User talk:Carolus/archive23


Ben's Typesets

Hi Carolus. I wanted to inform you that I've found evidence that the typesets that Ben uploaded as his own, were actually done by someone named Steven Hagger. This could very well be a pseudonym for Ben, but I think it's a matter worth looking into. All of the typesets I've seen so far appear to have been posted on the finale showcase by Steven Hagger. One example can be found /here. The typesets are very similar, and the possible plagiarism has gone unnoticed so far, Lndlewis10 01:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, if that’s the case, then it’s clearly unacceptable, but I would express one caution. I’d been asked by Ben to look at a typeset of Dvořák’s Slavonic Dance Op. 46 No. 8, which was obviously typeset with the aid of a MIDI file, rather than relying on a Finale source file, in order to effect the majority of the note entry – separate of the formatting and other material changes which have to be made to result in a musical score. I doubt there is the capability to ensure that all new typesets on IMSLP are devoid of having incorporated note entry from MIDI files which crop all over the Internet. I certainly have used MIDI from time to time to assist with the bulk of note entry, prior to extensive re-formatting and layout changes – and there are numerous problems associated with doing that.
Exactly what similarities exist? Do the works have the same stave layout and titles? Are there identical tempo, expression marks or associated quirks of engraving? Are there any obvious mistakes that the two sets of works share? (Also bear in mind that the Malherbe and Weingartner edition is in the PD, so it is possible for two different editions to be in agreement with one another by copying the Old Berlioz Edition.)
Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 02:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking in more detail, I have almost no doubt that these are the same. In fact, it looks as though the only difference is "Typeset by Ben Khon". In fact, even subtleties with the slurs are identical. The score layout is exactly the same as well. It seems the only other thing changed is the copyright notice at the bottom, which simply states "[copyright]". Lndlewis10 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can all confirm this, then the only decision that is viable is to ban BKhon à la Quezada—we must be consistent on this.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, OK. Does anybody else agree?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is always possible that Steven Hagger is a pseudonym, but if this is the case, why on earth were the typesets on the finale showcase since 2008, and Ben hasn't bothered to upload them until now? I would, at least, ask him about it. I think Davydov was right in his forum post when he said "and he expects us to believe this?". Wise man, if this is - in fact - the case. EDIT: Oops, sorry about the redundant post. I didn't mean for it be there... :)Lndlewis10 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I’m in the middle of downloading the free Finale Reader so I can make a comparison of Mr Hager’s work myself. I’m tempted to prejudge the matter slightly by ascribing this to stupidity on Ben’s part, as opposed to the obvious malicious intent of Quezeda… but find myself in agreement with Perlnerd: we must be consistent in applying the same rules, and the blatant copying of other’s work without attribution is beyond the pale. Philip Legge @ © talk 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do let us know what your findings are. If my "typesetting" knowledge (which is little compared to you guys) is right, this is clearly not Ben's work. The evidence is that every single work he submitted has been done by Steven Hagger. I suggest we flesh out everything that was done by Ben to see which are - in fact - his own typesets. So far, it looks as though only the Villa-Lobos was not done by Steven Hagger, but you (PML) would be a much better judge than me. Lndlewis10 03:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I should be banned at all. PML suggested I should show a clean breast on your talk page. The works I uploaded were not mine. I was going to argue this, but PML trapped me. I thought that Mr. Hager's typesets were marked with a defective copyright notice, because they were marked [copyright]. My case is different than Mr. Quazaldas, and I make much positive contributions to this great site. BKhon 03:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As Ben’s comment above suggests, I suggested (via FaceBook chat) that Ben make some explanation of his doings here. I reject the implication that I have “trapped” Ben. Without revealing the exact conversation we had, I questioned Ben’s source for the Berlioz typesets, and after three attempts at deflecting the existence of the typesets on the Finale Showcase website, he owned up to copying them from there without attribution, on the assumption of a void copyright notice. I think a low sense of self-esteem may be the root cause for these acts of monumental stupidity on his part, in attempting to seek recognition for making worthwhile contributions. But this is not the way to go about receiving recognition in the good sense.
In the meantime, I’ve examined the first movement of the Fantastique, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the score is a copy of the file from the Finale Showcase; a small question remains, given that Steven Hager’s work on that site is so prolific, whether his work is that original in any case – although it would be harder to prove his typesets derive from the MIDI transcriptions of others (a quick check of “Ben’s” typeset of the Dvořák Slavonic Dances did not establish anything conclusive; I haven’t had time to check any of the other typesets). It doesn’t really make any excuse for the blatant disregard for the implied copyright status from the Finale website. Philip Legge @ © talk 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's address the copyright claim being made here, since it's serving to obfuscate the real issue (plagiarism): Since March 1989, lack of notice or defective notice no longer even possibly invalidates a copyright claim in the USA. Even before then (back to 1978), defective and missing notices were fatal only if an amended claim was not filed and substantial numbers of copies were produced that way. Even if Hagger had somehow done the work in 1988 (the year Finale was released), Ben has no right to represent Hagger's work as being his own. The far more important point here is that he apparently is willing to pass off another person's work as his own. It would be far less egregious if Ben had simply uploaded Hagger's typesets, duly credited him as typesetter, then made a claim that the defective notice cast the work in the public domain (which only applies for the USA, by the way, and does not even apply there since March of 1989) which therefore allowed Ben to submit Hagger's work here without his permission. Bottom line: The plagiarism is almost as bad as Quezada's. Carolus 04:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Earlier this afternoon I pointed out to Ben that defective notices are no excuse whatsoever (though my memory was at fault: not being nearly so well versed in US copyright law as yourself, I gave the wrong year that this took effect). I think the only possible mitigating factor is thoughtless stupidity and naïveté, as opposed to malicious intent, and in that case, I suggest the person in the best position to offer an opinion on that, is Nick Lewis. Philip Legge @ © talk 04:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed Steven Hager to confirm that he did not give Ben any sort of authorization for this, or anything that could be remotely construed as permission. I'm not expecting an affirmative answer, needless to say. Nevertheless, the record will be established. Carolus 04:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in school right now (lunch break) so excuse me for my concise responce to all of this. I did call Ben last night to see why on earth he would do something so incredibly stupid. The impression he gave me was that it was due to low self esteem, not malicious intent. I would certainly agree with PML, and attribute this to monumental stupidy. Apropos, I think some sort of ban is needed. However, I must admit that he has done fairly good work around the wiki, so I'm not sure if the ban should be infinite. Perhaps during that time he can think about what he did, and hope there is no legal action against him. The most important thing, however, is that all of the typesets be deleted to prevent a legal threat on our end. Lndlewis10 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've received a response from Steven Hager, who is a big fan of IMSLP. He did not authorize Ben to upload any of his work, much less for Ben to falsely attribute the work to himself. Nevertheless, he is not angry and wishes Ben well. Like many composers, editors and arrangers, Steven was mainly concerned that we had old, uncorrected files instead of his latest versions. He may be uploading these himself in the future. Carolus 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may ask - with regard to the one (?) work (what he entitled prelude op.1 no.1 when uploading) Ben claims to have composed as well as typeset, does this appear on Finale Showcase also? Eric 02:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Prelude looks like an original work, though a rather slight one. 13 bars for piano in a modal sort of C, starting in the minor, working its way round to the major. There’s probably way too many pieces on the Finale Showcase to sort through to absolutely rule out plagiarism, but this piece doesn’t strike me as a knock-off of someone else’s work. Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 06:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can assure everyone that it is not Ben's piece, but he did have permission to attribute it to himself. KGill is aware of this as well, and actually helped compose the last few bars. It was by my own decision that I decided to delete the piece from IMSLP, and I will attribute to myself once it's revised ;) Sorry for that bit of confusion. I didn't realize that the template explaining the situation woudn't be seen as a result of the deleted page, but it makes sense in retrospect, Lndlewis10 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very peculiar, Nick. Back in late August Ben sent me a couple of Finale files without any hint of hedging about the identity of the composer as being himself – one of the two pieces was the Prelude, and the other was a somewhat more substantial Andante, purportedly the second movement of a violin sonata he was working on: about five pages, mostly in 4/4 and finishing in ambiguous tonality (key signature of 1 flat, final chord rooted on A with 2+, 5, 6–). Is this not his work, as well? Would it be too much to ask for Kenny to verify his contribution to this bizarre spectacle, seeing as he clearly applied the “plagiarism” comment to not only the Steven Hager typesets, but also to the aforementioned Opus 1? Philip Legge @ © talk 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Nick sent me the prelude, telling me it was by Ben and asking me if I would like to edit it. I have frequently consented to do this for Nick's compositions over the past couple years, so I didn't see any problem with it. A day or two (I don't remember exactly) after sending the (somewhat) revised version back to Nick, he told me that he actually wrote it, but had given Ben permission to claim it as his own (and upload it to IMSLP under his name). I thought this was rather odd, but didn't trouble myself overmuch as consent was clearly given by Nick, and I've always given consent for my edits to appear in Nick's compositions without mention. As for the violin sonata movement, that sounds like the slow movement of Nick's own violin sonata that he was working on (IIRC it has the same characteristics), but of course I can't verify that as this is the first I'm hearing of it. KGill talk email 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I presume neither you nor he would mind me forwarding it to you if you would like to check it? Philip Legge @ © talk 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he would mind (and I certainly don't), although I'm not certain exactly how pertinent it would be to the discussion here... KGill talk email 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Pertinent to the consideration of any basic truthfulness in Ben’s statements over a period of time; you presumably know Nick’s violin sonata well enough to recognise it. (I don’t have Nick’s e-mail address so would not be able to use the IMSLP’s email function to reach him with an attachment.) Philip Legge @ © talk 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus May you delete please the 5 lasts uploads i've just done on Viñes, i've made an error. So I wait to reupload good ones. thanks Squin 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)- excuse me again... Just the file nO 2 in fact has to be removed and replace by my very last upload....

