User talk:P.davydov/archive6



Thanks!! Eric 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


See at the bottom of Feld's talk page.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed the user rights, if you want to do your thing with the template? :-) — P.davydov 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response to my request, what can I do to help?Massenetique 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
As well as the tagging project there are some ongoing issues, like correcting the capitalization of work page titles, or adding in the new arranger template (see Feldmahler's talk page). It's entirely up to you — P.davydov 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


I made a new forum specifically for standardization and categorization complaints, suggestions, ideas, etc, etc, etc. Hopefully it's OK that I made you a moderator on that forum. After all, it was your idea ;) BKhon 13:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! — P.davydov 13:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unused categories

Hi Davydov. With the new categories for arrangers and editors, these have suddenly expanded (and will continue to at an enormous pace). It has long been standard policy to eschew unused composer categories (with good reason), and this will make that much harder to enforce. Do you think it would be better to include the pages for lists of editions or arrangements as subcategories of the new categories, similar to the 'Versions of Works by Others' pages? (On a related note, for those editors who did not actually compose anything, would it make more sense to have a separate category system for them, analogous to the performer categories?) Thanks, KGill talk email 21:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny it will come up, but more of these editors composed than we have works up (even a song by the indefatigable arranger August Horn turns up at the Music for the Nation: American Sheet Music project, in page-by-page downloadable form, and he has according to WorldCat, a number of other original opp. of his own - mostly? vocal and choral - as well. For example. Don't deny, again, that editors with no interest in composing will be around and post a problem, but as with conducting, I expect it probably proves a temptation :) Eric 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Noticed also

about the two different Hermanns. I know this tends to happen a lot of course- should I or someone ask Generoso what the name of the arranger is on the original Peters that was scanned? If it was Friedrich, then there's no need atm for the category... Eric 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually is quite good at sorting out similar names, if that helps... — P.davydov 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Weber's Aufforderung zum Tanz by Tausig

Hi, why have you moved this work to Weber's page? Actually, we said that ....should normally be placed on pages for the original work, unless:.... the form of the new work is different from the that it doesn't represent a bar-for-bar orchestration or reduction. As you can see on the score it's an arrangement with arabesques for "Concertvortrag", so no bar-for-bar. I've played the original, several bars definitely have been added by Tausig. Also, the Ryde of the Valkyries has been frei übertragen (freely transcribed), if you compare it with the orchestral version you'll see the differences. Shouldn't we take into account if something like frei, free, etc. is mentioned in the score/title? Hobbypianist 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Having special pages for transcriptions causes a great deal of confusion, and the Tausig arrangements demonstrated this very well. Some appeared on the page for the original work, some were listed as works by Tausig, and several were on both at the same time (often duplicates uploaded at different times by different people who didn't realise the other file was there, and with different publication details). We need a clear and simple system, and the new templates linking to arranger categories provides the ideal opportunity to sort out all this confusion. The arrangements (including "concert transcriptions") can now all be placed on the pages for the original works, while they can still be found under Category:Arrangements by Carl Tausig (via the link on Tausig's page). I would agree with you though that paraphrases and fantasias are sufficiently different to count as independent works by the arranger, like 3 Paraphrasen über Richard Wagner's 'Tristan und Isolde' (Tausig, Carl) for example, but even then cross-references between both works are essential — P.davydov 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a lot of work if we had a look at each score and compared it with the original to determine whether it's bar for bar or not. ok, then as a simple solution any work with transcription in the title gets moved to the original work? But, as you said, too, for anything else like Paraphrases and Fantasies I would really favour an own work page. Should we remove cadenzas from here? They are actually on the page of the corresp. concerto. Hobbypianist 15:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A separate decision was taken to have cadenzas on the pages for the works into which they were inserted around 18 months ago, if I remember correctly. That wasn't my idea, but I think it makes sense because the cadenzas can't be performed as independent pieces.
There are some paraphrases and fantasies listed among the arrangements and transcriptions, and under our guidelines these should appear on their own pages with their original titles, and have "See also" links to them from the pages for the works whose themes they use. I've moved them when I find them, but they can be difficult to identify just from the descriptions given — P.davydov 16:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumb question

Hi, The new arranger and editor features are really quite wonderful and will go a long ways towards clearing up the confusing issue about where arrangements (and sometimes even editions) should be listed. My dumb question for the day is: How are you creating categories for the Arrangements or editions where there is not an extant composer page? I see you're creating them very quickly, so I wondered if there was a tool I didn't know about. Thanks, Carolus 22:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Adding "LinkArr" displays the new category names at the bottom of the page, and then clicking on these new links creates the category page, which then only needs the "ArrIntro|first name|last name" boilerplate adding in the usual curly brackets :-) If a composer page already exists, then I add a link from that page back to the arranger category, under "List Pages", otherwise it gets left as a red link until we can fill in the gaps, which is what I'm doing just now.
Incidentally I've just found that Charles Louis Adolphe Vogel was known as "Charles Vogel" and that "Adolphe Vogel" was someone different, so I'll get fixing that now... — P.davydov 22:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Carolus 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Otto Singer

