User talk:Afolop


Bassano, Giovanni

Welcome to IMSLP, and we are very pleased that you allowing IMSLP to host your carefully-produced scores!

I just wanted to explain that Bassano's 20 fantasias (1585) are classified as a single work on IMSLP, and so your files have been moved to 20 Fantasias a 3 (Bassano, Giovanni). We've used Bassano's numbering for the sonatas (matching the VdGS number), which has some differences from the Breitkopf & Härtel numbering followed in your four fantasias. I hope this will be clear from the explanations on the page, and if you have any more works from this collection they should be added to 20 Fantasias a 3 (Bassano, Giovanni), rather than separately. Should you have any questions about uploading files to work pages then please don't hesitate to contact me on my user talk pageP.davydov 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your comments, and I can understand some of the difficulties in moving from WIMA to IMSLP, which have two very different ways of organising the files.

One important distinction we make is between original works and arrangements, and so we need to be clear as to whether your files are arrangements of works that were originally written for other instruments, or if they are typesets of original works that could be played on viols or any other instruments? We believed it was the latter, which is why your files are not labelled as specifically for viol, but it would be very helpful if you could make this clear, so we can label them correctly. Many thanks — P.davydov 05:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Albert, you wrote: “Am I using the right method for getting this message to you?”
In short, you are not. (It perhaps didn’t help that P.davydov linked to the wrong page in his first message to you, in the previous to last Bassano message!) Discussions should go on a user’s discussion page: the word “discussion” at the top of the page should be highlighted (bolded), and the url should have the legend “User_talk:” rather than “User:”. You can reply to P.davydov here. Also, you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Regards, Philip @ © talk 11:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


I don't understand the instructions for using the user_talk page or how to get to it, or if I do get to it, how do I put a message on it. And where do I look for an answer to it?

"The word at the top of the page "discussion" -- is that the tab marked discussion or somehow a bold heading on the page itself where mine now reads "Editing User talk:Afolop". Do I add a message by clicking on the "edit" tab at the top of the page or the (edit) word at the top of a message? I somehow got to a different page one time that seemed to have some answers for me, but I don't remember how I got there; should I have replied to those messages there?

Should I put a topic in bold type at the beginning of each communication? If so, how? I am guessing.

I am so mixed up by all this confusion that I don't know whether any help is being considered for getting my collection transferred from WIMA to IMSLP in a usable form or not. The first ones certainly are not usable. I am just going to suspend all actions and communications until things get clarified. Afolop 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC) or do I use ~~~~ Afolop 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Albert,
at the very top of this page, you should be seeing a list of tabs above the part where the page is displayed, e.g.:
user page – discussion – edit – history – watch
Yes? So if you’re on a page where user page is bolded — don’t post there.
If you’re on the page where discussion is bolded — that’s the right place to post messages to other users. As I said, the default when you click on someone’s link goes to their user page, rather than the talk page. (I think this is a stupid option, but unfortunately it’s the default.)
And I think you’ve got the hang of the ~~~~ judging by the latest reply. ;-)
Back to the issue of your contributions being usable: I think you’re over-reacting to the fact that the work tagging is at the discretion of the librarians: we are interested in making the files easily accessible. Please be patient. Regards, Philip @ © talk 01:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Philip(?) When I want to answer something, do I post it on my discussion page or the one for the person who made the comment? How do I find out who that is? I hope I am not overreacting, but so many of my entries have been misinterpreted, both for comments and for actual compositions and I don't understand how to avoid this or to correct it. Afolop 12:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it’s Philip (User:Pml). It’s easiest to reply to something in the same place; note there’s a box just above where you save changes to “Watch this page”. Ticking the box is highly recommended for carrying on conversations, since you can set the Wiki to send an e-mail when someone else modifies the page (i.e., leaves a reply).
One thing that seems especially remiss is that none of your editions have been tagged in such a way as to appear on your editorial page, i.e. the category Albert Folop. This seems worth addressing in the first place (though it is late here, I will not be able to get to it before tomorrow). If any of the other old IMSLP hands would like to go through these contributions and mark them up with the appropriate templates, that would be a very good start – by the way, this isn’t something you need do, Albert; it’s the sort of Wiki editing that we’re not expecting the WIMA contributors to be up to speed with, and thus we should be providing as assistance from our user base. Cheers Philip @ © talk 13:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see the viol arrangements of the four Bassani fantasias (full scores and parts) are the only works attributed to Albert Folop so far, which are already linked to the category Albert Folop. Is there anything else? — P.davydov 13:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Things must be weird at my end; that work page wasn’t appearing in the category half an hour ago! Philip @ © talk 13:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The four Bassano fantasias are all I have tried so far. I will try the next one today and see how it goes. Afolop 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

New Trial

I did it again. I submitted the next trial, Bassano #15 without getting the title entered. I think I see now where I should have done it, but I can't get back to the page to edit it. I think I missed the entry "For 3 viols" also. I checked again and see that I didn't make the arranger correctly. Afolop 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, and I've just made a couple of tweaks. The line that starts with "|Editor=" has to be manually changed to "|Arranger", but you handled the "LinkArr" template just fine, which is more important. The description of the complete score can be edited after you've uploaded the files, e.g. "Fantasia No.13 - Complete score", and the parts are automatically assumed to belong to the same arrangement, so it's not necessary to repeat the title there as well. Will it be No.13 next?  :-) — P.davydov 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And another trial -- this time for two arrangements. I couldn't see how to make the manual change for the arranger. I couldn't make any entries outside of the text entry blocks provided. Do I have to go back to the page to edit it after I have made the first save? I haven't found how to do this yet. It's coming; only 2910 more compositions to go! Afolop 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I went back and changed the arranger, but I wasn't quite up to separating the two compositions yet. Would you prefer each composition be entered separately? Afolop 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be much easier to upload the files (full score + parts) for each work

individually, as separating them can be a bit fiddly.

At the top of most pages you should find an "edit" tab, which will allow you to re-edit the page whenever you want. The "show preview" button under the edit window will let you see the results of your changes before you save them. But if you've saved a page and find a serious mistake you can always go to the "history" tab and undo your last change. There will usually be an administrator around somewhere if you get stuck. Good luck with the other 2910! — P.davydov 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One more -- No. 6 Resulting page displays:

File entry render error: no filename specified.

but I don't see any problems. Afolop 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The system expects each file in the group to start at one, but in splitting your previous batch I'd omitted to renumber them, so they started at "File Name 6=". I've fixed that now, but that's just one reason why it's easier not to have to split up the batches :-) Your last upload was just fine, and I've only cut and pasted it so that it comes in the right numerical position on the page. If you do this yourself, make sure to always keep the blocks of text starting with "{{#fte:imslpfile" up to and inculding the final "}}" intact, otherwise there can be undesirable side effects — P.davydov 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I will hold off on doing this for the moment until I get a little more comfortable with the IMSLP procedures. Afolop 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I got up enough courage and it seemed to work. This is all of my Bassanos -- on to more challenging efforts. -- By the way, in the publication of Bärenreiter, the first word is Hortus, not Hoxtus.

Do I have to do something to clear up this talk page, or will it automatically go to a new page when it runs out of space? Afolop 21:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be wise to archive it at some point in the future, but again don’t worry this yet; this one is only a short comments page so far! If you want to see pages desperately calling out for the archivers, have a look at Massenetique’s or Steltz’s page. Cheers, Philip @ © talk 03:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Byrd Gradualia

I have entered two pieces. There are about 20 more of this type for Byrd. If I can find the right place and format before entering the rest, I can save a lot of editing. The originals each contain a series of parts which I have separated into shorter pieces. Hence the notation 1.1 1.2 etc.Afolop 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On further looking around it is possible these should be entered on a new work page for Gradualia I. Afolop 12:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine at first glance, but we'll do more checking at the copyright review process (which is slower than usual this week because so many admins are on holiday). It's very helpful that your file descriptions and structure are easy to follow, which should make the job much easier. Thanks! — P.davydov 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have found further information. The Gradualia were published (at some time at least) in two volumes, as indicated in the Alternative title on the Gradualia II page. The 3 part ones were in the first volume so I guess they should be on a new page headed Gradualia I. I will hold up transferring the rest until this matter is resolved. Afolop 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Albert,
this may be a case where we eventually reserve the Gradualia pages for complete editions of each of the two volumes, and individual typesets are re-located to the pages for the individual motets in the collection. For now, however, please upload all of these to either Gradualia I (1605) or Gradualia II (1607). Regards, Philip @ © talk 00:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if I would just go on to some other composer until this is resolved. It would save a good deal of editing later perhaps and I have plenty of others to work on. I'll start on Jenkins Aires for 2 viols; there are 122 pieces in that set. Afolop 07:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just entered the rest of the 3-part Gradualia into Gradualia I where they belong. Now I need to transfer the two parts I erroneously entered uner Gradulia II over to join them. Can I just cut and paste, or do I need to worry about linking somewhere? Afolop 16:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting should be fine, if you're careful to make sure the "{{#fte:imslpfile" is included at the start of the section you move, and the "}}" at the end of the section as well. If anything goes amiss you can click the "History" tab at the top of the page, and then "Undo" next to the description of your edit. Good luck! — P.davydov 16:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it worked! Afolop 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it all looks good! — P.davydov 17:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


I have put in four more, but on second thought, I believe I should just put in one or two and see if they are in the right place before I proceed with the rest. Hoping to reduce editing if I have chosen wrong.

Incidentally, I did not find Orlando Gibbons on the "browse scores, Composers" page. When I tried to enter a composer page for him, I was alerted that his entry already existed -- but I had a real problem finding it. I think I went to 'All people' then 'composers'. There already is an entry for Fantasias on his page, but they are not for viols, so I made a separate work page.

There are two sets of fantasias by Gibbons for 3 viols. One for Tr T B or Tr Tr B and another set with its own sequence (VdGS) numbers which use the "Great Dooble Bass". They probably need a separate heading, and I will put them in after the regular set of instruments.

Sources for viol music are not at all standard on the names Fantasia or Fancie Afolop 19:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's all of this set. It might be useful to add a subheading over the last four pieces to indicate the use of the Great Double Bass (not an additional voice but as a special instrument for the bass voice) These are all original instrumentation, so no arrangements. Afolop 02:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

WIMA crash

It is noon (here) and suddenly The WIMA site has come down with a problem. When one of my files wouldn't transfer, I went to WIMA site and couldn't get past a point either in getting to any of my files. I'll keep an eye on the situation. I hope it doesn't affect anyone else's transfers. I sent an email to the webmaster at WIMA. Afolop 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I just got an email that the webmaster address that I copied from the error notification was unknown and my email could not be delivered. Afolop 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's working again! Afolop 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Name change

I just changed the name of the page under John Jenkins from Ayres a 2 to Ayres for 2 viols following the instructions in the score submission guide to make a 'move' action. That seemed to fit in better with other viol pages, and I didn't do the accent on the 'a' correctly anyway. Now I can't get back to a page with these pieces to continue entry. Is the change a manual one that takes some time, or did I do something wrong? Afolop 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The page is back on the Jenkins composer page, but it is still under the name Ayres a 2. Afolop 20:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

When you moved the page you accidentally took out the space between the title and the composer name, which broke the page. I just fixed that by undoing the move, and I've been checking to see what the library standard title for this piece is. The Library of Congress seems to have it as "Divisions, viole da gamba (2), continuo", and on IMSLP we would rewrite that as: "2 Divisions for 2 Viole da gamba (Jenkins, John)". Does that sound right? — P.davydov 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Divisions refers to special method of variations on a melody. That is not what these are. Viole da Gamba is a french name and implies baroque compositions with keyboard (continuo). That is not what these are, nor are most viol consorts. The English name is viol, and The whole group of viol consort pieces is distinctly English, although it did extend somewhat to other areas of Europe. The Viola da Gamba Society of Great Britain in their index calls the Jenkins group "2 - part airs for Tr B". The term used in the VdGS index often is of the form "Airs a 3 for Tr T B" (frequently without the accent on the 'a'). I suggest my change is the best compromise for standardization. My suggestion will be understood immediately by viol players and relates to the terms already used elsewhere in IMSLP e.g. "Fantasias for 3 viols" etc. Afolop 21:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're suggesting "Airs for 2 Viols", and there aren't likely to be any other collections by the same composer with the same title, then that's fine. (Note that "Viols" should have a capital "V" when it's in the page title, and the spelling "Airs" should be used in preference to "Ayres").
Abbreviations should be avoided in the page titles, but the "General Information" section of the work page can include "Instrumentation=3 viols (Tr T B)", etc. — P.davydov 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The English name is 'viol' with the plural 'viols'. I strongly recommend you use that. Afolop 21:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are two collections by the same composer, the titles can probably be differentiated by additional information, e.g. Airs for 2 Viols (treble, tenor)? Afolop 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We do have guidelines on page titles to handle these types of situations, and if you come across one then please contact me on my talk page before creating the new page. Thanks — P.davydov 08:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


I have added some fantasias for 3 viols, which I hope are OK. Now for Jeffreys: I now have 2 consort songs arranged for 3 viols in a 17th century manuscript. Do I make a work sheet for songs and add the two under it or a separate work sheet for each? The titles are just short abbreviations e.g. 'Le Parole Soave'.

If all the songs have unique titles, then you could either (a) create a separate work page for each one, or (b) create one page for "Consort Songs" (or a more appropriate title) on which they all appear.

Then I have a single fantasia for Tr B and organ from the same ms. I am not sure what kind of titles to use.

I guess the question is whether the work page title refers to the one item to follow or is a generic title when there is only one piece and how its title covers several pieces not published together. Afolop 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have lots of works with generic titles that would be difficult to distinguish between, then having one generic work page for, say, all the fantasias, would be the better approach.

I guess I have been remiss in my entries of titles by not capitalizing the word Viols. When I try to do this by editing, which page do I edit? I can't seem to get to the title of the work page and when I change the item in the information block at the bottom of the page, it changes there but not in the title.

It's the "move" button at the top of the page, being careful not to change the other spacing or punctuation (which affects how the page title is interpreted)

I notice that Grayson lists himself a 'Editor' on his arrangements. I have not actually done the arrangements on these Jeffreys pieces. They were arranged in the 17th century manuscript and all I was, at most, the editor. Should I include both arranger and editor entries? Listing the arranger as '17th century' ? Afolop 13:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If the arranger is unknown then you should leave that blank, and put yourself as the editor (as well as publisher).

