contrabordun

Hope they don't go for the Duruflé then...it'll take me that long to learn it

This is such a vast exaggeration as to be seriously misleading. (I was at BNC 89-92 and, though not organ scholar, used it a lot for practice). It had its problems, sure, and the organ scholars made the occasional choice remark about them, but I don't, for example, remember any instances of it being out of action for Services. This, OTOH, is perfectly fair comment. I don't believe I ever heard anybody use it either in a service or a recital.

You don't need charcoal for that, the score of Crucifxion burns quite readily unaided.

Maybe it was a consolation prize for not being allowed within a hundred yards of the choir stalls during the actual mass? (At which at least 3 members of this forum were singing). Just got back - knackered, but thoroughly enjoyed it.

I don't think anybody (least of all MM) is disputing anybody's right to disagree with MM's opinions of Mr Laube's playing. What I think is being disputed is what seems (certainly to me and possibly to several others) to be an overly personal way of so doing.

Well I've heard it, and played it. MM very kindly answered a plea on this forum for somewhere to practice when work marooned me 150 miles away from home for the whole of the week leading up to a recital, and turned out on two consecutive (and bitterly cold) November nights to let me in to the church and out again a couple of hours later. I can only speak for myself: I thought it was a superb instrument. The sound is stunning and the action precise, responsive, crisp and utterly unforgiving of the slightest inattention to detail of phrasing or articulation. After the first 5 minutes I was ready to slit my wrists. After an hour I was in heaven. I must say, that I find some of the posts in this thread to have an unpleasant flavour of "who the hell does MM think he is, to criticise such a luminary as Nathan Laube". Could we stick to the convention that we argue about what's been said, not who's said it?

The version of that story I heard was that GTB was deliberately parodying Solemn Melody

Barry Williams put this one to bed almost exactly 3 years ago: The link to the original thread is http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...ost&p=26775

It looks as though you can buy it from that very website, but frustratingly, there isn't a search for composition, you have to know the composer's name to get to it.

Your biggest problem is going to be the length (or otherwise) of your aisle.

In fairness, he only said he was a key (singular) holder...

The one in The Organists Wedding Album (Cramer) is pretty straightforward.

Completely agree nachthorn. I was intrigued a while back though, (and I now can't remember where, but it might even be in the Parish Psalter's singing directions - don't have copy to hand) to read a stern warning that the singing should be absolutely rhythmical after the reciting note - ie that the minims and ending semibreve in each quarter should be in strict time wrt each other. That's baloney to us, but was somebody's good practice nearly a century ago. As a RC who also sings most Sunday evenings in the CofE, I love singing and accompanying Anglican Chant, but can't help thinking it a bit of an odd musical form. Would you invent it today, starting with a blank sheet of paper and a requirement to sing the Psalter in church?

I'm confused. Was the hedge trimmer used on the computer, the children or the Duruflé?

I'm quite a fan of Aichinger's Factus est repente (http://www1.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Factus_est_repente_%28Gregor_Aichinger%29) - fairly short but good fun and lots of mighty rushing wind in the tam quam advenientis spiritus.

Seconded. I once spent a Bank Holiday afternoon providing background noise on a C18th chamber organ at a (fairly) stately home open to the public, and, having dusted off my trusty set of Old English Organ Music for Manuals, discovered as I went, that about 70% of the pieces I was bookmarking were by him. They just seemed head and shoulders more interesting than the rest.

Where mine are. Sudden deafening silence in the Psalm this morning instead of Full Swell... :angry:

double post - sorry

Ah, but that's the point - the progresssion is entirely predictable. I suppose one of the advantage of toasters with illuminated stoptabs is that you can flip through the pistons and get a sense for what's lying in wait without the thuds that accompany this exercise on systems with actual moving parts.

It might be interesting to know whether they are, in fact, legally capable of doing so. Johnathan Lane's point is a powerful one.

Is a PCC even a charity (in the sense of a body regulated by the Charities Commission?) If not, then CC guidance wouldn't be relevant.

IANAL either - maybe should have added that above. However, if Vox's interpretation were correct, then the words "for possible exploitation" would be redundant, since any recording could be used as innate describes. If they were redundant, they could have been removed. If they were removed the message would be stronger. It is in interests of those for whom the ISM wrote the sentence that the message be rendered as strongly as possible. So one could infer that the words are not redundant and hence that Vox's interpretation is not correct. This is mostly correct. There are 'moral' rights and they can't be reassigned (unlike copyright, which is regarded as a kind of property and can be bought and sold). However, they only cover things such as the right to be identified as the author of a work and they have no economic benefit. I assume the obvious extension to performance rights applies - wish Barry Williams was still on the forum. All that's irrelevant however, because even though you can't assign your moral rights (logically enough - you can't ever make it so that somebody else actually gave the performance) you can contractually undertake not to enforce them, and within that contract you can be paid for undertaking not to enforce them. (Which is lucky, otherwise the job market for ghost writers would dry up). Finally, and ironically in this context, another one of the moral rights is the right to the integrity of a work, ie (for a composer) to have it performed exactly as composed. This is why it is illegal for you to reharmonise the last verse of a hymn tune that is in copyright. Fortunately no organist would be so cavalier with the law as to do this. I hope there's an exemption for wrong notes

Interesting, especially as the version normally told to prospective couples stops after the first 10 words. At face value, the above would suggest that it is in fact perfectly legal for me, as a wedding guest, to record the proceedings for my future enjoyment. (or at least, that the veto is with the church rather than the performer). Depending on the legal definition of exploitation in this context, (but which I assume to mean commercial exploitation of the recording ie, this is the bit of the law that says I can't video a concert and sell the recording), this quote suggests that it isn't illegal to make such a video on behalf of the bride and groom and give them the recording subsequently. (And it's not exactly a ringing declaration that the bride and groom can't legally then copy the recording for all their friends.) Irrespective of the above, the fact that you have a right to X does not oblige you to exercise that right in any particular way. If the evidence is that structuring your fees in this way causes adverse reaction from the paying customers, why not simply quote a flat fee. If you want to be analytical about it, set the fee at the amount that means you make the same amount over the year (eg if your current fees are £80/£160 and half your weddings have videos, set the new fee at £120). What's missing from this is that, in addition to the performance rights law, this situation is also covered by contract law. If I video your concert and go on to sell the recording, your legal comeback is via the performance rights legislation. If I'm paying you to play for my wedding, we have a contract and we can make that contract with any mutually acceptable terms. Hence, even if there was no copyright legislation, you as a performer could still quote a different rate for recorded weddings and could sue me for breach of contract if I paid the lower rate and had it videoed. It's just the same as your right to quote a higher rater for weddings on a Saturday, or days when you'd rather be watching the footie, or when there's an "R" in the month, or anything else you wish. (Actually, in the concert situation, if I've bought a ticket I have a contract with the venue, one of the terms of which - printed on the ticket, if the venue has any sense - will certainly forbid me from making a recording, but an example involving videoing an open air concert from beyond the perimeter would suffice). I don't therefore understand why the ISM would quote copyright law in a situation in which a contract is to be formed, when the premise of a contract is that the parties are (within certain, very very broad, limits) free to agree whatever terms they like. It seems more like a trade union bargaining position than anything else.

That's the key, isn't it? That, and the nuisance of swapping over to see what mostly the same people had to say on the other side. I can quite see why Manders might want to keep the board as a whole 'on topic', though.

Me neither, after pressing '0' instead of Gt/Ped.