PipeChat Digest #75 - Wednesday, September 17, 1997
 
Re: Being let go....
  by Tom Jones <tomj@netpath.net>
Re: Wedding Music - HELP
  by Stuart Frankel <sqf4696@is2.nyu.edu>
 


(back) Subject: Re: Being let go.... From: Tom Jones <tomj@netpath.net> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:20:52 -0400   Scenario I > > You have a contract with your church as their org./chm ... it provides > for a minimum of thirty days notice of termination by either > party... > > Question: If the church wants to terminate you, what is the best > way (least painful) for them to do so? What, if > anything, would you like to be told? >   "We sincerely appreciate your service to the church, but it hasn't worked out, so we've decided to terminate the relationship. The program hasn't gone where it should, and we don't see it going where it should. Of course, this is nothing personal, so we hope you'll accept our best wishes. As per our agreement, here's a check for a month's pay. You certainly can have a few days to move all of your things out, though it would be best if everything were out by Sunday. We regret this, naturally, because we had all hoped things would work out. But this is the best course for everyone involved."   > >Scenario II > > You have been working for a church for a few years as their org./chm > ..... for some reason, the church "never got around" to > issuing you a contract... It was a bit difficult for you to > insist on the contract before beginning employment, because > you needed this source of regular income. >   This is the first mistake. It's a business relationship and shouldn't commence without a contract.   > > The minister asks you two months in succession for you to > resign. You refuse to resign. As you hold one of the > AGO certificates, presumably you are competent as a player. > Thus if there is a problem, the problem would be either > selection of music or various interpersonal relations... >   This is the second mistake. Regardless of who's right (if anyone is), if the minister asks for a resignation, obviously there's a big problem somewhere. At the very least, it's imperative to explore the problem with the minister, even agreeing to resign if necessary to get him/her to do so. Perhaps his/her mind can be changed. (Even if the minister doesn't have hiring/firing power, the org./chm. needs him/her on his/her side, and not as an adversary.) Find out what the problem is. At this point, there's nothing more to lose, but something perhaps can be gained--if not employment, then at least some insight.   > > At any rate, you come to the church one day in the third month and > find a letter from the minister giving notice of termination. >   Hardly surprising after being asked to resign for two months!   > > Question: If the church wants to terminate you, what would be > the best way (least painful) for them to do so? How would > you like to be terminated, if this was going to be done? > What if anything, would you like to be told? >   Same as above, except that presumably there won't be any severance pay as there was no contract.   >    
(back) Subject: Re: Wedding Music - HELP From: Stuart Frankel <sqf4696@is2.nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:34:33 -0700   > A lot of music got attributed > in this way by publishers who either didn't know any better or wanted to > sell copies by attributing it to someone famous.   Also a lot of music got misattributed because musicologists forgot that composers spent a lot of their time copying other composers' works. Most of the pieces misattributed to Bach fall into this category. What musicologists really like to see for a secure attribution is a compositional draft - a manuscript WITH CORRECTIONS - in the composer's hand. The late musicologist Thurston Dart was fond of shocking people by saying that we weren't really sure that the Brandenburg Concerti were by Bach, since we didn't have a composition draft in his hand. This was theoretically true, although nobody has really doubted the attribution: the scores in Bach's hand are fair copies, but Bach himself took credit for their composition, and we don't have any reason to doubt him on this matter (and we can check against other biographical information in any event).   > I think quite a few of > Bach's pieces are really by others including the 8 Little Preludes and > Fugues and perhaps even the T&F in d   If I remember correctly - and I'm just doing this from memory - the 8 Little Preludes and Fugues are in the hand of one of Bach's pupils (and copyists) - Kittel, I think - and resemble the latter's style more than Bach's. Also, one of the pieces has a high e''', which is never used in any of Bach's authenticated keyboard works. There's no claim on the original manuscript that the pieces were by Bach; it was just in the 19th century that Kittel's hand was recognized, from which followed the conclusion that if the pieces are in the hand of one of Bach's copyists, they must be by Bach.   The T&F in d *is* in Bach's hand, but it's mostly fair copy, and the corrections that are present make it look like an arrangment from something else. (We have some authenticated examples of this, e.g., in the harpsichord concertos arranged by Bach from his own violin concertos, so we know what his manuscripts look like when he's arranging things.) Also, Bach normally wrote "di J S Bach" or something similar after the title of his own works, and he didn't write that on the T&F. Also, the style is very unlike Bach's - the long, static harmonies that don't go anywhere. The repeated a's and d's are not very characteristic keyboard technique, but *are* very characteristic on the solo violin. So, there's really no evidence that the piece is by Bach.   Best, Stuart (musicology ABD with insomnia and is typing this at 4:30 in the morning, so kindly forgive him if this msg is totally incoherent)