(! i'm astonished to read what is noted above !)

If someone hasn't already taken care of it, I will. Really interesting to have some original pieces by Viñes, who was very famous as a pianist. As for the wild stuff above - I think we're all pretty astonished! Carolus 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A very great Ravel's friend ...I see that I've made another mistake, the very last is not the good one, I'm so stupid ! I will do a correct work tomorrow (for me). I look all this from far but may be this Ben is still a very young man and, as Montaigne said : "de toutes les rêveries du monde la plus reçue et plus universelle est le soin de la réputation et de la gloire" Squin 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

N.B.: Talk:Fuga in A major (Smetana, Bedřich)

Hi Carolus, PLEASE feel free to correct my nebulous formulations! Another sentence from the preface by Jiri Reinberger: "...Not even the Fugue A major published in this selection is an independent composition for the organ, it is but a modernized form of a contrapuntal exercise dating back to the days when Smetana had studied the art of composition with Josef Proksch....". Thanks a lot! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, we don't have access to the MSS, but my guess is that Smetana's exercises were spread across 4 staves and all Wiedermann was condense them to 2. Unless W. added voices or completed an incomplete piece, I don't see any need to list him as arranger, though the mention on the talk page should clarify things for anyone curious to know. Carolus 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If I knew Reinberger's 'very small' alterations, I would make a scan of that organ transcription - Wiedermann died in 1951, but Reinberger in 1977. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Piano Pieces, Op.102 (Bendel, Franz)

