I've started transcribing them myself since it seems they are not otherwise available. I only have cakewalk for notation - can I post a screen image of my transcription here for review? Would PNG or GIF format be appropriate?

i've never ever heard of asking permission to transcribe music, only to publish your transcription. I don't have any contact info for him either . . .

yes, why not write him and ask if you can use them or study them? And if he makes you pay, at least it will go straight to him with no middle man.

Well, the question (which is unanswered and doesn't necessarily need to be answered anyway since it's none of our business) is what Darth Linux wants to do with the transcription. Does he want to study them to understand Latona's technique? I can get behind that, and there's certainly nothing illegal about it (or at least it's unenforceable). If, on the other hand, Darth wants to have his choir perform the antiphons, that's using Latona's work for a purpose other than its intended purpose, which was the papal vespers. That a creator ought to have something used for its intended purpose is... well, a cornerstone of Christian moral theology! That is why in that case I think Darth ought to contact Latona directly and state his intent. Latona is, by all accounts, a generous man and enthusiastic about church music, no? So it's likely that he would be glad to allow the performance, probably even for free. I have had a similar experience where I heard a piece on the radio that I really enjoyed, so I asked the composer for a score so that I could use it when I play. The composer was kind enough to also send a CD of his works and some more pieces he thought I might enjoy!

There are those who would agree with that. As for me, I find it irrelevant since it ignores the larger intent. Pallestrina created works for wide-scale distribution and performance. Latona wrote his work for one event, and that he didn't immediately intend for it to be performed elsewhere is evident from its not being published or otherwise distributed. It strikes me as immoral to violate his intent in this particular case, particularly when the course I outlined would satisfy anyone but an intentional thief.

It seems to me that the issue is to what extent music is the property of the composer. The commandment "you shall not steal" requires the idea that someone else owns property to be stolen. But scripture doesn't seem to say what constitutes property. I would advance that one comes to own property through a gift, trade, or wages, or by creating it. In fact, it could be asserted that most any property is initially owned by its creator. Again, note the parallels with God our Creator.

But what of music? Most property that we would consider is material. Music is reasonably abstract. Yet it can be defined; just as my chair can be defined by its properties, music can be defined by its contents of rhythm, pitch, timbre, and volume. Only a fool would fail to recognize Beethoven's 5th Symphony, or the hymn Veni Creator. We hear the music, or the words, and do not say "that is nothing", but rather we know it is something - something created, in fact! Therefore I submit that music is in fact property of a composer, at least from the moment of its inception.

Please note that I'm not advocating any ridiculous system of copyrights and outlandish royalties, and I would in fact say that once a composer has died, his music is morally within the public domain (although not necessarily legally!) I'm only explaining my rationale for the idea of music as the property of the composer, upon which this moral argument hinges. Where we go from there as to the justice of certain actions is a whole other 3 or 4 paragraphs!

But the issue is morality. The proposed issue is whether it would be "right" for one to copy Latona's composition without permission for the sake of performing it. This is an issue of morality. Theft is an issue of morality. If music is just a set of pressure waves going this way and that, then the money in your wallet is just an arrangement of molecules that happened to transfer from your pocket to mine.

And I noticed the comments about borrowing in classical composition in your NLM series, and I don't find it relevant. GIA has not sued David Haas for writing music that sounds like Haugen, nor did NALR sue Carey Landry for writing music that sounds like the St. Louis Jesuits. Pretending that force-distributing another living person's music is on the same level as having an artistic influence is silliness. We are talking about a particular proposed act here, not the issue of music in a vacuum. If Darth Linux wants a score so he can study it and imitate the style, I'm all for that. In that case, however, it may be even more beneficial to write him, so as to learn more about his style. We are fortunate to have here the composers Francis Koerber and Bruce Ford, we can do the same thing without going against their wishes.

I retain my basic premise: if Latona wanted his music distributed and re-performed, he would have published it or carried out the distribution himself. It is our duty as Christians to find out his will regarding his music and respect it, at least while he can clearly express his will.

I find the argument regarding scarcity interesting, although not immediately convincing. I will give it some thought.

Just one point about the the "silliness" of my having drawn attention to imitation and borrowing in the history of music. Far from being silly, this point gets to the very core of the issue of copyright (and patent) and all IP. It is at its root a prohibition against imitation. That is all.

If I can suggest a book--not directly related to music--to members of this forum. It is called Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (Cambridge University Press, 2008). It is among the most intellectually challenging works I've ever encountered in any field. It is this book that has rocked my world and help me gain a greater understanding of the relationship between open and closed sectors of information delivery, and what that implies for development, dissemination, and discovery of new ideas. Their case is relentless and overwhelming. It is this book that made me fully realized that the closed world of the music establishment in the Catholic Church does not have a future in a world of universal information flows, especially in a sector of art that is devoted to universal ideals and organic development within a ritual structure, and that a restoration of the pre-20th century modes of ecclesiastical legal institutions and means of distribution are what are in keeping with modern demands. I'm not entirely sure what this portends precisely, but I'm more firmly convinced that the new methods and strategies of the CMAA are on the right track.

