Havergal Brian.

[Philip Legge]

I'm afraid that in a way, my researches are responsible for the IMSLP having gone to the effort of uploading the files of the Gothic. Recently several websites – Google, archive.org, HathiTrust, and the University of Pennsylvania – have begun to make the United States Catalog of Copyright Entries available on-line, and I have been trawling through these to confirm the publication dates of Brian's works, since before 1963 it was necessary to register and confirm the renewal of copyright in order to obtain the 56-year duration of copyright protection in the US, as it was then (the term has been subsequently lengthened by degrees up to 75 years, and then to 95 years).

It soon became apparent that the Gothic was not registered upon publication in 1932, although Cranz had gone to the effort of registering The Tigers, which was published almost contemporaneously (with almost the exact same plate number, minus one). Registration could be made at any time up until the end of the first 28-year period of the copyright term when renewal was required to prevent the work from entering the public domain naturally; and only the non-availability of the 1960/1961 volumes prevented making sure that this had not happened, since there were no signs of an initial registration of the Gothic in the records from 1927 to 1959.

Now the mere fact of mentioning my suspicion that the Gothic had never been registered and probably not renewed at the 28-year mark had the effect of galvanising the IMSLP contributors in the United States, who have gone searching the music registration and renewal volumes more thoroughly than I could have managed, even with access to many of the volumes of copyright registrations online. It seems that the Gothic has been in the public domain in the US since 1961 when the 28-year term expired, irrespective of its status elsewhere in the world.

In the 1990s, many changes to the US Copyright Act occurred, especially to inject a number of public domain works back under copyright protection, thanks to the Uruguay Round of talks and amendments to the GATT treaty: for example, in Soviet Russia, any works published by the state publisher Muzyka were in the public domain, and had been freely reprinted by Kalmus, Dover, etc. Numerous Shostakovich and Prokofiev pieces that had been public domain were re-copyrighted between 1994 and 1996 with the filing of a Notice of Intent to Enforce (NIE) by the copyright holders. No NIE was made to protect the Gothic's status under US law. So the Gothic could be re-copyrighted in the United States by the filing of a NIE notice (the copyright records since the 1980s have been made electronic, so it is easily discovered there has been no filing of a NIE notice for the Gothic), however case law seems to suggest that there was only a two-year window for GATT restorations to occur, and a NIE notice filed now would be powerless. As I am not a lawyer, I am merely summarising the views of several high-powered figures in US publishing, but the consensus seems to be that Cranz dropped the ball w.r.t. to the US. Everywhere except the US, of course, the work is still under 50 or 70 year terms post-Brian's decease in 1972, which will tie the work up until 2023/2043.

Thanks for the citation of Bernstein's interest in the Gothic: he is one of a number of famous conductors who no doubt would have given the work greater lustre (the failed attempts by Hamilton Harty and Goossens to obtain a performance in the 1930s are already well-known).

Cheers, Philip

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Thanks, Philip, for that Brian Post of the Month! Very illuminating.

[Philip Legge]

Actually, I believe the announcement that Hyperion are going to rush release the Brabbins Gothic would have to be much the stronger contender for post of the month. That's tremendously exciting news, and they (perhaps unfortunately) get the benefit of beating to the punch all other possibilities for a new recording to hit the market: both last year's Brisbane performance, or the surely long-overdue issuing of the Schmidt/LSO Gothic, would also be worthy additions, the latter of which has a highly idiosyncratic version of the Tenor aria, and my favourite reading of the Bass aria Dignare Domine, by the wonderful David Thomas (well-known as an early music stalwart). I hope that some of the balance and noise issues are addressed in the haste to get the discs out.

