Regarding the changing of explanation for Amazon links
Hi Carolus, I forgot to respond to your mention of changing the description. We can talk about this more over the phone, but I think it might be a good idea to have a concrete percentage, regardless of what it is. That way there is more transparency, and people know exactly what happened to their money.
However, insofar as changing goes, you can actually edit it directly here: Mediawiki:FTE:imslppage. I have yet to internationalize the ads, so they are directly in the template, but when I do get around to doing so they will be in the Messages subpage: Mediawiki:FTE:imslppage:Messages. --Feldmahler 14:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Hi Carolus, isn't the recently submitted score on Goldberg variations the first edition rather than a manuscript? If you compare it with a image from wikipedia you'll see that they are the same. --Funper talk 12:57, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
- I was wondering about that. It's very unusual for an engraving, especially looking at the curved beams. It must have been freehand-engraved with only minimal use of punches. Is this the edition that Bach had published himself? Now that I see it in detail, I agree with your point. This is certainly the 1741 edition. I'll change the page accordingly. Thanks, Carolus 13:05, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Amazon score links
Hi Carolus, I've added a field to the file template specifically for Amazon score links that you've been adding (an example can be found on this page). However, generally speaking I think we should limit it to only the most famous pieces; having them anywhere else would be I think more labour than it is worth, and will unnecessarily crowd the page with ads. Instead, perhaps we can try having 2 scores and 3 CDs in the Amazon section, as opposed to the current 5 CDs. That will I think be much more flexible and less time-consuming. If we find that people don't really care about buying scores through Amazon, we can switch back to the 5 CD format. Tell me what you think about that. --Feldmahler 02:22, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Ok, but the public domain page gave the impression that files that were tagged as such would somehow be hosted on the US server ("These files are hosted on IMSLP's U.S. server...We expect uploaders to put considerable effort into assuring that the upload is in the public domain in Canada or the U.S.", which in this case it was in the US). I think the file name and such were wrong anyways, so all for the better. Alton 05:02, 18 July 2008 (EDT)
Mahler Symphonies in Full Score
Carolus, about the Symphony No. 8 you posted a while back...that wasn't from the Dover reprint, was it? It has many less pages than what is listed for the Dover. I ask because I'm thinking about starting a project (among my many) to finish scanning the Mahler symphonies, and I'd like to know which are the definitive sources/versions. I don't really have the time to research his different revisions and their current publications, so I was hoping you could just tell me which would be the best of the missing symphony full scores to upload :) Should I just stick with the Dover scores, or should I reach for some of the later editions? Daphnis 17:10, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, the Dover score for Mahler 8 is a reprint of one issued by Muzika in the late 1960s or thereabouts. It would definitely be worth having in addition to the UE one I posted. I would start with the Dover scores except for No.7 which I understand is a real train wreck (see the reviews over at Amazon for the details. I think the Soviets issued all of the Mahler symphonies plus Das Lied von der Erde in the big wave of Mahler popularity that started in the 1960s. I suspect they re-engraved the critical editions from that era as issued by UE, Kahnt and others. That has some advantages in terms of letting us have the critical edition - which should be fine to post in Canada as long as it's from before 1983, despite their ambiguous status in the USA - without necessarily drawing unwanted attention (with its attendant lawyer's fees) just after re-launch. The Dover scores should serve as a good starting point for our Mahler archive in most cases. Carolus 22:33, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- So Dover scores all around except the 7th. Is the Dover reprint of Das Lied von der Erde safe (since I'm trying to get my hands on it now), or also muddled? Daphnis 22:36, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- It's pretty good - a reprint of the first edition (UE). Not a great deal of differences between it and the critical, which is an amended reprint of the same score. As it's a late piece, Mahler didn't have time to tinker with it - a habit he seems to have picked up from his teacher Bruckner. Carolus 22:39, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- Understood. How about a suitable edition of the 7th? Give me OCLC accession numbers if that's easier. I can request them directly with that. Daphnis 22:40, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- That's a great idea. I can get the numbers fairly easily. The Soviet edition might be a good one for 7. Carolus 22:47, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- Good. I'll start with the 7th whenever you provide an OCLC number as it may or may not be harder to acquire than the ubiquitous Dover scores. Thanks for the insight! Daphnis 22:50, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- Before that, I couldn't find any Soviet publishers with the 7th symphony. They all seem to be Eulenberg or Dover. I was also trying to find out exactly when that volume came out in the Sämtliche Werke series (Band 7) but can't find an exact date. Daphnis 23:15, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- I'll troll around over at Tarakanov's to see if he has any more Mahler. I know just enough Russian to get myself in trouble. Carolus 23:17, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- According to the IGMG site, I found this on the pub. date of the 7th:
Symphony No. 7
(in five movements for orchestra)
Editor: Erwin Ratz
Publisher: Bote & Bock, BB 16867, Berlin, 1960
Miniature score, foreword by Friedrich Saathen
Editor: Erwin Ratz
Publisher: Philharmonia, 473, Vienna, 1976
Public domain in US? Daphnis 09:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- The Ratz edition was registered and renewed in the US. It would take a court case to disprove the claim. Any critical edition produced in 1960 or 1976 is, however, free in Canada - and even in the EU. I'm going to talk to Feldmahler about setting up a system whereby things can be scanned and uploaded from Canada or a similarly free territory for cases like this. Carolus 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- The link you included was for Symphony No.2, but I assume they still filed a renewal for the 7th. I suppose I'll just go ahead and scan and upload this version as it'll be free in Canada and the EU. Any other options for PD in the US besides the Dover reprint? Daphnis 19:53, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- The page I copied and pasted the URL from was for Symphony No. 7 (!). Go figure.... Kalmus and Lucks both offer the piece of course. I suspect they might be reprinting the same score Dover has, but one never knows for sure until you actually see it. They aren't in the habit of stating what has been reprinted. That can sometimes lead to real train wrecks, as they found out when they offered Chrysander ed. scores and Novello parts for various Handel oratorios. Carolus 20:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- The Dover and Kalmus reprints are both 257 pages and Eulenberg probably re-engraved theirs of 400 pages. Is it a safe bet to assume the Dover and Kalmus are the exact same score? Daphnis 20:20, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, any score this large would be very nearly impossible to produce in the identical number of pages. Eulenburg has been known to reprint some of the Mahler Gesellschaft scores under license, though there are often earlier issues where they made their own engraving (back in the Leipzig days). Peters Leipzig in the East Germany / Soviet era produced a number of things on their own as well, though I'm not sure if they got into Mahler. They definitely produced new engravings of a number of Debussy works, though. Carolus 20:25, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
Back on Mahler a bit: I have access to the complete works edition, so wouldn't it be best for me to just scan these volumes instead of any Dover reprints? Since these are so long, I'd like to try and minimize the number of pages with which my scanners have to contend. Daphnis 21:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
- Carolus, yes/no to my above thought? Daphnis 19:33, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hi. Sorry I missed your previous question above. The problem with the critical scores is that since they have copyright claims with renewals and the like, they will be tagged Non-PD in the USA. This means they will be blocked until Feldmahler writes some code to actually block access only from the USA or we allow unlimited download as long as the end user clicks on the appropriate disclaimer, etc. It's sort of complicated since the IMSLP corporate entity is actually in the USA, even though the site itself is in Canada. Right now, as reluctant as I am to say so, I think we'd be a lot safer with the reprint scores. As far as I know, No.7 is the only really bad one in the Dover series. I wonder if Kalmus reprinted a better score than Dover did for that one. Carolus 02:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I'm aware of their (critical scores) copyright status in the US, but I'm just wondering if, aside from the blocking reason, there is any compelling reason to have both. I believe that both Dover and Kalmus reprinted the same early printing of 7. Daphnis 14:41, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
- Aside from the reason stated above, which is ultimately temporary in nature, there really is no reason to have both. I have a facsimile of the manuscript for the Seventh Symphony which will ultimately be added to the collection here. If you have ready access to the critical editions, I'd say go for them and leave the Dover scores to Tarakanov, etc. Carolus 22:18, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ok, I've started in on the critical editions with No. 2. Can I also include the forward by Ratz and/or the Revisionsbericht preceeding the music? Daphnis 08:30, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
- Great! As for the foreword and revisonbericht, they fall under the same rule that an original composition by Ratz would. It's OK to post if Ratz has been dead for more than 50 years, otherwise no. Carolus 14:48, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
I can understand the forward, but are you certain the Revisionsbericht fall under the same category? As I would interpret it, such a list would be seen (and, in fact IS) as nothing more than a quantitative changelog; an objective survey of items altered and not any piece of synthesized prose developed by Ratz or any one person. Daphnis 16:52, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
- I guess the legal question would boil down to: Is the Revisionbericht by Ratz expressed in any way that can be considered unique or original? It's a hard question to answer, and the problem with this sort of thing is that the status of such information listings - often in table form - have been upheld by some courts, albeit inconsistently. The situation in the EU is even worse in this regard. My recommendation would be to avoid reproducing it directly. Putting the contents of his Revisionbericht on the work's talk page - using a modified layout - would be perfectly fine, however. In fact, if anyone wanted to compare editions and list all the differences in tabular form, we could even claim our own copyright on it (not that we'd want to, mind you). Carolus 21:23, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances
So I noticed that Kalmus reprinted this from the original publication by C. Foley in 1941. Is it indeed public domain in the U.S., and if so how? Since we desperately need to add this to our collection, I need to find the best copy to get and scan. Recommendations? Daphnis 22:39, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- No, they are printing it under license. If you obtain a Kalmus reprint, you'll see the Foley copyright notice right there in your face. I have one on the shelf about 6 feet from where I'm sitting. It's public domain in Canada, of course. Carolus 22:41, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- I see. Well, it'll still be PD in Canada. How does your Kalmus reprint look? Wondering if I should go for it or the original print. Daphnis 22:43, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- I'll be happy to send it your way, since a package is going in your direction anyway. It's a large score (10 x 13), with fairly decent printing. Carolus 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- Well, don't go to extra expense especially seeing as how I can easily get the exact same score sent free of charge. Daphnis 22:47, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
- No problem. I just found a score of some sort over at Tarakanov's site. I suspect it's a 2-up affair from the page count. Probably scanned from the Muzgiz score. Carolus 22:58, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
I have realized, that some of my typesetted scores (Eccard, Hammerschmidt, Haydn, Hook, Mozart,
Rosier, Vanhal) are still blocked. I can´t see any reason for this. Is it possible to
eliminate the blocking?
