VIDEO: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach

[ahinton]

And you would ignore it if someone had publicly maligned the character of your "Sarah"?  I think you would not ignore it.

Perhaps not indeed - but who actually did that, when, how and where?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever seen on a forum. It's not even about music or piano playing anymore, it's about having the Last Word. I can't believe anyone is still arguing with MS who's got his head so far up his botty that he'll never get it out again.

Believe me, I have actually seen even more ridiculous ones on occasion although, as I admitted to Liszt yesterday, I agree that this one comes fairly close to the worst of them! He then quite understandably wanted rapidly to change the subject so, taking the cue from J.S. Bach in this thread, he asked me what I thought of a certain Australian "professor"'s widely publicised claim that the cello suites and other works by J. S. Bach were actually written by his second wife Anna Magdalena. I will refrain from posting the full contents of that discussion, fascinating as it was, but will confine myself instead to confirming that Liszt is as contemptuous of this unproven assertion as he is of certain others which shall remain nameless...

Best,

Alistair



Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

Hi all,

If titles simultaneously REPRESENT or CONTAIN a dedicatee's name, it may gain importance, because sometimes these works' titles are interesting for researchers.

And this value can gain weight, too, in some cases in which the dedicatee's name isn't directly part of the title.

But even THEN researchers may get lost, but they don't dramatize it in threads! Look:

Chopin writes 2 times approximately this:

"For Elise Gavard". So, who EXACTLY was Elise Gavard ( aside of the fact she was a "baby" or girl ) ? Who had been her parents ? Where does her name appear in additional sources? What had been her hobbies ?

So, why shouldn't anyone name a work "For Sarah", even if we didn't / don't exactly know who she is / was ?

Maybe we should return to the thread-topic. And that's an arrangement or interpretation by Michael of a prelude. I myself cannot arrange anything, but discussing sources of inspiration / beliefs / titles / dedicatees of works are, all in all, only of secondary value, at least in my opinion.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[ahinton]

If titles simultaneously REPRESENT or CONTAIN a dedicatee's name, it may gain importance, because sometimes these works' titles are interesting for researchers.

And this value can gain weight, too, in some cases in which the dedicatee's name isn't directly part of the title.

But even THEN researchers may get lost, but they don't dramatize it in threads! Look:

Chopin writes 2 times approximately this:

"For Elise Gavard". So, who EXACTLY was Elise Gavard ( aside of the fact she was a "baby" or girl ) ? Who had been her parents ? Where does her name appear in additional sources? What had been her hobbies ?

So, why shouldn't anyone name a work "For Sarah", even if we didn't / don't exactly know who she is / was ?

Fair points all, although I don't think that anyone has suggested that the work concerned shouldn't be so named!

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

Fair points all, although I don't think that anyone has suggested that the work concerned shouldn't be so named!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

the work's name was discussed here - and the work itself doesn't belong to the thread-topic. And even in the case it would belong to it, we should accept that we don't know much about Sarah. And furthermore, rather return to the topic here, which is: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach.

Which was, as I would say, played by Michael, in an arrangement or interpretation.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[j_menz]

We are on topic, in a sayeresque fashion, in much the same way as the Bach was.

[8_octaves]

We are on topic, in a sayeresque fashion, in much the same way as the Bach was.

Hi j_menz,

please note: for my small and slow brain it's often difficult to differ. So, it's good that Michael has made up, I think, another thread in which "For Sarah" can be discussed.

So why not here concentrating on the Bach-work given in the title, and perhaps ask ourselves the question, in which points one could say:

"Yes, ok, it's an arrangement which differs in many points from the original, but simultaneously the SOURCE is very well to recognize, still, and why shouldn't, in modern times, a "polarizing" version / interpretation / arrangement be shown?"

Or:

"No, nobody has got the right to do such work on a given original from 1375 ?"  

