User talk:P.davydov/archive8


Glad to see you're back!!

Don't know for how long, but I hope your hands are better. I don't know quite what Eric is talking about, and am having difficulty getting him to tell me what page I changed that started all of this. If it is a mistake, I'm very sorry about it, but he seems to have gone off the deep end over it. The problem is, I can't see what it is unless I know what page it is. I'm not even sure it is about one of the tags that only gets used if it's in the title (like melodies). It may also be that I questioned the addition of a tag called "compilations", which isn't a uniform music title like "Allegretto." Anyway, I've asked him again to tell me what page it is, and then I'll know more. Thanks for popping up!! Steltz 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page is unprotected and your various IMSLP awards reinstated to your user page: I’m glad you’re back, and I hope you intend to take it easy. Best regards, Phi1ip 04:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks Philip. I'll try not to do too much damage (either to me or the site!)  :-) — P.davydov 05:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back!! I was mentioning to Brett Langston how sorely you've been missed here. Carolus 04:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Carolus. I did get that message, and I'm glad to be 'home' again! — P.davydov 05:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


it's of course quite possible that HMB missed the first edition of the orchestral score and/or the reduction - the first appearance I can find of either just now (will look much harder later using Google books & other sources and not just the parochial HMB, am skimming from library atm) is in 1882. However, Grove's may well have it right. Our Durand plate table had a few too many entries that seemed more constant than they actually were in them for my liking, though... as far as I know, anyway. Some cleanup/"sunlight" seems in order there too... (not sure if you prefer response on my page or yours, move to the page appropriate as desired! and welcome welcome back at whatever rate is giusto! ) Eric 17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See no reason why not to- who wrote the Lalo article and worklist in the latest Grove version (or the one in question?) I am no expert on composer or period. Eric 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Composers

Hi P.davydov. I was told yesterday that I should ask you and KGill before moving any composer pages. I have a few proposals. Some may be controversial, and I wholly expect disagreement:

  1. George Frideric Handel should be changed to George Frideric Händel. It's an overwhelmingly common practice among libraries to include the trema. The only other commonly accepted alternate form of the last name is Haendel, which used in Switzerland and some other countries in and around Europe.
  2. Felix Mendelssohn's last name commonly accepted in the hyphenated form Mendelssohn-Bartholdy in the LoC and numerous other libraries. There is a case to be made against redirecting the category because most people probably only know him as Mendelssohn. However, if we are to keep in accordance with IMSLP's naming guidelines, and the rest of the libraries worldwide (with few exceptions), it should be moved.
  3. Sergei Prokofiev should be moved to Sergey Prokofiev if we are to be in accordance with most national libraries' preferred form.
  4. Alexander Scriabin to Aleksandr Nikolayevich Scriabin or Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin, to at least keep consistent with form.

Respectfully yours, Emery 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Since you're back, I wanted to discuss how best to handle the issue of collections published by composers of their own works, like George Gershwin's Songbook. My personal opinion is that it would be most best to have a workpage for the collection and for the separate pages for the works contained therein. The page for the collection itself would be limited to scores of the complete collection (including recordings and arrangements of the complete collection), while the pages of the individual works would contain scores for the work in question along with all excerpts (like single movements), arrangements and recordings. Since the pages for the Bach Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin and the 6 Cello suites are already getting quite long, this might afford us a way to "have our cake and eat it too." We could limit such collection pages to those items issued under the composers authorization, with perhaps a few exceptional cases thrown in where the collection is best known as such even if it was posthumously assembled by another person. Carolus 05:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. Yes I'd agree that would be the most pragmatic solution. There will inevitably be 'empty' work pages that only contain a link back to the page for the collection, and we'd have to ensure these weren't deleted by over-zealous admins :-) But it sounds like a good plan — P.davydov 08:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, I'll pass it along to Irishmeastro, who has shown some interest in Handel, a composer who needs some serious cleanup. BTW, we have a little template for linking to Tchaikovsky Research - {{THcat|Student/TH156}} gives you Tchaikovsky Research. This way if Brett Langston ever moves his main address, we only have to update the template instead of fixing all those links. Carolus 04:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Does Brett Langston plan on moving the main address? ;) Lndlewis10 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
He'd better not have :-) — P.davydov 20:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Editions Russes?

Hi, I believe the actual imprint was "Edition Russe" was it not? That is certainly the case for this score and this score - though it appears many of the ones we have here were from the Berlin days (before 1920), when they seemed to prefer the German "Russischer Musikverlag" . Carolus 03:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Here's a complete quote of the New Grove paste by Nichols and Simeone (interesting tale):

Edition Russe de Musique [Russicher musikverlag; Russkoye Muzïkal'noye Izdatel'stvo].
Russian music publishing firm. It was founded in 1909 by Sergey Koussevitzky and his wife Nataliya with the aim of subsidizing the propagation of new Russian music. Any losses were borne by the Koussevitzkys, and all profits accrued to the composers. The venture was highly successful, both artistically and financially. To ensure copyright protection the firm was first legally established in Berlin as the Russischer Musikverlag, with offices in Moscow and St Petersburg, and later in Paris, London, New York and Leipzig. The main office was moved to Paris in 1920. Originally, to ensure artistic integrity, selection of works was determined by majority vote of a jury composed of Skryabin, Rachmaninoff, Medtner, Ossovsky, Struve and Koussevitzky. However, their rejection of Stravinsky’s Petrushka was reversed when Koussevitzky threatened to withdraw from the jury. Such conflicts were obviated when, in 1914, Koussevitzky purchased the firm of Gutheil, which became an autonomous branch of Edition Russe under his control. Gutheil’s catalogue, begun in Moscow in 1859, already contained important works by Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff, and, at a purchase price of 300,000 rubles, it also included valuable unpublished manuscripts by Glinka, Dargomïzhsky and others. From its beginning, Edition Russe offered substantial advances and profit sharing both to promising young Russian composers and to established Russian masters. Among the most noteworthy publications are Skryabin’s Prométhée (1911, with a pictorial title-page by Jean Delville), Stravinsky’s Petruskha (1912), The Rite of Spring (piano duet, 1913; full score, 1921), Oedipus rex (1927) and Symphony of Psalms (piano-vocal score, 1930; full score, 1932), as well as works by Medtner, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and Taneyev. Other composers well represented include Arensky, Balakirev, Berezovs'ky, Catoire, Konyus, Vernon Duke, Grechaninov, Lopatnikoff, Nabokov and Ziloti. The firm also published Rimsky-Korsakov’s Principles of Orchestration (1913; Fr. trans., 1914, Ger. and Eng. trans., 1922) and Ravel’s orchestration of Musorgsky's Pictures from an Exhibition (1929), which was commissioned by Koussevitzky. On 1 March 1947 the catalogue of Edition Russe de Musique was purchased by Boosey & Hawkes.

US Copyright

Hi P.davydov. Several users and I are writing a page for US copyright that can be found here. I would appreciate your very helpful input. Do you think anything could be added that would be useful? Respectfully yours, Emery 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Emery. It looks very comprehensive, and I'm unlikely to be able to add much of substance, but I'll keep watching how it develops and let you know if anything comes to mind. It's certainly something we've needed for a long time, and thanks for taking the initiative — P.davydov 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi P.davydov. Would you like to be a member of the current large scale copyright project? As it's been proven on several occasions, I know nothing about librarianship. Your experience would very helpful with the current problems of sortability. Respectfully yours, Emery 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Librarians vs. Tagging team members

Hi Davydov. I was just wondering if you could possibly clarify something that I've been unsure of for a while, but haven't gotten around to asking about before. When Feldmahler discussed the original design for the categorization project team back in late 2009, he spoke of the 'librarian' usergroup as being the official members of the categorization project; they would have the rights so they would be able to update MW:G themselves. I remember that when the project opened, you told Feldmahler that you were planning on making every member of the project a librarian once things had settled down a bit and you had established a clear precedent for the format of that page (or something to that approximate effect). However, for whatever reason, this was not carried out; indeed, later on you explicitly said that you were keeping the librarians separate from the other members of the tagging project. At the current time, out of 11 total members of the team, only 6 actually have librarian rights. So my question is this: under what circumstances might one expect to become a librarian, and how would one go about determining eligibility? Thanks, KGill talk email 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You may remember in the first month of the project last year we had a problem with a young member of the tagging team, who by virtue of his being a translator was able to edit MW:G and cause a lot of disruption. This was quite sobering, given that a single comma or apostrophe out of place on that page can bring the whole tagging system crashing down! This is why we didn't give every member of the tagging team admin status at the start of the project, but gradually people like yourself, Steltz and Massenetique (to name but a few) stepped up to the challenge, and have done an excellent job in keeping the system running smoothly.
Looking at the list of current tagging project members, only Varnis (inactive) and new member Feduol don't have the ability to edit MW:G, while all the other members are already admins, which gives them editing rights for MW:G anyway. Maybe it's time to remove the distinction between librarian and admin, and get rid of the librarian category altogether? What do you think? — P.davydov 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I had somehow forgotten about that aspect of the CC incident - thanks for the clarification :-) I should just point out that Fynnjamin also doesn't have the ability to edit MW:G - but that is a very interesting idea. Indeed, at this point there seems to be little distinction as every person who has ever edited MW:G either was already an admin at the time or is one by now. I would therefore agree that the group as it stands is somewhat meaningless; perhaps we should ask Feldmahler if he might remove it, unless someone can think of something that would make the group worth keeping. (For instance, he could change it so it doesn't give any extra rights except the 'librarian tools' panel, and then it would expand to include all members of the team.) Cheers, KGill talk email 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

THcat template

Hi, All of our templates to external sites like the Tchaikovsky Research page are "plainlinks" (like those to Wikipedia), so I really would prefer to not introduce an inconsistency here. For one thing, having them this way enables us to spot the links using a template vs. those which are manually inserted and in need of updating. After our unfortunate experience with the Gardner Museum (they changed their URL setup completely - rendering all of my manual links dysfunctional in a single day), I have become a true believer in the great virtues of linking templates. Since the TR site appears to be wiki powered itself, I was a little surprised there wasn't already a wikipedia type inter-wiki link in place. Carolus 02:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It does seem illogical to have headings for "External Links" that deliberately avoid using the associated external link symbol, but if that's the only way to differentiate them from non-linking templates then I'll grudgingly concede the point  :-) Incidentally, the TR site doesn't use any wiki software, and it's all done in good ol' HTML — P.davydov 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

School of Interpretation for the Violin, Op.16 (Ševčík, Otakar)

Hello, thanks for trying to fix this page. But by shortening the titles It it very difficult to tell which piece is which. And which movement is what? Do you know why there is this new way of having the Movement /Section at the top and at the bottom. To me it seems redundant. Generoso 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted the page to the previous version. You'll have to ask Feldmahler about the change of page layout, which was his initiative — P.davydov 17:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Collected works templates


I added the line break in these because a number of the items (Mussorgsky and Rimsky in particular) were breaking in nasty places. I think we can leave Tchaikovsky in one line, as there doesn't appear to be any of them breaking (so far). Basically, the addition of the composer's initials and name make it too long to effectively fit in a single line - one of the unfortunate results of the otherwise excellent font change. I think it's good that you added the composer prefix, which makes the various Muzgiz complete works templates consistent with those we already have for the numerous Breitkopf complete works series. I wonder if it would be better to either a) Use the cyrillic for the first line and putting the English translation in parens; or b) omit the English altogether, using the Russian series title in Latin transliteration. The whole Swan Lake page brings up another issue - version B is not by the composer of course, so should it really go under Arrangements and Transcriptions? (Of course the same argument could be made with all of Mussorgsky's operas, since only Boris was orchestrated by him). I am trying to persuade a certain publisher in Florida to issue Drigo's 1895 version of Swan Lake since it's what nearly all ballet companies actually dance to. Carolus 22:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it must be a screen resolution issue, as the templates all fit easily on a single line on my monitor. I guess my main concern is that the line break made it look as though the Russian title was a sub-section of the English heading, rather than its equivalent. I'm aiming to make the way IMSLP presents Russian titles more consistent throughout the site, so we always have "English (Russian)" next to each other. The old transliterations became problematic once we adopted the new rules for Russian names, so "Polnoe sobranie sochinenii" by the same method would be "Polnoye sobraniye sochineny", etc.. I'm not sure yet we're at the stage where we can leave out the English altogether, as that would be completely unintelligible to most of our readership (apart maybe from you and me) ;-)
I'll give some more thought to Swan Lake, and the Mussorgsky pages might give me a few ideas when I get to them in the next couple of weeks. You're right that we are generally inconsistent in our handling of posthumous versions of works by others, and the Rimsky pages I'm doing now will lay some of the ground for that, as he just couldn't help himself from tinkering with other composers' works! — P.davydov 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the transliteration. Another possible resolution to the line-break issue with Mussorgsky and Rimsky would be to drop the first initials - but that creates consistency issues if we use them on Tchaikovsky, Glinka, Prokofiev, etc. I think a case could be made for reversing the Russian and English as they are now, as the Muzgiz scores are printed primarily in Russian (I can't remember right now if the earliest volumes of the Tchaikovsky included English alternates for the title pages, but the ones I've seen from the 1950s certainly did.). I could see the case for making an exception to the rule on Mussorgsky, as only one of his operas was even orchestrated by him. The same case could be made for Borodin's Prince Igor. Swan Lake is a lot more questionable though because Drigo really did some massive re-arranging to make the music fit Petipa and Ivanov's completely new choreography. I just discovered that Muzyka did a complete re-engraving (in Leipzig) of both Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty (possibly Nutcracker as well) in the early 1970s. I have no idea why they did this - but the Leipzig engravings I've seen tend to be cleaner. Must have had left-over gnomes from Röder's giant music factory with time on their hands. Carolus 01:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the clear rule that Russian titles are invariably translated into English, with the Cyrillic following in parentheses for those who can read Russian. If we made the Russian version the primary title, then some people will argue that the page title should also be in Cyrillic script, and things could get very messy :-)
Coming back to Swan Lake, I don't dispute that Jurgenson's 1895 score is probably a half-way house between Tchaikovsky's original and Drigo's mutilation (impartiality aside for the moment!). However, I think we need to consider it a different version to the 1877 score, as published in the 1950s in the collected works, which has important differences, not least in the libretto. Maybe there's a case to be made for a Version "C" representing the 1895 staged version. But the main reason I came up with the version template was to indicate as concisely as possible why full score "A" can't be used with parts "B", etc., and the same principle would apply to the different versions of Mussorgsky's works. Even Rimsky's own operas are a bit of a challenge, as different sources disagree on how many different 'versions' there are, so there will be a bit of trial and error to start with! — P.davydov 09:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The only thing of Drigo's contained in the 1895 score are the three Op.72 piano pieces added at the end - and they might not have even appeared in the 1895 issue. Apart from the No.20a Danse Russe, which was also added at the end of the score as a type of appendix (I seem to recall that the editors of the complete works placed it after the ballet proper as an appendix also), the 1895 score has the identical sequence of numbers, number of measures and orchestration as the 1954 Muzgiz score (which will be posted by Daphnis later this fall - I sent him my copy to scan). The mystery which is still not completely resolved is whether Drigo took a machete to Tchaikovsky's orchestration for the revised version (which is definitely not what Jurgenson issued in full score). In one spot (based partly on some Drigo correspondence), Wiley implies that Drigo re-orchestrated passages, but in other places (the appendices to his book, for example), he makes the remark that Drigo didn't really change the orchestration. Yes, the ordering of the numbers was changed (drastically so) and extensive cuts were made - which are all reflected in Langer's piano score. Tchaikovsky's orchestration was left unmolested. If this is actually the case, Jurgenson's issue of the 1877 score with new libretto by Modest, plus appendices for the Danse Russe and the three Op.72 piano pieces makes sense, as this full score would still be serviceable - requiring cuts to be marked, sections to be clipped together or removed, and markings to indicate the sequence of the revised version. I suspect the three Drigo orchestrations only appeared around 1900 in a reissue of the score - which is approximately the same time the Langer piano score and the suite made their appearance - both are not found in Jurgenson's 1898 catalog of Tchaikovsky's works, though the full score is actually mentioned. I couldn't agree more with your charcterization of the Drigo version - I tend to think of it as a 'hatchet job' myself - but I'm not a choreographer either. That's why I was wondering if it really should be listed as an arrangement. Carolus 02:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I would characterize Drigo's work as editorial rather than an arrangement, because the medium of performance hasn't changed, i.e. the ballet is still for orchestra. The "Arrangements and Transcriptons" heading is intended for works that have been rewritten for different instrumentation. So the exceptions here be the separate orchestrations of the Op.72 pieces, which probably belong on that work page (as they were published independently of the ballet and still labelled "Op.72"). Wiley's studies are usually very thorough in identifying the sources, but his interpretation is sometimes open to question :-) — P.davydov 08:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Single composer collections

An issue which has started to appear here is what to do with single-composer collections. For example, the page for Songs and Arias, BWV 439-518 is starting to get quite long, with Thomas Schneider contributing quite a number of editions and arrangements (which are generally well done). So, should we have separate work-pages for the individual items in this collection - limiting the collection to complete scores and recordings (including arrangements) of the 80-number collection and multiple selections therefrom? This seems the best course of action to me - and we already have a precedent with Vivaldi's Op.8. We should think about doing it for the Bach Sonatas and Partitas and Cello Suites also, as those pages are starting to get quite long - even with our new tab system. Carolus 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are already separate pages for some of the individual songs (BWV 487, 507 and 511), which link back to the main collection, and there's no reason why this couldn't be done for the others in the same way, if there are no issues with splitting the Schneider arrangements? — P.davydov 08:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


That would be great -- we are in end-of-quarter exams here, so I didn't do any tagging yesterday and won't get any done today, but at 400 a day coming in, don't let your wrists get sore. If I get time over the weekend, I'll start back with the untagged page and start sorting out some of the old ones that need to be downloaded and picked through -- and next week is a bit easier for me, so I can also get some of the old ones done next week. Steltz 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought that might be a bit optimistic! Anyway, given the sheer number of WIMA uploads, I think we are going to have to accept some slowness. My week should be a bit easier, so I'll see what I can do, especially with the new tags. I'm not that experienced with the MW:G thing, but I guess it's a good time to learn to work with it. Steltz 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with Afolop

I hope this is the right way to get in touch with you.

I am concerned about the direction this is taking.

My collection on WIMA is 'playing' music for viol consorts. A special feature, for example, is the inclusion of alternate clefs for parts. Users will usually approach it first with the name 'viols', then with the number of viols, and then with the size of viols that can be used. At other times the composer name will initiate the search, to be sure. The instrument names are only rough indicators of the compass of the part and do not indicate specific instruments required. Players will use whatever size viol that is available that can cover the part. Many of the composer names are unfamiliar and therefore frequently will not be used to lead to the file.

Under the IMSLP indexing system the people the music is designed for will not be able to find it. It may be available to musicological researchers, but not players.

The changes made to my submissions have eliminated the name viols and have buried the files behind a heap of other related names. I don't see the term viol used until you get to the actual part. The parts can be reached from the Composer page only if the searcher knows the name of the collection it originally came from, and that in its original langage; not even its current name or form will guide him. You cannot reach the fantasias for viol of Bassano from the composer's home page using he descriptive information for the use of the piece; you must search first under nonrelated names.

I am afraid my collection does not fit into IMSLP.

Hi Albert,
You could have replied on your talk page – I’m sure Davydov will have had it watched. We’ve had discussion about tagging works for viol consorts before, this might be a good time to revive it :) You need not worry that your collection doesn’t fit; at present I would agree the tagging doesn’t help give the works any special prominence that would assist viol players to find them (apart from the parts clearly saying “Viol”, and thus being searchable across the site that way). That doesn’t mean the situation is incapable of improvement. By the way, when you leave a comment on a talk page, sign it by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Regards, Philip @ © talk 08:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't know how to be more specific than I have been on the individual parts, e.g. 'tenor viol (octave treble clef)'. Players who the parts are designed for will not have any clue on how to find out about it, whether such a file exists, or where it is. I'll have to suspend transfers until I can solve this problem. Sorry.

Am I using the right method for getting this message to you?

No, you are not. Reply here. Philip @ © talk 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


I'd heard of it but not yet used it. Should have thought of it just a few hours ago (after you made your comment, yet- sorry about that!- much too distracted today.) Thanks! Eric 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Davydov,
as you discovered, I’d created a RISM template for linking to IMSLP pages which host a scan of the particular source, whereas your new developments are to link to the RISM search engine. I think that’s worthy to stand on it’s own, so I removed the switch out of it. Of course, if you want that template to do more than one thing, then it probably can – but as it stands, it will do one thing well rather than having to be bodged to do several things not so well. The “switch” version of the template is Template:RISMs. Cheers, Philip @ © talk 00:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
When I went to create the template I noticed you'd just beaten me to it by 48 hours  :-) I tried to make it serve both purposes, but if you're happy with the separation then that's fine, and apologies for any inconvenience — P.davydov 05:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi Davydov, since you know a bit more about the Russian publishing companies than me, what is your opinion on this? Thanks and Regards, Hobbypianist 18:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Blagoy selected pieces etc.

apologies- wasn't thinking past all those "files: please see (...)" (selected pieces, or piano pieces, or etc. - didn't seem proper procedure, but forgot the rest of it. Wasn't however in a position to do the splitting myself even if so right now so should have left it alone :) (am on a borrowed machine on vacation for a week). Thanks! Eric 14:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I fix my incorrect attribution?

As you may know, the Jena Symphony was once attributed to Beethoven. It was actually by Friedrich Witt. Now I've incorrectly attributed it to Christian Friedrich Witt, who died well before the Jena Symphony was written. How do I fix my mistake? Alonso del Arte 21:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is. Thank you very much. Alonso del Arte 22:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi P.davydov,

maybe this was the first one of these tientos to be uploaded by W.R. Shannon, but there are a lot of these all based on one or other of the church modes, some with sobriquets, many without. I’d be inclined to keep whatever can be used to uniquely identify the pieces in the title, which at the least suggests one of the manuscript numbering schemes is a good one to run with if there isn’t otherwise a catalogue for his works. Cheers Philip @ © talk 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting involved in tagging

I am not sure if this is the best way to contact you, but I would like to help out with tagging. Dwscores 00:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bach: English Suites

I'm wondering if we will have to set up separate pages for each of the 6 individual suites and reserve the present page for those items which include wither all 6 suites or selections from more than one of them. With the sheer number of arrangements we've been seeing from WIMA - often of single movements from larger collections (like the Brade, which now has something like 188 files) - this might be necessary just to keep our pages from becoming unwieldy. UPDATE: I modified the one page he already set up so that we now have one available for the first suite (9 movements), so if Watanabe arraged all 9 movements for viols, there should hopefully be room there. It was also sort of nice to move the stack of audio files all devoted to the first suite there. Carolus 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jenkins (and similar composers with massive numbers of similarly titled pieces)


Take a look over here and let us know your thoughts about how to deal with this issue. The Ayres for 2 Viols already has some 372 files on it - with no arrangements even added yet. It is quite an unwieldy page and even takes a few seconds to load with my fairly fast connection and browser. I don't know if my proposed schema would work as I have no idea whether VdGS uses numbers over for the same composer or not. This might be one of those cases where we should even think about coming up with our own catalog numbering system if it turns out that VdGS is not workable. Carolus 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hi, thank you for your help to renaming the page:,_H.252_(Charpentier,_Marc-Antoine) I'm a newbie, I'll be more careful with page titles.

I'm trying to move 17thCentury scores to imslp from site (suggested in contributor page of imslp)but they're tagged with license CC by-nc-nd 2.5 when trying to donload them. They're re-writings in modern form of original manuscripts found in libraries.

My question is: -can their modern contributors to that site claim for CC by-nc-nd 2.5? -Have I to consider them, in imslp, as "retypesettings" o "new compositions"? -which license can I use in imslp? (CC by-nc-nd 3.0 cannot be chosen for "retypesettings")

Thank you very much! --jeko89 11:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to classify the typesets at the Duke University site as cc-by-nc (use 3.0 please). When you are uploading, simply add as "new compositions" using the cc-by-nc 3.0 option. Once uploaded, go into the edit window and change to "typeset." We will be working to add the Creative Commons license options to uploads for typesets, manuscripts and normal scans. Carolus 22:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Copyright Admin)


Hi davydov, do you know my two entries in the forum from september 2 and 3?