I still want to say: It´s very fine, that IMSLP has reopened! Best regards Notenschreiber 13:12, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
Not 6 Bagatelles?
Hello Carolus. Obviously I am brand new around here. The Beethoven op. 126 is often referred to as the 6 bagatelles and is so described in IMSLP's list of compositions and Complete Works Edition (#190). What is to be gained by deleting that description, when surely that could make those pieces more difficult to find? I think I don't understand the guiding principle here. Or else don't agree with it! (Should the 7 Bagatelles then be changed too? I hope not.) Thanks for the seemingly limitless amount of work that you do on this project. --Df 01:56, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for pointing this out. We'll change it to 6 Bagatelles, Op.126. The general principle is to keep titles minimal and avoid things like mention of the key and the instrumentation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. For example, 6 Bagatelles for Fortepiano, Op.126 has a needless mention of the instrumentation because the Op.126 was written only for piano - not for any other instrument. Likewise, Symphony No. 5 for Grand Orchestra in C minor, Op.67 is needlessly long. Beethoven didn't include any organ symphonies in his Op.67 and most of the world know the work as the Symphony No.5, Op.67 so there's really no need to include the key (which is only for the first movement anyway, so it's technically inaccurate to describe the whole work as being in C minor). Carolus 15:19, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Oxford Book of Carols
While I'm here: Have you ever been asked about posting medieval to 19th century carols from the Oxford Book of Carols (1964?) when the typeset score is credited as, for example, "arr. Praetorius"? Would that be OK as typographical arrrangement >25 yrs? Modern English translations of text might still have to be deleted from the page. Thanks. --Df 01:56, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- This can get complicated in some cases. Over and above translations, what did the editors do in the Oxford Book of Carols? If it's an urtext-type of edition, the 25-year rule applies. If the editor did something more, like realize the continuo, add "divisions" and other items which sometimes are done for older works, then it's life of the editor plus 50 years in Canada. Carolus 15:25, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Publisher formatting help
Thanks for editing my Massenet song submissions with a better format re: Kalmus reprint. I will use that style in future submissions! Massenetique 17:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- You're very welcome - and thanks for uploading the Massenet scores. I'd like to see some of the full scores for operas up here eventually! Carolus 18:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
First of all, thanks for your help with my upload.
When I go to the work page the score begins to load very slowly, and then it freezes up.
Have you tried to download the score?
thanks!--MrLopez2681 03:32, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
- Hello again -
Yes indeed, the first page is missing from "The Little Humpbacked Horse". How do we fix it? You must explain to me how you went about doing all of those things step by step - I have tons of music Id like to share! --MrLopez2681 04:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Historical Publication Info
Hi Carolus, since we have now sortable tables, do you think it would be a good idea if I joined Plate Number Styles with Music Publishers to create one large table containing for each publisher all information we have and / or the link to it's own page?
Oh and I joined the Edition No. and Plate tables at Breitkopf, and I'm planning to do the same for Peters after I find an easy way. As the tables are sortable now, there's no point anymore in having two tables containing the same information.--Peter talk 08:03, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
- I think the Breitkopf and Peters merged tables look splendid. It's also much easier to have a single table than two. It would probably be a good idea to merge Plate Number Styles with Music Publishers as well. I would recommend moving the mini-histories presently under some of the entries in Music Publishers to their own separate publisher pages (if the info is not already duplicated there), instead of putting them into a table. That way we can keep the table down to the bare essentials. Carolus 01:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Following on from our recent discussion, but I played around with slightly varying the titles to see if it affected the hits on Amazon.com. "Romeo and Juliet" is another title applying to more than one of Tchaikovsky's works (the overture-fantasia and the duet scene), and the hits did vary considerably:
- Romeo and Juliet + Tchaikovsky = 623 music CDs
- Romeo and Juliet + overture + Tchaikovsky = 504 music CDs
- Romeo and Juliet + fantasy overture + Tchaikovsky = 413 music CDs
- Romeo and Juliet + overture fantasia + Tchaikovsky = 31 music CDs
- Romeo and Juliet + duet + Tchaikovsky = 11 music CDs
- Romeo and Juliet + TH 42 + Tchaikovsky = 0 music CDs
In this case, using Tchaikovsky's preferred title "Romeo and Juliet (overture-fantasia)" would eliminate 95% of the matches on Amazon, and including the catalogue number would eliminate the rest. While the purist in me would prefer the proper title, perhaps "Romeo and Juliet: overture (Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich)" would be an acceptable compromise. Presumably the same would apply to The Voyevoda, Hamlet, and The Nutcracker (ballet/suite). As you say, this is an issue for several composers, and if you or anyone else has other thoughts, they'd be very welcome.
BTW, that's great news about Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty! P.davydov 12:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT) [copied from P.Davydov's talk page]
Gershwin revisions by F. Campbell-Watson
Carolus, what do you know about this F. Campbell-Watson person, and what are the nature of these "revisions"? I'm going to post full scores to most of the orchestral works and come across this name as a contributor. Know of any dates? Daphnis 09:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
- Nevermind, I see he died in 1980. That rules any of his orchestrations out. I wonder which scores of Gershwin I actually *CAN* put up since he always handed off that job to someone else because he was incompetent. Daphnis 12:20, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
That's the rub about Gershwin. However, I understand that Warner did issue facsimiles of Gershwin's manuscripts for a number of the more famous works. I don't know if they made a copyright claim as the first publication of the original version or not. One of the legal doctrines about publication is that all existing versions of a piece are considered to be published when the first item is published. For example, if a vocal score was published in 1927 for "Of Thee I Sing" (I know it's a bad example because the words are by brother Ira who lived until 1983), then all extant versions were published as of that date. The vocal score is a derivative of the full score, in most cases so they shouldn't turn around and claim first publication of the full score 90 years after the fact as a ruse to enjoy a virtually perpetual copyright. Of course, as is often the case when it gets to this type of argument, you might have to go up against the Time-Warner legal dept. to prove it in court. Carolus 20:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Do you have any idea if the editions by F. Lucca, Milano, are entirely issued before 1923? Worldcat does not have much . It would make tagging these files of which there are many submitted today much easier.--Peter talk 12:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
- F. Lucca was sold to G. Ricordi in 1891. This resulted in a "great leap forward" in Ricordi plate numbers. Nothing issued by F. Lucca is under copyright in the USA, and it's very unlikely to be protected anywhere else - though one does run into the Henri Büsser (1872-1973)-like composer now and again so it's not completely impossible. Carolus 15:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks --Peter talk 18:16, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Question for Feldmahler
Seems that Feldie isn't online. Can you answer my question? Follow this link: . Marcus2 15:51, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
- That's one that only Feldmahler can answer, Marcus. He's the programming wizard here. Carolus 15:53, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Oops, sorry about that. I should have asked first. I do think it should be changed though, as deceased composers cannot release their works into the public domain. Rob 15:26, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
- One of the problems with the changes was that the notice failed to address cases where it was not the composer, but the heirs or legal assignees of the composer, who are releasing their works under a Creative Commons license. The copyright owner, whether it's the composer or the composer's heirs and assignees is the one whose permission and authority must be granted. Carolus 23:33, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Apologies for deleting Vexations. Never knew about it. --Aewanko 19:45, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
BTW, thanks for editing Busoni's Elegien. I made a bad mistake. Would you mind introducing me here a bit? --Aewanko 20:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Carolus, do you have information on the Series by Breitkopf (Kammermusik-Bibliothek, Orchester-Bibliothek, Partitur-Bibliothek)? Most of the reprint cd-rom parts seem to come from these editions. Publication dates ranging from 1830 to 1980 are found on OCLC, at first sight without a chronological association with the edition number. Thanks, Peter talk 18:31, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, Breitkopf launched all of those series in the 1890s. They often included works which they had issued previously, though I expect that anything as far back as the 1830s would have been re-engraved. The vast majority of all the above series were already in print by the early 1920s - hence the great number of reprints. There are a relatively few instances where they included a new edition in one of these series after 1920 up the present day, though. I had an interesting discussion with a German music dealer recently who was telling me that all of the major German publishers (Breitkopf and Peters especially), produce a new edition for something every 25 years - even though sometimes the new edition uses the exact same engraving which has been in print since 1885. Carolus 18:44, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Mozart KV 487
what´s the matter with the "Horn-duos" of Mozart, KV 487? The music is PD of course, and the
transcription for Oboe and Cor Anglais is done by myself, where is the problem?