I am using this page for these questions to avoid mixing my stuff with all of the other thing you have on your talk page. Is that OK? Afolop 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine  :-) — P.davydov 14:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


I have added a trial work sheet to John Hilton. The actual title I found uses the word Ayres, so I used that also. How is this format, in order to make the names of the individual 'ayres' searchable, perhaps showing up on a Category Walk? Afolop 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC) There are 12 more to go in this group. Afolop 18:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The names of the individual pieces will automatically be searchable to anyone using the search box within 24 hours, if not sooner. Incidentally, please note the changes I've made to the headings on the Hilton page, which have to be in the correct format to be read automatically by our system.
Regarding the titles of works, the Library of Congress Authority file can be helpful in deciding the 'official' title, and this is their record for this particular piece, just under the title "Ayres". It might be moved there by IMSLP's categorization team we they reach this page, as further checking usually happens at that stage. Although the very large number of WIMA submissions over the last week means it could take a while us to catch up, we will get there :-) — P.davydov 20:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the of use different formats used in the arrangements for:

Ayres or Fa Las for 3 voices (Hilton, John) and
Fantasias for 2 Viols (Gibbons, Orlando)

when one has subtitles for each piece and the other only incorporates titles within the Complete Score description. When do I use one and when the other? Afolop 10:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If the arrangements relate to the whole work, then the layout for the Gibbons page is preferred. When we last discussed the Hilton page you'd only uploaded a couple of extracts, and I explained what to do in those circumstances (without knowing that the whole work had been arranged). But that's no problem, and I'll amend the Hilton page accordingly — P.davydov 12:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Where would I find DuCaurroy? under Caurroy, under DuCaurroy, elsewhere. If he is not there already, in what form would I put the name? Afolop 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the composer with first name Eustache (1549-1609), then he should be "Du Caurroy, Eustache" (see VIAF, which can be helpful in these matters) — P.davydov 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My biggest problem is the IMSLP often doesn't adhere exactly to other standards, and my questions refer to a specific situation to see what the solution in this situation would be. In this case sometimes DuCaurroy is spelled as one word, sometimes with two. I don't find him in the IMSLP for either.

From the Composer page I see: "Note: Composers are not sorted on prepositions in surnames."

But I think you are saying I should initiate a Composer page for Du Caurroy, since I don't find one already there. My internet access is hung up right now, so I can't check again. Afolop 19:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you will need to create a new composer page for him, as we don't currently have any of his works on IMSLP — P.davydov 20:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Morley, Thomas

Here we go again. Let's start with the 2-part pieces. The 9 canzonets (for viols) are on his composer page as a collection. This not the original edition of 1593(?) I have separate versions, that are not really arrangements, of each. I wanted to try one to see how it goes but couldn't figure out how. Should they go in a specific order(I don't know the original order)? My versions should not go under the one already entered, because they both are sort of on a par, being both derived from earlier sources--which have not yet been entered on a work sheet, and I don't know enough about the sources to make a work sheet.

Further investigation shows that these 9 pieces are only part of the original publication, and I have the arrangements for viols for the rest of the pieces in the publication which were for voices. Somehow I feel that (total) set should be under the whole original publication. But there should be some sort of a connection between my pieces for viols and the current group already listed. Can it get more complicated?? Afolop 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have put one piece in as a trial. By the way, the question mark was part of the original title. It was used there to indicate the pieces that were for viols alone. Afolop 17:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The same thing is coming up soon for A Plain and Easy Introduction to Practical Music (not Morley's spelling). My versions are derived from earlier sources than the existing work sheet.

There are more. Afolop 13:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is where the Library of Congress site I mentioned earlier comes into play. Put "Morley, Thomas" into the search box, and you'll get a list of his main works in alphabetical order, and click on any one of them to see the standardized title used by English-speaking libraries. In this case it is "Canzonets, voices (2)" (since there apparently wasn't a second book of canzonets!). IMSLP uses different punctuation than the libraries for technical reasons, so our page title would be "Canzonets for 2 voices".
When you're dealing with excerpts from this or any other works start with "====Selections====" (with 4 equals signs) for any files which contain two or more different sections of the original work. Give the contents of each file in the file description, rather than the file heading. Files relating to single sections of the original work come underneath the selections, with the same heading level "====First Section====", for example.
I appreciate all this probably seems very technical (if a little archane), and it's a real crash course in a system that IMSLP has evolved over several years. It might not be immediately apparent why we do things in a particular way, but there are usually very good reasons :-) — P.davydov 18:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But the basic collection on the work sheet isn't divided into sections; it is just a series of individual compositions, some of which are in the item under "selections", and the rest of the files will relate to individual compositions, including a different edition of those also included in the item under 'selections'. There is no group to list under 'First section'; only individual pieces. I have changed it. Is that what you mean? Would each succeeding piece then get a numbered section identifier? This seems a little too much. Afolop 01:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be more specific about which work page you're talking about, so I can see for myself? Thanks — P.davydov 08:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In all of the matters (so far) in this section headed 'Morley, Thomas' I am referring to the work page:

The First Booke of Canzonets to Two Voyces (Morley, Thomas) Afolop 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, this work page will contain all and any of the individual pieces that were originally published in that collection. So that's the whole book, as well as individual pieces that have been separately transcribed.
Complete collections always come first, so the first question is "Will your files represent all the pieces from the first book of canzonets?" — P.davydov 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now added an arrangement to:

Canzonets, or Little Short Songs to Three Voyces (Morley, Thomas)

Is its form OK? Afolop 14:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine as it is — P.davydov 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If life were simple! With regard to your answer to the Hilton question. There I am not sure I have the whole book, but I think so. Changing that will require changing each of the individual piece names to put them in the complete score file, will it not? That is the amount of editing that I am trying to avoid. 1. Here in Morley 2-part I do have the whole book; those in the first edition (=the work page) plus six more from the second edition which don't belong to the item on the work page. Then what? 2. In a number of future composers I won't know if I have complete contents of a volume. Then what? 3. Is there a difference if my pieces are editions or arrangements?

In all cases can you use the layout you followed with Ayres for 2 Viols (Gibbons, Christopher), i.e. with the title of the section before the words "Complete Score"? Preface the first file in the series with the heading "====Selections====", and only change this to "====Complete====" as and when the last part of the whole work is added. You can use this procedure for original works and arrangements, making sure that selections appear below any complete scores already present on the page. Does that make sense? — P.davydov 17:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have started to enter some more of the Morley arrangements. If I understand the comments above here; the way I had entered item 1 was OK, but you want me to enter pieces from now on in the format I have used in the next two items. Is that right? Afolop 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just edited this page so the layout should now be correct, if you could keep following it? Just let me know if anything isn't clear — P.davydov 15:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still having trouble with my internet connection. It works very sporadically with a couple of my PCs. It works much more reliably with my MAC laptop! Afolop 16:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that does it. Thanks so very much for being so patient.

A general note

Representatives from WIMA and IMSLP have been reviewing the way that the transfer's been working so far, and it's become apparent that one aspect of IMSLP's working methods may not have come across very clearly to WIMA contributors. Normally IMSLP contributors upload their files, sometimes after first creating pages for works and/or their composers. Then these submissions are reviewed for copyright by IMSLP admins, who ensure that the title, headings and section contents are correct, and who may also add other information about the work if it's missing.

We now realise that WIMA contributors may be under the impression that they're supposed to do everything themselves, including worrying about the headings, etc., when in fact all this is routinely taken care of by IMSLP admins. I might have unwittingly encouraged you to think this with my earlier postings here, but so long as you are able to upload the files to the right pages, and their descriptions are clear (so we can tell arrangements from original works, for example), you don't need to worry about any of the rest. Our copyright team have to check and approve every single file that's added to IMSLP, and it's at this stage that the page layout is tidied up, if necessary. Of course you're welcome to take an interest in how things work, but it's not a pre-requisite for transferring your files, and I'm sorry if I've led you to think otherwise — P.davydov 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If I can do it, I would like to make my uploads so that they don't require a lot of editing. Moving names between file descriptions and separate headings seems a little chancy at times. Including complete madrigal names (coming in the future) within individual score file descriptions seems awkward. But I will do whatever you suggest in these regards. Afolop 16:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gastoldi - error

I made a mistake in the last two parts for Fantasia No. 6 for the Fantasias for 2 viols. The titles are in the right place, but the musical parts in them have been inadvertently interchanged. How do I fix it? Who do I tell? Is there a place in the files themselves? or what? Afolop 18:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a way, and it's easier to show you rather than to explain. If you click here, you'll see the changes highlighted in red. It's fixed now, so you don't need to do anything else, but it will give you an idea of the procedure should it happen again — P.davydov 20:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Another error -- Michael East Fantasias for 3 viols is obviously for only 2 viols. The 3-part ones are yet to come. Afolop 10:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lawes, William

Somehow the Suite No.2 for 2 viols and organ shows up under editions and under arrangements. I believe it should not be under arrangements; just editions. Afolop 20:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is because you included the following line:
... which credits you as the arranger. I've changed this to:
... so you're now the editor. It's the bit after the word "Link" that determines the category, regardless of what comes before it. If you don't want to be either the editor or arranger, use {{LinkName| instead. Hope this helps — P.davydov 07:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lassus - Cantiones

I believe this is the whole set of these. However, I just realized that 1-12 had texts and thus mine are arrangements; 13-24 had no text, so they are editions. Should they have come first in the order on the work page? Afolop 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As this is one complete score, then you could just put a note in the "Misc. Notes" field of the edition. Excellent work with the linking and cross-references, BTW! — P.davydov 07:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm astounded when I look at these duets now. I didn't have them identified by text, but someone must have found a way to do it. The same situation confronts me with the 3-part pieces by Lassus. I have one set of them identified by words (about 26) and a similar set (about 21)identified only by number as "Fantasia No.1", etc. Should I just enter them as a batch and trust one more knowledgeable sort them out? I don't think I have the information to do better. In doing them I was only interested in getting some music to play with viols without much regard to their original form. I feel sort of guilty about this whole situation. Afolop 02:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the RISM online catalogue? It's possible to search by text and/or composer, as well as by key, tempo markings, and even incipits. This might help you identify the standard titles for many of the works in question — P.davydov 05:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that again I did not make my point. I do not feel that the individual identification does anything more than make my music harder to find by the people it is intended for. I say again: Should I just enter them as a batch and trust one more knowledgeable sort them out? or...? Afolop 11:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Our categorization system will let anyone find your arrangements for viols, but it is important to identify the works accurately. If you're reluctant to create separate pages for each work, you could put them all together one one page as a temporary measure, but then someone else will have to separate them later — P.davydov 11:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The system is fine for someone looking for a specific piece (one that he knows of). I guess my problem is that I don't see how an outsider, looking for music for two viols, would run across these pieces without going through a daunting series of links that don't even mention viols. When he runs across the extensive confusion between viola, violin and viol in these links I think he would look somewhere else. I don't even know how to get to the category of my collection of viol music from the IMSLP main page. Yes, I am reluctant to spend the extensive time and effort to try to identify selections that I know of only by general terms such as duet or fantasia. Sorry to be so negative in my outlook.

Will troubles never cease??? I started transferring the 3-part Lassus, and after 6 of them, upon checking I found I had omitted one part for each of the first 2 pieces. I have done some fancy trial editing and think they are now OK with all their parts, but would you check to see that I have not left anything messed up? Afolop 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Typo! The name of the piece is Parsley's Clock. Sorry Afolop 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Already fixed. Time waits for no man :-) — P.davydov 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


I am ready to enter the selection of Marezio's Villanelle that I have. The numbering and order of the pieces in my source which I have used differs from that in the original, several volumes of which are already in IMSLP. (The numbers in the orignal are page numbers rather than sequence numbers.) I feel it is necessary to keep my numbers in the titles of the viol arrangements so that users can associate them with the pieces after they have been printed out. Is it all right to enter the pieces in the order I have them, with the numbers that I have on them retained in the titles? They will have to be split up because various ones are from different volumes of the original. I have 50 pieces and that is only a frction of those in the original. Afolop 17:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Have I understood you correctly that the pieces in the original Villanelles are normally identified by book and page numbers, but you've used your own numbers in your collection? If that's right then I don't think it will be a problem, so long as you mention the original book/page numbering somewhere in the descriptions to your scores, but if I've misunderstood then please set me straight — P.davydov 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we are pretty close in understanding the situation. Except I have no idea how the pieces are "normally" identified because I have never seen anyone refer to them. And the numbers I have used are those used in my source, a 17th century handwritten manuscript which does not mention a source. Afolop 11:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to follow your source without worrying about the existing pages for the Villanelles — P.davydov 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As you say Time waits for no man :-) I have already gotten a dozen of them entered. Afolop 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


With the new indexing that has been introduced I am feeling a great deal better about how people will be able to find things. Many thanks to all concerned! Afolop 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

copyright notice

Smoething has happened to the template for the copyright notice. See Locke - Flatt Consort and Holmes Airs Afolop 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bevin, Elway

Here is a new one. The previous version and mine are essentially the same except I have two versions of the middle part. How do we include both versions but still keep them apart? Afolop 10:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The previous score (by Heinrich Alpers) was for 3 unspecified instruments (which I'm led to believe was the original instrumentation — is that correct?), so I've added yours underneath as an arrangement for 4 viols. Please set me straight if I've misunderstood — P.davydov 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know the source of my version. It is not an arrangement. As I was afraid, it might be interpreted on quick glance as being for 4 viols, but it is really for 3 viols, there being an alternate clef for the middle part. I don't know the source of the other version either, but I suspect it was actually from a source related to viols. The versions are essentially the same. Afolop 10:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you have been specific that your version is for viols (now corrected to "3"), and the original work so far as we know doesn't specify the instrumentation (which could be for any combination of alto, tenor and bass instruments), I think that strictly speaking we have to consider your version as an "arrangement". However, our cataloguing system should make it simple to find for anyone looking either for pieces for 3 viols, or pieces for open instrumentation that might be played on 3 viols, if you see what I mean? — P.davydov 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Suite No.5 for 3 Viols (Carwarden, John)

Hello again. Could you take a look at the "Treble1" and "Treble2" files under VdGS No.25, as they appear to be identical (i.e. not duplicates, but pointing to the very same file on the server). Thanks — P.davydov 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! You are right. I messed up, but I think I have it straight now. I hope I haven't left anything else awry here. With all of this transferring I am doing (something about 25,000 individual files I believe), I wonder how many other places I have hidden an error. Afolop 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, and rest assured that no-one would expect the transfer of 25,000 files to be withou the odd glitch or two  :-) — P.davydov 17:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Crueger motets

