IMSLP talk:Categorization/Project Members/archive4


Arrangement tags

You may have noticed that Feldmahler has introduced automated tags for arrangements and transcriptions, which you'll see appearing at the bottom of affected pages (e.g. "For 2 pianos 8 hands (arr.)"). This is derived from the information in the "====For 2 Pianos 8 hands====="-type headers, and if this couldn't be interpreted then the "Unknown arrangement" category will appear at the bottom of a page.

I must admit that this came as something of a surprise when I woke up this morning, but it's another giant leap forward :-) — P.davydov 07:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that including the arrangements has required some renaming of existing categories, but it will take a couple of days for the old ones to flush out of the system — P.davydov 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Martinu, Les Rondes

A Ronde is a French dance (although with changing metres, this is more of a contemporary permutation, i.e. not very dancable!), but translating as "round", and I don't think that is really a rondo, and in any case this has more than one movement. Tag as "dances"? or "pieces"?

There seems to be no helpful subttle to clarify matters, so "pieces" is probably the best option — P.davydov 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Vibraphone as a solo instrment

This has come up in one Concerto Grosso for Metaolphones and Strings, so Ive tagged it vib if thats ok.

Thanks, and I'll add it to the list — P.davydov 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Part string sections

In addition, is there a rule for Violin and Viola sections, since Exil, the only untagged work for string section has this instrumentation, and it doesnt qualify for str, neither for vn va?

I think that "str" is probably the best we can do here, even if the cellists and double bassists in the ensemble can sit this one out :-) — P.davydov 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

more rare instruments

I see someone has uploaded a piece by Milos Jelic for accordion (is this a concertina?), and I came across one the other day that uses Mouth harmonica (Christian Scheel). So far, I think this is the only one that uses mouth harmonica. (Steltz)

I think the concertina has buttons on the side, while an accordion has a proper keyboard (but if not then I'm happy to stand corrected). Let's use "acc" for accordion, and "hca" for mouth organ/harmonica — P.davydov 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is an organ-harmonium a plain old harmonium?

Used in one of Saint-Saens' Romances. Grove lists this piece pf, org, vn, but it looks like what we have uploaded was the first edition, so if it says "organ-harmonium", do we tag it as "harm"? (Steltz)

It probably does just mean harmonium, but if you wanted to err on the side of caution you could use separate tags for "harm" and "org" — P.davydov 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
On further investigation, the composer's original version in its first edition very clearly calls for harmonium (and not organ), and the arrangement simply replaces the piano part with one for the harp, while incorrectly referring to the organ. So I've changed all references to "organ" to "harmonium" and added the tags — P.davydov 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (Steltz)

bass oboe

Should this be giving its own heading a separate instrument (as it isn't, apparently, an oboe?). For the background to the discussion hereP.davydov 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"To be, or not be" . . . . an oboe! Bessabaroff's treatise on Ancient European Musical Instruments (1941, so possibly considered out of date) defined the Grand Hautbois (or "Oboe basso") as a mezzo-soprano oboe in A. He maintains that, although it has the same tonality as the oboe d'amore (it is pitched in A), "its constructional features show that it is an oboe." However, Notenschreiber's arrangements, at least the Banchieri Fantasia secunda, have "baritone oboe" in the score, not Bass oboe. Since the part is pitched in C, and Bessabaroff does list Baritone oboe as an instrument in C, it seems that not even Bass oboe is going to be a correct tag. However, Bessabaroff technically considers the Baritone oboe to be an oboe as well. I don't think this is going to go down very well with Mr. Notenschreiber, but I think there is another way around it. These are arrangements anyway, so there is no need to create a tag for this oboe--it doesn't exist in any of our original instrumentations, and even the Holst won't get tagged for every instrument in the orchestra. If, under Arrangements and Transcriptions, the level 5 header says =====For oboe, english horn, baritone oboe, bassoon (Notenschreiber)===== the instruments as he put them in the score will pop up and he will be happy. But I really do think that it needs to be what is in the score!!!!!,i.e. Baritone oboe for the Banchieri. (I just know you were looking for an organological lecture on a Sunday!)
Just came across another one of these pages, Haydn's Divertimento, Hob.II:14. It didn't have an arrangement hierarchy, so I put one in, and using "Double Reed Ensemble" came up with 10 players, not 6. So I re-did it, specifying all instruments. You'll have to check this, but I want to download it from work on Monday to see if it really is bass oboe, and not baritone, like the Banchieri. So it may change depending what's in the score. (Can't download it from home, blown my cap for this month!!!) (Steltz)
I've changed it to "double reed sextet" and coded that accordingly. There's always a risk that another sextet for a different combination of double reeds will appear and mess up the coding, but otherwise the headings can become rather unwieldy :-) Incidentally, I've followed Grove's advice that "The modern bass oboe is an enlarged english horn..." and have rejigged the affected headings accordingly — P.davydov 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Following strenuous objections, the bass oboe has now reverted to being an oboe (not English horn), but without adding an extra tag I've created a separate category for Category:Scores featuring the bass oboeP.davydov 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Afanasyev, Double Quartet