Best regards Notenschreiber 16:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
With the help of "Google" I have realized now, that there is a transcription of the duos
- selled by Sibelius music - for two Oboes by Mr. Feezell. Is this the reason for the "Non PD"
attributes of my transcription in spite of the fact,that my transcription is not for 2 Oboes,
but for Oboe and Cor anglais?
There are a lot of transcriptions of these nice pieces, but I don´t think, that any of them
gives reason for a new copyright, the music is nearly literatly the same.
Notenschreiber 17:41, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Hi Carolus -- I am double checking capitalization against as many sources as possible. The Chant provencal was one I had missed, the lower-case p is correct according to Grove's and Demar Irvine's book. The rule in 19th-century French is basically that only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized, but when the proper name is made into an adjective (ie. provençal) is is treated as such and not a proper noun. Therefore, most titles contain only a capitalized first word, even if it is an article or preposition (examples: Ravel's L'enfant et les sortilèges and L'heure espagnole, or Berlioz's Les Troyens). I work in a music library and deal with these issues on a daily basis. Thanks again for your help! Massenetique 21:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for the info - that's interesting to know. We'll follow your guidelines for the French titles. Carolus 01:24, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Könemann Opera Reprints
I've uploaded a few excerpts from Bizet's Carmen reprinted by Könemann. While they mentioned the edition at the beginning, later on Könemann tried to conceal the source with a label or just said '...reproduced / reprinted from early edition..'. For the Wagner pieces I could find out the editions but for Carmen I have no idea which edition it is printed from. Would you please have a look at this? Thanks a lot, Hobbypianist 03:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- You must have been reading my mind. It looks like they reprinted the original Choudens edition instead of the Chappell score that both Dover and Kalmus reprinted. If you have the entire full score, it will be a terrific addition. Even a partial score would still be very nice. I can easily get the Choudens particulars (date, plate number, etc.) from the Fuld book which I have here. Carolus 16:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- yes, I have this complete full score of Carmen. When the series was published years ago I bought several vocal scores and full scores of operas. Ok, I try to scan and upload step by step the other numbers, too. But don't expect these within the next days...the partitura has ca. 600 pages and there are still lots of other works waiting in my scanning queue ;-) Regards, Hobbypianist 02:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- No rush at all. It's a really nice addition to the archive. I'll try and obtain a scan of the Chappell full score. The 1964 Fritz Oeser edition issued by Alkor/Baerenreiter is eligible for posting here as well. That will be a lot more difficult to find, since printed copies are very expensive. Carolus 18:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
About Guillaume Couture
By editing one of my recent upload, you have answered a question I was about to post on the forum, namely whether I should put 'Library and Archives Canada' in the Scanned by field rather than in the comment field.
I have another request. For the other work I have uploaded of this composer, I had forgot to add 'Op. 1' to the work title. I tried to rename the page, it succeeded but unfortunately, the link is now broken : . Is it possible to fix that ?
Looking forward to add more scores,
- Hello Kwtc, Unfortunately, it appears the page for Op.1 is seriously damaged. I'll have to see if Feldmahler can fix it. Thanks, Carolus 21:56, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
- The work page relies on the title for the composer name and category, so it should always be in the strict format "Work Name (Composer)". But I've fixed that page. :-) --Feldmahler 22:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks, I have added more scores (from Alexis Contant), teacher of Calixa Lavallée and hopefully I did everything right this time!
Sciffleholz Gallicon Duos
Yes the manuscript is a slight edit from the original text to make the music playable on a lute, so it is an original edition. Hardly anybody has a gallichon so this music has been largely unplayed for years. I could not get it to load without it having to be public domain, otherwise I would have used a creative commons license. Of course today one would probably typeset this stuff though when you do that you risk losing some of the ornamentation marks scribes put on manuscripts.... MartinY 04:26, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Hi Carolus -- I've been doing alot of research today regarding the publisher info for the 8 volumes of Massenet songs published by Heugel between 1890-1914. I think I've come up with just about everything and wanted to run it by you -- I didn't want to alter the page you made because I figure you understand how better to format, etc. Here's what I've discovered.
- Editions A and B exist for each volume, and somewhat couterintuitively it seems almost certain that the lower key was published first (or at least the plate numbered first), followed by the higher key -- ie. (A) is Mezzo-soprano/Baritone and (B) is Soprano/Tenor. This is consistent with the plate numbers I've been able to find as follows:
- Volume I: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 189?, plate H. et Cie 7990
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 189?, plate H. et Cie 7991
- Volume II: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1892, plate H. et Cie 7346
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1892, plate H. et Cie 7347 (this one's an assumption based on the successive nature of other plate numbers)
- Volume III: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1891, plate H. et Cie 7041
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1891, plate H. et Cie 7042
- Volume IV: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1896, plate H. et Cie 8305
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1896, plate H. et Cie 8306
- Volume V: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1900, plate H. et Cie 20,292
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1900, plate H. et Cie 20,293
- Volume VI: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1903, plate H. et Cie 21,704
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1903, plate H. et Cie 21,705
- Volume VII: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1912, plate H. et Cie 25,631
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1912, plate H. et Cie 25,632
- Volume VIII: 20 (Vignt) Mélodies
- Edition A pour mezzo-soprano ou baryton -- Paris: Heugel, 1914, plate H. et Cie 26,480
- Edition B pour soprano ou ténor -- Paris: Heugel, 1914, plate H. et Cie 26,481 (another assumption)
There are of course also the original Hartmann plate numbers (Vol. I, 1875: GH 756; Volume II, 1881: GH 1250/1514?) but I believe the reprints I'm working from are all Heugel editions because I recognize a difference in typeset between Heugel and Hartmann that I do not see in the first two volumes.
I found this info on various library websites, WorldCat, French National Library, Library of Congress, etc and compared against Demar Irvine's book which includes only original publication info. I think what I have here is right but I am open to comments. Thanks! Massenetique 21:01, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for this info. The Kalmus reprints were almost certainly made from Heugel prints since Hartmann issued only two volumes and even these are much more common in the Heugel reissues (1892 down to the recent times) than the small number of Hartmann originals (1875, 1881). Do you really think Heugel would have actually gone to the expense to re-engrave the Hartmann plates? This strikes me as unlikely since they bought Hartmann's complete catalogue starting in 1891. It would have been much easier (and cheaper) to simply add new plate numbers and change other pertinent info without actually having the songs engraved all over again. Vol. 1 looks to have been reissued by Heugel in about 1893-1894, while Vol. 2 was also the second issued by Heugel (1892) after the acquisition of Harrtmann. Both firms no doubt used the same Paris engravers who were so active at the time (L. Parent, Baudon, and a couple of others). Carolus 22:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, you are probably right about Heugel's reissue of the volumes first published by Hartmann ... In that case, which should be credited in publisher info? The original Hartmann plate # or the later Heugel, or does it not matter if they're both public domain and are identical? Massenetique 22:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
- Since it's very unlikely that Kalmus had Hartmann volumes to reprint for 1 and 2, I'd go ahead and list the Heugel on the workpages. We can list the Hartmann originals on the series page, which should be sufficient enough to satisfy freaks like us :) Carolus 22:50, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Beethoven Serenade op.25
is it possible to unblock the Serenade in D major for Flute, Violin and Viola of Beethoven,
Complete score for all movements?
Thanks! Notenschreiber 04:41, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
significant / insignificant editorial contributions
Hi Carolus ! I have just tagged 11/V/31 some files (uploaded by Generoso) from PD composers and published in 1913 but edited and fingered by George John Trinkaus (1878-1960). Apparently you prefered
to tag similar files (I mean from the same book) as C/V/C. Is this because Trinkaus only added fingerings ? More generally, can we make the general statement that fingering is not a significant editorial contribution ? In that case, i am afraid I have been a little bit too severe a couple of time. Cheers, Matthieu
- Trinkaus was an American and the works published were issues in the USA also. Becuase of Rule of the Shorter Term in the EU and Canada, works now PD in the USA have no additional protection in the EU or in Canada. This also applies to Leopold Godowsky (US citizen from the 1890s) and several others. Carolus 16:14, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Of course ! (I would rather go to bed now.)
