The Preston Copyright Records and the Market for Music in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century England
2019; Bibliographical Society of America; Volume: 113; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/701581
ISSN2377-6528
Autores Tópico(s)Theater, Performance, and Music History
ResumoPrevious articleNext article FreeThe Preston Copyright Records and the Market for Music in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century EnglandNancy A. MaceNancy A. Mace Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreAs many scholars have noted, in the last half of the eighteenth century the number of music sellers rose dramatically, leading to a significant increase in the volume of printed music available to individuals seeking compositions they could presumably perform in the home and other intimate venues.1 We know little about the customers themselves or their specific buying patterns; however, by examining interactions among individuals involved in disseminating music—among them musicians, composers, and music sellers—we can gain a fuller understanding of the economics of the music trade, the relationships between composers and those who printed and sold music, and the changing status of music as intellectual property. Prominent music sellers during this period clearly influenced composers through their selection of what they printed and sold. In addition, the prices they were willing to pay for compositions indicate the value they placed on different genres, which may have in turn affected the types of music written. The terms of copyright assignments reveal the status of music as intellectual property and relate to issues involving music copyright in this period. Ultimately, because music sellers determined the kinds of material available to those who could afford to buy printed music, a better understanding of the print trade can add significantly to our picture of eighteenth-century musical culture.In spite of the significance of the trade in printed music, musicologists and book historians are only just beginning to turn their attention to it.2 As a result, until quite recently most treatments of the English music trade have accepted the views of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century musical authorities like Charles Burney, assuming that their preferences for foreign musicians like Handel, Haydn, and Mozart, and for large orchestral work and Italian opera, represented the typical attitudes of the British public. Because of these long-held assumptions, most studies of musical activity in England during this period have virtually ignored the contributions of British composers and the musical genres in which they traditionally worked.3 Examining the printing trade and its production output, however, allows us to test the validity of these assumptions.Although no complete records of any eighteenth-century British music seller have survived, we can estimate what music and which musicians probably sold well from a variety of sources—among them, newspaper advertisements, copyright suits, and entries in the Stationers’ Company Registers. Equally valuable but much rarer are financial documents from the music sellers themselves. One important collection of such records is British Library Additional MS. 63814, an album largely consisting of copyright receipts, agreements, and letters from musicians to the music sellers John and Thomas Preston and Coventry and Hollier dating from 1773 to 1843.4 Not only do these receipts offer new information about the composers, genres, and arrangements that music sellers thought most marketable, but they also provide some indication of the typical prices paid for composing and adapting musical works, as well as the terms under which composers assigned their copyrights.These records are particularly significant because of the central role that Preston and his firm played in the music trade. John Preston, who had entered the business of music selling by 1773, was a musical-instrument maker, printer, music seller, and publisher in London. His son Thomas joined the firm in 1789, continuing the business after his father’s death in 1798. In 1834 Charles Coventry and John Hollier took over; Hollier dropped out in 1848, but Coventry carried on until 1851. From the beginning, Preston and Company was one of the most important music-selling firms in London, publishing a wide variety of compositions: among them, annual collections of country dances, operas by Samuel Arnold, James Hook, and William Reeve, and Bunting’s General Collection of Ancient Irish Music (1796). After purchasing the stock in trade of several competitors, including Robert Bremner (1789), Thomas Skillern (1803), and Henry Wright (1803), they also dealt extensively in reprints, the most famous of which were Handel’s oratorios and other compositions.5 Thus, the British Library assemblage containing their receipts offers a rare glimpse into the business dealings of one of the most prominent music-selling