User talk:Carolus/archive19


Manuscript scans continue with the topic. Hi Carolus, there's a discussion in the German section of the forums whether it's permissible to upload manuscript scans of the SLUB which might be protected by the German § 71 UrhG. I just want to summarize: a user asked if IMSLP has permission because the SLUB states that permission is needed for collections ("Die Verwendung zusammenhängender Teilbestände der Digitalen Sammlungen auf nicht-kommerziellen Webseiten bedarf gesonderter Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers.") of which pieces might fall under the mentioned §. Yes, it's true that the owner of a manuscript can claim copyright for 25 years if the piece was not published yet. However, in my understanding, the pieces/scans in question should then be clearly marked as copyrighted, which is not the case. I think, just the vague statement "permission needed" is not enough. So, our policy here is to accept and release any uploaded manuscript scan unless we get a complaint from the SLUB, correct? (By the way, if we got a complaint would SLUB then have to prove that the piece was never published before?) To make it more complicated, Notenschreiber asked if it's then ok to make a new typset of such pieces an upload them. To cite the German law, the copyright owner has the sole right to duplicate/reproduce and distribute the piece. So, should a piece really fall under ed. princeps law $71 it would not be allowed to distribute a typeset. Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, since we allow these scans, can a new typset then be posted anyway? Of course, I also like readable typesets but I think the situation isn't as simple as described with "yes, yes, yes" here. As other threads like [1] or [2] show there still seems to be some need for discussion/clarification. Maybe we can post some explanation in the thread Notenschreiber started. Regards, Hobbypianist 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hobbypianist, Yes our standing policy is to accept manuscript scans as along as there is no direct complaint of Editio Princeps being made - they would furthermore have to prove that the work in question was never previously published. Under Canada's version of Editio Princeps (which is for 50 years, not 25), a musical work by a composer whose normal term of copyright has expired is eligible only if the work was never published, publicly performed, or recorded in the composer's lifetime. In other words, the bar for "unpublished" is pretty high to qualify for the 50-year term. I think it is similar in some EU countries, but I will need to do some research on the issue. While (as you know) the US law is generally insane, this is one area where it's actually advantageous: As of 1/1/2003, all unpublished works of composers dead over 70 years fell into the US public domain (those first published before that date are subject to copyright). Our only real concern with respect to manuscripts of this nature would be for any possible Editio Princeps claims - mainly for the EU - as both Canada and the US are fairly clear. If Notenschreiber were in the USA, it would be a non-issue as no permission would be necessary. However, in Germany and other parts of the EU he may indeed have to obtain permission. As I said above, I will be doing some more in-depth research on the whole Editio Princeps question in light of the large number of manuscript scans which are now here. We may have to change the EU tags, as I am not very confident that "V" is actually justified for all of these (though "C" probably is). Carolus 01:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans Reinhart

Hi Carolus, I found out from DNB (through VIAF) that he was a Swiss writer and translator who lived from 1880 to 1963, so I had to delete the Honegger since it very much included his German text. Thanks, KGill talk email 13:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. There's some question on the viability of copyright claims for translations of this nature, but I think deleting it is the safest course for now. Carolus 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WTC Book 2

All fixed now.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

String Quartet in G major (Vanhal, Johann Baptist)

Hi, I can only find the score for this - but there must be a set of parts, especially since it's a typeset. Is it in fact there, or did they just forget to send it to you? Thanks, KGill talk email 01:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The parts catalog number is 4538. I never got this from them. I'll e-mail Theo Wyatt later tonight. Thanks, Carolus 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you gotten a reply yet? KGill talk email 01:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not yet. I'll ask again. Carolus 02:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I think there's another one - 6 String Quartets, Op.8 (Abel, Carl Friedrich). Both score files are there, but I only can find the parts for Nos.1-3. KGill talk email 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
And maybe this as well, although the notes would seem to suggest otherwise... KGill talk email 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Google Scores

It did cross my mind that the watermark was a problem but I wasn't able to get rid of if with Acrobat because it didn't recognize it as a watermark. No worries for the Erinnyes because I just today found another better scan with no watermark searching -- I don't think I have uploaded anything else from Google w/o removing the mark and I will not in the future now that I know for sure it's a no-go. Thanks for your help! Massenetique 01:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the other Google items you uploaded recently were stripped of their logos - which is not easily done in Acrobat Pro, by the way. I happen to have an expensive Acrobat plug-in called PitStop which normally gets rid of them with a simple command. For some reason, the logos in that file you uploaded appears to have been flattened into the underlying TIFF scan itself. Carolus 01:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I am as surprised as you that in worked in Acrobat Pro. On the scans where it did, I had to remove each one individually from the page as the "remove watermark" tool did not work. On others I simply cropped off the bottom of the page (ie. the Scenes pittoresques I just uploaded). The group of scans I am about to start uploading now I found on and come mostly from the University of Ottowa and have no watermarks so there shouldn;t be any more with issues. Thanks! Massenetique 02:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Carl Halle - Changing a file