Hi Carolus. In going through some of Bendel's music on Hofmeister his Op.102 in actually entitled 2 Moments Musicals. I'm not sure how, or if, the work page's title should be changed but thought I'd bring it to a sysop's attention. Thanks. --Cypressdome 00:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Carolus 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

8 Preludes and Fugues, B.302 (Dvořák, Antonín)

Dear Carolus, me again (sigh). In Reinberger's edition this prelude is followed by the Fughetta in D major (presumably B. 302/6), and both together he calles 'Preludium a Fughetta - Preludio e Fughetta'. I don't know which of those Preludes in D (302/5: Prelude on a Given Theme - Předcházet na dané téma) Reinberger took. I don't know also, if Dvorak composed those pieces as couples. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at our Listing, it would appear there are only 2 Preludes in D major, No.1 (already uploaded) and No.5 (Prelude on a Given Theme). There is only 1 fughetta (in D) and 2 fugues (D and G minor). I expect what you uploaded has to be No.1, as Reinberger would have most likely given the full title (Prelude on a Given Theme) to the other D major prelude. At least that is how we'll leave it until someone proves otherwise. Carolus 01:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion, too. Next day (night), the Fughetta will follow. Thanks --Ralph Theo Misch 01:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cowley Carol Book

I responded to your message on my page. Thanks! Olmsted 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Messe pour deux voix égales, Op.167 (Chaminade, Cécile)

Hi Carolus, yesterday I was surprised about the PD at all (typeset of the Agnus). After adding the Kyrie, both are TB now. It's not so bad as I have to make those Typesets anyway (for the self-study of my singers), but I am curious however. Regards --Ralph Theo Misch 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my mistake! I was thinking of another composer, for some strange reason!! Sorry! Carolus 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So it's up to this specific peace and not only to the CR notice on the printed FE above? - Other works by that composer are only Non-Pd EU. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at the scanned copy of the Kyrie. It has a valid 1927 notice on the title page and on the first page of music. It could be free in the USA if: 1) the copyright was not renewed after 28 years (1955); and 2) no NIE was filed following the implementation of the GATT/TRIPs restoration in 1996. Enoch was pretty good about filing renewals, so the work is most likely under copyright in the USA, though all of Chaminade's work first published before 1923 is free. Carolus 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah - thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Dear Carolus, the editor's continuo realization is really like a woodcut. If it's a problem nevertheless, I could remove it - the digits below the bass are there anyway. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple and doe not evidence any real originality. I'm quite sure this is free in the USA - confirmed, actually (reprinted by Kalmus). It's free in the EU and Upmeyer is 50 years dead 1/1/2012 anyway. Carolus 00:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll post the parts next day then - thanks! BTW: I just saw a Sacred Concerto by Julius Johannes Weiland (died 1663): CR 1928, NMA. The editor is Ferdinand Saffe (1867 - 1951). He transposed the piece and made a more individual continuo realization. Moreover the expression marks seem to be by him. Hands off? ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 01:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the USA, Nagel was extremely lax 1) publishing with a proper notice (failure to do so injected the work into USA public domain immediately); and 2) about renewing copyrights after 28 years. Saffe is free in Canada, the item is probably free in the USA, and it's probably free in the EU as an urtext edition - unless Saffe added so much original material that the rule would not apply. I'd say go ahead and post it. Carolus 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks again! Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hofmeister Monatsberichte

The Hofmeister Monatsberichte website seems from here to be down, but the ONB - Austria's national library- seems to keep scans of every page in a range here, on a glancing view- maybe we have here a mirror... Eric 04:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They don't have the text version or searchability?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know. They might and I may not have found it, or there may be another mirror somewhere which does- I didn't check German Wikisource, for instance, which would be a natural place to. OTOH, this one does have everything up to 1947, not just 1900, it seems, if in a very much less convenient format. I know one can get a few extra years of HMB (up to 1903? 1910 maybe? not sure) on but not up to 1947 surely. ... Even if the other site comes back up, I may come back to this one for what the other lacks, though I have to spend more time with it. Eric 05:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hofmeister site seems to be back now. I do maintain that since the ONB site extends up to 1947, and since Hofmeister could still go back down like anything else, not bad to keep a record of it. One other question or suggestion - suggestion if answer is no :) - is there a well-linked-to place on this site where editors can find out about resources of the Hofmeister-Monatsberichte-and-Pazdirek (for those who have a copy)-etc-type, or are we passing these around by word of mouth for now (perhaps it might be good to start a page or extend an existing one to list such things and be able to add to them as time goes by? ... Hoping I am not entirely volunteering myself (er-hrm. joking in tone) if it -is- a good idea, which maybe it isn't... :):) but if I am, so be it!... Eric 20:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I now see that HMB has been linked to on IMSLP:Other music score websites since late November or earlier. Would it be alright if I added the mirror also, even though there's no longer as compelling a reason (though the 1901-1947 coverage is still nice despite lack of a search feature that I know of)? Eric 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! The mirror is still quite useful even though it isn't nearly as easy to search. In answer to your question above about a specific page with links to research site like Hofmeister, etc. - I think that would be a wonderful idea also. An important aspect of IMSLP's mission to serve as a source for copyright information on printed music is the determination of actual dates of first publication for things. This can be important even in cases where the music was first published back in the 19th century because there are so many bogus copyright claims made by publishers on unmodified reprints of such scores. Having the hard evidence from Hofmeister, etc. destroys such nonsense and makes it clear that a given score is in fact, truly public domain. Perhaps this new page could be titled "Sources for Research" or something similar and made part of the "Historical Publication Info" catgeory, a link to this page could be included in the little sidebar which appears on all the publisher pages. Carolus 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Will have to look into that. By the way, the ONB isn't a mirror exactly. All those Hofmeister links I've been using all this time, while I've been finding them at the Hofmeister site, whenever they've been to scans rather than to text transcriptions (since the Hofmeister site gives both options)- the scan links are actually offsite links to the ONB scans. Should have been clear to me by now from the fact that I -was- linking (in those " n.d.(date)"...), not Hofmeister, but all this time ... just didn't notice. Eric 04:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lully's Le carneval