I have tagged this as a quartet, although it is clearly not one, because quartet is in the title. Unless someone has another solution, it will come up under 8 players for those who are looking for octets, and the most likely people searching for this sort of work would be someone in a string quartet wanting to explore the double quartets. (Steltz)

Yes, it will be found under works for 8 players, and we'll assume that two sets of quartet players can work that out between them :-) — P.davydov 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Attrup, Trauermarsch

This has tam-tam (gong) in it. I have tagged it as perc, but it might be a bit more accurate to tag it as cym (although an extremely large one!). On the other hand, it seems slightly misleading. Leave as percussion? or cym? (Steltz)

"perc" is fine P.davydov 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Octets are done!


Excellent! — P.davydov 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Onslow, Piano Sextet, op.77b

This work turns out to be an arrangement of the Nonet, op.77. IMSLP lists the nonet as 77a, whereas Grove is clearly just plain 77, with the sextet as 77bis. I haven't downloaded either, but they both have 4 movements, so on the surface of it, it it's a simple reduction. In a case like this, where someone might be looking for a "sextet" in the title, is it possible to move the sextet to the nonet page, keep the sextet page, but redirect to the nonet page? (Steltz)

There's a reason why our new categories don't use "sextet", "nonet", etc. :-) The piece will appear under "For 6 players" and "For 9 players", regardless of what's in the title. But as the title and opus number of the arrangement is different from the original, we should keep separate pages and add cross-references between them. There's a special {{Crossref|<other work title>}} template that can be included in the page for this, but I'll take care of that if you're not sure how — P.davydov 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If you could take care of this for now, that would be great, but when you get a chance, PM me the instructions, and I will add it to my list of things I can do. (Steltz)
Ah, I hadn't realized that there's no page yet for Op.77, so there's nothing to cross-reference to. It's only useful when both pages are present — P.davydov 15:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
We do have the nonet, if that's what you mean. It's under op.77a, which was one of the discrepancies with Grove. Grove doesn't have 77a, it just lists the Nonet as 77, and the Sextet as 77bis. So either the Nonet should change to op.77, as in Grove, or the Sextet should cross-reference to the 77a page. (Steltz)

Vives, El Pretendiente

We only have the arrangement, not the original. I can see on Grove this was originally an operetta, premiered in Madrid. I have made an assumption that the language was Spanish, but he appears to be Catalan, and wrote quite a lot of stuff in that language. If it was Catalan, would we put it under Spanish anyway? Catalan is a little bit further afield than just a dialect, and it is considered a different language, just with Latin roots. (Steltz)

