[r-t] Similar compositions

[Richard Johnston]

MBD:
> Ben's arrangement nicely optimises the plan for LB music. However, I'm 
> sure it is not right to say "Comp. Ben Constant" with no mention of Mr 
> Scudamore, irrespective of what was almost certainly an independent 
> discovery. The two compositions really are the same, so do we need to 
> drop Ben's name completely in favour of Keith's, or is it appropriate to
> use "Arr. Ben Constant from Keith Scudamore"? I favour the latter in 
> this case.

If it truly was an independent discovery, then calling it "Arr. Ben 
Constant from Keith Scudamore" is clearly unhistorical, as it does 
not describe what was done.

If the purpose of trying to link to prior attributions has any 
historical purpose, then attribuitions ought to reflect the actual 
history.  It may, of course, be appropriate to add a footnote to  
point out that it also constitutes a rearrangement, but that ios 
something else.  

Indeed in some cases a composition might be regarded as a 
rearrangement of more than one other composition.  There is no 
necessary uniqueness - since as I am sure we all would admit the 
concept of similarity is fuzzy.

Richard Johnston