- 1 Thanks!
- 2 extra period
- 3 Category:Bode, H. (fl. 1895)
- 4 Kowalewski
- 5 Cello Sonata, Op.8 (Kodály, Zoltán)
- 6 RE: Clavier-Sonaten für Kenner und Liebhaber, Wq.55-59, Wq.61 (Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel)
- 7 Merton
- 8 Prière du matin (Vilbac, Renaud de)
- 9 Sinfonie et Gagliarde (Rossi, Salamone)
- 10 America / Star Spangled Banner / God Save the King
- 11 Shouldn't this be under copyright still?
- 12 Hammerklaviersonate
- 13 Kross
- 14 32 Volkslieder (Brahms, Johannes)
- 15 Mixed messages on FTE:nonPDcomposer
- 16 Urtext copyrights in EU
- 17 Category:Pâque, Désiré
- 18 Worldcat
- 19 Hindemith
- 20 Besset's Des Canaries
Thank you for fixing up my page. I intend to be posting quite a few more over time and I'll try to improve my form. I just needed to get this rolling. Any specific tips would be gratefully accepted. - Roger Fletcher
- You're quite welcome - there really wasn't much 'wrong' with it, at least not much that was not extremely simple to fix. I guess the only problem was that you separated the score file into three portions; generally, unless the file in question is enormous, it is recommended to keep all the pages for one piece in the same PDF. IIRC the only other corrections to the page were minor things, such as listing yourself as the publisher (this is actually the case under most countries' laws - uploading works to IMSLP fits the legal definition of publication). I look forward to future uploads :-) Cheers, KGill talk email 13:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
and now several with one too few :) well, easily fixed, off to do that soon! Eric 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did see a couple that took into account Carolus's edit to the template, but I felt that the dozens of pages that were already using it in its old form sort of justified the revert :-) Thanks, KGill talk email 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, just lazily fixed the ones I did... for the moment... Eric 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that! I forgot that there were already a lot of periods floating around out there. The template has become a big hit in its short time. Carolus 00:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, according to SSB it's Hermann Bode (1859-1934). But I can't move that page... Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 13:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've now moved him to Bode, Hermann. Cheers, KGill talk email 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Ralph Theo Misch 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Any CC license you see on his pages was most likely added after the fact by a copyright reviewer (myself in several cases) since JK frequently adds new works as "Normal Scans" with a "public domain" copyright tag. I put the recent message about performance rights, etc. on his talk page and he e-mailed me to say that he "doesn't want any money for his music", which I expect means that all of his works should go under the cc-by-nc license. This would make the recording just posted by another contributor permissible. Carolus 00:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the note - I was under the impression that he'd asked you to go back and change a bunch of his stuff to one of the more restrictive licenses, since that seems to be what a lot of his uploads are now under. (Unless I'm just imagining things...) Cheers, KGill talk email 00:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it will be the opposite, actually. He apparently wants only minimal restrictions (no Ebay guys, etc.). So, I plan on going through in a bit. Carolus 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
KGill, Two quick questions... 1) Do you think that the Kodaly Op.8 should be named "Cello Solo Sonata, Op.8" to differentiate between Op.4 which is with piano? 2) Would Kodaly Op.1 be US only or IMSLP? It has a copyright of Budapest: Rózsavölgyi, 1921. Thanks for your help. Generoso 19:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- 1. How about 'Sonata for Solo Cello'?
- 2. Not quite sure what you mean - since Kodály is still the author of the music, it wouldn't be able to go on IMSLP proper and would therefore need to be uploaded to the US server.
- Cheers, KGill talk email 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Either would be fine for Op.8. I shall upload the Op1 now. Generoso 19:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear KGill, thanks for your message!! I've made some other mistakes there (how embarrassing). I hope everything is correct now. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, everything looks fine now as far as I can tell. Cheers, KGill talk email 23:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
odd items in the Merton catalog now- a posthumous string quartet by Stenhammar?!? Never heard of this in addition I presume to his usual 6... Hope you are having a good season! Eric 04:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, you too :-) I would be happy to upload them, but there's no way for me to since all the items last year were pre-prepared and emailed to Carolus (he then put them on the FTP server here so others could access them). If you would be interested in having them on the site, I suppose you could ask Carolus about it, though I'm not sure whether Merton is interested in making any more of their scores/parts available here (they may decide to not scan any more - business model, etc.). I do agree that it would be great to have more of them, though; weren't there a few other comments about missing items here available to purchase on their site? Cheers, KGill talk email 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Prière du matin (Vilbac, Renaud de)
Hi KGill, I think it's not necessary to list the composer as editor of his own work. But Vilbac is the editor of the whole collection and it's the only piece by himself within that book. So I wanted to be correct. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I guess the general idea is that one wants the work to show up under Vilbac's category along with all the works he edited in that collection - but it already shows up there because he wrote it, so I don't think it's quite necessary to make it appear twice by listing him as the editor as well. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, I'm just about to split this page but do not yet know exactly how it ends. Will continue next night. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is somebody who is waiting for more Zelter. So Sig. Rossi will have to wait another day...--Ralph Theo Misch 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. But I am still not satisfied (e.g. Instrumentation, list of sections, sequence)...--Ralph Theo Misch 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
America / Star Spangled Banner / God Save the King
I didn't mean to suggest that your link was incorrect. I simply thought to clarify, on the God Save the King page, that the name of the "Related Work" is America. One could use the same link to the Star-Spangled Banner page, if you like, while labeling that link "America."