There appears to be some confusion here. The Otto Singer responsible for so many arrangements and editions was the son of the composer above, born Sept. 14, 1863 died Jan. 8, 1931. He spent his whole life in Germany, apparently. The Carmen fantasy might be by the son, since it's a Peters issue from after the father's death. Carolus 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there were two. What's the best way to differentiate between their categories? I think KGill's handled this type of thing before — P.davydov 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If we know that one was the son of the other, then the easiest way to differentiate the two IMHO would be to move them to 'Singer Sr., Otto' and 'Singer Jr., Otto'. Although that notation is not really supported by any of our usual references, it does make it easy to distinguish them at a glance. (We already do this for cases such as the Johann Strausses.) KGill talk email 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Opera Categorization

Hi -- I had an idea I wanted to run by you. I've noticed that the way operas are categorized here could use some improvement -- would it be OK if I took that on as a project? The way the categories are now is not complete, and I'm thinking it would be great to have many more distinctions for the different names composers give their works. For example, there is a category for Comic Operas, but the French Opéra-comique does not denote comic themes but rather that there is often spoken dialogue (ie. Carmen is an opéra-comique) -- Using that as an example it seems like we could have a category "Opéra-comique" which might have sub-categories for differently-named works that fit into the category (Drame lyrique, Conte lyrique, Comédie chantée, etc.) ... The same could be done for Opera buffa/Opéra-bouffe for both Italian and French examples, Opera verismo, Opera seria/semiseria, etc ... In other words, I think the operas could be categorized much more extensively, which would provide for better searching and intersections (ie. a work called a 'drame lyrique' would be tagged as such, and would also be put into the categories of 'opéra-comique' and simply 'operas') ... I realize it would take alot of backtracking to update everything already tagged but I'm willing to take it on ... Thoughts?
Wikipedia has a great article that I could use as a starting point Massenetique 19:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy for you to take it on, but there is one technical restriction that could be an issue, i.e. that we aren't allowed to use accented characters in the tags or the categories they generate. So "Opéras-comiques", "Comédies chantées", "Opéras-bouffes", etc. can't be used as tags or category names. For the same reason we have to use "For oboe damore" and "For viola damore", because the use of the ' character is also forbidden. Feldmahler says a workaround might be possible in the future, but it's not at the top of his to-do list, so would you be able to work within that restriction?
Incidentally, whatever category names are used for work types should be in the plural, so "Drames lyriques" rather than "Drame lyrique", for example, to be consistent with the rest of the categorization system. I've used a lot of Wikipedia's categories as far as possible, BTW, which might help — P.davydov 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem working with those restrictions. Probably best to avoid the dashes as well? -- "operas comiques", "drames lyriques", "operas bouffes" all seem fine to me -- For Italian types the pluralization gets a little tricky, the plural of "opera buffa" for example would be "opere buffe", which is confusing.Massenetique 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that the two Italian opera types already listed as categories are singular: "opera seria" and "opera semiseria", so it would follow that "opera buffa" could be used as well -- perhaps using the singular forms would be more clear for all of these non-English work types as longs as they all still fell under a broader pluralized category (ie. Operas)? There are exceptions to the plural rule elsewhere, under masses for example, "Kyrie" and "Credo" are used, not "Kyries" and "Credos"...Massenetique 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, one more thing -- How far is too far to go in categorization? There are bound to be works with singular distinctions unlikely to be found elsewhere (ie. Opéra lengendaire, Légende Irlandaise, Opéra romanesque, etc) ... Should some common ground be found to put similar works together (ie. "Legendes" for the first two I mentioned) or should those with odd work names simply be put in the general "operas" category? Sorry to bother you with all this, probably not what you want to think about right now...Massenetique 20:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be cautious about creating very narrow categories, and tag "Opéra legendaire" with the "operas" (in the way that a "Grand fantaisie" is found among the "fantasias"). The Wikipedia classifications should be helpful, but use your best judgement. Thanks for taking this on! — P.davydov 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing - thanks for your help!Massenetique 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Songs and Arias, BWV 439-518 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)

When are we going to split this? Is it going to be by Morgenlieder, Abendlieder, etc?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The BGA file looks pretty unsplittable, so it will probably have to go in our 'compilations' category. Ideally we'd then create separate pages for each song, containing cross-references to this compilation (like this Mozart example). That's quite a lot of work, but as a first step new pages could be created for BWV 478, 507 and 511 to include their arrangements and "See:" references. What do you think? — P.davydov 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. It all makes sense. Besides, they're all very short—like the mozart-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me

