Under UK copyright laws there are explicit provisions for students/educational use and explicit permission for transpositions (although the technical language provides wider scope). Even UK lawyers aren't so musicaly naive not to recognise that there's no significant difference between sight transposition and it being written out! Without this sort of permission church organists couldn't transpose hymns at sight because the resultant sound is not that written down and authorised for use/performance. Not that it matters for the classical works in question because the copyright has expired!

I'd always imagined that composers had reluctantly accepted compromises to accomodate the limitations of the natural horn. Obviously, an orchestra wishing to reproduce a historic sound shouldn't use modern instruments. I've never found this 'more realistic rendering' improves the quality of the music.

I'm with you. The love of period everything is a romantic notion I've never been seized with. There are important reasons why old instruments have been replaced with newer ones. The newer instruments SOUND BETTER!

(Ducking for cover from the purists!)

Val

Copyright - - - don't be so sure copyrights are expired. Example: Arcangelo Corelli (b.1653 d.1713). His estate still holds copyrights to his music. They sued John Williams for stealing Corelli's themes to be used in Phantom. They won and Mr. William wrote a check in the millions.

The 'estates' keep renewing these old copyrights.

Val - shame shame shame on you. The instruments sound better?!! I'm agast (smiling throwing rotten tomatoes). So what am I going to do with my old Cortois horns and hunting horns. The sound isn't better, it's just different.

I believe Strauss is still under copyright, too.

I had my shield up, John. Had it not been there, you would have hit me smack between the eyes!

Val

<<But all of this is rather off topic!>>
Off topic, but none the less fascinating. I really don't understand copyright laws or how any of such stuff works. I never thought of manuscripts being "interpreted." I just kinda assumed that what we get is what was written, but that apparently isn't the case. Now that you explain this, certain little things I've heard & seen here and there are beginning to make a little more sense. Thanks.

Val