Hi Carolus, my doubts grow continuously, but it's scanned now anyway. I just want to let you (and KGill) know this and take cover ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted it, but I have to say that Husa's realization of ornamentation, his continuo realization, etc. probably tip the balance in favor of this being an arrangement as far as the Canadian copyright law is concerned. There's just too much original material added by Husa. As for the USA, the 1968 notice (plus the automatic renewal of everything fro 1964 through 1977) means the work is protected in the USA until 2064. This item might arguably be free in the EU due to the peculiar nature of the urtext law - especially Germany's Section 70. I expect you will need to confine your NMA efforts to items which have less elaborate editorial additions than this, at least to pass muster as far as Canada is concerned. Even in the USA, with a very high standard for "threshold of originality", Husa's edition might very well pass muster as a new arrangement. I'll be deleting this, sad to say. Carolus 01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with deletion. Philip Legge @ © talk 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Carolus 01:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the risk any time. 2064: I hope that matter will be for any relevance then ;). Thanks for your words! I won't give up :) Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Naumann Ariadne

Hi Carolus, Just a heads up -- this page needs to be deleted. Naumann did not write an Ariadne auf Naxos, the file uploaded is by Georg Benda, and the same scan is uploaded on the proper page here. I'm telling you because I know you have the privileges to delete pages, but if I should instead contact someone else with these issues, please let me know. Massenetique 05:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Carolus, but done. Cheers, KGill talk email 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Massenetique 03:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Libera me, Domine (Chopin, Frédéric)

Sorry again... this is probably a simple case but I think I am in need of some advice. What to do about this odd duck (I'd say, odd, probably spurious duck but that suggests it's probably a goose) Eric 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh - not simple at all! Perhaps the best thing to do would be to put the info header at the top of the page to point out that this piece is only attributed to Chopin and is in the Chopin category for ease of finding only. It's probably a well-done goose like the one referenced in Orff's Carmina Burana. I'd also put the question to p.davydov. He might know some way to deal with it that I'm not thinking of. Carolus 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Remove it from the Chopin category and put it under anonymous. According to cpdl:Talk:Libera me, Domine (Frédéric Chopin) there isn’t a firm attribution only to Chopin, but also to (presumably F.X.) Gruber. Philip Legge @ © talk 00:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Suite. Charles Wakefield Cadman

I want to add the Hollywood Suite by Charles Wakefield Cadman (1881-1946). My copy has a (c) date of 1923. A search of copyrights at did not show a registration or a renewal. So, according to this chart ( it is in the public domain in the U.S. and also Canada since the composer died in 1946. Ok? Thanks. gilbertdh

(I'm not Carolus, but) the problem is that only shows entries with copyright dates of 1950 and later - so unless you have access to a copy of the records for 1923, you'll have to assume that it's under copyright in the US. That is, unless the notice is defective or you can find evidence that it was reprinted without permission in the US (by Dover, Kalmus, etc.). Sorry, KGill talk email 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

KGill is correct. The lack of available info on renewals of items published from 1923-1950 is a serious problem. Unless you have access to one of the few libraries in the USA where a complete set of the Catalog of Copyright Entries is housed, or are able to visit the copyright office itself, there is simply no way to check on it. Therefore, if it has a valid notice, we have to assume it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2019. Carolus 01:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozart Bassoon Concerto with cadenzi by Ibert and Pierné

I have a copy of the Mozart Bassoon concerto pub. Leduc 1947 with cadenzi by Pierné and Ibert. Even though it's 2 years away, should I go ahead and create a page and link this over to Ibert or just wait for another year to pass? I realize it'll be blocked to all in any case, but otherwise I may forget I have this. Daphnis 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should wait until after the January 1st, at least. Next year, we can start posting work of Percy Grainger (d.1961) sometime after July 1st, as nearly everything will go PD in Canada in 1/1/2012. Quite a bit is already free in the USA. Carolus 01:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd at least wait until the first before I push it out. Thanks. Daphnis 01:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Chopin, etc