Agreed (we already list Catalan composers separately). The two-letter code for the language will be "ca" — P.davydov 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the problem for this specific piece is that we don't know if it was originally Spanish because of the premiere being in Madrid, or Catalan. I do have a conductor friend who is Catalan and does Zarzuelas from time to time, so I can ask him, but this is a bit of a long shot . . . . (Steltz)

Following up the lead here it's much more likely to be Spanish, as that's the language of the librettist, Julián Romea — P.davydov 13:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that your link lists this as a zarzuela. Grove listed it as operetta. Should I change the tag to zarzuelas? (Steltz)
The zarzuela site is far more detailed than Grove, so I'm tempted to give it more credence than usual — P.davydov 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed to zarzuelas. (Steltz)

Pieces where original instrumentation remains unknown, e.g. Zabalza, Aritzari

I have asked on the forums if anyone knows what this was originally for. I can find a voice/piano version but with nothing indicating whether that is the original. We may end up with one or two pieces at the end that are untaggable due to indeterminable original instrumentation. (Steltz)

Better to leave them untagged until we're sure. As the number of untagged works dwindles ever-smaller, people are more likely to help eliminate the remainder — P.davydov 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Turina, Scene Andalouse

Since there is a solo viola in this, I have tagged it as "va 2vn va vc pf". When there is a chamber work with a solo part, is it correct to do it this way? (Steltz)

I suppose they're all soloists, technically speaking, so "2vn 2va vc pf" would be better — P.davydov 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fernandez Caballero, Manuel, El Senor Joaquin

I found this in Grove, but can't work out the heading. "Zars (in order of first production . . . ." Is this zarzuela? By the way, Grove alphabetizes this under "Caballero, Manuel Fernandez" (Steltz)

I think it should be tagged as "zarzuelas", and will add this to the list (as Grove makes it clear this is a distinct form of Spanish musical theatre) — P.davydov 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rameau, 6 Concerts Transcrits en Sextuor

According to Grove, these are for 3vn, va (taille), and then "bns vc db", although presumably, not all of those bass instruments were needed all at the same time. More importantly, though, Rameau didn't do these arrangements himself. After reading the Grove article on Rameau, I take it that some of the Concerts were solo harpsichord music, and some "accompanied" harpsichord music, i.e. with violin and viol. That makes it difficult to put an original tag on it, although I think this particular work perhaps should go under an Arrangements and Transcriptions level with (anonymous) as arranger. Can anyone with a good knowledge of Rameau shed more light on the Concerts and the original instrumentations? (Steltz)

update, I have downloaded the originals, all of which IMSLP has. 5 of the 6 concerts (comprising 17 movements) come from Pieces de Clavecin en Concert for harpsichord, violin (or flute) and viol (or 2nd violin). The 6th Concert takes 4 pieces out of Nouvelles Suite de Pieces de Clavecin. Because it comes from 2 different works, it can't go as an arrangement on the page of the original work. Therefore this page will have a tag for the originals, which will have to be downloaded from other pages. Davydov, you may want to take a look at how I've done this, with comments at the bottom to explain, and see if you think this is the most efficient way of doing this. If it is, then I think we need to add links to the other pages, which I don't know how to do. (Steltz)
Sounds complicated, but leave it with me  :-) — P.davydov 13:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. I've added cross-references from the two original works, under "Arrangements and Transciptions". In the code you'll see the line starting {{Crossref|...}} with the latter half showing the address of the page being linked to. As the "transcrits" page has no original content, the scoring of the original pieces is omitted here, so it's only classified as an arrangement — P.davydov 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Osborne, Sextet, op.63

I have tagged this, but I don't think the uploader's understanding of the altenate instruments is correct. My French isn't very good, but since the notes at the bottom of the title page talk about quintet as well as sextet, I think the intention is that it is either played in its original -- flute, oboe, horn, cello, double bass, piano -- or as a quintet with violin, viola, cello, double bass piano. Can someone else confirm this? This is the way I have tagged it, but I need to change the instrumentation line still if I am correct. (Steltz)

Sonata for Violin, Oboe, Organ, Salmoe/Chalumeau and Continuo, RV 779 (Vivaldi, Antonio)

Two questions:

  1. According to Wikipedia, the Chalumeau "has a large repertoire in 18th century orchestral and chamber music", but this is the first time I've come across it. Is it close enough to a clarinet to be tagged "cl" ?
  2. If salmoe is an old spelling of chalumeau, shouldn't "salmoe" be taken out of the work title?