OK, I've moved the arrangements for BWV 478, 507 and 511 to their own pages. (The file download doesn't seem to be working at the moment so I can't check whether the two scores on BWV 511 are the G minor and E minor versions respectively.) As you may have noticed, the Bach worklist has been modified to list all the songs, which apart from 478, 507 and 511 link straight to the "Songs and Arias" page, until their own pages are created — P.davydov 07:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


ah, that's good to know- thanks! Eric 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


hi davydov. i see from the forums that you basically the head guy when it comes to standardization right? you wrote practically every manual on this site!!!! i read through your score submission and general info guide. is there anyone else who is like... the head of standardization (its called that on the forum page), and dont say that everyone does it. i want to do stuff and want to know who i should contact if i have a question about standardizing. are there any admins who are really big sticklers for that sort of thing?? thanks a lot Jdoeman 22:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, and feel free to ask away if you have specific questions about standardization — P.davydov 05:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Widor Symphonies

The title listings look confusing to me, since he composed regular orchestral symphonies along with the much more famous series of organ symphonies. Would it be better to have the Organ Symphonies be titled as such - Organ Symphony No.1, Op.13 No.1 (do we really need the keys here, since they have opus numbers)? This way all of the organ symphonies would be together in one place, the orchestral symphonies in another. Carolus 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fewer people know he even wrote orchestral symphonies (certainly I didn't until practically the first time I heard the F minor one. Or F major. Or whatever.) I'm not P.davydov but that would be my opinion- not sure whether we shouldn't do likewise with the organ symphonies of Vierne too unless his symphony (in A minor) op.24 is non-PD-CA in all its incarnations and just can't be uploaded for some time, or something. Eric 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
... oh my, in Vierne's case, 'inédite'. not so promising... that may well be the case unless we find a scanned-in copy of the manuscript and can figure out how the relevant law applies- whether it was performed in his lifetime, since it was apparently not published, and similar things. And whether there's a recent, posthumous edition that would really make important to determine performance history, if I understand the law at all (I don't though) . erm... anyways. Eric 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the present system for Widor is definitely confusing, and I'll look into it after I've seen off Cui. Experience suggests that we need to put together a comprehensive work list for the composer first, and then use that to decide the best naming strategies where there's potential for confusion. — P.davydov 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
All done — P.davydov 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! It's much easier to immediately navigate now. Carolus 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall from the score of opus 16 (skimmed at New York Public Library awhile back) the score says symphonie en fa. This is usually taken to mean symphony in F major and reasonably but I believe incorrectly so under the circumstances. (And prefigures a number of 20th century scores for which do, la, or their German or English equivalents, without mode, no longer automatically implied major - Pizzetti's 'symphony in A' which was a symphony in A minor, Wellesz' "Symphony [No. 1] in C" whose outer movements are both very clearly in C minor (... ok, clearly in some minor mode... maybe clearly in C minor isn't accurate) until their C major conclusions. &c. :) (Audition of a broadcast recording of Widor's op16 has reinforced me in my view :) ) Edit: in my reply above I already did say 'F minor one. or F major. or...' since I knew there'd be trouble ahead! Eric 07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Purely a typo on my part. Thanks for fixing it — P.davydov 18:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

erm- maybe this -is- covered in your standards subpage-

but I am confused lately by some name changes in works by quite a few composers (yes, most recently the Taneyev pno quartet, but quite a few others beforehand) - whatever happened to the guideline Do not include key signatures in the title (page name) unless they are needed to uniquely identify indiv[i]dual works and is there a revised guideline to follow, if one wishes to be reasonably up to standard (and not have the page one's created moved, possibly immediately :) )? Thanks! Eric 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Where we have a set of works by one composer (e.g. Piano Quintets), some with and some without opus numbers, then the key and opus number are both required to uniquely identify individual works. Maybe I should reword the guidelines to make this more explicit? — P.davydov 17:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

no, that follows from needed to uniquely identify individual works :) ... however, piano quartet and opus 20 and Taneyev, Sergei together uniquely identify the piano quartet, opus 20 of Taneyev- I think!... (and I am unaware of any other piano quartets by Taneyev, but there may be- few people are aware Robert Schumann wrote 2 piano quartets and that the opus 47 is his second, but that doesn't mean that isn't so...) Eric 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

actually, amending- no, I don't quite understand- if you have a set of works some with and some without opus number, but the opus number works are completely identified by their opus number, then if the new rules require the key and opus number when available, as this does not follow from the rules that are there, of course it should be added :) Eric 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a composer with an unnumbered "String Quartet in E major", and a "String Quartet No.2" (whose key is not stated, but which might very well be in E major as well), then writing both titles out with their keys is the only sure way to avoid confusion. Opus numbers aren't always a reliable guide, and if a work title is generic (like symphony, quartet, mazurka), I think there's a strong case to be made for including the key signatures by default. That's an argument for another time, but for now I believe I'm acting within the current rules to avoid potentially ambiguous titles — P.davydov 22:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

