under the law, this is (and should be) protected
as much as someone being physically assaulted.
While these newsgroups are a great resource and vigorous discussions
and arguments are most times a good thing, you are not given any MORE free
speech protection than any other medium.
Jeff Rossman
Stefano Brentegani
Miss....@scvnet.com (Sharon D.) wrote:
>This copy had no credits, no copyright
>information on it, and he assumed (and was told) that the tune was a
>"public domain," traditional lullaby.
Sorry to come in just now! I've only been able to read a couple of
messages about this lullaby (I assume you're talking about what
Brouwer published as "Cancion de cuna").
I remember hearing a sung version of this theme, with lyrics in
spanish (something like "Sleep little girl, I will buy you a new
cradle"). This and Brouwer's are the only versions I know of, but I've
always been told that it's a popular (i.e. traditional) song.
Hope this is not off-topic.
Greetings,
Stefano
TonyJ2765
Christopher Parkening is a highly ethical individual and I would be
astonished if he were to "pirate" anything from anyone! Check you facts
before you make such libelous accusations in the future.
Tony Sasso
Tony...@AOL.com
TonyJ2765
Way to go Spencer!
Sharon, you dont need to defend Christopher, his credibility can withstand
these weak minded attacks.
Tony Sasso
Paul Fowles
In article <325D9A...@teleport.com>, Spencer Doidge (spen...@teleport.com) writes:
>Paul Fowles wrote:
>> the harmonisation is very
>> obviously the work of a contemporary hand.
>
>The issue is the melody. If the melody is copyrighted, no reproduction of it
>is legal without permission. If the melody is not copyrighted, there is no issue.
>You can't claim copyright on a harmonization of public domain material.
True, which means that anyone could claim, say, Bartok's
harmonisations of Rumanian folk songs as his own without any fear of
legal redress.
However, it would be glaringly obvious that the real credit
belonged to Bartok because his work in this area is
easily recognisable and universally known.
In the early 1970s, Brouwer was a relatively unknown figure which
made him an easy target for the unscrupulous.
This is no longer the case, and this legal but unethical theft of
his work has been finally exposed.
Regards,
Paul F.
Ron Ohara
TonyJ2765 (tony...@aol.com) wrote:
: Way to go Spencer!
: Sharon, you dont need to defend Christopher, his credibility can withstand
: these weak minded attacks.
Actually I would like to see her do more posts on here perhaps with more
info on Parkenings tours, recordings, etc. (and definetly to defend
against the slander from certain posters here).
--
.........................................................................
. . .
. Ron O'Hara . Life is strange, but compared to what? .
. r...@vcn.bc.ca . .
.........................................................................
Charles Deering
An original harmonization of a melody is protected by copyright law.
The generic progression I vi ii V I is in public domain.
Charles Deering
An original harmonization of a public domain tune is protected by copyright
law.
Paul Fowles
>Arrangements ARE legally protected by copyright law.
Technically speaking, yes, but in practice the thief only has to
alter one note in order to make a legal claim that the arrangement
is his own work.
Believe me, I've witnessed a record company executive persuading a
performer to do precisely this in order to avoid paying royalties.
The injured party could, of course, take the matter to court, but
the costs are prohibitive unless large sums of money are already
at stake (e.g. the case of Phil Spector vs. George Harrison over
"My Sweet Lord").
All this provides us with a reason why the late Jack Marshall,
according to the admission of Christopher Parkening's secretary,
saw fit to make "some small changes" to Leo Brouwer's arrangement
of "Drume Negrita".
Regards,
Paul F.
Miss Music
PF|>In the early 1970s, Brouwer was a relatively unknown figure which
PF|>made him an easy target for the unscrupulous.
PF|>This is no longer the case, and this legal but unethical theft of
PF|>his work has been finally exposed.
Sorry, Paul. You couldn't be more wrong.
---
* OLXWin 1.00b * Would it be okay to be more assertive?
Spencer Doidge
Charles Deering wrote:
>
> An original harmonization of a public domain tune is protected by copyright
> law.
