User talk:Guifre/archive 2


Wiener Urtext Editions - Schubert

Dear Guifre,

Before you spend a lot of time and effort to scan these scores, please keep in mind that they are subject to the notorious "Temporary Block" [TB] because of their status under USA copyright. See the forums for a more complete discussion of this issue. To put it simply: Project Petrucci, LLC is the US corporation that owns this website. The server is located in Canada, so while we are primarily obligated to obey Canada's copyright law, we are also obligated to be very careful not to violate USA copyright law. You therefore should ask me or another one of the copyright reviewers before undertaking to contribute urtext editions of this nature. It is a rather complicated mess we have to deal with, so almost everything has to be decided individually on a number of factors. We really appreciate your superb contributions and do not want you to be unhappy when we have to block things we know you like to share.

Best Wishes, Carolus 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (IMSLP Copyright Admin)


Well, I have made a glance to the Forums, now, can I ask you some questions?

  • Wich copyright laws should I follow? Until now I thought that the Canadian ones were the only that applied here. Well, in fact I had never heard of "Project Petrucci, LLC" nor there was any link with the US.
Here is a Quote from the "Public Domanin" page:
Because the two main IMSLP servers are physically hosted in Canada (one at Montreal and the other at Toronto), IMSLP follows Canadian copyright laws, which may differ from your country.
  • It is an Urtext Edition, why is not PD? If it is something related with David Oistrakh, I can delete his fingerings manually.
  • May I upload the rest of Sonatas? I have scanned all the piano parts.
  • How long will this Block last?
  • Why the limit date for the US PD is always 1923? Shouldn't it change? I mean, as years pass, shouldn't it become 1924, 1925... As it happens with Canadian laws?


~Guifré. 14:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The frozen number 1923

Hello Guifre,
I'm not sure, if Carolus will read your questions here on your page, because he writes to so many users. I think it's better to carry your questions to his own discussion page. Best wishes! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you!--Guifré. 9:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Image conversion

Hi Guifre, it's me again. Before I wrote my last message to you, I've read your's at the page of Piupianissimo. - He convertes pictures to monochrome via IRFAN: Image Conversion. But I think, he'll tell you. Regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 00:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploading from the Loeb Music Library

Hola Guifre,
Ralph Theo Misch is right, it's time for me to answer to your questions. First of all I want to tell you that I'm happy about your plans with the LOEB scans. I have already downloaded and converted the scans of "Valse Romantique" as well as "Children's Corner", "Deux arabesques", "Isle joyeuse", "Pout le piano" and "Suite bergamasque", but didn't find the time to clean them until now. What I do with these scans is very easy.

  1. You are right, I get the images by copy and paste (no other ways seem to work). But I take the scans in the highest resolution (jpg - perhaps bmp is even better). This means I have to download four scans per page (upper left, upper right, lower left and lower right of the page with some overlaps) and glue them together with the Microsoft ICE (Image Composite Editor) - it's freeware.
  2. I resize the color scans first to 600dpi (using IrfanView as Ralph Theo Misch wrote).
  3. I change to monocrome without any dithering (perhaps this is your problem?) - simply try Irfan and tell me about your results.

Hope this helps already, if not just ask me again (I'll try to answer sooner). Hasta luego.--Piupianissimo 19:34, 1 April 2010 (CET)

Thank you for your response! Now it's me who answers a bit late.
Well, as you have already processed Valse Romantique, now I'm trying to convert Ravel's Valses Nobles et Sentimentales. I have used Microsoft ICE on the 1st page and works well, through a bit slowly, and I don't see any way of joining all four parts in just one step. Then I have re-scaled (did you apply sharpen?) and recoloured (with Decrease Colour depth) it with IrfanView.
The result was not bad, but I expected a better definition. In order to check if I had done the same as you I have tried to process the 1st page of Debussy's Mazurka and see if it was like your submission. Mine was of a slightly lower qualtiy (more "noise", more "lumpy", the staff lines being a bit less defined, etc... This is: as it had less ink). Did you make other adjusts to it? (Is it realted with the 4-point filter?) Thanks.
Auf Wiedersehen! ~Guifré 16:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guifre,
again it took me much to long to answer you. I tried to find the original images for the Valse Romantique, but I couln'd find them any more (normally I keep all intermediate files of my work :o( ).
So I have to guess what I did with the original files. I think you are on the right way - the filter of PhotoLine gives these results (everything gets smoother in a way and smaller dust pixels vanish). But I also played around with the color corrections of Irfan. Sometimes I used higher brightness and contrast values as well as changes in the gamma. Not every values work good for every scan, so you should try to find your best values for every score. For me it worked good with a value of about 100 for brightness and contrast and a higher gamma (up to 6!!!) or a very low gamma of 0.1 and contrast of 120 (I used this for the Mozart scans - original grayscale). However, the darker the original scan gets the more dust and dirt you will have on the resulting monocrome pages. My experience is, that you best clean the scans manually after the conversion. But this takes some time.
Hope I could help you (lately) and that I can see some of your work on the Loeb scans soon.
Hasta luego.--Piupianissimo 20:20, 1 May 2010 (CET)

Thank you very much for your answers! I have tried you recommendations and the quality of the files has improved. However, due to other reasons the result has not a significatively better look than that of the CD-Sheetmusic scan already uploaded here (I have deduced that the problem is the engraving itsef; those French editions can't be compared to Breikopf, Peters or Belayeff's products).
At this moment I am too busy to begin such a large-scale work as this (I'm beginning exams in a month!), and an the other hand this library has not much content worth being uploaded in high quality after having processed Debussy's works (for example those Schubert first editions are historically interesting, but not worth being played).
However I have learned how to use these programs and I must thank you for it. The next time I find a file worth being cleaned I will know how to do it.

