[ The MusicWeb Message Board ]

CELEBRATING 20,000 Classical CD reviews on-line; 21,000 visitors each day.
Return to MusicWeb International

david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by james irsay on September 2, 2006, 5:18 pm I was surprised to see such heavy warnings against using, and even downloading, Mr. Wright's article on Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf... "Copyright Dr David C F Wright. This article must not be reproduced or stored, downloaded or used in any way without the prior permission of the author. It is hoped that this article will be expanded later." ...considering that the article is mostly plagiarized from the Grove Dictionary, with only the occasional word changes which serve no purpose but to assuage guilt. Mr. Wright apparently saw no need to apply such strict morals to himself. Musical biographies of favored composers should be written in a spirit of sharing. Such warnings as Mr. Wright appends to "his" article are out of place in the new Information Age.

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Paul Serotsky on September 2, 2006, 9:03 pm, in reply to "david wright article on dittersdorf" 80.229.144.169 As far as I am aware, the laws of copyright still apply, even in this "new Information Age" - provided , of course, that the "copy" is yours by "right"! I am pretty certain of one thing - very little of David Wright's Chopin article was cribbed from Grove or, for that matter, any respected reference source. What a pity you missed it!

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by james irsay on September 4, 2006, 11:26 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" Paul, I suppose you are right about copyrighting, even though the good doctor would have a hard time defending his "copyright" of the Dittersdorf article in court! Still, can anyone post an article on the web and expect that no one will download and save it for future reference, with no thought of publishing it? Anyone who has such a bug up his bum about even private sharing of so-called original material should not upload it in the first place. (By the way, I was referring to the Dittersdorf article in an OLD Grove ... 2nd or 3rd edition... as opposed to the NEW Grove). Yes, that Chopin article sounds positively pathological! Maybe I can find it cached at Google...

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Beth Fisher on November 15, 2006, 1:54 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" I deal with this all the time as a program annotator for the South Shore Symphony in Rockville Centre, NY, Scott Jackson Wiley, conductor, www.sssymphony.org. There wouldn't be enough room for citations anyway. The idea is simply to provide historical information and context and perhaps commentary for those who care. BTW, Are you THE James Irsay??? pianist, radio host. I remember your show, which compared different recorded piano performances of the same piece. It was truly wonderful!

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by james irsay on November 15, 2006, 11:53 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" Hi Beth, Yes I am he. Glad you liked the show... I had lots of fun doing it. I am still very involved with music, of course... piano-playing in particular, as well as teaching and composing. I fully understand what you mean about simply providing information. It was just Wright's hyper-proprietary attitude that struck me as, well, ironic. I'll check the sss website! Best, James

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by James on December 25, 2006, 4:25 am, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" James- Did you grow up in Levittown, New York? George Fountaine

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by james irsay on October 27, 2007, 1:07 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" George, It's a long time since you posted your message... 10 months or so. I just saw it now.... guess I missed it the first time. Yes I know you. You are the younger brother of Pete and Bob. Your sister is Cathy. You had a pet boxer named "Taffy". We lived on the same street. I have many clear memories of your brothers... Pete, the more straight-laced one, and Bob... a bit wilder. My brother Peter and I looked up to your brothers (you were too young)... you know how kids are with their peers. We felt that your family was the ruling family of our street! Say hi to Pete and Bob for me... I hope you all are doing well! James (you knew me as "Jimmy")

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Ed Percarpio on April 4, 2009, 12:46 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" Wow, I was just thinking about how much i loved listening to your show on BAI. I was in high school at the time and learned more about music, especially classical music, from you than any other place. I specifically remember you threatening the listenership with more English harpsichord music if they didnt donate enough during your segment of the fundraising drive. When I think about how much great radio was on the air at the time- Shepherd, Bob and Ray, Bob Fass and you: it's a shame we took it for granted. Please come back to the radio. your pal, Ed

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Regina on April 30, 2009, 11:53 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" I don't know dip about Dittersdorf, but I know about James Irsay. On WBAI, I remember a program where he played many renditions of the famous Il Trovatore aria. What a hoot! He is so entertaining and knowledgable. I wish he would get a radio show somewhere where he could do his musical thing for our benefit, and get paid well for it. Right now, I'm in Calif. listening to opera on KUSC and donating to the fund drive. More English harpsichord music would not be too bad.

