User talk:P.davydov

Free public domain sheet music from IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library

Archive pages for this user talk page

Keys

Do we want the "major" in there for major keys? ClassicalComposers 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The current usage is inconsistent throughout the site, but I don't think we should try to impose any one system without having an open discussion first. This is likely to happen within the next few months, as part of a wider review of issues arising from the categorization system. So I'd advise against making any changes for the moment — P.davydov 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dauprat Trio

Hello P.davydov: I wrote to you a few days ago concerning the title of Louis-François Dauprat's Trio for 3 Horns and Piano. I now know for certain that it is the "Trio pour deux Cors-Alto et Cor-Basse avec Accompagnement de Piano ou de Violons, Alto, Violoncelle et Contrebasse, Flûtes et Hautbois Op. 15", published around 1819. Would you mind changing the title for me (since I can't because I'm a new contributor)? I suggest that we change it to "Trio pour deux Cors-Alto et Cor-Basse avec Accompagnement de Piano, Op.15". Do you agree?

I'll jump in here just to recommend the comment on my talk page. Carolus 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wherever possible we use concise titles in English, so "Trio for 3 Horns, Op.15" would fit in with our usual style, and leave open the question of the accompaniment (which could be for piano or strings/woodwinds). The opus number is the most important component, because that's the unique identifier distinguishing it from Dauprat's other horn trios. Thanks for establishing that, and I'll take care of it... —

Thank you for taking care of it! Though, I must say that the current title is still somehow ambiguous since the Horn Trio could not be meant to be perform without the accompaniment, whether a piano or an orchestra. Also, I personally don't think it should be listed under Transcriptions and Arrangements since, like the Mélodie, Op.25, the piano version of the Op.15 is not a mere reduction, and may have been the original conception. At least, both versions seem to be on a equal level. Nevertheless, you are the specialist and I leave all that into your capable hands. Best regards, Patremblay22 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bassoboe

Hi, our discussion on rare instruments has disappeared from your discussion page, but let me continue here. I noticed, that you now changed the equation bassoboe = oboe in bassoboe = english horn. But this equation is as wrong as the other. If you want to avoid rare instruments you should use a more general name like "double reed instrument" or "Oboe and bassoon instruments". To say something wrong can no be helpful for people who are browsing IMSLP butleads to the impression, that there is a lack of corresponding knowledge.Notenschreiber 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Notenschrieber. The discussions are still continuing, and there is a thread in the Forums here to which you might like to contribute — P.davydov 09:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tags system

Dear Davydov, I am following the discussion about the new tags system, and would like to suggest a minor change to your prototype: in correct Italian we should read d'amore instead of damore. I thought it would be better to point this before the system implementation begins :) Thank you, —Carlos (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, as I can't find "damore" anywhere...-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't provide any links, here they are: Scores featuring the oboe damore, Scores featuring the viola damore. —Carlos (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Carlos. Unfortunately Feldmahler says that we can't have apostrophes in the new category names, which is why the terms "oboe d'amore", "violin d'amore" and "children's voices" do not appear correctly. I share your frustration, but there's nothing I can do :-( — P.davydov 09:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see... that's too bad. :( Thanks anyway. —Carlos (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I was fairly hasty in my reply on my talk page, so I think I will explain a little more. This is actually a non-trivial bug to fix because of the structure of the code, which is why I do not have time to fix it at this moment. On the other hand, it also does not have many (or really any) side effects when it is fixed, which is why I don't consider it high priority, especially as the page tagging is still undergoing. The only thing that needs to be changed after the bug is fixed is to edit MW:G.

It is also more efficient for me to fix bugs in batches, especially if I have to do other server-related stuff anyway. Hence, it may be a good idea to collect bugs together and fix them all in one go in May. In the meanwhile, sorry!

