User talk:P.davydov/archive2


Sortable Lists

I made Category:Sortable Composition Lists, because you've made so many already! Thanks!
As an aside, you may want to consider archiving your user talk page. There are two common methods:

  1. Quick and easy: Make the page User talk:P.davydov/archive1 and move all of your old conversations there (I think that's actually all of them except this one). Then make a link at the top of the page under a section "Archive Pages for this user page" with the date of the first comment to the date of the archive (example: 5 February, 2007 - 17 December, 2021). Repeat when necessary.
  2. What Peter and I do: make the page User talk:P.davydov/archive and add the conversations. Then, add a level one heading (only one equals sign) that says the same as you would title the link in the above method (i.e. Archive 17: December 52, 1980 - January 0.5, 200, B.C.E.). I actually put mine in a table (you can see if you go to my talk page and then the archive). Have fun!-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And: User:Perlnerd666/InstrChecklist.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Snailey. All done :-) — P.davydov 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


You have been put up for consideration as an administrator - and Feldmahler has given the green light, but only if you want to become an admin. You can respond on his talk page. Congrats!-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravel and Brahms

Thanks so much for all of this! You make the cleanup work of us normal mortals pale in comparison! ;)-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but other people have already done most of the hard work. I just come along and tinker with it afterwards :-) — P.davydov 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you say so, and only so. The lists, then, are still immense projects.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Not to impose, but sometime when you have some free time a sortable list for Mendelssohn might be a good idea. Of all composers, his Op. numbers are notoriously inaccurate, and the "sortable" part really might be nice. Of course you can take this or leave it.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snailey. I've already done some preparatory work on Mendelssohn, but there's a new thematic catalogue of his works [1] coming out this month which should help to clear up a few issues. It could take a while to get hold of a copy though... — P.davydov 06:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I've been looking for one of those for a while - andnow it comes. I will definitiley be waiting for that.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 14:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Status

Why did you add that section to the Rachmaninoff Op. 33?-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 15:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The information was already there, but I just added a suitable heading. The same thing was on some of the Ravel pages (and probably many others...) P.davydov 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

St. George Tucker Serenade

Hello P.davydov, there are 2 pages listed for the Serenade for 2 Violas by Tui St. George Tucker. Each page contains only 1 of the 2 viola parts. This is a situation that I would likely mess up if I tried to correct it myself. Would you mind taking care of it when you have the opportunity? Thank you.

Best regards, Hrdinský 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem — it's taken care of — P.davydov 21:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Hrdinský 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sortable lists

Hello P.davydov: Thank you for sending me a note. I was actually going to write to you asking if you would mind looking over the Smetana list and give comments/feedback.

There are "sorting" issues with some entries in the table. As yet, I haven't figured out how to resolve them. If you have suggestions, they are much welcomed.

Is there a rationale for the order of columns you have chosen? After much deliberation, I decided that the date column would be better to the left as many (recent) composers only have a date system (i.e. without opus number, etc.) for cataloguing. This column order would be a common denominator and would generally apply to most composers from the Baroque period onward. I am also one that likes grouping similar data (i.e. numbers, titles, miscellanea).

I also wondered about which column should be considered to order the list; I ordered the Smetana list by Performance Category.

Is there a place where "general standards" for sortable lists and others are explained? Best regards, Hrdinský 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky notice

Hi, Since you're in touch with the folks over at Tchaikovsky Research, I thought you might like to tell them that the complete parts for the major works will be appearing here soon. The first 2 symphonies are already in place, and I'll be uploading more items in the next couple of weeks. We have parts for 37 works in total. Carolus 00:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent news, and I'll be sure to pass it on! — P.davydov 07:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ma Vlast

Hi, Is there any particular reason you are re-uploading all these files instead of simply copying and pasting (or cutting and pasting) the entries from the old page to the new ones? Carolus 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes — some of the original files needed splitting because they included all six movements bundled together (actually from different editions!). I've begun copying the rest over now...
On a related subject, shouldn't Solc's solo piano arrangement of Ma Vlast still be in copyright? He only died in 1985 — P.davydov 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if he actually was the arranger. I'm not sure if he was the arranger or simply the editor for that score. I haven't looked at it in a long time. I have all six movements here from the Orchestral Parts Project that I can upload. This will save you the trouble of splitting the large files for Clarinets, Percussion and Cello. I can upload them tonight after I return. I was adding a line to clarify that I meant the parts other than the ones you're splitting up - sorry. Carolus 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've already split and uploaded the parts for all six pieces, but by all means go ahead and replace them if the new ones are better. Maybe you could take a look at the Solc file and see what you think, but the way his name appears on the title page makes it look like he was the arranger rather than the editor — P.davydov 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