We all know, that Bach's works sometimes are very very inviting to make interesting and exciting versions from them. For example the 1st prelude of the WTC I is such an example. It has been: Jazzed, religionized, octavated, played with crossed hands, played in many articulation- and agogic-related manners, has been played in minor, as well as in other major keys, and so on.

Bach offers so much: He's dead, and left us a huge heritage, but one thing he certainly won't ever say:

"My Music is a Dogma."

I hope, we're on the PRELUDE, now, again.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[j_menz]

I hope, we're on the PRELUDE, now, again.

We, neither Mr Sayers nor the rest of us, ever were.

[perfect_pitch]

This thread would have faded away long ago if it were not for Alistair Hinton's vile and beyond the pale behaviour.

Don't forget about my contributions...

In actual fact, the thread would have faded away a long time ago had you not made statements such as 'Liszt directly contacts me and told me this, this and this...' and used it to justify your poor performances. Had you just posted your performances and said, I believe it should be played like this, we would have said it sucked, told you what was wrong with it and hoped you'd take it into consideration and bettered the performance (had they been current or pieces in progress) instead of recordings from the bloody 1990's.

INSTEAD, you tried to justify your frail, fragile ego by claiming that a composer who has long been dead and was held in the highest esteem among his peers during his lifetime, spoke directly to you and not someone else better deserving (like Leslie Howard for instance) claiming that our professional attempts at recording their works have been in vain.

You insult us, by claiming that such a pithy excuse is your justification for bastardising the pieces and turning them into audible diarrhea, which has no merit, credibility or any plausibility at least. I think now, the only respectful thing you can do for piano playing, the forum and the members here, is to simply stop posting recordings and/or your insane rambling comments.

Please consider it...

[ahinton]

the topic here, which is: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach.

Which was, as I would say, played by Michael, in an arrangement or interpretation.

Well, I've held back from doing this until now, so I'll do so no longer. The recording is appalling, the piano hopelessly inadequate, the tempo beyond soporific, the "arrangement" is so perverse as to merit the description "derangement" and the playing borders on the despicable.

Will that do for now?

It gives me not the slightest pleasure to write such, but to do otherwise would be grossly dishonest. If I'd done something like that, I wouldn't upload it onto my HDD, let alone onto a public forum for members to discuss. J. S. Bach, the real victim of this, has just said to me that if Liszt had really given this "interpretation", "arrangement" or whatever to anyone, he'd personally sue Liszt for musical libel.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Bach offers so much: He's dead, and left us a huge heritage, but one thing he certainly won't ever say:

"My Music is a Dogma."

No, but he might well say it of this travesty of his work by another althugh, if he did, he'd be more likely to substitute "may" with "this" and delete the final two letters from the last word (although whatever breed this ponderous and sluggish thing might be, it's certainly no greyhound)...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Don't forget about my contributions...

In actual fact, the thread would have faded away a long time ago had you not made statements such as 'Liszt directly contacts me and told me this, this and this...' and used it to justify your poor performances. Had you just posted your performances and said, I believe it should be played like this, we would have said it sucked, told you what was wrong with it and hoped you'd take it into consideration and bettered the performance (had they been current or pieces in progress) instead of recordings from the bloody 1990's.

INSTEAD, you tried to justify your frail, fragile ego by claiming that a composer who has long been dead and was held in the highest esteem among his peers during his lifetime, spoke directly to you and not someone else better deserving (like Leslie Howard for instance) claiming that our professional attempts at recording their works have been in vain.

You insult us, by claiming that such a pithy excuse is your justification for bastardising the pieces and turning them into audible diarrhea, which has no merit, credibility or any plausibility at least. I think now, the only respectful thing you can do for piano playing, the forum and the members here, is to simply stop posting recordings and/or your insane rambling comments.

Please consider it...

Hi perfect_pitch,

The arrangement was given to me by Franz Liszt.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due.  I never made any observation about my playing of the arrangement except that I did not do everything as intended by Liszt.  How well the interpretation was played on that occasion, and the merits/demerits of the arrangement, are two different things.  The involvement of Liszt is a third thing.