I also see that the number of untagged scores (as counted by CW/Scores) is decreasing... good work! :) By the way, CW/Scores is the best and most accurate way to count these pages. --Feldmahler 21:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

The new user JaumeDEscriu has expressed some unhappiness with the present form being used of some Catalan composers' names - Tárrega, Alió, and Casanovas - on their respective talk pages. I left an explanation of why the names are in their present form on his own talk page, which I hope will deter him from trying anything rash. (He apparently spent some time trying to move and change the category pages.) Carolus 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I'll keep an aye on it — P.davydov 06:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Watching...-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Busoni cadenzas

You just deleted three pages (cadenzas) from the Busoni category. It seems like they enhanced that category and didn't disrupt or detract from the other areas of the database, so I guess I don't understand the need to delete them. Are you planning on deleting all the transcriptions and editions as well? I've put quite a bit of work into creating them. --Robert.Allen 23:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Cadenzas in general have caused a problem in the past, with some appearing on the page for the works concerned, some on separate pages for the arrangers, and some on both. Last year a decision was taken (not by me) that the cadenzas should appear only on the pages for the works to which they belong. Most of them have already been moved, but the Busoni cadenzas were one of a handful still left. Because all the files already existed on their respective Mozart pages, the Busoni pages have been replaced by redirects to those pages.

Although it might seem harmless enough having the same file on two different pages, it's always advisable to avoid duplication, as the publication data can get out of step between the two, causing confusion for people using the site. For example, a Brahms cadenza for a Mozart piano concerto was also duplicated, with one of the pages noting that the cadenza was really by Moscheles, while the other didn't mention this important fact.

Consistency is an imporant feature of the new categorization system, but please rest assured that if pages are redirected or deleted then this won't be without good reason, and no information should be lost in the process — P.davydov 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to add the redirect pages to Category:Busoni, Ferruccio, so that the cadenzas are listed as before in his category? --Robert.Allen 00:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Another problem I see is that I had links from Busoni's list of cadenzas in the Wikipedia to the Busoni category pages. Now a user who clicks on the link will have to search the IMSLP Beethoven or Mozart page for the Busoni cadenza whereas before they were only presented with the Busoni publication. --Robert.Allen 00:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to convert that information in the file descriptions into separately editable templates that would be duplicated at download time on different IMSLP work pages? On Wikipedia these templates have a small link for editing them. That would enforce consistency between work pages. Of course this is a bit complicated. There doesn't seem to be an ideal solution, and we all have different points of view. I have been adding "See also here." links to the Misc notes section for the transcriptions and editions (that appear on the composer page) to try to make it easier to find the Busoni category pages for editing when changes are made. --Robert.Allen 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion, but if we had a list of Busoni's works sorted by Kindermann number, then all the transcriptions would appear grouped together (with BWV B prefixes). This section of the page could be used for incoming links to the transcripts from Wikipedia, etc., as well as providing a useful reference list. An example of how this might work can be seen on the Brahms worklist — P.davydov 09:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Transcriptions

Hi P.davydov, I've seen you redirected the Henselt Cadenza of Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto. I agree if such files are completely moved to the parent work. However, in this special case it is definitely a work with opus number (Op.29) and should therefore have an entry in the Henselt composer category. I've added it to the redirect. If it's planned also to move concert transcriptions of works like those by Schütt, Tausig, etc. I would ask you to keep a link/entry in the transcriber category in any case. Such works are (even more than cadenzas) independent pieces and much more than a mere arrangement for another instrument. Please have also a look here. Thanks and regards, Hobbypianist 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hobbypianist. I'd agree that the present treatment of arrangements and transcriptions can be inconsistent and unsatisfactory, and we need something better. There are some possible ways around this problem, which I'll look into and report back... — P.davydov 06:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mendelssohn

Any progress on that catalogue (since we now have the incomplete works edition)?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for it yesterday, but no joy. I'm trying to get hold of a copy through inter-library loan, but might have to buy one myself <gulp!> — P.davydov 06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Expensive! Well, let's hope ILL pulls through...-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple language tags and Kyrie

Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the specification "el ; la" would mean the work can be sung in Greek or Latin, when the actual case is that the text is traditionally sung in Greek... but as part of a Latin mass, hence "el la". Let me know which one is correct and I'll fix all of the Kyries, rather than have you bother with it. Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag should indicate the language used in the work itself, so if there's no Latin at all then "el" will suffice. Sorry if the tagging page was confusing with its reference to both languages. Thanks for your suggestions regarding the religious works, BTW, which I've just this minute finished implementing — P.davydov 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention — could you make sure there's a semi-colon in "requiems ; masses" (and other combinations of work types). Thanks — P.davydov 22:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I beg to differ about Kyrie (the Tagging page still lists it as "el, la", when we've established it should be just "el", by the way). Settings of Kyrie can be referred to in the plural case (as I did so immediately above), because the normal way it is spoken or sung in church requires repetition... Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The tagging page just indicates the language of the terms used (so Allegro is "it", for example), and the library master list claims the term "kyrie" is both Greek and Latin (hence "el, la"). Their reasoning may be because the Greek kyrie forms part of the Latin mass, but our tags should only take into account the language of the work's vocal parts. — P.davydov 09:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Requiem (St. George Tucker, Tui) and Latin plurals

Thanks for helping sort out that page - the works of that lady are not very well organised, and I also found a blatant copyvio amongst the miscategorised stuff.
Might I say, vis a vis requiems, that plurals are doing my head in - the frequently incorrect Genre field is usually in the singular (e.g. Mass, Requiem) whereas the Tags field is usually in the plural (e.g. masses)... except when its a Latin word, when it will be in the singular form (e.g. gloria, credo)... but with the notable exception of "magnificats" and "requiems"! Are these "exceptions that prove the rule", or just ambiguous cases? Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The library standard is also very specific that Latin or Greek titles of religious works should always be given in the singular (apart from "Magnificats" for some reason), so we're following that precedent as well. In all other cases the 'old' IMSLP genres are usually in the singular, while the new ones are plural (again, adhering to the same international library standard) — P.davydov 09:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mendelssohn for double reed ensemble

Hi, I realized an mistake . You has specified the term "double reed ensemble" in an earlier version of Mendelssohns Eliah, but your entry was not correct. I corrected it now (it is an octet, not for 10 instruments). But I am not able to change the tagging, so I need your help. Thank you. Notenschreiber 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be OK now, with both alternative instrumentations tagged. Could you take a look and let me know? Thanks — P.davydov 16:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It´s all fine now. Notenschreiber 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammerschmidt : Double reed Arrangements

Hi, the tagging of the second arrangement is not correct: It´s a quintet too: for 2 Oboes, ´2 English Horns and bassoon. Would you please fix it? Notenschreiber 08:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for fixing. Perhaps you may have a look at Vanhal, Divertimento. There are two arrangements with the same instruments like in the Hammerschmidt quintets and they should be tagged in the same manner.Notenschreiber 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The arrangements are tagged automatically using the information shown in the heading, so that "=====For Double Reed Quintet=====" translates to the category "For oboe, oboe damore, English horn, bass oboe, bassoon (arr)". That's why we use a different heading for your arrangements "For 2 oboes, English horn and bassoon", so it doesn't get mixed up with the other combination of double reed quintets.

If the headings aren't present on the page, then the works won't be recognised as arrangements, so no tags will be generated. So it's important to include the headings like "=====For Double Reed Quintet=====" for pages containing your arrangements — P.davydov 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding CW entry page

I noticed your Sandbox page that I presume you are going to use as the CW entry page. A few things I just wanted to note:

It may be much more efficient that you list only the main CW categories instead of all of them; I would say not more than 100 of the main (parent) categories (if even that). The list you currently have should really be done via programming and not manually; doing it manually significantly increases the cost of changing the categories on MW:G, and is harder to change the format later on in any case. Furthermore, it is not actually hard to format a list of CW categories via programming anyway. I just don't have the time right now, but will have time after May.
I would advise against actually "realizing" minor categories like you did with the last few categories on the page. Major categories are fine (but again, no more than 100 I would say), but minor categories should be left as red links. Again, it goes toward promoting the flexibility of MW:G, and like #1 I would much rather prefer a programming solution that improves the CW page itself (though the intersect link already leads to the category), instead of putting a template on every CW category.