Regarding the Cranz full score's status in the US: in case it wasn't clear, the old 56-year-term of copyright used to be in two halves of 28+28 years: before 1964, the renewal was a necessary step to obtain the second part of the full term. This division of the copyright term into two halves was there from the beginning of the republic: during George Washington's presidency, copyright terms were set as 14+14 years (1790); in the early 19th century they were increased to 28+14 (1831), and then 28+28 in the early 20th century (1909). Between 1962 and 1974 there were a set of arbitrary increases to prevent some 1920s works from falling into the public domain, until in 1976 the default term was lengthened to 28+47 (= 75). Copyrights since 1978 are now following the life+70 years rule (like e.g. the European Union), but the old copyright claims prior to 1978 were increased in 1998 (owing to Sonny Bono) to be 28+67 years (total, 95 years). So if Cranz hadn't dropped the ball, the Gothic would have had another 16½ years of protection in the US, but arguably the US re-publishers like Kalmus or Dover could have had their wicked way with the score since the 1960s. It's quite surprising that no one's noticed the registration/renewal failure in the past 50 years, but the US laws are a complete mess, so perhaps it's not that surprising at all!

[vandermolen]

You sit on them....or in Jeffrey's brother's case, fall off them....rather than fire them

hehe 

[Luke]

Just a few thoughts referring back to some posts a page or two ago about the difficulty or otherwise of HB's writing, for the orchestral player, I mean, not the listener.

There's no doubt, of course, that Brian can write some bloody hard, and also awkward stuff. I would not dispute that (and it's the awkward rather than the hard which leaves players unimpressed, I think). What I would say is that complaints about it, and implications that it is amateurish in some ways seem to me misplaced. What we have is a composer who is seen by most outside the small Brianite community as something of an amateur; he is regarded with a default setting of scepticism-set-to-11 by critics and listeners. And particularly by the orchestral players who have no choice but to play the stuff, of course (but don't get me started on orchestral players and their scepticism!). John mentions Tippett as another composer with this sort of 'amateurish' orchestration. But let's remember the story of the premiere of his 2nd Symphony. The concert master rebows and renotates much of the music, thinking he knows better than Tippett, and the premiere falls apart, infamously. But when Tippett's own indications are followed, the piece works beautifully. It was too much for the orchestral players at the time, but they caught up in the end. The proof is in the results - Brian's pieces sound as he intended, and so do Tippett's. They are, therefore, well-orchestrated.

But that isn't what I meant to say (it's just a topic that gets me a bit riled!). What I meant to say was that Brian (and Tippett - no coincidence these are two of my favourite composers) both started from this same position of being considered an amateur. Tippett escaped it more quickly, though he is still looked at with disdain by some who would rather snipe than admit the power and bravery of his music. It has taken longer for Brian, for all the largely-biographical reasons that we know. One 'amateur' composer who 'made it' much more quickly than both of these was Elgar. Amongst other thing he is today seen as one of the most professional of orchestrators from his period, scintialling and powerful at his best, and capable of great refinement and complexity too. We trust him, in other words. He doesn't make mistakes. And then yesterday I was looking at the score of In the South (thanks to the Elgar thread) and, lo and behold, from my cellist's viewpoint the thing is totally zany. I've rarely seen orchestral cello writing like it, certainly not from that date. It is foolish, too difficult for the effect intended....and yet, of course, it works, and brilliantly. If I'd never heard of Elgar, I would say about him, on this evidence, what John said of Brian - that he doesn't understand the capabilities of the instruments, that there is something amateur about his orchestral writing. But this is Elgar. I trust him, I defer to his judgement. I would never say those things about Elgar. And orchestral players trust him in the same way. No scepticism where Elgar is concerned, not about this side of things anyway. If Brian's reputation reaches a similar point, people will feel the same way about him. I'm sure I could have made this post shorter, however. It's not as if I'm saying something very complex!

[John Whitmore]

Can somebody clarify the copyright issue for the Gothic score download from the USA link that Johan posted on here? I live in the UK so if I download and save the pdfs will I get chased by the internet police or taken to the local nick? I really don't fancy prison food so what am I allowd to do and what is the risk here? Maybe a USA Brian forum member can download them (legally?) and then share them via Mediafire? I would like to have a proper look at the piece. I used to have a hand written score for the 23rd Psalm obtained from the LSSO Brighton session for CBS but can't find it. I fear it was dumped during a house move or maybe I sent it to Nigel Pinkett. If I manage to find it I will scan and share.