I have a set of 17 motets arranged for viols. I think they should be kept together rather than listing each under the motet name. Could you suggest a title? "Motets for 3 Viols" ? "Motets Arranged for 3 Viols" ? ? ? There is no composer page yet; how do I get the umlaut over the "u"? There are two versions of most of them: the original key and then a key more suitable for viols. Any suggestions for organization of this are welcome. Afolop 18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to have a separate page for each motet, you could create Motets (Crüger, Johann) and put them there, all under "Arrangements and Transcriptions". Feel free to copy and paste the composer name when you need the umlaut :-) — P.davydov 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Afolop, whenever you choose the button "edit", there appears below a field with many different letters and characters. You may use it by copy and paste. Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ralph! Does the field you are talking about start "{{...." and end with "page" (in the first line)? And isn't the end of it at the very end of everything at the bottom line -- ending with a "}}"? I would be afraid that would transfer the whole page and all the "work info" and other stuff I don't need and don't know the effects of. In this case I needed only to transfer one set of files (I thought). Afolop 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it starts with Copy and paste: – — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: --Ralph Theo Misch 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about the umlaut. I see what you mean now. I was looking for a way to enter it in the initial entry. I didn't think about going back to edit it afterwards. Thanks. Afolop 21:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what I was referring. Sorry! All the best! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a trial entry of the first motet. What do you think of it? I see that in the original edition I did not always make a score. Afolop 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be better without the headings for the original and transposed versions, and instead to put these and the keys in the file descriptions, e.g. "Complete score - Original version (B minor)" and "Complete score - Transposed version (E minor)". Will there be a full score in every case, or do some files only have parts? — P.davydov 21:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had hesitated to use key labels because the terms major and minor had not been developed at the time these pieces were written, but I suppose it would be best to use the modern terms now. Not all of the original versions have scores, the collection has only parts for some of them. In these cases, where should the key labels be placed? --in the first part listed? This has turned out to be far more complicated than I had anticipated. Afolop 22:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Where there is no score, putting the version after the Treble1 makes it look as if it is only that part that is in that version. Putting the version label before the Treble1 label seems to indicate better that it is everything following that is of that version. But that makes the whole process inconsistent! Quandry. Afolop 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the page to try one possible solution. What do you think? — P.davydov 06:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Now, if I can keep all of my files separate, I am ready to go on. Thanks. Afolop 10:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A Policeman's Lot for 3 viols (Sullivan, Arthur)

Just a reminder that extracts always go on the page for the main work, which in this case is The Pirates of Penzance (Sullivan, Arthur). Could you move it there under "Arrangements and Transcriptions"? Thanks — P.davydov 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have moved the page now and I am supposed to tag the page "with the special Delete template" which I haven't found in my toolbox. Afolop 21:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to be an administrator to delete pages, but we do a "redirect" in these cases (as you'll see if you go back to the page you created). I've altered the headings on the Pirates page, with the name of the extract ("A Policeman's Lot") having four equals signs, and the instrumentation and your name as the arranger with 5 equals signs, in case you encounter a similar situation in future — P.davydov 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am completely lost now. The place where the viol music now sits under the Pirates.... has lost its identification with the Policemen's... and for a minute I saw the Policeman title showing up on the main Pirates page. Do I have to do anything more to straighten it out? Afolop 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The contents section of the Pirates page includes:
2.3 Arrangements and Transcriptions
2.3.1 Selections For Piano 4 hands (Cramer)
2.3.2 Overture For Piano 4 hands (Hurley) For Piano solo (Tours)
2.3.3 A Policeman's Lot For 3 Viols (Folop)
So your arrangement for 3 viols comes under the sub-heading "A Policeman's Lot", just as Hurley's and Tours' arrangements of the overture are shown under the sub-heading for the overture. So the structure is Arrangements and Transcriptions > Extract > Instruments (Arranger). I hope that's a bit clearer — P.davydov 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Much clearer and a great relief. Thanks again. Afolop 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the basic principles to keep in mind is that work pages are always for the original version of the work as written by the composer. Even arrangements made by the composer himself go under the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" category. This can be a little difficult with the older composers from the Renaissance since they often did not specify instrumentation. Nevertheless, when you have motets by a composer like Johannes Crüger which were originally for voices, the work page should not be titled "Motets for Viols" as the settings for viols are arrangements. Carolus 21:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


I am lost again. While I was entering some pieces by Jenkins, the work page disappeared. I was alerted that there was a: Fatal Error: Unrecognizable page 'Airs for 3 Viols (treble, tenor, bass) (Jenkins, John)'. Jenkins has a very long list of 3-part airs--confusing enough to be too long to go into a single list. They can be partially broken down by instrumentation and by other distinctions by the VdGS. Some are for Tr T B, many are for Tr Tr B and the VdGS has used several ways of grouping sets with various sorts of similarities. Sometimes they just set off a list that corresponds to the group in one of the manuscripts. I have tried to get guidance on how to show such distinctions. What do I do now? Afolop 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that error was caused by the page being moved after you submitted the first two batches (to be in accordance with the style guide) - it's still there at Airs for 3 Viols (Jenkins, John). If the VdGS puts them into different large groups, then perhaps it would be better to actually use their numberings in page titles? The instrumentation could perhaps be more clearly realized without the parentheses, as well - I think that's the main thing that caused a conflict with the style guide. So the title would look more like 'Airs for Treble, Tenor and Bass Viols, VdGS Nos.XXX-XXX', unless the VdGS recycles their numbers for each set? Thanks, KGill talk email 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem arises when there are too many works by a composer with the same title, and no way to designate them as separate works. Jenkins is a particularly nasty case, as you no doubt are well aware. Here is a fast copy and paste from Grove -
  • 12 fantasias, 2 tr viols, 2 t viols, 2 b viols, org; MB i; NA
  • 17 fantasias, 2 tr viols, 2 t viols, b viol, org; N
  • 17 fantasias, tr viol, a/t viol, t viol, b viol, org; 5 in MB ii
  • 27 fantasias, tr, 2 b viols, org; MB iii
  • 21 fantasias 2 tr, b viol, before 1650; MB iii; 7 ed. N. Dolmetsch, Sieben Fantasien, HM, cxlix (1957); 5 in W
  • Fantasia, tr, b viol, org; ed. P. Evans (London, 1958)
  • 2 In Nomines, 2 tr viols, 2 t viols, 2 b viols, org; MB, i; NA
  • 2 pavans, 2 tr viols, 2 t viols, 2 b viols, org; MB i; NA
  • 3 pavans, 2 tr viols, 2 t viols, b viol, org; N
  • Pavan, tr, 2 b viols, org; MB iii
  • 17 fantasia-suites, tr, b viol, org, Ob; 2 in W; 1 ed. C. Arnold (London, 1957); 1 ed. C. Field (London, 1976
  • 10 fantasia-suites, 2 tr, b viol, org, GB-Lbl
  • 9 fantasia-suites, tr, 2 b viols, org, Ob; 2 ed. A. Ashbee (St Albans, n.d.)
  • 2 fantasia-suites, b viol, tr, org (1 inc.); ed. A. Ashbee (Albany 1991)
  • 8 fantasia-suites, 2 tr, 2 b viols, bc (org); MB ii
  • 7 fantasia-air division sets, 2 tr, b viol, org; ed. R.A. Warner, Three-Part Fancy and Ayre Divisions, WE, x (1966, rev. 2/1993 by A. Ashbee as Seven Fancy-Ayre Division Suites)
  • 15 fantasia-air sets, 2 tr, b viol, bc (org), Lbl, Ob); 3 in W
  • 10 fantasia-suites, 3 tr, b viol, bc (org), c1660, D-Hs, GB-Lbl
  • 7 divisions and a preludium, b viol, Lcm, Ob, US-NYp
  • 26 Fantasias, airs and divisions, 2 b viols, some with bc (8 inc.), GB-CKc, DRc Lcm, Ob (3 facs. (Peer, 1993)), Och; 1 ed. D. Beecher and B. Gillingham, Divisions in A minor (Ottowa, 1979); 6 ed. D. Beecher and B. Gillingham, 6 Airs and Divisions for 2 Bass Viols and Keyboard (Ottowa, 1979); 2 ed. D. Beecher and B. Gillingham, Jenkins, Whyte and Coleman: 5 dvos for 2 bass viols (Ottowa, 1979); 2 ed. D. Beecher and B. Gillingham, John Jenkins: Divisions for 2 bass viols and keyboard (Ottowa, 1979)
  • 15 fantasias and airs, 2 b viols, bc, DRc, En, Lbl, US-u
  • 48 airs, 2 tr, 2 b viols, org, some in D-Hs; 32 in MB ii
  • c52 airs, tr, tr/a, t, b; 12 in MB ii; 5 in W; 18 ed. A. Ashbee, 18 Four-Part Airs (St Albans, 1992); 34 ed. D. Pinto, Aires for Four-Part Consort (St Albans, 1992)
  • c168 airs, 2 tr, b viol, some with hpd and/or theorbo lute, principal sources GB-Lbl, Lcm, Mch, Ob, US-Cn; ed. A. Ashbee, (Albany, 1993)
  • 29 airs, tr, 2 b viols, NH, inc.
  • 2 airs, 2 tr, b viol, bc (org), GB-Lbl
  • 10 airs, tr viol, t viol, b viol, Lbl, Och, W
  • 3 airs, tr, 6 viol, org, Lcm, Ob
  • Air, vn, b viol, bc (org), DRc; ed. C. Arnold (London, 1958
  • c170 airs, tr, b viol, principal sources Lbl, Och, US-NH, some in 16516, 16555, 16628, 16784; some ed. A. Ashbee, John Jenkins: Selected Airs for Treble and Bass (St Albans, 1988)
  • 27 airs, tr viol, lyra viol, b viol, hpd; T
  • 18 airs, tr, lyra viol, b (?bc); T
  • 14 airs, vn, lyra viol, b viol, hpd; T
  • c60 airs for lyra consort, GB-Lbl, US-Cn, NH, inc.
  • c250 pieces for 1–3 lyra viols, some in 16516, 16527
So, I am wondering if the best way to handle the situation we have a present in the Ayres for 2 Viols where we now have 372 files on a single workpage is to employ the following schema for each one on its own work-page: [Title] in [Key] [mode], VdGS # (assuming that the VdGS numbers are not "recycled", as KGill mentioned). I'll bring this up also with p.davydov, who is our most experienced librarian, to see if this might be a workable solution. Carolus 00:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the VdGS numbers are indeed "recycled", i.e. they are numberings within each work, not across the whole of the composer's output. You can find the whole VdGS catalogue on their website, where the "Airs for 2 Viols" is treated as a single work in 168 parts! I think the best solution would be to keep a single page, but to merge the individual files, although I appreciate this would take a lot of work. Alternatively we could split the page so that we end up with "Ayres for 2 Viols (VdGS 1–50)", "Ayres for 2 Viols (VdGS 51-100)", or something similar. But for the moment Mr Folop might as well continue adding the rest of the files up to No.168, and then we'll be in better position to merge the files or split the page – P.davydov 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I have entered all of the 2-part pieces (I ope) that I have. I am now working on the 3-part pieces.

You have only a beginning of the complications. VdGS numbers are recycled, and frequently irregularly. Sometimes for specific composition types, such as Almaines, sometimes for specific composers, sometimes for specific instrumentations, sometimes apparently for specific manuscripts, etc. Frequently individual manuscripts have their own sequencing numbers. Many times VdGS numbers do not exist for specific compositions, or they are impossible to find because some later identification has been made of the composer, or an attribution is made to a different composer. There are long lists of compositions with the same "Title"; keys are sometimes an anachronism because modal scales were the norm at that time. The grouping characteristics are frequently quite subtle.


The specific problem in this case: Contributors are told to sort things in the best way they can figure out; enter them onto work pages, and administrators will sort them out in a way to match the IMSLP requirements. I spent half a day trying to organize these 3-part Jenkins items. I then started a work page for them and started to enter specific compositions. When I tried to enter the third one, the work page was no longer there. It had been deleted. I could not enter the piece because I got an error alert that there was no such page. My work on it was blocked. I couldn't even get to a place to enter some editorial matters that could not be entered from the work page entry form. Any distinction I was trying to make was completely erased. There was no point on my continuing.

- The research you are suggesting for each piece will take, according to a rough estimate, perhaps the next 4 years of my entire working time. And the result seems to be unusable for the people the edition was prepared for; it is too complicated and is organized by information they will not use in their search. Viol players frequently look first an number of instruments, and then specific instrumentation which gives them the approximate range of the part (because many parts can be played by several instrument choices depending on the range). Frequently only then does the composer become a factor, because so many of the composers' names are quite unknown to the players. They are frequently on the lookout for a new piece, unknown to them, and specific titles, particularly for arrangements, are unknown.


WHAT DO I DO NOW? Afolop 09:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Albert. Firstly, do not panic :-) My colleagues are trying to be helpful, but they are unfamiliar with the VdGS numbering system, which I had the chance to look at when you first brought up the subject. Please carry on with the method you were using before, and do not worry. Thanks — P.davydov 09:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the shouting. I am interested in knowing how to make entries that are not lost or aborted by changes being made to the work page while I am contributing to it. It has happened before. Also, I am still not sure what form to use for individual pieces: should the titles go in the File description entry or should it be made (edited) into a subheading as has been done with the Jenkins Airs for 3 viols, but not some others previously entered.

The pages you worked on shouldn't have been deleted, but instead they would have been moved (renamed) to ensure consistency with the title, usually to capitalize the "v" in viols. If this happens, try refreshing the page you're working on, and you should then be redirected to the renamed page.