This is not to discourage you; you are doing wonderful work. However, in the interests of efficiency and flexibility for the future I wanted to point out these issues... --Feldmahler 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did say after our previous discussion that I'd need to experiment, which is what I'm doing on the Sandbox page. This would be a real pain to maintain manually, but it is essential to have a listing of all the sub-categories together on a single page and in the same order, which isn't possible from the category walker output. So I need to ask whether your programming solution from MW:G will display just like the Sandbox page? If the answer is yes, then we should wait until you're able to do that in May. But if not, then we'll have to come up with an alternative solution that's both user-friendly and simple to maintain.

I'm pretty sure that it will be similar to what is on your Sandbox page. In fact, this was one of the features I planned in January, but unfortunately never got around to actually programming it because of all the other things I had to program...

As far as the instrumental categories are concerned, those at the lowest level (like "For 2 violins, viola, cello") should be relatively stable and unlikely to change. If users can go straight to them, without having to use the CW first, that will avoid unnecessary load on the server. On the other hand it's much more likely that the higher categories (like "For solo voices and orchestra"), as well as the combinations of the sub-categories within them, will be more fluid.

Thank you for your consideration of the server load! I do want to note here though that at this moment the server is a little too idle (CPU usage less than 50% during the busiest hours), and the 500 errors seem to me to be the result of too much hard drive activity, which is unrelated to CW (everything CW needs is in memory). It is very true that my answer would be different a month ago though.

My understanding is that at the moment the CW can only be accessed by following a link from at least one existing category page, so some categories will have to be "realized" for this to work. You've also pointed out that the higher the entry level of the category, the more strain this puts on the server. The recent spate of 500 errors has only happened since the category walker was added to the "Featured instruments" section, and we can't avoid this as a consideration.

Hmm... this is interesting. I thought the 500 errors are unrelated to the CW, but maybe I am wrong. Still, I would not be too concerned about server load at this moment.

Regarding realizing CW categories, you do not have to realize them for CW to work. CW can be linked to from a normal page; no need to go through the category page. For example: Special:CategoryWalker/Scores/.

With all this in mind, would you say it's better to realize the hundreds of lowest-level categories, that are less likely to change, or the dozens of higher-level ones that are more likely to be merged or abolished? Or perhaps there's another techincal solution that would avoid us having to make that choice? — P.davydov 10:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When I mentioned a page with a list of CW entry points, I meant a page with a list of CW links that will be used most often. I would still go that route instead of realizing CW categories. It seems to me that the drawbacks of realizing CW entry points (more unnecessary pages in the database, less flexibility, more maintenance cost) outweighs any benefit from the realization... --Feldmahler 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding CW entry page (continued)

Thanks for you response. I've copied some of your points down here for clarity:

Regarding realizing CW categories, you do not have to realize them for CW to work. CW can be linked to from a normal page; no need to go through the category page. For example: Special:CategoryWalker/Scores/.

Yes, I know, but the categories still have to appear in the URL, and thereby into the page, so we're back to the same problem again. You may remember that previously you've specifically asked me to avoid any links to Special:CategoryWalker/Scores/ :-)

Well, the categories need to appear on the page as part of the link of course, but they don't have to be "realized" by adding templates to the actual category pages was my point. By "realize" I do not mean linking to the categories, but putting templates on the category pages like you did with three of the categories at the bottom of your list. Linking to /Scores/ is fine because there is a caching mechanism now. Though I don't really know why that would be a good thing to do anyway. There is no point starting with /Scores/ if we have a page of CW entry points...