[Luke]

I consider myself very lucky! When I was 14 I fell for the Gothic in a big way, and just somehow, for some reason, there was the score on display in the local music shop (in Leicester, the one round the corner from Prebend Street where it was in prime position for the LSSO, John - I used to go in there all the time!). And it was only 30 pounds. It was a happy Christmas that year... That battered, green, Sellotaped-together score is one of my real treasures now.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

This is what you see when you click on a link. I haven't proceeded further, keeping my Brian-love in check...




"IMSLP-US Server
Disclaimer
This server is not affiliated with IMSLP.ORG or Project Petrucci LLC.

IMSLP-US makes no guarantee that the files provided for download on IMSLP-US are public domain in your country and assumes no legal responsibility or liability of any kind for their copyright status. Please obey the copyright laws of your country and consult the copyright statute itself or a qualified IP attorney to verify whether a certain file is in the public domain in your country or if downloading a copy constitutes fair use.

BY CLICKING ANY LINK ON THIS SITE INCLUDING THE LINK BELOW, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO THE ABOVE DISCLAIMER.

Please close this window or leave this site if you do not agree.

I agree with the disclaimer above; continue my download.
Copyright

If you are a copyright holder and you believe that a file hosted on this server has a valid copyright and is made available without consent, please send an e-mail with the name of the file and applicable jurisdiction(s) to copyright@imslp.us. Please note that this server is hosted in the United States, and follows copyright laws of the United States."

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

If Brian's reputation reaches a similar point, people will feel the same way about him. I'm sure I could have made this post shorter, however. It's not as if I'm saying something very complex!

Still, thank you for giving an alternative inside view.

[Luke]

What is it with me and my lack of concision...?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

What is it with me and my lack of concision...?

Seeing someone on his way to his point and then making it - nothing wrong with that.

[mc ukrneal]

Just a few thoughts referring back to some posts a page or two ago about the difficulty or otherwise of HB's writing, for the orchestral player, I mean, not the listener.

There's no doubt, of course, that Brian can write some bloody hard, and also awkward stuff. I would not dispute that (and it's the awkward rather than the hard which leaves players unimpressed, I think). What I would say is that complaints about it, and implications that it is amateurish in some ways seem to me misplaced. What we have is a composer who is seen by most outside the small Brianite community as something of an amateur; he is regarded with a default setting of scepticism-set-to-11 by critics and listeners. And particularly by the orchestral players who have no choice but to play the stuff, of course (but don't get me started on orchestral players and their scepticism!). John mentions Tippett as another composer with this sort of 'amateurish' orchestration. But let's remember the story of the premiere of his 2nd Symphony. The concert master rebows and renotates much of the music, thinking he knows better than Tippett, and the premiere falls apart, infamously. But when Tippett's own indications are followed, the piece works beautifully. It was too much for the orchestral players at the time, but they caught up in the end. The proof is in the results - Brian's pieces sound as he intended, and so do Tippett's. They are, therefore, well-orchestrated.

But that isn't what I meant to say (it's just a topic that gets me a bit riled!). What I meant to say was that Brian (and Tippett - no coincidence these are two of my favourite composers) both started from this same position of being considered an amateur. Tippett escaped it more quickly, though he is still looked at with disdain by some who would rather snipe than admit the power and bravery of his music. It has taken longer for Brian, for all the largely-biographical reasons that we know. One 'amateur' composer who 'made it' much more quickly than both of these was Elgar. Amongst other thing he is today seen as one of the most professional of orchestrators from his period, scintialling and powerful at his best, and capable of great refinement and complexity too. We trust him, in other words. He doesn't make mistakes. And then yesterday I was looking at the score of In the South (thanks to the Elgar thread) and, lo and behold, from my cellist's viewpoint the thing is totally zany. I've rarely seen orchestral cello writing like it, certainly not from that date. It is foolish, too difficult for the effect intended....and yet, of course, it works, and brilliantly. If I'd never heard of Elgar, I would say about him, on this evidence, what John said of Brian - that he doesn't understand the capabilities of the instruments, that there is something amateur about his orchestral writing. But this is Elgar. I trust him, I defer to his judgement. I would never say those things about Elgar. And orchestral players trust him in the same way. No scepticism where Elgar is concerned, not about this side of things anyway. If Brian's reputation reaches a similar point, people will feel the same way about him. I'm sure I could have made this post shorter, however. It's not as if I'm saying something very complex!

