|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jun 29, 2007 11:52:25 GMT
It would depend on who the book is aimed at. LXT's book is easy to understand and is clearly aimed at beginners. GMG's is more traditional in structure and contains some deep stuff.
As for GMG, I think the most useful section of his book is the sections on the explanation of notation and technqiue.
A word about translations. You would probably need permission either way. The only way you don't need (to ask for) permission is if you do it is secret and not distribute it (commercially or non-comercially). Believe you me, people can get anal about this in my experience. And even transcription of information these days ends up with some people trying to monopolise information.
The only way around this is if there is an official translation or endorsed translation and I think the qin community gives a toss to do this. The other way is if an English qin player (i.e. that is fluent in English) writes a qin book on the same scale as the existing qin books but because there are not a lot of professional qin players who can write English or command the expertise, there will be none. That and because they may not want to bother.
As for us who want it, we may attempt to write our own but we would require a mandate to do so (which we don't). Plus, we don't have the expertise. I was thinking of doing qin books but discovered that I really shouldn't bother with it coz I may get stick from the qin community if I screw it up, and because I don't have the expertise on reflection. The stituation is in stalemate to be frank. None of the Chinese qin writers are willing or bothering to translate their books and none of the qin players of the West are willing to write new material or want to write new material but are constrained by peers and expertise.
As for technique, the only site that offers significant contribution in that field is Judy Chang's. JT's site has a lot of theory, CE's has general information and as well as theory, the wiki article is very general and not meant to go into the technicalities as the other sites are. I don't think I have seen a site which has done qin theory to a standard that a layperson can understand.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jun 29, 2007 14:34:37 GMT
wow, sounds like a mine field of problems.
Well then i will treat is as a purely personel endevour. No body will ever know about if I ask my chinese teacher to translate or not. It will basicaly be the same as my teacher just tells me what this bit means.
I would think that there are such a small amount of top important qin players that can speak english, that really my proposed undertaking it totally off the radar. There is such a wealth of chinese info and discussion on qin that any english imput seems to be laughed at in my experience (ei: my qin teacher finds john thompson very funny)
For GMG book - what chapters are the important ones (its all in chinese so i cant tell)
LXT - do you think his section of technique has more to offer than Judy Changs?
For theory - whats all that about (tunings and stuff?)
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Jun 29, 2007 14:58:39 GMT
I'm not sure what Charlie means by "transcription of information", but the main things we all have to remember is that publishec information is usually subject to copyright, i.e. anyone who misuses it can be sued in court.
I find JT interesting but it can't be deinied that most Chinese qin players don't - his style is too remote from anything they recognise as Chinese.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jun 29, 2007 16:47:12 GMT
Syburn: It is fine if you translate bits of it for personal use. The only thing you will get stick for is if you post it on the internet, etc. GMG's book; section 2 and 3 are useful. LXT has detailed explanation of techniques whilst Judy Chang gives only outlines and not into details like LXT's. Theory would refer to pitch, mode and tunings which was probably explained by Stephen somewhere in this forum. like I said, do not concern with theory too much.
CCCho: 'transcription of information' means the process of transmission of a general statement or a statement of fact in an altered form. The reason why this can be problematic is because some people may claim ownership of certain knwoledge when that knowledge is already common knowledge. The line of 'ownership of copyright' is blurred. I don't have the space to elaborate here on this, but the general idea is certain constricting rules which restrict the freedom of knowledge, or the freedom of others to transmit knowledge freely. I think it all boils down to the transmitter/discoverer vs the inventor.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jun 29, 2007 17:09:04 GMT
thanks for the tips.
if you know any other usefull sections t'would be great.
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Jun 29, 2007 17:49:16 GMT
'transcription of information' means the process of transmission of a general statement or a statement of fact in an altered form. The reason why this can be problematic is because some people may claim ownership of certain knwoledge when that knowledge is already common knowledge. The line of 'ownership of copyright' is blurred. I don't have the space to elaborate here on this, but the general idea is certain constricting rules which restrict the freedom of knowledge, or the freedom of others to transmit knowledge freely. I think it all boils down to the transmitter/discoverer vs the inventor. For the position in the UK you might like to check the Copyright, Designs and Parents Act 1988. the URL is www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm. I think you'll find it's clear you either pay royalties or give full acknowledgement of sources, whichever the copyright owner prefers.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jun 29, 2007 18:38:10 GMT
Of relevance here is:
Research and private study. 29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the typographical arrangement.
(2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) does not infringe any copyright in the arrangement.
(3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself is not fair dealing if— (a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a librarian, he does anything which regulations under section 40 would not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works: restriction on multiple copies of same material), or (b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided to more than one person at substantially the same time and for substantially the same purpose.
In other words, if it is a substantial and obvious copy, then it infringes the copyright law. Quotes must be sourced, etc and that is basically it. I assume translation is still under copyright. A Harry Potter book in Chinese is the same work as the one in English. What I'm getting at is that people seem to confuse the exposition of facts in there own words with the exposition of someones research/creation in ones own words. Lieberman could translate the MAQP because the author had died a long time and so it wasn't under existing copyright. In fact, all the ancient qinpu are virtually a free for all.
Anyways, you can see the hoo-har it all throws up. And to think it could all be solved if someone at the top just bothered to write a fricking (good) qin book in English!