[stoat_king]

Its is not my way to report anyone for anything.

So it is with a heavy heart...



More in sorrow than in anger lol

[michael_sayers]

Well, I've held back from doing this until now, so I'll do so no longer. The recording is appalling, the piano hopelessly inadequate, the tempo beyond soporific, the "arrangement" is so perverse as to merit the description "derangement" and the playing borders on the despicable.

Will that do for now?

Hi Alistair,

Thanks for the observations.  I was hoping for something a bit more specific - nonetheless I can be satisfied with what you have posted about the arrangement.

The piano, by the way, was a N.Y. Steinway D and its previous owner was the Dallas Symphony Orchestra.  It was not the greatest of Steinway Ds, yet there was not anything wrong with it.

[j_menz]

It was not the greatest of Steinway Ds, yet there was not anything wrong with it.

Just one thing, mainly.

[michael_sayers]

INSTEAD, you tried to justify your frail, fragile ego by claiming that a composer who has long been dead and was held in the highest esteem among his peers during his lifetime, spoke directly to you and not someone else better deserving (like Leslie Howard for instance) claiming that our professional attempts at recording their works have been in vain.

How do you know that Liszt has not been in touch with Leslie Howard?  And why would Leslie tell you or anyone else about it?

[michael_sayers]

Just one thing, mainly.

Let me guess . . . it was the pianist! 

[j_menz]

Let me guess . . . it was the pianist! 

Just the bit above the shoulders. The rest seemed OK.

[8_octaves]

Well, I've held back from doing this until now, so I'll do so no longer. The recording is appalling, the piano hopelessly inadequate, the tempo beyond soporific, the "arrangement" is so perverse as to merit the description "derangement" and the playing borders on the despicable.

Will that do for now?

As far as it's an opinion: Yes.

But I see it in a little different torchlightenment.    

And you waited until the 159th posting to write that short message down ?
Imagine, you would have written it at the beginning, then much space would have been saved!  

Look, Alistair: Nobody's perfect. We think, while observing and monitoring other piano players:

"They are a very "wondrous, strange" species of human beings." Or: "That's ugly". Or: "That's derangement".

And we find specialists, allrounders, pianist-composers, amateurs, arrangers, and jazzers among them. Sometimes even other curators or librarians... .  

But: Looking into a mirror, the most wondrous, strange specimens perhaps are: we ourselves.

"Omnis mundi creatura
quasi liber et pictura
nobis est, et speculum."

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[ahinton]

you waited until the 159th posting to write that short message down ?
Imagine, you would have written it at the beginning, then much space would have been saved!  

Oh, I rather doubt it! A lot of what's been posted (including by me) hasn't been about that subject in any case but I strongly suspect that most if not all of it would have been posted anyway!

Look, Alistair: Nobody's perfect. We think, while observing and monitoring other piano players:

"They are a very "wondrous, strange" species of human beings." Or: "That's ugly". Or: "That's derangement".

And we find specialists, allrounders, pianist-composers, amateurs, arrangers, and jazzers among them. Sometimes even other curators or librarians... .  

But: Looking into a mirror, the most wondrous, strange specimens perhaps are: we ourselves.

"Omnis mundi creatura
quasi liber et pictura
nobis est, et speculum."

Of course no one is perfect! Not even Liszt! But the thread was instigated to garner opinions and, after reticence on the subject for the number of posts that you mention, I provided mine, for what it may or may not be worth.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

[deleted]

[michael_sayers]

Just the bit above the shoulders. The rest seemed OK.

I was hoping you would say that the piano had a "loose nut" attached to it.

[ahinton]

Hi Alistair,

Thanks for the observations.  I was hoping for something a bit more specific - nonetheless I can be satisfied with what you have posted about the arrangement.

The piano, by the way, was a N.Y. Steinway D and its previous owner was the Dallas Symphony Orchestra.  It was not the greatest of Steinway Ds, yet there was not anything wrong with it.