Sorry to ask, but I found a print error in one of the pdfs. Is it possible to change a uploaded file with a new one? Thanks. conductorian talk email 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Carolus, but it's certainly possible. Click on the small number underneath the download link (e.g. #30000), and from there look for the link to 'upload a new version of this file' (should be about midway down the page). Cheers, KGill talk email 15:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks a lot... --Conductorian 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus, if you give me the nod, I'll scan the other 11. Regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proceed. Free in both Canada and USA. Carolus 23:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do tomorrow. This moment I prepare Paul Juon's Op.18, No.9 --Ralph Theo Misch 23:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Piano Suite No.5, Op.162 (Raff, Joseph Joachim))

Carolus, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I posted this under this title as Raff's other piano suites are posted as "suite no. x for piano." Is there some way you could rename or re-direct "Piano Suite No.5, Op.162 (Raff, Joseph Joachim)" to "Suite No.5 for Piano, Op.162 (Raff, Joseph Joachim)?"

Thanks, Cypressdome

No problem, it's a simple fix. Regards, Carolus 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dupré plays Widor

Hello Carolus, I've made that recording two years ago. I think it's really interesting. Dupré played it ca. 1920 for the Welte Company. Krupp in Essen (Germany) bought the paper roll for his Organ at Villa Hügel, built in 1914 by the Aeolian Company. The Welte machine is from 1928. I don't know anything about the CR status of that matter. May it be PD? Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll will have to do a little research on this. The possible problem I see is with Dupré, who lived until 1971 which is less than 50 years ago - meaning his performance is still protected in Canada. Carolus 22:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to your research. A friend of mine and me, we plan to make more recordings at Villa Hügel in near future. We'll see the numbers of the paper rolls than. Kind regards --Ralph Theo Misch 22:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem (as usual) is the USA. Basically, all recordings are assumed to be under copyright unless one can prove otherwise until 15 Feb 2067. Recordings were not covered under US law until 1972 and fell under the common-law copyright statutes of the various states. This even applies to items produced before 1923. It's also a problem in Canada due to Dupré's having died only in 1971. You're basically making of a recording of a recording. This is probably fine in the EU, but not in Canada or USA. Sorry, Carolus 00:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

2067 - curious. I'll be about 100 years old then. We'll see.... Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


I tried to find out the original title via Holy God — Sviaty Bozhe. Without success so far. But I may ask some people tomorrow. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and upload it. We just may have to move the page later, that's all. He may have composed some items in German originally, but info is sketchy on him. Carolus 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and I don't know the russian alphabet. Only: святой is Holy ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Serenade for Flute, Violin and Viola, Op.25 (Beethoven, Ludwig van)

...C.F. Peters set of parts.
I have the original Peters edition and have added the editor and plate# to the work page. From the editor's year of death, I would assume this is not PD in Canada and EU (but PD in USA due to lack of copyright notice).

It depends very much upon the nature of the editing. Is there any mention of "urtext" in the original Peters print? If so, we will just add the urtext stars to the copyright tag. On the other hand, if Hermann added lots of things (this seems somewhat unlikely given the fact the piece was extensively published previously), we might have to take it down as it would be protected in both Canada and the EU. Carolus 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No mention of urtext. I guess we have to compare it to other editions to see the extent of the editing.--Homerdundas 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm leaving it up (and retagging as "C" for Canada and EU for now) until someone does at least a cursory comparison. Thanks, Carolus 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding scores only PD in EU

