|Genre Categories||; ; ;|
|Work Title||Herve Chilperic|
|Alternative. Title||Fantasia after Hervé's Opera Chilperic ; Fantaisie-bouffe pour piano sur L'opéra-bouffe de Hervé|
|Opus/Catalogue NumberOp./Cat. No.||Op.127|
|Composer Time PeriodComp. Period||Romantic|
Fantasia, of course- it's a fantasia on Hervé's opera Chilperic. (Wouldn't have known that myself if I hadn't seen a copy elsewhere and looked at the archive to check, though. Name/alt-title-ing pieces better would be really, really a good idea- though as Briangemini appears to have left the building I don't know who I'm talking to.)
I only "left the building" temporarily - but if I understand your suggestion (you are?) - then I can only say that I have previously been in dispute with Carolus over the way the Smith titles are listed here in this Library, arguing that his listing is potentially confusing and does not respect the way the titles are presented by the publishers on the covers of the original pieces. My objections have been ignored.
That would have been me- Schissel (check the page history as another way to answer your question.) If I understand the disagreement here in analogy with others that have come up, I incline toward standardization and simplicity; so the word Fantasia can be safely left to the Tags section, for instance, and so it is. (And I'm under the impression, though I may be mistaken, that just such issues have been discussed in the IMSLP forums (imslpforums.org) - "not agreed with" is -not- the same as ignored.)