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jun 30, 2007 2:25:44 GMT
i suppose living in china has given me a rather odd view of interlectual copyright.
Wouldn't it be ammusing if china starts crying about people stealing its interlectual property!
So anyway my endevour will be a "private matter" (if i indeed decide to do it at all) and so will not cross any 1st world copyright laws. Fat lot of good that has done Hollywood - out here in the wild east!
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jun 30, 2007 10:26:21 GMT
For private use is OK I think. Just as long as no one else sees it!
|
|
|
Post by laoqinyou on Jul 1, 2007 4:01:57 GMT
this davidmdahl person and I should meet given the *locality* and all. binkley.jim@gmail.com. this is a challenge :->
more seriously. I think LXT's book is easier. But what do I know. The first qin book I read was Qinxuerumen. If you don't know Chinese, I would think that getting ahold of Fred Lieberman's Ph.D thesis would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jul 1, 2007 5:28:55 GMT
Well I have been taught the basic techniques but I thought there might be a lot more to learn in the books. Sort of to expand what I already know.
I must confess that I find Yu-Ku-Chai translation and Judy Changs site to be my bibles in terms of when im stuck on a technique (before I ask CCC that is).
That mei-an book is a right pain as it doesn't use Ping Ying.
|
|
|
Post by laoqinyou on Jul 1, 2007 5:44:50 GMT
Well I thank you for that Syburn. It would be nice if there was more pinyin in the yuguzhai. The older bits were done in the days of Wade-Giles. I did throw some in for the later bits (like the fingering in V. 4). Mostly due to Julian J being a pain about that :-> (due credit). I wish that Fred's book was easier to get. He claimed recently he would put it up on the web but it hasn't happened. I think Qinxuerumen was a bit more verbose about fingering when it gets down to it than the Meian book.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jul 1, 2007 9:10:50 GMT
Do you mean the MAQP translation or are you saying that there is a separate 'thesis'? I have his translation, but not his PhD...
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Jul 1, 2007 9:42:59 GMT
According to p. vi of the book there's a PhD thesis as well that covers aspects of the MAQP in more depth, and also goes into poetry relevant to the MAQP.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jul 1, 2007 12:50:11 GMT
Im a bit lost on the prevoius 2 posts. I though Fred Lieberman translated the Mei-an book. Do you mean there is another book of his?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jul 1, 2007 17:12:06 GMT
Yes I think. His PhD is a different thing.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jul 25, 2007 16:01:56 GMT
Who are these poeple? Seems to me that your involved with some underground mafia type organisation. You could still contiue with your book idea, but scale it down a lot and maybe just post it here or on facebook?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jul 27, 2007 7:19:37 GMT
Facebook seems the only 'safe' place to have some sort of proper discussion without fear of spies. Here is not so safe, hence, clamp down and censorship is upheld in case we all get blown up...
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jul 27, 2007 10:51:14 GMT
oh....anyway seems nobody can be bothered to translate owt, so that out....
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Jul 27, 2007 16:02:16 GMT
Jonathan/Juni Yeung is writing an English qin textbook at UToronto.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jul 27, 2007 22:55:03 GMT
brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Jul 28, 2007 10:04:17 GMT
Facebook seems the only 'safe' place to have some sort of proper discussion without fear of spies. Here is not so safe, hence, clamp down and censorship is upheld in case we all get blown up... Hmm. I've been thinking about this and don't see how it fits in with what it says in the Matriculation page about "when using materials other than your own, remember to quote and acknowledge the source" or the earlier postings about copyright. So I'll wish you all "goodbye".
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jul 28, 2007 14:29:58 GMT
Well, this is hardly an academic article as it is a discussion/chat forum. But some treat it with some elevated status as to think that we must chapter 6 verse 9 everything. I don't know whether to feel pleased we are receiving attention or bemused because of the kowtowing it involves...
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Jul 28, 2007 19:07:33 GMT
Message #47 reads too much into what I was saying: (a) academic or not, a breach of copyright is a breack of copyright and it's easily avoided by saying nothing more than "I got this idea from {who or wherever it was}; and (b) it's only polite to your readers who/what your sources are in case they want to follow the idea up for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jul 28, 2007 20:28:07 GMT
I'm mostly talking about 'general' (fact/general knowledge) qin stuff and not 'specialist' (idea/theory/quoted) qin stuff. I'm sure the phrase 'the qin has seven strings' need not be sourced, referenced and footnoted.
What I'm saying is that this is supposed to be informal chat and talk (like in a pub or café). Of course you should say, 'oh, this was from so-and-so' when relevant and appropriate, but if you forget the sources and utter it anyway, you should not be penalised or be given stick for it. And 'breach of copyright' is claiming a certain substantial piece of knowledge is your own when it is not, or using a certain piece of knowledge as if it was your own when it is not. It is different from expressing a short statement (copyrighted or not) in passing because you are neither claiming it is your own nor claiming it is not your own, unless it is so obvious that someone asks or knows, then by which you would either inform or confirm when prompted. You are not reproducing the entire work as well, word for word, as though you've written it spontaneously.
The context of this forum is that you should cite your sources when appropriate and when there is a clear, spontaneous and necessary need to and not for 'trivial' things like a vague statement.
Good lordi, I wanted this forum to be relaxed but it's getting to the point where we have to look behind our backs everytime we say something to see if it is legal or not. I'm a bit tired already...
|
|