Ophee Letter: Examples 1-5

Matanya complains that I had inserted (Open Letter, January 19, 1993)

musical text which God only knows where it comes from, since it is different entirely than the [keyboard] and/or the tablature.

That I went out and gathered alternate versions and used them instead of what Ward had selected is an absurd notion. I was working 12-14 hours per day on the Johnson edition and had no time, or inclination to double check Ward's selection of sources to use in the edition. Nor did I have ready access to manuscripts containing Johnson's music.

I did the engravings exactly as Ward proscribed. If I had a different idea, I told him. I always deferred to his wishes. It was his edition. I was quite pleased with the edition, as it unfolded. Alas, after we finished, Matanya started meddling with what Ward had done, creating a notational disaster.

Matanya does not cite the source for Example 4, perhaps to make checking his accuracy more difficult. But it didn't take too long to discover where Matanya found his phantom passage.

It is from No. 1, the "Delight Pavan," the second strain at measures 29-30 (by quoting from the middle of a piece makes it difficult to find).

Here is his Example 4.

At the end of this example, Matanya wrote:

Here 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 far afield.

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):

The 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 H. Baron.**

========================

**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,

This bizarre 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 "playability."

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 he agreed.

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 guitar.

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 editor.