Victoria - Duplication
Hi KGill, thanks for your message. I've uploaded the correct file now. Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 08:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, I emailed you my responses to the CR test using the "email user" function here on the site. If you'd rather have a word file or pdf, reply to the email I sent and I will email back with an attachment. Thanks! Massenetique talk email 10:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great - I will try to grade your work this morning and assign a score as soon as possible. Cheers, KGill talk email 13:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, I wanted to ask you what the procedure is when someone uploads a score which is public domain in the US only? Can it be left blocked and moved to the US server, or does it need to be simply deleted and reuploaded to the proper server? I've never personally uploaded a US only score so this hadn't come up before... Thanks, Massenetique talk email 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- It has to be deleted from the Canadian server and reuploaded through imslp.us (the special procedures for this are outlined on the forums. For legal reasons, there is no automated connection between imslp.org and imslp.us). Is there a particular file you were thinking of to be moved? KGill talk email 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've seen the discussion about the Goossens and have now uploaded all the files to the US server. Cheers, KGill talk email 15:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. I was told yesterday that I should ask you and P.Davydov before moving any composer pages. I have a few proposals. Some may be controversial, and I wholly expect disagreement:
- George Frideric Handel should be changed to George Frideric Händel. It's an overwhelmingly common practice among libraries to include the trema. The only other commonly accepted alternate form of the last name is Haendel, which used in Switzerland and some other countries in and around Europe.
- Felix Mendelssohn's last name commonly accepted in the hyphenated form Mendelssohn-Bartholdy in the LoC and numerous other libraries. There is a case to be made against redirecting the category because most people probably only know him as Mendelssohn. However, if we are to keep in accordance with IMSLP's naming guidelines, and the rest of the libraries worldwide (with few exceptions), it should be moved.
- Sergei Prokofiev should be moved to Sergey Prokofiev if we are to be in accordance with most national libraries' preferred form.
- Alexander Scriabin to Aleksandr Nikolayevich Scriabin or Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin, to at least keep consistent with form.
Respectfully yours, Emery 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Grove (and LC) use the form 'George Frideric Handel' on the grounds that that's what he changed his name to when he moved to England. For the rest of his life after that point, he always signed himself as 'Handel' (no umlaut).
- 2. This is interesting. It appears that both Grove and MGG prefer 'Felix Mendelssohn', though most libraries listed in VIAF uses the hyphenated last name (and some use it without). It is an open question whether it should be changed and, if so, to what it should be changed.
- 3. Agreed.
- 4. In this case, it seems Grove (along with many other sources) favors the full version of the name (i.e., with patrynomic), so it would make sense to change it to 'Aleksandr Nikolayevich Scriabin' - though I think that would look strange to many people.
- Cheers, KGill talk email 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know tht in the light of some helpful comments from Emery, I've made a few tweaks to last night's guidelines (see here) — P.davydov 07:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. If the guidelines can now be considered final, then I'll be happy to help with the moving of composer names if I can find the time. KGill talk email 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. I think the original instrumentation for this piece was for 2 violins. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that it was for 2 violas, or 1 violin, which is something I thought was a possibility. The tag should be changed to studies ; 2vn I think. I'm just letting you know so it doesn't go unnoticed. Respectfully, Emery 00:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, what an egregious mistagging on my part - thanks for pointing it out. It has now been corrected. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. Thanks for your help, but this one was left intentionally with the patronymic to disambiguate between two different composers called Anatoly Aleksandrov. Sorry. The names A to D are all done for the moment (with a few still to check), so you're welcome to have a go at the rest of the alphabet :-) — P.davydov 23:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh gosh, sorry about that - I've moved it back and will be a little more careful from now on. Thanks, KGill talk email 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- No problem—it's very good of you to help — P.davydov 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a wierd thing happening with a work by Clementi. It appears on the pages of several composers such as Beethoven, Scarlatti, Mozart, Bach and Handel.
I think I have the permission to remove it myself, however, if it appears on the pages of those composers then it most probably appears on many others.
Perhaps there is a way to locate all of them without having to search every single composer...
I see now that it's written "Many of the lessons are extracts from works by other composers such as Handel, Corelli and Mozart." in the 'Misc. Notes' section and Corelli has a link for it too. Perhaps it was intentional. Wierd nevertheless. — Phidias 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Phidias,
- It was indeed intentional - the work is not really just Clementi's own instructions on playing the piano; most of it is actually taken up by a series of lessons, which are just short pieces adapted from other composers. It therefore makes sense for it to appear in their categories as well, since they wrote music that effectively forms part of Clementi's work. Cheers, KGill talk email 23:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Alright then, I thought it was some kind of bug or a mistake.