Vielen Danken!--Guifré 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hola Guifre,
You're very welcome! Good luck for your exams, tell me about the result.--Piupianissimo 19:16, 3 May 2010 (CET)

Etudes (Selection) (Neupert, Edmund)

Hi Guifre! Would you mind uploading a version of this file that isn't encrypted? I was going to split the file up, but it was password protected, and I couldn't find a free utility that would unencrypt it. Thanks! KGill talk email 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Check this page on the IMSLP: [1]. Then Click to "Download Page" and select "0.7 Stable Release 1" (witch is at the bottom of the page). Old versions of PDSAM work as well as the most modern and ignore passwords and blockings. Happy Easter! ~Guifré 10:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Don't know why I didn't see that page...;-) KGill talk email 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I can't see what's your problem with displaying valencià alongside with català in Template:User ca. I changed the template because user Rosebudgar had informed va as one of his languages ([2]) and, since there isn't a template Template:User va, I thought the correct would be for "User ca" to display both options. —Carlos (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, check how this template is written in the English Wikipedia, please:
And in the Catalan Wikipedia:
I think those two authoritative examples will show you what I mean.
The word "Catalan" encompasses the language spoken in Catalonia, the Valencian Country, the Balear Islands, Northem Catalonia and Alghero.
Another thing is the strong anti-Catalan sentiment some Valencians have (called Blaverism) and their denyal of their Catalan heritage by claiming that their language is not a part of the Catalan Sprachbund.
Would you imagine that the Portuguese template read: "Este usuário tem como língua materna o Português/Brazileiro?"
Hope you will understand what I mean.

--Guifré 14:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ravel - Shéhérazade

I'm sorry, but since the poet died in 1966, unless this piece is uploaded with the text removed, we'll have to remove everything. That's why you don't see this piece or his posthumously-published overture on IMSLP. Sorry. Daphnis 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew it was not PD yet, but won't it be in six years (as it happened with Villa-Lobos work)? Thank you --Guifré 13:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but in the case of Villa-Lobos it was only half a year. It's general practice not to leave works not PD in Canada on the site if they won't be within the next year. (Of course, there are a handful of exceptions, but it's still good to keep the number low) KGill talk email 13:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK! --Guifré 13:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And I might also mention, since I saw on your user page you plan to upload works by Ravel, that anything not already on IMSLP by Ravel cannot be added. The only exception being manuscripts of some of his works. Daphnis 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Scriabin upload

Hi Guifre, The file you uploaded for Piano Sonata No.1 appears to be an entire 313-page volume (or more than one volume) from the Günter Philipp edition. It would be a good idea if this file was split into its separate pieces. Thanks, Carolus 14:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know! I stopped the uploading process when I realized. I am already fixing it!--Guifré 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Done! --Guifré 15:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ha! No wonder that file was so big!! Regards, Carolus 15:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia, (currently) Spain.

Hola Guifre, me parece muy bien que seas nacionalista, pero no por ello tienes que faltar a la verdad, Cataluña es de España y muy a tu pesar siempre será de España.

Saludos. -- ivdruiz 0:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Querido Ivdruiz, con todo el respeto que me mereces, creo que en mi página de usuario puedo poner lo que desee siempre que no sea difamatorio o insultante. Como creo que este no es el caso, voy a revertir otra vez tu modificación. Si no me equivoco, currently se traduce por "en la actualidad", por lo que decir que actualmente Catalunya es parte de España no es faltar a la verdad, y el futuro no lo conoce nadie. Por favor, te agradecería que no volvieras a sacar el tema, pues no estoy insultando a nadie y creo que en España hay liertad de opinión. Espero que tú, que has hecho tanto para este proyecto, seas comprensivo.
Muchas gracias por escucharme y que pases un buen día. --Guifré 07:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Querido Guifré, por supuesto que creo en la libertad, pero estó es una página de música no de politica, me temo que si es faltar a la verdad para que Cataluña se pudiese independizar tendría que romper con la Constitución Española y eso es imposible. Siempre una independecia se ha conseguido mediante una guerra, tipo Kosovo. Imaginate que pongo que en el pueblo donde vivo yo pongo (Currently) pertenece a España, pues estaría faltando a la verdad. Voy a respetar tu decisión y no voy a volver a quitar (Currently) :).