firms of the late eighteenth century.While the album includes some letters, autographs, and newspaper clippings, most of the items are receipts signed by composers, authors, and a few music sellers transferring copyrights to the Prestons, Hollier and Coventry, and (in one case) Robert Birchall. Thus, this collection of 135 receipts, dating from 1773 to 1843, is significant in that it presents one of the largest bodies of material documenting direct sales of music from composers to music sellers.Table 1 shows the distribution of these receipts by time period. Not surprisingly, the number of purchased compositions rose dramatically after 1790. Like other music sellers after the 1780s, the Prestons probably felt the need to maintain more accurate records in case they had to defend their copyrights, largely in reaction to two events: 1) the 1777 decision in Bach v. Longman & Lukey, which determined that music was a type of writing covered by the 1710 Copyright statute; and 2) the large number of suits filed in the 1780s by Longman & Broderip and their attorney, Charles Rennett, charging their competitors in the music trade with copyright infringement.6 In fact, the BL collection includes evidence that the Prestons were concerned that they might be vulnerable to lawsuits for printing songs claimed by their competitors. Item number two in the scrapbook is a receipt dated 28 August 1782, signed by James Nares, promising to indemnify John Preston against any suit filed by Longman & Broderip as a result of Preston’s printing and selling his Concise and Easy Treatise on Singing, which could have included popular tunes as examples:I James Nares of James Street Westminster, do promise to indemnify Mr Preston from any Charges that may arise from any Suite in Law, brought on him by Messrs Longman and Broadrip [sic], on Account of his selling the Book, entitled, a Concise &, easy Treatise on Singing.7Even as they solicited such guarantees from compilers that they had not copied musical pieces claimed by their competitors, the Prestons and their successors were more meticulous in the last two decades of the eighteenth century in preserving copyright assignments given them in order to protect themselves from piracies of their own publications and litigation from other music sellers.Table 1. Purchase Receipts 1770–1843Time PeriodReceipts1770–178051781–1790121791–1800231801–1810751811–1820111821–18437no date2Total135View Table ImageWhile the Preston records do not contain all the copyright purchases—as the number of Preston imprints in British Library demonstrates—the receipts do suggest the types of musical compositions they favored and composers with whom they most often did business.8 Table 2 breaks down by categories and time period the 240 identified pieces mentioned in the copyright receipts—many assignments included several items.9Table 2. Categories of Music PublishedCategory1770–17801781–17901791–18001801–18101811–1843No dateTotal% TotalVocal music (accompanied):123156110111146.3(unaccompanied):1001300145.8Instrumental adaptations (theatrical):0001120135.4(non-theatrical):3111502118736.3Music treatises:00012031.2Other:201720125.0View Table ImageAs Table 2 shows, vocal works—including single songs from the theatres and pleasure gardens, song collections, and complete operas and musical entertainments—outnumbered instrumental works, 52.1% to 41.7%.10 Before 1801, forty of the fifty-eight works listed, or slightly under 69%, were vocal pieces. Even though these receipts do not reflect the total output of the business, they do suggest that, like other music sellers, the Prestons frequently sought out the musical productions of the theatres and pleasure gardens to print and sell to their customers.In fact, a few of the receipts indicate that the purchase price of an opera or theatrical entertainment was sometimes tied to its success in the theatres. In four cases, the assignments specified that the price paid for the copyright was contingent on the number of performances the entertainment had in its first season. For example, item 12 is an assignment issued by the composer James Hook for his rights to The Double Disguise, first performed at Drury Lane 8 March 1784. The memorandum reads as follows:It is agreed this 15th day of March 1784 between John Preston & James Hook that in Consideration of Fifty two Pounds, Ten Shillings being Immediately Paid by the said John Preston to the said James Hook on his Order he the said James Hook doth hereby agree to Convey to the aforesaid John Preston all his Right, Title & Interest of and in the new Comic Opera Intituled the Double Disguise now performing at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane and the aforesaid John Preston doth hereby agree to pay the said James Hook the further Sum of Fifteen Pounds, Fifteen Shillings Provided the aforesaid Opera should be performed Twelve Nights this Season and the further Sum of Fifteen Pounds, Fifteen Shillings, Provided the aforesaid Opera should be Performed