At the end of this example, Matanya wrote:
is an example of an entire passage in the guitar which uses a totally different musical text. ...
Matanya wrote, "God only knows where
it came from."
I was thinking about asking Her,
too. It was a mystery to me, also. But a little sleuthing found what Mayanya did.
The four versions of the Delight Pavan are set out in
parallel for easy comparison in Appendix 1, showing the variants found in the Willoughby, Marsh, Ballet
and Welde manuscripts.
Here are the four at measures 29-30.
I didn't have to look very
Matanya has taken the guitar arrangement of the Ballet version
of meas. 29.5-30 and substituted it for the Marsh measures, in order to allege that
I used some unknown source.
It's on page 104 of the guitar volume.
It's fortunate that Matanya's not a crook, because he'd make a pretty
inept one, at that!
Ophee's musical example is a forgery!!!
This example, which is not identified in the letter
(perhaps to discourage comparisons), is from No. 25, The Division of the French Galliard, measures 5-9. Ophee complains
(Open Letter, January 19, 1993):
first and third beats are another typical example of the problems expressed in Example 3.
Elsewhere he remarks: I
suggested to John we retain it with a slight modification of the third beat. [(footnote:)
... the double stem .. would have induced guitarists to play a unison.]
First, Matanya is not being truthful here, because
he shortened the first note, and the guitar version actually follows the copy Ward supplied with
the double stems on the second G, a note that would ring because it is an open course. (Repeatedly Ophee ignores the
sound quality of open strings, an important aspect in all string writing.)
Measure 3 is surely more acceptable than Ophee's suggestion
(Paul O'Dette agreed), and it is interesting that Ward rejected the suggested changes in the guitar part. And of course the
double stem does not mean two strings unless so indicated. Usually such notes are written as separate notes, one offset, and
the strings must be indicated. Matanya should study how guitar polyphony is properly notated these days.
Here is what John Ward okayed for publication,
before Ophee started his surrepitious meddling with Ward's well considered work. The whole note is correct because
the open string will continue sounding when it is struck the second time. The stem-up is appropriate here, because there is
a running counterpoint in eighth-notes throughout, as in a species counterpoint exercise. Ward is the editor. I followed his instructions.
Matanya has created another forged musical example.
It amazes me that this man, whom I once considered a dear friend, would lie about such an inconsequential, petty matter.
I didn't change anything. I provided what Ward had asked for. It is Matanya's meddling that created this mistake.
Here is the AUTHORIZED passage, as well as the original transcription by John
**John H. Baron, Laurence Berman, Masakata Kanazawa, et al. The Collected
Works of John, Edward and Robert Johnson (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959), pp. 26-7 (signed "J.H.B.").
Another unidentified example is from Pavan No. 10,
another forged example with an explanation in double-speak. He writes,
figure ...made its way into the keyboard before Ralph [Doug in the second version] Freundlich had a chance to catch
it. Nevertheless, if Arthur considers himself a knowledgeable transcriber, for either guitar or lute, he should have brought
this to John's attention, before it was presented to me as a final engraving ready to print.
I have no idea
how this passed muster with Doug. If it made its way before he should have caught it. Matanya means
that maybe it may have made its way after. But that is not so. All of the tablatures and guitar
versions were made long after Doug's emendations had been entered into our files. Doug probably overlooked the
little dot. It's been there for nearly 50 years! It is in the original transcription of this piece made by
John H. Baron (now professor of music at hurricane ravaged Tulane University). Here it is in Ward's approved musical
text (I show the courses and show an emendation in meas. 19, and Baron's transcription):
I followed the text given me by Ward. The
dotted whole note required a tied note according to the approved text, which had been examined for "playability" by Doug Fruendlich.
But that was the text given me, and I engraved it.
As editor of the guitar volume, it was in fact Matanya's responsibility to check the playability
of everything in that volume. I was depending on him for that assistance, and he was quite aware of that responsibility.
HE KNOWS PERFECTLY WELL THAT WHAT I SENT WERE DRAFT TRANSCRIPTIONS.
He is fibbing when he claims that I presented him with finished engravings. Ophee is under
the impression that I was expected to provide him with a finished, fingered and edited guitar volume to which he would place
his name. As it is, his name is on MY work, and no where is my contribution acknowledged. Douglas Alton Smith remarked
on this in his review for Soundboard magazine.
The title page reads "Adapted for the guitar by Matanya Ophee." He should have made the transcriptions
himself, if he is able to do that kind of work, which I doubt, as the many mistakes testify.
The guitar transcriptions that I prepared were drafts for Matanya to edit. In fact I never finished
them, nor was I ever paid in full. So it is false when he claims that the two measures were "presented to me as
a final engraving ready to print." That is a lie.
In November 1993, Matanya was complaining about all the passages that he could only play
if he had six fingers.
This is the only one he cited at the infamous meeting at 20 Follen Street in Cambridge. So
he himself had ALREADY "brought this to Johns attention."
If there are "about 60 similar occurrences <sic> throughout the book," he showed none of them to John and me at that meeting, nor has he cited any
subsequently. I worked directly from the proofs Doug corrected for "playability." I witnessed how thorough Doug's work had
been, since I entered all the suggested changes he advised with his little green pencil. And in comparing his alterations
to Ward's approved musical text with Ophee's mangled guitar versions, I found no places where changes were made to repair
notation that required "six fingers." So Matanya's lying again. He and Freundlich were responsible for checking
Matanya's accusations are bogus. As editor of the guitar volume it was his responsibility
to catch anything that Doug's eagle eye missed. And he doesn't seem to have caught much.