Hi Carolus, Thanks for the info about the Kullak edition and for keeping me "standardized." FYI, I have only 7 more Chopin items to complete and IMSLP will have all of the Kullak edition that the LOC has digitized.--Cypressdome 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's wonderful. Kullak is even listed as one of the more important editions on this page, which omits a significant number of editions (there have been well over 150 ones) which have been issued in the last 150 years. Carolus 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The implications of those being Schlesinger's plate numbers as opposed to Schirmer's didn't dawn on me until this morning. I'll go back through my postings and update the publisher information to reflect Schlesinger as original publisher and Schirmer as re-issuer. Before I do that did you want to create a template for the Kullak edition as you have done with the Klindworth? This page has an image showing the entire layout of the Kullak edition. Thanks. --Cypressdome 13:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was delighted to see that the Friedheim edition of the etudes is now public domain and has been uploaded. Do you have any idea why the file size for Op. 10 is so large (especially in contrast to Op. 25)? Comparing the number of downloads so far, the big size appears to be a deterrent. (Also, FWIW, I noticed that the 3 Nouvelles Etudes are within the Op. 25 volume rather than in their own entry.) --Steve Bob 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@SteveBob:Thanks for letting me know about the 3 Nouvelles Etudes. I'll split those out and replace the present file. As for the file size of the Op.10, it has much to do with Google's insane method of scanning music, which has arbitrary sections scanned in grayscale instead of a uniform 600 dpi black and white.
@Cypressdome: I can create a template for the Kullak easily enough. I'll post it here when done (until we get around to creating an edition page for the Kullak). Carolus 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carolus, I've created a page for the Kullak edition here which is somewhat bareboned for now. Once you post the template I'll start correcting those items currently posted. No rush. I'm sure you've got enough to keep you busy elsewhere. Thanks! --Cypressdome 03:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I see - and am already working on it. I had quite a bit of cleanup to do last night from Worov's dump from - locked files, unidentified publications, etc. Carolus 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: OK, it's done. Since it was apparently a simultaneous issue by Schlesinger, Schirmer, Haslinger, etc., I included Schimer in a third line with Co-issue. You should get rid of the cases (about 4) where I used the "|Reprint=" field and indicated that the English text was added for the Schimer. Apparently Parsons' translation appeared on all issues, and the same volume configuration was used by all four publishers. If we need additional templates for Haslinger, etc. it can be arranged easily enough. Carolus 03:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Carolus. All the Chopin-Kullak I've posted have been updated. --Cypressdome 05:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Danish Royal Library

I got your message about the good news! Please drop me a note when it is confirmed, and we can talk about the details and logistics (e.g. do we need something like the Sibley setup?). --Feldmahler 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is intriguing... :) Eric 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, is the particular good news regarding the Carl Nielsen Edition? (Eric, see this forum thread.) Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 14:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be good news. Being able to upload a modern score and commentary of the 5th symphony, particularly, would be priceless, considering. I've read the preface to that score in the Nielsen edition... Eric 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I’m in complete agreement. It is an astonishing piece of music: that incredible side drum cadenza!!! The commentary is perhaps not as useful as say, Bob Simpson’s analysis of the symphony, but it’s a step in the right direction! Philip Legge @ © talk 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 5th is quite the piece, and should convince any nielsen detractors otherwise.
Carolus? I too am intrigued.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, folks. I await confirmation from DKB, so don't upload anything yet. That said, it would appear they are favorably disposed to making the Nielsen scores available at IMSLP. I expect to hear from them early next week. Carolus 00:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to be a community project? If so, shouldn't the page be created?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not really extensive enough for that. There are only about 25 items available at present, and the entire edition is under 100 volumes. I expect it could be uploaded here in the space of a few days ay most. Carolus 02:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking very specifically in regards the 5th of what the first published orchestral score got wrong because of editorial contributions, particularly in regards the percussion contributions towards the end of the Adagio, and how the new edition and the commentary helps - as I recall - towards fixing that. Great idea to have the new edition in general, not just that one volume, and on principle of course. Eric 13:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
My request included all the editorial commentary, etc. So, if we get the go-ahead, we'll have everything for the edition - which will be wonderful IMO. I get the impression that the folks at DKB are just really interested in making the edition and the fruits of their scholarship and efforts widely available, which is of course what this site is all about. Carolus 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I see a file! Are we allowed to commence? :D-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In another day. I want him to see the one I just put up so he can show it to the folks there. I think we'll be needing a series template plus a category page for the edition. The great news is that we are approved and will be allowed to post the entire series, including critical reports. It's really a wonderful addition and sets a great precedent for future collaborations of this type. Carolus 20:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

3 Morceaux pour piano, Op.16 (Godard, Benjamin)

Hi Carolus, I just bring your attention on my last contribution : Godard Op.16 -Complete Score. On the bottom of the last page there's noted "Aout 1949 imp A. Mounot". I want to be quite sure that the date of the reprint is not a problem. Tell me Squin 09:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reprinting something does not give it a renewed copyright status. Only a completely new edition, with new material added by the editor, can qualify for a new copyright as an "adaptation." Carolus 00:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


Carolus, I think it will be less confusing if you may delete this page Marenzio - Madrigali a sei voci. I've transfered my work - the book 5 in Madrigals for 6 voices. I don't know why Boccacio has reupload the BNF complete set on 6 november, it is the same score (I see that there are pagination errors on his work - Canto for example) I let you see Squin 15:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Bocaccio added those due to their much smaller file size, so I copied them to the page Madrigals for 6 voices and redirected the other page to it. Carolus 05:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: Templates for notes in text

Carolus, do we have a template that puts in a text quarter note or eighth note like we do for flats and sharps? Alonso del Arte 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the red-links on the work page. I think we do, but they might have a different name. I'll look and see. Carolus 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don’t believe these are available, and probably shouldn’t be used even if they are, because the Unicode support in most installed font bases just isn’t up to the task — this goes for accidentals like double sharps and double flats also. Phi1ip 13:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought this was true of flats and sharps also and that the templates solved this problem by probing the fonts for availability- or something? I am guessing off the top of my head here completely. Eric 13:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus, I dont'know where to put this photo : Gustave Flaxland ‘cause Flaxland is redirecting on Durand page It will be strange to have it on. So, I can with pleasure create a Flaxland page with Plate numbers G.F. #### with a link on Durand (under your control) – Do you think it is useful ? As you want - Squin 10:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to there being a Flaxland page. I think the redirect was there because we have only a few Flaxland items - all of which were ultimately reprinted by Durand after they took over Flaxland's catalogue. It's a similar situation with J. Maho and Hamelle. UPDATE: The G. Flaxland page is now started, so you may add plate numbers, etc. as they come in. Carolus 03:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozart-Cadenzas by A.E. Müller