Hello Carolus. Thanks for your message. I didn't realise that a decision had been taken on standardising of headings. I can see the thinking behind the proposed changes, although this could throw up a few anomalies. For instance, on the page for Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony we have a full score of all four movements, and also a full score for the first movement only (both actually from the same edition). Putting them under different headings (with a piano transcription of the full work inbetween) seems counter-intuitive and a little confusing -- or maybe that's just me :-)
Before adopting a formal scheme universally, might it be worthwhile testing the proposals on a sample of composers as a pilot project, to test what sorts of issues might come up? I'd be happy to help with this if required. P.davydov 18:57, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
- I see what you mean, but I guess the key is if a given item was actually published as an excerpt - instead of it being an incomplete score, which is what the Manfred first movement is. (I'll have to look at that to see if we really need to be keeping it, to tell you the truth.) As I mentioned before, we're still trying to hammer this out so it will be practical and make some sort of sense. We have a discussion over at the forum about it, so your input is of course very welcome. Carolus 19:01, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I have a problem (like Carmar1791) with a new version of Divertimento KV Anh.229 II, Transcription for 2 Oboes and Bassoon.
The version is announced and indicated as actuell version (file size 0,19 MB), but downloading has as result the old version.
Can you help? Thanks. Notenschreiber 04:15, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Federico Maria Sardelli's scores
Dear Carolus, many thanks for your notice. I am the copyist om my own works and the scores I put in IMSLP are not published by any publishing company. So they are free. Best wishes from Federico Maria Sardelli--Federicosardelli 02:13, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm wondering if I could become a part of the copyright review team.
Hello, Carolus. Whil you were away we were wondering what to do with the Microsoft scanned scores. Their statement allows non-commercial redistribution, but the logo is copyrighted. Peter talk 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, I'm really very leary of posting these. Reproducing the logo is very definitely not legally permissible. The question which arises is what constitutes "non-commercial." It depends on how strictly one would define this term. We are not (yet) a legally organized charity or non-profit enterprise, though that is the ultimate goal. Yes, I know there are quite a few of these scans out there. It's rather ironic that the multi-billion for-profit enterprise Microsoft effectively controls the distribution of scans of public domain holdings of publicly funded libraries by affixing their logo to every single page. Carolus 15:57, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Brucker symphonies (Peters)
finally it's done. I've uploaded the 9 symphonies by Bruckner (C.F. Peters). While they are PD in any case in Canada and EU, I couldn't find an exact date to determine the US status (libraries estimate from ca.1900 up to the 1940s....) Chronological order of the plate numbers assumed it should be around the 1920s, thus an exact date will decide whether the files are blocked or available... Would you please take a look at them? Thanks a lot, Hobbypianist 16:42, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, Thanks for the lovely collection. Peters did not print a publication date, and it appears to be around 1920 or 1921 from the plate number. I'm therefore tagging them as PD in the USA. Carolus 16:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Preludes y fuges for piano
when you have a chance would you mind deleting the new copies of the 48 Preludes and Fugues that Kmilo1992050 has begun uploading? I appear not to have privileges to be able to delete items.
I've pointed out to the chap that these editions by Carl Czerny already exist on IMSLP at Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1 Nos. 1-12, BWV 846-857 (Bach, Johann Sebastian) under "other editions", which hopefully should dissuade him from adding any more. Moreover the scans are identical, byte for byte, with the set uploaded by Funper, except for one of the new files where this guy has appended his digital signature (d'oh).
Philip Legge ♇ @ © Φ 20:29, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for dropping this fellow a note, Philip. Deleting is no problem. Carolus 21:08, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Yesterday I uploaded a full score of Haydn’s 34th symphony which didn’t pass the PD-Test. Obviously I still have to learn how to verify the copyright status and what is significant and unsignificant editorial work. I suppose that one problem was the introductory notes, that are not PD. Would it be possible to upload the file without them? I have other Haydn-Scores where you find:
- no text whatsoever, just the plain score
- notes by the editor, but only biographical
- notes by the editor about the editorial work (like in the dismissed score, but not as detailed)
Is it legal to upload these? With or without the text? Would be great if you could give clarification.
--Fritz Winter 05:28, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hello Fritz, Any prefaces, notes, biographies, etc, written by an editor are subject to the same copyright rules that an original musical work is: life plus 50 years in Canada (where IMSLP is hosted), life plus 70 in the EU. The music may subject to the "urtext" rule (25 years from publication) if there is no significant original contribution on the editor's part. PML, who tagged the Haydn score you uploaded stated that the editor (who is still alive, apparently) in this case had made significant original contributions which placed this particular edition out of the "urtext" category and into the "interpretative edition" category, which carries the life-plus terms instead of the 25 years of an urtext edition. Even if we end up deciding this edition is an urtext (and therefore eligible to be hosted at IMSLP), all prefaces, critical notes, biographies, etc. will need to be eliminated. Sorry for the long-winded answer, but this is a complicated case. Carolus 21:31, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- OK, so I won’t upload my scan of Haydn’s 6th, because the notes by the editor are quite similar to these in the 34th, which means there’s significant editorial work, which should be protected, right? But I will upload Haydn’s 7th and 34th, without any biographical introductory texts. --Fritz Winter 04:10, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
- Fritz, as Carolus pointed out I tagged the Haydn score and will admit I may have been overcautious when deciding on the editorial contribution – only a single page of corrections is not very much! – however the score as I found it had the editor's own introductory text intact and was a clear copyvio as a result. Omitting the pages of concern does not erase the entire editorial contribution however the originality of what remains was minimal. As IMSLP has attracted hostile attention from certain quarters the copyright review is unfortunately required to be diligent; so if you are able to obtain scores without such hindrances it does make the process a lot smoother. Best regards, Philip Legge ♇ @ © Φ 06:23, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Franchomme: Caprice No.6
Yes, Franchomme wrote 12 Caprices for solo cello and Albini did arrange the piano accompaniment for the Caprice No.6. Thanks for checking it out for me. I did not know when Albini lived. Thanks for your help. Generoso 04:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Dear Werther, Are you the composer Ivota Arra, or do you have permission to post his or her works here? If not, the files you uploaded will be deleted in 24 hours or less. Carolus 14:29, 12 October 2008 (EDT) (IMSLP Copyright Admin)
I think from this we can establish that "Young Werther" :) is not the composer. However, if you look at the PDF, it was typeset by a chap called Ivo M. (identity partially concealed), which begs another question:
- 1. Does Ivo M. have permission to publish Ivota Arra's works; and
- 2. Does Werther have permission to upload Ivo's edition here?
Over at CPDL we have seen cases of a relative or descendent of a deceased composer posting non-PD works with the consent of the composer's estate. This may well be the case here, so I suggest sending an e-mail as per this forum topic.
Regards, Philip Legge ♇ @ © Φ 06:11, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Hi Carolus, I'm not quite understanding how we can permit the reproducing of the logo of the Brahms-institut in regard to the Microsoft logo that allows non-commercial copying? Peter talk 10:36, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- My reasoning is that the Brahms-Institut is a government-funded institution and therefore not really entitled to exercise IP rights under most national laws. Microsoft and Google by contrast are private corporations who regularly enforce their trademarks. The Brahms items are certainly very desirable for the collection and I am admittedly "pushing the envelope" a little here as I would normally prefer the watermarks to be removed, honestly, just to be on the safe side. Thanks for bringing it up - and let me know if you disagree. Carolus 13:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- My thought would be to at least inform the Brahms-Institut as a courtesy and diplomatically point out the advantages for researchers, students, musicologists etc etc for their scans to be available here at IMSLP as well, while acknowledging them as the source. This isn't without certain risks however, primarily that the BI might turn around and request the removal of all of their scans; secondarily, that they might wish to impose some conditions on how visitors to IMSLP can obtain their scores.
- This is incidentally why there hasn't exactly been a huge progress on the NMA project: when scoping it out I quickly found we would only be able, under the current copyright laws regarding urtexts and the 3-domain tagging system, to host about a third of the NMA. So once I recover some free time (which hasn't been the case for about six months) I am planning to contact the Mozarteum Institute to negotiate IMSLP hosting the entire musical portion of the NMA (probably not editorial notes and the critical reports, obviously); I will be taking advice from trusted people here and consulting with yourself and Feldmahler once I'm ready to proceed on that! Regards, Philip Legge ♇ @ © Φ 17:11, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Private message awaiting you
e-mail for you at your yahoo address - regards, Philip Legge ♇ @ © Φ 19:53, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- Turns out we did use one of the NMA full scores from the University of Melbourne collection – and my continuo player was turning pages every four bars as a result! But the performance of K 317 went exceptionally well :) Thanks again for your help, Philip Legge ♇ @ © Φ 23:15, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I have Berwald's complete solo piano music, published by Bärenreiter 1977, editor Bengt Edlund. I'm trying to get also the piano concerto and if possible the symphonies. However, I'm not quite sure about the status since most of the editors of the Berwald complete edition are Swedish. Does this affect somehow the urtext condition?
Also, would you please take a look at the Zar and Waffenschmied vs? The high plate number actually doesn't fit to the old style of the score. Is it really Peters or just a reprinted Breitkopf score? Worldcat says Peters.
