Is a continuo realization an arrangement?

[steltz]

I think it might also be notable that realizers (don't know if that's a word) are treated differently in terms of copyright because their input is creative, where editors frequently are merely scholarly (oooh, that sounds awful). Realizers will get a full copyright term, editors get reduced or none, especially if they haven't added anything creative.

For our copyright review process, it would probably be better to keep realizers with arrangers, and editors as editors. The first category will always get full copyright terms, the second has to be looked at in terms of the type of individual contribution.

[pml]

Realisateurs/realisateuses?

P—

[Davydov]

The possible scope of editorial interventions can be a very broad spectrum, from, say, correcting cautionary accidentals at one end, up to filling in gaps in the original manuscripts at the other. But we've always taken into account the work of editors when determining the copyright status of individual editions, for the precise reason that their contributions can be considered sufficiently original and creative by the courts.

Furthermore, we already have critical editions of works by baroque composers where the continuo parts are fully written-out for keyboard by the editors [sic]. If it's just a matter of writing out chords in full on two staves, then the amount of 'creative' input by the "realizer" is questionable, while more ornamental and embelished realizations might also be considered as arrangements in their own right.

Because the work of a "realizer" is not necessarily creative, I'd still suggest that it should be considered in the same way as the work of an "editor", and shouldn't automatically have the protection accorded to an "arranger".

[pml]

Who would sit in judgement as to the creative scope of a realisation? Would this be a good point to mention Lionel Sawkins vs Hyperion Records?

Previous discussion, off-topic. Carolus’ post is the thread winner.

[Notenschreiber]

I think, we have to distinguish between the sheet music (as a matter of the eyes) and the music (as a matter of the ears). Whereas an editor is concerned with
the sheet music ( he makes it better readable, nicer in the output, suitable to modern conventions, appropriate for performances, etc.), an arranger put in hand
the music itself, for example he changed the instrumentation, the pitches of the notes, he orchestrated piano pieces or adapted orchestra pieces for piano, etc.).
If one accepts this distinction, it is clear, that the realization of a continuo part is not an arrangement, but merely an edition. The second line of the manuscript
score of the Platti sonate, containing the bass voice, is another form of notation of the music of the cembalo part, which would in modern form be noticed in
two systems, one for the left and the other for the right hand.
If the edition has to be copyrigthed by its originality is another question. It depends on the special case and this is true also for arrangements-

[pml]

Dear Notenschreiber,

as Davydov alludes to, there is a spectrum of creativity involved in continuo realisation from the trivial — adding the first violin part above the continuo without change, or mechanically interpreting the chordal figured bass — through to the sophistication of Lionel Sawkins’ Delalande editions, which involved the composition of inner string voices to fill out the empty texture of outer voices left by the composer in addition to fully elaborated keyboard writing.

Now, as a general practice at IMSLP over the last five years, these sorts of editorial tasks have not been officially viewed as “Arrangements” and that is generally agreed to be well and good. Since a while back, but in real earnest since the start of this year, we have also begun categorising the editorial and arranging of works against the individuals who created them, so that you can reliably find the editions an editor has worked on or the arrangements an arranger has made. Now when it comes to vocal scores featuring keyboard reductions of vocal works for larger ensembles, there is no quibbling at all about applying the “arranger” status for the originator of the reduction (who sometimes is a different individual to the “editor”). Since this is a task which bears a very large degree of similarity to continuo realisation if the latter is done with any degree of originality, there is no good reason not to apply the “arranger” status for continuo realisation, even if we are not calling such an edition an “arrangement”.

Cheers, Philip

[Rob Peters]

I was looking at this score today:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Te_Deum_in_D_majo ... MSLP408162
and remembered this old discussion.
The continuo realisation in this piece is so elaborate that I fear it should be given the legal status of an arrangement - which means the score is non-PD anywhere. Since the "arranger" died in 2014, that would make this edition non_PD in Europe till 2085!

[Carolus]

It's free in the US because the country of origin was the DDR. The court case referenced above pretty much placed all such realizations under the urtext rubric, though it was still a lower level court so it's debatable. Interesting question though. We could always redact it out I suppose. I've seen some of the Vivaldi urtexts whose realizations are pretty creative too. A good example of why it can be very difficult to decide where to draw the line.