Then perhaps it was the recording of it that made it sound worse that it is in real life.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

How do you know that Liszt has not been in touch with Leslie Howard?  And why would Leslie tell you or anyone else about it?

We've been there before. Leslie Howard, like other distinguished Liszt scholars, conducts his research and publishes it in order that his findings and assessments can be shared with others; that's what musicologists do (although Leslie is also a pianist who has recorded just about every known semiquaver that Liszt ever wrote for the piano). Had so momentous an experience befallen him and had it expanded his knowledge of the subject, would anyone really suppose that he would have kept it to himself despite a widely documented track record of sharing his findings about and performances of Liszt over at least three dacdes?

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Then perhaps it was the recording of it that made it sound worse that it is in real life.

Best,

Alistair

It sounded great in real life, you can trust me on this.

[michael_sayers]

We've been there before. Leslie Howard, like other distinguished Liszt scholars, conducts his research and publishes it in order that his findings and assessments can be shared with others; that's what musicologists do (although Leslie is also a pianist who has recorded just about every known semiquaver that Liszt ever wrote for the piano). Had so momentous an experience befallen him and had it expanded his knowledge of the subject, would anyone really suppose that he would have kept it to himself despite a widely documented track record of sharing his findings about and performances of Liszt over at least three dacdes?

Best,

Alistair

I think this is the sort of thing most persons would keep to themselves.  Why not ask Leslie about it?

[ahinton]

It sounded great in real life, you can trust me on this.

If so and if I do, the recording must be at least partially responsible for the quality of sound presented here.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think this is the sort of thing most persons would keep to themselves.  Why not ask Leslie about it?

I know Leslie Howard. I'm not sure if he knows, or knows of, you. If he doesn't (and I know very little about you myself), can you imagine just how preposterous it would sound were I to do just that?! Maybe you can't, but it doesn't escape me.

AH: Oh, by the way, Leslie, there's this English-speaking guy whom I know of only through a piano forum but have never met and who is in personal contact with Liszt who he says is helping him in a number of ways, not least in tracing a hitherto unknown and undocumented Liszt ms. that's supposedly somewhere in a country where English is not the principal language and yet, frustratingly, Liszt's not yet given him the precise location or ownership details of this ms. Now isn't that interesting? Since this guy makes no pretence as being one of the world's acknowledged Liszt scholars as you yourself are - and since there seems to be no obvious reason for Liszt being in touch with him (and the guy says that he doesn't even know why himself) - it might seem reasonable to assume that Liszt has similarly been in touch with you and I for one would be fascinated to know more about that, including the kinds of things you've discussed and...

LH: (says nothing in response but cuts AH's prattlings short by throwing a Model D at him forcibly)...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I know Leslie Howard. I'm not sure if he knows, or knows of, you. If he doesn't (and I know very little about you myself), can you imagine just how preposterous it would sound were I to do just that?! Maybe you can't, but it doesn't escape me.

AH: Oh, by the way, Leslie, there's this English-speaking guy whom I know of only through a piano forum but have never met and who is in personal contact with Liszt who he says is helping him in a number of ways, not least in tracing a hitherto unknown and undocumented Liszt ms. that's supposedly somewhere in a country where English is not the principal language and yet, frustratingly, Liszt's not yet given him the precise location or ownership details of this ms. Now isn't that interesting? Since this guy makes no pretence as being one of the world's acknowledged Liszt scholars as you yourself are - and since there seems to be no obvious reason for Liszt being in touch with him (and the guy says that he doesn't even know why himself) - it might seem reasonable to assume that Liszt has similarly been in touch with you and I for one would be fascinated to know more about that, including the kinds of things you've discussed and...

LH: (says nothing in response but cuts AH's prattlings short by throwing a Model D at him forcibly)...

Best,

Alistair

I think it would need to be conducted differently, e.g. by expressing that you want to get his thought on something privately, and has he ever heard of the "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March" mentioned in this thread.

