User talk:P.davydov/archive4



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)


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 worklistP.davydov 09:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


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)


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)


Hello, you must have noticed I've been away a long time. I wanted to let you know that after this long time I was excited to see the tagging project developed. In this excitement I immediately wanted to try it out on an upload, but only afterwards learned that you actually only work with a small group of experienced members, so I'll keep my hands off. I changed Piano Trio, Op.2 (Franck, César) and this already gave 'unknown tag'. (although I must say can't see what went wrong). If I see I can give valuable contribution to this project I'll apply formally. A quick look at the instruments made me notice you'll need 2pf4h too (and, very seldom children's works for pf8h, don't think we have any of these).

Best regards, Peter talk 12:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, 2pf4h is actually just 2pf, I see. However, I don't see an easy way to list these compositions as the category walker shows only 'for 2 pianos (arr)'. --Peter talk 12:43, 7 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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")


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)

Bach Cantatas

OK, since we're going to separate these out, let's establish some guidelines:

  • Name: Cantata, TEXT, BWV XXX (Bach, Johann Sebastian) (?)
  • Do we keep the old pages?
  • Do we add the occasion (e.g. Septuagesima Sunday) to Misc. Comments, links to, etc.?
  • How and when do we update the list pages, template, and BGA page?

When we get that done, we probably should just get separating :) Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and IMSLP:Score submission guide/Layout of Work Pages#Collections. :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Snailey. Answering in turn:
  • There's an argument for not having the prefix "Cantata" (which is that they're all linked to from the "List of Cantatas" page), but it's a difficult call either way.
  • Let's keep the old pages as "Collection" pages for now, if only as a stepping stone to fix all the links that will change (see below).
  • Yes, let's add both of gthose to the Misc. Comments bit.
  • I'd recommend getting all the pages separated first, linking them to their collection pages, and then remove the collection pages and fix all the links afterwards.
The chorale harmonisations are a bit of a pain, as they come in batches, and sometimes there are duplicate sets. I think I saw them on the arranger's own page as well, which might be the solution. I'm in a rush now, but I can check later... — P.davydov 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I would say no prefix, in line with, say, Buxtehude. I'll forbear from splitting for now.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had the chance to check now, and it looks as though some of the chorales from the cantatas have been extracted and grouped together in modern typset arrangements. These wouldn't be possible to split, because of the way they're laid out. However, there is already a separate page for them here: Chorale Harmonisations, BWV 1-438 (Bach, Johann Sebastian). I'd suggest moving them there from the cantata pages as a first step, and we can decide later whether to keep them separate, or duplicate the entries on each of the cantata pages. How does that sound? — P.davydov 19:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Looking forward to the addition of 200 pages to Bach's page :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, before I go on, tell me how Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 (Bach, Johann Sebastian) looks. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A good start, but I'd take out the headings for "Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (1851-1899), Band 1" and "Armendáriz Edition", and move the latter from vocal scores to full scores. The infobox work title should be "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1", rather than the English (which could be the alternative title). Oh, and the "Bach Cantatas" template needs adding at the bottom :-) — P.davydov 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. I guess I'll go bottom up and you go top down.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, great! Thanks — P.davydov 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
How will the prefaces be dealt with? Will that for each 10 cantata chunk be reproduced on each page? Will general and specific notes be split out?
The prefaces would be difficult to split because of their format, so the only real choice is to include the whole preface on each of the pages concerned. These actually relate to specific volumes of the NBA, which don't follow the same 10-cantata chunks that we currently have. Some volumes have cantatas mixed up with other types of work, so we should tread carefully :-)
BTW, I haven't lost interest in the cantatas, but I'm tied up with another project right now... — P.davydov 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


OK, see Carolus's talk for the details, but I'm citing Duerr's book now (I've been using it). You're so thorough that I can't help but assume that you've been using a print source, so you may want to follow suit. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The new Bach cantata pages look good! For Liszt I've listed the main sources at the top of the work index page for now, but I might follow your example later... :-)

I just based this off of what we've done with publishers. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