I still have several groups of pieces that fit the general category of Airs for 3 viols but I feel should be listed by group because of similarities in instrumentation or manuscript grouping, i.e. there is a group of Tr T B pieces (which I had started), then there are several manuscript groupings of pieces for Tr Tr B, and then there is a miscellaneous group, all Airs for 3-viols. In general, I do not have any complete collection of all the pieces listed in the VdGS Index for any of the groups of any categories listed there. I have just a miscellaneous collection of pieces picked up here and there from various manuscripts. When they have grouped them, I usually group them. How can I do this? Afolop 10:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be easier to get a feel for the problem if you could give me an example of one such group and its contents? – P.davydov 11:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a group of Jenkins for Tr Tr B with manuscript sequence numbers shown, all of these have VdGS numbers also:

  • Ayre #1
  • Ayre #5 - Courant
  • Ayre #6 - Saraband
  • Ayre #7 - Maske
  • Ayre #8 - Courant
  • Ayre #9 - Saraband
  • Ayre #12 - Courant
  • Ayre #15
  • Ayre #16
  • Ayre #17 - Courant
  • Ayre #18 - Almaine
  • Ayre #19 - Courant
  • Ayre #20
  • Ayre #21
  • Ayre #22
  • Ayre #23 - Saraband
  • Ayre #24
  • Ayre #25

The numbers are as shown and are not completely sequential in the ms. Note that without the numbers shown, nos. 1,15,16,20,21,22,24,25 would have identical names. The missing numbers may have been by other composers--I don't have the information at hand. Some of the items listed are also in other manuscripts, with of course different sequence numbers. Afolop 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC) And then there is a Corant from a different ms. that has a VdGS number within the sequence range of the others; including it would give a continuous sequence of VdGS numbers. Afolop 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the VdGS catalogue at [1], can you identify which these are for me by referring to their page numbers (e.g. "Jenkins-34") shown either in the bottom left or bottom right? Thanks for your patience — P.davydov 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

All are on page Jenkins-43, VdGS Nos. 85 - 103. My next group start at 104; note the change in ms. at that point. Some things later on are not so regular. Afolop 13:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. The VdGS cataloguing system is very thorough, and we're not likely to do any better, so it seems a good idea to stick as closely to their groupings as possible. That would mean that your scores from this collection would ideally go one page called "Airs for 2 Treble and Bass Viols (Jenkins, John)", to distinguish them from those for T Tr B on pages 34-35 ("Airs for Tenor, Treble and Bass Viols"). The VdGS numbers would be preferable, as opposed to the original sequence in the manuscript. It doesn't matter that there will be gaps, or that the 84 Newberry Airs might already have their own page. Would that resolve the issues with this group of scores, or can you foresee any complications that I've overlooked (which is quite possible!) — P.davydov 15:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this pretty much resolves this set. I have however continued to enter them on the current (previous?) page and have finished that. By the way, the ones on page 34-35 are for Treble, tenor, bass, as the general information sections says. These are the ones I had entered earlier and are now at the top of the list. I tried to separate the two groups on this page before I got your message. Am I supposed to make the changes to the ones I have now already entered? Afolop 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought things were resolved, but looking back over previous conversations I see the although we are back to square one to separate pages by instrumentation as I started out, there are still uncertainties about IMSLP requirements. I see that contributors are not supposed to be changing page names after administrators have changed them. I am also wary about getting into a contest with two people trying to make changes to the same page at the same time. My latest entries are apparently now on the wrong page. I think I'll just sit this one out until things settle down. Afolop 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought the problem with entering both sets of Jenkins' works for 3 violas on the same page was that they had overlapping VdGS numbers, and you had no method of otherwise identifying them, so my suggestion for putting instrumentation in the titles was a way to distinguish between the two sets. This does not mean that you should routinely include the instrumentation in every page title.
While I understand that you have a lot of files to upload and you want to press on, it would be helpful if you could allow at least a few hours for an admin to see and reply to your questions. Thanks — P.davydov 17:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Albert, Take a careful look at how I have now organized the page for the Airs for 3 Viols. This is a workable solution for the time being as you'll note that navigation to the desired work is now possible with the "Contents" listing at the top of the page, but still falls within the IMSLP rules for use of headers, etc. Hopefully, we'll be able to a) combine these so that are only the two major sections (A and B) with complete scores and parts combined for each, along with individual work pages for each of the items in the huge collection if someone ultimately comes up with a system of catalog numbers for Jenkins' works. Also, to second what P.davydov mentioned above. This is not a dire emergency. It's much easier to add things gradually and carefully consider how to organize the huge amount of important material we're dealing with here than to create massive reorganization work after the fact. The WIMA project is expected to take months to complete - not two weeks! You're doing a great job of basic uploading so just be patient with the admins as they consider how to set this up so that things can be integrated with the other 105,000 files on the wiki. Best Wishes, Carolus 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand that this whole project is still under development, in part because of the many newly met situations my collection presents. My concern (and pressure, to be sure) is how I should format my entries and when necessary generate new pages. One problem is that I don't know in many cases how the pieces were originally published, and indeed, some have never been published, so I am looking for details on how I format such entries. I am completely comfortable with many of my contributions being entered as arrangements; I believe I entered the Crũger items as such at the start. One detail I am still uncertain of is whether the title of a set should appear in the File Description of the complete score or above the set as a subtitle. Both forms appear in the items entered to date. I am happy with any format that has been used for my contributions so far. But I hope the work title in the General Information block for the Jenkins Airs can be modified to avoid saying that all of the airs are for treble, tenor, and bass viols because some of them are explicitly for treble, treble, bass. I am reluctant to change any of the accommodations the admins have made to my entries. I will continue to enter my contributions in the best way I know how. Thanks for your consideration. Afolop 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One of things that's confusing you is that some of the copyright review team simply tags the items and leaves them to later admins to organize the information correctly - thus creating inconsistency which probably confuses you. Your just-now uploads of Vincenzo Calilei's Ricercare is an example of what I was referring to above about not doing things too fast. For example, I organized to first item you uploaded under the correct heading (assuming for a minute that the Ricercars were originally for viols) and labeled everything. I come back a minute later and Nos.2 and 3 are above No.1. Did you not update your browser's cache? The best procedure is to upload your first item and wait a while for an admin to tag it (and hopefully assign the correct headers, etc.). When you return to the page, simply follow the patter you see. Carolus 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Carolus, I realize I've been the perpetrator on more than one occasion - sorry about that. I do try to reorganize the pages whenever I can, but sometimes with those pages that have 400 files on them with none really stylistically correct it can feel a little hopeless to try to correct it all :-) (I do also realize that I was probably responsible for letting more than one of those mega-pages fall by the wayside...) KGill talk email 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

When I enter a group such is these, I have to do some editing on each one to complete the entry as well as entering such items as "Transcriptions...". It is easier if I enter the rough copy of each of the sets and then edit them all at once. This is the problem I have had before when someone starts changing my entries before I am done with them. I have tried entering just one or two at previous occasions and am met with the comment that the admin does not know how to handle it util he sees the complete set. So again we seem to be working at cross purposes. Afolop 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that there are some cases where it is actually better for us to wait until you've finished, especially when you're uploading arrangements for different groups on the same page. However, the editing you did here was not successful (and has now been corrected). Another important thing to keep in mind for arrangements is that you have to employ the 5-equal header for designating the ensemble (e.g. =====For 4 viols (Folop)=====), while the designation for individual movements or pieces within a larger work is done with a 4-equal header. This enables the system to correctly read the instrumentation for the CW (Category Walker). Carolus 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a little slow in getting the feel for this. Is this correct: If the whole group of pieces have the same number of viols, the For X viols comes first for the whole group and the individual titles are then below below that with the next level of indexing; and if the individual titles have different numbers of viols, the number of viols come under the individual name. If that is so, the lowest would have 5==s and the level above would have 4==s? or??? Afolop 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bateson, madrigals for four viols

More complication: I have a set of viol arrangements for Bateson's 4-part madrigals--complete, I think. There is a work page for the complete madrigals and there are separate work pages for several of them. If I can put the entire set of viol arrangements under the complete set of madrigals, it will keep them together. If I have to put the arrangements for the individual madrigals under the individual pages, and the ones without individual pages under the complete collection, it will scatter the viol arrangements and make them hard to consider as a group. If another madrigal is given a separate page at some future time, this would require breaking up the viol group also. I would prefer keeping the viol arrangements under the collected edition as the 3-part arrangements have done. How do I handle this? Afolop 17:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to put them all on the page for the complete madrigals, someone else can move them if necessary at a later time. Thanks — P.davydov 18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Further to my point under the Sullivan thread above. Bateson's madrigals were for voices - though they may well have been doubled in whole or part by viols and even performed as viol ensemble pieces in the composer's lifetime. Carolus 21:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Coleman, Charles

I have an additional set of 24 airs for 3 viols by Charles Coleman from a different ms. than the one currently entered. They have their own ms. sequence numbers, mostly but not entirely, sequential in two ranges. Keys are not identified. They are not separately grouped by VdGS but they do have VdGS nos. which vary all over the place. I plan to enter the group in the order they appear in the ms. along with the ms. sequence numbers. Typical identification would be

No.4 Almaine, VdGS no.314
How should I separate the new group from the group already entered? Afolop 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
What we have to consider, as cataloguers, is how people are likely to identify and search for individual works. In the case of Coleman's works for viols (and a lot of other composers), this will be by VdGS number, rather than any other system, so I think the best solution would be for all the pieces on this page were arranged by their unique VdGS number, so that the pieces from your additional set would be merged with the previous set, and sorted by their VdGS, like this:
"[Corant] in F major, VdGS No.205"
"Saraband in F major, VdGS No.206"
"Aire in B♭ major, VdGS No.387"
"Corant in B♭ major, VdGS No.388"
So the numbering you've given to the pieces within both your sets wouldn't be mentioned on the work page, but obviously your numbers will continue to appear in your editions, which is fine
All this is built on the assumption that the VdGS numbers for Coleman's works are unique, which seems be the case from the catalogue on their website — P.davydov 08:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, I don't agree with your premises. The users, that is the people these editions are designed for, are players looking for something new to play. They will very rarely, very rarely, look for VdGS numbers in a search. The are interested first in the word viols, the the number of voices, and along with that, the size of instrument, i.e. Tr, T, or B and combinations of these. They will sometimes look for a familiar composer name, but the whole point of including unknown names, is to expand their horizons beyond the known repertoire. This, by the way is a 17th century tradition and procedure; hence the popularity of madrigals with viol consorts in that day. This approach is facilitated by grouping pieces of similar characteristics, frequently found in one manuscript together; hence the use of ms. sequence numbers.
After repeating this many times over the past month I see that no one at IMSLP understands this and that my cause is hopeless. My transferring material is merely shifting it to avoid complete loss on the internet, only to place it in an atmosphere where the users can not find it. It was readily available and used worldwide during the year it was on WIMA, in a very usable form. I have to reconsider if my time is worth spending in the current useless endeavor. Incidentally, I find that using the category walker to find pieces for viols sometimes leads only to pages with the word viols in the page titles. Afolop 10:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, but please understand that with almost 120,000 scores in our virtual library, it is absolutely essential that we have a thorough and consistent cataloguing system that can locate works by their composer and title, as well as their instrumentation, arranger, editor, etc. We want people to be able to find your scores both by browsing for pieces played by combinations of violas, as well as people who have come across specific pieces of music by Coleman, or Weelkes, etc., and who would be delighted to find arrangements whose existence they never imagined.
Our cataloguing system is no less than you should expect from a physical library in the real world, and in fact it's far more flexible, having been specially designed for the purpose. If your scores were printed out and given, say, to the New York Public Library, you would have no say at all in how they were described or catalogued, which may well just be a generic "Pieces. Viola (arr)", without details of composers or titles or instrumentation. We do much more than that, and although you might be used to doing things differently with WIMA, I hope you will have confidence in the cataloguers and music librarians here to make sure your scores can be found by the widest possible audience.
Because your contributions have been so prolific over the last few weeks, we haven't yet caught up with them all, so many remain uncatalogued (hence the reason they aren't showing up in the category walker yet). It's sometimes easy to forget that all the administrators (like me) are unpaid volunteers giving up their free time, united only by our mutual love of music, which in the end is what it's all about :-) — P.davydov 11:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying in answer to my problems and about the in progress status of the WIMA to IMSLP transfer. But I don't think you understand what I am really talking about. So, let me give you an example:

1. go to the WIMA site
2. click on the viol collection. It is on the left hand side, very much as WIMA is on IMSLP. You are confronted by a list of composers. Not a lot of extraneous, misleading, and erroneous data (example: using the Category walker for my collection I am led. among other possibilities to "For 1 player". This would be a unique viol consort. Pursuing this action further I am led to a huge page of organ music, with no way possible to find the relationship to viol music.) To return to the WIMA page, on the lower part of the page is also a list of various instrumentations.
3. click on a composer and you are confronted by a list of all of his compositions. End of search. Not a VdGS number is seen, needed, nor used.

This is the indexing my users need.
I don't really see any direction of effort toward making my music findable. And the most alarming thing I see is the use of the word "viola" in the discussions and effort. You might just as well use the word "sousaphone"
I also understand your situation as a volunteer in this effort. My entire contribution has been in this status, and I see more than forty years of my effort smothered or disappearing in the current process. Afolop 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for typing "viola" twice above instead of "viols". If your scores share a page with other editions, then these will show up in the indexes as well, simply because the indexes point to the page, not to the individual score. But links to your entire personal collection can be found at Category:Folop Viol Music Collection, and a list of all the pages containing works you have arranged and edited is at Category:Folop, Albert. There's also Category:Scores featuring the viol, and lists of works originally composed for 2 viols, 3 viols, 4 viols and 5 viols, and scores that have been arranged for 2 viols, 3 viols, 4 viols and 5 viols.
Furthermore, all the text on the pages is searchable, so if you put "Coleman VdGS No.205" in the search box and click on "Search", you will find Airs for 3 Viols (Coleman, Charles) right at the top of the list of search results. If you put "Treble viol, tenor viol, bass viol" in the search box, this will bring up a list of the works with that combination of instruments. And all our pages are indexed highly by Google, which is another way of people finding the site, so there really are any number of ways for people to find your scores.
You've uploaded a few thousand scores in a relatively short time, which has been a challenge for all of us, and it would be a great pity if all that work went to waste. Could I suggest a pause and cooling off period, which would allow the categorization team to catch up, and give time for further reflection? — P.davydov 16:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop sending scores over. But I still see a lack of understanding of what I am saying. I have, never, never, never heard of a viol player entering a VdGS number into a search box to find something to play. Just enter "viol" into the instrumentation/genre search box and enjoy the list of 1092 responses: For bassoon and violin???????????? I would appreciate some indication of when I should resume transferring files; I have about 2000 more compositions to go. Afolop 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The search you mentioned picks up anything containing the letters "viol", including violins and violas. I'll raise that with the technical people, but you'll get a more helpful response by typing "viols" there instead. I take your point that you expect viol players to be able to browse a list of works for the viol to find anything that looks interesting to play, and I hope I've shown that this is already possible through the various ways mentioned above. But our experiences here at IMSLP show very clearly that people do not search in a single uniform manner, and they need to be able to browse by composers, titles, instrumentation, arrangers, librettists, catalogue numbers, genres, dates, or even country of origin, so our cataloguing system has to provide for all these methods too.
Anyway, I think a break of 72 hours should allow things to settle, so uploading of your works could resume on Friday, provided that's convenient for you? In the meantime some of my colleagues may be able to answer the questions about copyright you asked further down this page — P.davydov 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I just put "treble viol, treble viol, bass viol" into the instrumentation search box. The results:

0 matches found.
Search keyword(s): "treble", "viol,", "treble", "viol,", "bass", "viol". Afolop 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about the search box on the main page, or the sidebar, which search the whole text of every page — P.davydov 18:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It never occurred to me to search with a detailed input so early at the site. I did not, and I am not sure how many people would recognize the magnifying glass as a search box identifier. Perhaps the word "search" in or near the box would help. Or perhaps just moving the sidebar search box up enough to be visible on the initial page display. When you are not expecting it, having to scroll down to see it will make many people miss it.