What is an "original harmonization?" If everybody is used to strumming more
or less the same chords when singing that song, how many chords do I have to
change before I can claim originality?
Spencer Doidge
Paul Fowles wrote:
>
>
> In article <325D9A...@teleport.com>, Spencer Doidge (spen...@teleport.com) writes:
>
> >Paul Fowles wrote:
>
> >> the harmonisation is very
> >> obviously the work of a contemporary hand.
> >
> >The issue is the melody. If the melody is copyrighted, no reproduction of it
> >is legal without permission. If the melody is not copyrighted, there is no issue.
> >You can't claim copyright on a harmonization of public domain material.
>
> True, which means that anyone could claim, say, Bartok's
> harmonisations of Rumanian folk songs as his own without any fear of
> legal redress.
>
> However, it would be glaringly obvious that the real credit
> belonged to Bartok because his work in this area is
> easily recognisable and universally known.
>
>
>
>
> Paul F.
>
>
>
>
So does Brouwer have anything to say about it? He has books published,
so it's not like he has no experience in the area. You assume the
arrangement is original by Brouwer. Maybe he knows better.
Spencer Doidge
Charles Deering wrote:
>
> Spencer,
>
> Arrangements ARE legally protected by copyright law.
I hope we have uncovered a source of real knowledge on copyright law here,
because such a source is not easy to come by. What I know is partly hearsay
and partly what I have been able to understand reading a book or two. I'm
certainly not an expert, and I hope we have found one here...
What constitutes a violation? If I change a few notes, isn't that a new
arrangement? Or do I actually have to reproduce and sell a copy of
somebody's arrangement to be in violation?
What about performance? What if two player play "Sheep May Safely Graze"
more or less the same? Is one in violation? A composer's work is protected
by copyright law whether he/she registers the copyright or not. Is this true
of an arrangement? If it were, wouldn't the courts be riddled with lawsuits?
I'm really asking, not trying to win an argument with rhetorical questions.
I hope if I've been wrong that I'll get my misimpressions corrected. It's a
complicated subject.
Spencer Doidge
Jonah Barabas
Charles Deering <cdee...@csc.umd.edu> wrote in article
<53oa6o$8...@marlowe.umd.edu>...
>
> An original harmonization of a melody is protected by copyright law.
> The generic progression I vi ii V I is in public domain.
>
A couple of things before I go any further: (1) I am not a lawyer --
nothing I am saying should be construed as any type of legal advice (2) I
have studied copyright law in undergraduate school, which doesn't really
mean that much (3) I have been a working professional composer/producer and
am now a working professional programmer so I have in the past and am
currently dealing with mental property on a daily basis.
As I understand the legalities of infringement and the few cases I have
read about, the main criteria used for infringement for music is if the
casual lay listener hears the plaintiffs music as the same piece of music
as the defendants. It is not the expert testimony of a trained musician.
Now, if you take the same folk melody, let's say "Black is the Color of my
True Love's hair", use two completely different harmonizations, keep the
same instrumentation, most listeners will perceive these arrangements as
the same piece of music. That is because the average lay listener hears
instrumentation, meter, melody, and harmony pretty much in that order as
the distinguishing characteristics of a piece of music.
Let's continue with the "Black is the Color of my True Love's hair". Let's
say you have three arrangements, two for classical guitar with different
harmonizations, and one for banjo with the same harmonization as one of the
classical guitar arrangements. Most untrained ears will tell you that the
two guitar arrangements infringe on each other while the banjo is
different. That is because they differentiate by instrumentation before
harmony.
How many 1st year harmony students can aurally score a Bach Chorale? Not
many. Alot can take dictation for the melody. And these are somewhat
trained musicians before they ever see the college classroom. I can't
imagine any 12 untrained musicians being able to judge if the harmony of
two arrangements are close enough to warrant infringement.
Now, if a copyright lawyer shows up and cites cases, I'll back down.
However, if harmony infringement is actionable, it shouldn't be and the
laws need changing. Jurors are not able to determine infringement.