Eighteen Nights this Season.11Thus, Preston made the purchase price dependent on the reception of this comic opera (The Double Disguise ran for thirteen nights during its first season12). Consequently, Hook earned only the first extra payment of fifteen guineas, raising his total compensation for the publishing rights to £68 5s.; if the work had been performed five more times, Preston would have paid him a total of £84 for this opera.13 This receipt and others, then, demonstrate the close connection between the theatrical success of a musical piece and its commercial value to the print trade.We can also see the key role played by the theatres and pleasure gardens in determining the musical compositions most often purchased by music sellers when we consider which composers appeared frequently in the Preston receipts. The collection includes works by seventy-eight composers. Table 3 lists those with the greatest number of works in the receipts, and Table 4 ranks composers according to the total purchase price of their copyrights, and, in some cases, plates.Table 3. Composers with the Largest Number of Works in the Preston CollectionComposerNumber of ReceiptsNumber of WorksTotal PaymentsJohn Davy919£97 9s. 6d.W. A. Mozart519works adapted or sold by others; no payment to Mozart.14Joseph Corfe412£300 and music worth £25James Hook410£199 10s.John Wall Callcott39£54 8s.Thomas Billington28£43 13s.Charles Thomas Carter37£22 1s.Thomas Dibdin47£38 17s.Daniel Steibelt67£177 10s.James Brooks26£21Thomas Hamley Butler15£10Johann Baptiste Cramer35£126 and music worth £5 5s.Charles Dibdin45£31 11s.Tommaso Giordani25£60Thomas Haigh25£39 15s.William Reeve25£135 5s.View Table ImageTable 4. Composers for Whose Works Preston Paid the Highest Total AmountComposerNumber of ReceiptsNumber of WorksTotal PaymentsJoseph Corfe412£300 and music worth £25Samuel Arnold33£260 10s.James Hook410£199 10s.Charles Smith33£189 5s.Daniel Steibelt67£177 10s.William Jackson11£150William Reeve25£135 5s.Johann Baptiste Cramer35£126 and music worth £5 5s.Richard John Samuel Stevens14£105John Davy919£97 9s. 6d.Tommaso Giordani25£60Louis Von Esch22£39 and £16 in printed musicJohn Wall Callcott39£54 8s.Thomas Billington28£43 13s.Joseph Woelfl11£42Federigo Fiorillo22£30 10s. and music worth £10 10s.Thomas Haigh25£39 15s.Thomas Dibdin47£38 17s.Charles Dibdin45£31 11s.Charles Dignum33£31 5s.Thomas Attwood, Jr.11£30Thomas Goodban11£21 and music worth £7George Thomas Smart11£26 5s.John Stafford Smith11£26 5s.View Table ImageThese tables indicate once again that music designed for the theatres and pleasure gardens was an important part of Preston’s business, suggesting that their customers wanted music they could play in their homes or at small social gatherings on instruments like the pianoforte, harpsichord, violin, and harp. As Table 3 shows, ten of the sixteen composers sold songs to the Prestons—many taken from the theatres and pleasure gardens: Brooks, Callcott, Carter, Corfe, Davy, the Dibdins, Giordani, Hook, and Reeve. According to the receipts, only four—Butler, Cramer, Haigh, and Steibelt—exclusively sold instrumental works to the music seller.15 The total compensation the composers or their representatives received from the Prestons also suggests that performance in the theatres and similar venues played a large role in the price that the music sellers were willing to pay for a composer’s work. Of the twenty-four composers in Table 4, fourteen composed music, both vocal and instrumental, for the theatres, and three, church music; according to the receipts in this collection, seven—Cramer, Fiorillo, Goodban, Haigh, Steibelt, Von Esch, and Woelfl—sold only instrumental works to the Prestons and their successors Coventry and Hollier.This preference for theatre music is even clearer when we consider the first ten in Table 3, since six of these composers received payments for theatrical compositions, both complete entertainments and single songs. Table 5 breaks down the types of compositions sold by the seven composers with the greatest number of works in the receipts.Table 5. Composers with the Greatest Number of Works in the Preston CollectionComposerSongs and Theatre MusicAdaptations of Others’ WorksInstrumentalOtherJohn Davy10900W. A. Mozart10180Joseph Corfe3702James Hook9010Charles Thomas Carter5002Thomas Dibdin7000Daniel Steibelt0070Totals3516264View Table ImageJohn Davy clearly did a great deal of business arranging music written by others for the Prestons since over 60% of the payments he received were for that purpose. Of the nine instrumental compositions he arranged, three were of music taken from ballets, pantomimes, and operas. Nearly all of James Hook’s receipts were for single songs, collections of music sung at Vauxhall, and full operas. Of these composers, Steibelt was the only one who dealt exclusively in instrumental pieces; these included six sets of sonatas for the pianoforte, some with accompaniment for a violin or flute, and one set of accompaniments adapted to three other