True; having dealt with e.g. Krommer/Kramar's worklist (and pled(?) with people to use the Padrta catalog instead of opus numbers for him because they are much less ambiguous - op.96 for Krommer does refer to two different chamber works (string trio, flute quartet), to give one of quite a large number of examples, some of them arrangements of each other but most of them not) - I know some of what you're speaking of. Taneyev's case is I think pretty well settled but with very many composers not so much so. (Instead of adding key when two opus 20s, say, turned up I used opus 20a for one of them instead, even when the composer did not, so that we did not have two opus 20s. Except for the possible need to move thousands of work pages..., I now understand and agree with the new policy. Apologies and thanks. Eric 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Distinctive vs. generic - unfortunately all I know about his output I get from TV - I mean, Sibley. Not like James Hotchkiss Rogers whose organ works are listed fairly comprehensively (sort of) at the Guilmant pupils website. So if Grey did write more than one, I wouldn't know it- one way or the other, unfortunately... and it may take me a lot more work with Grey than it even did with Stehle (for whom it was actually very easy to find out he wrote at least 4 works 'missa solemnis' e.g. though that's a less often used generic title than string quartet :) ) Eric 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tagging

FWI, if you tag just three more files you'll be at an even 2000 :-) BKhon 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And there are no works waiting in the queue just now! Looks like I'll have to wait until tomorrow :-) — P.davydov 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I'm looking at the statistics again, you'd actually be at an even 1200, BKhon 02:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Les vendredis, Pyatnitsi, Fridays

Which should we use? I assume we'll put it in the (Various) composer category and add to the individual composer pages. The only thing available now (at Sibley) is the string orchestra setting of the Polka. The rest will follow eventually no doubt. Carolus 23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The LoC (and hence most English-speaking libraries) use the French title, so I guess that would be "Les vendredis (Various)" — P.davydov 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

orch bc

ah. thank goodness for rollback. sorry about that and thanks! Eric 13:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi p.davydov,

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you are still working at this page and I didn't want to work against you. I saw, that the page was not finished yet so I thought to help IMSLP. But no problem, there is a lot other work to do at the IMSLP website.Tobias 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated — P.davydov 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


So you know, my account(s) is/are now secured, BKhon 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. I'll pass that on to the other moderators, and restore your forum settings — P.davydov 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

12 Organ Concertos, HWV 289-294; 306-311 (Opp.4, 7) (Handel, George Frideric)

Hi P.davydov, I wrote a comment to your cleanup request at the discussion page of that work page. Kind regards --Ralph Theo Misch 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and I've just answered there — P.davydov 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I've just read it. I'll start tomorrow. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hope I didn't goof anything..... --Ralph Theo Misch 13:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The remark referring to the number of downloads (Op.7, BSB, Ivdruiz) may be needless, but that's everybody's own opinion. --Ralph Theo Misch 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 14:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Flute d'amore

In tagging a number of Graupner cantatas, I keep coming across "flute d'amore" in the instrumentations. Is there a tag for this instrument (properly called flûte d'amour / flauto d'amore / tenor flute)? If not, perhaps it should be added to the list? Thanks! Massenetique 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Also came across "chalumeau" - should this be tagged as clarinet? Massenetique 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See my answer below... — P.davydov 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

These questions are not addressed below, can you help with these too? Massenetique 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, chalumeaux are classified as clarinets. The flute d'amore hasn't come up before, and I'd recommend you bring it up on the project talk page for a wider discussion. Thanks — P.davydov 23:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that they're now coming up more widely (thanks to Graupner), we've introduced tags "fda" and "cm" respectively — P.davydov 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Chanson vs. Mélodie

