Jeffrey Tucker was wrong about Open Source...
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    (How's that for click-bait?)

    http://musicforsunday.com/2013/open-source-sacred-music

    It has been a (relatively) long time since the software world managed to come to something like a consensus on the nature of free and open source software. To someone who is more-or-less fluent in the language of copyleft and open licensing, the accounts of the early days of figuring out how to distinguish between “free as in beer” (no cost) and “free as in speech” (no restrictions) seem a bit quaint. In software, this stuff now seems inevitable.

    But when you move outside of the Open Source software movement, into other fields of creative endeavor, the culture of Open Source – its language, ethos, and tool set – are still a non-inevitable early stage. The translation of concepts from Open Software licenses such as GNU General Public License into Open Culture licenses such as Creative Commons has not been without misunderstanding, even among strong advocates of Open Culture.

    While examples of this can be found in a number of endeavors, this blog (and this writer) is concerned primarily with Sacred Music, and so I’d like to speak directly to the issues, problems, shortcomings, and successes of Open Source and Copyleft within the Sacred Music (and, by extension, the traditional liturgical) movement.

    http://musicforsunday.com/2013/open-source-sacred-music
    Thanked by 2JonathanKK bgeorge77
  • bgeorge77
    Posts: 185
    If all I’ve done is provide a free-to-download pdf of the text set to a particular tune, and not made any other specific claims or releases in terms of copyright, that other musician will need to specifically request and receive my permission before re-setting the text to another tune.

    Now- that might not seem like too much friction to some people, but it is. The requirement to ask permission deflates the moment of inspiration when someone suddenly finds or realizes exactly the thing that is needed.


    THIS.

    Really, the whole piece is at the required-reading level. Please read it.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 3,478
    In Adam's blog, I have noted serious reservations about the extendability of the Open Source ideas of computer programming and software development to musical composition and score engraving.

    But Adam does indeed provide much food for thought.
    Thanked by 2Gavin francis
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    I think it might be helpful to back up a step and ask a different question.

    IS open source music working? No, it is not. The revolution has not occurred.

    Why not? Because the resources are not in place to make a large enough body of work of consistent quality, nor to market this. The market goes on without us. Without any of us. Face it, we are a niche. CPDL is the only aspect of open source sacred music that has a broad base of use, and let's face it, that is not anywhere near as broad as OCP.

    Why are we not succeeding? Because no one gets paid.

    (Adam, you should put a kind of lojack on your hymns, that works like the fees on software. After 5 uses or 1 month, you have to pay for it.)

    There are two problems with not being paid.

    The first is the obvious practical side. Unless someone is retired or independently wealthy or (like Jeff O and Adam B, apparently) sleeps about two hours a night, it is very difficult to produce a great deal of work.

    The second is more interesting: people respect what they pay for. I once worked with a nun who had been doing Religious Ed for about 40 years. I was telling her about a program I was starting up at the parish, and her main advice to me was to charge for it. I was like, what? And she said that if you charge for a program people will attend all the sessions, but if you don't charge they are much more likely to just not show.

    It took a while for my choir to get used to CPDL resources. I would print them out and they would not respect them. They wanted to use something more "official," from a book.

    We have few books, no series that I know of, no programs, and zero marketing. Those "reading sessions" that publishers do in parishes? That is marketing, pure and simple. The catalogs that they send out with the CDs? Marketing. We don't have that.

    People trust things for different reasons. Many, many people trust professionals more than they trust amateurs; they believe that professional work is the "official" work and they will buy it. There are many people who will not download and make copies of work that wasn't "officially" published, even though it is free.

    A lot more people use Microsoft Word than OpenOffice. Why? Trust. Why? Because it's expensive.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen melofluent
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    Kathy- I disagree, strongly.

    Now, I have no issue with people charging for things or attempting to make money. I'm not trying to suggest it's not a good idea. (Just like Open Source software doesn't negate the value of closed-source software).

    But "free" is working very well for Sacred Music- the SEP, Chabanel Psalms, Catholic Choir Book. Yeah, it's a niche- but a pretty healthy one. The impetus for my essay is primarily that I believe we need to move beyond simply free (no cost) to truly Free and Open Source.

