IMSLP talk:FAQ

Free public domain sheet music from IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library
Jump to: navigation, search

I believe that we should gather all the FAQ's from the various pages of IMSLP (like τηε Creative Commons and Performance Restricted licenses, FAQs), and have a larger, more organised FAQ. We can also have short passages on "How to add a file" etc, and then link to the respective page, or like "What is Public Domain?" and have a one-paragraph answer, and then link to the original page for more information. Not all people need to read all of Public Domain, but many people might want to know the mere basics. I can help do this, if it sounds good to the admins :P ~ jujimufu 09:38, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh it sounds great to admins I'm sure :) At least it does to me. --Feldmahler 10:37, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok, great, I'll start working on it in a few minutes :P ~ jujimufu 10:54, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Also, I believe we should take some ideas from Wikipedia, and answer questions such as "What is IMSLP? Who owns it? How do I change my username? Who wrote article X? Who is responsible for the articles on Wikipedia?" (questions cited directly from some random FAQ pages from here).

I think some of those IMSLP/project-specific questions are good... for general wiki FAQs, maybe we can just link to the Wikipedia FAQ? :) --Feldmahler 10:37, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, linking to Wikipedia sounds good, only that the Wikipedia FAQ is humongous and can be terrifying to new users (it was even terrifying to me... :P). So maybe we could have a short text explaining how to do things, and link to wikipedia for more information, just like above. ~ jujimufu 10:54, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Great :) --Feldmahler 10:59, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Copyright Codes

Perhaps we should add the meanings of the copyright codes - I found them on the forums, and pasted them to my user page? If not here, could we link to a page that contains the definitions from the codes themselves?--Snailey 22:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

removing scores

How does one remove a score ? --MrLopez2681 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It has to be done by one of the admins. You can, however, replace a file with a new one by clicking on the link of the IMSLP index number and following the directions. Carolus 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The way to bring it to the attention of the admins is by going to the file's page (click on the IMSLP number), and adding the template {{Delete|Reason}}.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


slight misprint

The copyright-code paragraph says "Since copyright terms very". Shouldn't it be "vary" ? Coulonnus

Yep. I guess I'll do my bi-annual spell check then . :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

could someone please add an explanation of [TB] to the FAQ?

I've just spent quite some time searching this site for a clear explanation of what the [TB] tag means. There are many links pointing to http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3319 , which gives an error: "The requested topic does not exist". It would be good if the FAQ included some explanation. alexh 13:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mozart's Clarinet Quintet in A - transcription for two violas

I am looking for a transcribed version of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet in A, using two violas, one of the violas playing the clarinet part, when no clarinetist is available.

The transcription does exist as I played it with two violas years ago.

Please help me find it.

Thank you.

In order to get a response, it would be better to post this in the Score Requests section of the forums. Cheers, KGill talk email 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding an article into a Category?