Also, there is a huge difference between making modifications to an
arrangement and standing at the copy machine with a book arrangements. The
first is legal, the latter is not.
P.S. I know I said that I would not post again to this thread, but I just
couldn't help myself.
Paul Fowles
In article <9610121...@mogur.com>, Miss Music (miss....@mogur.com) writes:
>
>PF|>In the early 1970s, Brouwer was a relatively unknown figure which
>PF|>made him an easy target for the unscrupulous.
>
>PF|>This is no longer the case, and this legal but unethical theft of
>PF|>his work has been finally exposed.
>
>Sorry, Paul. You couldn't be more wrong.
Convince me...
Regards,
Paul F.
Paul Fowles
>You assume the arrangement is original by Brouwer.
I make no such assumption - the conclusion was only drawn after
careful examination of the evidence.
The harmonisation is typical of Brouwer's early style as seen in
"Ojos Brujos", "Guajira Criolla" and elsewhere. If we question the
authenticity of the harmonisation of "Drume Negrita", then we are
also, by implication, questioning the authenticity of these and other
published Brouwer arrangements - a hypothesis for which there is no
supporting evidence whatsoever.
Furthermore, in GUITAR REVIEW No.98, the respected Brouwer scholar
Bryan Townsend dates the arrangement of "Drume Negrita" at
"1958/60".
Parkening's secretary has already conceded that the allegedly
uncredited copy of the arrangement was not obtained by Parkening
until "the early 1970s".
Regards,
Paul F.
JMBFINTAX
In article <01bbb8cf$864f36e0$ea6e...@dbryson.mindspring.com>, "Jonah
Barabas" <bar...@tclock.com> writes:
>
>A couple of things before I go any further: (1) I am not a lawyer --
>nothing I am saying should be construed as any type of legal advice
You may not be a lawyer, but you sure know the CYA rules, pretty well.
Bravo!
> (2) I have studied copyright law in undergraduate school,
We promise not to hold that against you. ;-)
>........That is because the average lay listener hears
>instrumentation, meter, melody, and harmony pretty much in that order as
>the distinguishing characteristics of a piece of music.
Hmmmm, I am somewhat surprised by this. I would have guessed that melody,
and meter carry greater weight in the ear of the average listener, than
both instrument and harmony.
>P.S. I know I said that I would not post again to this thread, but I just
>couldn't help myself.
PLEASE, don't stop! Whether you turn out to be right or, as you've put
it, someone cites case law proving that you are wrong, this discussion may
prove to be the silver lining that emerges from the original anonymous
swipe taken at Parkening. There's so much more to learn from civil
discourse on topics like this than from a flurry of "He rules!" "She
stinks!" posts. Keep it up!
Joe B.
Charles Deering
Sorry, I'm not a copyright expert. I was only trying to correct a few
blatantly false statements. As a college professor, composer and arranger,
I do have to be careful and have followed a number of cases.
For the real scoop, try the Library of Congress. They can be reached by
gopher or the web at http://www.loc.gov. They have a lot about music,
including recording and performance.
Charles Deering
Miss Music
(I can't remember if I sent this message or not; please excuse if this
is a duplicate.)
r...@vcn.bc.ca (Ron Ohara) wrote:
RO|>Actually I would like to see her do more posts on here perhaps with more
RO|>info on Parkenings tours, recordings, etc. (and definetly to defend
RO|>against the slander from certain posters here).
I do lurk here, just for that reason (to squelch unfounded rumors). :-)
However, to answer your question, Christopher Parkening just finished a
recording of Christmas music with soprano Kathleen Battle, and it will
be released this week on the Sony Classical label with the title
"Angels' Glory." I've heard it--it's very nice! He plays one solo
piece, an Andrew York composition orginally entitle "Sunburst" and
retitled "Jubilation" for this recording. Mr. York also re-wrote and
extended the introduction to the piece.
Sharon Devol
Secretary to Christopher Parkening
---
* OLXWin 1.00b * News cameramen on strike. Slides at eleven.