I also see that the search engines can work with the instrument abbreviations (tr t b). I think I will start including them. It seems the best place would be in the Misc Notes at the end of each piece. Would you recommend it being placed before or after the current note about WIMA? I am sure the people who would use it would recognize just including Tr Tr T B. Would it need parentheses or any other identification for IMSLP purposes?

For works that were originally composed for viols, the best place would be in the "Instrumentation" field near the bottom of the work page, so you'd have:
| Instrumentation=3 viols (Tr T B)
For works that were originally written for other forces, which you have arranged for viols, the best place is in the file descriptions for the complete scores (e.g. "Complete score (Tr T B viols)"). On pages where you have lots of arrangements for the same combinations, you could just label the first complete score in that way, as it only needs to be present once to be picked up in a search. It can take Google 2 or 3 days to index new entries, so they might not show up right away — P.davydov 11:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Things are looking better all the time. I recognize that the detailed formats are necessary for such a large site. It will just take a little instruction and guidance for newcomers like me to be able to use them. Afolop 13:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that the documentation isn't adequate, probably beacuase none of us here are particularly gifted at writing clear and concise explanations. We will have to do something about it — P.davydov 11:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Weelkes, Thomas, First set of madrigals

Are the subheadings correct for the arrangements for 3 viols? I hesitate to change things which may have been set up already. And I don't want to add the ones for 4 viols until I know things are correct. I suspect the correct entries should be

"====For 3 viols===="
"=====Sit Down and Sing=====" Afolop 23:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. instrumentation heading always has 5 "=" signs, and the work section headings (including "Complete") have 4. So I've swapped the two headings round to their correct position. The rest of the page layout is fine as you had it. Could you make sure to use "Viols" (with an initial capital) instead of "viols" when it occurs in a page title or section heading? Thanks — P.davydov 07:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

copyright question

I have received an email from a person saying that they are going to print out the pdf files and distribute (i.e. publish?) some of the files which I later put on WIMA and now IMSLP. The files had been distributed through a line of CD copy of CD copy, perhaps through several generations of informal distribution. I do not believe they are making a commercial venture of this; just distributing to local friends and players, but I don't really know yet. Are there any copyright questions here for IMSLP? Afolop 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. The only case where a copyright issue might surface would be if you arranged a piece by a composer who was still under copyrght (died less than 70 years ago, or first published after 1922). If there is such a case, there could be a potential copyright problem in play. Otherwise, as long as you, the creator and copyright owner of your own editions and arrangements, are OK with it. Carolus 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Copyright Admin)


I have 3 pieces by Michael Meech, a modern composer. I don't know if he is still alive. He gave these to me personally in 1966 in manuscript form and authorized me verbally to distribute them with my other music for viols that I was distributing at that time. Is there a copyright problem here? He was Secretary of the Viola da Gamba Society of Great Britain at that time. I have never heard from him since.

You cannot publish this legally (making it available here = publication in most locales) without a written agreement from the composer or the legal heirs. Carolus 05:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

subheadings and formats

I am ready to start transferring files again. But before I do, I still have some uncertainties about the desired format. There are variations for the currently entered pieces for which I do not understand. I have asked these questions before but either the questions were not fully understood or the answers were not fully understood, so I am going to start all over again. I will try to give a listing of the headings I think are desired (required?). In the following, examples start with the heading "Scores" which is on the level of "Performances" and "Scores". Composition title and number of viols is to be included in these entries only if it does not appear in the title of the work page. In each case, a major uncertainty is whether the individual composition title, if needed, is shown as a 5='s subtitle or included in the File Description along with " - Complete Score".

Situation 1: where the compositions have (apparently) been originally written for viols.

3='s "Scores and Parts"
4='s (any subgroup title such as "Set No. 1")
5='s For x Viols (Folop) - (if not included in the work page title)
5='s (Individual composition title if needed.)
(in the File Description for file No 1:) "Complete Score"

Situation 2: where the entry is for an arrangement.

3='s "Arrangements and Transcriptions"
4='s "Complete" or "Selections"

and then several possibilities:

Possibility 1 where individual pieces have different number of viols:
5='s (composition title if needed)
5='s "For x Viols (Folop)"
(in the File description for file No 1) "Complete Score"

Possibility 2 where all the pieces in the next set have the same number of viols:
5='s "For x Viols (Folop)"
(in the File description for file No 1) "(Individual composition title) - Complete Score"

or Possibility 3, same situation: where all the pieces in the next set have the same number of viols:
5='s "For x Viols (Folop)"
5='s (composition title if needed)
(in the File description for file No 1) "Complete Score"

I need answers to:
Question 1: is the Situation 1 format correct?
Question 2: is the Situation 2, possibility 1 correct?
Question 3: In Situation 2, which of Possibility 2 or Possibility 3 is the correct format?
Question 4: Are there any other variations I should consider?

When I get these answers, for any of the previously entered formats that do not agree I will make the necessary changes to have them conform.

Thanks for being so patient. Afolop 14:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


No problem, the basic rule is:

3='s for headings like "Full Scores", "Scores" or "Arrangements and Transcriptions"
4='s for "Complete" or "Selections", or the title of a single extract from the work (this level can be omitted if not required)
5='s for "For x Viols (Folop)"

More detail is given on IMSLP:Score submission guide/Layout of Work Pages.

If your arrangements relate to the whole work, then this is the preferred method:

===Arrangements and Transcriptions===
=====For n viols (Folop)=====
Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score
Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score
Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score

You'll note that the level 4 heading "Complete" can be omitted, and so your arrangement for n viols is assumed to relate to the whole work. The titles of each section go in the file description. This is the simplest and most straightforward situation, which will apply in most cases to your scores.

To give you an example of when level 4 headings are needed, let's assume that a Mr Smith else now comes along and adds their arrangement for the 2nd part/movement (only) for solo tuba. We would alter the headings like this:

===Arrangements and Transcriptions===
=====For n viols (Folop)=====
Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score
Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score
Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score
====Name of 2nd part/movement====
=====For Tuba solo (Smith)=====
Complete score

We now need an extra heading to show that your arrangement is complete, but Mr Smith's is specifically for the 2nd section only. We don't need to prefix his complete score with the name of the 2nd part/movement, because the heading specifies that whatever follows only relates to the 2nd part/movement.

If Mr Smith subsequently added his arrangement of the 3rd movement, we would need to change things again:

===Arrangements and Transcriptions===
=====For n viols (Folop)=====
Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score
Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score
Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score
=====For Tuba solo (Smith)=====
Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score
Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score

... and if he went on to upload the remaining movement, we would end up with:

===Arrangements and Transcriptions===
=====For n viols (Folop)=====
Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score
Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score
Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score
=====For Tuba solo (Smith)=====
Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score
Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score
Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score

You can see that if Mr Smith were to ask us about what headings should be used for his arrangement, our answers would be different depending upon whether he had uploaded 1, 2, or all 3 parts. And I think this is how the confusion crept in, when you began to upload the first parts of your arrangements  :-) But is that any clearer now? — P.davydov 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but have some difficulty in applying it to a specific situation. I am about to start entering a new set of 24 pieces for Coleman, Airs for 3Viols. They are from a different manuscript from those already entered, and have their own manuscript sequence numbers. I will enter the information given explicitly in the ms. supplemented by the key information and VdGS numbers from the VdGS index. For two of the pieces, VdGS No. 3 and 220, the key information is written in the ms. in the form used at that time, and I will enter that literally from the ms. You will also note that the instrumentation is different from those already entered, which will make the instrumentation shown at the bottom of the work page incorrect for them. Finding, verifying, assembling and entering all of this information will take some time, so I may not have it all entered today. I would ask that you not start changing things until I have had the chance to enter (and edit) this material completely. Perhaps it would be better for me to let you know when I am done by making a note here.
Yes, that's fine — P.davydov 16:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Incidental question: Why does the Airs for 2 Viols page enter the pieces under a tab "General" and show the titles in the file definition for Complete score, while the Airs for 3 Viols enters them under the tab "Scores and Parts" and shows the titles as subheads? This is the sort of distinction I haven't comprehended yet. Afolop 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
We now have quite a few pages called "Airs for 2 Viols" and "Airs for 3 Viols", but if you can tell me the composer(s) involved I'll take a look — P.davydov 16:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still talking about Coleman. Afolop 16:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The set of 24 Coleman airs are now entered and edited to the extent of my understanding. The process went much better than I expected. I am still having trouble with my internet access; it only kicked out twice during this session. I await your comments and information on differences that should be made in future entries. Afolop 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The page for "Airs for 2 Viols" and the files you added to "Airs for 3 Viols" today are in the preferred format. It looks like my colleague Carolus intervened with the headings when you had only just started the "Airs for 3 Viols" page, without realising that there was more to come. Would you like me to correct this, or would you rather do it yourself, now you're more familiar with the system? — P.davydov 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you go ahead and correct the Airs for 3 Viols, I can use the time to get some more things entered. There is still a long, long way to go. Thanks. Afolop 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's done now. Good luck with the rest of your uploads! — P.davydov 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

When there are only 3 or 4 pieces for each instrumentation, which would be the preference: Have a separate page for (for example) Airs for 3 Viols and Airs for 4 Viols, or to have a page Airs for Viols and have subheadings: For 3 viols and For 4 viols? Afolop 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If they are all from the same original composition, they should go on the same page under the title of the original composition — P.davydov 05:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction of file

I found that I had a wrong file on WIMA for one of the parts to Wilbye, Madrigals - set 2, the very last file of arrangements on the page: the version in C major of "I am quite tired...". It was the very last part; for bass viol. I corrected the file on my home computer and tried uploading it; it was the very first time I have tried to upload a non-WIMA file. Of course I put it the wrong place on the page, under General rather than Arrangements and Transcriptions. and had to move it. I think everything is now OK, but would you please check to see I haven't left something all messed up.
 :I used the "Add File" procedure. This way made a separate new piece which included only the one part. Then I had to move the file for that part to its place in the piece already entered and delete the file I was replacing and then delete the rest of the entry for that spurious piece. Is there a more direct way to transfer a corrected version of a part from my home computer replacing a part that has been previously entered into IMSLP? Afolop 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The good news is that there is a much easier way. You'll notice that next to the download arrow, and underneath the file description, there's a five-digit number prefixed by the "#" symbol. If you click on that link you'll be taken to another page with information about the file, including an option to "Upload a new version of this file" – P.davydov 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you follow that path, at the very top of the next screen you get:

Please do NOT use this form to upload music scores!

To submit a score, please use the link "Add a file to this page" on the appropriate work page. For further details, please see the Score submission guide. (This is copied and pasted from that screen.) Afolop 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you've clicked on "Upload File" in the sidebar by mistake. After following any numbered link you'll come to a page called "File History", and the link to "Upload a new version of this file" is just above the heading "File Links", towards the bottom of the page — P.davydov 18:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I"m sorry, I have clicked on the exact links you show, on the file history page and click on "Upload a new version ... " line you mention and get the warning I quoted. I have tried several different files, exactly as you say, and I always get this same warning. Afolop 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I can't explain it, as I see something completely different. Sorry — P.davydov 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you (Afolop) are on exactly the correct page. You can just ignore that warning - Special:Upload is used for both uploading images of composers (that's why it's in the left sidebar) and for uploading new versions of files, so the warning is the same. Cheers, KGill talk email 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Someone has just deleted my last 4 fantasias of Ward 'in Paris'!!!!!!!!!!! Can they be recovered, or must I enter them again? Afolop 01:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect someone started processing the set of files before I had completed entering and doing the necessary editing of them. Afolop 01:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Afolop! Could you take a look at that page now. It appears that a couple of curly brackets got deleted. Hopefully, I was able to correct it. --Cypressdome 02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what happened now. It was all my own doing. I was aware of the mistake and trying to correct it when everything fell apart. Thanks. Afolop 09:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayres for 2 Viols (Jenkins, John)

I have reverted this for now to the most current revision that could be read consistently by my browser without a server error making it impossible to read anything at all of the page, after this problem was reported to me. Please by all means correct, check and fix using the page history. Thanks! (You may also want to use RISM to check the original instrumentation and publication dates of the Ayres to see if they were for viols generally or gambas :) ) Eric 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, now that is a strange error. Maybe there's an upper limit on the number of files possible to have on a page? I think that there were 378 eventually o.O Is there any way it could be split up? KGill talk email 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Albert — although your files are not currently visible on the page in question, they all still exist and should be fully accessible again once the server problem has been resolved. The sheer number of files being transferred from WIMA seems to be stretching IMSLP's capacity to its absolute limit, which is something we hadn't anticipated. In the circumstances it might be advisable for you to take another break from uploading files until things have settled down. I know you're keen to press on and this must be really frustrating for you, but thanks for your patience while the technicalities are sorted out — P.davydov 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get in at the beginning of this, so I don't know what the problem is. Even if I did know what was wrong, I don't know how to correct, check of fix anything using the page history. I don't have a specific record of what was on the page of Ayres for 2 Viols (Jenkins,John) but it was probably the set of 122 ayres (certainly the ones there now are the first 15 of this set.). These probably contain six files for each ayre. They are all from a single manuscript, and so far as I know, have never been published. A scattering of the individual pieces appear in other mss. and just a very few may have been published also in various publications, from the 17th century to the present. The VdGS-uk index lists this series on pages Jenkins-22 to 31. There is no question in my mind that they were originally for viols (viols and gambas are equivalent terms for the same series of instruments). Is there anything that I am supposed to do right now? I will suspend entries until things get settled. Thanks to everyone for their concern and help. Afolop 21:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what I mean is that sometimes RISM is very specific that works were written for bass gambas, etc. since they have access to the manuscripts. Another guess why the page may have caused a server error, though a less likely guess as this probably would have caused a different error (I am guessing ...) , is an equals or other etc. mismatch- with so many equals-levels on the page it is easy to lose track I do think and fail to write the right number/fail to balance parentheses/brackets/etc. . Somewhere around the edit from 3 am at September 5 it seems the server error occurs - I think... :( (but things are not, I think, quite as simple as that , either. Hrm. Despite our preferences, it may be better to split up the page?) Eric 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (also, it's all still in history or it should be ,unless I am quite mistaken about what I did... my reversion should just have brought up an earlier version to the top?) Yes, it's all still in the page -history- so it's not actually lost, just an earlier uncrashing-i-hope version has been brought to the top to make it workable for the time being. I really apologize if I went outside what I ought have done here...