And maybe he has heard of it . . . and when he reads the thread he might, or might not, have his own "Liszt story" to tell if there is one.

I can't think of why most persons would reveal an otherworldly claim such as here without at least something to back it up.  For me, it will be the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March manuscript.  Bringing it into the light won't prove anything, except that I did say in advance that such a manuscript exists, and most likely the information was obtained by me from somewhere [and I doubt anyone will be able to specify any source other than the one I have provided].

[j_menz]

Presumably, had Liszt actually transcribed it, he's have got the name right. Picky about such matters was Frankie.

[michael_sayers]

Alistair,

I know the street address.  Who owns it though - address and owner don't always correlate, and there can be such things as the physical object's owner being different than the owner of the music content, though I wouldn't think that could apply here . . . yet if the music content has never been registered for copyright, then to do so in the U.S. would be a legal start date on it - in the U.S., copyright laws are federal, and as such the U.S. courts only go by registration and the date of registration (or deposit) as being decisive.

[michael_sayers]

Presumably, had Liszt actually transcribed it, he's have got the name right. Picky about such matters was Frankie.

I think it likely is a similar instance to that of the tempo di marcia music from Gounod's Faust, which Liszt allowed to be published under a struggling composer's name.  Except that with the Handel March, the manuscript is not lost . . . or, it won't be lost for much longer.

[ahinton]

I think it would need to be conducted differently, e.g. by expressing that you want to get his thought on something privately, and has he ever heard of the "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March" mentioned in this thread.

Not content with suggesting that I ask Leslie Howard about this, you now suggest how I should go about doing so! Sure, I could thrown in the question that you mention but, unless - or perhaps even if - he has some knowledge of it himself, I don't see that taking anything away from the sheer absurdity of making such an approach to him.

And maybe he has heard of it . . . and when he reads the thread he might, or might not, have his own "Liszt story" to tell if there is one.

He has many such to tell - and he has told them - though not the kind about which you've been writing.

I can't think of why most persons would reveal an otherworldly claim such as here without at least something to back it up.

So why have you done it  and with such vociferous repetitiveness?

For me, it will be the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March manuscript.  Bringing it into the light won't prove anything, except that I did say in advance that such a manuscript exists, and most likely the information was obtained by me from somewhere [and I doubt anyone will be able to specify any source other than the one I have provided].

But you haven't done it yet; if you believe that, in a similar situation, Leslie Howard would likely have kept such a tale to himself, why have you revealed all except the ms. that you say Liszt told you exists and which you say that you're trying to locate?

If you do locate it, are successful in obtaining it or a copy of it, are then able to persuade its owner to have the original professionally authenticated and it turns out indeed to be a Liszt ms., you would doubtless stick to your story of how you came to find out about it but whilst, as you say, "the information was obtained by (you) from somewhere", your "doubt (that) anyone will be able to specify any source other than the one (that you) have provided" is unfounded, not least because the owner of the ms. would presumably be expected to know what it is that he owns (even if it has yet to be professionally authenticated) and could therefore have told you or someone else about it and, for that matter, the source from which said owner obtained it might well have been able to do the same.

You wouldn't need recourse to or comment on Hume, Mill, Sartre et al to work that one out!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I know the street address.

As you have already said.

Who owns it though - address and owner don't always correlate, and there can be such things as the physical object's owner being different than the owner of the music content, though I wouldn't think that could apply here

You're right; it couldn't. You are also correct to say that its owner might not reside or work at the address where it is located but whoever's in charge of it would be expected to know who owns it.

yet if the music content has never been registered for copyright, then to do so in the U.S. would be a legal start date on it - in the U.S., copyright laws are federal, and as such the U.S. courts only go by registration and the date of registration (or deposit) as being decisive.