De Boeck

Hello. I only just noticed that back in May you moved de Boeck, August to Category:Boeck, August de, probably assuming 'de' is a French preposition. However, this is a Dutch name, where 'de' is an article. The point is that in Dutch, these words are together regarded as an integral, unbreakable surname - e.g. in the phone book all is sorted under 'd', and one would never try to look up 'de Boeck' under B. So to be 100% correct, it should be sorted back under 'D', but I understand this could be confusing for non-dutch speakers.--Peter talk 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I changed it to the standardized form of the composer's name used by the Library of Congress, so it's their mistake (or perhaps mine for relying on them!)  :-) I'm surprised because they're normally quite careful in such things, but if you think it would be better placed under "De Boeck" then feel free to change it again — P.davydov 05:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Manuel García

Hi, I noticed you moved the composer page to Manuel Garcia (without diacritic) citing WorldCat, but that database has both - presumably the version without diacritic was entered by a cataloger without a convenient diacritic, and possibly the English translations of his works omitted it as well. However, he is Spanish, and as far as I know did not change the spelling of his name when he taught in France.
One think I'm stuck on is how to distinguish him from his father, who also wrote a famous vocal method - "Manuel del Pópulo Vicente Rodriguez García" and "Manuel Patricio Rodríguez García" is a bit much, and so is adding dates after their names, and I'm not convinced the Wikipedia solution of "Manuel García (tenor)" and "Manuel García (baritone)" is the best. I'm inclined to go with the family connection (i.e. senior/junior), but I'm not sure if there's a standard way to denote this.
Operalala 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Operalala. The change was based on Garcia's entry in Grove's Dictionary of Music (the most recent online version) and the Library of Congress Authority Lists, which both use the form of the name without diacritics. There's a note for Garcia senior in the latter source explaining that "the original family name was always spelled in the manner of the country of residence" (so it did change when they moved to France).
As for differentiating between father and son, there's a precedent with Strauss Sr., Johann and Strauss Jr., Johann. So you could have "Garcia Sr., Manuel" and "Garcia Jr., Manuel", or alternatively "Garcia (I), Manuel" and "Garcia (II), Manuel". But you're right that there's no 'standard' method of doing this — P.davydov 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Genres

I just realized that I haven't yet responded to your message on my talk page. Sorry!

I think two genres are fine. I will be unable to implement anything for a while, so go ahead and solidify the categories. Implementation will probably take a significant amount of time because of my unavailability (both Leonard and Horndude have access to the code, but I'm not sure either is ready to make major changes to the code yet), but I still think that designing the system is harder. When you finished solidifying everything, post it on my talk page. Thanks! --Feldmahler 11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to the "New Genres" discussion page

Hi, could you post a link to your genre discussion on your user page - I can never find it. Also spreading the word a bit might help attract discussion on it - for instance I'm not very knowledgeable about early vocal works, and I don't think anybody else has weighed in. (I'll respond to your message this evening when I have more time.)

Operalala 18:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Snailey beat me to it, but the address is: User:P.davydov/Genre_CategoriesP.davydov 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Title Languages