    Perhaps the length of article makes it unclear what I think the biggest issue is, and you nail it on the head right here:
    Unless someone is retired or independently wealthy or (like Jeff O and Adam B, apparently) sleeps about two hours a night, it is very difficult to produce a great deal of work.


    If the tools and practices of Open Source software were adopted, major undertakings could be accomplished by groups of people, lessening the burden on any single individual.

    What I want to see (and hope to participate in) is an unleashing of group energy and talent, the way we have seen in the Open Source software community (where Free is very highly respected, even by large for-profit companies).
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    Adam,

    The stated goal of the CMAA is "Sacred Music in Every Parish." A little tiny niche does not come close to meeting that goal.

    I agree that groups at work could part of the answer. However I think we're really not taking the consumer into account here. The people who make the decisions, ultimately, are priests. What are they looking for? I don't mean the rare priest who makes the ROTR as a top priority, but the regular priest. They want a book that will help them do what they need to do, for all the people they are working with.

    Personally I believe that the St Michael Hymnal is the most successful outreach the ROTR has accomplished so far. But that is still a niche.

  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    Software either works or it doesn't. It's either buggy or clean. Church music is not like that. Give two different parishes the same set of Lumen Christi Missals and one parish will make it work and another will not, and it will end up being ignored.

    One of the main reasons it might work is presentation. If supported by catechesis and at least a nod to the human preference for spiffy packaging, it is much more likely to work. But to get that far the staff has to believe in it, particularly the pastor. But then we have to consider what the pastor's hesitancies are, and one of them is likely to be a perception of our professionalism, our normalcy as producers of church music.

    Even in large companies, the IT guy is often enough a little on the quirky side. Priests aren't like that, not in the diy maverick project-driven way that gets things done in software. It's a different world entirely.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    Btw, Adam, I apologize for deflecting the thread. I realize that for the most part we're talking about apples and oranges.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    Deflection is a feature around here, I've been told.

    And yeah- it's Apples and Oranges. You're talking about how to make a greater impact on the universe in general, which (if I may interpret) you think would require a commercial (or commercial-esque) endeavor.

    I'm talking about how to catalyze the existing impetus for free work.

    My broader opinion is that both are needed, the same way (as I mentioned above) that both Open Source and proprietary software exists together in a thriving eco-system.

    One thing, I really need to correct, though, is a perception about Open Source software. It isn't all about Open-Office vs. MS Office, or other consumer-tool level comparisons. (Although FireFox browser, for example, is a good success story on Open Source consumer ware.)

    Open Source software is a huge part of the software landscape. Most commonly-used software languages are Open, the most widely used development libraries and frameworks are Open, the most popular web server software is Open, the most commonly used database software is Open. There is no reasonable view of the world of software that can dismiss the success and importance of Open Source. (BTW- The software running this forum is almost certainly Open Source).

    And as Open Source has migrated into content, we see hugely important Open source content projects, like Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg and (in the world of music) CPDL and the Petrucci Music Library.

    And the Open Source revolution (in both tools and content) has changed the way commercial entities do business.

    Open Source works. It isn't the only thing that works- but it does work. And it has much further-reaching effects than simply consumers getting some product for free they would normally have to pay for. It changes the landscape completely.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    This is what I don't see as a possible outcome: changing the landscape completely. The landscape is glossy, mostly just ok productions by two companies (mostly one) slightly supplemented here and there by 6 little companies, 150 lone guns, and one Jeff Ostrowski. I don't imagine that changing anytime, do you?

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,144
    I tend to agree, Kathy. Open Source has received the same type of hype that the "paperless office" received in my youth. Although neither happened as predicted, neither has, nor will, solve every problem. I am all for Open Source and use what is out there whenever I can. But like any free product, sometimes you do get what you pay for.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    CW- Again, I have to say: Open Source HAS, IN FACT, changed the landscape of software development. Completely. There's been a revolution. It happened. It worked. The landscape IS different.

    Did it "live up to the hype"? Probably not, because the prognosticators are always wrong. No one - not even the ones doing it - could have imagined the impact of the Open Source movement on software and computing in general.

    For goodness sakes- if you are using an Android phone, you have Open Source software in your pocket. IN YOUR POCKET! Even if you are using the totally, way better in every way iPhone, most of the apps on there probably incorporate Open Source software in one way or another. Over 60% of all websites are run on Apache HTTP server, another Open Source project. More than 90% of today's 500 fastest supercomputers, including the 10 fastest, run some variant of Linux.