Albert – the overload on the server seems to be having the effect that only shorter pages are loading successfully. The effect was first noticed on the "Airs for 2 Viols" page because that's one of the longest ones, and my colleagues initially suspected that the number of files on the page was a factor. However, it later proved to be widespread throughout the site, so we now think it's a more general problem with server load. Our technical experts are working on it, and the situation has eased somewhat overnight, but until we have fixed the problem could you avoid making any additions to the site, or editing any of your pages? I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks — P.davydov 08:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. The server problem seems to have settled, and we're considering the possibility that it might be triggered by large numbers of files being uploaded in a short space of time. Whenever you're ready to uploading again, could you start off 'gently', with no more than, say, 100 files in any 24-hour period, and we'll monitor how the server behaves. If there are no problems then we might try increasing this number to see if there's a particular level that triggers the problem. Will that be OK? — P.davydov 11:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'm glad to try any method that will keep things going. Does that limit refer only to new uploads or does it also apply to minor edits of items already installed. I note that some changes have been made that will require extensive minor edits to much of what is already there: e.g. changing 'treble1 viol' to 'treble viol 1'. I notice also that the Ayres for 2 Viols by Jenkins are still only showing the shortened list. I am not sure how to correct this. Afolop 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I just tried to upload a single file for Brewer, Airs for 4 viols, that I had mistakenly omitted earlier and I received a 'Server error'. Afolop 13:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've managed to split the original page into five sections, which the server seems just about able to cope with. I'm getting server errors too (for the first time in a couple of days), which is a worrying sign. If you'd like to take things gently and test the limits, either with another small upload, or minor edits to existing pages, we'll get an idea of the extent of the problem — P.davydov 15:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried again to upload the single file correction to the Brewer page and this time it worked. I then did the necessary editing to incorporate the new file, and also a good bit if minor edits, the preview worked OK, but when I tried to save the page I got a 'Server error'. I tried to save again: 'Server error', but on the 3rd trial it finally saved the edited page. When I then checked back on the page, everything looked OK, with all the edits in place. I'll try some more when I get free this afternoon. Afolop 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have 90 files entered on the Brewer 'Airs for 4 Viols' page and have about 50 more files to go for that page. Should I continue to add to that page or should I break the rest up and put them on another page? When I tried to look at the first two Jenkins pages (1-30 and 31-60) I got 'Server error'. The rest of those page showed up OK. When I went back to the 1-30 page I got 'Server error' again, but for 31-60, this time it showed up OK. Should I continue to try the additional Brewer entries or try someone else?
I entered arrangements for 4 single pieces of Costeley, a total of 32 files, with no problems. I will take a pause now just to be on the safe side. Afolop 20:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

When the load on the server is higher, then the "Server error" notice comes up even on shorter pages, and not just the long ones. Around this time on a Saturday can be quite busy, so as you say, it's probably best to take a break and try again tomorrow. If the Brewer page gets too long to edit we'll have to split it like the Jenkins one, unless Feldmahler sorts out the server first — P.davydov 20:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded the rest of my Costeleys this morning and everything went OK--about 75 files. I am ready to go ahead with the remaining Brewers later today. I notice that the Jenkins 1-30 still gives a 'Server error'. Afolop 10:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I added a couple more Brewer pieces with no problems.Randomly checking around I find the the Jenkins 1-30 page now comes up without error but several others still have the 'Server error': Jenkins, Airs for 3 viols and Newberry Airs, Coleman, Airs for 3 Viols, among them. I will hold off any more today unless there are any further developments. Afolop 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How is progress on the server error problem? Should I still limit uploading to 100 files a day? Afolop 14:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenkins Newberry Airs (336 files) came up this morning without a server error! Afolop 14:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ward, In Nomines

Someone has relabeled the Treble 2 parts for No.3,4,5 so they now have the wrong clefs indicated in the file descriptions! If the order of the clefs is not the desired one, not only the file descriptions can be changed, but the files themselves have to be moved to correspond. Making these changes without letting the originator know not only can result in wrong information being displayed, but does nothing to solve the problem in the future. Afolop 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Carolus seems to have misunderstood your headings and altered them when he did the copyright review. I've reverted his changes so they're back as you left them, but you might want to mention it on his talk pageP.davydov 05:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mico, Fantasias and Pavans

Here we go again. In acceptance of Pavans for 4 Viols, the title Pavan has been moved from the File Description to a sub-heading. For Fantasias for 3 Viols, the title Fantasia has been left in the File Description. Which should I do??? I still have s few Fantasias for 4 Viols to enter (8 I believe) but that would go over the 100-a-day file limit for today. Afolop 14:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Fantasias for 3 Viols and Pavans for 4 Viols were reviewed by different people at different times (I did the latter today, Davydov did the former on 17 Sept.), and there is enough leeway within the style guide that sometimes the heading structure, etc. is left slightly different anyway according to different people's preferences. In my own personal opinion, the heading structure should be used wherever practical, but even so that shouldn't affect how you upload - there is no real reason why the labeling system you have been using is inadequate. If I were you I would not be too concerned about it. Cheers, KGill talk email 17:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
@KGill — There are particular problems with the sub-heading system when the number of files is large, and further up this page I gave some detailed examples of how I recommended to Afolop that they should be used, to avoid confusion :-)
@Afolop — Feldmahler reports that he's fixed the bug causing the server errors, in which case the restriction on the uploading of files can be removed (unless you encounter any more problems)
P.davydov 17:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Davydov, sorry for the cluelessness but I'm having trouble finding an example of headings guidance on this page that specifically points to a different usage than the one that is currently in the official style guide. If situations like the one(s) mentioned above require a different header organization, then I would suggest (a) bringing it up to hash out on the forums and (b) getting this added to the official rules once (or if) it gets through that process. I am just following the same procedure that's been here for years and is supposed to apply across the board, and if there are problems "when the number of files is large" then I sort of feel that that's a major enough deficiency that it should be 'officially' settled. Thanks, KGill talk email 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm also following what I've always understood to be the correct usage, and the style guide only explains how the headings should be used, and not when they should be used. No wonder this can seem very baffling to new users like Afolop, and our documentation really needs improving. There's just so much to do that it inevitably takes a back seat, and you can almost hear a huge collective groan when anyone starts talking about standardization  :-( — P.davydov 19:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Viol vs Viola da gamba

Hello Albert. I wonder if you'd like to contribute to this discussion on the forum, and give us the benefit of your expertise? Thanks — P.davydov 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Purcell, Henry - Fantasias

I have another set of 9 Fantasias by Purcell; this time for 4 viols. In looking around I find some confusion. There is a page 'Fantazias and In Nomines, Z.732-747 (Purcell, Henry)' previously entered that I did not realize when I entered the Fantasias for 3 viols. It apparently is for an undated (printed?) collection which includes the whole known set including the ones I have. There have been other collections printed, such as the Purcell society's 1959 edition that are not entered in IMSLP. Neither is a true original. In addition there are two other separate pages for individual fantasias entered in IMSLP for the composer, both of which are in the listed collection. As I understand it all of the pieces should be entered somewhere under a complete edition. This leaves me with two questions.
:1. Should my Fantasias for 3 viols be moved to somewhere else? and
:2. How should I enter my Fantasias for 4 viols--under the collective page listed above; separately as Fantasias for 4 Viols as the ones for 3 viols have been; or how and where? Afolop 18:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The best solution in this case is to put all the pieces on the page Fantasias and In Nomines, Z.732-747 (Purcell, Henry), so I've moved Z.732-734 from your page of fantasias for 3 viols, and Z.736 from its separate page, so that they're now all together under this collection. Could you continue with Z.735 placed under your file for Z.734 (leaving a gap for the pre-existing Z.736)? Will you be going all the way up to Z.747, as if so I'll move the heading so that you're under "Complete" instead of "Selections"? I hope that's OK, and thanks also for your response on the forum — P.davydov

No, I will not have the entire group -- I am missing a few. Thanks for the help. You will notice that Z.745 (the page immediately above the page of the complete group) is also a single item that is part of the series. Afolop 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that one, but it's now merged in with the rest. I've also added a full contents list at the bottom of the page, which might help — P.davydov 20:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(Palestrina, Madrigali a Quattro Voci

I have 14 4-voice Palestrina madrigals and have entered two of them. Before I enter the rest of them,is this the right place for them? Afolop 22:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Merro partbooks

Hi Albert

I recently got access to a facsimile of the John Merro partbooks from the Bodleian. I started to do some transcriptions onto computer of fantasies for two bass viols such as VdGS 477 but, on checking, I see that you have already transcribed these pieces. Have you typeset the whole of the Merro partbooks and, if not, is there any easy way for me to tell which pieces still need to be transcribed? I'm happy to do some work on these but don't want to duplicate work that you've already done.

Many thanks. StephenWest 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephen
I have not transcribed all of the pieces from the Merro partbooks, but I have done a large number of them (around 120, I think). Unfortunately, all of the source information was deleted from the files and indexes before they were incorporated into the WIMA collection. It remains in my records, but items are indexed there by my edition numbers. These index numbers are available from the WIMA site, but only through a few contortions (which I will outline for you if you wish), but even that won't help much in matching with the partbooks. The only connection that I can think of at the moment is the VdGS numbers, and it is possible that my records of them are incomplete. My stuff was done over a long period of time, and at that time the tracing of sources and records was not a primary interest. I have heard the term "Merro partbooks" a lot before, but haven't used it. I think we are referring to the manuscripts D245-D247: are there others? I started an index of these mss a long time ago, but I got diverted and ran into problems, so I have let it drop. If I can help further, let me know. Afolop 16:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Albert, thanks for the reply and, yes, these are the manuscripts D245-D247. OK, it looks like my only option is to work from the VdGS numbers.
On a more general point, when uploading viol music, I had been wondering about putting the VdGS numbers in the "Opus/Catalogue Number" field in IMSLP. This would be analogous to, say, the "K" numbers for Mozart, but would apply across all the viol music, not just a single composer. I'm not sure if this would be within the spirit of the IMSLP rules, but would at least provide the meta-data for cataloging the IMSLP viol music. What do you think? StephenWest 08:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephen Thanks for the information on the indexes to the Merro partbooks.
I have been trying to include VdGS numbers for everything, but I am sure I have missed some. The Admins guided me to put them in the File Descriptions. Most of my work has been from an older printed version of their catalog and I haven't delayed the transfer effort to check everything against their web version, so I would guess I have missed some changes. And I just noticed when I entered the Michael East fantasias that we have some more duplications. But if we both have versions we should make both of them available. I have just started entering my 5-part items, and there are more than 1000 of them to go! And then the 6-part ones. Afolop 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Albert. Yes, where I have already typeset an edition, it makes sense to upload mine, too, even if there is one of yours (or someone else's) available. But when it comes to typesetting new stuff, I'm keen to concentrate, if possible, on areas where existing editions are not available. I have a rather small collection (compared with yours) of my own editions of viol music and have been rather slowly adding it to IMSLP. So I have only skimmed the surface of the problems and frustrations you have encountered in fitting viol music into the IMSLP structure and style...but you have my every sympathy! I'm even wondering about trying to pull out the key points (most of which are on this talk page) and putting them into a "mini style guide" for viol music in IMSLP. How to describe instrumentation; where to put the VdGS numbers; distinguishing between things that were written for viols and those which were played on viols but originally written for, say, voices; if and how to describe the key; handling the large amount of anonymous and untitled music, and so on. Cheers! Stephen. StephenWest 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, I offer every encouragement to continue your working on viol music. The best way to find what I already have is on the WIMA site, where it is indexed by composer and by instrumentation. Items that I don't yet have on WIMA are mainly 5-part madrigals from Eg 3665. The problem I have encountered with regard to style on the IMSLP site is that each moderator seems to have his own ideas on the style. And sometimes when a moderator has changed things to his desired style, the next moderator will change the changes to match his own ideas. I see very little uniformity there. Sometimes a moderator will change his mind and make changes to his own changes. As for identifying music originally for viols or not, I have given up. If there is any doubt, or even if there isn't sometimes I will just let them mark it as an arrangement and let it go. It is still viol music and playable by viol players. Specifying a key for a piece was only rarely of importance in 1600 so I don't worry about it now. I feel that the IMSLP method of cataloging and presenting viol music is pretty much useless to viol players, but I don't have any control over it so I am just going to let it go. As you see I am no little bit frustrated. Cheers to you! Al Afolop 13:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked back over the small number of viol pieces that I have posted and immediately found one (Pavan_à_5_No.2_(Ferrabosco_Jr.,_Alfonso)) where the instrumentation has been helpfully edited by some admin to 2 violins, 2 violas and cello. But I can only begin to appreciate the problems you must be facing. And I do sympathise :-) StephenWest 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That piece was tagged on 9 Jan. 2010, five days after the inception of the system, when we probably didn't even have any tags for viols. It has now been fixed. Thanks, KGill talk email 21:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! Could you please fix pavans Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as well? Thanks. StephenWest 07:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing these out, BTW - I have the feeling that there are a fair number of artifacts like this left over from the very early days of tagging (when none of us were really quite sure of what we were doing or in what direction the project would go in; it was fairly chaotic at first). Cheers, KGill talk email 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gelobet seist Du, Jesus Christ

This has been moved to Gelobet seist Du, Jesus Christ (Scheidt, Samuel) because the word "Motet" isn't part of the title. — P.davydov 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I realized there was a problem because this title appears among the pieces already entered, but I couldn't match the music in my piece with that entry. Thanks. Afolop 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with 2 Palestrina pieces. they are titled 'Magnificat Tone1/part1', and 'Magnificat Tone1/part 3'. I have no idea where they belong among the Palestrina works. How do I enter them? Afolop 16:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Library of Congress catalog seems to list this work as "Magnificat primi toni", indicating that there are versions for 4, 5 and 8 voices. Is this the same as Magnificat No.1 (Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da), which you created a page for earlier? There are apparently various magnificats in different keys (!) — P.davydov 17:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

These compositions are from different sources than the one already entered, so I have no indication that they are related. I had difficulty reading the scanned entries, but I could not match anything I had with anything already there. Afolop 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And another similar situation. I have 31 pieces published by Attaignant (1539). There were 11 by Sermisy which I entered under his Composer name page. The rest are mainly by various composers, 1 at a time, some of whom have no composer page. Would it be better to enter the publication under Attaignant with 'various' composers, or should I enter composer pages and individual work pages for each of the remaining 20 compositions? Afolop 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This probably isn't the answer you were hoping for, but each individual composition does merit its own page. Sorry :-) — P.davydov 17:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can live with this. Thanks. Afolop 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a transcription of the hymn 'In the beak Midwinter' by Gustav Holst. Is that still under copyright, or can I use it? Afolop 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No it should be fine, and feel free to add it to: In the Bleak Midwinter (Holst, Gustav)P.davydov 19:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gelobet seist Du, Jesus Christ, etc. (Scheidt)

Hi, I have been, and am now, trying to identify the works by Scheidt you submitted, comparing them (mainly) with the old Urtext edition of Tabulatoria Nova by Seiffert. I need some help! Maybe you have informations I don't have, in the source material of your viol arrangements.