And I was about to do the same sometime next week! Great job.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been researching Liszt for months before tackling this section in earnest, and it's still going to take some time to put in order... — P.davydov 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit of a mess. Hopefully we can both get back to Bach cantatas soon :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about JSB, but Liszt takes priority for now... — P.davydov 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine...I just finished up BWV 1-10 (finally! I'm slow; apologies)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that why they call you Snailey?  :-) — P.davydov 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
D. At any rate, we've done 30 out of 220 now...about 15%, I guess-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Now where did I put those slug pellets?  :-) :-) — P.davydov 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Salt does just as well:)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, what have I done!!! :-) — P.davydov 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I lost a few pets because their food was too salty...luckily snails are plentiful. Shouldn't you be listing liszt? :D-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lest I get lost in my long list of Liszt lists... — P.davydov 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of unintended consequences, the intersects on the categorization project page don't work...because the categories no longer exist. We now have to just tag everything.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

At least there are only 58 links to the IS template that need deleting. It could have been worse — P.davydov 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I took that off the FTE for composers (I put a bunch of those in, so that's a bit sad XD). But still, we can't use the specific genre links on the project page...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing something rather odd about the display and edit history of the page List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350):

  1. When I display the page the list repeats beginning at S.120. When I search for S.349 I get two hits. This repetition also appears in the source code. When I look at the edit text there is no repetition of the list.
  2. The edit history has a large gap (between 2007 and 2010). When I display this version (23:36, 15 August 2007). The display repeats itself 10 times, but the edit text seems to consist of templates. If the the templates have been deleted or modified perhaps this explains the mucked up display. Anyway it's all very confusing to me.

Robert.Allen 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed a template from the middle of the list which seems to have been the source of the problem. I hope this was the correct change to make. --Robert.Allen 00:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Robert. The previous version of the page consistened of a nested series of templates (a nightmare to edit), which I was trying to consolidate into one straightforward page. Unfortunately my internet connection dropped out suddenly before I could finish the job, which produced the problem you identified. I'm very grateful to you for putting this right — P.davydov 08:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I think the changes you made make a lot of sense. It's much less confusing to me now. Robert.Allen 10:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Prokofiev index

Dear Davydov,

Carolus suggested you might have some input on this matter. Thanks either way. Daphnis 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I can find a list of the titles and dates for each volume, but not the works within each volume. Is that any use? — P.davydov 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I suppose some, however I really need a master index and obviously I don't have access to the original Russian printings. Any other ideas? Daphnis 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be able to check on this in less than 2 weeks; that's a bit of a long time, though.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This isn't urgent, so whenever you get around to it just make a page and post the index. That would be most helpful. Daphnis 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I got a list, but I found a better one here. You should probably use that.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Although this list brings up a couple other questions I now have. I didn't see this index mention either of the last two piano concerti in full score, which I suppose means the reprints by Belwin Mills aren't actually from the collected works edition. I'm currently traveling and so don't have my resources at hand to investigate further. Nevertheless, this is a good list. Can you post this as a link on the Prokofiev composer page?Daphnis 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's curious that Op.53 and Op.55 are missing, as they were published by Muzyka and their forerunners during the 1960, judging by the entries on Worldcat. It's a very handy list, though, and if you add a link for now I'll try to put a translation together when I've finished with a different sort of Liszt... — P.davydov 18:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Vell good. Thanks to you both. Daphnis 19:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to Bach

It's a good thing we're going slowly (although could everyone stop punning on snails please??): User talk:Perlnerd666#Bach Cantatas-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to let Carolus slug it out :-) — P.davydov 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Busoni arrangements of Liszt Paganini Etudes

re: Transcriptions - Liszt: Etudes nach Paganini, S.141 (Busoni, Ferruccio): By moving file #08283 to the top it makes it appear to be some sort of definitive complete collection, when it is actually a file that was cobbled together from a variety of different publications and is also a rather odd selection of the available editions (as I tried to indicate in the notes I added for that file). If we are going to have something like this, it might be better to present a collection of performing versions, i.e., without the Liszt versions. The editions with the Liszt (in one case also with the Paganini) versions are intended for comparing Busoni's to the originals. Personally I would favor deleting file #08283 from the Busoni Paganini page altogether. I don't see it as very helpful. Robert.Allen 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and #08283 has now been deleted — P.davydov 08:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On recent changes

Hi. You're gonna be angry at me, since I did this without talking to you. ~:O I removed some accents from a couple of "definitive" titles, when they appeared on capital letters (specifically acute accents on E in "Etude"). Capital letters usually don't have acute accents in french, since stylistically, it gives them a very awkward impression. --Funper 04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am angry. While some French speakers might prefer to omit the accents on stylistic grounds, the accents are still required and you should not have altered them. They have all been restored, and would recommend you take a look at the definitive titles for Liszt's works used hereP.davydov 11:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually have that catalog. I believe it to be incorrect since it doesn't follow french stylistics with respect to accentuation, however I don't have the energy to fight my case right now, since it is only a trivial matter. Time and the contribution of other people will decide whether I am right or not. --Funper 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Funper, if you wanted, we could ask all of the native french speakers here about which they preferred. Or we could take a look at the title pages of each first edition individually.
The point is that it has to be correct, even if it looks a little awkward.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


It is beautiful! I have had in mind to realize such a list, like similar to that of the Köchel catalog of Mozart, which is soooo good and easy to browse through. Good work! :) --Funper 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it won't turn out too long when the whole thing's finished, but the section just added should be the biggest. BTW, it's good that you're using the NLA titles for the arrangements, which is the most reliable source for those... — P.davydov 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


As you might know, Snyder has decided (and mentioned in Dieterich Buxtehude, Organist in Luebeck) that here is a second e in "Dieterich" Buxtehude. Is it advisable to change the category name? P.S. There is further discussion on the talk page. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Have replied on DB's talk page ... — P.davydov


I hear that you can modify Mediawiki:Genres to accomodate new categories in the walker...what I propose that we need would be a heading analogous to "Composers" for "Performers." Can you do this? Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just added the line between "Composers" and "Unknown", but for some reason nothing is showing up in the walker. It doesn't seem to be recognising the category "Performers", and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's a cache thing, which will clear in a couple of days? - P.davydov 19:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. Thanks anyways-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and IMSLP:ViewGenres needs a similar modification. Thanks again-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
That page just has work types, instrumentation and languages, and doesn't include performers or composers. Trying to add composers or performers produces an error message in any case. Sorry — P.davydov 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. That's fine.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ungarischer Sturmmarsch

The change you made is incorrect. The score is not the second version. That version was made much later in Liszt's life, and was published in 1876 by Schlesinger, according to the info you have added at the bottom of the page.

The present score was published in 1843, which is 33 years before S.524. If you listen to Volume 40, track 5 (Ungarischer Sturmmarsch [1st version] i.e. S.232) of Leslie Howard's complete solo piano recording of Liszt, you will see that it corresponds to the present score. Thanks --Funper 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit to being unsure about this particular edition. It was described as "revised version" by a previous uploader (perhaps because of the "2. Auflage" on the cover), and the cover itself mentions versions for piano 4 hands and orchestra (which were made by Liszt in the 1870s from the revised version, but could equally well have been arranged by others after the original piano version). The engraving and plate numbers date from the 1840s, but these might simply have been 'touched up' from an older edition. The Hofmeister catalogue and Grove indicate that the first version was originally printed as Seconde marche hongroise with Ungarischer Sturmmarsch as the subtitle, yet this wasn't entirely clear from the cover.
However, as you are now able to confirm that this score matches Leslie Howard's recording of the first version, I will move it to Seconde marche hongroise, S.232 (Liszt, Franz) (i.e. under the original title) to differentiate it from the second version (Ungarischer Sturmmarsch). Thank you for providing that key piece of information — P.davydov 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Version History