Hi Carolus, just to be on the safe side I scanned this. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like urtext to me. Müller's cadenzas were published long ago - shortly after his death. It will at least be free in the EU and Canada. If Peters pulled their frequent trick of placing a copyright notice upon a reprint of something they originally issued without a notice, we have no choice but to accept the notice until proof surfaces of their charade as far as USA status is concerned. UPDATE: I see you have scanned a post-war printing (Frankfurt), so the 1941 copyright claim is present. I am willing to bet that the actual 1941 Leipzig printing has no such claim. Look at the typeface used for the copyright claim. It is quite different from the typeface used elsewhere in the score, for the preface, etc. I suspect this is a case of copyfraud, but unfortunately cannot prove it (for now). Carolus 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the quality of paper and printing doesn't fit in with those other editions I've got from that time. It looks rather new... --Ralph Theo Misch 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So, shall I go ahead and scan the other 7 (I think they are announced at the Wishlist)? --Ralph Theo Misch 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it will still be available on the EU server. Besides, it's always possible that someone will turn up a copy of the 1941 Leipzig print - without a notice - and scan it. That constitutes proof of publication without notice. Because of the urtext nature of the work, it would not be eligible for restoration due to being public domain in its country of origin in 1996. (1941+25 = 1966 = public domain in Germany on 1 January 1967). Carolus 01:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. So I'll have a task for the next few days. Thanks! Good night --Ralph Theo Misch 01:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bedroom band "performance" rights

Hi Carolus. One for the copyright lawyer which has been kicking round my head for a while. Obviously here in the UK I wouldn't dream of of downloading any music that isn't PD in the EU, but in the case of legally acquired non-PD material (we have an excellent library) am I likely to be contravening UK performance rights by uploading a "performance", even if it can be legally downloaded in the US? Cheers, Steve.

OK, let's see if I can get this straight. The BRB wants to 'record' a piece that is not PD in the EU (even though it is free in Canada and the USA), right? Not sure if the very same rule apply to 'virtual' recordings in the EU as would apply if you had a string quartet and wished to record the item in question. The EU directives are rather non-specific in this regard, so I expect it would really depend on which EU country you were in (UK?). The fact that you would not be charging anything for the recording could exempt you from having to fork over to the appropriate agency. In the USA, Harry Fox would likely allow the equivalent thing to be done for some sort of very nominal one-time fee. It also somewhat depends on whether a virtual performance still counts as a performance. Carolus 07:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, since you uploaded a performance of Maximilian Steinberg's quartet 1 - well, ok, you might have borrowed that from a library it occurs to me again - you have mentioned being in a UK orchestra on your talk page, I think (--> Matesic) and interactions with the RAM. (I should check to see if they have an online library catalog. An interesting prospect.) Eric 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC) (sorry about the elliptical nature of allthat.):

Our county library recently had a big sell-off where I acquired a lot of this stuff, so oops I did it again with Pick-Mangiagalli. As far as the uploaded "performance" goes it would seem to be just me and the band who go to jail and we're happy to take the risk as long as we can stay together. UK law seems to be a bit "non-specific" about more important matters too, like at what age a child can be left at home alone. Belated thanks, Matesic 3.3.11.


Hi Carolus, Searching infos about Flaxland, I seen that some plates has G.F. ####., others G.D. ####., and others A.F. ###. -- For G.D., I don't know why for the moment but for A.F. it comes probably from the editorial background of the publisher Aristide Farrenc. But in Beethoven's 3rd Symphonie imslp page I see your note Paris: A. Farrenc, n.d.(1835). Plate A.F. 323 (later Richault). Do you know more about Farrenc ? Squin 09:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC) (it's not very convincing with the scores i've seen with but for G.D. #### I found now in a old pseudonym dictionnary that Gustave D'Eresby was a Flaxland pseudonym when he made personnal musical arrangements from famous composers)Squin 10:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Farrenc (Aristide Farrenc - 1794-1865 I believe) - what specifically? Possibly better-known nowadays because of his now more-famous wife (composer Louise Farrenc) but a reasonably famous French publisher of the mid-19th century whose work included quite a bit of important early Classical (including CPE Bach) I seem to remember (in the Trésor des Pianistes series, from which some of the Dover reprints that made their way into their 2-volume CPE Bach sonata edition (1985?) had travelled.) Eric 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, but I mean informations on the sail of the Farrenc catalog to Richaut (cause the note on Beeth 3rd symphony page) that makes me problems to understand why I found some plates A.R. ### in that of Flaxland. Squin 17:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha now. Will see if I can turn up anything later if still needed... Eric 17:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the Beethoven symphony editions were all that Farrenc sold to Richault. I don't recall seeing anything about the entire Farrenc catalog being taken over by them. This was not uncommon - when a publisher went out of business, different portions of the catalogue were sometimes auctioned off. This seems to have been more common in France than in other countries. Carolus 01:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Joel Sachs makes this claim in passing by the way in the preface to his 1980 edition of Hummel's opus 113 piano concerto. Apparently it happened before 1868. Eric 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC) (I need to find some more substantial evidence, which is proving difficult, but if I had to guess from Worldcat - I would guess that if there was a sale, and one or two documents I am coming across seem to be questioning on the subject of it or something related, which is interesting and uneasy - it happened in 1861 or 1862, 1861 being the last year, acc. to WorldCat Farrenc's name appears as a publisher. I'll check HMB too later, but it's somewhat less "interested" as a rule when matters move further from Germany geographically I think (it's pretty large as it is), and I don't know if French copyright deposits had arrived at that time- that would be useful info for those who know how to check them.)