PD. Querido Guifré (Currently) me ha sonado que por desgracia aún pertenecemos a España. Yo lo veo como odio a España no sé.

Bueno, sobre esto de las guerras, discrepo, Terra Lliure hace décadas que desapareció (a diferencia de ETA) y todos los movimientos independentistas en Catalunya defensan una separación no-violenta, cosa que ha sucedido en muchos países (Islandia, Canadá, Australia...). Sobre mis sentimientos hacia España, ni de lejos la odio, de la misma forma que no odio a franceses, andorranos o portugueses, es más, tengo parientes residentes en Madrid, y parte de mi familia es de orígen extremeño, a los que obviamente no quiero ningún daño.
De todas formas, dejemos la política y centrémonos en la música. Estas primeras ediciones que cuelgas son verdaderamente interesantes, le dan al IMSLP mayor valor como herramienta musicológica. Tú sí que has hecho una gran contribución a este sitio.

Bueno, lo dejo aquí que el e-mule me acaba de descargar un par de partituras más.--Guifré 10:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dejando la politica, estas haciendo un gran trabajo Guifré :)

Recibe un gran saludo. --ivdruiz 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Liszt Odes funebres

Hello Guifre. The whole Liszt section has been recently reorganized over the last few months so that work pages have a consistent layout, and your new page for the Odes funebres (which were separate pieces during Liszt's lifetime and only published together after his death) doesn't follow the same rules. Perhaps you could reconsider this change? Thanks — P.davydov 11:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I've amended the pages in question so that they're consistent with the IMSLP:Score submission guide. Thank you for the new uploads — P.davydov 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for the delay.
Yeah, that looks good. Thank you.

--Guifré 07:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chopin Op. 58

The recent upload is incorrectly identified as published by C.F. Peters. It's the Mikuli edition -- identical to the one already available. --Steve Bob 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC). OK, I have just grouped both files. Thanks--Guifré 07:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky:6 Pieces, Op.51

Hello Guifre,

This Konemann item does not appear to be a reprint of the 1949 complete works edition by Drozdov, though it could be a reprint of a later Muzyka re-engraving of the Drozdov edition. It's very confusing, to say the least. Do you happen to know anyting about the Konemann edition? If Konemann actually did the engraving themselves in 1991 for a new edition, we could not post this as it is less than 25 years old. However, if they simply reprinted a Muzyka score from the 1970s or 1980s, it would be OK to post. For now, I am going to change this item to read that it is a reprint of a later Muzyka score until additional information surfaces. Thanks, Carolus 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I happen to own another volume in the Konemann series of Tchaikovsky piano works, which all look to be fresh engravings with a copyright date of 1997. The editorial notes say that they've consulted various editions as well as the autograph in preparing their new version. There's no reason to think this is simply a reprint of a Muzyka edition (as the fonts/layout aren't typical of them anyway), and I would place the Op.51 score uploaded by Guifre in the same category. Sadly I'm afraid it has to go — P.davydov 23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is actually a fairly large problem - we have dozens of these scores, which Guifre has been uploading for months. From a cursory sampling, they all look like new engravings - meaning they'll all have to be deleted. KGill talk email 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That applies to the Tchaikovsky scores, but not to anything that is clearly a reprint (like the Konemann opera scores of Wagner, Bizet, etc.). Konemann did both reprints and new editions. In some cases (like Scriabin) they reprinted Muzyka editions. The collections of Liadov and Balakirev piano works they issued are some others I have my doubts about being a reprint - though these both look very much like Muzyka engravings. Hopefully not as big a problem as it first appears! The opera scores are all fine, though. Just take a look at the Parsifal items and you'll see what I mean. Carolus 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know about the opera reprints (I didn't phrase that last message too well) - what I meant was that all of the items by Russian composers look like new engravings to me at least. Unless Muzyka's typographical style underwent enormous changes by the 1980s... KGill talk email 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually did undergo some changes in the late-70s into the 80s - especially the items produced in Moscow. They have more of a hand-finished look with respect to slurs, for example. This is also evident in work done by the Koreans in the 1980s for Western publishers. Muzyka was still sending some high-profile items to East Germany in the last 15 years before the demise of the USSR, and the items produced in Leningrad have a rather crude appearance (often manuscript, not actual engraving). That all said, I am still a little leary about all those Balakirev and Liadov titles. Some of the Scriabin might be suspect as well. Carolus 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody!
Well, after reading all this, I think my concept of reprint was not the same as yours. So what is a reprint, a mere photocopy? I thought that copyright issues applied to the musical content (i.e. the musical text somebody (an editor) had creatd from other sources like manuscripts or earlier editions; wich was different from them in some way), not tho the engraving itself. Having seen that there were already many Könemann scores in the IMSLP like those ones I had, I thought there would be no problem.
I have searched information about Könemann and it seems it was short-lived company wich published scores whose content was taken from out-of-copyright sources. Aparently, its super cheap prices made other publishers go bankrupt; however, soon after the USSR collapse, it desapperared. Apart from this, here is a soviet edition from 1988 so as to compare: XX.
Have a nice day! --Guifré 08:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)