User talk:Carolus/archive14

Contents 1 Maintainence 2 K 622 3 Dvorak complete edition 4 He's back at it... 5 New template 6 Thanks 7 R. Strauss: Don Juan Parts 8 Instrument 9 Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini 10 Users 11 Parts 12 Dauprat Trio 13 2 Quadrilles on Opera Themes of Delibes and Grisar 14 Category:IMSLP:Articles for Deletion 15 Schubert 16 Arrangement tags 17 'Removed' copyright tag 18 List of Compositions Featuring the Horn 19 RV 574 20 Internet culturale 21 Keys 22 2 Compositions for unaccompanied Male Choir, Op.42 (Strauss, Richard) 23 About/Around Date 24 Danzi 25 La Serva Padrona 26 Kalmus GATT/TRIPS restorations 27 Griffes Poem 28 Naderman

Maintainence

Dear Carolus, can you please delete the pages in Category:IMSLP:Articles for Deletion? I'm waiting to move a page! Thanks. ClassicalComposers 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice all of these are Mozart pages, the titles of which generally are a bit of a bugbear anyway. For one thing, despite there being a baffling number of items within a work grouping (50+ symphonies, 40-odd each of concertos or divertimenti, 20-odd each of quartets, or piano or violin sonatas, etc.) there is no indication at all of keys or sobriquets in the titles to allow any differentiation or identification of specific works; the KV catalogue numbers in the titles (which are sometimes omitted altogether!?!) rarely cite the later revisions of KV³ or KV³, and the work descriptions being heavily reliant on the old Breitkopf edition don’t square with the composer’s own titles. As the NMA project is on hold as most of the works would fall foul of the technical blocking, I’d like to instead do a bulk moving of the titles to include keys, sobriquets, as well as aligning the citations of the KV with the NMA... Are there likely to be huge objections to such an alternate project? (It is likely to be quite onerous, as there are numerous citations of Mozart’s works all over the wiki, from multiple manually maintained worklists for Mozart himself, or for any instrumental combination you want to point a stick at.)

Speaking of the NMA project, I revised the page to list the volumes which recently entered the PD in Germany owing to the 25-year limit on scientific publications and at the same time considered which volumes might be unaffected by the dreaded [TB]. I gather from previous conversations regarding pre-1963 volumes, that the Robbins Landon volume of the last three symphonies, and the Croll volume of the Impresario weren't renewed – did Bärenreiter foul up renewals of any others? Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Baerenreiter dropped the ball on a fair number of items issued up through 1963, after which renewals were automatic. A number of the earlier symphonies, the Robbins-Landon editions of the very late symphonies, all of the Church Sonatas and a smattering of other items. You can get an idea by visiting the Kalmus site, as they have naturally reprinted anything which was not renewed. I'm not very enamored of the numbering system established by Breitkopf. I think aligning our KV designations with NMA is probably a good idea, as that edition is much more complete and up to date than anything else available. If we could ever get the folks in Salzburg to designate this site as an officially-approved mirror or their own, having our titles and KV designations match theirs would be imperative. Needless to say, re-organizing the Mozart titles is a huge project that will have to be taken up at some point. One of the nice things about having redirects is that we have the ability to set them up so that those looking for something under an old B & H designation can still find what they're looking for (an important concern). I also thing the pattern we established for the Haydn symphonies, such as using a simple designation like Symphony, [Catalog #], [Key] 'sobriquet' is more flexible than "Symphony No.40 in G minor, K.550" should a catalog designation have to change in light of new discoveries. Carolus 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

K 622

Does OMCDL not have this? Or are we just going to use Homerdundas's scan (add the template then)?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no. Not part of the OMCDL. Go ahead and add the template to Homerdundas' scans. He does a better job of scanning than the OMCDL folks at Subito, so I see no problem with including his contributions. Carolus 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dvorak complete edition

Hello Carolus,
do you happen to know why some volumes of series 1 have not been published? Were they just planned and have never been realized or were they printed but not sold to the public? I mean, operas/stage works are a significant part of Dvoraks compositions ...really strange. Also, I searched in several large libraries in my reach, none of them has vol. 3, 23 and 3, 24. Instead, I found single editions of some pieces. Hobbypianist 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure. I know that some of the operas were. I have a full score of Rusalka for example, which will eventually find its way here after de-binding and scanning. I've seen a full score of The Jacobins as well. Come to think of it, those are the only two I've ever seen. According to my 1988 Baerenreiter catalog, only 3 volumes (the 2 already mentioned plus Kate and the Devil) had been issued by that late date. Anything coming from the 1990s is off our radar, unfortunately. Manuscripts are always welcome, however.