Hi P.davydov, I though it would be fruitful if you could mention your sources in these excellent sections on version history you have added to some works. Your efforts do already augment the encyclopedic value of the site, but adding this piece of information would only further amend its verifiability. Thanks --Funper 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I was just wondering whether you had read the above. You're additions are of true musicological value, and I have myself revised the edition status on some scores on the basis of your sections in cases with alleged first editions that were wrong. I do believe that your info is correct, however there's only one thing that would complement these section: Since you're working quite lot with Liszt, you have probably noticed the varying information on some work pages when you're revising them. The info happens to be more or less wrong in some places and in some other it's really out of place. Most of this info was added by me and it appears that I have used some faulty sources. I can't be sure whether they have merely become outdated today or were just plain wrong even back then in 2007, since not even my sources clearly stated where they had gotten their information. Because of that, it's very hard to trace the info; Is it written by a scholar in a published catalog, by a librarian, by a teenager? Nobody can know whether it's true or where it comes from. In order to back up the musicological information that we are adding on our site, so that they retain their value and our efforts not be in vain, t's a good thing to add sources. In this way, other can, by checking the info against them, ensures that it's valid, and furthermore show that it's not "your" information but that of a scholar, which would reduce misunderstandings (like those we had on some titles), and maybe some user that's looking for further information on a work could have check that source as well. IMSLP might be used in an even greater extent by the academic world, having verifiable information that can be checked againsta source a mouse click away. --Funper 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would second that somewhat. The system in place that I've used with bach and publishers should work (Chicago format for citations).
Funper, in response, I would like to point to the aforementioned Bach (Christmas Oratorio, cantatas 1-14, etc.) and the publishers I've done (exemplary: Breitkopf, although I, of course, did not create the page.)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The main sources are mentioned at the top of List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350) and List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.351 - S.999). In short, most of the composition dates and updated Searle numbers come from Leslie Howard's notes for his recordings of the piano music, and the Liszt Society; the publication details from New Grove and Hofmeister; and the standardized titles from comparing the first editions, both critical editions, and the Library of Congress authority catalog. It's not unusual for these sources to contradict each other (e.g. dates of publication preceding those of composition), in which case I've tried to consult as many other academic sources as possible in order to resolve the discrepancies. So instead of repeating the titles of these multiple sources on every Liszt work page, I think it's more useful to list them all just once, on the main work lists. It's certainly a tribute to Funper's earlier listing that so many sites have copied it (especially the various Wikipedias), and I'd also like to see IMSLP relied upon for accurate information on composers and their works (not to mention editors, arrangers, librettists, translators, etc.) — P.davydov 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
One would not be repeating anything, one would only be adding direct references, which is different. Surely, it is not all too difficult adding some references on a work page while one is simultaneously visiting the same pages one is about to use as a source, and it would only amend the site and its usefulness. In its current state, one would have to have to refer to the list, have access to Grove, find a link to the catalog of Neue Liszt-Ausgabe (I shall add some external links to it on both lists) and borrow the book of Searle and the revised one of Leslie Howard (which isn't even published yet). It might be more strenuous to add references to each and every page, but it is certainly not less useful. Firstly, I think we are in the need of a good reference system like that of Wikipedia with templates and automated lists. When that is done, we could start adding references and making standards thereof. --Funper 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, but keep in mind that as volunteers there are limits to the time and energy we can put into IMSLP — P.davydov 19:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The reference system in mind isn't strenuous in those respects. --Funper 22:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then could you add the citations to the work pages, as you know the sources by now? :P (seriously, that's not such a bad idea: if you want something to happen, make it happen :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You reverting Faust and Dante symphonies