- Just as a side note, does it really makes sense? This is Clementi's work. Probably every single didactic work make use of other composers pieces as lessons, should they all have the "honour" to be listed as a work of those composers? It would be a great mess, I believe every piano (and any other instrument) method published then and now will have at least 1 Bach piece... :P The same can be applied to Theme&Variations works...
- Anyway, that wasn't what I was concerned with ;) — Phidias 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- True, but perhaps so much of this work is taken up with the lessons that whoever added it to the categories thought it would be more prudent to name other composers as contributors as well (since most of it is really a collection of other works). I'm not familiar enough with this case to say for sure, though; if you still think it should be taken out of the other categories, I would recommend bringing it up on the forums. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Mussorgsky / Myaskovsky
Thanks! My day's a little lighter now they're done :-) — P.davydov 07:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Symphony in C
My composition is actually "Symphony in C" and not "Symphony in C major".
(I notice the page title has been altered. I would edit it back if I could.)
I do appreciate the helpfulness of imslp and its staff, its objective in obtaining
clarity, it is hoped that my title "Symphony in C" will be permitted to stand. Thank you. User:EFerreri
- Hi Ernesto. The issue is that 'in C' is an indication of the key of the work, and according to IMSLP's style guide, if a work's key is included in its title, then 'major' or 'minor' must be added as a clarifier. Therefore, in order to maintain stylistic consistency (one of the site's central policies), the title must stand as 'Symphony in C major'. Thanks, KGill talk email 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the 20th century if not before (e.g. Widor's symphony no.1 "en fa" (actually in F minor) for orchestra) "in C" ceased to always imply major, actually... (other examples- Pizzetti's symphony "en la" which is very definitely in A minor, Wellesz' symphony no.1 in C which is likewise without a doubt in C minor, etc.- Stravinsky's Symphony in C which is in neither at all :)... then there's Harrison's Symphony "on G" but at least there's an on there. Eric 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The title is "Symphony in C", C does not refer to the key. If it did, I would have no problem
with your logic. That however is not an issue. If I cannot call the piece whatever I wish, than I do not wish to post it on imslp.
- If it is really not an indicator of key, then there is no issue with moving it back to its old title; but it does serve as an indicator of key, because the piece begins and ends in C major. (I am curious what the title actually refers to.) More generally, the title of a work is not something that you (or any other composer who posts their works here) has ownership or control over - every page title must fit the style guide in order to maintain consistency. (This is a library, after all - it's necessary for cataloguing purposes.) Your music is owned by you, but the text on your work pages is owned by the IMSLP community and as such is subject to its jurisdiction. (Whenever you edit a page, you must see the note all textual contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 - it is a legal reality as well.) That said, if there is a truly valid reason to keep it as just 'Symphony in C', I will move it back to the old title. I certainly don't wish to see you remove your compositions from IMSLP on the basis of how they are titled here. Cheers, KGill talk email 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
the title page of Graun manuscript(GraunWV C:XI:16) in the SLUB contains (not on IMSLP):
Schranck No: II. | 12. Fach 31. Lage. | [red ink:] No: 7.) Ouverture. | [black ink:] co VV.ni Oboi Fagot: obl: Viola e Basso. | 8. St:[immen] | del Sig.r Graun.
So the first tagging with the explicitly mentioned Oboes and Bassoon was the better one, I think.
I am also not happy with the tagging of the Ouvertures of Fasch (and may be others) as for orchestra. Orchestra is a notion which comes up
in the second part of the 18th century. Tagging for special instrumentations according to the title formulated by the composer or
his copyist would be much betterNotenschreiber 07:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The issue at hand is whether the instruments can be considered soloistic or concertante. If so, they should be tagged specifically - but in any other situation (i.e., when they are ordinary members of a larger instrumental group), they should not. The reason for this is that they will show up in the 'Scores featuring the etc.' categories if they are differentiated, and that is mainly reserved for works in which they really do serve as soloists. Thanks, KGill talk email 14:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at the pages 42-44, 45, 59-60, 65, 84, 90-92, 95-97, 103 of the score. Notenschreiber 14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, you're quite right. I've changed the tag back now. KGill talk email 14:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Notenschreiber 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Platti 12 Sonatas
Hi KGill,as I have seen you changed once more the above page. But your decision is wrong. The original are a sonatas
for Violoncello and b.c., that means violoncello, another bass voice and keyboard. The keyboard players of the baroque
era are able to play from just the bass line. The above page doesn´t contain an arrangement at all.