Hi Carolus, according the forum thread it is now possible " allow European users to access scores that are public domain in Europe but not in the U.S. or Canada." However, when I tagged a score N*N*V* it had a [B] and not the mentioned [EU]. So the score must still be public domain in Canada to be accessible or have I made something wrong? I ask because I have some works from complete editions which have been published for the 1st time (in the 70s) and therefore are free in the EU (and copyrighted in Canada). Hobbypianist 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily copyrighted in Canada. If you go and read through our public domain page you can see where I've updated it with the results of my researches into Canada's treatment of posthumous publications. If the composer of the work in question was dead more than 50 years when the item was first published it not protected any longer in Canada than in its country of origin. That said, we do need to look into the fact that the EU tag does not appear for works that are free in the EU only. Thanks, Carolus 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Feldmahler actually said that it needs to be on the Canadian server to be on the EU server, so I guess that's correct. KGill talk email 01:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think I remember his mention of that. Carolus 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad, I didn't notice that the PD page has been updated meanwhile. Hobbypianist 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


This is an unfortunate situation: in terms of consistency, this really should be "Johann Sebastian Bach — Complete Works Edition", but there are so many links and redirects! What do you think about the move?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's inconsistent. I really think we should leave as is for now. Carolus 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree leaving it for now, but moves usually aren’t that hard if the destination pages have the redirects flattened out to no more than double redirects at best – after a move, checking “what links here”. Given that the gradual splitting of the cantatas will generate 200 new pages, now might be a good time to set up the page “Johann Sebastian Bach — Complete Works Edition” as a re-direct to the current page – then, when you later resolve the discrepancy, there’s 200 fewer pages pointing at the “wrong” page. (If that makes any sense.) Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 21:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're linked via template now (I made a BachComplete a while ago). So that's not so much of a problem.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pierné tagging

Sorry! I was running autopilot on little sleep and dozed off. Glad you check-up on me :) Daphnis 02:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I like to check things published after 1923 to see if I can spot a defective notice. If I can find an excuse to tag something "C", I tend to do so. Notice was perfect for the Pierné, unfortunately. Carolus 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does one report

a (possibly browser-and-computer-specific) problem with a page (the Sibley Files Uploader)? Thank you very very much for the support and good words on my talk page recently, I am sorry I did not get back to you. Thanks! Eric 14:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you post the report both on the forums (in the bug / problems thread) and on Feldmahler's talk page. He's the master-programmer here. Regards, Carolus 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Works by 2 and 3 composers

A question I'm hoping you can help me with -- in uploading these French opera scores from, I've run into a few that are collaborations between 2, and in once case 3, composers. Should these works be uploaded to both composer pages separately with indications in the notes on both pages that the work is a collaboration? Uploading them under "Various" seems counterproductive because they are much less likely to be found where a visitor might expect. Thoughts? Massenetique 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump in here before Carolus responds to say that this is quite simple. Submit the piece under the first credited name or the composer with this most contribution, then simply add the other composer name(s) outside that template. See the page "Autour de Florent Schmitt" by Ferroud as an example. Daphnis 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Daphnis is correct. If it's a collection with numerous composers, it might be best to put it under "Various". For a few, Daphnis' recommendation is the way to go. Carolus 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lemare plays Bach, Reger plays Reger, etc.

Ave Carolus, I hope I've understood you correctly. Today, I've been at Villa Hügel again and saw the original paper rolls and made some fotos - there are no CR remarks on them. Moreover I've made some more recordings. Unfortunately the organ is slightly out of tune (because of the heat these days). So I'll better go on in September. Shall I post a sample anyway? Regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 22:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No harm in posting a sample. Lemare is certainly free in Canada, and since you're the one making the recording, there's no problem with respect to US status. Carolus 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll prepare it tomorrow. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hope I've made everything right. Well - it's quite interesting but no feast for the ears... --Contractus 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Now, I see that I DIDN'T make everything right: My signature changed :(( - Removed... --Ralph Theo Misch 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

7 Joyce Songs, Op.54 (Szymanowski, Karol)

Hi Carolus, I don't like to retag anything you've already tagged, but I don't think this one was correct - you had it as V/45/41! Joyce died in 1941, so isn't it 12 for the EU? Thanks, KGill talk email 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I was thinking of the year of Joyce's death (1941) instead of the year his work would enter the EU public domain (2012). Carolus 01:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rip Van Winkle, Op.22 (Bristow, George Frederick)

Carolus, Thanks for cleaning this post up for me. I have a question regarding how to properly format the hierarchical arrangement of this work. There are about half a dozen excerpts for voice and piano that the LOC has posted all originating from the 1855 version of the score. Should I add two sub-categories under vocal score, one for the 1878-81 revision (currently posted material) and another for the 1855 original version (the half dozen excerpts)? Or, would the 1855 version excerpts not really be considered "vocal score?" Thanks Cypressdome

You're on the right track. If they're voice and piano extracts, they can still go under the heading of vocal scores. We typically put the files for each different version under a level-4 (four equal signs) sub-heading. So, the Bristow would be "1855 version" and "1881 version." The 1882 complete vocal score was reprinted by Da Capo in the late 1970s. It should be reasonably easy to find a copy to scan so we can eventually have the complete opera. Regards, Carolus 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical sets, collected Editions, etc.