You know, I agree with you entirely about this 'amateur' thing. Usually, when I see that sort of comment (amateur), its is simply one way of putting a composer down. More often than not, it simply highlights the ignorance of the speaker. It is one thing to criticize and analyze orchestration and come to the conclusion that a certain combination doesn't work. It is entirely another to take dismiss the output or work of that composer as a whole. Even the best composers have some really odd ideas, and not all of them work, but isn't that how they (as composers) and we (as listeners) grow?

[Luke]

Well, here's another of those the-composer-must-have-been-an-amateur mistakes I spotted a few days ago. A double-stopped open G-middle C on the violin. The composer? That clodding know-nothing Claude Debussy. And that isn't just difficult, it is positively impossible. Saulian, in fact. Not sure that this relates to my point about Brian, now, in any but a slight way, however - that to judge a composer's capabilities on a few oddities, awkwardnesses or even mistakes is not entirely fair.

You know, I agree with you entirely about this 'amateur' thing. Usually, when I see that sort of comment (amateur), its is simply one way of putting a composer down. More often than not, it simply highlights the ignorance of the speaker. It is one thing to criticize and analyze orchestration and come to the conclusion that a certain combination doesn't work. It is entirely another to take dismiss the output or work of that composer as a whole. Even the best composers have some really odd ideas, and not all of them work, but isn't that how they (as composers) and we (as listeners) grow?

There is also, unsurprisingly, a kind of Impress Me. Prove It culture among some orchestral players faced with a new score by a little-known composer, for all sorts of understandable reasons. A peculiarity which would be accepted and trusted in a work by an established composer can often be scoffed at when the source isn't trusted. I've seen this as a player and, on the other end, as a composer. I wrote things which I knew would work, but on a couple of ocassions the players told me 'no way, can't do that'. I only write what I know can be played, and anything slightly unusual is mostly for the instruments I play myself, so I was able to sit down and actually show them what I meant. And in the end I was right, it was always playable, and always sounded as I had wanted. But it just made the journey to the premieres harder, that lack of trust.

[John Whitmore]

Just a few thoughts referring back to some posts a page or two ago about the difficulty or otherwise of HB's writing, for the orchestral player, I mean, not the listener.

There's no doubt, of course, that Brian can write some bloody hard, and also awkward stuff. I would not dispute that (and it's the awkward rather than the hard which leaves players unimpressed, I think). What I would say is that complaints about it, and implications that it is amateurish in some ways seem to me misplaced. What we have is a composer who is seen by most outside the small Brianite community as something of an amateur; he is regarded with a default setting of scepticism-set-to-11 by critics and listeners. And particularly by the orchestral players who have no choice but to play the stuff, of course (but don't get me started on orchestral players and their scepticism!). John mentions Tippett as another composer with this sort of 'amateurish' orchestration. But let's remember the story of the premiere of his 2nd Symphony. The concert master rebows and renotates much of the music, thinking he knows better than Tippett, and the premiere falls apart, infamously. But when Tippett's own indications are followed, the piece works beautifully. It was too much for the orchestral players at the time, but they caught up in the end. The proof is in the results - Brian's pieces sound as he intended, and so do Tippett's. They are, therefore, well-orchestrated.

But that isn't what I meant to say (it's just a topic that gets me a bit riled!). What I meant to say was that Brian (and Tippett - no coincidence these are two of my favourite composers) both started from this same position of being considered an amateur. Tippett escaped it more quickly, though he is still looked at with disdain by some who would rather snipe than admit the power and bravery of his music. It has taken longer for Brian, for all the largely-biographical reasons that we know. One 'amateur' composer who 'made it' much more quickly than both of these was Elgar. Amongst other thing he is today seen as one of the most professional of orchestrators from his period, scintialling and powerful at his best, and capable of great refinement and complexity too. We trust him, in other words. He doesn't make mistakes. And then yesterday I was looking at the score of In the South (thanks to the Elgar thread) and, lo and behold, from my cellist's viewpoint the thing is totally zany. I've rarely seen orchestral cello writing like it, certainly not from that date. It is foolish, too difficult for the effect intended....and yet, of course, it works, and brilliantly. If I'd never heard of Elgar, I would say about him, on this evidence, what John said of Brian - that he doesn't understand the capabilities of the instruments, that there is something amateur about his orchestral writing. But this is Elgar. I trust him, I defer to his judgement. I would never say those things about Elgar. And orchestral players trust him in the same way. No scepticism where Elgar is concerned, not about this side of things anyway. If Brian's reputation reaches a similar point, people will feel the same way about him. I'm sure I could have made this post shorter, however. It's not as if I'm saying something very complex!