    Do I expect the same thing here? Well, no- everyone uses computers. Not everyone uses Sacred Music. But that doesn't mean there isn't an amazing potential for who-knows-what kind of awesomeness.

    That's what I'm advocating: awesomeness.

    But enough talk. I have manifested my manifesto- it is time for me to put my lack of money where my mouth is and get to work. I'll be posting updates on that as we go...
    Thanked by 2bgeorge77 IanW
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 3,867
    Great, provocative article, Adam, thank you. And kudos to Kathy as well for some needed perspective on consumer usage.
    Navigating all you, Adam, point out about resourcing, compiling and distribution of IP for presumably adorning worship will, despite all the process and nuance, remain at a niche status as Kathy states not only because of the psychology of mass marketing that is engrained in all humans with expendable income, but for a larger, less pervasive issue that will wait in the wings as long as required. That would be the form and nature of the liturgy itself which is overseen, let's face it, ultimately by the magisterium and the curia. To me that's both a paradox and an irony; the resources necessary for liturgy are compiled in one or two at most locales and approved by one of those, printed and distributed by the same wholesale and retail means as any other books, but sans the gloss and annual dog and pony convention showcases. Let's face it as well that we who most benefit by CPDL, 6 little companies, 150 lone guns and JMO/AB/AOZ/RR et al, would love to work in an ideal vacuum where the pastor says to each of us: "Sure, Charlie, just order what Graduale Romanums, Simplexes, Libers, Hymnariums for the quires, enough Kyriales for the folks, and keep using CPDL for your polyphony as much as possible as 2.95 per octavo of 5 pages seems exorbitant." But that's not likely to be heard in our lifetimes or our grandchildren's I suspect.
    So, as I'm in twilight, I'm not sure I need to read all the listed treatises you mentioned.
    My primary long run objective is to somehow make it obvious and natural to those who will choose my successor to continue implementing bricks in the R2 project here locally. Because ( I hate to say it again ) let's face it: our ecclesiology's octane rating is still quite measured by the "cult of personality," and not by the vagaries of how the IP economy functions.
    If I had real vision, I'd have bought a gun store at rock bottom prices back in the 90's!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    "Sure, Charlie, just order what Graduale Romanums, Simplexes, Libers, Hymnariums for the quires, enough Kyriales for the folks, and keep using CPDL for your polyphony as much as possible as 2.95 per octavo of 5 pages seems exorbitant." But that's not likely to be heard in our lifetimes or our grandchildren's I suspect.


    Yes, exactly.

    I'm not doubting that Open Source works with software, not at all. I'm just lamenting that so far it hasn't worked with Church music.

    Also I would like to succeed you, Charles, in honor of your service.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    I'm just lamenting that so far it hasn't worked with Church music.


    I'm lamenting that it hasn't REALLY been tried...
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    Ok. I will concede that there are aspects of your vision that I don't understand, and which might work.

    Although personally I'm kinda defaulting to the hierarchical publishing house model and doubting anything else could gain a market share.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    Although personally I'm kinda defaulting to the hierarchical publishing house model and doubting anything else could gain a market share.


    And that exactly where I think you're wrong.

    You asked earlier...
    I don't imagine that changing anytime, do you?


    And- yes, I do.

    EVIDENCE:

    Do you really think people my age and younger want to pay a company to offer suggestions of what songs to sing on any particular Sunday? We do not. We assume (until proven otherwise) that such information is free online.

    And do you know what you find if you Google something like
    "music for 5th sunday in ordinary time"
    ?

    image

    CanticaNova, CanticaNova, Simple English Propers.

    Is this directly related to Open Source? Not exactly- but it sure signals a shift in the landscape if you ask me.

    Maybe I'm still young enough to be stupidly optimistic.
    Thanked by 1Jenny
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    You calling me old, Sonny?

    Ok, I guess neither of us KNOWS OCP's market share. I would guess 85%. Is that wrong?