Darth,

I guess what made me think you'd need permission is not so much that you were going to write them down and study them, but that you were going to upload your notes here. That's what crosses the line into "publishing." Electronic posting is a kind of publishing.

In grad school one of my professors emailed his notes to us but insisted that we not pass them on to anyone outside the class, because they were going to be copyrighted as part of a book. He gave us his permission to read them, to study them, but not to distribute them.

All sorts of limited permissions are possible, and none has to be given. I think it's best to just ask.

@Kathy - yeah perhaps sharing my notes with others in this venue could be construed as "publishing." e-mail perhaps would be a better venue, the point of which was merely to check my accuracy. I'm kind of new to the whole choral thing, as I've been an instrumentalist all my life, and I sometimes mix up low alto notes with high tenor notes (for example).

@Gavin
you can hear the anitphons and the rest of the music here
http://mfile.akamai.com/18596/asf/atlanticvid.download.akamai.com/18594/wm.atlanticvideo/cc_pope/evening_prayer.asx

I load this into WinAmp under "add URL" and it shows up as a video. The first antiphon is at about 18:40

Richard plainly stated my position. I agree 100%

My policy on anything I've written is use it and abuse it all you like, just don't write your name on it and then sue me for copying you. Then again, my music is nowhere as good as Latona's.

@Richard - deep breath my friend, I never ever said I was going to use them in performance - my purpose was score study only. As a music educator myself I constantly deal with the issue of music legality as kids ask me to burn cd's of the music we are rehearsing, or at contest when I have to give judges original conductor scores and not photocopies, etc. My suggestion of posting an image of my transcription was for peer review only, to check my accuracy.

As an aside, I did email Dr. Latona, and he did send me the music for all four antiphons, gratis. He was very cordial and replied within an hour of my request. It turns out my first transcription was pretty accurate, but the second and third antiphon we're really stumping me, and I gave up trying to transcribe them - that's when I decided just to ask for the score. He had split his choir into SSATBB, and tracking six voices was too much for my green choral ear . . .

@Richard - sorry about that. I honestly had no idea that my request would be so misunderstood and spark this topic.

This is a very interesting thread!

I have thought long and hard about this subject CONSTANTLY since I was old enough to realize I was "creating intellectual property". (four decades or so?)

To be truthful, this subject will have to be dumped into the word processor because it is too complicated to compose here, and the constantly changing technology is always throwing us curves.

But I must at least say this:

It is my thinking that one does not infringe on any composer's moral rights if one transcribes a work for one's own study. The infringement occurs if one shares a transcription with another, or publishes or performs it beyond oneself. (However, if you performed a transcription of one of my own works in your living room without my knowledge, I would probably be thrilled!)

When it comes to sacred music, personally, I would disapprove of the performance of any of my own works (intended for the liturgy) to be utilized outside of the Roman Catholic Church unless express permission was granted (for instance, a concert of sacred music). Then again, I do not desire (or 'need') to profit from compositions that are utilized within the RC liturgy. I consider it an honor to be 'performed' in ANY (licit) liturgy. That is why I promote the Gratuitous Performance License (found here: http://romancatholicsacredmusic.com/gpl.html).

And echoing Jeffrey's thoughts, I believe Palestrina (and other composers of sacred music) would have preferred that their works were utilized almost exclusively if not exclusively within the confines of the liturgy of the Church for and by which they were conceived. I believe the same goes for the composers of our benevolent chant.

For there alone, amidst the tabernacle, honor should alone be given where alone honor is due... and the most splendid of what is beautiful is also then exclusively reserved for the King of Kings in his own abode! And if creation ever hopes to admire the beautiful musical praises of God, then let them come alone to the place where beauty himself truly resides. (This will certainly be true when heaven and hell entertain their final auditions. The heavenly chorus will simply own ALL the music, and the hellish will only know weeping and gnashing of teeth. [Reminds me of the conservatory I attended... sitting through nothing but concerts of avante garde.] And BTW, we all know WHO will own ALL the copyrights when that time comes!)

Quoniam melior est dies in atriis tuis super milia elegi abiectus esse in domo Dei mei magis quam habitare in tabernaculis impietatis. Psalm 83:13

RR:

I am not sure about concert halls, but know that the Oratory was coming into existence for similar reasons of meditation on music and readings, etc, but not apart from sacred space/nature. (Not sure if it was before or after Palestrina). Unfortunately, taking sacred music out of the liturgy (not specifically the church), is like putting animals in zoos. That may sound a bit harsh, but it makes the point. Many more "get the exposure", but at the expense of what values? Our sacred music then becomes an unnatural isolated experience that concentrates soley on the object being observed. (in this case, enjoying the music for its own sake). In my own thinking (which is probably more puritan), the purpose of sacred music is that it is truly sacred only when married to the liturgy. In the concert hall, it then just becomes beauty for beauty's sake.

This all becomes very philosophical. I believe that if sacred music were kept only in the liturgy, many more people would think twice about being Catholic than just having and enjoying 'Catholic things' removed from the purpose for which they were intended. I feel that our comparmentalization of the sacred from the non-sacred follows a general secular trend of desacralization. We bring the Mass to stadiums, or hotels. We bring the living room to the church (carpet, cushions, and guitars). I can see it both ways, but am tending to be more puritan as I grow older. I want church in church and living room in my living room.

Just this morning I had a half an hour conversation with one of my choir members who was complaining about not having enough 'new music' in the liturgy since I took up the post. She said 'latin has nothing to do with today's church' (I had the schola sing the Ave Maria today) and 'new music should be more prominent than the old'. Its all part of the same problem. Keeping the sacred in sacred space and keeping the secular and the profane out!

"Song and music are closely connected with the liturgical action. The criteria for their proper use are the beauty expressive of prayer, the unanimous participation of the assembly, and the sacred character of the celebration." Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1191, 1997

immitation of one's work is a compliment... plagerism is stealing.

Kathy:

Yes, it very quickly becomes a philosophical issue to reflect on these realities. Technology has allowed us to "displace" sacred music in the last 100 years. Stereo systems, recordings, etc. Today we can play any music any where--even aboard a cruise ship. We now have the ability to move an 'organ' (although digital) to a place you would not normally expect to hear one.

Here might be one answer to your question. It is up to God to speak to hearts as he does through all of creation, which can happen in an infinite amount of ways. But it is imperative that he be worshipped and that we not neglect the sacred aspects of the ultimate drama of the Mass.

IP has a huge value to those who develop it. I manage a training organization for a large computer software company. A number of years ago a group of employees in a country less concerned about IP copyright decided to leave and form their own training company. In the process of doing so they took with them electronic copies of all our training materials. Without having to pay the costs of development, they were able to undercut our prices. In the end several dozen of our employees lost their jobs and it has taken most of a decade to restore our position. So it's clear that IP has value and is worthy of protection.

What I've not seen emphasized here enough is the one huge difference. In my business it's perfectly okay to compete. We welcome honest competition and are encouraged to do better things because of it. Dishonest competition ... not so much.

But when it comes to sacred music there is one enormous ... enormous ... difference. We are being told by our Church leadership that these are the only prayers with which we may celebrate the liturgies of our religion in our own language. They are the only way in which we may legitimately speak to our God! But that self same Church has placed the permission to use those words creatively in the hands of people who will profit by them.

There is no such restriction on using any other text for hymns in the Mass beyond the permission of the local Ordinary or, for that matter, the priest who says Mass. So if the argument is that it is done for quality control, there is a mighty huge loophole in the process. And we have all seen the "quality" we get as a result.

Ironically, a remedy I see would be a constitutional challenge on the grounds that the government's copyright of liturgical text is a violation of the Establishment clause. In this case they really are stipulating which words are to be used in a sacred religious context; not the place for government to intervene!

As to the finished musical works, copyright the heck out of them. If I don't want to pay the fee I'll go use somebody else's arrangement. Or don't copyright them and I'll still go use somebody else's if I don't like them.

But to put obstacles in the way of people who would freely and willingly share their talent for the greater glory of God is quite simply wrong.

"No question that the best strategy for keeping music or text from being "stolen" is to never let anyone see them. That is certain to work every time."

Actually, if you were into certain SCA/medieval recreation groups or hung around certain folkies, you would have encountered the obsessive "oral tradition" people. I'm all for the oral tradition myself, but these folks believe that it's illegitimate to learn or distribute music by any method but oral transmission, done in person. They forbid other people to record their music or transcribe it, but they are perfectly fine with people listening and learning their stuff this way. (Which of course forces you to either sit down with these people for an hour or two while they coach you, or to listen to them sing their big party pieces over and over and over and over.) Some of these folks actually have good enough material or persuasive enough charisma that people actually do their bidding in such matters.

Believe it or not, I played on Sunday! The bass part on an Isaac piece -- actual serious playing as versus the endless jazz I played in college (please don't protest that jazz IS serious). Anyway, it was great: two halves of my life coming together in pre-reformation music at Catholic Mass. cool!