Great post. Most of Brian isn't difficult to play. It's pretty straight forward and dare I say old fashioned. There's nothing very experimental, no quarter tones, no Ivesian cross rhythms, no 12 tone rows etc etc. It's just the bits that don't physically sit properly with the instruments that annoy the pros. It's not just Brian though. The infamous low oboe entry in Vltava is one of the horrors of the score. I'm not comparing Smetana with Brian just making the point that many scores have dodgy bits in them. I think that Tippett 2 failed due to poor conducting and lack of rehearsal time rather than the messing with bowings but I may be wrong. Tippett was a wonderful man but he did make things up on the hoof. As much as I admire the Shires Suite the fact of the matter is that during first rehearsals we had to work from hand written parts with poor page turns and peculiar bowings. These were changed along the route by Michael himself but also by Eric Pinkett and Norman Del Mar. As a pro horn player (sitting next to Dennis Brain in the RPO) Norman also made mods to the horn writing. Michael welcomed input like this. He wasn't a professional orchestral player and was open to making  changes. Tchaikovsky also took advice on the solo part for his fiddle concerto for the simple reason that he wasn't a violinist ditto Malcolm Arnold consulted Bream when writing his guitar concerto. I believe that Tippett was a visionary and I love many of his pieces. From my own personal dealings with him I must conclude that he was a superb educator and communicator but his actual skills in committing his ideas to paper to make the music actually work from a nuts and bolts perspective left a lot to be desired. As I said in a previous post "who cares". It all sounds OK in general terms. Had Brian been in a position to try his music out in front of orchestras on a regular basis I feel that he would have improved his craft as did Michael. The lack of craft makes some people sneer. Not me I hasten to add. Mendelssohn was a master craftsman but I don't care much for his music.

[John Whitmore]

I consider myself very lucky! When I was 14 I fell for the Gothic in a big way, and just somehow, for some reason, there was the score on display in the local music shop (in Leicester, the one round the corner from Prebend Street where it was in prime position for the LSSO, John - I used to go in there all the time!). And it was only 30 pounds. It was a happy Christmas that year... That battered, green, Sellotaped-together score is one of my real treasures now.

I fell for the 10th in a big way. Wonderful piece. Hated the 21st (but not now). Purchased all the Martco Polo CDs and disliked the majority of them!! Bought the Hyperion 3rd and hated it (Maida Vale I think - oh dear). Recently got hold of the Hull recordings (oh dear again). As a Leicestershire man I sort of feel that it's my duty to support HB but there's still - to my ears - too much going on that I don't care for. The Proms Gothic blew me away. Loved it. Also enjoy Psalm 23 and the fiddle concerto (up to a point). I hope that I have a balanced view to Brian. He's not a hero of mine but I detest all the smart people who dismiss the man. He should be given some respect. Had Sibelius only written Tapoiola I would have called him a great composer. Brian 10 and parts of the Gothic certainly prove beyond doubt (to me at any rate) that Brian is indeed a very good composer. Is this fair comment? I hope so. Not been to Leicester for years except for the odd trip to watch City play and a couple of LSSO concerts. I'm now marooned in Delph in the foothills of the Pennines.