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,144
    Who knows market share for any of them, OCP, WLP, or GIA. However, underlying some of the posts is the assumption that all are just dying to get their hands on music that will support traditional or conservative liturgy. It ain't so. There are many places, maybe even a majority of places, where CanticaNova, CMAA, and CPDL, regardless of how valuable they are to me, will never see the light of day. Whether Open Source, or proprietary out the wazoo, wouldn't make a bit of difference. The materials are just unwelcome. That may change, or the split between musical factions may endure for years to come. Who knows? Who, in 1950, could have foreseen or predicted Catholic music changes after Vatican II.
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    I'm writing from the great state of Lazio, Rome, Italy. Here there are beautiful papal liturgies which I happily praise. Here in parishes there is a little booklet sponsored by the bishops' conferences, verses without music, very little of it very good, for the 4-hymn parish Mass. There are no propers in the booklet.

    I have access to a current English hymnal which is much better but still not propers-conversant.

    Is anything we are doing truly able to compete with the low-Mass four-hymn mentality? If not, what can we do to get into the game? More free stuff?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    You calling me old, Sonny?


    No. Calling myself stupid.

    Is anything we are doing truly able to compete with the low-Mass four-hymn mentality? If not, what can we do to get into the game? More free stuff?


    I'm of the opinion that everything CMAA-and-friends is doing is contributing, making inroads.

    But my post isn't really addressing your (very worthwhile) question.

    There's several different ways to look at my "proposal," and several different reasons I care about Open Source. The reason that I think is least likely to convince you (Kathy, and others) is the most central to me personally: Open Source is a good unto itself which is worth pursuing.

    But- I also am of the opinion that pursuing that good will advance (what I take to be) your goal. (Increased use of the Sacred Music generally and the Propers specifically, instead of non-liturgical songs and secular styles of music.)

    My opinion of how Open Source advances that goal is, in essence: The "cause" needs every tool possible in its arsenal, and this is a tool that it is currently lacking or using only in a limited way.

    I'm not suggesting that there OS is the answer INSTEAD OF something else that should be done (a commercial-esque, well-packaged alternative to OCP, for example). I'm suggesting that all means at our disposal should be employed, and this is a means that could have far-reaching effects and has not yet been fully employed.

    Why am I championing Open Source as opposed to some other under-used tool/tactic/strategy that also might be effective (print catalogs, calypso propers, etc)?

    Probably the same reason that of all the things that might be done, Noel has published a book of choral motets, Adam B. has produced the Simple English Propers, and you (Kathy) have been writing hymn texts-- it's what interests me and gets me fired up.

    I'm hopeful that I'm not the only one.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,144
    I'm suggesting that all means at our disposal should be employed, and this is a means that could have far-reaching effects and has not yet been fully employed.


    Definitely agree. If the demand for good sacred music increases enough, the major publishers will get back into that market.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 772
    Just have to point out- Google actually modifies your search results based on its knowledge of you... what one person gets is not necessarily what another person gets....
    Here's my results from a browser that I never use, (so I hate to break it to you Adam, but we cannot assume that the average person will come across something like SEP.)
    image
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,099
    Woot! Cantica novica is on top!
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    It knows how much you love GIA, Mara!
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    As Ben points out- even in neutral searches- the first two results are Cantica Nova.

    Further- as JT has said - "Google loves" this forum. - I remarkably high portion of liturgical-music-based queries and questions end up here.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 944
    Kathy, one detail: CPDL has a much larger "market share" than OCP if you go outside of Catholic circles...or perhaps I am misreading the discussion.

    I see what you're saying...but I worry you are despairing a bit! Your work has been wonderful. There are many people (like myself) who wanted to use the hymn introits, etc., but were not allowed to by the "front office". In a new environment, that is different for many of us. Just food for though (insert cliche like, "most of an iceberg is underwater", etc., etc.)
    Thanked by 2Kathy CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,359
    Music is art. How many people are interested in an open source file which they can and want to change? Perhaps I don't clearly understand the concept. Please define in 25 words or less.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,359
    ahhh,... 3D manuscript paper?
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    At my old parish we had these magnetic hymn boards and the 4 inch white plastic numbers were forever falling on the floor and breaking. I couldn't find them in any catalog.3-d printing would be PERfect for this. We might never have to buy cheap goods from China again!
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    You say you want a revolution?

    We ALL want to change the world.