When I mentioned a page with a list of CW entry points, I meant a page with a list of CW links that will be used most often. I would still go that route instead of realizing CW categories. It seems to me that the drawbacks of realizing CW entry points (more unnecessary pages in the database, less flexibility, more maintenance cost) outweighs any benefit from the realization... --Feldmahler 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at a specific problem -- say, that of trying to see list of all sub-categories in the category "For 2 players". The CW is a vital tool when searching for intersections between categories, but it will only show a few of them at once, and then not in alphabetical order (which is important for reasons we've touched on before). We could realize a category "For 2 players", but that category page will only list all the individual works for 2 players, and not the sub-categories like "For violin, piano", "For 2 harps".

I desperately want to avoid creating pages for all the sub-categories as well, but how else do we get around this problem? — P.davydov 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this problem would be solved by a special page listing all the categories like in your sandbox? Unless I misunderstood what you mean by "realize"... --Feldmahler 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're using "realize" to mean the same thing, but just thinking about the problem differently :-) The 3 sub-categories that were realized are for testing purposes only, and will not be permanent.

Anyway, it sounds like we're agreed that an automatically-generated list of categories from MW:G is necessary for the useful functioning of the CW, and this is unlikely to happen before May. Agreed? — P.davydov 06:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep :-) Before then feel free to use whatever method you think fit (i.e. manually generated); just keep in mind that it will be automatic soon, and so you don't end up spending more time on it than otherwise. Still, I would advise against "realizing" the actual categories. But otherwise I leave it up to your judgment :-) --Feldmahler 07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Re: no sub-categories. It is impossible for a third-party page to impose a category link between two pages or categories, so this is technically impossible (well, not strictly impossible but I would have to rewrite half the MW code). Furthermore, I would not use that as a reason to "realize" categories, because I think substantially the same benefit can be gotten from just using an automatic listing, without all the inflexibility and maintenance headaches of realization... --Feldmahler 07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the heirarchies displayed on MW:G and in CW continue in their present form, and on the automated list the categories/sub-categories will appear just as on the Sandbox page ("For violin, piano" appearing as a sub-category of "For 2 players", etc.) then that's fine. It should avoid any need to realize the category pages (although Perlnerd666 may well object to all the red links) :-)

However, if this isn't what you had in mind, then please let me know right away, as it could have a major impact on the whole project — P.davydov 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It can do what you described for sure, though it may be made even fancier (collapsible tables, etc). Like in the CW, all category links are done using external linking so there are no red links. :) --Feldmahler 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky: Piano Concerto No.2 (Siloti's "edition")

Hi,

Do you think we should categorize Siloti's edition as an arrangement? From what I've read about it at TR and other places, the composer was working on the revision before his death, and even approved of some things Siloti wanted to do. However, Siloti apparently went much further in altering the piece than Tchaikovsky ever authorized him to while alive. Also, I think the parts we have might actually be of the Siloti arrangement, as Kalmus (whose parts were purchased by Subito for scanning to create the "Orchestra Musician's CD-Rom Library") apparently never reprinted the 1880/1881 Jurgenson material. Carolus 07:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. I think it's better treated as a different version, rather as an arrangement (which implies some change in the instrumentation), so I've followed the method used in the Rococo Variations and used sub-headings for "1st version (Tchaikovsky)" and "2nd version (Siloti)". There maay be better solutions, but at least it highlights that the parts don't match the full score, as you correctly pointed out — P.davydov 11:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Franck: 6 Pièces pour Grand Orgue

Hello again,

Your expert opinion is needed again: This is an unusual case in that each of the six works was given a separate opus number by the composer, yet were issued as a collection under the title "Six Pieces" under his supervision. We normally have a separate work-page for each opus or catalog number. Should we just have the one page, or the existing page plus separate pages for each of the six pieces? I think at least some of these are better known under their individual opus numbers. Carolus 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If the pieces have different opus numbers, then there's a strong argument that they should be considered as separate works. So I'd go for the Ma Vlast solution, which is to have separate pages for the constituent works, plus a page for the whole cycle that just includes links to each of the work pages (and no music files). Would that do the trick? — P.davydov 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable plan to me. I'll try and get to it later today. Carolus 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Automatic tagging on the page "Messiah" of Handel

It seems, that the automatic tagging doesn´t work in this case, for example for the double reed instruments.