Miss Music
pfo...@gina.win-uk.net (Paul Fowles) wrote:
PF|>All this provides us with a reason why the late Jack Marshall,
PF|>according to the admission of Christopher Parkening's secretary,
PF|>saw fit to make "some small changes" to Leo Brouwer's arrangement
PF|>of "Drume Negrita".
Amazing that you can *know* without a doubt the precise reason why Jack
Marshall adapted the public domain copy he received. Haven't I seen you
on the "Psychic Friends Network"? ;-)
---
* OLXWin 1.00b * Writer's Rule #7: Proofread you writing.
Paul Fowles
>pfo...@gina.win-uk.net (Paul Fowles) wrote:
>
>PF|>All this provides us with a reason why the late Jack Marshall,
>PF|>according to the admission of Christopher Parkening's secretary,
>PF|>saw fit to make "some small changes" to Leo Brouwer's arrangement
>PF|>of "Drume Negrita".
>
>Amazing that you can *know* without a doubt the precise reason why Jack
>Marshall adapted the public domain copy he received.
I was merely suggesting an explanation as to why the late Jack
Marshall deemed it necessary to make trifling alterations to an
arrangement which numerous world-ranking guitarists (John Williams,
Oscar Caceres, Ichiro Suzuki and, of course, Brouwer himself) have
performed and recorded in its original form.
Can you offer a better explanation?
Regards,
Paul F.
Bigfatmat
From: pfo...@gina.win-uk.net (Paul Fowles):
>I was merely suggesting an explanation as to why the late
>Jack
>Marshall deemed it necessary to make trifling alterations
>to an
>arrangement which numerous world-ranking guitarists
>(John Williams,
>Oscar Caceres, Ichiro Suzuki and, of course, Brouwer
>himself) have
>performed and recorded in its original form.
Let's see, the Parkening edition was released in1977, which means
Marshalls adaptation happened at least in '77 but probably sometime before
that. Why dont you check your crystal ball, Paul, and let us known when.
;-) John Williams' recording "The Spirit of the Guitar, Music of the
Americas" was released in 1989. When were the others recorded? That might
give merit to your arguement.
>Can you offer a better explanation?
The possible explanations are infinate, which is a good enough reason to
refrain from such slanderous accusations. One possible explanation is
Marshall arranged it many years before 1977, before he could've known it
was Brouwers arrangement, assuming that it is Brouwers arrangement.
Brouwers credibility was weakened, in my eyes, when John Williams credited
him for the authership instead of the arrangement.
-Matt Faunce
* * * * * * * * * *
Sight Reading Book: Music composed specifically for sight reading on
guitar. Thorough coverage of every position in every major key. Available
at Carl Fischer of Chicago. 1-800-621-2323 piano-vocal-guitar dept.
* * * * * * * * * *
Spencer Doidge
Paul Fowles wrote:
>
>
> In article <9610140...@mogur.com>, Miss Music (miss....@mogur.com) writes:
>
> >pfo...@gina.win-uk.net (Paul Fowles) wrote:
> >
> >PF|>All this provides us with a reason why the late Jack Marshall,
> >PF|>according to the admission of Christopher Parkening's secretary,
> >PF|>saw fit to make "some small changes" to Leo Brouwer's arrangement
> >PF|>of "Drume Negrita".
> >
> >Amazing that you can *know* without a doubt the precise reason why Jack
> >Marshall adapted the public domain copy he received.
>
> Marshall deemed it necessary to make trifling alterations to an
> arrangement which numerous world-ranking guitarists (John Williams,
> Oscar Caceres, Ichiro Suzuki and, of course, Brouwer himself) have
> performed and recorded in its original form.
>
>
>
> Paul F.
Absolutely. Because it works better for a particular player.
sensabaugh,thomas h
In article <9610131...@mogur.com>,
Miss Music <miss....@mogur.com> wrote:
>
>
>I do lurk here, just for that reason (to squelch unfounded rumors). :-)
>
>However, to answer your question, Christopher Parkening just finished a
>recording of Christmas music with soprano Kathleen Battle, and it will
>be released this week on the Sony Classical label with the title
>"Angels' Glory." I've heard it--it's very nice! He plays one solo
>piece, an Andrew York composition orginally entitle "Sunburst" and
>retitled "Jubilation" for this recording. Mr. York also re-wrote and
>extended the introduction to the piece.