Another tagging issue - I personally think that the designation "chanson" should be restricted to, as Grove suggests, "a French polyphonic song of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance." The term can apply more broadly to include later song forms but the chanson article in Grove directs these examples (largely songs from the late Romantic / early 20th century) to the article entitled mélodie, where I would agree all examples of French song of this era should be categorized. I simply have noticed that a number of my tags for French songs as "melodies" have been changed to "chansons", a tag which does not even coincide with an inclusion in the "Songs" category as the "melodies" tag does. The fact that many Romantic French songs include the word Chanson in the title only complicates matters because taggers unfamiliar with French repertoire assume this means they are properly "chansons", when they are not. Any thoughts? Or have I confused you sufficiently with so many references to "chansons"? Massenetique 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the current rule for chansons ("Use only when it is the composer's title") should continue to apply, as it should be clear from the time period of the work whether or not it's the renaissance form,, but if you know of any instances where works with "mélodies" in the title have been tagged as "chansons" then please let me know.
Just in case you weren't aware, only the tagging team members are authorized to add or change tags, so please don't do this yourself. We have to be very strict about this policy, but if you'd like to be considered for joining the tagging team then the first step would be to familiarise yourself with this guide, and then get back to me with any questions you might have. Thanks — P.davydov 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
To jump in, I believe Massenetique is already a member - see the top of this talk page :-) KGill talk email 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I am indeed already a Librarian and have been tagging pages for months, as well as adding new tags for pages with unknown tags and vastly improving the way Operas are categorized. I had no idea I was not allowed to do this since the links come up for me now under "Librarian Tools" -- I've already familiarized myself with the Tagging and Genre pages and have done a great deal of cleanup work on the site using those tools. If I need to be officially added to the Tagging Team to continue doing this, it would be much appreciated. I suppose my main issue with Romantic era French songs being categorized as "chansons" is that the tag does not lead to the page being categorized under "songs" as well -- this is a big oversight if French songs continue not to be searchable as "songs", wouldn't you agree? The word mélodie is unlikely ever to actually appear in the title of a song but rather it is a collective term for works of a particular type (French songs in general, mainly of 19th and early 20th centuries) - for example, Bizet's "Chanson d'Avril" is part of a published collection entitled 20 Mélodies and Massenet wrote numerous songs with "Chanson" in the title published as mélodies. It is analagous to the German use of the word "lied" -- we all know that Schubert's "Gretchen am Sprinnrade" should be categorized under "Lieder" even though the word does not appear in the title. At the very least, the tag "chansons" should simultaneously add the page to the "Songs" category so as not to exclude a large chunk of works from a category where they undeniably belong. Massenetique 23:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see how the misunderstanding arose, as you became a librarian on 1 October but didn't ask to join the tagging team. The two groups of members aren't actually identical and should have different user rights, and so the tagging tools shouldn't have been added to your sidebar. But this wasn't your fault, and so may I offer you a belated welcome to the team :-)
As far as Chansons are concerned, I'm editing MediaWiki:Genres now to add new tags, and will make a tweak so that Chansons becomes a sub-category of Songs. To be absolutely clear, we tag sets of songs under the main title, so 20 Mélodies should be tagged as "melodies" (only), regardless of the titles of the songs within the set. So please let me know if any of your tags for "melodies" have been incorrectly changed to "chansons", and I'll have a quiet word with whoever's responsible (assuming it wasn't me!) — P.davydov 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that's fair, yet perhaps an evaluation of the way French songs are categorized should be undertaken in the future. For my money, all French songs from the early 19th century on should be categorized as mélodies. The Oxford Dictionary of Music, for example, defines "mélodie" this way: "Term applied to Fr. solo song with acc., counterpart of the Ger. Lied." That's the entire entry, and it's pretty straightforward. The question actually arose for me because I had split apart Bizet's 20 Mélodies (per your clean-up request) and resubmitted the songs individually all tagged as "melodies". Other users came along and changed those with Chanson in the title to the "chansons" tag, eliminating the "melodies" tag. In some cases the same users came back again and added "melodies" when they realized the song had been published as part of 20 Mélodies. My point is that categorizing all French songs as "melodies" would avoid confusion with other genres, but I understand to do so would take alot of cleanup, and at least pointing those pages tagged as "chansons" to "Songs" as well will make the categories more user friendly. Thanks for putting up with me (I can get pretty passionate about the music I love) and thank you as well for the belated welcome to the tagging team - I am proud to be a member! Cheers, Massenetique 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome! The reason the rules were written as they are is specifically to avoid arguments about what constitutes a particular genre, and that's why we always prefer the composer's description (which is why you see some melodies for piano, songs for chorus, etc.). If Bizet himself had composed and issued his songs as together as 20 Mélodies then "melodies" would be the correct tag for the whole set, but because each song had a different origins then it would be correct to treat them as individual works, and those that Bizet called Chansons should indeed be tagged as "chansons". Welcome to the world of tagging :-) — P.davydov 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense indeed -- The question from there then would be, what tag should be used when nothing in the title indicates a genre? Alot of French songs, regardless of whether Chanson appears in the title have been tagged as "chansons" on this site which I think we would both agree is incorrect. I would argue that "melodies" should be used if nothing in the title suggest a genre -- would you argue that simply "songs" should be used? I can see validity to both... Massenetique 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If the composer's title doesn't indicate the genre, then the rule is that "songs" should be used as the default for vocal works without chorus. In those circumstances "chansons" or "melodies" would be incorrect, and if you see them wrongly used in that way then feel free to change them (and we'll need to clarify the issue with the original tagger). Thanks — P.davydov 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely understand what you're saying, the only issue I have is that with that method nothing would ever be categorized as a "melodie" because the word rarely, if ever, would appear in a title. I think the analogy to "lied" is valid in that if one were to peruse the "Lieder" category here you would find mostly German Romantic song, only some of which actually have Lied in the title. Alternatively, if one were interested in perusing all of the "melodies" offered the list would be meager (if not completely devoid of pages) and unrepresentative of the collection as a whole. Maybe this needs to be brought up for larger discussion but the fact remains that categorizing all French songs as "melodies" would greatly enhance the ability to search and compartmentalize similar works. Sorry to be so obsessed with this but I think it is important. Massenetique 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"Melodies" and "Lieder" should be treated in exactly the same way, and the tagging rules are quite explicit that French songs should not be assumed to be melodies, nor German songs automatically tagged as lieder. Again, if you find this isn't the case then let me know. I've tagged plenty of "melodies", and it's not at all unusual to find collections with that title, or individual songs subtitled "mélodies". It is important to use the Library of Congress catalogue or Hofmeister to check what the composer's original designations were, as uploaders often translate the original titles, which can change their meanings.
Bear in mind also that melodies and lieder are both sub-categories of "songs", so anyone looking for songs in French should use the category walker to find "songs" that intersect with "French language", rather than make the assumption that French songs = "melodies" — P.davydov 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Scores featuring the voice