sonatas. This evidence suggests, then, that like other music sellers, the Prestons believed that the works of English composers for the theatres had more commercial value than those of musicians who primarily wrote instrumental works.16The ways in which composers characterized their compositions offers additional evidence about the types of works the Prestons purchased. Table 6 details the ways in which composers described their compositions in the copyright assignments.Table 6. Terms Used to Identify Musical Works in the Copyright AssignmentsPrimarily Vocal WorksTerm UsedNumber of Works with This IdentificationSong75Opera (including Comic Opera)9Glee6Anthems, Hymns, Psalms, and Sentences5Canzonet4Musical Entertainment4Vocal Music1Musical Farce1Instrumental WorksTerm UsedNumber of Works with This IdentificationSonata25Air15Rondo14Duetts9Overture9Concerto3Sonatina3Ballet2Divertimento2Dance1Interlude1Prelude1Romance1Trio1Voluntary1View Table ImageAccording to these lists, songs, sonatas, and rondos dominated the receipts, along with scores of comic operas, glees, airs, and duets. These categories are further evidence that the Prestons focused on compositions that would appeal to an amateur market, that is, customers interested in printed music that they could play in the home.The instruments for which composers arranged these works reinforce this conclusion. Table 7 lists the instruments named in the receipts and the frequency with which they were mentioned.Table 7. Instruments Named in the ReceiptsInstrumentNumber of Works in Which It is NamedPianoforte64Violin15Flute7German Flute5Harp3Harpsichord3Organ2Violoncello2Bass1Tenor1View Table ImageWhile a review of the printed works themselves suggests that the receipts often did not name the instruments for which compositions were arranged, this listing indicates that compositions and arrangements for pianoforte and violin were the most popular, probably because they were the instruments often found in the home. Particularly striking was the relative rarity of compositions for the harpsichord, suggesting that by the late eighteenth-century music designed solely for the pianoforte was in more demand than compositions that could be played on either instrument. Few of the compositions named in the assignments called for more than a single instrument: in only eighteen cases did the title mention two, and in only six did it call for three.17 Clearly the Prestons were most interested in printing instrumental compositions designed for pianoforte, violin, and other instruments often played in the home rather than pieces requiring a large orchestra.Even more important than the details about genres, composers, and instruments is the information that the receipts provide about the average prices paid by the Prestons for different types of works during this period. Table 8 details the mean and median average prices paid for single songs.Table 8. Average Prices Paid for Single Songs18Time PeriodNumber of SongsMean Price PaidMedian Price PaidHighest Price PaidLowest Price Paid1781–179011£4 6s. 10d.£3 3s.£7£3 3s.1791–180011£3 0s. 2d.£1 1s. 6d.£10 10s.£1 1s.1801–181052£4 7s. 1d.£3 17s.£26 15s.£1 3s. 4d.1811–18344£6 2s.£6 11s. 6d.£8 8s.£4 4s.Overall78£4 3s. 10d.£3 11s. 6d.£26 5s.£1 1s.View Table ImageAs this table reveals, with the exception of the years from 1791–1800, the Prestons paid around £3 to £4 for individual songs, depending on the period, and the payments tended to increase over time. Only in the 1790s did they appear to offer composers lower fees. Surprisingly, the size of the payment seems relatively unrelated to the terms of the agreement, as receipts that specifically included both the songs’ words and music suggest. Among the receipts for the seventy-eight individual songs bought by the Prestons, those for thirty-five specified that the music sellers were purchasing both the words and music, at an average price of about £3 16s. 6d., with the greatest amount (£10 10s.) paid for two compositions: “The Minstrel’s Song,” sold by Richard Cumberland, author of the words, 22 January 1796; and “The Rose of Yarrow,” sold by the composer William Hawes, 28 June 1810. The lowest price for both the words and the music was £1 1s., paid to J. King Day for his song “Poverty’s no Sin,” 4 October 1799. The records also suggest that the value placed on individual songs did not seem to be related to the composer’s reputation. For example, while Preston did pay James Hook as much as £7 for some individual pieces, the composer also earned the average fee of £3 3s. for others. Payments for the works of John Davy, who composed and adapted many compositions for the Prestons, ranged from £1 1s. 6d. to £10. Clearly, the Prestons judged the profitability of single songs by some other criteria unknown to modern scholars.The information about full operas and other entertainments is not as definitive as that for single songs because the collection has receipts for only twelve the price of whose copyright we can determine.19 Although, like