SF MoMA Thomas Hawk Simon Blint (Photography is not a crime 2008)

FROM: The Archives 2008

A re-post (with minor improvements) of an “incident” overview in the days imnediately following, that tracked some of the stories and conversations from August 8, for about a week. Right before SF MoMA responded, I watched my stats closely and reassured others that some sort of statement from the Instutution was forthcoming. SF MoMA response was the 13th, and things pretty much settled down by the 15th. Added a few FriendFeed embeds, and tried to maximize readability. The CSS colors match the photos by complete coincidence.

UPDATE: See end for SF MOMA Response and others’ reactions

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA’s decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum….

After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint…

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk’s FriendFeed discussion

Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You [expletive elided] Photography is Not a Crime

2. Jeremiah Owyang’s FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk’s skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and “*sshole” has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy’s FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

…Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him “he did not care” and that he needed to “protect” his employees — employees that might appear in my photographs.” Hawk goes on to say, “I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash.”

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don’t know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn’t miss the story

Robbo sez, “Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum…

Consumerist covered it as well

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco’s Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it

Oh dear — it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday

Mona made me break my Digg prohibition, in place since back in the days before Mr Baby Man was banned, in the “de-css” era I think. Digg started some 6-7 A.G. I think. A.G. is [after Google] and B.F. is [before Facebook] of course.

Takeaways 

• SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography
• Blog & “web2.0” commentators are opinionated
• Blog commenters are lazy
• You can’t win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob
• Character assassins often don’t disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
• Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here
• Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
• Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinion
• Tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
• Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
• If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

But wait, that’s not all! Flickr had a dscussion underneath the above photo and this one too. Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law, on legal issues around photography: The Photographer’s Right

Disclaimer and some SFist comments of mine:

Disclaimer:
I’ve concluded that I was confused as to whether “galleries” includes the permanent collection, or refers to the “special exhibits.” My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that’s owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any “exhibited” piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not “galleries,” may not be part of the “atrium” and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

“Director of visitor relations” is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it’s a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He’ll probably have a “rich learning experience” though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I’m glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It’s too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn’t spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren’t finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it’s entertaining.

UPDATE: Mr. Hawk added another post and photo with additional commentary on this matter…

More on the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco
Mr. Hawk’s second FriendFeed discussion is here.

UPDATE: Steve Hodson of WinExtra chimes in… 

No Offence Thomas Hawk But You’re Coming Late To The Party
Steve’s FriendFeed discussion is here.

Me: “Indeed, I missed your July post. However, “late to the party” I feel is inaccurate. Thomas Hawk wrote in the first person, and that of course is the best way to justify attention-grabbing rhetoric. In the end, many things conspired to make this story “pop.” Don’t feel bad, Steve! P.S. I like your moxie!”

 404

UPDATE: Duncan Riley says…

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Duncan’s FriendFeed discussion is here.

UPDATE: Carlos Miller, a Miami photographer, has a personal interest in this topic.

Hawk, in fact, was one of the bloggers who not only wrote about my arrest last year, but also contacted the Miami Police Department seeking more information, including obtaining and posting the arrest report which was filled with contradictions.

UPDATE: Simon Reed defends Simon Blint (peppered with ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hawk)

Imagine going in to work one day, putting in your time, and coming home to find yourself the target of a massive internet slime campaign. This is the current situation faced by Simon Blint, head of visitor services at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

UPDATE: Hutch Carpenter expands on Cyndy’s “mob mentality” theme

Applying Circuit Breakers to a Social Media Mob Mentality
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira has a good post out today, When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

UPDATE: Mona N. couldn’t stand the suspense and actually picked up a phone.

Meanwhile, in other Non-Gmail Related News.. I Called SF MOMA
Mona’s FriendFeed discussion is here.

UPDATE: SF MoMA Responds:

SF MOMA Responds to August 8 Incident

UPDATE: Justin Korn reported on the SF MoMA response

As Justin said, there’s a lively FriendFeed discussion on the response here. 