Hi Davydov, I thought it might be a good idea to organize the several different featured voice tags under one umbrella (retaining their original distinctions as well of course). Please let me know if you feel otherwise; no problem if you wish to revert. Thanks, KGill talk email 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, let's try it. Actually I've just got back from a weekend break to find the discussion about worklists, which will teach me not to go away for any length of time  :-) — P.davydov 06:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Homerdundas#Warlock

?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Incident

No misunderstanding on your part, though I admit it does seem very far fetched. The fact is that he left the CPDL copyright notice on the score, so it's more than an "off-chance" of being discovered. And now it seems that his plan to ambiguate my trust is working, BKhon 15:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You don’t get off that easily – if you said you’d changed your passwords, but left one unchanged, that is your own undoing. Anyway, please keep to the incident forum thread. Regards Philip Legge @ © talk 22:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Category realization

All done. Does it look all right to you? KGill talk email 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

! Impressive!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Definitely! — P.davydov 06:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Sortable list of works by Ignace Joseph Pleyel. Wow... How long did that take you? BKhon 04:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of hours, but your old list was most of the way there anyway — P.davydov 06:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


The end is near!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If only we could stop people adding new scores, it would go a lot a faster!  ;-) — P.davydov 23:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

List of compositions by Christoph Graupner

Hi Davydov. Do you think it's OK that I used "movements" as an information field, as oppose to "Miscellaneous notes"? I don't want to start this list wrongly. Lndlewis10 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks OK. If you will need to put in other sorts of notes (like whether something is incomplete or spurious), then an extra column would be handy. It's also worth considering that the cantatas have a large number of movements that could make the layout awkward. But thanks for taking on that huge task! — P.davydov

Dixit Dominus, HWV 232 (Handel, George Frideric)

You might want to look at the section with text “Dominus a dextris tuis” before concluding that there are only two solo voices in this psalm setting ;-) Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't be perfect all the time <cough> :-) — P.davydov 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It’s okay – I was surprised you’d revised it when you’d gotten it right the first time ;-) Philip Legge @ © talk 06:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How to update a file

Dear Davydov, I have a question: I made some corrections in some of my compositions; how can I replace a file already present in IMLSP with an updated and corrected file? Thank you for your kind assistance, yours sincerely Federico Maria Sardelli--Federicosardelli 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC) -

Dear Federico, I'm not Davydov, but I can tell you how to do this using your own recent upload of 12 Fughe a 3 voci as an example: 1) Click on the file number (#87100), which will take you to the page for the individual file PMLP178083-12 Fughe a 3.pdf; 2) Click on the "Upload a new version of this file" link and upload the new version. You will not necessarily see the new version upon opening the file in your browser, but if the copyright tags are turned off, it means that the new version is successfully uploaded. That's all there is to it. Best Wishes, Carolus 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Carolus, you took the words right out of my mouth  :-) — P.davydov 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Carolus [and dear Davydov], a thousand thanks for your prompt reply. It is a pleasure to count on so fast and good advisers. Cari saluti, Federico Maria Sardelli--Federicosardelli 09:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Finally back at it :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a dabble for now, but I'll be Bach... <ahem>.
BTW, did you see this link to the full BWV catalogue that Konrad Stein added to the JSB page? That will be really useful... — P.davydov 16:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, wow. Thanks.
Unrelated: Have you seen the plans for the Leslie Howard Liszt box set? Considering the pricing of their Schubert box, this might be painful...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't know anything was coming out. Can you point me to the details? — P.davydov 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

[1]-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The commentary on that site will be helpful in clearing up a few issues about versions of works, if nothing else! — P.davydov 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Busoni transcriptions

