Stade Hus-Schnitger ConcertHall contributions

[Lia]

Maybe he was planning to publish a Buxtehude CD in the near future and fears for his sales numbers

[Andrew Grahame]

I hope that the reason will be made known soon. Nobody, including the organist at Stade, has anything to gain by this uncertainty.

Andrew

[polikimre]

Maybe he was planning to publish a Buxtehude CD in the near future and fears for his sales numbers

Actually, a very likely scenario.

[john alesbury]

Hello,

It would be interesting to listen to a new Buxtude-CD from Stade, because Martin Böcker is a professional organist.

But shoul he try to prohibite posting further Buxtehude-records therefore?

John Alesbury

[sonar11]

Maybe he was planning to publish a Buxtehude CD in the near future and fears for his sales numbers

Actually, a very likely scenario.

Then he should be removed from his post. Talk about a "conflict of interest".

[OAM]

Then he should be removed from his post. Talk about a "conflict of interest".

Please stop these bashing-like postings. This is not very helpful and may damage some future projects in this region. You have no right, to speak in such a way about a renowned organist and university teacher.
This is mainly a subject of discussion between OAM and the parish.

Some of the recent postings unfortunately show a very little understanding about the problems of getting access to those world class 1 instruments and the potential problems afterwards.
Exactly such uncritical handling made some potential projects of world famous organs impossible.

[sonar11]

Then he should be removed from his post. Talk about a "conflict of interest".

Please stop these bashing-like postings. This is not very helpful and may damage some future projects in this region. You have no right, to speak in such a way about a renowned organist and university teacher.
This is mainly a subject of discussion between OAM and the parish.

Some of the recent postings unfortunately show a very little understanding about the problems of getting access to those world class 1 instruments and the potential problems afterwards.
Exactly such uncritical handling made some potential projects of world famous organs impossible.

There was no "bashing" anywhere on this thread, only criticism (which is healthy) and some opinions. In my opinion, we are better off without samples where permissions to use them freely can be revoked for no reason or explanation. There are enough world class organs around where the people in charge are much more receptive to HW, why not sample those organs instead?

[Marco]

There was no "bashing" anywhere on this thread

some of the posts speculating about the possible reasons behind the permission for postings being revoked struck me as a lot closer to "bashing" than to "healthy criticism". I also personally think those posts should be removed from the thread as they are just innuendo and could be construed as being defamatory in nature.

In my opinion, we are better off without samples where permissions to use them freely can be revoked for no reason or explanation. There are enough world class organs around where the people in charge are much more receptive to HW, why not sample those organs instead?

we are all entitled to our own opinions, that's why I think that when posting on a public forum we should all be careful about not writing things that could prevent others from enjoying their own. If posts from a vocal minority, say, cause the titular of a world class instrument to deny permission to record it, all the others that would have been fine with a "restricted license" sampleset will be negatively affected.

I personally don't think that there is any scenario where we are "better off without samples" is a desirable outcome: from my perspective there are a lot of available organs with very unrestrictive licenses, if somebody wants to use HW for public performances they can definitely use those instead, rather than be upset if some other sets are released under different licenses, and the more samplesets are available the better!

[josq]

If posts from a vocal minority, say, cause the titular of a world class instrument to deny permission to record it, all the others that would have been fine with a "restricted license" sampleset will be negatively affected.

I personally don't think that there is any scenario where we are "better off without samples" is a desirable outcome:

agree!

though the stance of such titulars can make me a bit angry. But time can bring change.

[Andrew Grahame]

At the end of the day we still don't know what the issue is which led Martin Böcker to adopt his current position in relation to the licensing of the Stade sample set. I would like to recommend a moratorium on this thread until that issue has been uncovered and made known to us.

Andrew

[amun]

There was no "bashing" anywhere on this thread

some of the posts speculating about the possible reasons behind the permission for postings being revoked struck me as a lot closer to "bashing" than to "healthy criticism". I also personally think those posts should be removed from the thread as they are just innuendo and could be construed as being defamatory in nature.

I fully support this statement!

And would like to point out, that these unique instruments according to the religious persuasion in that region were and still are dedicated to "Soli Deo Gloria" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soli_Deo_gloria ) in exactly the cathedral they are placed in and certainly not to be "Everybody's darling " in a virtual concert hall. "Soli Deo gloria", as we know, was also the deep motivation of Arp Schnitger when constructing his organs.

IMHO we should respect this and be gratefull to the parish and its organist, who also could have said no, as in the mean time other parishes do.

Rgds,
Amun

[OAM]

Thanks for your understanding!

The recent postings are not very helpful at all and always repeat the same.
I'm not happy with the situation, it's not my fault and I only have problems with it.
I will inform you, when we have more information or a final decision and this may take some time.

[john alesbury]

Dear collegues,

I think there are four important points in this discussion:

1. The use of the virtual Stade organ is a question how one has to understand the license conditions. Details have to be managed beetween the OAM company and the Stade church authorities. If we are no longer allowed to post recordings with Stade at Contrebombarde Concert Hall we have to accept that. It would be a pitty.

2. There is no doubt about the reputation of the Stade titular organist as a professional musician.

3. The titular organist is not the owner, but the custodian of the Hus-Schnitger organ. He has to administrate and to promote it - a large field. But he can close down neither the real organ or the virtual organ.

4. There is much room for speculations as long as the Stade titular organist preferes to stay in the background and to say nothing about his motivation: is he an Alberich or a honorable man?

Regards
John Alesbury

[studens]

At the end of the day we still don't know what the issue is which led Martin Böcker to adopt his current position in relation to the licensing of the Stade sample set. I would like to recommend a moratorium on this thread until that issue has been uncovered and made known to us.

Andrew

it would be highly desirable indeed if we were finally told what motivated the decision no longer to allow postings of recordings made with the stade sample set. that we haven´t been told, however, should not be a reason to suspend this thread! imagine that every criticism could be silenced by saying that full information has not been given but, perhaps, might be given at a later date!

[studens]

Dear collegues,

3. The titular organist is not the owner, but the custodian of the Hus-Schnitger organ. He has to administrate and to promote it - a large field. But he can close down neither the real organ or the virtual organ.

quite. but: whatever role martin böcker plays in this the onus is on prof. maier to handle this matter: he chose simply to pass on this bizarre prohibition while at the same time he himself seems not to know the reason -- or he would have explained by now.

(I suspect there simply may be NO good reason. I just cannot think of one that wouldn´t have been valid from the very start, i.e. the release of the sample set. what was OK then cannot not be OK now. I strongly doubt that the existence of hauptwerk postings could seriously affect the marketing of any recordings made in the church; in any case, this wouldn´t qualify as a legitimate reason. the quality of the playing cannot (and must not) be the issue either. no one has so far come up with any other possibility. ample time has passed for prof. maier to clarify the matter; if he cannot, he should have waited in the first place. moreover, assuming hypothetically that a compelling reason not to post stade sample set recordings exists, the prohibition should be retrospective also: messrs. böcker and maier should then ask the administrators of CCH to remove existing postings too.)