Intéressant - Merci Eric ! Squin 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

De rien! Eric 20:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if someone eventually scans a copy of the out-of-print book by Lesure which covers French publishers in the 19th century and puts it on the Internet archive (as has been done with the Schmieder and Hoboken catalogs), perhaps we'll end up with some idea of what took place. Lesure gives a complete run-down of all the prefixes and suffixes, plus fairly comprehensive plate number listings and dates. Carolus 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense for someone to do that then! It mightn't I'd hope already be up at gallica, I wonder... hrm. Eric 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
François Lesure 1923-2001? They do have quite a surprising few of his books at Gallica considering his death year- I suspect it would be an issue importing any of them here, of course, but the issue would be using the information, not importing the book. So... going and looking... *hophophop* (injoke, pay no mind* Eric 01:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the guy! Yes, it would of course be an issue here (the book itself). The original publisher was Minkoff and Vol.2 (which covers the 19th century) was issued in 1987 or thereabouts. Carolus 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. The quite a surprising 2 turned out to be two, an edition of Debussy's Monsieur Croche essays (ok- depends...) and Gabriel Fauré : [exposition], Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1963 / catalogue réd. par M. François Lesure ; [préf. par Julien Cain]. Neither would be the book that we're looking for... doubting at the moment that it's elsewhere online, though some score and text download sites seem to be as we may have noticed mildly nonchalant about copyright issues it's true... so- could be. Eric 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The title of the item I'm referring to is Dictionnaire des éditeurs de musique français. It's not easy to find - even in libraries here in the US. I've not yet looked for it over at the Internet Archive, but plan to later. There was a second author involved (whose name I can't remember right now) also. Carolus 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And it also costs an inordinate amount even when tracked remembers previous conversations ;)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, thanks for the reference, I'll try to find that in Paris Squin 07:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) So, Carolus you're perfect - Anik Devriès, François Lesure. Vol 3 - 1820-1914 published by Minkov, Genève, 1979.. available on IRCAM bibliothèque (next door to me) Squin 07:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Rameau: les Indes Galantes. On "Haute-contre" and "taille"

Hi Carolus. I'm commenting on a note you made on Les Indes Galantes parts.

Concerning "haute-contre" and "taille" applied to instruments: in Rameau's orchestra, they mostly name larger violins, both tuned the same way, like a modern viola (the lower string is in C). In Lully orchestra, there were 3 larger violins, called "haute-contre" (C1-clef), "taille" (C2-clef) and "quinte" (C3-clef), ranging from 39 to 48 cm. These parts are also refered to as "parties", a word which is often used in Rameau's time manuscripts. The quinte violin is the first to disappear, for instance it is not used by Charpentier. In later Rameau's works (e.g. Les Paladins), haute-contre disappears too: only the C2-clef part remains (taille), with two dessus parts.

Concerning oboes, there were several oboe sizes too in Lully's time: dessus, haute-contre, taille (e.g. in Atys, Act II scene IV: Entrée des Zéphirs, where the instrumentation is explicit). I have not found in les Indes Galantes or in the other works by Rameau that I've copied, any "hautbois" indication on C1-clef (haute-contre) or C2-clef (taille) parts, which does not rejects the possibility that they were actually played by oboes, but at least there is no evidence in the scores. In pieces with solo wood instruments, we find two oboe parts (dessus, G1 clef) and one or two basson parts (C4-clef, sometimes F4-clef), but no C1 or C2-clef wood parts.

In Lully's work, besides dessus flute parts, we can also find a lower part (bass flute?) notated in C3-clef (e.g. in Atys, act IV scene V). I can't recall observing something like that in Rameau's work, though.

So I'd say that in the case of Les Indes Galantes, taille and haute-contre apply to instruments of the violin family, tuned like a modern viola. At some places, the haute-contre part goes down lower than G (the lower violin string), so cannot be considered as a second violin.

As for singing voices: haute-contre never were castrato. Although it seems that some italian castrati were invited in France for singing religious music, there is apparently no case of castrato in french opera music.

Best regards, NicolasSceaux 13:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nicolas, Many thanks for your exquisite and detailed info! My references (mainly Grove) certainly got the castrato part wrong - and they were not terribly clear about what exactly was meant by haute-contre and taille. I should change the wording of the note somewhat to indicate that for the Rameau, a string instrument was most likely intended for parts using the terms haute-contre and taille. Do you think this would be a more accurate way to describe it? When we go back before Rameau to Lully, I wonder if it might be best for us to use the original instrumental terms with the modern equivalents in parens - though I'll consult with p.davydov abut this also. At any rate, your editions have been a real asset to this site. Cheers, Carolus 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Remembering something in Fanfare magazine that may be a propos though not hopefully entirely irrelevant... just a footnote to the above though... hrm... (found it - review by James Camner, Sept./Oct. 2005 issue, pp. 324-326, of the True-Sound Transfers CD transfer of recordings, made 1902-04, by Alessandro Moreschi, which are apparently some of the only surviving recordings in existence apparently of a real castrato. The CD is praised by Mr. Camner for the revealing quality of transfer, followed in the review by historical background, including some material on the difference between castrati, the haute-contre, and "countertenors", which he is careful to distinguish.) Eric 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that, both for Lully and Rameau, it would be better to use the original names, with equivalents in parens. As for the wording change you propose, it seems fine (haute-contre and taille, and also quinte, always include string instruments, so it is safe to say so). In any case, maybe a reference to a short article describing these French names, applied to both instruments and singing voices, would be a good addition, instead of repeating notes on every pages where these terms are used. If you think it is a good idea, I could write something. NicolasSceaux 12:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with the above. The works of both composers have been a nightmare to tag because of the lack of information, so any guidance would be appreciated — P.davydov 22:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Farrenc Concluded