I came across several scores where Elibron and CDSM are mentioned as scanner/in the misc. field. Wouldn't it be better to remove really every single occurrence of those names in order not to draw their attention? Thanks a lot in advance, Hobbypianist 16:39, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hello Hobbypianist, Any critical edition score from 1982 or before is fair game, regardless of where in the EU it was published. The only problem we run into with these editions now and again is the case where the editor has actually added original material - like a continuo realization. That's why I think each one needs to be examined in some detail to make an evaluation. Our policy is to recognize at most a 25-year term. The 93/98 EU Directive actually states that member states can grant a term of no more than 30 years from publication for such editions - if they choose to do so. It is entirely possible that under Swedish law, such an edition is not protected at all.
- It is entirely possible that Peters reprinted an older Breitkopf score. I have never quite figured out the relationship between Peters and Breitkopf - they cooperated on several ventures - like the complete works edition of Mendelssohn. Such cooperation between competitors is much rarer in the USA. It is also possible that the score was first published by another publisher with higher plate numbers like Cranz. It was "engraved and printed" by Breitkopf. The plate number is certainly not that of Peters. but of another - earlier - publisher. The score you posted is late-19th to early-20th century, and Kogel edited hundreds of vocal scores for Peters.
- I agree with you that it's probably best to not mention Elibron, Everynote, or CDSM as the scanner by name. While such a citation would not constitute a trademark violation, it could precipitate a frivolous lawsuit, which are very expensive to fight nevertheless. Carolus 21:18, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for your answer. Regarding the Berwald scores, how can we handle this? Do you agree if I upload them with corresponding work pages and leave them untagged/blocked at first? Then one can examine and decide whether to release them or delete them in case of unclear status. Hobbypianist 14:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I think that's the best way to go. I know some of the symphonies were edited by the conductor Herbert Blomstedt. If there are complicated issues, they can be addressed on the forum. Carolus 20:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hi again, as announced I've uploaded in a first step the complete solo piano music by Berwald. Would you please take a closer look at them to evaluate if the scores are permissible or not? The other works (symphonies and concertos) will take some time (provided I get them). Thanks and regards, Hobbypianist 16:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hi. I just looked over the first one, and it seems to me that this is definitely an urtext edition, where the editorial content on the music itself is not sufficiently original to qualify for a copyright under Canada's law. The US (as always) is a more complicated case. Since anything published from 1964 onward was automatically renewed, most of the Berwald series is nominally under copyright for 95 years from the date of publication. No one has actually challenged critical or urtext editions under US law using the "threshold of originality" doctrine. So, right now I have to tag it "Non-PD US". Before too long, the blocking software should be modified to allow free access to files that have two OK tags (C or V or any combination). The Berwald score I looked at appears to be free in both Canada and the EU. BTW, you no longer need to use the "br" tag for the urtext template. Feldmahler fixed it so that it has an automatic break in front of it. Carolus 19:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hi Carolus,
I've finished the Berwald project, the major works are now in my collection. As announced I've uploaded the 4 Symphonies, the Piano and Violin Concerto. Would you please take a look at them? Regarding the editing work I've uploaded also
Error creating thumbnail: The thumbnail for this file has not been created yet.. For the Piano Concerto I can't see any fingering so this should actually be ok. In the Violin Concerto there are few negligible marks. However, if the status of these scores is unclear please delete them. Thanks a lot. Hobbypianist 17:56, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Question about Edition Peters
If I would upload a score that is published by Peters, should I place "C.F. Peters" instead of "Edition Peters"? Just inquiring. Thanks. --Aewanko 21:35, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, It depends on when it was actually first published. Peters didn't use the imprint "Edition Peters" until 1895. I try to label things that were first issued before then as "C.F. Peters" and possibly mention that it score is a post-1895 reissue, as in "Reissue (after 1895) - Edition Peters." Peters continues to use the imprint "C.F. Peters" to this day and reserves the "Edition Peters" imprint only for selected items. So, for post-1895 issues I go with whatever is printed. Our plate number list is getting pretty extensive now, so you can get some idea of when things were actually first issued. Carolus 21:40, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
I am the composer of the 3 Preludes for Piano by Mark Hedien
Hello -- I just uploaded (again) three preludes for piano. My name is Mark Hedien. My login name on imslp is Mrvegas. I wrote these pieces and have the full rights to them. It is ok to list them as public domain. Let me know if you have any questions.
- Thanks for letting us know. Sorry we deleted what you posted before, but we hadn't received a reply so decided to remove just in case the files had been posted without authorization. Carolus 00:44, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
After all imslp has been through, I understand you have to be careful. I'm very happy to see the site back up.
Hi Carolus, several Liszt pages have been redirected (2 piano versions to orchestral). However, the Searle numbering distiguishes clearly between orchestral and for example 2 piano or 4 hand version. Shouldn't we therefore keep the original S. number? Just wanted to hear your opinion. Hobbypianist 13:33, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I think you're probably right. I'm not sure why PerlNerd666 started moving them around. I don't think that Searles's idea of giving transcriptions of the same work different numbers was very good one, but the Searle numbering system is widely used nonetheless. It might be OK to copy the transcriptions of the symphonic poems into the work-pages for the orchestral originals, and vice-versa.
- Oops...I really need to pay more attention--Snailey Yell at me 11:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Dear Carolus, Johann Tufvesson and Luigi Cataldi write in their pdf-files: non-commercial copying welcome (normally on the first page). There are some files by Johan Tufvesson in the IMSLP, e.g. 12 Duos for Violin and Cello. I thought, that this would be enough. Mario Bolognani gives a copyright notice on the first pages of his pdf-files: Creative Commons License BY-NC-ND. It wasn't possible to upload the files under this license, but I gave a link to the original hompage. This is specified on his Home-Page: http://www.baroquemusic.it/_eng/diritti.cfm. If this isn't enough, I'm sorry.Rarus 09:35, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Hello Carolus, the 36 Fantasias by Telemann are actually from the WIMA. I didn't upload more from there, because I couldn't find anything about copyright. But this file (36 Fantasias for Cembalo (Telemann, Georg Philipp)) has a notice on the first page, and I relied on this. Rarus 16:48, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh, this WIMA seems to be a strange thing ... Rarus 16:56, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Bach Vocal Scores
Hi. I compared the file for BWV 91 to the bh2000 one - an exact match, so the edition is the same. Why are you still adding question marks on the transcriber? Am I missing something?--Snailey Yell at me 12:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Because the fact that one score was an exact match doesn't necessarily mean the others are. For one thing, I don't think Todt was responsible for all of the approx. 200 vocal scores issued. There were a couple of other arranger/editors involved as well for the series. We'll learn more about it as time goes on, but right now just use the info we have (Todt followed by question mark in parens). Having the page counts is a help in the research via OCLC, which is rather laborious. That's also why I'm tagging everything C/V/C. Carolus 13:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Thanks!--Snailey Yell at me 13:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I have an edition of the Dvorak slavonic dances op. 46 by the czech state library, reprinted by dover, and the ninth symphony reprinted by kalmus. Is this under copyright? If not, I've seen it in libraries and think we should make a page for it.--Snailey Yell at me 13:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
- Not under copyright anywhere. The Supraphon Complete Works was mostly issued in the 1950s and 1960s. Most were not renewed in the USA (and thus reprinted by both Kalmus and Dover) and are moreover ineligible for GATT "restoration" because they are PD in the EU (critical editions more than 30 years old). Post away. Carolus 15:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
- Let us create a page!--Snailey Yell at me 16:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Although I don't know any of the specifics, and do not have access to a scanner anymore....this might be hard...--Snailey Yell at me 16:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)
- You could always post on the forum to see if you can send the scores to someone who has the scanner (and the time!), Thanks Carolus 16:14, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Thank you for your message the other day. I have left some comments and questions on my Discussion page which you may wish to see or respond to. Best Regards, --Homerdundas 00:31, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Chausson: "Concert" versus "Concerto"