I think that the "motet" Gelobet seist Du, Jesus Christ in two parts, that is currently in a dedicated work page (IMSLP#139586 sqq. & #139593 sqq.), is the two first verses of the 'Psalmus' Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ that is in Tabulatoria Nova, part II, No.9, SSWV 135 (Seiffert p.129 =149 of the PDF) − the 1st verse transposed a 5th higher with a simplified ending, the 2nd verse in the original key, beginning from the last bar of the 1st verse (this is quite strange, isn't it?).

This being said, the "Hymn" Gelobet seist Du (#139578 sqq.) that you uploaded in the Tabulatoria Nova page, seems to have nothing to do there. As Scheidt wrote several settings of this chorale (how confusing it is !), and as I cannot read all of them, I can only say that this one is also not the 8-voice Gelobet seistu, Jesu Christ in Cantionæ sacræ No.11, SSWV 11, of which some of the original parts are available here. AFAIK, according to the catalogue, it may be: − the Prima pars: Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ in Geistliche Konzerte III, No.3, SSWV 282, − or one of the versions of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ in the Görlitzer Tabulatur-Buch, No.2, SSWV 442a & 442b.

Then I found that the separated Et exultavit (#139569 sqq.) is the 1st verse ot the Magnificat 5. toni in Tabulatoria Nova III, No.6, SSWV 144 (Seiffert p.181 =201 of the PDF).

Do you think this correct? I'll do the moves when sure. Cheers − Pierre Ch. 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any good record of my sources for these pieces. I did find some pencil notations - for the 'Et exultavit' I have a notation 'vol. VII p. 76, and on the piece itself I have a date {1624), apparently the publication date;and also the 'Vita Sanctorum' has a notation vol VII p.39. Whatever that might mean! The Gelobet #139586 had a note 'Tablatura Nova, part 1', and #139593 says merely 'Verse 2'. My source apparently called them Motets. And I hadn't the slightest idea where to enter them in IMSLP. I do have a microfiche of the Scheidt volume for the Tablatura Nova in 'Denkmaeler Deutscher Tonkunst' but I don't have any notes saying I have used it for these as I later might have made and I have not been able to match my transcriptions with anything there. Sorry I haven't been of much help here. Afolop 00:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Done! :-)
The DDT volume you mentioned is the one by Seiffert (#23689). Your 'Vol.VII' should have been from this collection.
BTW I did a mistake: the Et exultavit is on p.175 (=195 of the PDF) of the Seiffert / DDT volume. − Pierre Ch. 07:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierre: Thanks. Does that straighten all the thing out? I notice that for the 'Et Exultavit' the instrument names have been changed, e.g. from 'Treble viol' to 'CTreble viol' etc. I am not sure when or why. It would seem to add some question. Afolop 09:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! This was just a copy/paste artefact, the 'C' probably coming from a "Complete score" label. It should be correct now. Thanks !− Pierre Ch. 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Typo!

I didn't realize I had made a typo making a new composer page until I was checking over a work page after the entry of a composition. Now I can't see how to correct it. The name is Dulot, not Duloot. Afolop 13:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Van Wilder

I found out too late that Van Wilder's first name is Philip. I don't know how to add that. Afolop 17:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected this and Dulot, and managed to track down more details on some of the other composers where you only knew their last names. If you have any more like that, maybe you could mention them here before you create categories for them, to see if we can identify them in full — P.davydov 10:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Afolop 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But somehow the files that were under the work page for 'En esperant...' have gotten lost. The work page is there with no files entered under it. Afolop 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There were none there when I moved it  :-) I checked the upload log for yesterday, and there's no record of you adding a file to that page after you created it — P.davydov

Decision time!

I am about to begin the sets of 5-voice pieces. There are fairly large groups of these, e.g. 75 madrigals by Gesualdo, 100 by Pallavicino, 21 by Wilbye, etc, for a total of over 1100 5-voice pieces. If I can get a firm decision on how to enter these now, it may save a lot of editing later. One of the big problems is that many (most?) of these were published in the composer's lifetime or soon thereafter and some of these publications are already in IMSLP, but not always containing the entire set for that composer, e.g., only vol 5 for Pallavicino, apparently 2 sets for Gesualdo, with vol 3 missing in one of them. I would guess that many of these composers have had someone make a list of their compositions, but I do not have knowledge of or access to these, nor a long enough lifetime to match everything up.

I am pretty sure I do not have complete sets for many of the composers. Question: do I enter individual work pages for each - resulting in a gigantic set of individual pages that will be impossible for users to navigate through; do I try to enter pieces under one of the published volumes containing it - a tremendous task to identify these and many of my pieces will not be covered by one of the volumes now in IMSLP; or do I group my pieces according to the ms. I found them in, under a general title Such as 'Madrigals for 5 voices'; or how? All of these methods seem to be used in various places somewhere in the IMSLP collection. Afolop 18:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest the Library of Congress authorities file as your starting point to identify the main work for each composition. For example, if you put in "Gesualdo, Carlo", you'll see a list of works which either have "Authorised Heading" or "References" in the left-hand column. If you were looking for "Ah, in vain do I sigh", then you'd need to click on the "References" link to see that it's from book 6 of the Madrigals for 5 voices, which in IMSLP terms would be Madrigali a 5 voci, Libro 6 (Pallavicino, Benedetto) (a page which you'd need to create). You may well find works that aren't listed on the LC site, in which case tell us what they are and we'll try other means of identifying them — P.davydov 10:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make my question clear. I am trying to transfer a set of files from WIMA to IMSLP. I am not asking how to identify the piece; I am asking where do I upload it to. Afolop 19:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That was the question I was attempting to answer  :-) If you can identify each piece first, then you will know the correct place to upload it. Otherwise you can upload them to an temporary holding page under a general title, until they can be properly identified and moved later — P.davydov 09:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that we are talking different languages. I can identify every piece in my collection. Each has a unique identification. There are no ambiguities. You want a different identification that I am not ready to do extensive research to find out. Often it is very arbitrary: e.g. Coperario: VdGS nos., Charteris nos., and even Meyer nos., plus even more obscure ones such as Tregian nos.; all of which have been published and are in print. I have used one of these well publicized sets and then you want me to do additional research and use another. Even your Admins cannot agree on what form to change thing into: e.g. look at Bateson and the various arbitrary changes that have been made there. But when I try your 'temporary holding page under a general title' it is removed without notice before I can even make use of it.
My task is to transfer my files from WIMA to IMSLP. What is done with them after that is beyond my control. I will therefore without further ado make a general practice of establishing a 'general holding area' and let someone else take whatever further action they find necessary. Please let me know if this is acceptable or not. I will suspend operations until I find out. I am sorry I have to be so blunt about the whole affair. Afolop 11:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were expressing an interest in how the works should be catalogued, but I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Feel free to continue to use 'holding' pages as you've been doing before, The moderators need to be able to tell when you've finished working on a page so we can start cataloguing its contents. What do you suggest? — P.davydov 12:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have been a bit unclear in my questions. I have seen many minor changes in my entries, e.g. 'Tenor viol, alto clef' changed to 'Tenor viol (alto clef)' for which I could avoid an editing if I knew which form was desired. However, I find that moderators don't seem to agree, so I will just let it go. I don't find any recognizable uniformity in whether piece titles are to be put in 'File Description' or in a subheading, and I see one moderator changing it to one form and another moderator changing it to another, so I will just let it go. I strongly feel that placing each single piece along on its own single page results in a unbelievably long series of pages, the form of whose contents are not immediately recognizable. That eliminates that page from useful consideration by viol players, so I will do whatever you want just to avoid completely losing the music on the internet. The idea of uploading one piece of a group to see if the place and form were suitable before the rest of the group is uploaded has not worked at all. I have no idea how to notify unseen moderators when a group of pieces has been completed. Were would they be inclined to look? Could some agreement among moderators on these matters be reached before I continue? ;-) Afolop 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The cataloguing rules are made by libraries, not by us, and they can be different from one composer to the next, so you can blame the libraries for the inconsistency :-)
As for your other point, if you let us know when you've finished with a composer by posting a note on this talk page, we can then start to work on those pages. How does that sound? — P.davydov 15:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Afolop 15:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lupo, Joseph

Sorry, another mistake on my part! I entered a composer page for Joseph Lupo and a work page for his pavan without realizing that I had not yet uploaded these to WIMA. I don't think I am up to learning that procedure yet to put them on IMSLP. Would you just throw them away for the present. Thanks. Afolop 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Coperario - Fantasias for 5 viols

Here is what I am talking about. Fantasias for 3 viols and for 4 viols have been changed to different formats for each set. Those for 5 viols are even more complicated because each has an additional title. They are not transcriptions, but were written and promulgated as being for viols from the start. I have entered the first one to get guidance on how to format these entries. There are 48 more of them to come in the group. Afolop 15:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Library of Congress site shows that each of the Coperario fantasia is treated as an individual work, with its own Charteris catalogue number (RC). Therefore we should do the same, so that the first example in your list will be Crudel perche, RC 24 (Coperario, John). The next (VdGS 2) will be Io son ferito amore, RC 25 (Coperario, John). The Charteris catalogue numbers are listed on the VdGS website under their thematic indexes, if you don't have a note of them. Italian titles normally have only the first word with an initial capital, and are lower case after that unless the name of a person or place is involved. There needs to be a space between "RC" and the number following. The last in this set (No.49) has no Italian title, so you can leave it as Fantasia for 5 Viols, RC 72 (Coperario, John).
Rest assured that we will get around to making sure that all your uploads are consistently catalogued eventually, but you've been moving too quickly for us to keep up :-) — P.davydov 16:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You have me completely confused now. Although the 'Fantasias for 5 viols' shows up on the composer's page, I can't get to it to add the additional pieces. Fortunately, the WIMA site is down and nothing can be reached on it, so I can't continue. I will use the time to reflect on what is going on. Afolop 18:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You may need to refresh the composer page to see the latest version. For composers like Coperario, where there's a thematic catalogue available which numbers each individual work, we usually have separate pages for each work instead of grouping them together. The catalogue numbers in the page title form a unique identification, as you'll see from the current version of Coperario's page, where I've broken down your earlier collections into individual work pages (except for the Villanelle, which I couldn't identify from VdGS).
Having looked into Coperario more thoroughly, I'm going to suggest that you don't use the Italian subtitles in the page names, but continue after Fantasia for 5 Viols, RC 24 (Coperario, John) with Fantasia for 5 Viols, RC 25 (Coperario, John) for VdGS 2 in this series, and so on. VdGS numbers 1 to 49 correspond to RC numbers 24 to 72 respectively. The Italian subtitles can go in the "Alternate Title" line at the bottom of the page, as in the example of RC 24. I hope that's a little clearer — P.davydov 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


...You seem to have really learned the system very nicely. It appears to be going very smoothly and fast - just the way it should be! Carolus 04:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Afolop 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have now transferred all of my Coperario pieces - it's all yours! Afolop 18:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished with Wilbye, Madrigals - set 1. Afolop 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished with Wilbye, Madrigals - set 2. Afolop 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I am now finished with all Gesualdo entries. Afolop 21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All of my Bateson's are now entered. Thing go noticeably faster since the recent upgrading of the server. Afolop 14:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All Lupo's are entered. Afolop 15:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Entries for Fontanelli are done. Afolop 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

All 5-part Gibbons are now entered Afolop 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything I have by Weelkes is now entered. Afolop 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite the uploading machine! You upload - we tag. Just about perfect! Carolus 04:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And only 1000 more compositions to go of the WIMA set, and then about 300 new ones. All of my Schũtz are now entered. Afolop 04:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

All that I have in Pallavicino books 2, 4, and 5 are done for the time being. Afolop 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And the rest of the Pallavicino from WIMA is done. Afolop 01:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Dering Fantasias are now transferred over. Afolop 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Marenzio Madrigals are done. Afolop 20:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Agazzari Madrigals are done. Afolop 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


Let me know when you are finished so I can do a little re-organizing on that page. It will probably be better if we group them as in the original: Madrigals for 3 voices, for 4 voices, etc. BTW, in reference to the 'temporary holding page', the Morley page you're uploading things to now is a good example of that. Eventually, we'll have separate pages for each of the madrigals under its own title (as you no doubt know, many of them are actually best known under their own titles). That way the original published collection, or multiple selections taken from it, will be the only thing on the original workpage where you are now uploading things. If you wish to combine scores (probably only the scores, not the parts) for your viol settings into "Madrigals for 3 voices", etc. , they could appear in the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" section of the present page. The bulk of the arrangements would go to the new pages for the individual madrigals. Carolus 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have everything entered that I have for Morley. I just entered things on the pages that were already entered that contained my pieces. Have fun! Afolop 04:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it advisable to separate scores from their parts. Thanks. Afolop 04:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They would not actually be separated. Scores would be combined and duplicated on the main page for the whole collection, that's all. The score and parts would be found on the individual pages for the madrigals. Carolus 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dering, Richard

I have 8 Fantasias for 5 Viols by Richard Dering. One of them (VdGS No.4) has already been entered on a page 'Fantasia' as an arrangement for 5 recorders. I suggest that the name of this page be changed to 'Fantasias for 5 viols' leaving the current entry under 'Transcriptions and Arrangements' and mine be put on the same page under 'Scores and Parts' or 'General' or whatever, as original compositions. But I leave such changes to one of the Moderators. Afolop 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's no problem, and it's done now — P.davydov 09:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Marenzio - Madrigals for 5 voices

The following warning was received:

Warning: This page is 59 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

I have about 12 more pieces to enter. What do you suggest? Afolop 21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just a cautionary notice, but in fact we do allow pages longer than 32kb, so feel free to continue adding the rest of the files — P.davydov 07:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine to upload all of them there for now. We might have to split the collection into individual titles at some point in the future, but there is much else to consider before we cross that road. Carolus 01:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Da Nola - composer page

I have a piece by Da Nola. If someone will udertake making the composer page, I will enter the piece under it. The following is the information from

Da Nola, Gian Domenico del Giovane, d. 1592
Da Nola, Gian Domenico, 151.-1592
Da Nola, Giovanni D. del Giovane, 1510-1592
Da Nola, Giovanni Domenico del Giovane, 151.-1592
Da Nola, Giovanni Domenico, 151.-1592
da Nola, Giovanni Domenico del Giovane, ca 1515-1592

