Search:
Submit Search


Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Discuss and share submissions to the Contrebombarde website.

Moderator: dwood

Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby OAM » Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:14 pm

Due to severe complaints from Titular Martin Böcker/Stade about the recent postings, no more contributions are allowed on YouTube and ConcertHall, so please be aware of this.

I'm not happy about this, especially because only commercial productions were excluded, but I have to respect this.
I will try to discuss and point out the special character of those postings, but don't know if postings for the Hus-Schnitger will be possible in future

Anyway, this shows that we operate on a very sensitive field with those contributions.
Prof. Helmut Maier
OrganArt Media Sound Engineering
D-88662 Überlingen/Lake Constance
http://www.organartmedia.com
OAM
Member
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:08 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby sonar11 » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:31 pm

This sets a dangerous precedent. How can you (or the titular organist) just change the contract after somebody has paid money under a set of conditions? At that point nobody can change the terms, a "deal is a deal". If we were allowed to post to CH when we purchased the sample, that permission can't be revoked afterwards.
sonar11
Member
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby Marco » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:32 pm

How can you (or the titular organist) just change the contract


I don't see in the OAM license any specific permission to post on youtube or contrebombarde or anywhere else: the license actually says as far as I can see that you are not allowed to:

Publish sound recordings or use the database work for public presentation without special permission .

to me this implies that the permission is by nature temporary and related to the particular "public presentation" and that particular piece: say for example if I sent Prof. Maier a great performance of a major work and he gave me permission to post it on youtube, I don't think it would mean that I have a permanent permission since then to post on youtube whatever I feel like or to post that same recording on vimeo or to put it on a dvd and sell it.

The license is not changing, only the fact that this "special permission" is not going to be given for future recordings made on this particular organ. I think the same would apply if one went physically to the church and recorded a performance there, a church not being a public place I am sure they could get whatever recording taken down if they so decided.

Personally I think this is unfortunate, but I don't think it's anything that OAM has any control over, I am sure that the churches authorizing the sampling of their instruments had similar "specific permission" agreements drawn up before allowing OAM to proceed, which means that if they so chose they could veto any future public performance (or probably in extreme cases veto future sales of the sample set entirely).
Marco
Member
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:29 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby studens » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:15 am

I feel confirmed in never having bought an OAM sample set, nor will I.

This is, in one word, ludicrous.

The prohibition to use the Stade sample set for (non-commercial) public performance (which is what I take postings on contrabombarde to be) comes from who? the ORGANIST of the church?? who is he to make such decisions??! he does not own the instrument.

incidentally, it would be nice to know what exactly it is that worries mr. organist.

now, in this case it is really irrelevant, since, as marco correctly points out, OAM does not allow buyers of the sample set to publish performances anyway, except by special permission. (I am astonished that customers consent to this: which other product is there that you buy, only then to have to supplicate to be graciously allowed -- perhaps -- to put it to specified uses?)

more generally, we have the old problem here of who is able to make decisions regarding a historic organ. I feel that morally (as opposed to the legal forms) such an instrument has no owner, it can only have custodians. now, a sample set of such an organ not only does not damage the instrument in any way but promotes it -- making it better known, serving, perhaps, as a record of it in the eventuality of some disaster. to hinder the production and use of such sample sets is simply benighted. (commercial use is a different matter.)
studens
Member
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby Andrew Grahame » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:53 am

I am not asking for the name of the contributor or titles of the works posted. I am interested to know what the actual concerns were with the performances themselves which led to this situation.

Andrew
Andrew Grahame
Member
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby OAM » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:13 am

studens wrote:I feel confirmed in never having bought an OAM sample set, nor will I.

This is your personal decision, of course.
On the other hand, I'm not interested in customers who don't show any sign of understanding for these sensible and psychological problems. Fortunately, the majority of the customers understand and respect it and appreciate, which gems they are able to have for their personal usage.

Andrew[/quote]
Andrew Grahame wrote:I am interested to know what the actual concerns were with the performances themselves which led to this situation.

I will try to figure that out, of course. Perhaps a personal discussion may solve this problem.
The ConcertHall was not that as today, when the contracts were made several years ago.
Prof. Helmut Maier
OrganArt Media Sound Engineering
D-88662 Überlingen/Lake Constance
http://www.organartmedia.com
OAM
Member
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:08 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby Marco » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:19 am

studens wrote:such an instrument has no owner, it can only have custodians.


I am sure it is exactly what's going on here, if you are a custodian of a several hundred year old unique work of art, you might have different ideas about what is acceptable: would you be ok if somebody took the samples and "remixed" them (badly) and created a "performance" with them and, say, sampled cats/docs yodeling and so on?

Some people might be ok with it saying that "art is art" however others would disagree because they might feel that this "performance" would somehow cheapen the original instrument. Others might feel that to earn the right to play at all a particular instrument one needs to have spent many years studying, for several instruments you would not be allowed near the console unless you had a music degree!