>
>Sharon Devol
>Secretary to Christopher Parkening
>
>
Hope that we don't have to hear that the Andrew York piece is
really a Brouwer number in disguise!! :0
Glad to hear another recording with Kathleen Battle is coming
out, the first one is quite nice.
Any idea when the second method book is coming out? Seems to me
that something was posted about it almost a year ago.
Tom
Stefano Brentegani
Jonah Barabas
Spencer Doidge <spen...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<326442...@teleport.com>...
>
> Absolutely. Because it works better for a particular player.
>
There is also the "this is good cousin, but I'll make it perfect for you"
scenario (OOPS, I might be accused of believing I have a crystal ball for
that one <grin>). OK, here are facts we all know or can verify along with
a few rhetorical questions. Marshall liked to change things around, look
what he did with the Romanza off "The Christopher Parkening Album", Angel
S-36069. That isn't the way I learned to play it. Whose arrangement was
Marshall trying to steal when he modified Romanza?
More importantly, as Sharon previously pointed out, if Parkening or
Marshall were pirates, "WHY IS THERE SO MUCH CREDITING ON THE BACK OF THE
ALBUMS?"!!!!
Also, I just noticed now (but not when the album was released) that Rick
Foster is credited on the "Parkening Plays Bach". I was studying and
playing pretty furiously back then (the guitar was my life) and I had not
heard of Rick Foster until sometime after that album was recorded. How
many of you knew who Rick Foster was when that album was made? If
Parkening and Marshall were going to lift the lullaby, why not go ahead and
rip-off Rick and make it a two-fer?
Another given fact that we all know but don't like to admit, is that we are
not talking about "Heartbreak Hotel". How much money would they have saved
by lifting the lullaby? Really. Why would they steal something for so
little money?
"Oh, but they wanted the fame", you say. Hmm.. ask yourself, "How many
more people heard Marshall's music on TV and films compared with this
Lullaby?" Think about it.
Those of you that have his guitar method. Read the "Forward" and ask
yourself, "Would a pirate be that grateful and humble?". I'm surprised he
didn't thank his dog for not barking while he practiced. Unfortunately, I
have known a few mental property thieves. They seem to always take credit
for things they didn't know, didn't think of, and had no control of -- it's
in their nature. It is a habitual thing. They would never write such a
grateful forward like the one in that method. A pirate would have used
that opportunity, along with any other, to continue to impress you with
their own greatness.
Anyway, play well and be well.
Paul Fowles
>Let's see, the Parkening edition was released in1977, which means
>Marshalls adaptation happened at least in '77 but probably sometime before
>that. Why dont you check your crystal ball, Paul, and let us known when.
>;-) John Williams' recording "The Spirit of the Guitar, Music of the
>Americas" was released in 1989. When were the others recorded? That might
>give merit to your arguement.
"Tresors d'Amerique Latine" (Erato STU 70988) by Oscar Caceres was
released in 1977, but the liner notes are signed "Oscar Caceres,
Paris June 1976".
Under the heading "Cancion de Cuna by Leo Brouwer", Caceres
states the following:
"This is another well-known Cuban song, "Duerme Negrito" by the
popular composer Grenet, which in the hands of Leo Brouwer becomes
a delightful berceuse"
(Translated from French by Anthony Laude and reproduced on the
sleeve of STU 70988)
Regards,
Paul F.
TonyJ2765
Get a life Paul F.!!! Stop worrying about this trivial nonsense...It adds
nothing to the advancement of the guitar as serious concert instrument.
You all sound like a bunch of whining social shut-in geeks!!!!
Besides the fact that CP could never knowingly steal anything, he bends
over backwards to give credit where it's due!