I noticed you moved the title of the "Concert en ré majeur pour violon, piano et quatuor à cordes, Op. 21" by Ernest Chausson from "Concert" to "Concerto" in the english translation. I think this is not correct, even if this practice is very common (for example the Dover reprint use the word "Concerto") in the english speaking area. Here is the point: in French, as well as in english (correct me if I am wrong), both words "Concert" and "Concerto" do exist. This was Ernest Chausson's explicit choice to name is work "Concert" (fr) rather than "Concerto" (fr) because there is a subtle nuance: (i) As you probably noticed this is not a "Concerto" in the usual sense, (ii) The word "Concert" refers to the old days of French music (see Couperin for example) and denote a chamber music form where some parts are more developped than others (one of the many proto-concerto forms, "Concerti Grossi" are an other example . Here "Concert (fr)" as the sense of "Gentle agreement" in english. In that context, I think naming this work as "Concerto for Piano, Violin and String Quartet, Op.21 (Chausson, Ernest)" is a mistake that can be compared to renaming Couperin's "Concert royaux" to "Royal Concertos" (!). Note that le latter is never used in the english speaking area. Neither Couperin or Chausson works are concertos. I agree that standard forms should be systematically translated to english ("COncerto pour violon"->"Violin Concerto", "Sonate pour alto"->"Viola sonata"...), but "Concert (fr)" is all but a standard form. Regards,--Matthieu 01:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Hi Matthieu, Good Point! Concert it should be. I saw the Dover title which made me think (incorrectly) of using Concerto. Thanks, Carolus 02:34, 27 November 2008 (EST)
And apparently, Dover took some other liberalities such as swapping the original order "Violin, Piano..." to "Piano, Violin...". --Matthieu 03:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Mozart Oboe Quartet K. 370 by Bärenreiter
Carolus, I have a set of parts and score (BA 4867, parts) dated 1987 presumably from the NMA. I'm not very familiar with Mozart publication history nor practices with Bärenreiter, so would this be public domain? Daphnis 09:51, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- AS far as I know: all urtext editions are PD in Canada, 1987 is less than 25 years ago, and IMSLP voluntarily observes a 25-year rule, as this is what the EU does. It is protected in the US for 95 years after date of publication.--Snailey Yell at me Email me 17:17, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Hi Daphnis (and Snailey), It's the 25-year rule for the Urtext volumes from the NMA, so the 1987 score would not yet be OK. You also have to be careful about some of the Baerenreiter scores because they are not actual offprints from the NMA, but "practical" editions with added editorial content - especially continuo realizations, but also sometimes articulations, dynamics, and slurs that are original to the editor. I've been heavily involved with a project at my 'day job' for the past several days and will hopefully be able to get back on IMSLP soon. The US status of such editions is officially life-plus-70 of the last surviving editor for those published after 1977. It's really a gray area in the USA because there are two major court decisions (Feist vs. Rural and Bridgeman vs. Corel) that would tend to make the case that such editions are not subject to any sort of copyright under US law. However, the issue of critical editions has not come up - yet - in court. Carolus 02:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Thanks for the great info. I'll try and track down an older edition. Daphnis 09:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
I know that you probably know more than me (or the nonexistent wikipedia article...) about Supraphon. Would you mind giving a little help, when you have the time?Snailey Yell at me Email me 12:44, 9 December 2008 (EST)
- I'll be glad to when I get a chance. Right now, my 'day job' is taking up much of my time. I'll be glad when things slow down a little and I have a chance to get back cruising around IMSLP! Carolus 02:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Hi...Sorry, I know that you're busy (Who isn't right now?), but I think it's time we created a publisher page for Rob. Forberg, as I think we've reached a critical mass of pages that could use the link...this would be helpful...Thanks!Snailey Yell at me Email me 16:58, 21 December 2008 (EST)
- Do you think it's time?Snailey Yell at me Email me 19:46, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks for your observation: I have downloaded those files from the Choral Public Domain Library; but as a Public Domain Library, I thought I could upload them: I've done the same thing for Armide, LWV 71 (Lully, Jean-Baptiste). Then I noticed that I forgot to delcare on "Il festino" page the kind of edition, and so I've updated the page adding the information (maybe that is adequate). If this isn't enough, I'm sorry. --JackB09 16:08, 25 December 2008 (EST).
I would also ask why the files from 17 to 20 don't appear.
Carolus, thanks for a wonderful contribution with this Saint-Saëns opera! This will make my load much lighter once I start in on my Saint-Saëns complete works sometime next year. Great! Daphnis 20:17, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- Thanks! It's a nice one to have in the collection. Carolus 20:19, 27 December 2008 (EST)
I was trying to add to the worklist on
en-Wikipedia for Bargiel (and the presence here of opus 3 and opus 41 helped, we don't have those yet), so was indeed able to do that as a by-the-way- but yes, here as elsewhere I do have a (subjective) neatening-up tendency, so thank you very much. And happy to. Eric 07:23, 3 January 2009 (EST)
first of all a Happy New Year! After the Berwald scores my next project is Smetana, I'm currently scanning the vocal scores of all his nine operas. Concerning the PD status I have some doubts regarding "The Kiss", "Brandenburgers in Bohemia" and "Viola", see also the file with the prefaces I uploaded. The question is how much was added/changed in these 3 editions by Frantisek Bartos and Jaromir Fiala. Maybe you can evaluate that. Do you happen to have access to earlier editions? The other 6 operas are ok, all mentioned persons died > 50 years ago (except for artist Karel Svolinský(1896-1986), that's why I can upload the scores only without the nice covers.) Thanks. Hobbypianist 12:24, 3 January 2009 (EST)
- Happy New Year to you also! The Bartos and Fiala editions were part of the Smetana Complete Works which were issued sporadically by SNKLHU/Supraphon/Orbis starting in the late 1940s. As you might expect, they are very much in the urtext or critical edition category and public domain in most places. I know that Kalmus has reprinted Bartered Bride (which I have a nice scan of and will be posting at some point, BTW). Since the covers consist of original artwork by an artist who died only in 1986, I would recommend omitting those. I can't see any problem with you uploading any of the other operas. The only area where things could get questionable from a copyright angle would be if the piano reduction prepared for a vocal score was done by the editor in question - which was the case for the Supraphon vocal score for Dvorak's opera Rusalka, where Karel Solc prepared a new reduction instead of using the one made for the first edition of the vocal score. I have never been able to find Solc's death-date, but only a reference to his being born in 1893. Carolus 23:07, 3 January 2009 (EST)
- Thanks for the info. They'll be available soon, I've almost finished it :) Hobbypianist 14:30, 5 January 2009 (EST)
could you please move the Hector Berlioz pages? Feldmahler tells me the mass tool for doing this is:
Special:IMSLPMoveComposer – which may only be operated by a sysop.
The preferred name as per the thread on the forums is Berlioz, Hector (not Berlioz, Louis Hector).
If you could do this sooner rather than later, as Generoso is going through the Berlioz cello parts, before too many new pages are created, I would really appreciate it!...
Regards, Philip Legge ♇ @ © talk 12:51, 5 January 2009 (AEDT)
- Viele dank! PML talk 14:45, 5 January 2009 (AEDT)
Glad to do it - despite my trepidation since it allows only 10 items to transfer at once, then requires you to repeat the procedure. I had fears Generoso or someone would be uploading a file when I clicked and .... down in flames we'd go! The 'mover' worked fine this time. Carolus 22:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Much better that you only have to move 19 or 20 pages then, rather than a lot more :) PML talk 14:52, 5 January 2009 (AEDT)
AMEN to that! :) Carolus 22:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Thanks very much for the OBE Te Deum. Have you got any other Berlioz pieces lurking away there?
- I have a number of the Kalmus Miniature Orchestra Scores:
- No. 505, L'enfance du Christ FS;
- No. 510, Le cinq Mai FS;
- No. 1228; Choral works with orch. FS (H.B. 38–41) – only Sara la baigneuse is not available here
- No. 1229; Vocal works with orch. FS (H.B. 42–47)
- No. 1234; Songs v4, numbers 19–29 (I am unsure of the plate numbers of these, since Kalmus erased them)
- No. 1235; Songs v5, numbers 30–37 (ditto)
- The only problem is that I don't have a scanner.
- Now, what I'd really like for a belated Christmas present (or an early birthday present) would be for someone to find the 1886 full score of Benvenuto Cellini... even if it is only the Weimar version! Regards, Philip Legge ♇ @ © talk 23:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)
I'll be looking around, of course. But that's pretty much it as far as Berlioz goes. I do have the CDSM vocal scores, which we seem to have most of already. The Requiem they reprint is different, though. It appears to be a vocal score made by Leopold Damrosch for Schirmer in NY around 1865 (very early schirmer plate number). The Choudens full score for Benvenuto Cellini is a great rarity, naturally. It's 470 pages, so I'll be checking to see if Kalmus or Konemann managed to get hold of a copy to reprint. Carolus 23:33, 8 January 2009 (EST)
- I think I may can get that Choudens edition, but a little later and in lieu of my Mahler critical edition project (since it'll be incarcerated) I'm going to finish the older Berlioz Werke probably starting with the full score of the Damnation of Faust and then the overtures. Cellini probably later. Daphnis 12:44, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Two Pieces Submitted
Since you were the one that dealt with this the last time, I just submitted two new pieces:
Prelude For Piano No. 4 (Hedien, Mark)
Prelude For Piano No. 5 (Hedien, Mark)
I am the composer of those pieces, and it's OK to list them as public domain or Creative Commons attribution, whichever you prefer. (I noticed they were switched to CC last time I uploaded.)
Thanks again for your help. If you have any questions, let me know.
--Mark Hedien (mrvegas)
About sweelinck and Carissimi
yes, that's me right in the flesh, and the typeset of Carissimi's "Jonas" has been made by me, too. Unfortunately, I cannot give you any copyright information about the score I used, but for all I know it's a copy of a late 19th century edition using C-clefs (probably of Italian provenance) our conductor gave to us choristers, when we did a concert a few years ago featuring oratorios by Carissimi. This score begins straight away at page "84" with the music, where even Carissimi's name is not given. Only the pages themselves show some identification code, namely "D.2." - I don't know what that means or which publisher could be meant...
I merely wanted to have a version of "Jonas" in modern clefs; also the German translation of the Latin text is mine own...