How can I add an article into a category? I can't seem to find the traditional wiki [[Category:...]] syntax at the bottom of articles. Thanks. GFHandel 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You can still do it that way, actually. You don't find them on the bottom of most pages because the categories each page is in are generated by the workpage template and the tagging system rather than the (less easy-to-maintain) method used on Wikipedia. What category exactly are you thinking of adding? KGill talk email 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks (perhaps I better leave it for someone else to fix). The Category:Scores edited by Friedrich Chrysander is missing quite a few scores available at Category:Handel, George Frideric (e.g. the first four "Cantate" scores found under "C"). GFHandel 00:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well those categories come from Template:LinkEd. For every score which lists Chrysander as an editor, one can change the simple 'Friedrich Chrysander' to {{LinkEd|Friedrich|Chrysander}}, which will add a link to his composer page and the addition of the category. For arrangers, there's the analogous Template:LinkArr. If you're thinking of spending some time adding that template to pages from which it's currently missing, it would be very much appreciated. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I see two main issues. The first is time: as I spend a fair amount of time updating similar information on WP, I don't really have the time to duplicate the work here. The second is related to the first in that I don't see the need for much of the information that is being added to some articles in IMSLP. I raised an (unanswered) point questioning the need to duplicate WP text at IMSLP. Is there a guideline that details the scope of information to be added to articles at IMSLP? GFHandel 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is not, probably because no one has raised this issue before (as far as I am aware). I'm afraid I have to disagree about the duplication of information issue, at least in principle. I don't know about lists which were literally copied and pasted from WP, but others which originally appeared here tend to include so much information, and so much of it uncited, that I don't think it would be within WP's scope to include it - at least for the less famous composers. Actually, many of the non-workpages here include quite a lot of information which WP would have little use for, such as plate number tables, if I'm interpreting what I know of WP correctly (please alert me if not). The atmosphere here is much less formal (in this way) and less dependent on citations (although it is recommended to include them for articles about publishers) than WP's, since one can be confident that nearly everyone who contributes here is some sort of musical egghead (I mean that in a non-offensive way!), and therefore the information is probably reliable (and if it isn't, someone will probably notice soon). Basically, I'm not convinced that IMSLP's articles could be successfully imported to WP. Other information, such as composer/editor/arranger dates, etc. is extremely convenient to have here for verification of copyright status and also general curiosity. I guess I just don't like the idea of having to navigate all the time to another site with different standards and procedures... KGill talk email 01:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"Basically, I'm not convinced that IMSLP's articles could be successfully imported to WP"—I think we might be at cross-purposes, because that's not what I was suggesting. I'm worried about taking information from WP and placing it into IMSLP's articles. That was the point of my "raised" link above: there is no reason to include information such as Notes, Text, Libretto, Premiere, Premiere Venue, Published, and Voice in the IMSLP List of compositions by G. F. Handel (you do realise that the IMSLP list is a copy of an older version of the WP list—which of course is an edited copy of the GFHandel.org list—which of course is a copy of other sources—etc?). As far as I can tell, IMSLP is a repository of public-domain music—something it does well, but what it isn't is an encyclopaedia of musical knowledge—that's something that WP does well (well, is improving at). As a documenter of musical knowledge, what I need is a reliable source of primary materials (and thank you); but what I don't need is a secondary location of information that I know is slowly going out of date. I realise that IMSLP must include enough information to allow people to locate scores, but what does that involve? Composer, publisher, title, opus, key, instrument, and perhaps a little extra here-and-there? I've seen much more than that on some pages—excess information that must be maintained as it will be indexed by Google, and will eventually provide misleading information to the public (as it diverges from corrected and refined details on WP). GFHandel 03:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Could you provide a couple other examples of that? I don't want to seem obstructionist, but I don't think I'm incorrect in thinking that the Handel list is the single most enormous case of copying from WP that I have seen here (yes, I was aware of it, for quite some time in fact). There are not many others. Most of our worklists are AFAIK not duplicated from WP, but are the product of reformatting information from other sites (several in some cases) and original corrections based on information available elsewhere (i.e., on the scores themselves, or from resources like the Hofmeister Monatsbericht or Worldcat). I think that in my previous message I sort of jumped the gun a bit - you did not suggest that WP take in all IMSLP non-sheet-music articles, but I think it may be implied (especially after your assertion that IMSLP isn't an encyclopedia of musical knowledge). We have here quite a lot of 'excess information' - in fact, in terms of 'basic stats' such as duration, number of movements, key, etc., and especially information on publishers and publications, we utterly dwarf WP. The encyclopedic content on the two sites is not serving the same purpose - WP focuses heavily on composer biographies (there are a few articles on publishers and works sprinkled in, but I think it's fair to say that they are firmly in the minority), while IMSLP has none of that but contains much more information on individual works (aside from the scores themselves, I mean). Not only that, but I must strongly disagree that our information is 'misleading' and 'out of date'. I check every new composer page here for correct information, and I have noticed that there are a rather disturbing number of WP articles which contain either extremely outdated information (e.g., 19th century sources where there are ones from the 1980s available) or simply less information than is out there (I have rectified this in a tiny handful of cases). There are also some which cite no sources whatsoever, and contain incorrect information. (For reference, my (normally highly reliable) sources are from VIAF.org and MusicSack.com.) And anyway, I don't see any reason why we only have to have scores and their trappings here. After all, IMSLP could be a giant FTP directory with no information whatsoever apart from titles and names of composers - but it isn't. A fair number of people think of IMSLP as a sort of musical Wikipedia, because of the enormous amount of information we have along with the scores. Honestly, I don't see why we should have to give that up. WP is hardly going to take in information on tens of thousands of obscure musical works, and we're certainly not going to delete it, as that is quite simply unproductive. I guess what I'm getting at (in a very long-winded manner) is that WP looks for what is notable, but IMSLP looks for everything - if possible, the eventual aim of the project is to collect every single extant piece of public domain music ever written, and information to go along with it. Really, I don't think that the goals of the two sites can be equated, as you seem to imply. There may be some sort of compromise we can reach on worklists, but to lump in every other piece of information on the site is to ignore what we're really doing here. KGill talk email 00:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