You've probably noticed some of the things that I've done with this. Do you have access, or is there some reason for your not using it in certain instances (e.g. Beethoven complete page)? Thanks, -- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've not seen what you've been up to with these. Are you referring to the Heyer book? I have a copy of the 2nd edition here. Carolus 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, good. It's a nice compendium. (I made a Machaut page, filled in some things on Beethoven+Victoria, and added Obrecht to the list on the B&H page)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can you tell me about the CR status of the Oiseau-Lyre prints (e.g. Polyphonic music of the 14th Century)?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll check and post back here. Carolus 22:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that there is a strong chance that most are free in the USA. Masters has reprinted a series they issued in the 1940s of items for various small chamber ensemble by contemporary French composers. Apparently no renewals or NIEs filed. If they treated folks like Milhaud that badly, I expect the urtext editions fared no better. (You never know, though - until you actually see the copies and check the renewals). Carolus 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was contemplating the De Vitry works which is in V. 1 of Polyphonic music actually; no renewal means fine in the US, but they're transcriptions (reduced, I think), which are probably not OK in the EU/CA? Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Theater of Musick

Dear Carolus!

I´ve found this website with the complete score of "theater of musick" by John Playford. I would like to place it in the IMSLP but I don´t know the copyright. Could you have a look on this website to see what the situation is?

Best wishes Bassani

Hello Bassani, The Playford item is public domain worldwide. The only copyright is for the website itself. By all means add it - it will be a very fine addition and most welcome. Regards, Carolus 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello Carolus - I see that you did some good rearranging on this page, but something strange has happened after I attempted to add more files, this time for the 1792 edition. I got the message that one of the new files had been successfully uploaded, but now the page does not display correctly, and the links to allow more uploads have disappeared. Can you fix? No rush. Thanks! Olmsted 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll have a look. Carolus 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually came across this earlier today and fixed it - the problem was that you (Olmsted) put two left brackets when formatting a link, but only one closing bracket. This caused the page template to be rendered nonfunctional. It should be all right now, however. Thanks, KGill talk email 23:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing. I have uploaded the remaining files for the 1792 edition.
For books, has there been any discussion among the admins about allowing here either txt or etext or links to Project Gutenberg? It seems a pity to have only images of important prose works in this era of e-readers. If you want to read a text, why not be able read it on your personal digital device, or be able to cut and paste whatever text you like? Olmsted 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any problem with linking to e-text files at Gutenberg. You might try asking over at the forums to see if anyone can think of a reason we should not have such links. I think it's a good idea, in general terms. Besides, Gutenberg is free, just as we are. Carolus 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Submitting personal editions

Hi Carolus - I recently uploaded an engraving of an unpublished piece of music that I personally made based on a manuscript. However, User:Perlnerd666 deleted it and I want to know what I need to do to get it back up and comply with IMSLP's creative commons policy. I put a copyright notice on the piece followed by a disclaimer saying that non-commercial use and distribution were permitted. Can there not be a copyright notice at all on what is submitted? Keep in mind that I, the uploader, created the document and stated as such on the work page. Was User:Perlnerd666 being overzealous or do I need to change my markings on the music? Thanks for your help. Massenetique 04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete anything. I simply removed the duplicate entry for the manuscript which was already there. I suspect that you chose the wrong file when you tried to upload, Massenetique, because there was not a typeset to be found on the page. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Massenetique, I am sure that it must have been a duplicated file as Perlnerd666 mentioned. He is an experienced copyright reviewer. There is absolutely no problem at all with you submitting your own new edition here. In fact, we welcome these along with new works by living composers. I strongly recommend that you carefully read through the various Creative Commons licenses before uploading. There a lot of folks over at Ebay who are ripping the content of this site and selling CDs and DVDs of all manner of scores. If you select one of the more restrictive versions of the CC license (Non-commercial or Share Alike), this at least gives us a valid reason to submit complaints to Ebay about these characters violating the terms of the license by selling the scores. The simple "attribution" only version (which may still be what you are initially limited to when uploading editions/typesets) allows them to sell copies. If necessary, you can change to the more restrictive version after uploading in the edit window. Carolus 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [Edit: spelling-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)]