It's not like the early days of HW where there were only a couple of sample sets, nowadays there are many, so depending on the usage that you plan to do you can decide what to buy based on the license: however you cannot demand that the custodians of a particular historical instrument allow you to do what you want with it (even in the name of art), it is "their" instrument and their decision.

I am actually amazed that we do have as much choice in instruments as we have now, and I hope that as time goes on even more historical instruments become available, and personally I do think the odds of that, especially for the more famous instruments, are much higher if somebody like Prof. Maier approaches them especially from the perspective of "documentation and preservation" so I don't see it warranted to attack him about this situation, which was evidently not his decision.
Marco
Member
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:29 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby sonar11 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:31 pm

Marco wrote:
studens wrote:such an instrument has no owner, it can only have custodians.


I am sure it is exactly what's going on here, if you are a custodian of a several hundred year old unique work of art, you might have different ideas about what is acceptable: would you be ok if somebody took the samples and "remixed" them (badly) and created a "performance" with them and, say, sampled cats/docs yodeling and so on?

Some people might be ok with it saying that "art is art" however others would disagree because they might feel that this "performance" would somehow cheapen the original instrument. Others might feel that to earn the right to play at all a particular instrument one needs to have spent many years studying, for several instruments you would not be allowed near the console unless you had a music degree!

It's not like the early days of HW where there were only a couple of sample sets, nowadays there are many, so depending on the usage that you plan to do you can decide what to buy based on the license: however you cannot demand that the custodians of a particular historical instrument allow you to do what you want with it (even in the name of art), it is "their" instrument and their decision.

I am actually amazed that we do have as much choice in instruments as we have now, and I hope that as time goes on even more historical instruments become available, and personally I do think the odds of that, especially for the more famous instruments, are much higher if somebody like Prof. Maier approaches them especially from the perspective of "documentation and preservation" so I don't see it warranted to attack him about this situation, which was evidently not his decision.


I disagree entirely. That has the perspective of a "highly controlling personality", somebody who absolutely cannot stand when he does not have control over every little bit of whatever it is. Nobody is damaging the original organ by doing anything in HW, whether playing poorly or using the "wrong" stops or whatever else. What's next, composers having to individually grant access to those who play their music? What must poor Bach think, all those amateurs wreaking havoc on his masterpieces; maybe somebody should self appoint themselves to be guardian over his music :roll:
sonar11
Member
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby studens » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:50 pm

it appears from prof. maier's most recent post that he passed on the "titular's" prohibition on posting recordings of the stade sample set WITHOUT enquiring first what this is all about?!

I looked up what "recent posts" on contrebombarde might mean: ALL of the more recent posts have been done by wolfram syré, who is himself a professional organist and recitalist. so although one might disagree with his interpretations (and organists are awfully hard to please, of course) the standard of playing cannot be the issue here.

besides which, it should never be made an issue anyhow. how often have I come out of a recital thinking, my, that was BORING. (some professional organists sound very good to my ears; not a few however don´t. it is exactly the same with so-called "amateurs". part of the reason is that a beethoven piano sonata cannot be played in innumerable different ways. organ pieces can: every organ sounds different, and every organist uses her or his own registrations, to say nothing of manual changes, tempi etc.) and sonar11 is entirely right with his comparison with bach's music, the playing of which luckily nobody tries to control either.

also, I´m sure the stade instrument (the real, physical one) has seen its share of bad players too.
studens
Member
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby Marco » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:53 pm

Isn't it a similar position however not being able to stand to have limitations imposed on one's usage of a particular instrument? Why should it be unacceptable that the owner/custodian of a particular instrument can choose the terms of how their instrument is going to be used? As I was saying not everybody going to the church in person would be allowed to play the instrument, so why should things be any different when talking about a sample set?

In terms of the music itself if you were playing some modern contemporary pieces you might be not allowed to publish those on any instrument depending on the copyright decided by the (usually still living) composer! We are able to play Bach's masterpieces however we want (even remixing them into dance music if we so decided) just because several hundred years have passed and they are in the public domain.

I do personally think that it would be nice if more famous instrument were made available in HW, and that all instruments were on "no restrictions for non-commercial usage" licensing terms, because in today's society organ music is an extremely small niche already, and putting up additional barriers towards its production and enjoyment is not going to help its popularity, but I can accept that others might feel differently.

If you are the custodian of a several hundred years instrument you probably will feel like you have to weigh your decisions a lot more: say for example your church depends on the fees paid by visiting organists for the organ's upkeep, and you authorize an excellent sample set and now a lot less organists come leading to a budget shortfall, how are you going to manage? You might feel that authorizing a sample set at all would be damaging to the organ itself!
Marco
Member
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:29 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby sonar11 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:12 pm

Marco wrote:Isn't it a similar position however not being able to stand to have limitations imposed on one's usage of a particular instrument? Why should it be unacceptable that the owner/custodian of a particular instrument can choose the terms of how their instrument is going to be used? As I was saying not everybody going to the church in person would be allowed to play the instrument, so why should things be any different when talking about a sample set?