The editor is a friend of mine and he was very astonished about your first change and happy that I had repaired
the text. Please change it back Notenschreiber 13:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, the score for keyboard with cello solo is still an arrangement because the original was just a single-line figured bass, and Jaksch's score has expanded this to two lines, playable by any modern keyboardist untrained in the art of performing continuo off-the-cuff. Perhaps it should not appear under the 'Arrangements and Transcriptions' hierarchy, but by definition a continuo realization is an arrangement. Thanks, KGill talk email 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, that´s a good agreement Notenschreiber 16:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Woops...thanks!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No big deal :-) KGill talk email 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. Thanks for fixing the RoST tag. I only realized my mistake after the fact and was going to go back and fix it after I put up the RoST template. I'm glad things are noticed so quickly here! Sorry again. Respectfully, Emery 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite all right; I should have just let you fix it, but I guess I figured you had already logged out or something (I apparently decided to change the tag at the exact same time you decided to edit the page, so I didn't notice until afterwards). Cheers, KGill talk email 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the Workpage titles should be in modern English, it would have been better to keep these 6 Sonatas under that name, and use the unusual term "Solo" only in the context of the Walsh print as Alternate Title. Anyway, these are already tagged correctly as Sonatas. -
Is there a way to keep the QV number with a ":" in the workinfo section without causing a line break? --Kalliwoda 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was not aware that the term 'Solo' was the equivalent to 'Sonata' - thanks for the correction (and the addition to my knowledge :-) ). The page has been moved back to 'Sonatas'. As for the line breaks, I think the issue was caused by your use of a semicolon at the start of each line - for some reason, that seems to force every colon in the line to act as a line break, though in other situations they should only act that way when they are the first character on a line. I've tweaked the layout of the 'Movements' section; does that look OK to you? KGill talk email 23:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear KGill, I think I've found the 1st version yesterday. If this is really Liszt's original and not a sort of vocal score (by whom?), this publication - and not that by Universal Edition (Misc. Comments) - is the First Edition. All the best! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, and for the useful discovery! The page has now been updated to reflect it. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 15:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
2 Copyright questions
Hi KGill, I uploaded Vaughan Williams Tuba Concerto, and I see that it's blocked for both US and EU. Since the score says 1979, which date does it count in this case for it to be PD in Canada? The first performance date?
Second question, I have Villa-Lobos Guitar Concerto score (971 Editions Max Eschig, Paris M.E.7993), it says it was composed in 1951 and there is a Guitar/Piano version published in 1955. Is this full score PD in Canada since the first orchestral performance probably occurred sometime between 1951-1955? Julyus 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Julyus. To address both of your questions:
- 1. In Canada, if a work was published posthumously within the last 50 years, it can still be in the public domain if the work was performed publicly over 50 years ago. Since this was the case with the Vaughan Williams, it is almost certainly PD in Canada. A detailed explanation of editio princeps (=posthumously published editions) law in various countries can be found at Public domain.
- 2. According to Sortable list of works by Heitor Villa-Lobos, the Guitar Concerto (W501, for reference) was premiered in 1956, so the full score would be completely fine to upload here, though it would be blocked from access.
- Cheers, KGill talk email 01:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks,that was very clear!Julyus 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
(not Werner von) Sorry, should have checked the page history, and was confused by the lack of a biography link... I suppose now that Fétis is uploaded onsite, will link to the appropriate spot there (not a biography link but a detailed biography...) Eric 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
... wait, I looked for him in Fétis and didn't find him. Where at? There's a person of the same name in Fétis I think, but he's of a later generation- not the died ca.1730 that this one is. Eric 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think I see the issue: there were (I guess) two Brauns and LC has made them into one, citing Fétis ("German musician established in Paris, 1741; still living 1754; known as Braun le cadet") while giving contradictory information elsewhere ("op. 1 published in Paris, 1728"). That doesn't answer the question of where he was originally from, though - if his son (?) was German than he may have been too, but I don't think there's enough to go on. I would prefer to leave it blank unless more definitive information can be found. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, though :-) Cheers, KGill talk email 23:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
So, what do you prefer now?? It took me a while to recognize that you like the publication date in , and to have the work title in the general information section without the opus number, because its repeated 2 lines down. Now that I tried to anticipate your edits, you prefer it the other way around?? (Karg-Elert Jugend).