Any advice welcome! — P.davydov 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I would agree with that decision; it's considered the most immediate predecessor to the modern clarinet, with similar fingerings/acoustical properties/etc. My guess is that almost anyone would just play the part on a modern instrument.
2. I think the spelling used by Vivaldi is actually 'salmoè', and it appears to be merely a variation on the much more common French. So I also agree that it should be taken out of the title. KGill talk email 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, KGill, I'll act on that advice... — P.davydov 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a clarinettist, I can confirm that this is all correct. Vivaldi seems to be the only one who used that spelling. This particular piece would need to be played on a lower chalumeau (they came in soprano, alto, tenor, bass) as it is effectively the lowest of the solo instruments, and the line for it is situated underneath the cembalo. But it needn't be bass clarinet, probably alto or basset clarinet would work, but choice would be left up to the performer. We have another piece with chalumeau in it on IMSLP, a Hasse Concerto for 3 winds and b.c., as well as a few orchestral works or opera where the instrument would never be tagged. So on the whole, I doubt IMSLP will ever have enough of these to consider a separate tag.
I have added a comment on this page about chalumeaux and picking the right one for this part.

I've just noticed that the page name for this is Sonata for Violin, Oboe, Organ, Chalumeau "and Continuo". The organ and low chalumeau part are effectively the continuo, so having "and continuo" in the title implies there are more instruments than 4, which there aren't. And also, the Istituto Italiano Antonio Vivaldi publishes a set of parts that only include the 4 parts for violin, oboe, organ, and chalumeau. Would there be any objections to my taking "and continuo" out of the title? (Steltz)

Grove lists this as a sonata with continuo, but then again the chalumeau part is said to be optional. So was the chalumeau intended to be a substitute for continuo, perhaps? — P.davydov 21:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, in this piece, organ + low chalumeau = harpsichord + cello -- so effectively, yes, those 2 parts constitute the continuo. The reason for the chalumeau being optional would be that organs don't need help sustaining the bass like harpsichords do. I'm not sure yet whether I will be using this at a chamber music camp in April, but if I can, I will, so I can really study it from the inside out. (Steltz)

Sextets done

The remaining two sticky ones were resolved similarly to the Rameau Concerts Transcrit en Sextuors:

  • Zabalza, Aritzari; the subtitle of the work, zartcico, is a Basque dance, so I've tagged it dances with no instrumentation, since no one seems to be able to say what the original instrumentation is. The arrangements system has taken care of the instrumentation of the arrangement.
  • Onslow, Piano Sextet, op.77b; tagged as a sextet with no instrumentation, as the arrangements system has taken care of this. I have added cross-references to both the sextet and nonet pages, but I have removed the "a" from the nonet opus number, since both the title page and Grove list it as merely "op.77". (Steltz)
Thanks for sorting that out Steltz! If we find out the original instrumentation of the Zablaza it can always be added back in — P.davydov 21:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Found in Scherzo grazioso (Albert, Heinrich (d. 1950)). Should this just be tagged as a mandolin? KGill talk email 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly not, as Wikipedia says it has the same relationship to the mandolin as the viola has to the violin. If you could tag it as "mdla" for now, that leaves our options open... — P.davydov 09:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK KGill talk email 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Teaching methods