Tony Sasso
Jerry Greene
Give the Lady a Break
Jerry Greene
Give the lady a break
Majjick
In article <5446kl$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> tony...@aol.com
(TonyJ2765) writes:
> Get a life Paul F.!!! Stop worrying about this
> trivial nonsense
Plagiarism may be trivial to you, Tony.
I would guess that you don't make a living from your own compositions.
Paul Magnussen
Spencer Doidge
TonyJ2765 wrote:
>
> Get a life Paul F.!!! Stop worrying about this trivial nonsense...It adds
> nothing to the advancement of the guitar as serious concert instrument.
>
> You all sound like a bunch of whining social shut-in geeks!!!!
Uh, wait a minute, Tony....what's a "whining social shut-in geek,"
someone who enters protracted discussions on rmcg and expresses stronger
emotion than perhaps the discussion may merit? Hmm. :)
Matthew Faunce
In article <5446kl$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tony...@aol.com
(TonyJ2765) wrote:
> Get a life Paul F.!!! Stop worrying about this trivial nonsense...It adds
> nothing to the advancement of the guitar as serious concert instrument.
>
> You all sound like a bunch of whining social shut-in geeks!!!!
>
> Besides the fact that CP could never knowingly steal anything, he bends
> over backwards to give credit where it's due!
>
> Tony Sasso
Why don't you shut the hell up! I've learned a few things from this thread
and Paul that I wouldn't have had this thread never started. I like
trivial nonsense.
As for CP knowingly stealing something, most of the shots were fired at
Jack Marshall. Sherry-Brener is another possible target.
Miss Music
pfo...@gina.win-uk.net (Paul Fowles) wrote:
PF|>I was merely suggesting an explanation as to why the late Jack
PF|>Marshall deemed it necessary to make trifling alterations to an
PF|>arrangement which numerous world-ranking guitarists (John Williams,
PF|>Oscar Caceres, Ichiro Suzuki and, of course, Brouwer himself) have
PF|>performed and recorded in its original form.
PF|>Can you offer a better explanation?
Sure. The original needed improvement.
---
* OLXWin 1.00b * Merger of Fed Ex and United Parcel Service: FedUps.
Paul Fowles
>pfo...@gina.win-uk.net (Paul Fowles) wrote:
>
>PF|>I was merely suggesting an explanation as to why the late Jack
>PF|>Marshall deemed it necessary to make trifling alterations to an
>PF|>arrangement which numerous world-ranking guitarists (John Williams,
>PF|>Oscar Caceres, Ichiro Suzuki and, of course, Brouwer himself) have
>PF|>performed and recorded in its original form.
>
>PF|>Can you offer a better explanation?
>
>Sure. The original needed improvement.
OK, so let's see the reason(s) why, in your opinion, Marshall's
version is an improvement on the original.
Regards,
Paul F.
G. Jeffrey Gower
The following classical guitar CDs are for sale. Each is $7 (unless
otherwise noted) and postage is $1.50 for first CD and $0.50 for each
thereafter. Email me with your orders - if you don't hear back from me
then the CDs you requested are already sold. Thanks for looking.
Jeff
1. Manuel Barrueco - Sometime Ago (music of Corea, Jarrett, Simon, and
Harrison)
2. Anthony Glise - Diabelli's Complete Sonatas for Solo Guitar
3. Sonja Prunnbauer (w/ Stanislav Heller, fortepiano) - Music for Guitar
and Fortepiano - Diabelli, Carulli, and Giuliani
4. Pepe Romero - Guitar Concertos by Carulli and Molino
5. John Williams - From the Jungles of Paraguay - Music of Barrios
6. John Williams - Spirit of the Guitar - Music of the Americas
7. John Williams - Iberia - Music of Albeniz, Granados, Rodrigo, and Llobet
8. John Williams - From Australia - Music of Sculthorpe and Westlake
9. John Williams - Guitar Concertos of Vivaldi, Giuliani, Rodrigo,
Villa-Lobos, and Castelnuovo-Tedesco (2-CD set) - $10
10. Marcelo Kayath - Guitar Classics from Latin America, Volume 2 - Music
of Barrios and Ponce
11. Stepan Rak - The Guitar of Stepan Rak - Music of Rak
12. Manuel Barrueco - Mozart and Sor
13. Laszlo Szendrey-Karper - Music of Johann Kaspar Mertz
14. Timothy Walker (w/ others) - Hans Werner Henze's Chamber Music 1958
(includes the great Three Tentos plus several pieces for guitar and tenor)
15. Emanuele Segre - Guiliani, Rossini, and Paganini
16. Richard Savino - Mertz's "Bardenklange" (selections)
17. Segovia Collection Volume 1 - Bach
18. Segovia Collection Volume 2 - Rodrigo, Ponce concertos and Torroba's
Castles of Spain
19. Segovia Collection Volume 3 - My Favorite Works (Albeniz, C-T,
Granados, Tarrega, Torroba, etc.)