*Applause*
However, there's no reason not to do some copying back and forth, although I must admit that I'm going to have to go back and redo BWV 1-20 to get rid of that copying.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no intention of prolonging a debate that requires the wagons to be circled (and it is a pity that that is happening—e.g. with comments like "*Applause*"). Whether you guys see it or not, I really was trying to be constructive. The list of Handel works was the one I visited, and the one that worried me (so I was kind-of batting 1000). I am concerned that unless maintained, your extra information will drift (and be misleading to the public). The WP articles are expanding all the time, and I have added dozens of articles on obscure musical works. I didn't suggest that there be "no information whatsoever apart from titles and names of composers" at IMSLP (in fact, quite the opposite—so please re-read what I wrote). I didn't imply "that the goals of the two sites can be equated" (once again, quite the opposite—and that's kind-of the point). My point remains: I feel that you guys need some sort of charter, statement or instruction to focus your editors on IMSLP's core aims, and I would suggest something like: "Only add information to articles that reasonably assists IMSLP readers to locate scores". I feel that IMSLP should avoid becoming a dumping ground of musical minutiae as that will dilute your real objectives. Please note that I have no problem with anyone at IMSLP copying information from WP; however the question should always be asked as to whether you need to copy (any individual bit). Anyhow I've said my peace, and I've no intention of becoming the antichrist around here; so: thank you all for your great work in collating these scores for all to use. Cheers. GFHandel 19:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that the impression has been given that we are 'circling the wagons' - I cannot speak for anyone else, but that was not a feeling I intended to convey. In fact, I have wondered a few times if it might be better to corral all worklists on Wikipedia, as it seems a more encyclopedic venture (although it's not exactly out of place here), and the argument that we should narrow our scope is interesting to me. I know that you did not say that we should move content to WP - you have twice denied it - but it is, once again, implied. If IMSLP contains too much 'minutiae', then where should it go? The only place is Wikipedia, unless it should be removed altogether. However, I don't think any one of us wants to do that. What I am concerned about is that the full measure of non-PDF information here is not being taken into account in this discussion. We do not just contain a bit of 'minutiae' scattered around - as I have now stated three times, the publisher pages are extremely informative, rich in those tiny details that would not be welcomed by most people on WP. I realize that you are not interested in hearing this, but I am still curious about what information here you believe to be outside of our scope. Worklists, maybe. I'm having trouble thinking of any other content we have that is arguably more appropriate for WP than it is here, apart from a few isolated examples.
After reading your last message, I took the time to read your philosophy as outlined on your WP userpage, and now realize how annoyed you must be to hear me mention 'notability' as an argument against moving 'database-like' content (as well as anything else only semi-suitable for inclusion, as determined by common practice) there. Even so, there are many, many people there who think the opposite way you do (unfortunately IMO), and I fear that the information would not fare well.
I should also point out that the aims of IMSLP have changed and are changing, and should not be thought of as set in stone. For instance, we added the capability to upload sound files over the summer, and our site owner has hinted at future amendments.
Lastly, I'd be interested to hear how much information you think would be 'reasonable' to include on workpages. I take it that that does not include, say, character lists and version information for operas? You have indicated that you're probably not going to answer (unfortunately in my mind), but I suppose I just want to let you know that I would still be interested to pursue this... KGill talk email 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops—that comment was directed at both of you. I think that we actually should move this to the forums at some point, because this is a rather important and fundamental idea that is being discussed.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put my two cents in... Regarding the work pages, actually, I don't see why we should not give some additional information on pieces. IMSLP is primarily a music library and source for scores but also wants to encourage users to exchange music thoughts and to discuss particular pieces of music. So, additional info about a rare piece is definitely welcome, a music lover who has just found the score of a rare piece here is surely interested in some additional info, when it was composed, premiered, different versions, sections, keys, dedication, etc. As already stated, the purpose is different, IMSLP concentrates on the works and not on the biography of a composer (therefore we link to the corresponding WP article). I guess no one wants to remove all the additional info from hundreds or even thousands of work pages here and create thousands of stubs of unknown works on WP. Concerning the work lists (I made some of them) I can say that I used Grove, MGG and the Pazdirek encyclopedia to compile and complete them but never just copied a list from WP. The worklists here not only serve to simply list the works but (from my point of view even more important) to show which works are already available and which ones not, at one glance. That's why we link existing work pages from the composition lists. If we just wanted to include a work list in the category, then yes, it would be reasonable to link the corresponding