A couple of recent threads have bemoaned banning of classical and other music by TSCC.

TSCC started the prohibition on music other than "their" music in the late 70s. I think the motivation is mostly legal (and if anyone asks who runs the church, the answer is -- the lawyers).

Far be it for me to defend TSCC in anything, but I do understand the problem. Although, copyrighted music can be used for worship services without paying a royalty, the rules are complex and far too difficult for the average ward chorister to contend with.

One might think that Bach is not copyrighted because his music was written more than two centuries ago. But, even that is not so simple.

To quote an article by Ronald B. Standler: "Copyright law in the USA gives protection during the life of the author plus 70 years. Beethoven died in 1827, so one might expect his copyrights to end in the year 1897 and all of his music to be in the public domain (i.e. not protected by copyright)."

However, "this simplistic view of copyright can be misleading. If you find in a library some work that was published before 1923, you can assume it is in the public domain. However a modern edition of Beethoven's works (e.g., the critical edition of Beethoven's symphonies published by Barenreiter) may be protected by copyright as a derivative work. Copyright protection for modern editorial changes in public-domain works is a complicated topic."

Not to bore anyone further, the upshot is that it has always seemed to me that, in the late 70s after passage of the 1976 Copyright Law in the U.S., TSCC's lawyers advised that the simplest approach to a difficult problem is to instruct ward music directors to use only music appearing in TSCC's authorized music books (where the copyright issues have already been vetted).

That way, TSCC has a defense to a demand from ASCAP or any other music licensing organization that it has instructed all wards and branches to use no music other than music approved by TSCC for which copyright infringement is not a concern.

In another thread someone asked, "Who really runs the church?" I answered the lawyers -- and that is the correct answer, not just for the church but for all corporations. (As a friend who makes videos for pharmaceutical companies complained, "The lawyers run everything. I can't proceed to film a video until legal has signed off on the script, the shooting plan, etc.).

Does anyone think the Essays would have been published without the advice and explicit consent of TSCC's lawyers? No way.

I guess it would depend on if the church purchased some sort of umbrella music rights - like ASCAP licensing. I am pretty sure our church is covered through a blanket license from the United Methodist Denomination. Our choir director uses music outside of the United Methodist Hymnals all the time. Just yesterday she play part of Vivaldi's Gloria. Later in the service during Communion, another church member sang a contemporary tune that is not in the hymals.

I suspect it is more about the church keeping control. Which is sad because some of the greatest religious music of all time was written by classical composers.

Classical music is all old. Copyright laws are not applicable.

Truth is that much of Mormon music was taken from other churches. It's also old now, but some of it was not when the Mormons laid claim on it.

True that the church took many hymns from other religions, which hymns are now in the public domain. True that classical music is old. Not true, however, that all classical music is in the public domain. My original post included one example of this.

The article I quoted from includes others. For example, in 2001 a musicologist prepared new editions of three works by a composer who died in 1726. They were recorded by Hyperion. Hyperion paid a fee but not royalties to the musicologist. He sued for copyright infringement and won. Additionally, as the article points out, it is possible that a copyright has expired in the U.S. but not in a foreign country.

As for obtaining a blanket license, it could be quite expensive for a worldwide church controlled from a central SLC headquarters and numbering some 12 million according to church claims (as opposed to individual licenses for decentralized congregations, such as Jewish temples, each of which operates pretty independently and has 400 or so congregates).

For a church that won't pay janitors, I'm guessing they were loathe to pay a yearly worldwide license fee to ASCAP. Far cheaper and better to limit the music that can be used (plus -- this limitation has the added and very real benefit of correlating music so that some wards don't end up playing Beatles music in services!).

I am not saying that copyright infringement is the only motivation for limiting church music, but honestly as an attorney, if I had been asked what the right answer to this dilemma is, I would have said precisely what the church did -- limit music in all branches, wards and stakes worldwide to official hymnbooks that have been vetted for copyright issues.

No excuses for a church I refuse to have anything to do with. But, with all the complaints about limiting church music, I thought the legal point of view might be helpful.

Copyright law is not black and white. There are many different ways to interpret it. Playing music of a classical with new arrangement in church? Not a problem as long as the sheet music was purchased, not scanned and handed out. Playing the same music for a CD recording? Better check with your lawyer first. The difference is profit vs not for profit. For a performance, playing sheet music is fine. Trying to profit off that sheet music, such as recording a CD, you need to get permission (and pay a royalty most likely).

I think the Morg just has a stick up it's butt. Did you know that only classical instruments can be played in sacrament? Violin, flute, etc. No guitars (unless in an area where there is no other alternative). Someone wanted to play guitar accompaniment in church once, and was denied because "only classical instruments may be played".

Copyright has little to do with the Mormon higher-ups dislike and discouragement of classical music.

In my younger and (enforced!) active days we had a VERY talented musician and composer as our district music direct/choirmaster. He would write original pieces which we would perform at district or regional conferences to great acclaim, and even to mention in the local press.Bear in mind that this was in an area where Mormons were,and still are, barely a blip on the radar.

I can still recall the scowl replace the boredom on the face of the new mission president when we sang one such anthem at the conference where our district, an entire Australian state was elevated to a stake.

The ukase came down shortly after that we were no longer to sing such music, only hymns from the blue hymn book.

Out with that went our organist's invariable prelude"Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring".

The mission president was the one and only Bruce R McConkie on his fast track to apostleship.

who don't buy the music that they perform in church. I've never seen such flagrant violation of copyright.

If copyright was the original issue, they sure never talk about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2014 09:39PM by imaworkinonit.

Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you...

Bunk.

I took organ lessons from three organists. The first was a paid organist for the local Lutheran church, and he was the one who gave me some really beautiful, intermediate lever music. I NEVER COPIED MUSIC. I always bought it from legitimate music stores. He told me which organ books to buy. The Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy were all original music, not adaptations. Most of them I had learned through piano lessons from a talented neighbor, then BYU, then University of Utah. I taught piano lessons, myself, for many years. I always declared my income to the US Government, which not all Mormon piano teachers do.

Never, did I have any problems with copyrights and legalities.

I was quite shy, and preferred to be in the background, accompanying the choir and others, and playing quiet (but beautiful, to me) classical preludes and postludes. Anyone who accuses musicians of "showing off" has 1) no appreciation for GOOD music and 2) no experience hearing really GOOD music. The Mormons, yet again, are missing another of the joys of life. Good music can move your very soul! (All kinds of good music, including jazz, and hard rock.)

I love classical music the best. It is the most fun to play. That's it. No ulterior motive, except to experience the pure joy of being in "flow." Hours would go by, while I was playing, and I'd look at the clock and it would say 3:00 am. "Flow" is a kind of exalted state of losing yourself in something you love. Losing yourself is probably the opposite of "showing off." The Mormon music never resonated with me. It was boring. I was not inspired. When the music died, I stopped playing.

It was about 1984-1985. I'm not sure of the date, but I am sure that it happened at the same time that the Sunday services were extended to three hours and all of the lessons--and the musical Primary programs--were correlated. The wards could no longer write their own presentations. The "RS Singing Mothers" vanished, along with the road shows and dance festivals and RS "cultural refinement" lessons. When the music died, I was pretty much gone, except for robotic "fulfillment" (Right!) of my callings. I felt like taping the repetitive Mormon dirges, and giving one of those 80's boom-boxes to the choristers. "Push 'play' when you want music, and 'stop' when you're done."

I learned to be afraid what people would think of me at the Mormon church. I kept my head down for so many years, and I often still do, because I don't want people to think I'm 'showing off'.

Implying that someone who is trying to express their art is showing off is damaging and insulting.