UPDATE: Duncan Riley of the Inquisitr has more to say: State of Fear

…I don’t want to dwell on the points of the case, but the whole thing raises something far more concerning for society as a whole: that today we live in a state of fear. A fear that a person taking pictures is a pervert, a pedophile or even a terrorist…

UPDATE:  Candace Holly also has this:  4 Ways to Better Handle the Public

…there are ways to handle a situation like that without making a public spectacle of it. Whether they were in the wrong or not doesn’t matter at this point. Four key things were not handled well at all…

404

UPDATE: Destiny from 10 Zen Monkeys:  Thomas Hawk Versus Rent-a-cops

Related FriendFeed discussion is here.
…Is there a new controversy over photography itself — and the blogger at the center of the issue? And has Friday’s incident snowballed into a larger debate about technology, privacy, and the conduct of security guards?…

RELATED: Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)

RELATED: Unbridgeable Chasm: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales

<iframe src=”http://friendfeed.com/stevenhodson/0bff3cb1/no-offence-thomas-hawk-but-youre-coming-late-to?embed=1” frameborder=”0” height=”600” width=”400” style=”border:1px solid #aaa”></iframe>

Liebestraüm no. 3 by Franz Liszt - live recording

 

Searching for Liebestraüm no. 3 online, I ran into the recording I uploaded long ago on Archive.org. It’s good to see it on the first page of google results. This is a live performance, recorded at Capp Street Community Music Center in San Francisco.

Mr. Sheldon was pretty frank when he discussed with me the subject matter of this piece. “Dream of Love,” rather than conveying some flowery notion of romance, is the physical sex act committed by two people in love. The climax is the bar immediately followed by a spine-tickling descending cadenza, then a return to “Tempo I” for a fond recollection and a cigarette. After listening to an unsatisfying performance of this piece, it’s appropriate to say “I didn’t hear an orgasm.”  Some may be shocked at this description; today the mention of a cigarette is completely unacceptable.

I was able to find a truckload of public domain sheet music on free-scores.com. The Liszt collection in particular looks very complete.  Also, the IMSLP project is back online, and they have several editions of this piece as well.

Liebestraüm No. 3 - Franz Liszt - Richard Walker Live at Capp St - Track 10

Update on 20100409 at 23:16 by richardwalker

Lang Lang plays Liebestraüm no. 3

I’m a little surprised a  Lang Lang’s interpretation of this piece.  In my opinion it departs from Liszt’s intent, without good reason. Egon Petri wrote these applicable  ”pithy sayings”

•  I am here to defend the composer.
• Music is so lovely when it’s left alone.
• People who talk too much about interpretation are apt not to be humble enough. I try not to overshadow the composer. 

Perhaps it is Lang Lang’s age at issue here, or it may be a certain lack of restraint that lets him go too far. 

Update on 20100410 at 24:36 by richardwalker

Artur Rubinstein plays Liebestraüm no. 3 

This represents the true Lisztian conception, and style of performance.

The Petri Photo Wiki War - in which I emege Victorious

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and I do not wish I were a laywer. So sue me!

UPDATE: “Fair use” clarification, and appeal for reform

“Fair use” is an assertion that can be challenged in court and subject the person defending the assertion to massive legal fees. Hence, I consider it a vastly inferior tool generally. Persons who qualify for a Wikipedia entry should be strongly encouraged to provide a public domain photo of themselves, and in the case of deceased persons, their descendents and friends and colleagues should be strongly encouraged to find and secure a public domain photo. If such is not done, the image of the person will not be a matter of record, and will likely be permanently lost to future generations.

The Polish law that allowed success here was reasonable, but no longer applies. I do not consider current law reasonable in the slightest, since anyone taking a snapshot of anything (for example) has an implied right that extends 70 years past their death. Who will keep every deceased person’s belongings for 70 years so that they can be examined for hidden treasures? The answer is no-one.

Rights should terminate at death unless specifically asserted by an heir, at which point it should be recorded that they are now holding a deceased persons copyright. That fact should be discoverable and traceable so that any person can determine when a valuable item becomes public, giving them a good shot at saving it before it is lost, even when greedily coveted by an heir of the deceased. Even with all of that, there is no law that prevents the heir from destroying the item at any time, even if it is a surviving manuscript of a forgotten Mozart concerto.

Bear with me while I illustrate the consequences of these laws as vividly as I can.

In the case of an heir of an author for example, it will be common for the heir to take possession and assert rights over all works in progress, which is esentially a one-liner stating that so-and-so now “owns” the dead author’s unfinished and unpublished works. In some cases this may be entirely against the author wishes. Death can be unexpected. Depending on the author, that heir may become a person of particular interest, especially when the heir uses their right to deprive the world of the author’s works. In such a case, it is reasonable to expect that heir to be closely watched, and regarded as an enemy of the author’s admirers. The right of the general public to honor and celebrate the author’s memory by publishing the work can be easily defeated by any heir holding a grudge. In fact, it is not entirely impossible that the heir expedited the death in some way, and is truly an enemy of the deceased. Imagine if you will the ne’er-do-well offspring of the famous author (and careless parent.) I believe there is actually a motive here for the heir to do wrong, expedite the death, and either profit from or supress the author’s work.

One remedy for the (newly) successful author is to indentify persons to execute the will of the author, beyond what a normal executor would agree to. Such persons might agree to take possession and publish or destroy items, according to instructions. What to do with the rights (and profit) should be easily and clearly described: “All rights and profits from works go to my children, equally.” Or: “All rights and profits go to my dear publisher, wthout whom there would be no rights or profits at all.” Because of the outrageous copyright term, it is hard to predict the total value of any right, as any work may become “popular” and be extremely valuable during the last 50 years of the term. The reason 70 years is outrageous is this: If an author creates and profits from a brilliant work and dies 5 years later, he will have enjoyed 5 years and other persons will get the remaining 70 Only a ten-year-old brilliant author who dies at 80 will enjoy the same actual term as his heirs.

One thing I have not mentioned is that “heirs” can be replaced by “creditors” and “trusts” and other non-human abstract entities such as “media conglomerates” and “holding companies.” That is the fact that predicts this state of affairs. Heirs don’t make laws; politicians prodded by corporate interests do, however. Now imagine “heir” is a mob boss to whom the author owes money, and has assigned rights to in lieu of cash payment. That is all perfectly legal, except the mob boss and loan part. The number of years “after death” is extremely sinister in my view, as it tends to guarantee that the heirs profit much more than the author, and by heir I really mean “creditor” and by “creditor” I mean “vulture” who made sure the death of the author racked up uncovered medical expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Such debts always get collected well before a penny goes to the poor little 5-year-old orphan. Do you see the thrust of my argument now?

I hope I have made myself clear as to why current law is so wrong, and why it matters so much.

That last one can now be removed as the Petri biography now shows this photograph:

Let me say first that my irritation with this process is aimed mainly at the legal disaster we call “copyright” or “intellectual property” law. “Death of the author plus seventy years” is enough time for everyone to forget who the subject is and why they should care! This generous (since amended) Polish copyright law allowed common sense to prevail here. The future looks dimmer.

The rest of my irritation is at the way Wikipedia has addressed this. For example, there is no guideline that tells me to take the action I did. I suppose that’s to be expected, but still, I’m pleased that I was able to make a “public domain” argument successfully, given what little I had.

None of this would have been possible without the reply from Stefan Kutrzeba where he told me he didn’t know anything about the photo, but had scanned it in from the magazine, and that he thought these things were in the public domain.

I knew at the outset it was necessary to “go on the offensive.” I’m sure the editors spend a lot of time answering the same questions. I’m not sure  how many public domain arguments are made, or how successfully.

See how Hammersoft gives me the standard line about why permission isn’t enough, that I need to obtain clearance, etc. etc. he obviously doesn’t realize I’m making a public domain argument here!

DreamGuy, may have read up on Polish copyright law, or perhaps he conferred with others in a chat room. I suspect something went on in the period  between DraeamGuy’s question, and the final green light, but I don’t really know. In that time I did check the Polish to English translation again, making sure it said “Phot. Archive.”

“Fot. Archiwum” “Archeewoom.” “Arkevum.” Don’t people realise w is really v and vice versa? And ch and k same thing? Sheesh. Onward:

Note that I never ever responded to questions about who took the photo, and when, and what the copyright was. These are all typical, but my argument  trumps the questions. I could have said “don’t kow, doesn’t matter, please listen” but I think it is better to realize they think I’m an idiot who doesn’t know what “copyright” means in the slightest.  I knew I was right before I started, so I just waited to get their attention, ignored their questions, and stated my case. I think 40 minutes is quite reasonable for confirmation, and it is encouraging that no other back-and-forth occurred. I suppose that makes the title of this post link-bait. So, sue me again!

from Wikipedia’s “Media Copyright Questions” archive 

I’m extremely irritated with this process. Please help.

I do not wish to navigate your image contribution waters ever again. I am attempting to contribute an old photograph of an important person who did not like to be photographed. He is long dead.

I have a source, another rather important person, who I bothered (he’s preparing master classes right now) in order to contribute this photo. He was kind enough to answer promptly regarding the photo.

Now, if a Wikipedia editor would do me the courtesy of providing assistance, I could go on to other more productive work.

The photo in question is of Egon Petri. My source is the Polish pianist, author and lecturer Stefan Kutrzeba. You can see the photo here.

I can explain why this is all O.K. if an editor deigns to help. Like I said, I’m extremely irritated with this process. The photo has been requested; here it is; here am I. Reechard (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can not read the language of that source page you noted, but we’d need to know the age of the photograph before making any judgments about its status under public domain. If it is not under public domain, then the rights to the image must be released under a free license by the rights holder in order for the image to be used here under any free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It is not enough to get permission to use the image on Wikipedia. If a release can not be obtained, the image must be used under terms of fair use. See WP:NFCC. In that case, permission from the rights holder is not required. Since the subject of the image is dead, the use of fair use imagery to depict the person is permissible. Hope this helps? —Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, we can upload right away as fair use… but if we knew the copyright status that’d be better. Is “Fot. Archiwum” the credit line? Do we know who that is? When the photo was taken (which would be good for the caption anyway)? DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • thank you! Egon Petri was born in 1881 and died in 1962. In 1927 he had made his home at Zakopane in Poland, but in 1938 he moved to America. Please refer to Polish copyright law and understand that my source scannned this photo from this Polish magazine, and it had no copyright notice attached. “According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People’s Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain.” That makes it pretty clear-cut, don’t you think? The photo is eighty some-odd years old, taken in Poland, printed in this magazine, and is one of the only known photos in existence of Mr. Petri. Reprinted in the same magazine in 2006, in an article by my source, about Petri. The photo caption says “Photo archive” meaning it had no photographer credit, no copyright. Reechard (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I’m planning to establish more facts about Egon Petri, I mention that on my User Page, thank you for helping me clear this important hurdle first. I have two sources to draw from which you can see here if you like.Reechard (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh - where did you guys go? Here is the rather poor Google translation from the Polish, which shows clearly the caption says “Phot. Archive”. Should I upload this? I’d prefer it if you did, frankly. Pretty please! I’ll check back later. The Petri talk pages specifically requests a photo, by the way. Reechard (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it…. when you go to Special:Upload to upload the photo, don’t choose one of the default licenses, just put a {{PD-Poland}} tag in the summary field (along with the rest of the summary, and then fill the rest of the page out. You should just be able to do it right away, but if you have problems post back here for help. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• thank you x 100 will do it now. Reechard (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think it worked, it has that re-assessment warning though, I’m assuming that comes with {{PD-Poland}} Anyway, good enough, I’ll put it to use now. Thanks again DreamGuy! - Reechard (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, it’s not quite the entire story. This thread between myself and two editors was preceded by more frustrating navigation around Wikipedia, in an attempt to clear legal hurdles.

This legal clearance bar is set so high that most people will give up and walk away. I certainly don’t plan on doing much more of this sort of thing, unless I can streamline a process, and contribute lost items from a certain Polish magazine that fall within a timeframe, for example.

 

Update on 20090410 at 19:00 by richardwalker

Carefully reading DreamGuy’s question:

“Yeah, we can upload right away as fair use… but if we knew the copyright status that’d be better. Is “Fot. Archiwum” the credit line? Do we know who that is?”

leaves me wondering whether I may be qualified for editor-hood because of my knowledge of more than one language in addition to whatever knowledge I have about law, music and technology.

Wikipedia biography prepared for Sarah Cahill

Notes

Sarah Cahill didn’t have a Wikipedia page, so I got one started for her. I had my first wiki war, but her page and I survived. My little “war” had to do with name disambiguation and Sarah Cahill (beauty pageant titleholder).

I’ve been given an editor’s review, and with assistance from two other Wikipedians, I’ve learned a good deal about both Wikipedia and encyclopedic writing.

The issue of biographies of living persons in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia is fraught with difficulties and pitfalls. It’s quite a lengthy process to understand all the ways in which edit wars erupt, and the reasons people leave the Wikipedia community in dismay and anger. It’s also quite interesting to review the ways Wikipedia “editors” and other “experts” often have irreconcilable differences, if you will.

Pauline Oliveros was kind enough to thank me in a comment on the original blog post, and gave me one small title correction.

This is the biography as of April 6, 2010. Note: the following links (except “External” ones) take you to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia: Sarah Cahill (pianist)

Sarah Cahill (1960-), an American pianist born in Washington, D.C., is a long-time resident of Berkeley, California. She is best known for performances of new works, many of them written for her. Cahill has also established a reputation as a writer on music and as a radio-show host.

Background

Born into a musical and academic family in Washington, D.C., at the age of five Sarah Cahill moved to California when her father, James Cahill became Professor of Chinese Art History at U. C. Berkeley.^[1] Her father owned an extensive collection of records, including rare historical recordings of composers and pianists such as Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Artur Schnabel, Walter Gieseking and Clara Haskil. Cahill began her formal piano studies at the age of six, and at seven she began studying with Sharon Mann. By twelve she was performing concertos with several local orchestras. At sixteen she was invited to Sommermusikwochen, a chamber music festival in Trogen, Switzerland where she played Bach’s D major Toccata. Skipping her final year of high school she went directly to the San Francisco Conservatory where Adams composed China Gates for her. She finished her academic studies at the University of Michigan where she continued her musical training with Theodore Lettvin.

Cahill has written music reviews for Gramophone Explorations, Historical Performance, ClassicsToday.com, Grove’s Dictionary and other international publications, and liner notes for recordings by John Adams, Terry Riley, and others. In 1985 she became the music critic for the East Bay Express and has been published in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Village Voice Literary Supplement, and others.

Biography

Cahill is a renowned performer of new American music who has commissioned, premiered and recorded numerous works for solo piano.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Compositions dedicated to her include John Adams’ China Gates, Frederic Rzewski’s Snippets 2, Pauline Oliveros’ Quintuplets Play Pen, and Kyle Gann’s Private Dances and On Reading Emerson. She has also premiered works by Lou Harrison, Terry Riley, Evan Ziporyn, Julia Wolfe, Ingram Marshall, Ursula Mamlok, George Lewis, Leo Ornstein and many others.

In late 2008 and 2009 Cahill developed and performed a new project known under two titles A Sweeter Music, and Notes on the War: The Piano Protests, where she asked composers for piano music on the subject of peace. The second title was printed in the New York Times, but was not Cahill’s original title.^[7][8] Commissioned composers include Preben Antonsen, Michael Byron, Paul Dresher, Ingram Marshall, Jerome Kitzke, Mamoru Fujieda, Kyle Gann, Peter Garland, Phil Kline, Jerome Kitzke, Meredith Monk, Pauline Oliveros, Yoko Ono, Larry Polansky, Bernice Johnson Reagon, The Residents, Terry Riley, Frederic Rzewski and Carl Stone. In later performances of A Sweeter Music Cahill’s spouse John Sanborn contributed video content to accompany the music, displayed across three screens and synchronized to the performance.^[9]

Projects developed previously by Cahill include Playdate, a group of commissioned pieces about childhood combined with classical works; the commission of an evening of new scores for four hands by Terry Riley, performed with pianist Joseph Kubera; and a concert of recent Italian music, featuring premieres by Luciano Chessa, Andrea Morricone, and others.^[10]

Another of Cahill’s projects is Bay Area Pianists, an organization she founded in 1993. In 1996, in association with New Music Bay Area, Cahill created the annual Garden of Memory walk-through concert at the Julia Morgan-designed Chapel of the Chimes wherein audience members move through the environment with new music ensembles performing simultaneously throughout the spaces.^[11] In 2003 she co-curated the Berkeley Edge Fest at Cal Performances.

As a radio personality Cahill has hosted weekly radio shows on the classical and contemporary music scenes on both KPFA 94.1FM in Berkeley, where her program was cited as “One of the 100 Best Things in the Bay Area” by Citysearch magazine, and on KALW 91.7FM in San Francisco.

Cahill investigated the impact early 20th-century American modernists had on the composers of her time and explored these influences in concert programs at the Miller Theater at Columbia University, Lincoln Center, Merkin Hall, Galapagos Art Space in New York City, Spoleto Festival USA, the Phillips Collection, the Freer Gallery (part of the Smithsonian Piano 300 gala), and at the Other Minds festival in San Francisco. She has also performed at the Nuovi Spazi Musicali festival at the American Academy in Rome, the Santa Fe New Music Series, and at the Pacific Crossings Festival in Tokyo, Japan.

Cahill is married to the filmmaker John Sanborn; together they are raising their daughter Miranda.

Selected discography

• Miroirs and Gaspard de la Nuit by Maurice Ravel (2002) New Albion #NA096
• New Music: Piano Compositions by Henry Cowell (2003) New Albion #NA103
• Long Night by Kyle Gann (2005) Cold Blue #CB0019

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Snap, Martin. Tribute to a teacher: Show honors art historian. Oakland Tribune. 2007-04-27. URL:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070427/ai_n19063655. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5cjqMy5LE)
2. ^ Kosman, Joshua. Avant-garde concert melds laptop, traditional piano fare. San Francisco Chronicle. 2008-12-01. Page E11. URL:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/05/DDGDJ9LL7P1.DTL. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ckhkBQXI)
3. ^ Butts, Mickey. A Séance for the Ear. San Francisco Classical Voice. 2007-02-27. URL:http://www.sfcv.org/arts_revs/otherminds2_2_27_07.php. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ckizshVg)
4. ^ Alburger, Mark. The Attraction of the New. San Francisco Classical Voice. 2008-12-01. URL:http://www.sfcv.org/arts_revs/noevalley_1_30_07.php. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5cklipKcf)
5. ^ Kuderna, Jerry. Contemporary Cantabile. San Francisco Classical Voice. 2006-05-09. URL:http://www.sfcv.org/arts_revs/cahill_5_9_06.php. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ckppTLYT)
6. ^ Ross, Alex. Dreams and séances. The New Yorker. 2005-11-01. URL:http://www.therestisnoise.com/2005/11/i_just_had_an_a.html. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ckhqwqB2)
7. ^ Mike, SF. Sarah Cahill’s Sweeter Music. sfciviccenter.blogspot.com. 2008-09-13. URL:http://sfciviccenter.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-cahills-sweeter-music.html. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5cjrp0pkE)
8. ^ Kozinn, Allan. When Downtown Comes Uptown. The New York Times. 2008-09-07. Page AR69, New York edition. URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/arts/music/07kozi.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink. Accessed: 2008-12-01.
9. ^ Richardson, Derk. Peace Pieces: Sarah Cahill commissions a sweeter music. San Francisco Chronicle, 2009-10-03. URL:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/01/22/derk.DTL. Accessed: 2009-10-03. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5kFYWw9W2)
10. ^ The Petaluma Post. Three Dance Palace Evenings Feature Storytelling And Fun. The Petaluma Post. 2005-01-01. URL:http://www.petalumapost.com/Jan%2005%20Galleys/04.pdf. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5cjuxX8Rs)
11. ^ Kosman, Joshua. Chapel of the Chimes a natural fit for a musical game of hide-and-seek. San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-06-19. Page D1. URL:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/19/DDG47QGA4R1.DTL. Accessed: 2008-12-01. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5cjvokDrt)

External links

• Sarah Cahill’s website
• Sarah Cahill is a New Albion artist
• “Berkeley Edge Fest”. http://www.calperfs.berkeley.edu/presents/season/2006/edgefest/. Retrieved March 25, 2007. 

Categories: Living people | 1960s births | Classical pianists | American classical pianists | American writers

Navarra by Isaac Albéniz (my edition)

UPDATE: score is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, published at free-scores.com; my profile page is here.

• posthumous edition (de Séverac)
• published in Paris in 1912 by R. Albéniz
• ending by William Bolcom
• edited by Richard Walker
• this edition contains minor changes and lexical & performance simplifications
• this edition is PUBLIC DOMAIN
• my litmus test for Sibelius notation software
• an intended gift to the country of Spain, marking the 100 year anniversary of the death of Albéniz
• 22 pages