This came up before, when there was some opinion that it shouldn't just go under "books". Oddly enough, the first one I've encountered is in the "Other (no more than 8)" category. Nevertheless, the closest thing we have to it in the current list is "Studies", which isn't quite accurate, since these are usually large books that contain lots of things, sometimes including duets, trios, etc. (not really ones destined for the stage, though -- just duet exercises). I think there would be some good logic in creating a category for this. Other opinions? (Steltz)

I'm also finding some in the single instrument category, described variously as schools, methods or lessons. Those which call themselves "studies" have already been tagged as such, but the question is what to do with the rest. To complicate matters, some of these may have been placed in the old "books" genre as well. I'm wondering about making individual tags for, say, "schools", "methods" and "lessons" (i.e. however they're described by the author), which could all form part of a larger category for "teaching methods", or something similar. Does this sound workable? — P.davydov 21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. (Steltz)

Collections of orchestral excerpts

Similar to the last query, there is a collection of orchestral excerpts (by Ritter) for viola. There isn't really a category suitable for this. However, they do exist, though it would be a long while before a lot of them are in PD and uploadable. New category?

I suppose strictly speaking these should appear under the heading "Parts" on pages for the relevant orchestral works. Or to avoid splitting or duplicating the files, a more practical solution would be to add links to the Ritter page from the "Parts" section of each of the works concerned. But all that is way outside the scope of the tagging project, and I'm certainly not suggesting it's something we should attempt to sort out! So how about just "pieces ; va" for the time being? — P.davydov 21:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. In fact, I'm not sure they should be moved to relevant pages, since in some cases, excerpt books don't contain full parts, they might just be 12 bars of the most prominent solo. Eventually, I suppose the link idea is better, though we should use the comment box to notate where excerpts are partial. (Steltz)

1 in 3

You may be interested to know that we've just passed the threshold of 1 in 3 works (or 33.33%) having been tagged, in only 26 days. That's amazing progress—well done everyone!!! — P.davydov 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


These appear (so far, at least) in Arkari (Hoffmann, Norbert Rudolf) and Manqhapacha (Hoffmann, Norbert Rudolf). Should there be a separate tag for them? KGill talk email 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're starting to come up here and there, so "panp" has now been added to the list of tags (just before the percussion instruments) — P.davydov 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bevan, John

Just a running tally, I have run into a second piece now using shengs (I'm assuming that Sheng, Lusheng, and Gusheng would all be variations of shengs), and also Tibetan crystal bowls (a first for that one). I will not tag this yet, because I still doubt we will have many of these. (Steltz)

Tibetan singing bowls are essentially percussion bells: they can be struck with a beater, though the usual mode of vibration is achieved by a circular motion with the beater touching the rim of the bowl. I'd be tempted to go with the closest analogue, which is bells (tag: bell). Philip Legge @ © talk 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've seen some elsewhere, so there may be more than it seems. After the bass oboe incident it's probably advisable to err on the side of caution, so let's use "sheng" as the tag — P.davydov 09:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Latin liturgy, some missing subtypes