Dear Carolus, Eric, Snailey, Imslpists, Imslpians, Imslpiors (I do not know which ending to use), while you enjoyed a deserved good sleep, I ran at IRCAM (thank you Carolus). I have to say I had some difficulties to get the book in question (and some others) for I confess to be neither a musicologist nor university Dr., too young to be famous, too old to be a student short : just a little everyman) But with big smiles and heartfelt compliments to the lovely librarian lady I meet, I reached it successfully! So I have lots of very sexy informations about old french plate numbers to share on the appropriate pages. Ouahouah! Squin 17:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(get some res...) I mean, good!!! ;) Thank you!! Eric 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add a grid (un tableau, une grille, i don't know how to translate correctly) in the publisher page which may help to date easily - The problem is with Durand or Heugel for example it will take a big place. May you look at what I do on Rouart before I pursue. I made some light modifications on History - who to asked for the translation in Cyrillic ? Another thing on that page for Carolus: I found that Paul Lerolle sold the firm to Salabert the 21 november 1953 (and not 1941) Squin 17:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Table"-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. What is ; supposed to do?

It supposed avoid mistakes ... The numbers for all catalog publishers I've seen often cross from one year to another .. In many cases the chronologically dating is malfunctioning : I take Durand for example : he has reserved numbers regardless of the dates for 1) composers (Saint-Saens 2034 for cello concerto in 1874, 2035 for piano concerto in juanary 1875, 2036 for mazurka in 1877) -- 2) for collections (Opéra Gluck Orphé : numbers reserved from no.1763) - 3) musical genres (special numbers for religious music). .. For Heugel you have differents way to number on same years (one for vocal music- one for piano music) so we can not only refer to numbers of the existing table that give errors... (I have already made dating incorrect only because of the existing table) - Finally, it is also possible to cross information when it fails, to properly date - the dating of these numbers is a more reliable source I think. Squin 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear and off-topic...
This is what I was referring too.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 18
09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok ... sometimes difficult to catch humor across continents ... but there was no problem ..... you can criticize me hard if necessary .. with hammer ... I'm usually very difficult to offend ... I know well that I'm full of completely stupid ideas (I guess ... no, I'm sure) Squin 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the DeVries/Lesure book proves what I've suspected for a while - Durand, Heugel and other publishers often assigned numbers in a non-chronological order. The Durand/Saint-Saëns example Squin mentions above is a case where it appears that Durand assigned the numbers as the works were accepted by them for publication - not as they actually appeared in print. The Heugel example is even more interesting as they evidently applied a different series of numbers for vocal music. I would suggest that you talk to Daphnis about the Durand page as he is the one who has been maintaining that huge list of numbers. In that particular case, I expect a note at the top of the plate number section mentioning that Durand plate numbers are not necessarily chronological would suffice. For Heugel, I think a fair case could be made for constructing separate tables for vocal and instrumental music. I think the "Cyrillic" you refer to is actually the wiki language tag for Greek. Carolus 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will create a new page with 2 or 3 tables for Heugel's complete numbers and another for Durand that I'll submit to Daphnis ... Greek, yes that's it (I wonder if it wasn't russian) Squin 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I created that page Help for dating the Heugel's publications.....and I'll complete it tomorrow if you approve. Before 1863, there's another table to made because it's absolutely illogical... after 1996 piano serie and vocal one areunified. Squin 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha! We shouldn't expect music publishers to be too logical, after all. Consider how our favorite Vienna publisher behaved a couple of years ago! Good work. Carolus 04:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The page is completed, I will ameliorate (improve?) it later, considering the scores we have. I think the Heugel page should be completely renovated. I think we have to inform Massenetique ... Squin 10:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work! - and very informative. Yes, we'll have to modify the Heugel page considerably to account for all this new info. Yes, you should definitely consult with Massenetique. Best, Carolus 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Vivaldi, RV 265

Hi! Done - "upload a new version" didn't work in the case of the Thumbnail. I've uploaded a completely new file. Regards --Ralph Theo Misch 00:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Carolus 00:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to control the the new version of the FS, but uploading didn't work. Is the logo away? --Ralph Theo Misch 00:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All gone - great job! Carolus 01:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Ralph Theo Misch 01:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Songs, Op.21 (Freer, Eleanor Everest)

Hi Carolus, I don't mean to seem mistrustful, but why exactly is this tagged 'C' for US status? It has a valid 1927 notice on the first page of music - was it reprinted by Kalmus or something? Thanks, KGill talk email 19:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ditto Songs, Op.29 (Freer, Eleanor Everest)) KGill talk email 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Carolus, but I think that the policy when that was tagged was to assume that Sibley was scrupulous about US status and tag as such "C"-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That one goes back awhile, but I think it was confirmed that there was no renewal. Since it's a US composer and publisher, no renewal means it's free in the USA. No need to apologize, as I am by no means perfect and make plenty of mistakes - so if you find something you think was tagged incorrectly, by all means mention it as it is by no means impossible that it is in fact tagged incorrectly. Sibley has gotten a lot better about checking this type of thing in the last 2 years than they used to be. Carolus 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I put a note on both those pages saying that there was no renewal found, to hopefully clarify it a little there. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)