Where are the guidelines for title languages? I'm surprised a Czech work wouldn't carry a Czech title. Operalala 18:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not P.Davydov, nor am I nearly as informed. However, for "generic" things - Mass, Symphony, Sonata, String Quartet, we usually opt for english (although we have plenty of "septuor"s...). This even applies to something like the Mass in B Minor. For most pieces with other kinds of names, we usually do the original, unless it's much more commonly known by something else (note: even Harold in Italy is in French).-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
These are actually songs. Operalala 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gypsy songs title I don't get, because we've left several things (Ziguenerwereisen!) like that. I'll let P.Davydov take it from here.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 20:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of the guidelines from Wikipedia (actually from the opera pages in this instance):
  • The standard practice is to use English titles of operas for article names and in articles when it is common convention (e.g. The Marriage of Figaro, The Magic Flute, The Barber of Seville). This reflects the Wikipedia convention use English in titles when possible.
  • Nevertheless most operas are performed in English-speaking countries under their original names (e.g. Così fan tutte and Der Freischütz) and English titles for them should not be invented.
  • Titles in languages using a non-Latin alphabet (usually Russian in practice) are customarily listed under an English equivalent (a translation or a transliteration), without diacritics (diacritics can, however, be used in the body of the article). If necessary a redirect under the original title will point to the article with the English name.
  • English names are also normally preferred for eastern European and Scandinavian operas unless the title is a simple proper name.
This is why we have Tale of Tsar Saltan rather than "Сказка о Царе Салтане", or The Ferryman's Bride instead of "Koskenlaskijan morsiamet". In the case of the Dvorak pieces, there were already redirects from the Czech/German titles to the English ones, which you overwrote with your changes (the work histories showed this as well). But I understand you did this with the best of intentions, and it's been fixed now, so no harm done. Maybe we need to make these language guidelines more obvious somewhere...? — P.davydov 20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should really discuss the languages. For one thing, Wikipedia is geared to the general public, with a separate Wiki for each language, while IMSLP users are mostly musicians from all over the world, who will tend to be more familiar with works in their original languages. And translations can also sometimes vary. Seriously, I've even had a little "rant" about this before in forums, when I could not for the life of me search for or find Bach's Johannes-Passion. I had to search the composer page for "passion", and was surprised to find it not even under "Saint", but under "St.". And I'm a native English speaker - imagine how much more difficult this would be users from other parts of the world.
Operalala 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just puzzled by some of your decisions, e.g. changing Loewe's "3 Gesänge" (the original title, according to Grove) to "3 Lieder", for no apparent reason? "Gesänge" and "Lieder" have different meanings, and great caution is needed in making changes like these. Please tread carefully! — P.davydov 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed the latter example back, hope no one minds. I can confirm that it's definitely 'Gesänge'. KGill talk email 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither the piece itself nor RecMusic gave any title to the collection, so thinking there was no official name, as is often the case with these works, I put Lieder just for consistency with other Lieder. It is good to know there is an official name to give it. It's also in German. As far as my treading carefully goes, whatever the sources may say, this page had been around since 2007 titled "Die Uhr". Operalala 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New template for first editions

Template:FE...have fun.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed......

Hi, We now have quite a few works - with many more undoubtedly on the way - by the Italian Lorenzo Perosi. Pereosi appears to have composed literally thousands of works, many with the same generic Latin title, to the same generic Latin text, in the same key, probably with multiples for the same choral combination. As you can imagine, this gets hair-raising as there is no opus numbering or other cataloging system in use. I'm wondering if the best thing to do (as the works are typically short 1-6 page scores for some combination of voices and organ) would be place all of the works to the same generic Latin text (like Tantum Ergo) and list the different settings using the second-level hierarchy. As an experiment, I set this up for the two settings we have (thus far) of Beatus Vir. Carolus 04:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to lesser degree with certain Bruckner works, e.g. settings of Thomas Acquinas' hymn Tantum ergo sacramentum, of which there are about half a dozen or more, only differentiated by keys. I'd be inclined to group all of the works of a text (e.g. the Vulgate Psalm 111, Beatus vir qui timet Dominum, which is one of the central texts for the office of Vespers) to the one page, and distinct settings given different headings – perhaps sorted alphabetically by key (ascending from A to G?). It will be interesting sailing if all these Perosi scores arrive, since (without a thematic catalogue for guidance) it is quite possible that we will see instances of music with the same text, same scoring, same key, but otherwise two different musical settings. Regards Philip Legge @ © talk 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Separating work pages based on arrangement/scenario

Hi P. davydov, I recently noticed that, in addition to your creation of separate work pages for certain arrangements (orchestrations, suites, etc.) you've created one for Le Tombeau de Couperin which has been split into 2 pages, a "ballet" and a "suite" page. First, let me say that, generally speaking, I don't think I quite agree with this policy of splitting work pages based on these criteria, and here's why: Take, for example, Strauss' Der Rosenkavalier in that it's inception was that of an opera and later, and more often performed in a concert hall arrangement as a suite of selections done sometime later. While, true, these are different arrangements (arrangement in the traditional, non-musical sense of the word) of this composition, their creative impetus remains the same, which is why (not to be cheeky here) they are still referred to by the same title, since, after all, they're still Der Rosenkavalier. Furthermore, I think these distinctions in how the piece is "portioned" or "tweaked" would be best represented through title headings within the same work page, as we had established previously. I think this is also beneficial because a user can see all information relating to that composition, it's premiere dates, publication, cast, and any arrangements within one page and it remain totally relevant and clear with headings. And specifically regarding the Le Tombeau example, portioning one page as a "ballet" isn't really appropriate since Ravel did a true orchestration of the piano solo suite (omitting the "Fugue" and "Toccata") only very slightly altering elements for the change in instrumental texture (see Ornstein "Ravel: Man and Musician", pp. 185-87) and only later was choreography set to this orchestration, in addition to the "Prélude" being dropped for the ballet premiere in 1920, almost 9 months after the premiere of the orchestration (Orenstein, 234). This orchestration, therefore, isn't specific to the ballet, but one in the traditional sense. If nothing else changes, I'd like to see these pages merged back together unless you can provide some convincing reasons why not. Daphnis 03:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Got that catalogue yet?-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's out, but I haven't managed to get it through inter-library loan yet. It's a bit pricey to buy outright :-)
Oh, and IMSLP:Score submission guide/File Descriptions (have fun, but try to keep the examples ;)-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, that should be helpful. I hope you don't mind that I've made a few tweaks here and there, without changing the examples — P.davydov 14:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 19:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lieder und Gesänge (Mendelssohn, Felix)