the single songs, the payments did not seem to be related to the terms of the sales agreements, they varied widely. The four issued from 1780 to 1788 mentioned only the music, whereas the seven dating from 1793 to 1811 included both words and music.20 Payments ranged from a low of £20 paid to Charles Dibdin in March and May 1787 for the music alone of Harvest Home (first performance at the Haymarket, 16 May 1787) to £150 given to William Jackson for the words and music to The Lord of the Manor by an agreement dated 16 December 1780 (first performance at Drury Lane, 27 December 1780); the mean average price paid for these complete entertainments was £68 2s. 7d., with a median of £63 10s. 6d.21 As with single songs, the reputation of the composer did not appear to determine the size of the payment; in fact, one of the highest amounts went to Charles Smith on 23 March 1810 for his entertainment Hit or Miss (first performed at the Lyceum, 15 March 1810). The number of songs or plates required to reproduce the works also did not seem to be a factor in deciding the purchase price; a composer might earn a large amount for an entertainment with few songs, while the music sellers paid much less for another work with far more music. Clearly, the Prestons used some other criteria by which to determine the most advantageous purchase price.Because the payments for instrumental compositions varied wildly depending on the composer, the instruments included, and the type of composition, generalizations about these musical works are more difficult to make. However, we can get some idea about the typical prices paid for one type of instrumental piece: the sonata. From 1789 to 1800 the average payment seems to have been approximately £6 12s. 18d., with the highest price (£31 10s., or £10 10s. a sonata) going to Daniel Steibelt on 29 January 1799 for three sonatas for the pianoforte, op. 38; and the lowest (£18 18s. or £3 3s. a sonata), to James Hook on 3 October 1789 for six sonatas, op. 54. From 1801 to 1810 the cost of a sonata more than doubled, averaging £13 12s. 6d. a sonata, with a high of £63 (or £21 a sonata) paid to J. B. Cramer in 1810 for a set of three sonatas for the pianoforte, including his op. 47. The lowest payment went to Federigo Fiorillo, who sold three sonatas (op. 44) on 10 March 1809 for £20, or about £6 13s. 4d. apiece.22 These numbers do suggest that the Prestons raised their payments to composers of instrumental works more rapidly than those to musicians who wrote single songs or entertainments.Furthermore, although the Prestons did not consistently require the composers from whom they purchased music to use one standard formula when signing over their printing rights to the firm, the collection does provide some valuable information about copyright assignments that relates to the state of music as intellectual property and the relationships among authors, composers and music sellers. First, the receipts suggest that the Prestons became increasingly aware of the need to secure rights to both the words and the music of songs and entertainments they purchased from composers. Of the seventy-six receipts for vocal compositions that specifically identified the material the Prestons were purchasing, all but one issued before 1790 mentioned only the music without any reference to the words of the song or entertainment being sold. Starting in 1791, however, thirty-eight of the sixty-three receipts (or 60%) stipulated that the composer—or in some cases the librettist—was transferring rights to both the words and the music.In addition, at least six of the receipts, all dated after 1796, were signed not by the composers but by the authors of the words. This change in practice suggests that the Prestons were sufficiently concerned about lawsuits over the words to songs that they wanted to secure the rights to both words and music when purchasing vocal compositions. Because of litigation in the late 1780s and early 1790s involving divided claims to the words and music of renowned vocal pieces, music sellers like the Prestons were far more likely than before to acquire the rights to both before they printed and sold popular compositions.23 In fact, in two instances the Prestons obtained separate agreements from the composers of the music and the librettist. The records include four receipts for The Lyric Novelist (first performance 25 August 1804, Drury Lane): one for the libretto signed by Andrew Cherry (no. 67) and three for songs written by John Wall Callcott (no. 65), John Davy (no. 66), and Samuel Webbe (no. 62). While the collection does not have receipts for the music written by the other contributors to the entertainment, among whom were William Shield and James Hook, each very likely did convey his copyright to the music seller. Another instance of this practice involved Life’s Masquerade (1805); John Mountain sold Preston the words to the songs written by Andrew Cherry on 26 September 1805, but later (26 September 1806) conveyed the music of