Thanks for some of this cleanup work. It's well-appreciated!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Editor vs. Librettist
Hi. I notice that you've put the author of the text to a few songs in the editor field for the file. However, this should actually go in the 'Librettist' field when you create the work page. Thanks, KGill talk email 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't aware of that. I think it might be Sibley automatically putting it there, so I never really checked to see if it was correct. I'll be more conscious of it, thanks for the notification, BKhon 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
One other thing you can do is link to music publishers, a link to the complete list of which above. This can be done like this: [[PUBLISHER PAGE|IMPRINT]]. It's an enormous help if you do that. Thanks!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll definitely start doing that. Thanks for the suggestion! I notice there are a lot of music publishers that are not on the list to which you gave me a link. Would I be allowed to add a publisher, and link to them?
- That would be fabulous! (try to cite sources for what you write about them, though) KGill talk email 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Make sure you have enough info, though-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
What Hellmesberger Sr. category do we have? None shows up under a search. Eric 04:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're right that it doesn't come up under a search. The piece I submitted was actually by Hermann Gradener (1844-1929), for whom we do have a category. You will find the files are there. I would make an internal link for you, but my computer won't allow me to copy and paste, and the composer has a foreign marking in his name that I can't type, so sorry. However, it's his second string quartet. There you will find the duplicated files. The piece I tagged for deletion should, in fact, be deleted. Thanks, BKhon 05:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, I see now that you meant the proposal for the category itself. That was just a mistake, I meant to tag the physical file. But the previous comment holds true as well ;) BKhon 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Grädener's quartet appears for some reason under many different composer names and different searches at Sibley. I've never quite figured out why. Anyhow, got it and thanks! Eric 10:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but we also have to find out what opus numbers those songs go with and put them on the appropriate pages. I may get around to that in a couple days (I started a list a while ago on the bottom of the original page)... KGill talk email 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was planning to do that after all the files were already split (I still have 28 to go for the second album). But if you would rather do it, that's not a problem. I figured I would split them, put them up on the site, then move whatever I had to later. But I guess it's inefficient... BKhon 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind - I had for some reason assumed that you were going to leave them in the individual pages...sorry... KGill talk email 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi BKhon, and thanks for splitting this! However, I think you accidentally missed a couple - nos. 5, 6, and 10 (as listed on the bottom of the page) have not yet been split. (Note that the two elegies are in fact totally different pieces; only the first one comes from Op.48.) Thanks, KGill talk email 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, you're right. Fixed.
- Thank you! — P.davydov 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - not to nag too much - but I still think you're missing Intermezzo from the Suite, Op.43 (arr. Lemare), and March from The Nutcracker (arr. Custard). Thanks, KGill talk email 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, now I see what happened - for some reason, you replaced the files you had already uploaded with the file for a different piece. Sorry, KGill talk email 01:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...and now I discover that I was wrong before - the only piece that has not been split is 'Danse des Mirlitons' from The Nutcracker (arr. Custard). Thanks (and apologies), KGill talk email 01:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Les jeunes lauriers, Marche militaire (Hahn, Reynaldo) to Les Jeunes Lauriers, Marche Militaire
Hi Bkhon. The manual of style indicates this should actually go under "Les jeunes lauriers (Hahn, Reynaldo)", i.e. with the correct French capitalization, and omitting the subtitle — P.davydov 05:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for that.
That's OK. I've just moved it to the correct title — P.davydov 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Dates on scores
Hi BKhon! I notice that in a couple edits, you put the date in brackets, which usually means there is no date on the score. However, on the two I found, there actually was a date - it was on the first page of music, which is in fact the most common place for it to be for many publishers (i.e. not the title page). Thanks, KGill talk email 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't delete a file just by removing it from the page! :). Next time put the delete template up. BTW I personally think that there's enough reason (cropping) to keep them as alternates.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, an impromptu way to deal with it... maybe it could be kept, but it's still a duplicate of the same publication. On an unrelated note: I notice that you sometimes don't specify the number of instruments in the work info field (e.g. "piano" vs. "1 piano"). It's probably better to include the number of instruments when reasonable. While it may seem unnecessary, it does take out any ambiguity (if someone just says piano, it could be piano 4-hands, etc). Specifying the number of instruments when reasonable brings the chance for error and ambiguity down... specificity is always fun anyway :). Thanks, BKhon 05:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to use "Piano (solo)", "Piano (4 hands)", "Piano (left hand)" in the instrumentation field, just to be absolutely clear. How about adopting "Specificity is always fun!" as the IMSLP motto :-) — P.davydov 09:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think it's better to just have a number in front of the instrument. There are good reasons for my thoughts that, which I can go over in more detail later (is this mentioned in a manual of style? If not, I can probably touch base on it). "Specificity is always fun" might make a good motto for score submissions ;). Maybe we can incorporate it somewhere on IMSLP, BKhon 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah-got it and
Thanks very much!!! Eric 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
as to that last, if only judging from previous edits people have made in response to my edits and not so much what people have told me, I've always gathered the piano part should go on top, the other instruments under, and the color cover(s) on bottom. Are there rules about this laid out somewhere?... Cheers and thanks! Eric 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there are exact rules for that, but I do know that it's traditional to do it that way. KGill talk email 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was wondering... Eric 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on the forums about this at one point. I believe someone proposed a "Hierarchy", but it never made it onto the wiki. It wouldn't be a bad idea to create though... But no, there isn't anything official on the subject, and it is tradition (probably because Sibley puts it in that order). But to some extent it makes sense to have the front cover first...