Double posting from Carolus's page: Should this page just be left as it is? It can't be split up because there aren't page breaks between different pieces- unless it's found out that they go in order with breaks between opera, in which case maybe it can. It can't really be moved to be under Hermann's page because it's just transcriptions. What do you think?
Carolus has endorsed moving it under Hermann, which I agree would be a good solution. However, do you have any other thoughts on this? KGill talk email 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go along with moving them to Hermann's page, maybe under the title "Transcriptions - Mendelssohn", for which there's a precedent elsewhere. In an ideal world we'd have cross-references to this page from the pages for all the Mendelssohn songs that have been transcribed; however, Hermann seems to have named them after their vocal incipits, which in most cases in not the title proper, thus making many of them difficult to identify in the Mendelssohn work lists. Not very helpful of him! — P.davydov 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, not helpful at all...maybe at some point I'll see if I can add a section listing that describes where they come from. In any case, done. Thanks! KGill talk email 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Angels We Have Heard on High

P.Davydov, please unprotect Angels We Have Heard on High and associated pages (Category:Christian Hymn) immediately. I will remove the file from IMSLP. ClassicalComposers 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please delete the page Category:Christian Hymn. Thanks. ClassicalComposers 19:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, and it's now been deleted — P.davydov 19:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
One last thing: please also delete the associated image, Cross.jpg. Thanks a lot! ClassicalComposers 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cross.jpg has been deleted. Hobbypianist 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hobbypianist — P.davydov 21:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Wow...nice table! Will that become a project page (IMSLP:Categorizers, perhaps?)?-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan, although it still needs more work... — P.davydov 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mozart - Church Sonatas, Numbering.

Hi, I note that there appear to be some different systems of numbering these sonatas from the one initiated by Breitkopf as part of the Alte Mozart Ausgabe back around 1880 - which is still widely encountered. I'm almost inclined to use the following schema: "Church Sonata, K.###" or "Church Sonata, K.###, Key" for these. What do you think? Carolus 06:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've gotten to examine some more extensive library listings. I think the present schema we're using is probably OK. The old Breitkopf numbering lingers on in places, apparently. Carolus 07:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked Grove Online, where the sonatas are only listed by Köchel number, if that helps... — P.davydov 11:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It does - actually, but it's not nearly the urgency I originally thought. I think we'll eventually change to using the K-number only, but there's lots of other things to do first. Carolus

Song Titles - Beethoven

Question: What is your opinion of having all of the song titles preceded by the descriptor "Song, (Actual title)"? In light of the new (and most ingenious, IMO) tagging system you've devised, this strikes me a quite superfluous. Thanks in advance (as always), Carolus 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. I can understand the thinking behind it originally, but it seems to have been applied inconsistently, and I'd agree that it's unnecessary now — P.davydov 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's rather annoying and inconsistent in the Renaissance music, where frequently works are described as "Motet: Hocus pocus" or "Hymn: Ein feste burg". But then, in my opinion IMSLP doesn't have enough knowledgeable people where early or choral music is concerned - I just saw a Mendelssohn Psalm setting for mixed-voice choir categorised in the genre field as "Other (sacred) for choir (other) a cappella" – WTF?!?! What is particularly "other" about either a Psalm (as a known type of Western sacred music, such as mass settings, or hymns) or SATB choirs? (A lot of times I shake my head and think of the acronym SIWOTI... and look the other way.)
Anyway, the only benefit of putting "Song," at the start of the title is (perhaps) to effect the sorting. Well, guess what: any sorting can be modified independently of the title, by using the {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag – however, too frequent use of that tag might break people's brains. Instead, if you need to concentrate on songs, use the Intersect (hopefully set up for composers with any sizeable œuvre) and search for "An die ferne Geliebte" rather than working around the system by changing the title to "Song, …"... Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) (IMSLP Admin curmudgeon)
Preaching to the converted here, Philip :-) Maybe you should have a quiet word with Piupianissimo, who was responsible for the Beethoven song titles in question... — P.davydov 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)