hmm, actually we should call it Dvorak incomplete edition.... I really don't understand why a state publishing house has not finished it, after all Dvorak can be considered the most important Czech composer. Anyway, I've found most of the orchestral works and will post them in the next weeks. The Jacobins will have to wait a little bit, the full score has appr. 1200 pages.... Hobbypianist 11:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that's huge. I knew it was in two volumes. The state publishing house went defunct in 1990, then was sold to Baerenreiter, and is now again independent. That no doubt has something to do with the incompletion of things. It costs a lot of money - well over 10,000 USD in engraving charges for a score like that of The Jacobins alone - not to mention the parts. There's no way such a venture could be profitable. How many times has the work been performed in the last 50 years? Carolus 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. On the one hand it's a seldom heard opera and endeavours like complete editions cost lot of money but on the other hand what are some 10000 USD compared with the amount of money wasted by governments every day. Dvorak is something like a cultural heritage. It's a shame. Anyway, we'll soon have the series 3 (almost) complete. Regards, Hobbypianist 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. It would be a relative bargain to make such cultural treasures available. We're looking into making Petrucci Library Press into a non-profit so that grants and donations could be sought to produce things like this, which would then be released under a CC license, posted for free download at IMSLP, etc. The price of the two-volume set of The Jacobins, assuming you can even find it, is utterly ridiculous. Carolus 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He's back at it...

Sieber...got distracted from my Tagging...but soooo interesting :)-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New template

Dear Carolus, please use {{BSB}} for all BSB uploads. Do you suppose I should remove the "plainlinks" portion of the formatting? ClassicalComposers 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Ask PerlNerd666 also. Thanks for the template. Always useful. Carolus 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for renaming the cat. --Mikemoral 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

R. Strauss: Don Juan Parts

Hi, this is just to inform you that page 4 of the clarinet part on the FTP contains a logo in the upper right-hand corner. I'll refrain from submitting this until it can be fixed. Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll fix this part and upload later today. Carolus 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! KGill _{talk email} 03:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Part replaced. You can upload at any time. Carolus 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On page 12 of the horn part, there appears to be the far rightmost bit of the logo. Is that enough to be suspect? KGill _{talk email} 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And page 6 and 8 of the viola part...sorry... KGill _{talk email} 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaced! Carolus 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! KGill _{talk email} 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a slight black marking near the top of the 1st page of the bassoon part for Dance of the Seven Veils, but didn't consider it significant enough to hold back (you can't recognize it as the logo except for the position, it could be any arbitrary marking). Now that I'm thinking about it, I guess I shouldn't have uploaded it? KGill _{talk email} 02:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess by the absence of a response that I shouldn't worry... KGill _{talk email} 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and reminder about the Weber Symphony No. 1 - we musn't leave it behind!-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Instrument

Do you play an instrument? ClassicalComposers 03:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Piano and Horn Carolus 04:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini

Dear Carolus, I am quite baffled by the fact that some of the Op.43 files were marked as uploaded in 1922. Do you suppose I should blank the date entry? ClassicalComposers 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the Rachmaninoff here. What do you mean by uploaded in 1922? Everything over there was uploaded in 2007-2008 and is tagged as under being copyright in the USA until 1930, in the EU until 2014. The work was first published in 1934 in the USA. It was renewed after 28 years and remains protected - and thus "temporarily blocked" [TB] - until further notice. Carolus 04:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Users

Strange how we're the only users online, huh? (^–^) ClassicalComposers 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts

Running low again (thanks to the diligence of KGill) - but we're on the home stretch! And 50,000 scores (when I was away...).
And the usual monthly pokes. But no need to remind to archive this time o.O.-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...from the looks of it (Griffes!) we're very close to the end. Any progress on Vols. 11 and 12?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Buuuuump.-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be a while before we see Vol. 11 and 12. There is a chamber music catalog that we'll need to do as a project starting very soon, however. I'll make an announcement on the forum when the donor decides what he wants to name it. We'll need a similar type of upload thing that we have for Sibley. About 1300 titles. We might want to think about splitting scores and parts (trios through octets) so that future category walkers can do their thing. Carolus 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Should we just call OP finished when 1-10 are done?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 14:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Yes" :)-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I confirm the "yes." Vols.11-12 are enormous in their own right. Wagner opera parts. ...It's been a bit crazy around here lately. Carolus 06:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we now have the Wagner opera parts collections? I'm sure I could squeeze some processing time in for these after my 2,000 page stint with Der Ring. Daphnis 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't actually have them yet, but I read the webpage description over at Subito Music. Complete parts for at least some of the Wagner operas. Did you do any processing for the current batch? I think a ruby-script app was developed to strip off all the logos. Actually, if that app could be modified some, we already have the "Digital Bach Edition" - which are better scans of the BGA than the ones which are presently up for the most part. (400 x 400 dpi). We also have the "Digital Beethoven Edition", though we're getting some really nice processed scans for these items from piupianissimo. At any rate, I foresee Wagner opera parts in our future at some point. I also have a reliable report about a huge purchase of Kalmus parts made by Subito through a dealer a couple of years ago. Carolus 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

True that! We should definitely replace the bach...but Beethoven perhaps only for those which he hasn't scanned already (obviously).

Could you release more details about those chamber music parts?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't do any processing for the current batch. Who wrote the script? I'm not familiar with it. Daphnis 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Horndude/kcleung if I remember correctly.-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me}

Dauprat Trio

Hello Carolus:

I am new to all this, but I think I have some horn music worth sharing. I have a few questions. I would be grateful if you could help me. First, I've been trying unsuccessfully to change the work title of the first work I've uploaded : Trio pour 3 cors et piano (L.-F. Dauprat). I would like to change the title from "Trio pour 3 cors et piano" to either, "Horn Trio with Piano accompaniment" or "Trio de cors avec accompagnement de piano". Could you help me with that?

Also, this is a more general question. Is there a freeware that you would recommend to transform my JPEG scans into PDF format? Also, I've read somewhere that a "CCITT Level 4 compression" is recommended with scans. How can I do that? Thank you so much!

We would be delighted to see your horn music collection added here. For titles, you should be aware that we try to employ the rules established by the US Library of Congress for generic titles like Trios, Quartets, etc. I would recommend that you ask P.davydov's talk page, who is very experienced in such matters of music librarianship, about how to title this piece according the generic title rules, LC Name and Title authorities, etc.. Pieces from Dauprat's era often employ overly verbose descriptions as titles. This way, you can add titles in the preferred format from the start, which will make your contributions available faster than otherwise.

For scanning, please visit Daphnis' talk page. Daphnis probably knows more about scanning than anyone here, and should be able to help you easily convert JPEGs to monochrome TIFFs. Of course, the forum is a good place to ask also. There are a number of very knowledgeable contributors here who can help. My main job around here is to serve as the copyright chief of police. Your Dauprat posting was no problem at all from a copyright standpoint as was approved immediately. Best Wishes, Carolus 20:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've uploaded the Piano score and a cleaner version of the Horn parts of Dauprat's Trio. At the bottom of the 7th page of the Piano score, there is a stamp ("Imprimerie du Conservatoire" would be my guess) that might help you with the publisher info. Thanks! Patremblay22 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2 Quadrilles on Opera Themes of Delibes and Grisar

Hello Carolus, I didn't know where to put it and how to contribute. Perhaps I could split it and try to make useful 600 dpi monochrome files. Have you got an idea? Thanks and regards --Ralph Theo Misch 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ralph, I changed the title as both pieces are termed quadrilles in the score. Transcriptions is not really quite accurate anyway, as they are really arrangements based upon themes taken from the operas mentioned, rather than a transcription of number from the opera for other performing forces (piano 4 hands in this case). Changing it to 600 dpi and even splitting into 2 files would make life easier for those attempting to download the pieces with dialup connections. BTW, I rotated the pages into landscape format. Carolus 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - and the rotation! I tried to make monochrome scans: horrible! When I reduced the brightness, the dust dominated. Otherwise the notes turned out rather pale. So I converted the color scans. The result is the same. Perhaps I replace these files by grayscale? --Ralph Theo Misch 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to replace, as the color scan is really quite nice. You might want to consider adding a grayscale, which will still be a smaller file than the color scan. Carolus 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. But the files are not really smaller than the color scans, as I didn't want to reduce the resolution...--Ralph Theo Misch 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:IMSLP:Articles for Deletion