Afolop 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not much agreement there among the VIAF libraries :-) I've created Category:Nola, Giovanni Domenico da, following the version of the name used by Grove, which has also been adopted by Wikipedia as well] — P.davydov 07:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mundy, William

I tried to enter a work page under Mundy, William titled 'Sermone Blando'. It was refused saying that such a page was already entered. I could not find it to add an arrangement for 5 viols. Such a title is not apparent on his composer page. What do I do? Afolop 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The page you created does actually exist at Sermone Blando (Mundy, William), so you should be able go ahead and upload the arrangement — P.davydov 07:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Composer names

Some of these composer names have so many variations. Would it be a good idea if I checked on questionable ones before I initiate a new composer page? I have some compositions by Gio. Paolo Nodari. Is this a good form for the name: 'Nodari, Gio. Paolo'? Afolop 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The full name is on VIAF as "Nodari, Giovanni Paolo". Abbreviations are best avoided, and if you're not sure of the correct form you can ask here and someone will get back to you — P.davydov 18:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dances for 4 viols

I have a set of 39 dances by a wide variety of composers that I have arranged for viols that I would like to keep together. I don't have a record of where I got them all. A few have specific names, but most are just generic names. None seem to me to be significant in itself to give it a separate page, but each has a title and an attribution to a composer (which in some cases may be the publisher). Could I just enter them as 'Dances for 4 Viols' under 'Various' and call them all 'transcriptions and arrangements'? How would the titles and composers/publishers be entered? Afolop 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Where an indvidual has arranged a series of works by different composers and brought them together in a specific collection, the work is normally placed in the category for the arranger (as for copyright purposes the compilation itself can be considered to constitute a new work). So this particular set should go under Dances for 4 Viols (Folop, Albert). If you can list the contents at the end of the page that would be helpful, as we should have cross-references to and from the pages for the original works, where these are known. Thanks — P.davydov 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that I actually made the selection from various sources; I have must have gotten it from somewhere else because I have numbered the pieces. It is very likely that someone else has brought the group together. So I don't really want to claim it to be my property. My contribution was making the viol arrangements. The individual pieces date from the mid 16th century to the mid 18th century. I haven't been able to find the set as a group in any volume of music that I have. Afolop 01:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if I did have to enter the set as you specify, I don't see exactly how to include both composer and title of each piece on the work page supporting the set. To list each piece on a separate work page would result in a pile of generic titles, some from completely unknown composers. This does not seem to be a helpful way of presenting the pieces. Afolop 10:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What would happen if the original organization of the set was originally from a copyrighted collection that I can no longer identify? Here is the list:

Attaignant 1. Pavane
Attaignant 2. Gaillarde
Attaignant 3. Gaillarde
Grefinger 4. Ich Stell Leicht ab
Anon. 5. Geh wie es woll
Senfl 6. Ich klag den Tag
Phalese 7. Almande Lorayne
Phalese 8. Bransle
Phalese 9. Bransle de Champaigne
Phalese 10. Bransle de Bourgoigne I
Phalese 11. Bransle de Bourgoigne II
Phalese 12. Passomezo d'Italye
Phalese 13. La Gaillarde
Phalese 14. Passomezo d'Italie
Phalese 15. Saltarello
Gabrieli, A 16. Canzona
Gabrieli, A 17. Ricercar del 6 tuono
Demantius 18. Tanz/Nachtanz
Demantius 19. Tanz
Demantius 20. Tanz
Demantius 21. Tanz
Bonelli 22. Canzon Sesta
Bonelli 23. Canzon Quarta
Fritsch 24. Paduana
Fritsch 25. Galliarda
Fritsch 26. Galliarda
Fritsch 27. Paduana
Fritsch 28. Galliarda
Taeggio 29. Canzon la Binama
Anon. 30. Courant
Anon. 31. Sarabande
Auffschnaidter 32. Menuet
Auffschnaidter 33. Bourree
Telemann 34. Les Scaramouches
Kusser 35. Bourree
Kusser 36. Menuett
Kusser 37. Gavotte
Handel 38. Menuet
Handel 39. Menuet
Afolop 10:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There can be copyright claims in the selection and sequence of the pieces in the compilation, but if this is your arrangement of a compilation by someone else, whose identity you don't know, then Dances for 4 Viols (Various) is the place for them, with your files under the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" header. If the identity of the original compiler comes to light the work will be moved to their category, instead of "Various", and may have to be removed if the copyright term hasn't expired.
(Note that this wouldn't be a problem if your arrangements of the pieces were uploaded separately, instead of as a single collection, which is one of the reasons we generally prefer that approach.)
If you still think it appropriate to keep them together as a single collection, all you need to do is paste the contents list you've given below at the end of the page, under the "****COMMENTS****" heading. At some point a moderator will add the cross-references to the individual work pages — P.davydov 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Madrigals, Book 3 (Monteverdi, Claudio)

Hi Afolop. Just to let you know that the file labeled as '9. O primavera gioventu' (score) on this page is really a link to the previously-uploaded file for 'Ne tien face' (I guess on a different page of madrigals). Would it be possible to separately upload the correct file? Thanks, KGill talk email 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I hope it is fixed now. Afolop 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Banchetto Musicale (Schein, Johann Hermann)

I knew something was wrong, but I was well along the way before I realized that the problem was that sections of each suite were for 4 viols and sections for 5 viols. Then I wasn't sure just how to organize that. So I just uploaded all of the sections, and hope that they can get straightened out eventually. Thanks for making order out of chaos. Afolop 22:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Byrd songs

I have 10 songs attributed in various manuscripts to Wm Byrd, but either not listed by the VdGS or listed as being doubtful or not by Byrd. So where do I put them? They are somehow related to Byrd. How about a page 'Songs attributed to William Byrd' and then enter them as transcriptions for 5 Viols? Afolop 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who would the 'composer' be for the proposed collection 'Songs attributed to William Byrd'? That brings up an issue I've been discussing with p.davydov. Why don't you hold off on that one a bit. We might have a more elegant solution for it in a while. We do need to find a way to deal with one-composer collections which have been compiled and assembled by people other than the composer. There are a number of these which are important and desirable to keep as a single collection. Carolus 02:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

These songs would have to appear under the composer page for Byrd because of their connection to Byrd. The problem is how to indicate that not everyone agrees that it really is Byrd. What about those where in different mss. the piece is attributed to different composers? Then the connection to each of the possible composers would be needed (or to Mr. Anonymous).

There are many mss where the pieces of one composer have been collected together by a different person. In most of those cases, the collector is of little importance, just the actual composer is of interest. Afolop 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and put them under Byrd for now, on a single page entitled "10 Songs". The explanation about where they were attributed to Byrd can be added to the comments section of the page at the bottom. If and when someone discovers who was the actual composer of the songs, it's simple enough to create a new page for the individual song under the correct composer and crossreference. Of course, some of them could even be by Byrd as there are still a number of lost and unattributed works of his out there. Carolus 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fantasia by William Simmes

I have Fantasia VdGS No.1 by Simmes with the note values halved from the original. Is this an arrangement, or can this still be considered the original composition? The same piece has been entered in an arrangement for recorders with note values only half of mine (one fourth of the original), and not marked with the VdGS number. I also have difficulty considering the style of this piece to be 'baroque' as the current entry classifies it. Should I enter mine separately and let the moderators fit the two together, or how should my version fit into the current entry? Afolop 20:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would still be considered the original composition. The halving of note values has been done quite a bit in early music, as you undoubtedly know. As long as you mention it the "Misc. Notes" field, it's fine. Carolus 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate to get into a contest by changing the data on someone else's entry that I don't agree with, so I will enter my version as a separate page and leave it for the moderators to reconcile the two. Afolop 13:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I expect they were basing "baroque" on the dates. The Renaissance style lasted longer in England (at least they were still teaching that in music history back in the days when I attended classes). BTW, even Wikipedia lists him as Renaissance. (I changed our listing accordingly). If it is the same work, you should upload your to the same page. I assume that this Fantasia in G minor was originally for viols (as much as anything from that era can be said to be originally for any particular instrument or ensemble). 01:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Vecchi - Ite rime . . .

I did it again. I made a page for a set that I have not yet put into the WIMA collection. I think I had better put off handling it until the current transfer project is completed. Could you delete the page for the time being. Sorry. Afolop 01:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can manage to post something there in a day or so, I see no particular reason to delete it. Carolus 02:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Goldstein, David

I have 2 compositions for viols by David Goldstein, handed to me by him personally for me to distribute. They are obviously based on songs entitled: Fairest Lord Jesus and The Little King. He was a pediatrician in New York City who died about 8 or 10 years ago. I do not know the copyright status of the pieces. Can I upload them? Afolop 20:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you have anything besides verbal permission? The works they are based upon appear to be public domain, but even if they are arrangements of a public domain original they do qualify for copyright. If you even had an email communication from him that was dated, it might be enough to post it. Carolus 01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything from him in writing. Our meetings were all at VdGSA annual conclaves. The pieces are actually fantasias based on the melodies of these songs, so they are not actually arrangements but almost certainly original compositions by him, but they might be arrangements of recorder versions of the pieces. My notes indicate my copies are from a manuscript copy. Afolop 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

G, D or T ??

Another name: Giovanni del Turco. How should the composer page be listed? Afolop 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

According to VIAF, it should be "Del Turco, Giovanni" (1577-1647) — P.davydov 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fritsch, Balthasar

VIAF seems to have some problem with the first name: is it Balthasar or Balthsar? German WIKI sources referenced on the WIMA site seem to prefer Balthasar, as do my sources which reference a date of 1606, but VIAF does not seem to agree. Can I use the name Balthasar without getting into trouble or conflicts? Afolop 21:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eremita. Giulio

VIAF lists both Eremita, Giulio and Heremita, Giulio without giving any indication that they might be the same person. Which do you prefer? Afolop 10:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A similar question arises with Baccusi. Should I use the first name Hippolito or Ippolito. Both are listed in VIAF with the majority starting without the H; my source uses the H: should I? Afolop 10:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And more: Verdonch, Verdoncq, or Verdonck?

And more: Gio. Bap. Recalchi, with no separate verification: should I guess at the full names or leave them as abbreviations? Afolop 12:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And more: John Cowden, or as in VIAF Coudeno, Giovanni [Inglese]? Afolop 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Apparently Christoph Demantius was also known as Johann Christoph Demantius or Johannes Christoph Demantius. Should the alternatives be added to the composer page? Afolop 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Aufschnaiter, Benedikt Anton

The name has been copied and pasted directly from VIAF, although my source spelled the name Auffschnaidter. Afolop 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestrina, 3 Madrigals

I couldn't find these three in any lists for Palestrina, so I put them in a separate work page under his composer page. Afolop 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bassano, - Gagliard - Error!

I just found out that I entered the Gagliard (arranged by Peter Philips) under the wrong Bassano. It should be under Bassano, Augustine. I will enter the composer page for Augustine because I have several more of his, but because of the possible linkage problems, I will leave it to one of the moderators to make the actual shift for this piece. Afolop 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

When I try to enter a category page for Augustine Bassano, I am met with an error notice saying that such a category already exists. I cannot find it on either the Composers or All People Category lists. What is going wrong? Afolop 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Back at the end of August it was discovered that at least one or two pieces were incorrectly attributed to Augustine Bassano on WIMA and they were actually by Giovanni Bassano (which is why the old category was redirected). Do you have confirmation that this is not the case with another work? Thanks, KGill talk email 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have 5 new pieces from one manuscript, four which are specifically attributed to Augustin Bassano in the ms.(the final e is omitted from the first name) and the other to Aug. Bassano with the note 'Set by P. Philippi'. Afolop 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bartolini - madrigals

I find I have a bunch of errors in entering this set. Please don't make any changes until I try to straighten them out. Afolop 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have it all in order now. This is all of the set of Bartolini madrigals that I have. For some reason a bunch of my complete scores didn't transfer, even though I was almost certain that I had them designated properly. I will have to check on this more carefully in the future. Thanks. Afolop 02:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pallavicino - errors!

I have made some errors in entering several of the Pallavicino madrigals. Please don't make any more changes until I can get these corrected. Afolop 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have it all corrected now. Thanks. Afolop 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. No problem. How many more do you have to go, just out of curiosity? Carolus 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have about 10 more Pallavicino, but they are further down the list. I have about 200 more in all from various composers, depending on how many of these need further editorial work when I get to them. Afolop 10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I still need answers to items on this talk page: item 58 - Byrd Songs and item 68 about Augustin(e) Bassano. Afolop 11:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I answered about the Byrd song collection. You will need to discuss Augustine Bassano with KGill, who can undo the redirect if necessary. Carolus 06:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ferrabosco, Sr. - Motets

There is no point rearranging into numerical order at the present time because there are quite a few more to go. I won't be able to do all of them in one session. Afolop 11:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And I have 2 more In Nomines by Ferrabosco, Sr., among the Motets in my source manuscript.They are different from the ones already entered on a separate page and each has a VdGS No. Where should I enter them? They don't really fit in the Motets because they are not really arrangements; they are basically originally viol pieces. And they don't fit under the work page for '2 In Nomines' which has already been entered--unless that is changed to '4 In Nomines' and the original entry is changed to fit. Afolop 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you ask p.davydov about these? It's been a bit busy around here but I will have a look. Carolus 03:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ferrabosco Sr., Motets

Whew! My set of Ferrabosco Motets have all been entered! -- Now for his Madrigals; some 53 of them. Afolop 12:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Pause for reflection

'Tis the season to be jolly! I think I now have all pertinent pdf files in my collection transferred from WIMA to IMSLP. There may be a few stragglers. I will still have to consider what to do with my MIDI files on WIMA. There are some special factors to consider in them. My next effort will be to find errors and correct them by replacing individual files on IMSLP. I have a start in this with a number of corrections that I had not yet put on WIMA. I am also getting help in finding these from various users of the files. Merry Christmas to all! Afolop 02:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Afolop! As someone who has watched your daily uploads from the sidelines I just wanted to thank you for the herculean effort you made in transferring your voluminous catalog to IMSLP. Merry Christmas! --Cypressdome 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Mass confusion. The files that appeared on the page for this piece up to now had the number --0419-- which were the wrong files. I have downloaded the set of files with the number --0418-- which is the right set. When I did this, a notice appeared that these files (--0418--)had been downloaded before on 17 September. I have no idea how to find where they went, but they are now in the right place here. I deleted the set of --0419-- files from this page, but they still appear in the right place on the page for RC 15. And I have no idea who to tell about this situation. --Afolop 21:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Vandalism attack

Dear Albert, You should be aware that we have been under a vandalism attack this evening, so please be careful about uploading. Thanks, Carolus 23:28, 25 March 2012 (EDT)