  • The mass ordinary first: we should reserve the masses tag for mass cycles (consisting of a minimum of two of the basic seven movements of the ordinary).
1. Kyrie - this is the only text of the ordinary in Greek, so giving independent Kyries a tag of "la" seems daft - and the tagging page lists the appropriate language tag as gr la. Shouldn't the correct 2-letter code for Greek be el, not gr?
2. Gloria; 3. Credo; 4. Sanctus; 6. Agnus Dei - unproblematical
5. Benedictus - there is no tag listed for Benedictus as a separate composition from Sanctus, and even though the two texts are normally paired (as Sanctus and Benedictus) there are independent settings, as well as excerpts from masses where the Benedictus is the only surviving movement.
7. Ite missa est - the part of the ordinary that most composers from the Renaissance onward have ignored - with some modern exceptions! I suppose these should be tagged under masses (and they will not usually be stand-alone compositions anyway).
  • The requiem mass is rather a special beast because it contains specific texts (propers) as well as parts of the ordinary; however not all "requiems" so categorised are also masses - for the most famous example, the Brahms Requiem (and there are a whole host of Lutheran works from Schütz onward just like it) is not a mass - how should this differentiation be categorised?
  • The mass propers (i.e. texts that do not stay the same, unlike the ordinary)
Introits, Offertories, Graduals - usually consisting of an antiphon and a psalm verse; there are tags for these...
Tracts, Sequences, Communions - other less common propers of the mass for which there is no tag. The tract is often joined to the gradual in a musical composition, so that's perhaps not so much of a problem. Some sequences are very well known, but only one is listed with a tag in its own right on the tagging page (the Stabat mater), whereas the Dies irae is usually lumped in with requiems, and Veni sancte spiritus would probably be tagged (somewhat incorrectly) as a motet or canticle. There are a large number of Gregorian chant settings of Communion texts which would probably transfer to a number of later compositions.
  • As for the divine office, there are going to be numerous settings of antiphons (a text that goes before and after a psalm) and psalms. The main office that compositions were written for is Vespers (which rates its own tag, when none of the other offices don't, e.g. Matins or Compline), usually with settings of versicles and responsories; antiphons; psalms; hymns; magnificats (most of which have associated tags listed). However, there are no tags listed for antiphons, so a variety of compositions would be (somewhat incorrectly) tagged as motets - a truly generic catch-all for items when there has been no attempt made to find an existing category! Again as with requiems (most of which are also masses), antiphons would usually also help to populate the category of "motets", but ought to have a separate tag. Philip Legge @ © talk 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Philip. As you may remember, the list of subtypes is derived from a list used by libraries for cataloguing purposes, and we have occasionally had to fill in lacunae as we've embarked on the tagging process. What would be helpful is if you could give a list of the tags you would like to see added, and which (if any) broader headings these should come under; and also whether any of the exisitng tags should be placed into different categories.
I'm not sure whether there's a solution to the requiem/mass issue that doesn't require specialist knowledge, but there's a lot of expertise in this group so I'm sure we'll find an answer if there is one :-) — P.davydov 09:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest some tags then to fill the lacunae:
I think some category groupings will be helped by some more sub-type tags, "benedictus" ← "masses"; "stabat mater", "dies irae" ← "sequences"; "communions" ; "antiphons".
I strongly suggest requiem masses should be tagged with both "requiems" and "masses"; a work like the Brahms would not deserve the "masses" tag. There will be a lot of "requiems" (non-masses) in the same boat, especially as 20th century works gradually filter in, some way into the future: Brahms inspired a lot of composers to give the title "Requiem" to any funerary work which may or may not be also a mass. Splitting the category does mean that "requiems" doesn't automatically inherit any properties associated with the "masses" tag, though.
I don't know if there's any more obvious solution that doesn't assume specialist knowledge: afterall, by the evidence of going through the existing mass and requiem genres, quite a few contributors put Missae pro defunctis under the genre of "Mass" without realising there was a separate genre for "Requiem". (In general, some very odd works were incorrectly dumped under "Mass", including the Mozart Solemn Vespers of the Confessor, and some piano transcriptions of Schubert Lieder: WTF?) Philip Legge @ © talk 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: Of the 40 items in Category:Requiems, only 28 of them are actually masses! Hmmm... Philip Legge @ © talk 02:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out, Philip. If it's any consolation I'm finding an alarmingly large number of concertos cropping up in the old "solo instrument and piano", apparently because a piano reduction was uploaded before the full score. And sometimes there are real howlers that defy all logic! — P.davydov 09:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pieces for multiple choirs

Is the format for pieces with multiple choirs working, or is it just some combinations are currently unrecognised? I tried putting in a work scored for 3 choirs and continuo (3ch bc) and got the "Unknown tag" - perhaps it's just that not much vocal music has been done so far? Philip Legge @ © talk 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Unknown tag" category appears whenever a tag is added that isn't recognised, and it just means that "3ch bc" hasn't come up before. It will be sorted shortly... — P.davydov 09:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Kacerac Kolo by Paul Geisler

