Can anyone help, please?
I have just nearly finished setting the text of the Lute-Book Lullaby for - hopefully- a performance at Christmas 2005 (I'm also a saddo who gets her Xmas cards in January!)
The original text and music by one William Ballet (17C) are in OUP Carols for Choirs 1, arranged by Geoffrey Shaw - it doesn't say when this arrangement was done.
Will I be able to go ahead and use the text, with one or two minor alterations to fit my music? I have checked the Watch database from the 'Copyright' thread earlier, and Ballet's name does not come up.
I would appreciate any advice!
Copyright Query?
Moderator: PaulW
He's dead, Jim!
Assuming Mr Ballet has been dead for at least 70 years - which, given that he was born in the 17C is fairly likely - then his original text is no longer in copyright, and you are free to set it to music. If you intend to monkey with the text, then I would probably ascribe it as follows: "Words: William Ballet (17C), adapted."
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!]
Musicus
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!]
Musicus
copyright
Recently I was trying to find a metrical index in my copy of C4E (washboardists edition) so I was flipping through all those pages that one does not normally look at, and I found a whole page of bitzen und boben on copyright, a veritable FAQ of frequently asked questions about this murky subject. Laudate also has information. Failing that, checkout Calamus at http://www.decanimusic.co.uk I've also seen a database of addresses on the web. I'll post it when I get a minute.
I think Musicus is right though - the more ancestral we become, the harder it is to ask our permission.
Alas, no metrical index....
I think Musicus is right though - the more ancestral we become, the harder it is to ask our permission.
Alas, no metrical index....
Moab is my washpot....
Even better if you go to another translation. Try The Message , for instance, and you get:
Now be honest, B; have you and I stood in the choir stalls of a cathedral and sung these words (previous translation) with complete conviction?
Hope this helps, claire....
Moab's a scrub bucket - I mop the floor with Moab, Spit on Edom, rain fireworks all over Philistia.
Now be honest, B; have you and I stood in the choir stalls of a cathedral and sung these words (previous translation) with complete conviction?
Hope this helps, claire....
Psalms we'd love to sing?
...although Easter Vigil's Exodus 15 (response: "Ha Ha! With God's help, we've drowned all the Baddies!") comes pretty close!
) language has to be seen to be believed.
Gwyn wrote:Inclusive language is incredible.
Wandering off topic a bit, but no it isn't. I'd suggest looking humankind up in a dictionary.
It's been around for three hundred years or more, and Alexander Pope seemed to know what he meant in 1711:
But where's the man who counsel can bestow,
Still pleas'd to teach, and yet not proud to know?
Unbiass'd or by favour or by spite;
Not dully prepossess'd nor blindly right;
Tho' learn'd, well bred, and tho' well bred sincere;
Modestly bold, and humanly severe;
Who to a friend his faults can freely show,
And gladly praise the merit of a foe;
Bless'd with a taste exact, yet unconfin'd,
A knowledge both of books and humankind;
(An Essay on Criticism)
Though obviously what Pope meant to write at the beginning was 'But where's the person'.
M.
-
Vox Americana
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:35 pm
- Location: Over the pond
Sure we're off-topic, but what the heck!
'man, mankind, humankind, humanity' commonly are used interchangeably, dependent upon whether we need 1, 2, 3, or 4 syllables in the lyrics to express 'all of us on earth'. Most of us really don't give a second thought to it and mean no harm by the use of a male-centered word, even though we would probably object ourselves to the use of womankind to mean 'all of us'! But is it something to get hung up about? There are more important things to worry over - poverty, hunger, disease, injustice, torture - than to get into an argument over inclusivity of language from the comfort of our armchairs.
We're pretty darn lucky that we speak English (or even American!) and therefore don't have a real gender problem. For example, 'The God of compassion and love' allows us the luxury of not worrying about God being a he or she; in German (Der Gott des Mitleids und der Liebe) the article gives it away. But then I don't think the Germans have an equivalent phrase for 'political correctness'
'man, mankind, humankind, humanity' commonly are used interchangeably, dependent upon whether we need 1, 2, 3, or 4 syllables in the lyrics to express 'all of us on earth'. Most of us really don't give a second thought to it and mean no harm by the use of a male-centered word, even though we would probably object ourselves to the use of womankind to mean 'all of us'! But is it something to get hung up about? There are more important things to worry over - poverty, hunger, disease, injustice, torture - than to get into an argument over inclusivity of language from the comfort of our armchairs.
We're pretty darn lucky that we speak English (or even American!) and therefore don't have a real gender problem. For example, 'The God of compassion and love' allows us the luxury of not worrying about God being a he or she; in German (Der Gott des Mitleids und der Liebe) the article gives it away. But then I don't think the Germans have an equivalent phrase for 'political correctness'
Vox
Oh well, since we're off topic anyway.......
You wordy people in your ivory towers ..........
Going back to psalms, I think the translation counts for something, but more so the choice of psalm or extracts thereof. There are many inaccessible tracts within the Psalms.
The Church of England chooses to use Psalm 108 (the washpot one - see above). It does not feature in the Roman Lectionary, at least, not on a Sunday. I am bewildered by it; it seems absurd, but I have never been involved with planning their music. I am not familiar with their lectionary, so that may be the reason that I am missing its point.
Until I became involved in planning liturgical music I never prayed the psalms. Song settings of psalms have helped me enormously to appreciate the words. The Grail can be fine, but there are many fine settings of ICEL and homespun texts around too. The fact we sing them at all helps to deliver their meaning far more powerfully for me than any spoken text. So let's keep singing them and retain the freedom over choice of style and wording. While it might feel safe to stick to The Grail and to use chant settings (to which I have no objection), I for one would feel uninspired by a continuous diet of nothing else.
Dot
Going back to psalms, I think the translation counts for something, but more so the choice of psalm or extracts thereof. There are many inaccessible tracts within the Psalms.
The Church of England chooses to use Psalm 108 (the washpot one - see above). It does not feature in the Roman Lectionary, at least, not on a Sunday. I am bewildered by it; it seems absurd, but I have never been involved with planning their music. I am not familiar with their lectionary, so that may be the reason that I am missing its point.
Until I became involved in planning liturgical music I never prayed the psalms. Song settings of psalms have helped me enormously to appreciate the words. The Grail can be fine, but there are many fine settings of ICEL and homespun texts around too. The fact we sing them at all helps to deliver their meaning far more powerfully for me than any spoken text. So let's keep singing them and retain the freedom over choice of style and wording. While it might feel safe to stick to The Grail and to use chant settings (to which I have no objection), I for one would feel uninspired by a continuous diet of nothing else.
Dot