WP list. I'm talking here of the basic work lists with only opus, title, key, and maybe year (they should be up-to-date with no misleading information), so don't take me wrong. Nevertheless, it's true that some sortable worklists are rather crowded with details....these are the ones still open to dispute. However, I'm strictly against removing the basic work lists from IMSLP for the reason explained before. Also, the complete edition and special edition worklists are essential with regard to the publication history / copyright issues and IMSLP's aim to give info on publishers and publications. Hobbypianist 13:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "However, I'm strictly against removing the basic work lists from IMSLP for the reason explained before": please note that "removing the basic work lists from IMSLP" is an extension of my original argument into meaning I didn't intend. A closer discussion to what I did intend would be how "basic" is defined. GFHandel 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
OK - but it still implies some removal of information from IMSLP, albeit not as much as I guess I originally thought it did. Now for what you actually wanted to talk about: would we define 'basic' as just enough to help locate a specific work, as you suggested above? So, for instance, many of our sortable lists would immediately become irrelevant and should be exported and replaced with basic ones? Personally, I feel that that definition is rather subjective, open to a wide range of interpretations. Something which helps you find a work could be anything from its key or year of composition to a back story about how the piece only survived the burning down of the composer's villa in France because he sent a copy to his friend beforehand. I suppose that's a bit extreme/ridiculous, but I wouldn't be so sure that it's easy to either define what could help someone identify a work or to prevent additional information from creeping in - or to say that some of that additional information couldn't be just as helpful as the 'essentials'. To what degree are we willing to restrict the informational capacity of the site? KGill talk email 22:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've stated my opinion on this: Only add information to articles that reasonably assists IMSLP readers to locate scores. It's not up to me to define reasonably, however I will venture an opinion that information such as "a back story about how the piece only survived the burning down of the composer's villa in France because he sent a copy to his friend beforehand" isn't reasonable (but is a great candidate for being placed in an appropriate Wikipedia article). IMSLP's charter should be to supply public domain musical resources to other bodies of work (such as Wikipedia), so I believe it is appropriate for IMSLP to define that charter.
Without guidelines or a charter, issues (such as drift of the information, and the incompleteness of links at List of compositions by G. F. Handel) are inevitable. Since the information at that page was bulk-copied from the Wikipedia article (List of compositions by George Frideric Handel) in February 2009, there have been about 25 edits to the IMSLP version (made by 7 editors) versus about 135 edits to the WP version (made by at least 30 editors). Obviously many of the WP edits are formatting and internal linkages, but many are also to the notes and other front-facing information on the page. It may seem like a great idea at the time to bulk-copy information, however with that information comes a responsibility of maintenance. Truth be told, I'm concerned about the discrepancies between the list page and the Category:Handel, George Frideric page that neatly displays (and gives access to) the works by Handel for which you do have scores. I counted 102 links to distinct score pages at the IMSLP List of compositions by G. F. Handel page, however there are 147 links to scores at the IMSLP Category:Handel,_George_Frideric page. So 21 months after the Handel compositions list was bulk-copied from WP (including only four edits in 2010), the list page links only (at most) 70% of the scores you do have for Handel. That really does define the problem, and is the clearest indication I can find that despite the great work you do in other areas, the editors at IMSLP don't have the appetite or capacity for maintaining lists such as List of compositions by G. F. Handel. Have you guys thought about the effect of someone searching (and not finding a link to a score) for (say) Handel's Recorder sonata HWV 360 at the list page? They're going to say "rats, IMSLP doesn't have it"—when in fact, you do.
Do you really believe that someone isn't going to be able to locate the score for Almira at the IMSLP category page without the extra information found on the IMSLP list page that the work: premiered in 1705 at the Theater am Gänsemarkt, Hamburg with a libretto by Feustking, Friedrich Christian, after G. Pancieri and is of genre Opera, sub-genre Singspiel? That is purely duplication of the information from Wikipedia for the sake of duplication.
I will say that the List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart page is much better (than the Handel list page) and seems closer to the basic information that should be defined by a charter (which is all I'm really getting at with my posts here). The List of compositions by Franz Schubert, by Deutsch number page (although not without problems) also contains basic information. But, three composers with three different techniques for displaying lists of works is also a clear indication why a charter or guidelines would be useful at IMSLP.
The arguments presented by others keep suggesting that I'm on a slash-and-burn mission to see what can be deleted from IMSLP. That's not what I'm after, and I realise that the horse has bolted at pages such as List of compositions by G. F. Handel. At best, I'm hoping that some sort of guidelines may help to prevent other horses charging to the horizon.
GFHandel 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