    How many people are interested in an open source file which they can and want to change?


    I want one all the time. Haven't you ever needed to transpose something? Wanted to write a descant? Fix a poorly-done harmonization? Change one heretical word in an otherwise perfectly fine hymn? Combine two almost-perfect translations into one perfect translation? Pair a text and tune that no one else has paired before? Write an organ fantasy on an existing piece of music?

    More than most other art forms (except maybe cooking) music depends on a continual process of adaptation, borrowing, stealing, improving. The creativity of composers, the practical needs of a specific performance, the sudden inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

    Up until fairly recently, all of this happened in a perfectly natural ecology of artistic give-and-take. Copyright law, an unnatural and unprecedented intrusion on the free market brought to us by the government, interrupted that natural process and (way worse) has managed to convince everyone that it is perfectly natural and reasonable.

    The solution to that problem is good licensing. That is- making things Free.

    The issue of file types and Open Source is a second, not-quite-as-important issue, which could help catalyze the movement, and provide cool secondary benefits (like computer analysis of vast numbers of musical scores).

    That is- good licensing sets things free. Open sourcing things give them wings.

    Perhaps I don't clearly understand the concept. Please define in 25 words or less.


    Forgive my long explanations. I have not yet had time to write a shorter one. I will attempt to do so in the near future.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,359
    Hi Adam.

    Do please forgive my questions, I am not tryng to be argumentative. I am just trying to understand the logic in using an open source music score and I am still not seeing it. Here is my rebuttal.

    Adam said:

    I want one all the time.

    a. Haven't you ever needed to transpose something?
    b. Wanted to write a descant?
    c. Fix a poorly-done harmonization?
    d.Change one heretical word in an otherwise perfectly fine hymn?
    e. Combine two almost-perfect translations into one perfect translation?
    f. Pair a text and tune that no one else has paired before?
    g. Write an organ fantasy on an existing piece of music?


    yes, all the time,

    a. but the harmony is usually so poor and not something I would even transpose, i wind up putting my own (or the 1940) harmonization into the music ap.
    b. I usually compose descants without having the hymn in the ap because of a.
    c. There is no fixing a poor harmonization; you have to start from scratch.
    d. Putting words into a music ap is a pain in the butt. I usually start with a word processor and do a cut and paste into the typesetting after the fact. lots of times i take a scan of the 1940 and superimpose the text i want in a layout program. faster.
    e. same as d.
    f. the tune (harmonization) is always inferior. I wind up having to input the good harmonization first, then i pair the text from a word processor as mentioned in d.
    g. don't see using an existing music file to compose a fantasy.

    In general, what would be very valuable to me would be an open source xml file of the 1940 hymnal, and then after that the general organ repertoire. I have found xml files on hymnary.org, but usually they suck.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    I would have thought that copyright was invented by publishers and authors who wanted to ensure that their work was paid for rather than stolen by any Joe Wiseacre with a printing press.

    But I would love to be able to download all the hymnals in the world and transpose and rearrange them.

    By the way, since it's 2013 I'm pretty sure the copyright period for All Praise to Thee, for Thou, O King Divine has ended, alleluia.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    "I have not yet had time to write a shorter one." Yes.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    I would have thought that copyright was invented by publishers and authors who wanted to ensure that their work was paid for rather than stolen by any Joe Wiseacre with a printing press.


    Nope. Government-granted monopolies and mercantilism. Read Jeffrey Tucker on the subject.

    In general, what would be very valuable to me would be an open source xml file of the 1940 hymnal, and then after that the general organ repertoire. I have found xml files on hymnary.org, but usually they suck.


    Exactly the sort of project that I think should exist, but the liturgical music community hasn't caught up to how to get this sort of thing done. Hence, my post. You basically just made my argument. (In 39 words.)

    Thanked by 1IanW
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 746
    One of the main reasons the large commercial publishers have their market share is sales and marketing, on which waters they cast significant bread in expectation of a good return.

    Red Hat is a multi-billion company that makes money supporting free software. IBM puts significant sums into contributions to open source and earns money from the boxes it runs on and consultancy around it.

    Is there an analogous business model that can generate sufficient money from 'open source' music to warrant sales and marketing on a scale that will have a significant impact?
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    I'm of the opinion there is. But it's still vague in my mind. Am working on it...
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    Nope. Government-granted monopolies and mercantilism. Read Jeffrey Tucker on the subject.