In terms of the music itself if you were playing some modern contemporary pieces you might be not allowed to publish those on any instrument depending on the copyright decided by the (usually still living) composer! We are able to play Bach's masterpieces however we want (even remixing them into dance music if we so decided) just because several hundred years have passed and they are in the public domain.

I do personally think that it would be nice if more famous instrument were made available in HW, and that all instruments were on "no restrictions for non-commercial usage" licensing terms, because in today's society organ music is an extremely small niche already, and putting up additional barriers towards its production and enjoyment is not going to help its popularity, but I can accept that others might feel differently.

If you are the custodian of a several hundred years instrument you probably will feel like you have to weigh your decisions a lot more: say for example your church depends on the fees paid by visiting organists for the organ's upkeep, and you authorize an excellent sample set and now a lot less organists come leading to a budget shortfall, how are you going to manage? You might feel that authorizing a sample set at all would be damaging to the organ itself!


Your position is not defensible; obviously the difference b/n playing the HW version and the real physical organ is that the physical organ can sustain physical (and monetary) damage. It's not rocket science, you don't want random people off the street playing the organ in a way that can damage it. There are no problems of this nature in HW.

If I was the custodian of a historic organ and I was running into financial difficulties, I would try to increase awareness of the organ; playing the organ in HW, and posting the recordings to Youtube can only INCREASE the awareness of the physical organ, and may perhaps drive more people / traffic to the real organ. Simple economics really. I would certainly not try to crush the enthusiasm for it by putting my fingers in somebody elses business when they perform on the virtual organ.

Surely you can see by my Bach comment that we are all better off when constraints are removed and the music (or organ) can shine. We would all be much worse off if Bach had imposed artifical and uneeded limitations on the playing of his music. And I'm sure that this "custodian" enjoys the work of Bach without somebody telling him he can't play it the way that he does.
sonar11
Member
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby polikimre » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:58 pm

It is very unfortunate that this is happenning to the Stade organ in particular: up until a few months ago there were less than a dozen pieces available on this great instrument. Then the Buxtehude series started on CB, and I've been enjoying it very much.

It is true that the OAM licensing terms have always forbidden public performances of any sort, except with special permission. On the other hand, I was under the impression that it was OAM to grant these permissions and not the organist. They must have drawn up a contract when the sampling was performed.

Final (and sad) thought: sample set makers are at the mercy of chruch authorities and organists here. The opinion of organists of instruments already sampled probably has an effect on future sampling ventures. Even if that opinion is unfounded.
User avatar
polikimre
Member
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: USA, NC, Cary

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby Contrabaixons » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:38 am

I see on Contrebombarde`s Upload Site in the Menu "Organ" all instrumnets of OAM.
So it seems me to be evident that this iussue is not a problem of OAM.

Contrabaixons
Contrabaixons
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:31 am

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby profeluisegarcia » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:56 pm

polikimre wrote:I: sample set makers are at the mercy of church authorities and organists here. The opinion of organists of instruments already sampled probably has an effect on future sampling ventures. Even if that opinion is unfounded.


I think this is the right point.There were much overeaction to Prof. Maier remark.

What I really dislike of the organTitular Martin Böcker/Stade is the way he handles Schnitger reeds:
See these ten secondos: min. 3:50 - 4:00 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c6d6MqhIVc

(¡What a custodian!)
User avatar
profeluisegarcia
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:00 pm
Location: Manizales, Colombia

Re: Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

Postby john alesbury » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:49 am

Dear collegues,

I am wondering about this discussion.

We know about public recitals at Jörg Glebe‘s Hauptwerk-Project at Dortmund. Some programmes there include organ pieces played on the virtual Stade-organ.

Any complaints from the Stade titular organist? No.

The oldest contribution with the Stade sample-set to the Contrebombarde Concert Hall dates from March 27th, 2011.

Any complaints from the Stade titular organist in that time? No.

Now we can listen to recordings with Stade at the Contrabombarde Concert Hall over a peroide of three years.

Any complaints from the Stade titular organist during this time? No.

Suddenly, after three years: Any complaints from the Stade titular organist? Yes, but why?

All recordings with the virtual Stade-organ are a kind of Link to the famous original Hus-Schnitger-organ and its contemporary organist: The virtual instruments makes promotion for the original instrument. And the virtual instrument will give people who would never have a chance to see the organ at Stade an impression of it.

So, what‘s the problem?

Or is the whole thing a scene from Richard Wagner‘s opera »Das Rheingold«: Alberich and the Hus-Schnitger-organ ... oh - please, excuse me, I mean Alberich and the golden treasure, of course?

John Alesbury
john alesbury
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:26 am

Next

Return to Contrebombarde Concert Hall

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest