IMSLP talk:Categorization/Project Members/archive17


Gustav Lewin, Das Klagende Lied

From the title, I tagged this lieder, but it is a monologue with piano, i.e. spoken. The generic for narrations is melodramas ("melodramatische" is in the subtitle, but as an adjective wouldn't normally be used as a tag). So it is "lieder ; melodramas" which looks a little odd. Is this OK? Steltz 19:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So long as the instrumentation correctly shows "nar pf", then we could dispense with the melodrama tag and just stick with "lieder" — P.davydov 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Berlioz, Le jeune Patron

I just noticed that "voice, horn, piano" comes up under both an original tag and an arrangements tag, so there is a redundancy at the bottom of the page in the tags. There are 4 versions of this, and Berlioz did the v/hn/pf arrangement himself. What is the policy when a composer does the arranging himself? It seems to me that either the arrangements hierarachy or the original tag has to come out. Steltz 05:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are four versions of this piece described there, but the later ones seem to be arrangements of the first (even though they were separately tagged. So I've removed their tags and left only "v pf" as the original, so the "v hn pf" version is now classed as an arrangement — P.davydov 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Steltz 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

opera comique vs comic opera

I see we are using both tags. Is there a difference, or should we consider consolidating? Steltz 07:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, they're not the same thing. See Wikipedia for an explanation of the former — P.davydov 15:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Then shouldn't we get rid of one tag and just use the other? Not sure which to keep and which would go, but it doesn't seem logical to have two separate categories for the same thing. Steltz 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Erm, just in case that wasn't clear, they are unrelated categories :-) — P.davydov 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Some of the uploads from WIMA are organ arrangements of folksongs. Since these are likely to go so far back into history that original instrumentation will never be known, I am going to just tag for "folksongs" (and language, if the nationality of the folksong is known) and leave instrumentation out, unless someone has a better idea. Steltz 15:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine — P.davydov 15:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rzewski, Requiem

This uses four drones. Not sure how to tag. I'll download it tomorrow and have a look, or email Elaine Fine, who uploaded it. The only drones I can think of are on bagpipes, but I'm not sure that's what is intended. Steltz 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The drones can be any type of instrumental/vocal sound, but they are used continuously with specific qualities (or are phased in and out, from nothing to full and back again). The drones could equally well be electronic/synthesised instruments. I’d say these are closest to “open” in our tag hierachies, and the instrument type is not actually classified by range, either. Philip @ © talk 03:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rzewski, Last Judgment

For trombone, or several trombones not quite in unison. We have open, but how do we do a specified instrument where only the number is open? Steltz 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to tag this as "tbn ; br", as the composer's instructions are a little unclear — P.davydov 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Clerambault's cantatas are the initial problem, although Charpentier composed for this voice type as well, and I take it it was quite popular at one point. Tag as tenor? or create a tag for it? Steltz 08:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue in favor of the latter. The little I've read (including I seem to recall a brief CD review by David Mason Greene?...) suggests it was a defined type (Wikipedia-en, I now see, has an interesting article on it also.) Am not an expert though!... Eric 08:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are some snippets from Grove's article on the subject:
"A high tenor voice, cultivated in France until about the end of the 18th century. Rousseau defines haute-contre as the shrillest (‘les plus aiguës’) and highest (‘les plus hautes’) of the male voices, in opposition to the BASSE-CONTRE, the lowest and deepest. Although the term is always translated in English Baroque treatises and dictionaries as COUNTERTENOR... Rousseau (1768) gives ‘altus’ as a synonym and equates the voice with the Italian CONTRALTO, which he says is ‘nearly always sung by the bas-dessus [or second soprano], be they women or castratos’: that is, the haute-contre is a male voice equivalent in range to the contralto or second soprano parts sung by women or castratos"... Lully assigned the principal male role in eight of his 14 operas to this voice... By the beginning of the 19th century, the haute-contre was largely replaced by the more powerful natural tenor... The term haute-contre was also used at times as a synonym for haute-taille in French choral music.... The term was also used, confusingly, to refer to the second part of any instrumental group, such as haute-contre de hautbois (second oboe) or haute-contre de violon (second violin)."
We have discussed countertenors before in November 2010, when the consensus was to use "alt". So we need to reconsider (a) whether hautes-contres and countertenors should be treated the same, and (b) whether they merit a separate tag from "alt". IMSLP currently has 15 users who define themselves as countertenors, including a certain "Pml", who may have some thoughts on this subject :-) – P.davydov 10:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If the argument is that we must tag antique vocal types, then we definitely need a tag for castratos – even though this voice type is currently extinct (aside from men with highly rare medical issues?).
Since Western church music was overwhelmingly dominated by traditional ministry of men (aside for the relatively tiny genre of service music for nunneries or women-only congregations) then large amounts of early (sacred) music would also have to be tagged in a gendered fashion to exclude women. This male bias also carried across to a wide range of secular music until relatively late in the last millennium; so what we would really be asking for is a gendered interpretation of historically-informed practice that would routinely exclude female musicians from almost all early music practice (and I don’t think we want to go there, frankly).
This is one region where we aren’t historically accurate, largely because the voicing is both hugely diverse and irrelevant, in terms of the attitude of the performer. It’s up to the performer to decide whether to use mixed gender for historically problematic voice types. The mixed-voice choir of sop alt ten bass can admit both men singing sop and alt parts in addition to the traditional ten and bass parts, and many choirs have a small number of women tenors – women basses may be quite rare, but they are not a null set! So for tagging it is really more appropriate to ask, what is the range of this part, rather than asking what gender convention did the composer expect as well as what the modern-day performer might expect to have personnel for.
French choral tradition seems to have preferred asking the tenors to “cover” upwards to what is effectively a (slightly low) alto part, where other traditions expected the lower soprano voices to cover a more range-normative alto part. (As late as Berlioz’s Messe solennelle and Requiem you have high tenor parts in this exact mould, in the former work explicitly entitled haute-contre. A generation later you still find someone like Fauré giving far more flamboyant choir parts to high tenors, versus hesitant, self-effacing writing for altos.) It’s up to the informed performer to realise that an alto part in range in Charpentier or Clérembault should be a tenor voice pushed up rather than a soprano part pushed down.
For the purposes of tagging then, we follow the general, practical rule of taking note of the clefs used in the score as a basic indication of the range of the part. The high tenor in the French repertoire is not unlike contratenor altus writing throughout the Renaissance and Baroque eras which we tag as “alt”. I think you will find the Clérambault pieces, even if they are given to “haute-contre” high tenors, are effectively alto parts and are cleffed accordingly. In low clefs, sopranos tend to be C1, with G2 or C2 variants. Altos (and countertenors, and haute-contres) will usually be C3. Tenors, C4. Basses, F4, with C5/F3 (baritone) and F5 (basso profundo) variants. (In high clefs, usually assume jumping one clef combination higher; later in the Baroque instrumental accompaniment usually precludes using high clefs.)
Cheers, Philip @ © talk 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. In that case I propose we continue tagging parts for countertenors and hautes-contres as "alt" — P.davydov 12:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Steltz 20:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If I recall at least a bit (decades?...) later than Berlioz in several mid-century French operas, too, I think? Anyway. thanks. Eric 03:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Very possibly. I don’t know the French opera repertoire as well as some, but I thought the use of the term haute-contre had dropped out of fashion, even if the choral practice still favoured high, shrill tenors. :) Whether these are alto parts, though, may be a fine distinction. Clérembault’s and Charpentier’s parts are alto parts, though. Philip @ © talk 04:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Albinoni, Balletti à cinque

Not really early enough to go under balletto/balletti ("use for the 15th/16th-century Italian dances, or late 16th-/early 17th-century Italian partsongs only"), though in spirit (if not in dates), it would seem to fit, so would this go under "ballets"?

Yes, I'd say "ballets" — P.davydov 11:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I’d say a late manifestation of the balletto type. Dance muzak rather than theatre performance. Philip @ © talk 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Then I suggest a compromise tag — "dances" — which will prevent it from being classified as a stage work, without diminishing the integrity of the "balletti" tag — P.davydov 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
There are balletti of similar character all the way back through Biber to Marini to Monteverdi. I think the dating of 15th/16th century in the dictionary source must be wrong; there are almost none from the 15th century, and the type established in the 16th is present through all of the 17th century with possibly a few early 18th century examples also. Is it possible there is a century error in the dictionary that was used to come up with this definition of “balletti”? i.e. where it says, “use for the 15th/16th-century Italian dances”, this a mistake for “use for the Italian dances of the 1500s/1600s”? I note another Albinoni balletti has actually been tagged (not surprisingly) as “balletti”. That’s following the rule that the title given by the composer is what we want to tag. Philip @ © talk 12:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you might be right, Philip -- Grove defines balletto as "An Italian dance of the 16th and 17th centuries", and the term "ballett" was first used in late 1500s. The MLA definition is "a 15th-century Italian dance; a late 16th-/early 17th-century Italian part-song using nonsense refrains; use for works of Italian origin or influence; a late 16th-century Italian instrumental dance. LCNAF n89-631472 ", so the mistake would be on their side, if it is a mistake (though Grove makes no mention of anything in the 1400s). Incidentally, the vocal form is defined by Grove as a type of madrigal, so a slightly off-topic question is whether the vocal tag brings up the parent category "madrigals"?. At any rate, we should consider extending the dates for the "balletti" tag? Steltz 17:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I’m glad to find someone willing to opine that definitions from supposed authorities often have shortcomings. Earlier I said “there are almost none from the 15th century” which in fact was weaselly language for “I’m sure there are none from the 1400s… but I would not want my basic position undermined by a single counter-example that might appear to rebut it.” If there are 15th century balletti, they are rare. Points victory to Grove, I think. Philip @ © talk

"Speaking pianist", etc.

We have a few works like this one, in which instrumental performers are expected to narrate while performing. I've agonized over whether this should be "pf" or "nar pf", and my current thought is to use both tags, since the speaking part could be done by someone other than the pianist. (On the same basis, most "nar pf" pieces could be performed by the pianist alone, so there's a kind of symmetry there). Any other views? — P.davydov 09:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think both tags is the way to go -- having the "wrong" number of players is the only way to indicate there is narration, but technically the "pf" (without "nar") tag should be there too. Steltz 12:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

keyboard trios

We have a couple of these (Johann Schröter is the current one I'm looking at) where we have made the work title "keyboard" trios, but the title page says "piano or harpsichord". Although I agree it makes the work page more simplified, I think the tag of "kbd" is misleading -- I take this to mean it can also be done on organ. In any case, it's a word we inserted, not the composer. Should these be tagged according to the title page rather than our work page title? Steltz 12:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of these older pieces were written for "klavier" by the composer (which should be tagged "kbd"), but modern editions often change this to piano or harpsichord, which is something to be way of. In the Schröter case I'd stick with the manuscript score made during the composer's lifetime, and tag "hpd ; pf".
Since the same source calls this a set of "Sonatas" (and RISM agrees with that), would you also agree that the page should be renamed "6 Sonatas, Op.2", and tagged as "sonatas"? — P.davydov 17:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely, and I've done it. Steltz 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Adeste Fideles (Benoît, Peter)

This work is for solo voice, choir of 3 equal voices, and organ. I don't think we ever agreed to add a tag for equal voices, though I vaguely remember discussing it at one point. At the moment, the options here would be "v ch org" (doesn't indicate equality of choir voices), "v mch org" (mixed male/female tenors are excluded by this tag, though not by the composer), "v fch org" (same problem the other way around). Any other ideas, or should we invent a tag for equal voicing? Steltz 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There are times where it would be useful, so how about "uch" (for 'unison chorus')? — P.davydov 17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, though in this particular case it turned out to be an arrangement. I'll add the necessary tomorrow. Steltz 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that 3 equal voices is not a unison chorus. A unison chorus is “what it says on the tin”: unison (although if it is mixed-voice then the men and women will usually be singing in parallel octaves). We’d tag 3 equal voices as ch 3vv; while unison choir is ch 1vv. Once again, this is using the Grove terminology for vv being massed voices. Cheers, Phi1ip 22:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean a chorus of 3 equal voices could be "SSS", "AAA", "TTT" or "BBB", but it's unspecified by the composer? Then is there a better term than "chorus of equal voices", which, as Steltz has pointed out, is a little clumsy for the tagging system? — P.davydov 22:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to find a new tag, but not unison voices. My suggestion would be something like: 2eq (2 solo, equal voices); ch 2eq (choir of 2 equal parts); 3eq (3 solo, equal voices); ch 3eq (choir of 3 equal voices), etc. Cheers, Philip @ © talk 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That could work, but what about the actual category name for the tag description? Is there a snappier term than "chorus of x equal voices"? — P.davydov 08:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not! Anything shorter may well lack precision. Philip @ © talk 10:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A moot point now -- Kris van Bruwaene has told me that since he didn't have a title page for the copy he was working from, the "equal voices" was a guess, so I've removed the arrangements header and just tagged it as per Grove Music. For future, I would like to add the "eq" tag, and if "chorus of x equal voices" is the only way to be accurate, then we will have to try to be very accurate in how the headers get typed so we don't get "similar but unequal" headers. :-) On a similar subject, I fear that since WIMA was full of a lot of arrangements, we will get more of this kind of problem. In this particular case, since Kris isn't going to re-typeset to change his titles, his will still look like "equal voices" when it isn't. Steltz 15:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We are definitely going to see a lot more of this problem as the WIMA uploads progress – that is, works uploaded in secondary forms where we do not know, or in fact cannot know, the original form and instrumentation of the composition. Cheery thought, huh? Regards, Philip @ © talk 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Kol Nidrei for Solo Stringed Instrument (Lewandowski, Louis)

I notice we don’t have any tags for this Jewish liturgy. Should we? Philip @ © talk 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And it might be an idea to ask Elaine Fine if there’s any reason for separating these out on three works pages (if they are three separate works, that’s Fine): 2 and 3... Philip @ © talk 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
On closer examination all three were all Elaine's arrangement of Lewandowski's original, so they've been regrouped accordingly — P.davydov 05:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
But what is the original? - I've found two versions by the composer himself, published as Op.6. I'll upload both in a few minutes. --Ralph Theo Misch 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The sources I checked (on Google Books, IIRC) indicated that Lewandowski's version was for voice, mixed chorus, and organ. However, the scores you've just uploaded only mention the versions for violin + piano and solo piano, which is a tad worrying. I'll move it to Op.6, and treat the new versions as arrangements unless we get information to the contrary. Keep digging :-) — P.davydov 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would, yes. But I've just bestowed the relevant volume of MGG :-{ --Ralph Theo Misch 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unison/Equal voices

Having done a little more research, I'd like to introduce two new tags:

  • eq = For equal voices
Such that "2eq" = 2 equal voices, "3 eq"= 3 equal voices, etc. The only examples I could find on IMSLP were all for equal solo voices, e.g. 12 Songs for Equal Voices (Weyse, Christoph Ernst Friedrich). But "ch 4eq" could be used to signify a chorus of 4 equal voices, etc.
  • uch = For unison chorus
To be used in cases where a chorus sings the same notes, regardless of the voice types, e.g. Jerusalem (Parry, Charles Hubert Hastings).

Hope that's OK? — P.davydov 17:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. The example by Parry is a precise one, also; many unison hymns in church hymnals are implicitly for this voicing (i.e. the congregation, also referred to as “the punters”, in Aussie church choir parlance.) Thanks, Phi1ip 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant. Steltz 05:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the not so new chorus template, I find I don't understand

it as well as I thought. Does ch bass -- for example only - mean a chorus consisting only of basses, or a mixed chorus of men and women in which the entire bass section has, some time during the work, a solo section (therefore, "featuring" choral basses? - there are such works , especially if one then adds orchestra, quite a few works with entire sections of the choir that get singled out so.) Should a work for unison basses (or subdivided bass singer section) and orchestra but no other singers (like Altdeutscher Schlachtgesang, Op.12, by Julius Rietz which falls into some such category...) be given some other tag than ch bass orch ? :) Thanks! Eric 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (though the above re ch eq may apply well to this too...)

ch bass = undivided choir consisting of basses; only basses, and only in one part (senza divisi). If subdivided, then you would have ch 2bass, ch 3bass, etc. Specifications are often crucial to choirs making repertoire choices, just as if your orchestra had a woodwind octet you wouldn’t programme pieces for triple or quadruple winds. The reasoning behind eq is that the voice type doesn’t matter, but 2eq is for 2 equivalent voice types. An explicit tag like bass is an indication that the voice type does matter. Cheers Phi1ip 13:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
While there are very good reasons for these modified choral tags, I would like to ask for their use to be suspended for the time being. For one thing they greatly complicate the editing of the master lists of categories at MW:G (at a time when we're in danger of being overwhelmed by WIMA submissions with novel instrumentation). There's also the consideration that hundreds of choral works have already been categorized with the original tags. The intention has always been that when the tagging is finished (yes, it really will happen one day!), we will go back to the original categories and make these kinds of refinements where they're needed. At the moment our resources are stretched pretty thin, so there's no point in making extra work for ourselves — P.davydov 10:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be even less work to just stop tagging works with the modified tags (i.e., the ones introduced in early April) and let MW:G be? I mean, now that you've removed the extra categories it will be quite complicated to go back later and add them again - we have been using them for nearly six months... KGill talk email 22:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Gloria vs Gloria in excelsis deo

Sorry to be a heathen, but does Spada's Gloria in Excelsis Deo get tagged "gloria", or is that something slightly different? Same with Kyrie eleison -- tag as "kyrie"? Steltz 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a fellow heathen, I'd say yes  :-) — P.davydov 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gabrieli, Beata es Virgo

Grove Music lists this just under "Sacred Vocal", but whoever uploaded it put "Motet" in the old genre field. Tag as "sacred songs" or "motets"? Steltz 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


August Högn's Kommunionlied (32 bars long, 3 verses) refers. I'm not sure what the "communions" in a mass entail, but this seemed like the right tag. If it needs to be "sacred song" or something like that, please let me know and I'll change it. Steltz 15:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


I.e. Lefébure-Wély's L'Office Catholique. Contains versets, "Elevation ou Communion", marches, offertories, "Communion ou Benediction", fanfare, prelude, "Entrée ou Sortie" (preludes and postludes?), communions and a couple of "Elevations" that don't have an alternate title (tag as what?). Unless there is a tag for the work as a whole, it can be tagged with the contents, since it clearly is a collection not meant to be played in one go. Ideas? Steltz 06:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

malvezzi sinfonias

Malvezzi's Sinfonias are all "from Intermedio no. x". Surely these should be moved to a page entitled "Intermedio no.x"? I will do it, I just want to know if I'm right before I move anything. Steltz 09:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe when the Library of Congress website is back up after its weekend maintenance it will provide the answer. Grove suggests there was a compilation called Musique des intermèdes de ‘La pellegrina’, so Intermedio might not be the original title — P.davydov 17:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
RISM has three groups of "Symphonies" by Malvezzi from 1589 and 1591, no mention of Intermedes/Intermezzi etc. it seems though- different music? Eric 02:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, here's part 2 of the research: The intermedios were large-scale works written to be played in between acts of a play (I suppose it took a long time to change sets back then), but by 1589, the date of Malvezzi's works, it was sometimes said that the play was an intermedio to the intermedio. Only two complete sets of intermedios survive in written form, and this 1589 one of Malvezzi is one of them. It was for the most costly and spectacular intermedio of all time, for one of the Medici weddings. Grove says "The complete subservience of the comedy to the intermedi is evident from the fact that they were performed twice with Girolamo Bargagli’s comedy La pellegrina and twice more with two different comedies", so apart from the fact that the premiere was for that play, I would think La Pellegrina as a name might be irrelevant. Likewise, I think Sinfonia isn't right either -- each Intermedio started with a Sinfonia, so the Sinfonias were never intended to be performed on their own. Using that as a page title would be like having a separate page for the overtures of any opera on IMSLP. Of more importance is that Malvezzi and Luca Marenzio wrote most of the music, along with "individual contributions by Peri, Antonio Archilei, Bardi, Giulio Caccini and the recently appointed ducal superintendent of music, Emilio de’ Cavalieri". Malvezzi published the set of music in 1591. With this information, it seems to me that there should be a page for each Intermedio; putting them all on one page (even though they were part of the same performance) would be incredibly cumbersome given the diversity of works involved. We have other co-authored works where the page is under one name with links to the others, so this could stay on Malvezzi's page, and links added if more individual items are added. The comments field could give the general information about the connection to the other composers, etc. How does that sound? Steltz 13:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Viola da gamba

As a result of this forum discussion, the viola da gamba will be considered synonymous with the viol from now on, which means its tag has changed from "vdg" to "viol". The beauty of our categorization system means that it's not necessary to go back and manually change all the old "vdg" tags to "viol", as this can all be taken care of with a few tweaks in to the definitions on MediaWiki:Genres, which I've just done :-) Because of caching this change may take up to 72 hours to fully work through the system — P.davydov 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

orchestration tag

I've just tagged Allgemeine Musiklehre für Lehrende und Lernende (Köhler, Louis), and I know we have discussed a tag for orchestration, but it isn't on the tagging list, so I don't think we came to a consensus. This is a different field to organology, and people may well want to search for orchestration texts. I have tagged this for orchestration, but it is obviously coming out as an unknown tag. I will remove it if we decide not to add an orchestration tag, but as I think I said in the previous discussion, it would be very useful. Steltz 09:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be useful to broaden it to "instrumentation", so that it can include guides for writing for wind ensembles, string ensembles, etc.? Or do you think one is needed specifically for the orchestra? — P.davydov 09:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Grove Music uses the article header "Instrumentation and orchestration" -- "The art of combining the sounds of a complex of instruments (an orchestra or other ensemble) to form a satisfactory blend and balance. The term ‘orchestration’ is often used to denote the craft of writing idiomatically for these instruments. ‘To orchestrate’ has also come to mean to score for orchestra a work written for a solo instrument or small ensemble." The "other ensemble" would cover wind bands and string orchestras, and the universities that I know of call their classes "orchestration", but cover everything under that one title. Later Grove says "Instrumentation by itself is a more general term, denoting the selection of instruments for a musical composition" so I think "orchestration" covers what we are looking for (the craft of writing idiomatically for instruments) and it seems to work for any ensemble, though I don't know if it covers vocal music, but that might be another discussion. Steltz 16:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's stick with 'orchestration' — P.davydov 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


I notice that we have "entrada" in the tagging list which should be tagged "intrada", and "intrada" is not in the list. It also comes up as an unknown tag. Should it be added? Steltz 06:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I've added it now. Well spotted! — P.davydov 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Kowalewski, Kanony wokalne

I contacted Mr. Kowalewski to get details to finish tagging his works. He says these are theoretical/solo -- no words. Technically, they are written in 2, 3, and 4 staves, so I don't understand the "solo" designation (?), but there is no text, and they aren't part of a theory treatise. Can they be tagged as theoretical? Steltz 10:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant that they were theoretical in that they weren't written for specific instruments (i.e. they have open instrumentation)? — P.davydov 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Aufer a me (Gregorian chant)

As with many of the WIMA files, if they are modern typesets, I am trying to be very careful to make sure that the stated instrumentation was the original, because I'm finding that people tend to make arrangements, and then fill in the instrumentation field with their arrangement instrumentation. Aufer a me says "Solo voice or treble recorder". Surely the recorder part should go, and the specific recorder part be put under the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" header? This also applies to other typesets done by den Teuling. Steltz 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

for some works (especially of the Tudor, Renaissance, Baroque... era - more than of earlier or later works i think) - a resource Carolus pointed me to, , can be helpful here as it is collates manuscript holdings - instrumentation and incipits, helpfully - information of a number of libraries containing autograph or manuscript copies of a number of the works that are now being uploaded in typeset...) Eric 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, RISM doesn't list this particular one. In a more general sense, as far as I remember from Music History classes, chant was never intended to be instrumental originally, so although I will look in RISM for the rest of the untagged Gregorian Chants, this surely would not have been originally for recorder? Or is my knowledge of medieval history just very weak? Steltz 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The uploader in this case tends to give the instrumentation of the WIMA arrangements, not of the original. Gregorian chant is by definition purely vocal, so we should just go by the voice ranges, or plan "vv" if that's not clear — P.davydov 15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ernst, Le Carnaval de Venise, op.18

Is there a way to tag a "concerto" for one instrument and single accompaniment instruments (i.e. not orchestra)? This work is: "[cover title:] Carneval in Venedig | für Violine prinzipale | mit Pianoforte | und | Quartett-Begleitung | v. H. W. Ernst. | [parts:] Op. 18." In other words single strings, so although there are 3 violin parts, one is solo. Does "vn 2vn va vc pf" work or not? Steltz 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how the composer intended that the 'principle' violin is supposed to be audibly different from the two violins in the quartet? Either all the performers are functioning as soloists ("3vn va vc pf"), or we treat the string accompaniment as an ensemble ("vn str pf"). You could even use both tags, to cover both possibilities — P.davydov 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe as with a concerto for solo piano, where it's all in the emphasis, tone, dynamics (or Bach's Italian Concerto which makes all that use of the 2 manuals of a kind of harpsichord) it's all in the treatment. There's other examples (e.g. Pettersson's concerto no.1 of 1949, for violin and string quartet) though as he died in 1980 that's unlikely to show up here for at least 20 years. Eric 14:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Zweistimmige Lieder

from what I have seen in HMB and both older and newer references, Zweistimmige Lieder (for example) seems to have meant lieder that are duets for two sopranos or soprano and alto (or perhaps S., A., Mezzo, maybe T., maybe Baritone - this is not a subject of my expertise by any means...) usually - for example, because alternatives for lower voices are always given and sold separately in e.g. HMB (so that despite the apparent neutrality of "stimmige", the actual parts included are treble clefs), it would seem other reasons. So tagging as "2 voices, ..." seems misleading maybe - because it implies that any two vocal parts would do. Any advice here? :)
(Am helping some on the worklist of a usually vocal, somewhat prolific - 600+ op. - composer lately, so this is coming up.) Cheers and thanks in advance. Eric 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic rule is tag them as "2vv" if the precise voice ranges aren't indicated, or if they aren't the same throughout the whole work. So if the first lied in a set is "sop alt", then the next maybe "2sop", then "ten bass", etc. the correct tag is just "2vv", and don't worry about specifying the ranges in the tags.
BTW, I'm sorry for not being able to contribute to the tagging as much recently because of work commitments, but I hope to get back into it after Christmas... — P.davydov 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

With the holidays now upon us, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone on the tagging team for all your efforts over the last year. It may seem like a never-ending task, and although the number of scores being added every day is increasing hugely (not to mention the vast WIMA additions), our small but dedicated band has still managed to keep pace with them. So thanks again to everyone who's contributed their own free time so selflessly, and may you have a happy and peaceful 2012 — P.davydov 10:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

And the same to you :)) Steltz 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)