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Paul Serotsky on September 5, 2006, 10:19 am, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" 80.229.144.169 Of course the "good doctor" would have a hard time defending his copyright - that's precisely what I was getting at when I said "provided that the 'copy' is yours by 'right'"! As in the case of the Chopin article, it's clearly wrong to crib your materials without crediting your source, and equally it's fraudulent to then claim copyright yourself! Moreover, this is true even if you yourself have previously been the victim of such wrongdoings. Equally, I am pretty sure that most folk who place their words on the web DO indeed expect that anyone who wants to download a copy for "private consumption" will do so - after all, this is only a matter of convenience, equivalent to caching a web page. In fact, this is exactly what you want them to do, as it means your work is appreciated. Copyright comes into effect only if something is then done with the material, other than simply reading it. However, if someone takes your material and re-publishes it in some form, it is common courtesy to ask permission first, and credit you as the author. It gets serious only when someone takes your material and makes money out of it (for example, using it in a booklet that is sold to the public) - in these circumstances you are not unreasonably entitled both to be consulted and to receive a cut of the profits, aren't you? And, this applies to any form of original publication, even the web, doesn't it? It's my understanding that, once you have claimed copyright (provided you're entitled to it!), you do not actually need to wheel out all that pompous legalese about what can and can't be done with your material - that comes with the copyright.

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by james irsay on September 5, 2006, 7:21 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" Paul, I understood everything you said the first time I read it. My only reason for commenting was due to the doctor's proscription against simply "downloading" and "storing" into a "retrieval system", by which we take to mean "computer". We cannot help but include "private use" within these limitations. More sensible, and in a better spirit, would have been for the doctor to say "all are welcome to download and cherish my words of sick, prissy, anti-sexual wisdom (yes, I am applying my comment to the Chopin article, which I found!!), but if you choose to quote from it or publish it in any form, please ask first.".. or words to that effect. His warning seemed a bit severe, but after reading his Chopin article, the severity comes as no shock from this sick puppy. By the way, I considered commenting in detail on his Chopin article, but it would require more memory than my computer has ... Kalkbrenner a great composer!!! Have you ever read through his works? I have... I own many in the original French editions. Far worse than Thalberg, or even Herz! His Method is not bad, though, even if you don't want to rest your arms on a contraption called the "Guide-Mains", which he sold with his publisher Pleyel ... well, it was good enough for Stamaty I suppose. I own the second edition of K's Methode, and the introduction is priceless (where K writes of discovering the Guide-Mains by sawing off part of an arm-chair). OK, he must have been a fine pianist, but COMPOSER? And Peter Katin a great Chopin interpreter?? As for the "deep mystery" of Chopin's early works bearing late opus numbers... how about: they were published after his death... DUHHH! And by the way, it was FIELD who called CHOPIN a "sickroom talent". Chopin was a great admirer of Field... in his youth, he bragged that his playing was compared to Field's. Chopin NEVER "pretended to invent the Nocturne", just as Beethoven never pretended to invent the Sonata. And on and on and on... not worth it for a mind like that. Anyway, I'm starting to sound a bit nasty myself here, so I'll close. Peace... James

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Ford on January 22, 2007, 7:26 am, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" 152.76.0.130 David Wright's essays are always, er, interesting. Best not to take it too seriously.

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Len Mullenger on January 22, 2007, 7:34 am, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" 217.155.206.169 We don't take them at all now. Len

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Paul Serotsky on September 5, 2006, 10:30 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" 80.229.144.169 Aye, you're quite right about that. Let's call it an oversight on my part. However, it strikes me that there's another solution to the equation: "downloading" + "storing into a retrieval system" = "reading" + remembering"! Now, that is pretty drastic - you're not even allowed to look at it without prior, written permission. Expect a court summons to drop through your letterbox any day now - with any luck, Julia Gasper will write a long, worthy and readable article on Chopin to help while away the time you spend at Her Majesty's Pleasure! Peace . . . indeed!

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by james irsay on September 6, 2006, 12:52 am, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" Good one, Paul... retrieval system = brain! Hahaha! Glad we reach an understanding... rare on the net! Good to meet you.

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Len Mullenger on September 5, 2006, 6:54 am, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" 217.155.206.169 David Wright once had the experience of seeing a number of his articles published under some-one else's name. That is why he started putting copyright warnings on his articles. Len

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by daidwright on April 26, 2012, 11:40 am, in reply to "david wright article on dittersdorf" My article on Dittersdorf was writtne many years ago. I do not have Grove nor do I refer to it. I do know that that they have used my information without authority. I also know that people have taken my articles and changed a few words published it and been paid. Some deatils ar ein th epublic domain and not subject to copyright. I uphold copyright and there is an article about that on my site 086760

Re: david wright article on dittersdorf Posted by Paul Serotsky on April 30, 2012, 1:37 pm, in reply to "Re: david wright article on dittersdorf" 121.72.188.112 Since when has "information" been subject to copyright?

     « Back to index