Forgive me for so saying, but that's nonsense. Liszt died in 1886 (as I have had cause to remind you in a different context previously) and not only is he therefore no longer alive but also all of his work, whether or not previously published, known about, documented or whatever else, is in the public domain for intellectual property purposes, so this work could not be copyrighted in US or anywhere else now because its copyright term will long since have expired; whilst there remain anomalies in the minefield of intellectual property rights and copyright terms vary from country to country, the increasingly standard term for copyright in a musical work is the last day of December in the 70th year following its originator's (i.e. the composer's) death and, in the case of a transcription by one composer of another's work, that 70-year term could apply to both the original composer and the transcriber although, of course, in this case, the original composer is Handel who died in 1759, more than half a century before Liszt was even born, so there is no question of copyright.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Not content with suggesting that I ask Leslie Howard about this, you now suggest how I should go about doing so! Sure, I could thrown in the question that you mention but, unless - or perhaps even if - he has some knowledge of it himself, I don't see that taking anything away from the sheer absurdity of making such an approach to him.
He has many such to tell - and he has told them - though not the kind about which you've been writing.
So why have you done it  and with such vociferous repetitiveness?
But you haven't done it yet; if you believe that, in a similar situation, Leslie Howard would likely have kept such a tale to himself, why have you revealed all except the ms. that you say Liszt told you exists and which you say that you're trying to locate?

If you do locate it, are successful in obtaining it or a copy of it, are then able to persuade its owner to have the original professionally authenticated and it turns out indeed to be a Liszt ms., you would doubtless stick to your story of how you came to find out about it but whilst, as you say, "the information was obtained by (you) from somewhere", your "doubt (that) anyone will be able to specify any source other than the one (that you) have provided" is unfounded, not least because the owner of the ms. would presumably be expected to know what it is that he owns (even if it has yet to be professionally authenticated) and could therefore have told you or someone else about it and, for that matter, the source from which said owner obtained it might well have been able to do the same.

You wouldn't need recourse to or comment on Hume, Mill, Sartre et al to work that one out!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

I haven't suggested that you ask Leslie Howard about this.  I only asked why you do not do this.

As for why I mentioned the communion with Liszt, when a composer posts a recording of a composition or arrangement it is appropriate to state relevant background information.  As the arrangement was given to me by Liszt, I give credit where credit is due.

I think it possible that the owner of the manuscript may not be aware of it.  Just as, the library in France did not know they had a copy of the previously unknown Deak by Franz Liszt until Martin Berkofsky found it and - supposedly - had "stumbled" across it, although I assume this to be metaphorical.  We can speculate on the possible scenarios regarding the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March if you wish, but this doesn't effect whatever the reality of the situation will be discovered to involve.

[ahinton]

I think it likely is a similar instance to that of the tempo di marcia music from Gounod's Faust, which Liszt allowed to be published under a struggling composer's name.  Except that with the Handel March, the manuscript is not lost . . . or, it won't be lost for much longer.

If and when it is found and its contents revealed, there will be something to discuss; in the meantime, thee's only the quest for it to be discussed (or, better still, ignored by all other than you until you have successfully completed it).

Best,

Alistir

[michael_sayers]

Liszt died in 1886 (as I have had cause to remind you in a different context previously) and not only is he therefore no longer alive but also all of his work, whether or not previously published, known about, documented or whatever else, is in the public domain for intellectual property purposes, so this work could not be copyrighted in US or anywhere else now because its copyright term will long since have expired; whilst there remain anomalies in the minefield of intellectual property rights and copyright terms vary from country to country, the increasingly standard term for copyright in a musical work is the last day of December in the 70th year following its originator's (i.e. the composer's) death and, in the case of a transcription by one composer of another's work, that 70-year term could apply to both the original composer and the transcriber although, of course, in this case, the original composer is Handel who died in 1759, more than half a century before Liszt was even born, so there is no question of copyright.

Best,

Alistair

Happy Birthday to You was composed in the 1800s, but not registered for copyright until 1935, and as such the music content is in copyright today.  U.S. courts only care about the date of registration (or deposit), and nothing else.