I notice you have redirected several Bach-Busoni work pages to the Bach pages. This seems to have deleted the Kindermann numbers and these listings from the Busoni category. I thought we had agreed that if there was a Kindermann number there could also be a Busoni work page for his transcriptions. Has this policy been changed? I spent a lot of time and effort creating many of these pages for the Busoni category. --Robert.Allen 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this has been superseded by the new sets of categories for arrangements and editions, which were introduced a few months ago in order to tackle the longstanding problem of linking to arrangements. In the case of Busoni, the arrangements are located at Category:Arrangements by Ferruccio Busoni, and the editions at Category:Scores edited by Ferruccio Busoni. It would probably be appropriate to include links from both pages to Wikipedia's excellent Catalog of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni, which I see you're largely responsible for. Alternatively we could have our own worklist here on IMSLP that would link the arrangements directly to the appropriate pages.
Where Busoni arranged a single work by another composer, under a single BV number, the page will be replaced by a redirect to the original work. However, compilations of arrangements (like BV B 27), will be treated as a unique work by Busoni and continue to have their own page, although the page title may change, and cross-references added to and from the arranged works where necessary.
None of this is to denigrate the work that you have put in, as the file descriptions will simply be moved to a different page, rather than deleted, and only a small amount of data in the "General Information" section for arrangements will be removed. Fortunately your work lists on Wikipedia already provide all these information, and much more besides — P.davydov 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Trying to categorize Busoni's output has always been a problem. It really almost represents a continuum from editing to arrangement to original composition with no easily defined boundaries. Beaumont and Kindermann have not always agreed on these works. Some of the works Beaumont included as original compositions, Kindermann had placed in section B. --Robert.Allen 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think what you are doing solves a minor problem, and creates a far worse one, and it seems to me it is being done from the point of view of you the editors of IMSLP with little regard for that of a user interested in finding Busoni's publications. Now it is very difficult to locate these scores. Previously one could load the Busoni category page and use the browser search function to search for a BV or BV B number or a title and quickly and easily find the links to these publications. Now they are in a separate category and the BV B numbers are gone. The links go to work pages which typically have links to a lot of files that one has to search through to find the Busoni score. Perhaps I'm the only one who cares. I don't know. But I certainly do not see this as an improvement and feel like much of the work I did has been totally undone. Plus you are going to have some difficulty with some of these publications which combine disparate works, which are on separate work pages in the Bach category. Are you planning to split up these publications and post them to different Bach work pages? --Robert.Allen 09:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
A lot of people are working very hard to make IMSLP as user-friendly as possible, and having some arrangements listed under the transcriber, and others under the original composer, was just unworkable. The Busoni arrangements can at the moment be in either position, and are very often in both, which is incredibly confusing for our users (especially when the publication information shown for the original files is different).
The issue you raised about the BV numbers can be overcome by bringing the List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni up-to-date. The Wikipedia lists mentioned above could be adapted for this purpose, and I'm willing to do this if no-one else wants to take it on.
As to the your other point, I reiterate my point above that "compilations of arrangements (like BV B 27), will be treated as a unique work by Busoni and continue to have their own page" — P.davydov 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have skipped over you statement about BV B 27. All these changes are a bit upsetting, especially since I never found it "incredibly" confusing. It made it a little more difficult to keep changes in publisher info consistent between the work pages, since they had to be edited in two places. (BTW, Carolus came up with the "Transcriptions" prefix, and I always thought this was a nifty idea.) It seems like in many cases Busoni's titles may now get buried. Did you reject the idea of adding redirect page titles with BV B numbers to the Busoni category (now adaptations) using category tags on the redirect page? This would also allow you to index them in the Busoni adaptations category according to composer name, using sort tags. (Do sort tags work in IMSLP? I can't remember.) Could section (or anchors) be linked from such redirects, taking the user directly to the Busoni publication on the original composer's work page? (I would be willing to help out with such an effort. I know you are doing a lot of work trying to improve things here.)

What will you do with the Chopin "Upside Down" prelude? (Larry Sitsky gave it this moniker. It's a novelty item that reveals Busoni's sense of humor.) I would hate for it to get lost somewhere. Is that a transcription or an original composition? Kindermann did not catalog it. Actually it could possibly be added to both original and adaptation categories if both categories were added to the work page. That would serve as an index cross-reference for someone who might be looking in the wrong category. --Robert.Allen 20:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the redirects aren't a good idea in these circumstances, and should only be used in exceptional cases where a work formerly believed to have been by one composer has been reattributed to another. You may have noticed that I've reinstated some of Busoni's original titles (e.g. Étude en forme de variations, Op.17, BV 206 (Busoni, Ferruccio)), in accordance with our current page title rules. Incidentally, the Library of Congress authorities catalogue, which is followed by most English-language libraries, is our arbiter for what constitutes an original work, and what is an adaptation. I've also begun to adapt the Wikipedia listings to replace IMSLP's current list of works by Busoni, and I'll look into the issue of the "Upside-Down Prelude" as I go along. This could all take several days, so please bear with me... — P.davydov 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the Busoni category has a lot of cross-references (using redirects) due to multiple titles for the same work. I think this is a very user-friendly practice, but I suppose you will have reasons to delete them? To me a category is like an index, and cross-references are very helpful. (On the Wikipedia, redirect pages added to category pages and used as a cross-reference are italicized on the category page. For some reason that is not true here at IMSLP.) Having to go to a list page to find something may not be the best solution. Also, why do you say the redirect idea is "unworkable". That's a bit vague to me. --Robert.Allen 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it standard library practice to have one "preferred title" per work, but IMSLP has very specific rules about the formatting of page titles, which like our other procedures have been arrived at following careful consideration and lengthy discussions on the forums. The "Alternate Title" space in the general information section of the work page is the correct place for other title forms to be included, and these will show up if anyone carries out a general search for that particular variant. Creating separate pages for every conceivable variant title for a work would rapidly lead to chaos, which is exactly what we're seeking to avoid — P.davydov 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I don't agree. Cross-referencing in indexes is used only too rarely especially online, most often due to lack of time to do it properly. And the cross-references have no impact on work page titles. This is why redirects are useful. General searches are not an equivalent substitute. (You will be glad to know that I have to go out for the rest of the day, so you will not have to deal with comments from me anymore today. Thanks for your patience in responding to all my concerns.) --Robert.Allen 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arrangements categories