Why? --Funper 21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page — P.davydov 21:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
My changes generally weren't "incorrect, or inconsistent with current IMSLP standards." E.g.
Dante: The plate # of the 2-piano version by Liszt is congruent with those published in 1858-59 according to Breitkopf und Härtel, thus it is a first edition and we have a publication date.
Faust: FE template moved from publisher slot to editor, description changed to cast light on the 2 piano version being incomplete.
Current with standards: FE is to be in the editor slot. If we can deduce a date, it should be mentioned. The only thing remotely "against the grain" is my description change. You must understand why I find your reversion uncalled for. --Funper 22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The plate numbers are only an approximate guide to dating (as they show when engraving was started, not completed), and your changes reversed more precise information from the Hofmeister catalogue. For example, the 2-piano arrangement of the Faust symphony was first published in 1862. We have a first edition for it, uploaded by you in 2007, which was dated by someone to 1863 on the basis of its plate number. After I added the publication date of 1862 in the "Version History" for this arrangement (based on its appearance in Hofmeister in August that year), you removed the "FE" tag on the assumption that this couldn't be the first edition because it dated from 1863; however, this was indeed the first edition, and it was the 1863 date that was incorrect (which I've now changed to 1862). The same sort of issue also applies to the Breitkopf edition whose date you altered. Such well-intentioned but misplaced corrections are not at all helpful, and not necessary when the information is in the process of being verified, updated and tagged by the librarian team — P.davydov 22:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought we librarians were mainly supposed to be participating in the categorization project? I mean, I did do some miscellaneous cleanup in the course of my tagging (it's sometimes necessary to), and would be willing to do more (which reminds me of something that I'm going to post in the forum about), but I didn't think it was the objective of the team exactly? KGill talk email 22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The librarians make sure that things are generally organised and 'filed' (tagged) corrrectly. We each have our own specialities, yours particularly being the careful checking of composer pages (adding the nationalities, checking names and dates, links, etc.). So don't worry, you're not inadvertantly signed up for a heap of additional work, as you do plenty already! — P.davydov 23:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll add my 2 cent's worth here to state that the Hofmeister Monatsbericht trumps plate numbers as far as publication date is concerned - at least for anything issued in central Europe (their listings of French, Italian, English, Russian and other issues are less reliable - mainly due to the fact that there are a lot fewer of them). For some entries in the Beethoven symphony pages, I deep-linked directly to the Monatsbericht page in question to show the date of issue. Carolus 23:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No davydov, you are assuming all this. As I have clearly written above (self-quote: "Faust: FE template moved from publisher slot to editor") and as one can see if one compares the different versions of that page, I didn't remove the FE template from the 2-piano version of Faust, I moved it from the publisher slot to the editor slot where it should be. None of the above mentioned details about dates that you have written and upon which you assume that I have acted are familiar to me; I merely changed the place of the FE-template.See for yourself. Moreover, the changes I made on the Breitkopf edition on Dante are accurate. Please read what I have written above. (Self-quote: "The plate # of the 2-piano version by Liszt is congruent with those published in 1858-59 according to Breitkopf und Härtel, thus it is [identified] a first edition and we have a publication date.") I added the FE-template and a publication date on the basis of your provided version info. See this. This kind of behavior/reverting rampage on your behalf is really frustrating, as there are limits on my time and my work as a volunteer, and I don't want to see my correct entries getting reverted because you are too lazy to compare the changes made on a work page or because your instinct says that everything I do on a page per definition is wrong. P.S. I have been around on this wiki for some time, I know what I am doing. --Funper 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It's gone midnight here in the UK, and it's even later over there in Sweden. Too late to think clearly (for me at least), so let's call it a night — P.davydov 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you refrain from making these kinds of reverts when you are unable to think clearly. --Funper 23:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Before this discussion continues, I would suggest that you (Funper) please stay within the bounds of civility. You may be frustrated, but calling it a 'reverting rampage' and calling Davydov lazy (which is incidentally really unfair) is really going to get you nowhere except to cast aspersions on you. If you're going to argue, don't resort to ad hominem. (P.S. I realize as much as anyone that you have done great work for this site, but seniority is (almost) never an argument on a wiki.) Thanks, KGill talk email 00:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. This is clearly the result of a misunderstanding. Davydov thought I removed the FE template when I really just moved it, and he though I did the same on the Dante symphony page. --Funper 10:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that for some reason the moved "FE" wasn't highlighted in the "compare versions" of the page, so I misunderstood what had happened. I see your intention now, and hope we can avoid further misunderstandings. Apologies for the reversion — P.davydov 10:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Date on Ballade No.2, S.171 (Liszt, Franz) ; first version

Hi Davydov, Are you sure that the first version was composed in 1848 and not at the same time as the second version, i.e. in 1853? The original ending (the first version) is at the end of Liszt's holograph, in which one can read both versions, and this was written in 1853. Hyperion records also gives the date of the first version as "circa 1853". The present date must be incorrect? --Funper 22:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

While it's possible that Liszt copied out an earlier version of the score and then modified the ending, I'd agree it's more probable that both versions date from 1853, so I've amended the listings accordingly — P.davydov 05:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)