[michael_sayers]

See here . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

[ahinton]

I haven't suggested that you ask Leslie Howard about this.  I only asked why you do not do this.

No, I know that, in both cases - and I provided my answer, to which you have not referred in your response.

As for why I mentioned the communion with Liszt, when a composer posts a recording of a composition or arrangement it is appropriate to state relevant background information.  As the arrangement was given to me by Liszt, I give credit where credit is due.

For the umpteenth time, no! You seek to give credit to Liszt for something that you say, but cannot possibly prove, that he gave to you; your "credit" is therefore predicated on nothing more than an expressed personal opinion based upon an experience that you claim to have had.

I think it possible that the owner of the manuscript may not be aware of it.  Just as, the library in France did not know they had a copy of the previously unknown Deak by Franz Liszt until Martin Berkofsky found it and - supposedly - had "stumbled" across it, although I assume this to be metaphorical.  We can speculate on the possible scenarios regarding the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March if you wish, but this doesn't effect whatever the reality of the situation will be discovered to involve.

It is indeed true, as you say, that even libraries don't always know precisely what they have and own but, if the case of the ms. that you tell us that you're trying to locate is one such - i.e. it's in a library that has omitted for whatever reason or none properly to catalogue it (and even if there's also no audit trail of how said library came by it in the first place) your claim will not thereby be verified; yes, it will be an unusual situation indeed in such circumstances were you to tell such a library that it possesses a ms. that you know about and whose location within it you have found out about and the ms. turns out, following professional authentication, to be precisely what you claim it to be, but you will still be faced with being unable to prove your claim as to how you found out about it and what led you to discover it. That said, this will surely not matter, because what will really matter is that you will by whatever means have discovered a hitherto unknown and undocumented Liszt ms., which would surely be something to be proud of!

Again, for the umpteenth time, let's please all wait until you have done this!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

See here . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

Selective reading's nevefr a great idea; you appear either not to have noticed or to have chosen to ignore the following in the article to which you linked:
The American copyright status of "Happy Birthday to You" began to draw more attention with the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Act in Eldred v. Ashcroft in 2003, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer specifically mentioned "Happy Birthday to You" in his dissenting opinion.[10] American law professor Robert Brauneis, who extensively researched the song, has concluded that "It is almost certainly no longer under copyright."[1] In 2013, based in large part on Brauneis's research, Good Morning to You Productions, a documentary film company, sued Warner/Chappell for falsely claiming copyright to the song.[4][6]

As I mentioned, intellectual property law and rights remains a minefield but is gradually getting cleared up. In the meantime, I can assure you that you would be wasting your time applying to register for copyright the work whose ms. you say that you're seeking; for one thing, there is not even an estate to benefit from it and, as the copyright would not belong to you just because you've discovered the artifact that is its ms., there would be no one in whose name such copyright could legitimately be registered in the first place. It's not, after all, a simple case of "finders keepers", particularly given that the paper artifact that is the ms. itself and the rights that might once have been vested in the composer/transcriber (had such rights even been around as part of the law in the days when the transcription was written) are two entirely separate entities in law.

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

[...]not be copyrighted in US or anywhere else now because its copyright term will long since have expired; whilst there remain anomalies in the minefield of intellectual property rights and copyright terms vary from country to country, the increasingly standard term for copyright in a musical work is the last day of December in the 70th year following its originator's (i.e. the composer's) death and, in the case of a transcription by one composer of another's work, that 70-year term could apply to both the original composer and the transcriber although, [...]

Yes. That's right. It's a minefield. The "70-years-dead" - thumb rule is assumed mostly, here in Germany, too.

But how easily can there occur difficulties. E.g.: I don't know if you knew about such cases: Richard Krentzlin's ( 1864-1956 ) heirs have taken over the copyright for at least some works arranged by him in a collection-book of the Lienau-Edition, which I have. He isn't dead for over 70 years now, but...even if he was, there comes the German inheritance law in contact with the copyright law ( a copyright can be renewed, or inherited, as I said ), and then the matter becomes difficult.