Would it be preferable/possible to arrange the works on the arrangements category pages by composer last name? I don't know how the category links are generated, but could the composer last name be added as a sort tag? --Robert.Allen 08:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's technically very difficult, which is why we have pages like Versions of Works by Others (Busoni, Ferruccio) that are easily sortable by composer (or date, catalogue number, etc.) — P.davydov 18:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
So if someone were technically astute enough to do it, you would consider that to be an improvement to the arrangement categories? (It would not be worth the effort, if it was not going to be used.) --Robert.Allen 23:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think because the individual arrangement categories are each very small and can be viewed on a single page, the technical demands of the change would outweigh any likely benefit (especially as we might also have users who prefer the current method of sorting by title) — P.davydov 07:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Numbers for Michael Haydn's only minor key Symphony

I was quite surprised when I saw that you seemingly renumbered Michael Haydn's only minor key Symphony from No. 29 to No. 30, but then a Google search shows that there is at least one album labelling it No. 30, specifically, Farbermann's. The Sherman 1982 catalog, published by Garland, has the D minor at No. 29. The Sherman Thomas catalog of Haydn's complete works sidesteps the issue of symphony numbering altogether: it the 393rd composition of any type Haydn wrote, as far as they can ascertain. In Perger's catalog of 1907, the D minor is No. 20 in the "chronologisch bestimmbar" category. Most of the neighboring Symphonies in that category have numbers 9 less than their numbers in the Sherman 1982 catalog, going right through the half dozen of 1788 on to his last two Symphonies.

Well, sorry to bore you with all this numerical detail. Merry Christmas! Alonso del Arte 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be two different numbering systems, which I discovered when I added the 'second' No.30. Perhaps we should leave out the symphony numbers altogether, and go just by MH number? — P.davydov 20:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Instrument names

Hi, Over on my talk page, Nicolas Sceaux and I have been discussing the meaning of instrumental designations for Lully and Rameau works. With the popularity of original-instrument performances, I think he makes a good case that we should employ the original names (like Haute-contre, Taille, etc.) and include the modern equivalent in parens - an exception to our usual practice of using English instrument names. Your thoughts on the issue? Carolus 21:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BWV 248

I'm beginning to think that we should split this into 6 Cantatas à la Dürr. Thoughts? It's a lot of work...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

On balance I'd be inclined to leave it as just one page, because the constituent parts weren't intended to be heard except as part of the whole (reflected in the single BWV number), and the scores (especially the parts) were published en bloc and would take a lot of effort to split. We might be able to shorten the page by moving the contents list to the discussion page, but there are other cases, like the English and French suites, where the arguments for splitting are much stronger — P.davydov 09:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 13:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would need to hear some more convincing arguments to believe this “cantata-cycle” are actually six works, and not a single work of six intentionally linked parts (albeit designed to be heard over the twelve days of the season). Merry Xmas Philip Legge @ © talk 22:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that Clavier is popular—nice work.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've happily been tagging everything for "Clavier" as "hpd", but then came across a group of works that can't be played on the normal harpsichord. Looking into it, opinions seem to be equally divided between musicologists who say that Bach's "clavier" just means any keyboard instrument that's handy, and those who say it's a specific instrument from Bach's time that was a kind of harpsichord with pedals. They all agree that the clavier wasn't the clavichord, so a lot of the page titles need changing in any case. Hmmm... — P.davydov 19:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cello Suites - now all on one page again?

I thought we were splitting things like this up and leaving the combined page for single-file collections of all 6, etc. Any particular reason for the reversal here? A change in the general treatment of such items? Carolus 02:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that BWV plays a role-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Snailey is right. I previously didn't have access to the BWV, which leaves no doubt that 1001-1006 and 1007-1012 were each composed and published together as sets. Much as it pained me to merge them back again (after having split them only a short time ago), I couldn't come up with a convincing argument as to why our 'one page per work' shouldn't apply here. And looking further down the list (BWV 1014 onwards), we would have ended up with three groups of concurrently-numbered violin sonatas if those sets had been broken up as well. So this was the only logical solution, which is at least consistent with our policy of having a single work on a single page. But these situations are quite unusual compared to the bulk of the Bach pages, where lots of independently-written pieces were grouped together because they had consecutive BWV numbers. Just a few more of them left to split... — P.davydov 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That explains it. I'd not looked at that part of BWV, despite the guilty pleasure of having downloaded it from Carolus 00:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Мне нужна консультация на русском языке по вопросу о правильном выборе лицензии при загрузке нотного файла. Tigr 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)