If my posting is illegal, don't hestitate to delete it. I just wanted to share it with other people...
Simon Zimmermann (sweelinck)
- Thank you, Carolus.
University Music Editions
Thanks to Homerdundas, Daphnis, and featured scores, there is probably a lot of traffic on those pages with UME scans, as we now owe much to them. Would it be worthwhile to make a page for them, perhaps a s a reprint publisher (or something)? I have the same question about the Orchestra Musician's Library and CDSM.--Snailey Yell at me Email me 12:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)
- Well, UME is defunct (it was absorbed by Alexander Street Press). There's not much to tell since it was just a small NYC company who microfilmed (microfiched) a number of published monumental collections - most of which were reprinted by Kalmus, Broude, Edwards Brothers and others. As for Alexander Street, like CDSM and OML I think it's best to not bring undue attention to the matter since anyone can file a suit regardless of whether they have a winnable case or not. At the end of the day, there will be no reason for anyone to shell out $15-18 for a CD when one can download all the items here for free. That's bound to make some folks unhappy. I see no positive benefit in making a claim or statement about items being from the CDSM, AS, or OML collections. We already had a nasty letter from someone connected with Fred Steitner about the BGA. There are still plenty of people out there who fail to grasp the concept of public domain, sad to say. Carolus 01:21, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Hi Matthieu, Do you happen to know if Mr. Bolognani gave his approval for the posting of his typesets here? I seem to recall that he for some reason was not wanting his items here, but this goes back before the great shut-down, so my memory could be faulty here. I know his site states he uses the CC licenses, but we normally will not post new typesets if the typesetter objects. Thanks, Carolus 02:27, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Hi Carolus. Actually I have no idea. I assumed the similarity with IMSLP#24085 to IMSLP#24094. So, if we want to avoid conflicts with Mr. Bolognani, we would better remove these ones also. Cheers,--Matthieu 05:15, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Zelenka trio sonatas for 2 oboes, bsn and continuo (6)
Carolus, these were published by Hortus/Barenreiter in the 50s and edited by Schoenbaum. Is it worth (right now) uploading these or will they immediately go to "jail"? Daphnis 12:39, 13 January 2009 (EST)
- Most of the HM titles issued before 1964 are PD in the USA and have been reprinted by Kalmus, et al. Same holds for Nagels Musik Archiv. There are some exceptions, but not very many. Carolus 02:19, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- One of these pieces (Sonata II) was pub. in 1965. Does this rule hold true here? And in these cases, only the music would be PD and not the prose? Apparently, the 6 trio sonatas were published by HM in the 50s-60s and later revised by another editor and reissued in the 90s by Bärenreiter. Daphnis 21:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
- I suspect the reason they were re-published in the 90s is because Kalmus reprinted them. A 1965 score is ineligible unless it was actually published without notice. I think by 1965 they were sticking notices on the scores. Carolus 00:03, 17 January 2009 (EST)
- I checked with Grove and apparently these trio sonati were only first published between '55-'65 by editor/musicologist Schoenbaum. In that case, it follows not the Urtext law (as normally comes into play by works published by Hortus Musicus/Bärenreiter) but rather the plus 50 rule? The publication dates for these first editions are: No. 1 (1955), No. 2 (1965), No. 3 (1961), No. 4 (1957), No. 5 (1959) and No. 6 (1955). Daphnis 18:39, 19 January 2009 (EST)
- And as for Kalmus reprints, WorldCat shows nothing (re)printed by Kalmus that was written by Zelenka. Daphnis 18:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)
- I can't say I'm surprised that Kalmus, et al have not reprinted Zelenka. If these are first publications, you're right, the 50 year rule applies. Only 1, 4 and 6 are eligible now (5 will be OK next year). 2 is covered in the USA by the automatic renewal for works published after 1963 (unless it was published without a notice). The renewal status of the others can be checked online. Carolus 21:33, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Hello Carolus. You're quick off the mark tonight! My understanding was a little different, in that I thought we'd settled on Full Scores / Vocal Scores / Arrangements at the top level, with Complete Work / Extracts within each of the categories. But it's been a few months since we last touched on the subject, so maybe my recollection is a little hazy. My main aim tonight is just to ensure that the heading levels are consistent between pages, and I'll stick to your interpretation pending any further discussion. Rest assured that I'm not planning to do any irreparable damage! P.davydov 16:52, 23 January 2009 (EST)
- Ha! Thanks. We've added a lot more operas since we discussed this on the forum, so I just wanted to try and be (sort-of) consistent! Carolus 16:55, 23 January 2009 (EST)
- OK, I've undone my earlier changes, and will stop meddling :-) P.davydov 17:05, 23 January 2009 (EST)
- I have to keep track of those crazy folks who want to add Shostakovich scores all the time, after all! (This is about the 20th time I've deleted the Shostakovich page).
- Hello again. Could you take a look at the discussion we had about this last year, and get back to me? Thanks, P.davydov 09:28, 24 January 2009 (EST)
- Thanks for finding that discussion. The forum was not loading very well the other day, and I couldn't find it. The top level-division is between Versions by the composer and Versions by otjher hands. I'll modify that outline I made earlier in the discussion so we can have it there to refer to. Maybe this can be something Feldmahler will be able to program (as he mentioned earlier in the discussion). For Eugene Onegin, both the Valse and Polonaise are Tchaikovsky's versions, they should therefore go above any versions made by other hands. However, the vocal score was prepared by Tchaikovsky as well, so it should still appear above the excerpts in this case. Carolus 15:19, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Hello Carolus. I've had a few problems accessing the Forum this week, but I managed to post a message earlier today to the effect that I would carry out a trial and report back (with the revert option available in any worst-case scenario). I've mentioned there one issue concering the order of orchestral parts/sections in larger works, but as to the arrangements and transcriptions, I'm sorting by descending number of instruments. So the larger ones in this category (such as vocal scores for operas) take priority. In the case of the Italian Capriccio, that rule placed Langer's version for two pianos before Tchaikovsky's one.
I've already come across cases where there can be different arrangements for the same combinations of instruments, but you may be right that the names of the arrangers might be superfluous in the headings. One of the things I had in mind was the recent Forum discussion about how to link the names of arrangers of works and their original composers, and if the name of the arranger appears in the contents list at the top of the page (by inclusion in the heading), this would be easier to locate on a long page.
When I've finished working on the Tchaikovsky pages I'll review the system in the light of that experience, and put something together for further discussion. As always your advice and encouragement is much appreciated P.davydov 16:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)
- I really think you should avoid using "For Voices and Piano" as "Vocal score", or even "Piano-vocal score" is far more commonly used - even though "For Voices and Piano" is technically correct.
Having read previous disputes about the use of the term "Vocal Score", it's clear that the term means different things to different people. I was aiming to stay neutral with "For Voices and Piano", but if you think this is too much of a fudge then how about using the Library of Congress's subject headings of "Vocal Scores (with Piano)" and "Vocal Scores (unaccompanied)"?
BTW, I think doing just Tchaikovsky according to the proposed hierarchy rules is a great idea. That way a large number of folks can see it and make suggestions about ease of use. I suppose we could use Lyle's preferred term "Piano-vocal score", which does seem to be gaining more ground in recent years. Most Publishers in the English-speaking world use "vocal score" for the common run-of-the-mill klavierauszug. The scores with vocal parts gathered in one or more systems are typically referred to as "chorus scores" (though these can include lines for vocal soloists as well). I have to admit that "Piano-vocal score" or "Vocal-piano score" is more precise than the simple "vocal score." I'll be adding some comments on the discussion page attached to your new hierarchy page. Carolus 18:06, 31 January 2009 (EST)
About this string quartett transcription for Dvorak's Serenade for Winds, Op.44 - I don't really know whose transcription it is, I've downloaded this one from website, which name I don't remember at all - it was a long time ago...I became to use IMSLP recently so don't really know how to use it, just wanted to try to put some notes here, I'm sorry if I did something wrong...
will try to do everything in the right way in future.
I was apparently not thinking clearly while uploading these Skalkotta compositions and there was even more mist in my head when tagging them, which is really a shame. As I don't find anything from these 32 Piano Pieces except for this Universal Edition, I suppose this is a first posthumous publication, however, there is no evidence for this. But even then there's no way it's PD in EU or Canada. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Peter talk 16:10, 25 January 2009 (EST)
- We all have days like this.... I'm fairly sure the 1992 Margun score was a first publication. I recall they were boasting about it at the time. Carolus 16:24, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Brahms Gesamtausgabe Prefaces
This is for no real IMSLP-Related question, but when Dover reprints that Breitkopf Brahms Complete, they reprint the prefaces. Since those would be copyright in the EU because of Hans Gal's late death date (unless I'm missing something), wouldn't they be elligible for NIE Restoration? Just curious.Snailey Yell at me Email me 16:12, 25 January 2009 (EST)
- Theoretically. yes. However, there's a little "gotcha" about GATT/TRIPs restoration - you had to file the NIE before Jan.1, 1999 in order to be able to force a 'reliance party' to stop reprinting an item in the USA without paying royalties. So, it's basically a done deal as far as US copyright law goes. In other countries - even the prefaces prepared as part of a critical edition (like the Brahms) appear to only enjoy a 20/25-year term in the few countries whose laws actually address critical editions (hence the wide abvailability of the Dover scores in the EU). Their actual status in the EU does not appear to be terribly clear. We take the most conservative, strict interpretation here, which is that the prefaces fall under the life-plus rule. Thus, I would not allow Gal's prefaces to be posted here, even though they're free in the USA. Carolus 16:21, 25 January 2009 (EST)
- Interesting. Thank you!Snailey Yell at me Email me 16:28, 25 January 2009 (EST)
This is my first upload, so I really didn't have any idea what was required, or not needed, in the description. Your edit makes them a lot clearer. Operalala 00:53, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, I upladed Mozart k.20 several times but now the final version is uploaded.