[Luke]

Great post. Most of Brian isn't difficult to play. It's pretty straight forward and dare I say old fashioned. There's nothing very experimental, no quarter tones, no Ivesian cross rhythms, no 12 tone rows etc etc. It's just the bits that don't physically sit properly with the instruments that annoy the pros. It's not just Brian though. The infamous low oboe entry in Vltava is one of the horrors of the score. I'm not comparing Smetana with Brian just making the point that many scores have dodgy bits in them. I think that Tippett 2 failed due to poor conducting and lack of rehearsal time rather than the messing with bowings but I may be wrong. Tippett was a wonderful man but he did make things up on the hoof. As much as I admire the Shires Suite the fact of the matter is that during first rehearsals we had to work from hand written parts with poor page turns and peculiar bowings. These were changed along the route by Michael himself but also by Eric Pinkett and Norman Del Mar. As a pro horn player (sitting next to Dennis Brain in the RPO) Norman also made mods to the horn writing. Michael welcomed input like this. He wasn't a professional orchestral player and was open to making  changes. Tchaikovsky also took advice on the solo part for his fiddle concerto for the simple reason that he wasn't a violinist ditto Malcolm Arnold consulted Bream when writing his guitar concerto. I believe that Tippett was a visionary and I love many of his pieces. From my own personal dealings with him I must conclude that he was a superb educator and communicator but his actual skills in committing his ideas to paper to make the music actually work from a nuts and bolts perspective left a lot to be desired. As I said in a previous post "who cares". It all sounds OK in general terms. Had Brian been in a position to try his music out in front of orchestras on a regular basis I feel that he would have improved his craft as did Michael. The lack of craft makes some people sneer. Not me I hasten to add. Mendelssohn was a master craftsman but I don't care much for his music.

I agree with every word of this, unsurprisingly. I think it is the distinction between supposed amateur and supposed craftsman which gets me sniffing round - the implication always being that the latter is superior to the former. I just don't buy this - your Mendelssohn point is a good one here. There is certainly much of what you describe in Tippett's writing, for instance - his ideas spill onto the paper and can need much work from this point in order to be ''made real' in performance. But as I thought that I was thinking of that piggingly hard quartet the 4th...which immediately made me think of its partial model, Beethoven's op 133. And there we have it - in that piece and in other late Beethoven pieces we have this craggy, white-hot thought, pouring onto the paper with little thought about playability. Cranky, peculiar notations, awkwardness as awkward as awkward gets. But it's Beethoven. Amateur? I think not.

(And just as a side note, I find that little trio - Beethoven, Brian, Tippett - make for interesting comparison)

[Luke]

I fell for the 10th in a big way. Wonderful piece. Hated the 21st (but not now). Purchased all the Martco Polo CDs I could get hold of and disliked the majority of them!! Bought the Hyperion 3rd and hated it 9. As a Leicestershire man I sort of feel that it's my duty to support HB but there's still - to my ears - too much going on that I don't care for. The Proms Gothic blew me away. Loved it. Not been to Leicester for years except for the odd trip to watch City play.

My own favourites are still 6-10, and 8 above all. IMO one of the very, very finest symphonies of the century. Have you heard it yet?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

(And just as a side note, I find that little trio - Beethoven, Brian, Tippett - make for interesting comparison)

That reminds me of something I thought the other day - 'The Gothic' is always compared with Beethoven's Ninth. But there is another connection to these ears - the Missa Solemnis. The apocalyptic outbursts at the end of the Te Deum are Amériques crossed with the explosion in the final movement of the Missa, 'Agnus Dei', where war and peace are battling it out, too.

[Luke]

A very interesting thought, Johan. I hadn't considered this before.

WRT some of the above posts I ought to mention, for those somehow unaware of it, that my own favourite composer, if I had to choose, is Janacek. The most amateur of them all, his music full of unplayabilities and areas which need carefully rebalancing. Maybe that it is just that this kind of white-hot, craggy music appeals to me on a deep level...lthough more or less neck-and-neck with Janacek comes Ravel, his polar opposite, it would seem, in many ways. So who knows!

[John Whitmore]

My own favourites are still 6-10, and 8 above all. IMO one of the very, very finest symphonies of the century. Have you heard it yet?

Yes I've got the 8th. Tried it numerous times. Will try again - does nothing for me. I will put it on straight away. When I have issues with music I always put a Nielsen symphony on the CD player. Now THERE'S  a composer.