    Yes, this takes us back to your captivating thread title...
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    captivating thread title


    Click bait.

    JT is completely right about Intellectual Property law. He just doesn't (or didn't) use the generally-accepted correct terminology- referring to things as "Open Source" when they were simply free.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 746
    And as you have suggested, Adam, there is a further similarity between the two worlds. There is no one definition of free software - there more kinds of usage licence out there than you can shake a stick at, from BSD-style 'do what you will', through GPL copyleft to supplier specific. Money is made and lost, directly or indirectly, across the spectrum. The range of Commons Licences alone creates a similar situation.

    Messy is good.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    I repeat, there isn't a clear parallel here, because of a huge difference in the market. There is a market for good software. There is not yet an adequate market for sacred music. There is a glut of brand name, lame-o music on the market. People trust it. Personally I always buy Tide and Woolite. Some people always buy OCP and GIA.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,359
    If I create an xml file of the 1940 hymnal, you can be sure I would charge money for it. And if someone else created one, you can be sure I would pay them for it! No need for open source there.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,266
    And yet, hymnary.org gives them away for free and you feel free to download them.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,144
    I agree, Kathy, that the market is not there yet. I hope it eventually will be. You can bet that if the market were there, GIA and OCP would be all over it.

    This forum, and CMAA, in general, are a bit insular. We have like-minded individuals congratulating like-minded individuals. All the while, the gurus who supposedly run the organization, are off in the clouds without any burden of having to be practical. There is nothing wrong with theory and wishful thinking, but you do have to come down to earth occasionally.

    As I indicated, I hope that market for sacred music develops, and the demand continues to grow. I agree we are not there yet.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,359
    Adam:

    It's their prerogative to give them away for free. However, they are not free for commercialization. Here is the notice on an xml for Aurelia. "Copyright 2008 Hymnary.org. You may use this score in personal and corporate worship settings. Commercial use and republication are prohibited without written consent."
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,359
    I would then go on to wonder, "well, if I import this file into sibelius and change a number of items (notes, words, etc.) is it now MY property for commercialization?" Very tricky business! Who knows, and who can answer such questions?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,606
    Charles, I wouldn't put it quite like that. First of all the Colloquium and Winter Intensive and all the other educational events and fora are what make the market for sacred music that does exist.

    My problem is that in order to overcome the resistance--and the resistance in this case is HUGE, for all sorts of reasons--requires a snowball effect. Open sourcing will never in a million years develop the required momentum, mostly because the problem is not on the supply-side, but with the consumer.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 3,867
    This forum, and CMAA, in general, are a bit insular. We have like-minded individuals congratulating like-minded individuals. All the while, the gurus who supposedly run the organization, are off in the clouds without any burden of having to be practical. There is nothing wrong with theory and wishful thinking, but you do have to come down to earth occasionally.

    Oh, Charles, I'd retract that ASAP. AOZ is a practicing, every Sunday Choir and Scholamaster, ditto Tucker. Bill Mahrt has been so to this day for over forty years at the same parish in Palo Alto, CA. Horst Buchholz is a DM I believe at the new Cathedral in St. Louis. Ed Schaefer vounteers as schola master at his EF parish in Fla. I'm sure Jenny Donelson and Susan Treacy practice what they academically preach at college at some parishes or Newman Centers, and so forth. These aren't gurus or Yoda's so to speak, these are practicioners as well. They may be well ahead of you and I on the RotR curve, but they're not sky pilots, they're trailblazers.
    You want academicians, visit Fr. Ruff's joint.
    Thanked by 2gregp ryand
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,144
    Oh, I think it is a bit insular. If one reads posts here, one would think the Catholic world is clamoring for chant and sacred polyphony. It ain't so. How many "Gather" books did GIA sell this last year? Granted, most of the people you name, I have never met. I just read the occasional, out-of-touch post from some, but many don't post at all. Out here in the trenches, it is not always so grand or glorious. That cry for sacred music is more often than not, a stifled scream.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 3,867
    Like Charles, that was so "Flowerday" a retort. My contention had, OBVIOUSLY, to you with the second part of your premise.