DALTORPS 00:57, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Dvorak complete template
Hi...I was wondering if we should split the template for each imprint, as listed on the page itself. Thoughts?
Also, my dover slavonic dances says that the Společnost Antonína Dvořáka part means Antonin Dvorak society (which I'm sure you know). Is this the optimal placement?-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 17:05, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- The Society is really the corporate author, not the publisher, which is why I placed it in front of the name of the series itself. The publisher should always appear on a new line, starting with the city of publication. Since the long name of the publisher is given in full for the template, we ended up with the 2nd (publisher) line taking up 2 lines. While a case could be made for listing the society in the publisher line, it would be necessary to resort to the publisher acronym (SNKLHU) if that were the case. Carolus 00:03, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Makes sense. Thanks. -- Snailey Yell at me Email me 12:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)
You said a while back on the forums that you had a score of this. Do you have a loose timeframe for when it will be up?-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 21:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)
- Months. I have to get it dis-bound before I even begin scanning it. Carolus 22:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Copyright review sub-group
Peter and I have been having a little discussion on my talk page (and I put some on his); he mentioned a certain inadequacy in the current CR system (BTW, I changed my mind; I would be happy to join the ranks), inasmuch as beginners have nowhere to start. I propose a system where a certain sub-group could not change tags that aren't U/U/U, to prevent "wars," and perhaps their movements could be watched in some way. I would greatly appreciate any input.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 23:10, 7 February 2009 (EST)
- And PML has added some interesting points on Peter's talk page.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 21:57, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Dear Carolus, Thanks a lot for putting all the publisher info in all those (around 550) orchestral cello parts I just finished uploading. By the way where, did (do) you get the publisher info on all of them? I think I am getting the hang of editing the wiki in to the format that is preferred (Although, as we add info here it keeps on changing... but probably for the better). Once again, Thanks. Generoso 08:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)
- I'll just jump in and say, though I don't know how Carolus does this sort of magic, certain publishers (Breitkopf, Eulenburg) have very distinctive styles, and the plate numbers help, too. Also, there are only a certain number of commonly available PD parts collections available for each piece...-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:29, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Do they deserve a publisher page? We certainly seem to have enough of theirs.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 21:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- They're strictly a reprinter - even more so than Kalmus, who recently has taken to publishing its own new editions. I think it should be a lower priority than some other publishers, like Julius Hainauer, Arthur P. Schmidt, etc. Carolus 01:26, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Hi Carolus, I noticed that you deleted some works by Sideris, and I was wondering if the remaining work pages (and the composer page) should be deleted as well, as they are all tagged N/N/N. Thanks, --Leonard Vertighel 02:20, 12 February 2009 (EST)
- Hi Leonard, The two I eliminated were actually assigned to a publisher. As I understand it from Philip, the others are temporarily blocked because the composer is persuing a complaint against SMA and their wholesale copying of IMSLP's library - including his works. Carolus 17:42, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Hello again Carolus, thanks for the above info. A technical detail: when content is moved, as was the case with the Category:Satie, Erik, please make existing pages into redirects rather than deleting them, if possible. This is in order to preserve inbound links (for example from wikipedia:Erik Satie - but there could be others, and even personal bookmarks etc.) An exception is when a page is very new, so that it is very unlikely to have inbound links from other sites yet. In this case I restored the redirect from Category:Satie, Erik Alfred Leslie. Thanks, --Leonard Vertighel 02:19, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Hello Carolus. I've just noticed that Gluck's forename is mis-spelled as "Cristoph" (rather than "Christoph") in his category. Could this be added to the change list? Thanks, and apologies for adding further to your workload... P.davydov 17:14, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Your talk page is officially longer than the fifth longest normal page in the entire wiki now! Congrats!-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 13:47, 14 February 2009 (EST)
Dear Carolus, can I kindly ask you when changing page names, joining work pages, or moving file entries, not to delete the entire original page, but instead redirecting it? (e.g. Marcello viola sonata). When deleting pages you create red links in all pages that linked to it, and clicking the corresponding recent addition on the home page also results in a dead end.
To create a redirect, just replace all text in the page with
#REDIRECT [[New page name]].
Peter talk 07:48, 18 February 2009 (EST)
- And could you be careful for double redirects? I end up having to fix a lot of these from the main page, as they don't redirect twice.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:24, 18 February 2009 (EST)
OK, I take my lumps. I'll try to behave myself in the future. Thanks, Carolus 12:57, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Muzyka/Muzgiz world copyright terms
Carolus, how are copyright terms for these Russian governmental publications handled, especially in the US? I thought it was +50 but I was mistaken with this last Rach. upload. I want to make as little clean-up work for you as possible. Thanks. Daphnis 12:46, 18 February 2009 (EST)
- Generally speaking, the only Muzyka items that are protected are things by 20th century composers like Shostakovich and Prokofiev - who died after 1952. The editions (Tchaikovsky, Rimsky, Mussorgsky, Glinka, Rachmaninoff, etc.) are all free since many fall under the urtext rubric. Those that do not fall under the urtext category will have to be examined for a) reprint status by Dover and others; b) copyright notices (or abscence thereof). Transcriptions and arrangements by those who died less than 50 years ago are possibly protected - but even here there are lots of exceptions because the NIEs (restoring copyrights in the USA) really only covered the 20th century composers. A fair number of such arrangements are presently still reprinted and available throughout the west (like the Rostropovich piano reduction of a Vivaldi Concerto). The Rachmaninoff Op.15 was first issued by Jurgenson in 1896. The 1968 Muzyka edition is basically an urtext re-engraving - issued before 1990 - which means we consider it to be PD. Carolus 12:56, 19 February 2009 (EST)
- Thanks for the clarification. Daphnis 13:02, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Those 16 remaining CCARH scores
while we have one of the CCARH team uploading scores at a rapid pace, would you mind reposting that short email you sent Eleanor and her colleagues about the miscellaneous JS Bach scores that have been uploaded from their website by other hands, such as the cantata scores/parts for BWV 11/43/48/213, the H-moll Messe, Brandenburgs, and the 370 or so Chorales? We might as well resolve that little question if we can. Philip Legge @ © talk 06:49, 22 February 2009 (EST)
- Sorry........-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)
- I'll drop Craig a note about these. CCARH's main concern appears to be making sure we always have the most recent version of their files.
After the latest vandalism spree I decided to preemptively change the protection level of all sysops' user and talk pages (including yours). The pages can still be edited by every user as before, but only sysops are now able to rename the page using the "move" button. --Leonard Vertighel 07:29, 22 February 2009 (EST)
- Thanks. I was away yesterday and only saw the vandalism attack late last night. Carolus 13:35, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Prokofiev Romeo & Juliet
- wouldn't this be PD in the usa: the Belwin Mills edition it was taken from was undated (ie. 1960s and no copyright notice) = PD in the USA? Thanks.
- Unfortunately, no. Prokofiev came under the "restoration" thanks to the GATT/TRIPs amendments enacted in 1996. Schirmer filed NIEs on everything. It was public domain in the USA before 1996, but Kalmus, Dover, Belwin, etc. all had to sell off their stock. For all practical purposes, the only Prokofiev items free in the US are those published before 1923. Carolus 01:02, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Bizet: Carmen and L'Arlesienne Suites
Hi Carolus. I took the informaton about authorship of the suites from the Dover reprints of the scores, which didn't mention Guiraud. I wasn't able to find any authoritative source (apart fom IMSLP) that named him as the arranger of the Carmen suites, but there were dozens naming Hoffman instead. Could you tell me the source for your info? Thanks — P.davydov 03:20, 26 February 2009 (EST)
- Since Fritz Hoffmann was born in 1873, it's extremely unlikely he was the actual arranger of the Carmen Suites (despite Wikipedia's assertion). Suite 1 was issued by Choudens as plate A.C. 6459 (score) and 6460 (parts). Suite 2 was issued as A.C. 7394 (score) and 7395 (parts). I've seen Guiraud listed in a couple of places online, but he's apparently not credited in the Choudens scores. Guiraud is a good candidate, as he's the one who suppllied the recitatives for the opera. As you can see, Choudens' plate numbers aren't a terribly reliable guide for dating anything, so I'll be doing some additional research into the question. Carolus 14:29, 26 February 2009 (EST)