Vaughan Williams original manuscript solo part...

[pierso20]

This is very novel. I am not a lawyer but appreciate the care you have made in creating the post. I also find it all very interesting because it is very true that so many changes happen between printings/editions. This is of course, another example of it.

[Rick Denney]

I am not a lawyer, of course, but I see absolutely no violation nor solicitation of violation. You are saying you have something that near as I can tell is utterly legal to have, and will make copies of it available if the copyright holder grants permission.

Getting the permission is the hard part, but it may not be that hard. I know someone in England who has some connection to the publishing industry there, and I suspect he is reading this nearly as I type it. The request would need to be made in writing, but, hey, all they can do is say no.

(I don't think you need anything notarized. Permission granted on Oxford's letterhead would be plenty to protect you against a charge of infringement. It does need to be in writing, and it needs to lay out the details of what is and is not allowed in this case.)

But what I do not understand at all is why the published solo version would differ from the rental version. I can find no justification for that at all, unless it is marketed as a different "edition". Maybe they think it needs a different musical approach with piano accompaniment--nah.

Rick "who'd be happy if Oxford agreed to reissue it with the proper markings, and who'd happily buy a second copy to get that" Denney

[Scott Roeder]

The older rental scores do have the original articulation markings and such. However there is also a newer rental score that has the marking as written in the published solo w/piano part. The newer rental score is printed and not hand written manuscript.

[tubashaman2]

.

[Sharp]

Could you just post the cadenza from the first movement, since there is ALOT of stipulation in terms of what is right....that should be less than 10% of the work and would be used for performance study purposes

did you not read his post? at all?

[tubashaman2]

.

[tubashaman2]

.

[pierso20]

Yes I did, and he stated the entire original manuscript. According to what I have been told, you can legally distribute 10% of a work for educational/study purposes. For example, a professor buys a 200 page book, and this one chapter he really likes over music aesthetics for a class topic, but would not use the rest of the book, can copy 10% out of the book and distribute for educational purposes for the class. The cadenza of the tuba part would be 10% or less of the entire tuba part, just the cadenza of the first movement alone

YAY!! That would be........

200 x .010......

20 PAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yay for math.

[Karl H.]

The existence of conflicting versions of the VW always intrigued me, so way back during my MM days I decided to investigate. A rather fun paper resulted, one that Don Little had encouraged me to review and have published in the Journal (never got around to it).

To my mind, the question of authenticity was always why: why would a piece composed in modern times have so many mistakes, and why were there different versions in light of copyright limitations and modern printing procedures?

I found the answers in a book by Roy Douglas called “Working with R.V.W.” (Oxford University Press, 1972). Douglas was VW’s copyist in later years. Some scholars insisted that the only trustworthy scores from 1947 to 1958 were in Douglas’ hand. Without re-typing the whole 30+-page paper, I’ll include one little passage that could explain all the future difficulties.

Quoting Douglas:

“Also V.W. would frequently change the harmonies, or the notes in scale-like passages, while scoring a work, and would make these alterations perhaps in the strings, forgetting that he had left the passages in the winds as they had been in his reduced score or piano sketch.”

Between this book, the Skip Gray article published in the Journal in 1984, and the newer editions, I think an informed interpretation can be produced.

This is what Bloke has done, whether he used these same resources, new/different information, or his own musical sense.

I say Bravo! to Bloke, and to all of us that take the time to truly study this foundation of solo tuba literature!

Karl "delighted to find a topic able to post about" H.

[kingrob76]

Could you just post the cadenza from the first movement, since there is ALOT of stipulation in terms of what is right....that should be less than 10% of the work and would be used for performance study purposes

I think out of the thousands of posts by this user, this one stands out as "most oblivious"

[Lew]

The existence of conflicting versions of the VW always intrigued me, so way back during my MM days I decided to investigate. A rather fun paper resulted, one that Don Little had encouraged me to review and have published in the Journal (never got around to it)....


Karl "delighted to find a topic able to post about" H.

I, for one, would be interested in reading your paper. Please let us know if you get around to actually getting it published, or if there is somewhere else where it might be available.

[JCalkin]

Could you just post the cadenza from the first movement, since there is ALOT of stipulation in terms of what is right....that should be less than 10% of the work and would be used for performance study purposes

You should read the copyright law more thoroughly. I'm not trying to berate, but to help.

There is another pat of the law, besides that 10% business, that states that the reproduced part can't be a "complete performable entity" or some such.

Basically, if the excerpt you copy has any performance merit you're breaking the law. So does the 1st movement cadenza constitute a performable part? That depends on whom you ask, and this part of the law is ambiguous for a reason.

You don't want to mess with copyright law, man.

[BVD Press]

If you happen to be from Canada, you would be golden:

The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 6; 1993, c. 44, s. 58.

Source:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html

[Amilcare]

Oxford Press has done a shameful job throughout their control of VW's music.

The printed part has too many errors that they've never bothered to correct. I've done it on BTRB and tuba over the years. I actually have a corrected copy that includes six extra measures in the cadenza in the third movement. I have na pretty good sense of VW's compositional style, and I knew that the scales in the third movement did not sound like VW. Well, they were wrong. It's amazing how much better this piece is with the right notes;-)

[Tuba Guy]

Oxford Press has done a shameful job throughout their control of VW's music.