Liszt had 3 children, I think.  

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[michael_sayers]

. . .  I can assure you that you would be wasting your time applying to register for copyright the work whose ms. you say that you're seeking . . .

Why would I register a musical work of the performing arts for copyright if I am not the person who notated it?

[michael_sayers]

. . . For the umpteenth time, no! You seek to give credit to Liszt for something that you say, but cannot possibly prove, that he gave to you; your "credit" is therefore predicated on nothing more than an expressed personal opinion based upon an experience that you claim to have had. . . .

I can not prove my communion with Liszt to others.  So what?  I give credit where credit is due.

I might know a guy who says he saw a tornado, but he can not prove this to me or to anyone else.  If he were a composer he might even write a composition about the experience and title it Il Tornado.

Such things may only be stories to others, but they may be vitally important to the person or persons who lived them.  It isn't for you to judge here what is fact or fiction.  All that you can know is that there is a story.

[8_octaves]

Why would I register a musical work of the performing arts for copyright if I am not the person who notated it?

Hi Michael, please see my posting about the HEIRS, e.g. 

Cordially, 8_oct.

[perfect_playing]

I was trying my best to avoid getting involved in this but as the number of posts was escalating so quickly I decided I might see what it was all about. It is ridiculous the way MS has spammed the Audition Room and not only is it wasting people's time by having to wade through his mass of pointless posts to find performances/recordings worth commenting on, but it's also very disrespectful to the website as a whole. MS, we all kindly ask that you stop posting here and use your youtube channel or your own website to share your recordings.

[perfect_pitch]

If so and if I do, the recording must be at least partially responsible for the quality of sound presented here.

Do you trust him??? That is the question...    

[michael_sayers]

Hi Michael, please see my posting about the HEIRS, e.g. 

Cordially, 8_oct.

Hi 8_octaves,

I did 


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

I was trying my best to avoid getting involved in this but as the number of posts was escalating so quickly I decided I might see what it was all about. It is ridiculous the way MS has spammed the Audition Room and not only is it wasting people's time by having to wade through his mass of pointless posts to find performances/recordings worth commenting on, but it's also very disrespectful to the website as a whole. MS, we all kindly ask that you stop posting here and use your youtube channel or your own website to share your recordings.

Greetings perfect_playing,

I won't be linking any new recordings to this forum for quite a while, I assure you of this, and probably once this thread dies away I will be little present here!

You might want to communicate your request also to Alistair Hinton, as directly as well, as he simply refuses to get off my back.  This thread isn't even about one of his compositions, yet he is here doggedly demanding to decide what the background story of the Bach arrangement can or can not be (but it is NOT his arrangement, so it is not his decision to make . . . ), et c.

[perfect_pitch]

I might know a guy who says he saw a tornado, but he can not prove this to me or to anyone else.  [/i].

The difference is - seeing a tornado and it could be said that the person had a legitimate claim to observing it... claiming Liszt spoke to you makes you sound like a rambling, psychotic nutcase.

[ahinton]

Yes. That's right. It's a minefield. The "70-years-dead" - thumb rule is assumed mostly, here in Germany, too.

But how easily can there occur difficulties. E.g.: I don't know if you knew about such cases: Richard Krentzlin's ( 1864-1956 ) heirs have taken over the copyright for at least some works arranged by him in a collection-book of the Lienau-Edition, which I have. He isn't dead for over 70 years now, but...even if he was, there comes the German inheritance law in contact with the copyright law ( a copyright can be renewed, or inherited, as I said ), and then the matter becomes difficult.

There have indeed been many difficulties with this over the years; one example affecting numerous composers all at once was when the 50-year rule suddenly became the 70-year one in UK and other countries and, as a consequence, the music of Elgar and other composers that had already entered the public domain was all plunged straight back into copyright, in some cases for less than a year and in others for up to 20 years!

Best,

Alistair