Indeed I now see that you and I have linked to the _same_ Stults pdf. (Great minds think alike. Apparently ours do also. )
If you look at the Stults file on the Star-Spangled Banner page, you will see that I scanned and uploaded that score, crediting Stults as the arranger. (I also mentioned America in the notes, and later remarked, "There should be a separate imslp entry for that piece and its lyrics, yes? It's printed in the Star Spangled Banner page that I submitted today." I thought about linking to God Save the King, but cross-links are not my strong suit.)
Thereafter, user Rah9639 created two new pages: The Star Spangled Banner (Stults, Robert Morrison), and American National Anthems (Stults, Robert Morrison). The former strikes me as potentially confusing and not helpful. Stults didn't write the Star Spangled Banner. I would move Rah9639's files and delete the page.
The latter new page is perhaps helpful: it describes the works with the title under which Stults published them in The Etude Magazine. But it's still the same pdf. On the God Save the King page, I linked to this latter copy of the Stults file, not even noticing that it was on a page different from the one where I had originally placed it.
In any event, please reconsider the assertion that The Star Spangled Banner is a "Related Work" on the God Save the King page.
I should also mention this to Carolus, who has made numerous contributions to the related pages.
Thanks. Olmsted 02:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I think I got sort of mixed up. The central confusion seems to be that American National Anthems (Stults, Robert Morrison) actually contains two works, neither written by Stults. Since there appears to be no real way to split the files, I have instead linked to both God Save the King and The Star-Spangled Banner from the page, and removed the link from the former page I mistakenly re-added after your previous edit. I also moved the arranged file of the latter work from the Stults page to the page for the original, so the extra page is now gone. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. Cheers, KGill talk email 13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I haven't actually looked at your changes yet, but this seems very helpful. Thanks. Olmsted 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be under copyright still?
Piano Trio, VB 171 (Kraus, Joseph Martin)
- ... also a strange form of copyright tagging on this page? --Homerdundas 19:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Special provisions exist for "scientific" (urtext) editions. In other words, it is as close to the original as possible and contains insufficient original material to qualify for copyright status in Canada. As a courtesy, however, we voluntarily prohibit the posting of "critical" or urtext editions published less than 25 years ago. Fortunately, this was published after the 25 year period. That's why it is actually not under copyright, despite what it seems. It is a strange tagging! Lndlewis10 19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
what is the reason to delete the monograph about the Hammerklaviersonate without any effort to contact the uploader,
who is not at all unknown at IMSLP? This is not a good style!Notenschreiber 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did not delete the file at all; I simply moved it to its own page, linked to in the Related Works section near the bottom of the Hammerklavier page. (Beethoven didn't write that analysis, after all.) Thanks, KGill talk email 21:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, I didn´t see the linkNotenschreiber 21:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks! he says Krosswise (or Krossly - erm- no. Fellow may have gotten that a lot if he visited the US though.) :):) Eric 12:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome. It turned out there was only one page (apart from his category, that is) that used the floruit dates rather than the correct years of birth and death. I couldn't believe I forgot to check MusicSack on that one - they were right out in the open.... Cheers, KGill talk email 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
32 Volkslieder (Brahms, Johannes)
Hi KGill, I think this page may be deleted now. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done - thanks for the notice. Cheers, KGill talk email 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again! Cheers, --Ralph Theo Misch 22:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Mixed messages on FTE:nonPDcomposer
I’m a bit ambivalent about the mixed messages that result on the non-PD composer template with the “please add any info you like”: and Nick doesn’t seem to have realised that once a category page is unprotected then it becomes open season for the copyright violators – this may be unlikely for the drive-by/hit-and-run posters, but only a trivial change is needed to the fte: variable at the beginning of the page to allow works pages to be added with nonchalant ease.