the song “The Alderman’s Widow” to the music seller.The copyright receipts also provide additional information about the relationship between the music sellers and composers and among the music sellers themselves. First, they reveal that some musicians self-published before they sold their works to the Prestons. Seventeen of the receipts stated that the sale included music plates along with the copyright, demonstrating that the composer had already arranged to have his work printed, and in one case the receipt suggested that the composer, Joseph Corfe, had hired Preston to print the work for him before assigning his copyright to the music seller:There having been Fifty Copies of the Treatise on Singing printed on my Account since the Plates of that Work have been placed in Mr Prestons hands, it has been decided that no charge whatever shall be made to me, on Account of the printing of the said Work, but that twelve Copies, which have been delivered to me, shall be free of all charge, & that the remainder of the Copies shall be the Property of the said Thos PrestonWitness to the above J V Hallett Jos: Corfe24Of the thirty works in these seventeen receipts mentioning plates, three were entered with the Stationers by the composer, presumably before he sold the work to Preston.25 In another four cases, the receipt referred to copies that had already been printed and perhaps sold. Both Thomas Goodban (item 141) and Francis Linley (item 130) included an assurance that no more than 100 copies of each composition had been printed, presumably to guarantee that a market for the work still existed. As indicated above, Joseph Corfe certified that Preston had already printed fifty copies of his Treatise on Singing. Along with the plates, Charles Dignum included thirty-eight copies of his Vocal Music Dedicated to the Prince of Wales and 100 impressions of an engraved portrait when he sold the work to Preston (item 170). Another sign of the interdependence between the music seller and the musicians whose work he published appears in the types of compensation specified in the receipts. Thirteen receipts revealed that the composer asked for payment, either in full or in part, not in ready money, but in printed music: in five cases, copies of the work being sold, but nine indicated that Preston agreed to hand over unspecified music of a certain value in compensation.26 At least twice (items 46 and 101) the receipt mentioned that the music would be turned over at discount, either “at the accustomed prices” or with a reduction of as much as fifty percent.Twenty-four other receipts referred to payments for arrangements of popular works commissioned by the Prestons, done by sixteen different composers, the most frequent of whom was John Davy. The arrangements included various adaptations of popular Irish, English, and Scottish songs and dances, and works by Mozart and Handel, done primarily for pianoforte but also for harps, flutes, violins, and violoncellos.27 The terms of the agreements varied, with six mentioning assignment of the “property” in these adaptations, and seven, the composer’s “right, title, and interest” or “copyright” in the adaptation, suggesting that the composer—and presumably Preston and his successors—considered the arrangement a new composition under the copyright law.28 Consequently, the variety of these arrangements and the types of payment underscore the symbiotic relationship that existed between the music seller and the composers with whom he dealt.29Finally, the Preston collection sheds additional light on the business dealings between the Prestons and other members of the trade, for nine receipts recorded various transactions between Preston and music sellers in London and the Continent. Among the continental music sellers with whom Preston did business were the following: Jérôme-Joseph de Momigny, who, in 1802, sold him the rights in Great Britain and Ireland to two pianoforte sonatas by Daniel Steibelt (op. 48); André Georges Onslow, who, in 1807, conveyed to Preston three other sonatas written by Steibelt, which the composer had sold to Ignace Pleyel (op. 66); and Johannes André, who in 1837 transferred to Coventry and Hollier the copyright in England to five compositions by Mozart.30 In addition to the Prestons’ purchase of the stock in trade of Thomas Skillern (1802; item 45) and H. Wright (1803; item 64), the collection recorded two transactions with the London music sellers Henry and John Caulfield (items 63 and 109). In 1804 they sold Preston the plates and copyright to Samuel Arnold’s entertainment The Review or Wags of Windsor (premiered 1 September 1800 at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket) and in 1809, the plates and property of a song entitled “The Birth, Christening, Marriages and other Family Misfortunes of Dennis Brulgruddery,” written by Thomas Dibdin and sung at Covent Garden. The collection also demonstrates that Preston did business with Robert Birchall. In 1801 Birchall received fro
Referência(s)