Yes, I am sure that I uploaded the wrong file. I apologize, Snailey, for jumping to conclusions. I will upload the correct file this time. Thanks! Massenetique 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for all of the work with Opera VSs!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 14:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A General History of Music (Burney, Charles)

Can you find dates for Mercer? I've been trying to track this down (pity Dover let it go out of print, but it's a 50-year-old reprint). Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any info on him at all. The only thing that comes up is his contribution to the above title. Dover reprinted it in 1957 (an early reprint for them). He was active ca.1935, that's all we know for now. Carolus 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Now, can we find the areas in which Dover sold the reprint? Perhaps that could tell us something about what they knew of his status.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea of how to search for that. If I find it over in the EU, we might be clear. Carolus 03:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

D. Ehrhardt

Hi, WorldCat gives this name as equivalent to Dorothy Erhart (1894-1971), an English composer and harpsichord player. The profile matches (Merton's only item by her was published by J.& W. Chester in 1917). However, I couldn't find any other reliable source to confirm this. Do you think it's plausible? Thanks, KGill talk email 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely Dorothy Erhart's work. My Macmillan Encyclopedia (1937) mentions the Piano Quintet in a short list of works. She was a pupil of Bantock. I'll have to ask Theo Wyatt if he obtained permission. He probably did, but I have to confirm nonetheless. Carolus 21:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Musica Divina

Hi Carolus, do you have an idea how to remove the introducing pages of those files? My own ideas failed (pdfsam etc.). Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to our FTP? If not, send me an e-mail or a PM on the forum and I'll give you the ID and password. I would recommend that you download all of these files you wish to have, upload to the FTP area. I can then download them and unlock the files (unless you have the ability to remove the locking) and remove the logo pages, metatags, etc. Then I can upload these cleaned files to the FTP and you can use the pURL upload feature to upload directly from there to the wiki. Carolus 01:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Did you recieve my e-mail? To register, I had to generate a different user name: Rabenhorst. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away most of the last day. I'll check and get to you shortly. Carolus 01:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Parodi Ortega

Hi, these are all sample files (i.e. they only contain a fraction of the actual work), and I thought we had a policy not to permit that because we always want the complete work when possible (excepting cases when the work is incomplete, etc.), to prevent the site from including what are basically ads for living composers. In fact, I already sent an email to the composer informing him that if it wasn't possible to include the full works, we would have to just remove them because that kind of thing goes against policy. However, I see you've kept the newly tiny files - does that mean that we should in fact allow them? Thanks, KGill talk email 22:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. I was thinking about sending him a message about this and am glad you already did. You're correct. It's OK if he uplaods locked PDFs of his own works which allow for viewing only, but we really have to have minimum of a complete score in cases like this. Otherwise, we'll have every sample file from Hal Leonard up here which amounts to free advertising. While a certain amount of free advertising for living composers is OK, I think there is a point at which this becomes an abuse of the site - which I see Mr. Parodi appears to have crossed. Carolus 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to update, it seems he can fully upload a limited number of works, just not all of them. So some of them will be (or have been) re-submitted. KGill talk email 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I was wondering if we should tell him to wait until we could restore all the deleted pages. Carolus 20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought of that, but it may not be worth the effort because I don't know which works he's actually going to keep, so he would have to tell us, etc....and after all, he has to upload every file anew anyway. KGill talk email 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fingerings question

See here-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Amour, cruel amour

Dear Carolus! Could you delet "Amour, cruel amour" by Vallette-Montigny, because this song is composed under preudonym "de Montigny du Havre" by Sébastien de Brossard. Thank you very much and beste wishes Bassani

I'll take care of it. He certainly liked to use pseudonyms! Carolus 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Need to look into it further, but in helping to compile Wikipedia worklists for Lachner and Kalivoda/Kalliwoda sometimes came across publication dates earlier than those given by Hofmeister Monatsbericht. However, need to check where I got those dates from and how certain I am of them; some of my sources were of course better than others (Googlebooks-scanned Musical Times/AMZ/NZM contemporary reviews of scores good, Worldcat, not so good :) ). Will check and update... Thanks! Eric 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Worldcat is not terribly reliable. Monatsbericht dating is not quite so definitive the farther an item is from Leipzig. There was often a lag of several months for Paris issues, for example. There are plenty of things that simply did not appear in the Monatsbericht, either. Carolus 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)