Anyway, rather than occupy your talk page, I bumped the old thread on the forum. Cheers, Philip @ © talk 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think the reason I added that text was because Nick told me he was thinking of some sort of information-only version of composer pages where anything but works would be OK to add. I figured it would be easiest to amend the nonpublicdomaincomposer template for this, since it doesn't have the add work link anyway, and it already has a built-in warning against copyright violations. I wasn't totally sure how to go about this, though, and I guess I sort of got distracted and moved to something else before 'finishing' anything useful. I should have reverted my edits; you can do so if you wish.
- I'm not sure why he unprotected the page, though. Maybe semi-protection would be a decent compromise? Of course, I think that still would have enabled Pope Maledict (what an apt username) to make that edit... KGill talk email 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that when a category is unprotected it is open season for copyright violation. There are hundreds of other composers that people would simply need to make a category for, and we have no protection for them because there can't be. I unprotected the page so information could be added about the composer (worklists, recordings, etc), which I have absolutely no problem with. I fact, I think Kenny had an excellent idea in doing this. If someone violates copyright laws, I will delete the files accordingly. If you have disagreements, I would be happy but talk about them with you, but please do not assume I don't understand something. Regards, Lndlewis10 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- The assumption wasn’t there: the word “seem” indicates that your action gives rise to the impression of not appreciating why a previous counter-measure was deemed appropriate. That’s all. (And we now seem to have gone against the direct spirit of my original posting under this heading, which was to avoid prolonging the discussion here, but conduct it in the appropriate forum. Please feel free to archive this immediately, Kenny.) Philip @ © talk 01:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Urtext copyrights in EU
Hi, I see you've already noticed my post on Les Troyens. I don't think any EU country has actually implemented a 30-year term. The longest one I know of is Germany's at 25 years. Carolus 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - that was great timing :-) I'll let Max know about this, as he was asking for some clarification on V vs. C and suggested that urtext editions published between 25 and 30 years ago should be tagged as C* for the EU, since the maximum possible term is technically 30 years. He passed the new test with a near-perfect score, BTW. KGill talk email 01:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not surprised! The guide is looking very good. I just added a few lines to sort of underline some points that I've noticed being missed over the last couple of years. I'll look over that oddball Canadian editio princeps again and try to boil it down into something that can be applied easily. Carolus 01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, William Bunting asked me to have a look at his notice about that matter at his page (→Australian National Library). May you please have a look? - I think you're the expert of this topic. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done - thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! - Also on behalf of William. --Ralph Theo Misch 11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mr. KGill. I notice that you removed worldcat listing I had put on one of the work pages from Sibley. I'm really sorry if I did something wrong but you could you maybe please tell me why it was removed? I think for one of the listings was incorrect which I now see and am so sorry for this, I would have added different listing once I saw error. I think that worldcat may sometimes be dubious, and have found all too much mistakes, but this listing I believe was right. I think maybe it was not useless, but I guess it was unneeded? I will follow style guide more closely. So sorry for the trouble, and sorry for my English trouble. Thank you -- Emery 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Emery. You haven't done anything wrong, though you are correct that I removed the one listing because it was off by a few years (the real approximation IIRC was ca.1806, not ca.1800 as the WorldCat entry had it - I'm getting that from our plate numbers table on the publisher page). The reason I removed the other one was not because it was wrong, but because I thought it was sort of unnecessary - the date appeared clearly on the actual score, and I guess I thought we didn't also need a citation link confirming that. There is no real reason we could *not* have it, though - go ahead and add it back in if you want. It certainly doesn't do any harm :-) Your English is absolutely fine, clear and perfectly intelligible. Cheers, KGill talk email 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Next year the solo viola sonatas from 1919 and 1922 will be public domain for US, right? --Violarulez 00:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know which opus numbers you mean - but in any case, I could not find records that any of his solo viola sonatas were published before 1923. Since US copyright for items published 1923-1977 was date of publication+95 years, that means that none of them will be public domain until 1 January 2019. Unfortunately, you will have to wait seven and a half more years to upload them. Sorry, KGill talk email 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great! I've marked it in my calendar. thanks! --Violarulez 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (by the way, 1919 and 1922 refers to their year of composition, though both were published in 1923)
Besset's Des Canaries
I see you've noted that this was described as a suite somewhere. Can you give me a more specifici reference, i.e. a page number from the music? I can't find it anywhere. Thanks, Steltz 07:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- He originally created two pages for the work, one of them yesterday. In this diff, he had 'Piano Suite' in the Work Title field. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)