The printed part has too many errors that they've never bothered to correct. I've done it on BTRB and tuba over the years. I actually have a corrected copy that includes six extra measures in the cadenza in the third movement. I have na pretty good sense of VW's compositional style, and I knew that the scales in the third movement did not sound like VW. Well, they were wrong. It's amazing how much better this piece is with the right notes;-)

Would it be against copyright law to tell us about the wrong notes and places where there is a more correct thing to play?

[averagejoe]

This thread has me thinking, what about problems in tuba parts in many published works that so many of us play in our ensembles? It would be amazing if tubenet had a board that discussed errors in parts, and differing views of editors that have led to different versions. My wind ensemble director, Jennifer Martin, loathes Boosey and Hawkes because they consistently publish the same mistakes for decades. I am somebody who rarely posts on here, as I feel I have more to learn than to offer. But I would love to see more discussion about musical interpretation rather than equipment issues. The last line or Karl H.'s post should not be ignored,"Karl "delighted to find a topic able to post about" H."

[Rick Denney]

Oxford Press has done a shameful job throughout their control of VW's music.

The printed part has too many errors that they've never bothered to correct. I've done it on BTRB and tuba over the years. I actually have a corrected copy that includes six extra measures in the cadenza in the third movement. I have na pretty good sense of VW's compositional style, and I knew that the scales in the third movement did not sound like VW. Well, they were wrong. It's amazing how much better this piece is with the right notes;-)

Would it be against copyright law to tell us about the wrong notes and places where there is a more correct thing to play?

No. A detailed annotation of required pen-and-ink revisions would not violate copyright law in any way that I can see. And it could include direct notation of the additional cadenza measures, which are obviously not protected given that they don't appear in the protected printed work. It could also include notation of a few corrected measures, which could not constitute a performable copy and would fall under Fair Use.

Rick "recognizing the challenge of carefully writing down those revisions" Denney

[imperialbari]

Wouldn’t the safest way to get around copyright problems be to make the copyright owner interested in issuing a version revised by people in the know. That would be people well versed in Vaughan Williams as well as in the tuba. If there is evidence that current editions are based on watered down or simplified additions by performers of limited instrumental competency, then these matters should be corrected.

Klaus, who is not particularly interested in this concert (OK, maybe the 2nd movement), even if the right tuba is at hand

[Rick Denney]

Wouldn’t the safest way to get around copyright problems be to make the copyright owner interested in issuing a version revised by people in the know. That would be people well versed in Vaughan Williams as well as in the tuba. If there is evidence that current editions are based on watered down or simplified additions by performers of limited instrumental competency, then these matters should be corrected.

There is a big difference in the world between is and ought. My suggestion was to go to Oxford first and pitch it to them.

But making the changes would require issuing a completely new version. Is there a Vaughan Williams scholar of the stature to encourage them to do that? They might have done so for Fletcher. They might do so now for Michael Kennedy, but he has never shown much interest in the Tuba Concerto. The RVW Society has considerable influence, and might be interested in the project, but they are probably resting after last year's year-long retrospective marking the 50th anniversary of the composer's death. And even they have not shown overwhelming interest in this work, at least they had not done so when I was a member. The high-ranking conductor who made that series possible has also now passed, closing that possible avenue.

One of the problems is that many of these revisions were made by the composer himself in trying to accommodate the issues of its first performance. There is nothing to indicate that the composer didn't just change his mind about what he wanted. Making inferences based on 1.) his poor copying skills in his old age, 2.) departures from the written version from his normal use of scales and harmony, 3.) differences between the solo part and the accompaniment (maybe it's the accompaniment that's wrong), and 4.) the musical choices made by performers will have little influence when compared to what the composer actually wrote down at the time.

Many well-known composers have scholarly editions of their works that each purport to represent the composer's true intentions most faithfully. All of them include some degree of guesswork because the composers themselves didn't do a good job of expressing the details of their intentions. For example, did RVW really intend that the revisions made necessary by Catelinet's abilities apply to all future performances, or did he merely assume that tuba performance was universally limited in the way Catelinet displayed? Had RVW lived another 10 years, he might have been introduced to a new generation of performers who could have made many more things possible. He probably, though, would have thought we were taking the work too seriously.

On the assumption that OUP declines to produce a revised work, they might agree to a revised edition published by others that include only the solo part and none of the accompaniment, in return for a license fee or other compensation.

There would be absolutely nothing preventing someone from publishing a detailed list of corrections based on their own scholarship (even if it was ghost-written--hint, hint). That would be fine for people interested in the work for its own sake, but would not end the propagation of the current version. School tuba players who choose to perform it for contest, for example, will be expected to play the ink, and whatever the ink says will therefore be propagated.

I have heard recordings of the work with a wide range of stylistic approaches, some of which probably approach the phrasing that Joe describes. But I have also heard recordings that stuck with the printed version more closely, and the argument for that approach was not undermined by what they did. I don't think it's obvious that the printed version is "wrong" and the manuscript version is "right", either from these performances, or from the instructions of the composer himself.

Rick "thinking arguments could be made even if the publisher was willingly responsive to the issue" Denney

[Wyvern]

I remember reading a detailed article of correction to the concerto in a past TUBA Journal. I wonder how much that corresponds with the errors noted by 'bloke'?

He probably, though, would have thought we were taking the work too seriously.

And maybe we do take it too seriously??? However, it would be interesting to hear a performance with and without revisions/errors by a top performer to judge their overall significance!