- Neither of them makes sense or logical sense, really. (And as someone with training in math and some in mathematical logic, definitely not logical sense ;) ) I'm all for consistency, though, within reason... Eric 01:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- It does make sense... naturally, we as humans like order. Without going into technicalities, mostly because I'm too tired, and this is a talk page discussion ;), page cover, then score, then back page cover seems to be the most ordered. BKhon 01:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a convention that scores always come before parts, and both should precede any separately-scanned non-musical items like cover scans or editorial prefaces. These types of issues tend to be thrashed out on the forums for a while, before the decisions become lost in the mists of time. We should really have a better system of documentation — P.davydov 05:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Categorization project (tagging)
Hi Bkhon. I wonder if you would be interested in joining our categorization project? Although 80% of works are now tagged, that still leaves around 5,000 that still aren't in the category system, and with a final push we might be able to get all of them done before the year end. If you are interested then maybe you'd like to read the project notes and get back to me if you've any questions? Thanks — P.davydov 07:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would love to join the categorization project, thanks.
Organically organ (!organum)
Unless I'm mistaken there's simply no need to replace Organ with 1 organ, see further on in User_talk:Schissel#Instrumentation - thanks though... Eric 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's still being discussed... I think everyone is in agreement about the importance of standardization, but not everyone is at a consensus of how. KGill, me, a few others prefer to say "1 organ, 1 piano" or whatever just to avoid a possible mistake. Davydov and others (as you've read) aren't in total agreement, since "Piano" is implied to mean one piano. One example of an ambiguous statement might be "pianos" when there are two pianos. That's something that is much too ambiguous, and it would need to be clarified "2 pianos", etc). On that note, the consistency of having a number sounds fair, even if it is singular.
Ok- I had just wondered if Canadian law had changed recently since I'd noticed a number of other pages recently where this was also the case (editor or other associated figure non-PD-Canada). Thanks. Will delete composer too since I know of nothing else to upload by him in the next few days but will keep the information handy since there are recordings on Naxos etc. so something else might come around again :) Thanks! Eric 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the last surviving composer, author, translator, editor, etc has not been dead for over 50 years, it's non-PD. The only exception is if it's a scientific edition (urtext), and the editor made no changes, BKhon 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Next time you have to move pages to a different composer, could you please not create new pages and upload duplicate files? You can just use the move tab (top of every page) on the work pages and change the composer name in parentheses. This is a lot easier as it means that nothing is duplicated. Thanks, KGill talk email 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing is duplicated if the original file is deleted. Thanks though, BKhon 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't duplicated now, because I cleaned it up, but the point is that you don't need to reupload the file. You can just move the page without changing anything else. Thanks, KGill talk email 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerto in Do minore per archi e continuo (Sardelli, Federico Maria)
This actually translates as "Concerto in C minor for Strings and Continuo", and not "Concerto for Orchestra in D minor". The composer has reverted it back to the original version, but you might want to avoid any more changes to his titles for the time being (I'm in correspondence with him). Thanks — P.davydov 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- n.b. Do/Ut/C, Re/Ré/D, Mi/Mi/E, Fa/Fa/F, Sol/Solo/G, La/La/A, Si/Si/H/B/Ti-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Davydov, thanks. I noticed that he changed it back, and I've been waiting for the criticism (which was bound to come) on my talk page ever since ;P (or some sort of face to express the tone I mean). Perlnerd, thanks... I know :). Wasn't thinking, exactly. BKhon
Just checking ;). Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Regina Coeli, K.108 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus)
Hi Ben. The correct tag for this work should be "antiphons ; sop ch orch ; la", rather than just "orch" as you had it (!) If you're not sure then please ask or leave it for someone else, because it's much harder to identify a wrong tag than an untagged page. Thanks — P.davydov 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi BKhon. I noticed that you tagged a couple of these files as permission granted - I'm just wondering if you in fact have proof of that? (I asked the uploader about it yesterday, as I find it somewhat unlikely.) Thanks, KGill talk email 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much indeed!! Eric 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
D minor March
- And thank you for noticing. KGill already took care of it. When I add the string parts I will join them together with the winds.
- Though an argument could be made that for larger orchestras, it makes sense to split them by groups. But any IMSLP user can take care of such details.
- If you spot any wrong notes, bad page turns, missing accidentals, attempts to insert my own passages into Bruckner's music, etc., please let me know right away. That I will treat as a top priority.
- And I copied and pasted the Finale userbox from your page. Alonso del Arte 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good to see people are copying me now :D. Means I must be doing something right! Just kidding of course... I will let you know if I ever spot anything incorrect that is of more urgent nature. We look forward to more contributions! BKhon 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi again BKhon - I noticed that you've been doing a fair amount of CR, which is good, but I'm a little concerned about some of the tags you've made. One example I just ran across is that of Karl Rorich. You tagged all files as V/V/V, even though he died in 1941, which is less than 70 years ago; he was German, so they should actually be V/V/12. In the future, please make sure to check a composer category before tagging to ascertain the year of death (as well as looking up the dates of all editors, lyricists, arrangers, etc.). Thanks, KGill talk email 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)