Hi Notenschrieber. Some of the other arrangement headings on that page weren't in the correct format, but fixing them hasn't solved the problem. I've asked Feldmahler if he can work out where the problem lies... — P.davydov 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Coorrect my mistake

Dear davydov please see this page

http://imslp.org/wiki/Concertino_for_Viola,_BI_328,_546_%28Rolla,_Alessandro%29

And if you can correct it as soon as possible it'should be better for me.In this perion I have a lot of problem for all about copyright.

Thank you very much

Carmar

Sorry I have just seen dafnis has already changed it

Thank you

Carmar

Dear Carmar. Sorry, I've been offline until just now, but it looks like Daphnis has fixed the problem — P.davydov 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven Songs

Hi Davydov,

I noticed that a fair number of Beethoven's songs are titled thus: Song, Schilderung eines Mädchens, WoO 107. Since we've got a nice new classification tagging system well under way now, do you see any reason to retain the designation prefacing each title? Thanks, Carolus 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The tagging system should render the prefix unnecessary, but it's a case of whether anyone's willing to spend the time renaming all the existing files :-)

I can do that... While uploading the last files from B&H Beethovens Werke, I started to change the title of the few works that were not prefixed with this "Song, "... I can remove them, and rename all the others if you agree :-) CBo 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me :-) — P.davydov 12:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, on a not unrelated point, the Bach pages are presenting some problems with regard to tagging, because there are so many pages containing multiple works (particularly the cantatas). Do you think the time is now right to split these up, and if so, should the cantatas be titled by BWV number and/or by their first lines? — 23:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We really do need to split them up. I think it would be easiest for most users to title them by BWV number. Only a few of the more famous ones are actually known by their first-line names on a wide basis. Yes, it's a pain t move all those Beethoven song pages, and I don't have time today. I just wanted to check to see if there was a logical reason to retain the format when the time comes. Carolus 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think first line is important to some degree...something like "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)" -- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 12:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My first thoughts were along the lines of "Cantata, BWV 80, Ein feste burg ist unser Gott" (like with the Haydn symphonies), but that might prove too unwieldy with long titles. I suppose that so long as we keep the separate page listing all the cantatas (with links), it's not necessary to keep them all together in the main list? — P.davydov 12:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm....I think that's fine (none of the titles are too long, for obvious reasons)...and that list is going to be a lot more important now. PML will need to modify his wonderful template, however :)-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorization Project

Hi, P.davydov! I'm a new user on the wiki, and I was browsing around, trying to find things to do. I walked across your "Categorization Project", and I am eager to help. Please take my request for participation into consideration. Thanks! CM2010 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How did you come across the project?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

50%

By the time you read this, we'll probably be there....-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we're there, I updated the main page and sidebar...the composers' pages I leave to thee...-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:P.davydov

Free public domain sheet music from IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library

Contents

Archive pages for this user talk page

Keys

Dauprat Trio

Bassoboe

Tags system

Heads up

Busoni cadenzas

Transcriptions

Mendelssohn

Multiple language tags and Kyrie

Requiem (St. George Tucker, Tui) and Latin plurals

Tags

Mendelssohn for double reed ensemble

Hammerschmidt : Double reed Arrangements

Regarding CW entry page

Regarding CW entry page (continued)

Tchaikovsky: Piano Concerto No.2 (Siloti's "edition")

Franck: 6 Pièces pour Grand Orgue

Automatic tagging on the page "Messiah" of Handel

Please Coorrect my mistake

Beethoven Songs

Categorization Project

50%

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

browse scores

Participate

Other

Search

Toolbox

in association with