GFHandel, the appetite for maintenance is something that we deal with with our automated bot that finds the unlinked pages and lists them on a page IMSLP:Maintenance/Worklists, the history of which perhaps refutes your point.
This goes back to the point that I expressed earlier—IMSLP gets to choose its own purpose and guidelines. The project coordinator, Feldmahler, has even expressed approbation for The Materials of Music, which does absolutely nothing to help locate scores. The point is that a Music Library—let's get rid of the "S" for now, especially in light of the addition of recordings—has a goal of educating users about music, not just helping them find it. No music library only contains music. Music does not stand alone, and it is convenient for users to have one place to find all of this information. Users will often not go to the wikipedia page for something, but might find the information on IMSLP useful.
I'm going to make a forum post about drafting a charter for worklists, if nobody objects. This sounds like a very good idea.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Refutes? There have been four edits this year to List of compositions by G. F. Handel, and the list page still doesn't link to at least 30% of the scores of Handel that you do have. Something isn't working.
  • Regarding "No music library only contains music": I didn't suggest it should (so that's an unwelcome rebaselining of my argument). If "Users...might find the information on IMSLP useful", then you'd better have a plan, guidelines and the appetite for keeping the information you do have up-to-date. That is clearly not happening at List of compositions by G. F. Handel (which has been one of my points from the beginning).
  • Regarding "forum post": excellent. Thank you.
GFHandel 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It does not refute it at that one page, but it does on many of the dozens (hundreds?) of other pages that have been flagged by the bot in the past, and updated by one of several users who have worked on that area of the site. Part of the reason I think we're having such trouble agreeing on anything is that you are mostly talking about List of compositions by G. F. Handel while trying to apply it to the entire site. That list really is a huge anomaly. We could use some more guidelines on this issue, but we'll get nowhere if we assume that that page is typical of IMSLP's worklists in general.
I, too, agree that a forum thread is in order here. KGill talk email 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Browse scores
Browse recordings
Participate
Other
For iPhone & iPad

Purchase

Toolbox
Associated with