20. Segovia Collection Volume 4 - The Baroque Guitar
21. Segovia Collection Volume 5 - Five Centuries of the Spanish Guitar
22. Segovia Collection Volume 6 - Manuel Ponce Sonatas
23. Segovia Collection Volume 7 - Guitar Etudes
24. Segovia Collection Volume 8 - C-T's Platero and I and Quintet, etc.
25. Segovia Collection Volume 9 - The Romantic Guitar
Keith Dunnigan
Majjick <maj...@aol.com> wrote:
: In article <5446kl$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> tony...@aol.com
: (TonyJ2765) writes:
: > Get a life Paul F.!!! Stop worrying about this
: > trivial nonsense
: Plagiarism may be trivial to you, Tony.
I think that the people on this list should be careful about using such
words. Since we are all so intersted in the law, we should also check
out terms like "slander" and "libel".
The "composer" himself has had 20 years to file a suit and has not done
so. I submit that using the internet to fire baseless accusations
against a prominent musician of impeccable character is irresponsible at
best and malicious at worst.
: I would guess that you don't make a living from your own compositions.
If you do then you might consider that tommorrow someone may accuse you
of plagierizing (which for a composer is worse than murder) and do so in
a public forum which is distributed across the globe. When such attacks
are leveled against your reputation, it can matter little whether they
are actually true or not.
Keith Dunnigan
David N. Hudson
Keith Dunnigan wrote:
>
> If you do then you might consider that tommorrow someone may accuse you
> of plagierizing (which for a composer is worse than murder)
Hyperbole, anyone?
Majjick
In article <54lmag$a...@newsreader.wustl.edu> ke...@wubios.wustl.edu (Keith
Dunnigan) writes:
>> Plagiarism may be trivial to you, Tony.
> I think that the people on this list should be careful about using such
> words. Since we are all so intersted in the law, we should also check
> out terms like "slander" and "libel".
<snip>.
> If you do then you might consider that tommorrow someone may accuse you
> of plagierizing (which for a composer is worse than murder) and do so in
> a public forum which is distributed across the globe. When such attacks
> are leveled against your reputation, it can matter little whether they
> are actually true or not.
If this is to my address, then I haven't accused anyone of plagiarism --
merely stated that plagiarism is a nontrivial issue to some people, which
some others seem to be disputing.
With regard to the specifics: if someone hasn't plagiarized someone else,
then the only alternative seems to be that the arrangements were arrived
at independently. They are so nearly identical that this seems to me (and
others) just a trifle implausible.
Or am I missing something?
Paul Magnussen
Ron Ohara
Majjick (maj...@aol.com) wrote:
: With regard to the specifics: if someone hasn't plagiarized someone else,
: then the only alternative seems to be that the arrangements were arrived
: at independently. They are so nearly identical that this seems to me (and
: others) just a trifle implausible.
I guess it can happen implausible or not. If two people can independently
invent, for example, a rubick's cube than anything is possible. :-)
--
.........................................................................
. . .
. Ron O'Hara . Life is strange, but compared to what? .
. r...@vcn.bc.ca . .
.........................................................................