Unrelated question: Why is the copyright warning box displayed for the Braun, Jean-Daniel Musettes (First edition 1729)/how can it be removed??? --Kalliwoda 15:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am going with the (fairly new) manual of style for general information when I remove the opus number from the 'work title' field. As for the use of brackets vs. parentheses in publication dates, I think there are three basic pertinent cases as dictated by both our rather old manual of style and general practice:
- Leipzig: C.F. Peters, n.d.. (No date on original score, but the exact year can be verified through other sources)
- Leipzig: C.F. Peters, n.d.(ca.1920). (No date on original score, and we have to guess at when it was published. 'n.d.(1920?)' follows the same idea)
- Leipzig: C.F. Peters, (1920). (An exact year appears on the original score, but the scan we have omits it)
- I don't get the copyright warning on the Braun page; perhaps its cache had not yet cleared when you saw it. Cheers, KGill talk email 21:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the Cyclopean mistake with Paul Bliss. When I retagged the first file I presumptuously thought the librettist for the second work was also the composer. I should probably take a hiatus from tagging until I reread all of the guidelines. Respectfully, Emery 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite all right; that's why we have multiple members of the team :-) On the whole, I would say you are doing a very nice job so far with CR. Cheers, KGill talk email 23:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. I'm working with Carolus to create a more expanded and detailed page for US copyright law. See Carolus's talk page for more details. Here is the work in progress. I'd love to have your ideas and suggestions too. Respectfully, Emery 21:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. Unfortunately, my input on this subject is necessarily going to be somewhat limited due to my IMSLP-centric knowledge of copyright (that is, most of what I know about copyright has come from experience working on IMSLP), but there are one or two things that catch my eye in terms of possible improvement and/or clarification (though you may have been planning to address those anyway). One thing is the order of the sections - would it perhaps make more sense to start with the section relating to the more basic definition of what can actually be copyrighted ('Works That Are Protected'), and then move into the more specialized areas of the different copyright acts, etc.? Other than that, I was startled to learn something that I was not aware of, namely that the DMCA prohibits "the removal of watermarks from digital files". This is actually important to IMSLP because quite a lot of times it is necessary to remove logos and watermarks from public domain scans so they can be uploaded here. (Indeed, there was an entire community project based on that.) Though I am unable to quote sources on the matter, I was under the impression that it was legal due to a court ruling on the matter some time ago. Would you be able to elucidate? Thanks, KGill talk email 21:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny thing about your tag...check Feldmahler's talk page :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is still possible to create !N/!N/C manually at least ;-) KGill talk email 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice work! Now tomorrow you can tackle Editions Antoine Ysaÿe. We have a few of those editions lurking around IMSLP I believe ;) Respectfully, Emery 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK :-) I'll also try to dig up something on ZJTC Music today, if possible. Cheers, KGill talk email 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Great -- one small thing is to remember to have the section sources consulted, using the Chicago citation style. I like the idea of having external links, as you did, so I may include a section on the guidelines for that this evening. Respectfully, Emery 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I have now modified the page to look more like the others I found that had citations included. I'm not quite sure what it should look like in the Chicago format, unfortunately. Is the way it's currently set up better? Thanks, KGill talk email 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks great. Respectfully, Emery 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Son of Citation Machine is a good way to set up Chicago-format citations, BTW-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. I thought I would answer your question on your talk page just in case others are also confused. For reference, this is the phrase in question:
- "The brief use a copyrighted musical piece can be used in a film because it creates a distinct mood."
Both music and images are often used in film to create a certain mood or emotion. For example, one may exhibit a photograph of a sunny day to instill happiness. Likewise, one may play an excerpt from a morose piece of music to enroot sadness. In one court case, Sandoval v. New Line Cinema, this was ruled as a fair use because it was transformative. In other words, it created a distinct mood. I agree with you that it is not altogether clear. Thanks for letting me know; I will revise it tonight. Do you have any suggestions? Respectfully, Emery 00:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the reply. I think what I mainly meant was that the sentence doesn't quite make grammatical sense ("The brief use a copyrighted musical piece can be used" - are the first three words supposed to be there?), but thank you for the explanation in any case :-) I have no other criticisms of your page at this time; I realize that it is under construction and I fully expect it to be filled out over the next few days. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, I see you what you mean. Perhaps it would be better worded as "A copyrighted musical piece may be used for a brief amount of time"? I will work on another section of the US copyright page either tonight or tomorrow afternoon. I have been on vacation since Wednesday so have not had the time to contribute as much as I would have liked. Respectfully, Emery 01:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, that's much clearer - thanks for the fix :-) Cheers, KGill talk email 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)