Mr. Geisler notes that this is an arrangement of a traditional Serbian folk song. Should it not rather be listed as anon or traditional, with his arrangement in that hierarchy? I can do all the changing, it's just that I would like feedback. Mr. Geisler typeset and uploaded this himself, so I don't want him to feel like it has disappeared, but correct classification being the goal here . . . . . (Steltz)

There are a large number of folksong arrangements all over IMSLP, but it's often difficult to identify the original sources (e.g. there are one or two by Tchaikovsky whose origins have long been a cause for debate). Now that we have the "folksong" tag, they will all be found easily without having to group them all together under the composer 'anonymous', unless we get an influx of opinions to the contrary — P.davydov 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Toy instruments

Reinecke has written a symphony that calls for "Children's instruments", i.e. toy instruments, like the Haydn Toy Symphony (that apparently wasn't written by Haydn?). Has that one been tagged yet, and how did the instruments get classified? (Steltz)

A good thing we don't have any of Peter Schickele's scores here, most of the unusual instrumentation would probably defy description or classification. Why not use a generic catch-all tag of "toy"? Being non-specific, it will cope with all sorts of toy instruments... Philip Legge @ © talk 05:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
We only need to worry about them if they're used as solo instruments, in which case "toy" seems a good tag to use :-) — P.davydov 09:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Church Slavonic, and Orthodox liturgical works

Hi P.Davydov, according to ISO 639-1, the 2-letter code letter for Church Slavonic is "cu"... Do we have any experts on hand regarding the Orthodox liturgy and compositions for it? Looking at the tagging page there don't seem to be many specific tags for the Eastern Rite. Philip Legge @ © talk 05:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested to learn that there is a separate language code for Church Slavonic, as Tchaikovsky set some religious texts in that language that I've already tagged as "ru". These can easily be corrected, but I don't know enough about this particular type of music to offer any 'expert' suggestions — P.davydov 09:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you will find that any of the religious texts set by Tchaikovsky (e.g. such as his Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or settings of the Cherubic Hymn) are actually sung in Church Slavonic rather than Russian; the languages are closely related but actually distinct. Basically any composition for the Russian Orthodox Rite will be choral a cappella with cantors (soloists), and in Church Slavonic, so will probably get a tag such as "liturgies ; ch ; cu" or "hymns ; ch ; cu". PML

Hartenack Otto Conrad Zinck, Compositions

We don't have a tag for the Danish language, and it needs to be added to this. Also this is a 4 volume conglomeration of just about everything. Please check what I've done to see if it makes any sense . . . (Steltz)

That page is quite a hotch-potch, but your tags look fine to me. Incidentally, the code for "da" is Danish, which has now been added — P.davydov 09:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Neujahr, St.George Tucker

Is it correct that "pieces" is the tag for instrumental works that have no other indication for a tag, whereas the tag for a vocal work that gives no other indication would be "song"? I'm only starting to work more with vocal works now, having done mostly instrumental works up to now. (Steltz)

Yes, "songs" would be the right tag for a vocal work with one singer (with or without accompaniment) where there's no other description available. For choral works the tag would be "secular choruses" or "sacred choruses" as appropriate — P.davydov 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A New and Complete Tutor for the Violoncello (Various)

I've tagged this a method -- we discussed teaching methods before. I know "tutor" is in the title, but I don't see much difference between tutor and method, so unless someone else does, these could both go under one tag. (Steltz)

Hakuun (Tui St. George Tucker)

I've tagged this a "ja" for japanese language, if that's ok. (Steltz)

Reference: wikipedia:List of ISO 639-1 codes PML
Thanks, Steltz. I kept getting 500 errors last night (apparently Feldmahler was working on the server), which stopped me from replying then, but "ja" will now be recognised as a valid tag — P.davydov 09:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)