The guitar work consisted of DRAFT TRANSCRIPTIONS, and I begged Matanya to provide me with
printout so I could do proofreading while on vacation in Maine.
I only received the first 30, or so, pages. And as editor of the volume, Matanya clearly knew that it was his responsibilityto
double-check Doug's work, particularly since some stretches might be impossible when transferred to guitar.
His unauthorized changes to Ward's transcriptions and to the guitar transcriptions I made are
a disaster. Matanya is just trying to shift the blame from his shoulders to mine. He destroyed FOUR years
of work with his ego-driven incompetence. And made my former teacher, William Powell Mason Professor of Music emeritus at Harvard
University, look like a musical simpleton. Which he is not.
Matanya should hang his head in shame for debasing the professional reputation of such a distinguished gentleman.
Once again I was following the text approved by Ward, and it would be improper for me to depart
from his text at the time.
This unidentified snippet is from No. 20, a galliard.
I had discussed this with John Ward. It is an inner voice, and typical of Johnson's style. To make it into soprano-centrist
guitar music with the melody always on top is not being faithful to what Johnson wrote. The tablature confirms that
point of view. Johnson often uses such inner lines, with accompanying chords above and below. So this is one of many
characteristic passages, some of which Matanya altered (see the Scotch snap cited earlier).
It appears elsewhere in the piece. I show the course
numbers for reference. This is an attempt to make a guitar piece from a keyboard, soprano-centrist arrangement.
A guitar transcription should reflect what the lute tablature shows. To make a guitar transcription of a lute piece
from a keyboard arrangement rather than the lute original is just plumb stoopid. I explained that to Ward and
Once again the source for this example is not
given. It's No. 19, "Johnson's Jewel."
As you can see, the same assumption of authorship
here, changing the durations of some notes in the opening chords of mm. 44, 45 and 46.
This is utter nonsense. It was Matanya who was "assuming authorship,"
as I have demonstrated. I didn't lengthen the duration of some notes, I just forgot to shorten them. Where are
the proofreaders? I reguarly got the impression that it was my job to provide a finished edition to which Matanya could
add his name.
To my displeasure and Ward's dismay, Matanya asked that the
note values in all pieces in 3/2 and 6/4 be reduced to 3/4 and 6/8. (Matanya said his customers couldn't read music in
3/2 meter.<honest!>) That I let the dotted quarters remain
is an oversight, the result of exhaustion. I was often working 12-14 hours a day on the edition, and this transcription
must have been done at the end of a long day.
And Matanya was shirking his responsibilities as proofreader. Was
I expected to do everything? I think so. Ward at first even refused to proofread the tablatures. He never did proofread
the guitar transcriptions. (The guitar versions were made directly through computer manipulation from Ward's approved
grand staff transcriptions.)
As editor of the guitar volume, Matanya needed only mark them on the
proofs and I would have gladly made the change. As editor of the guitar volume, it was Matanya's responsibility to see
that the two transcriptions agreed. He's probably incapable. Instead he seems to have expected me to make a guitar edition,
and proofread so he could claimit as his work. Nowhere does he acknowledge that I made the guitar transcriptions.
The guitar pages for No. 19 had been transmitted to Ophee on October
27, 1993 (at 10:15 a.m.). And when do I first hear a complaint? In an open letter to Paul O'Dette (who had
no involvement) dated January 19, 1994. As editor of the guitar volume, it was Matanya's responsibility to do
the proof reading. But I guess like Ward, he expected me to do that too.
For this response, I examined the original files for this piece and there
are some other strange things. I did not have an opportunity to proofread this piece.
My weariness is shown in measure 7 of this example. I was
virtually making the edition by myself, with little assistance from Ward or Ophee. Ward at first even refused to proofread
the tablatures. And as I know now, Matanya was incapable of assisting, because he could barely read music, as the examples
shown here illustrate.
Matanya's proofreading isn't very good. These
are so obvious. I am aware of the critical notes for measure 23.
But don't understand the reason for the change. Was
it authorized. Also there's a V:d which might be V:a or VI:d. (I checked the manuscript.) Not too much thought
was given to this spot. Was the change authorized by JMW? Or another Matanya Whimsy?
It's the next example that shows me to be weary.This one has
those "imaginary" rests Matanya is so fond of using. Of course, it's poor editing to advocate something like that, as this
example testifies. Without the sixteenth rest, many players will perceive the three notes to be sixth-note triplets
with the 3 missing.
It seems Matanya shares my weariness, given all the
oversights. I think the cross relation (in the style of Byrd) deserves careful attention in the notation. It is lost
in Matanya's Odd-man-Out guitar notation.
Having the C and E cut short makes no musical sense, especially since the open
course should continue to ring. Ignoring such matters shows an insensitivty to the sound quality of the lute and
The B flat/B natural cross relation is a figure familiar
in the works of Wm. Byrd. One is tempted to ask if passages such as this are quotations from Byrd.
I repeatedly asked for the proofs, but Matanya resisted
sending them. I only proofread a few of the guitar pages.
These examples illustrate the frustration I was experiencing
with all the mistakes Matanya was making. AND HE REFUSED TO CORRECT THEM. Or even assume his duty as guitar volume