Communications

This column provides a forum for responses to the contents of this journal, and for information of interest to readers. The editor reserves the right to publish letters in excerpted form and to edit them for conciseness and clarity.

To the Editor:

In her review of publications by Rebecca Clarke (Notes, September 2003), Liane Curtis introduces a number of misleading observations.

In a spirit of full disclosure, let me state my interest in this matter. I am director, Music (USA), at Oxford University Press, which has been one of Clarke's principal publishers for nearly eighty years. I prepared the musical editions under review, wrote the accompanying editorial notes, and am directly responsible for every aspect of this music's publication. Privately, I own and exercise the composer's rights in Clarke's musical and literary works, and own most of her manuscripts and papers, pursuant to Clarke's wishes as realized by her heirs.

Dr. Curtis's review misinforms Notes readers in a number of instances, of which a few examples follow:

1. Dr. Curtis states that it "was not Clarke's wish" that I should own the rights in her works, and that Clarke "made no provision for the protection and promotion of her music after her death," which occurred in 1979. In fact, Clarke left three written statements of her intentions. As a result, Clarke's executor, with the unanimous and unconditional agreement of her heirs, assigned all her intellectual property rights to me and gave me all manuscripts and papers known to have been in her possession. This is a matter of public record.
2. Dr. Curtis states that Clarke's works have been "kept inaccessible in [her] estate" or "in most cases unavailable" for performance, recording, or study "for nearly twenty years after her death." This contradicts reality, as evidenced on the Rebecca Clarke Society Web site and in Dr. Curtis's own previous writings.
3. Dr. Curtis goes on to ask, "Who controls the materials?" and "How can scholars and musicians gain access?" The answers to these questions are self-evident: Clarke's four publishers control the rights in her published works, and I control the rights in her unpublished works and manuscripts. Scholars and musicians who are prepared to observe copyright in Clarke's works are welcome to apply for access to the unpublished materials by writing to Rebecca Clarke Music, P.O. Box 343, New York, NY 10156.
4. Dr. Curtis asserts that the bulk of Clarke's manuscripts and documents, which are "presumably" in my possession, suffer from a "lack of proper conservation." In fact, as she notes elsewhere in the review, Dr. Curtis has not had access to these materials since 1999, and thus has no idea where they are or how they are conserved.
5. Dr. Curtis writes, "Johnson's proprietary role colors his consideration of the source materials. . . . [In choosing between variant sources,] Johnson gives authority to the manuscript that he owns." In fact, as the published editorial notes plainly state, I consider all relevant sources but generally give greater weight to manuscripts that Clarke owned and kept in her own personal library.
6. Dr. Curtis states that an essential point in my editorial commentary is "unverifiable" and that "careful paleographic study" of the relevant sources is "not possible" because those sources are "held in private hands." In fact, Dr. Curtis herself confirms my point in a Web posting cited earlier in the review, where she reproduces the manuscript in question and quotes a statement from a previous private owner as verification.

[Nevertheless,] musicians and librarians have already embraced these publications, making it possible for Oxford to consider publishing and reprinting Clarke's works over virtually the full range of her output. We have completed publication of her choral works and her shorter pieces for viola and for cello, and we are well on our way to publishing the balance of her chamber music. Readers of Notes may rest assured that these publications will maintain Oxford's customary standards.

Christopher Johnson
Oxford University Press

The reviewer responds:

It is unfortunate that Mr. Johnson does not provide...