Clicking on the german wikipedia link on the composer page, you find all information, which is needed, I think. One has uploaded accidently twice the op.68, on the page with op.66 (wrong) and on the page with op.68 (right).The sample file is right in both cases. I didn´t check the details.

To be more precise:

op.66 The corresponding file can be downloaded from german wikipedia page. op.67 o.K. op.68 contains: Oh kröne du allmächtiger Gott [F-Dur] (page 5/6) Zur Trauung - Herr schenk uns deine Gnade [F-Dur] (Hedw. Hettenbach (page 1/2) Der Blütenzweig (Hermann Hesse) page 3 The other pages doesn´t belong to op.68. Page 4 is from op.67, page 7 from Schütz (SWV 215) page 8 is a choral Harmonisation of a choral from J.G. Braun (1675).Notenschreiber 14:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Notenschreiber. Would you like to upload the correct Op.66 to that page, and then I'll delete the wrong file? At least all of Op.68 is there, and it would help if someone could delete the extra pages to avoid confusion. My version of Adobe doesn't seem to like that file, so I'm not able to do it myself — P.davydov 17:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Notenschreiber 06:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks — P.davydov 07:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi P.Davydov. Would you mind taking a look at this page and making sure the title is correct? I am not quite sure what is best here; I used Grove's title and catalog system. Respectfully yours, Emery 00:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Emery. Will do, once when the Library of Congress website is back up and running again. It's down for maintenance this weekend, unfortunately — P.davydov 00:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The copyright office website is also down since it's part of the LoC. Sadly, millions of American children and adults alike are in tears. It is finally the weekend, and they can't continue reading the copyright act and searching through all of the renewal records. Now how will everyone spend their weekend? Respectfully, Emery 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I hear protests have broken out on the Brooklyn Bridge! This can't be a conincidence  :-) — P.davydov 07:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi P.davydov. Just you let you know, I've responded here on my page. Respectfully yours, Emery 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rest von polnischen und andern Täntzen

As you can see, this page is starting to get horrendous (it's probably not even the worst one). I had an idea for re-organizing it which I wanted to run by you: Would it be better if we re-arranged all these little pieces into two large stacks - one for the scores where the treble part appears in the regular treble clef and the other where the same part uses the octave treble clef? The titles of the works would be preserved in the file descriptions (replacing the "Complete score" there now). I was thinking this arrangement might be a little more user friendly, but wonder if there are some downsides to it that I'm not thinking of. Carolus 00:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was dealing with a similar situation yesterday, at Airs for 3 Viols (Coleman, Charles). Putting the titles in the descriptions is much more user-friendly, and they'll still show up in searches. Without knowing how they're arranged in the original sources, I might be tempted to keep them in the same (possibly arbitrary) sequence though, rather than according to the editor's choice of clefs in the editions — P.davydov

Heinichen Trio Sonata in B flat major

Hallo Davydov,

sorry for being sloppy with translation in the title: B-Dur is obviously not B major, seems its too long ago that I lived in the US (1982-1996). But I only now notice that you made a mess out of the instrumentation: This is a Trio Sonata for 2 players (2 oboes or violin and oboe) and continuo! Your addition of bassoon as a fourth player is completely unwarranted and contradicts the 3 parts of the set (the alternate violin/oboe I part notwithstanding). Now, the discrepancy between the title page (bassoon) and the part (basso) may or may not suggest performance as a trio without continuo, but writing a figured bass seems to have been the exception in Lund - of the 14 manuscript photocopies I got from them, only two have a figured bass (obviously their copyists would have failed a modern continuo-101 class). So I would tend towards continuo and see the entry of a specific instrument on the cover as a suggestion what to use in addition to keyboard. I am not sure how then to accommodate the bassoon in the tagging system, but would an entry in the comment field not be sufficient? --Kalliwoda 21:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've re-edited the page to remove the reference to the bassoon, except in the comment to the facsimile edition of the manuscript. I think the bassoon would only be one option for the continuo part, therefore we should leave the tagging as continuo, but adding the violin/oboe alternative (as well as 2 oboes). I hope that's a reasonable solution? — P.davydov 22:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)