Thanks. ClassicalComposers 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dar Carolus, I specifically requested for the current revisions to be restored. Thanks, CC

Never mind. I uploaded a new version. Thanks anyway. CC

Schubert

Ahh, I see that you are active in editing Schubert pages also. I know that I need to do something about the numbering of Schubert's piano sonatas. Do you suppose I should simply insert a comma between "Sonata" and the Deutsch number (i.e. Piano Sonata, D.568), or do you think I should assign numbers to them according to the template (i.e. Piano Sonata No.7, D.568)? I'm asking you this because I dislike double-redirects and useless redirect pages—they are a waste of IMSLP's bandiwidth. ClassicalComposers 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of using the first system (Piano Sonata, D.568). Schubert didn't assign numbers to his sonatas, so such designations are the creations of publishers long after the fact. Trouble is, there are several different numberings depending on who the publisher was. The Breitkopf complete edition tried to standardize the numbering, but as you can see with the symphonies, it hasn't been very successful. I would put any re-numbering / re-titling proposal up on the forum and see what everyone thinks before doing anything. Schubert has some ardent fans here, so it's important to get everyone's input. Also ask P.davydov, who has much library experience and often is aware of reasons why it's a good idea to do it in a particular manner. Carolus 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement tags

Hi Carolus. You may have noticed that Feldmahler's introduced an autotagging system for arrangements, which derives the orchestration from the sub-headings, so that "=====For Violin and Piano (Brahms)=====", for example, is converted to the category "For violin and piano (arr)".

I have noticed this, which is wonderful.

Because the autotagger ignores everything from and including the first "(" in the heading, this means that headings like "=====For Violin (Cello) and Piano (Schneider)=====" aren't parsed correctly, so you might want to use "=====For Violin or Cello and Piano (Schneider)=====" instead. This will be translated both as "For violin and piano (arr)" and "For cello and piano (arr)".

OK, So the parsing changes with the open parens. I'll avoid doing as I did last night with the Widor-Schneider arrangement.

As you might expect, this will only work when the heading is at the correct level, so "====For Violin and Piano (Brahms)====" (level 4 instead of 5) will be ignored, and there are also plenty of pages only including arrangements, with no headings at all, which also aren't recognised. I know you're always fastidious with the headings, but the tagging process is turning up some very strange things indeed :-) — P.davydov 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can just imagine! Here's a question: What about the level 5 headings which indicate different editions, as we have in the Beethoven symphonies? Should we get rid of these now as they really have nothing to do with arrangements - or, does the autotagging ignore all headings above the level 3 "Arrangements and Transcriptions" heading? Carolus 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved some similar headings on the Bach pages to level 4, if that might work with the Beethoven as well? — P.davydov 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, we could end up with conflicts where there are scores of only part of a work. Perhaps we should scrap the headers for editions altogether? Carolus 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll poke my head in and point out Messiah, as you very well know :)-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I gather that the autotagger is in play for all level-5 headers, regardless of whether they are located above or beneath "Arrangements and Transcriptions." Carolus 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And parts-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If so, I wonder if the autotagger can be changed so that it only reads those items beneath the "Arrangements and transcriptions" level-3 header, ignoring items beneath the other level-3 headers. I don't know how hard that would be to accomplish in terms of programming, but it would at least get rid of some of the oddities cropping up thanks to the use of level-5's to mark Solo and Orchestral parts, different editions, etc. As it stands, there's a small issue with how Cadenzas have been accounted for using the hierarchy system - since they fall under "Arrangements and Transcriptions" now. Carolus 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just happened to be on the Beethoven symphonies pages, so I see what you mean. Because the headings were just duplicating the edition information shown below, it seemed better to take them out, which I've done :-) The autotagger will only respond to level-5 headings that start with the word "For", and it doesn't seem to matter whether this is preceded by "Arrangements and Transcriptions" — P.davydov 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. That's good news. This means some of the other level-5's can be left as they are, since there are instances were they are helpful. Carolus 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought "Cadenzas" was level 4 anyway? But it shouldn't affect the autotagging. The biggest problems are where we just have transcriptions on a page without any headings, so they go unrecognised. BTW thanks for your comments on my talk page which I didn't see until just now. Anyway, Feldmahler did the hard part :-) — P.davydov 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I am also glad to see this is an excuse to bring Mr. Liszt out of the insane asylum over there. :)) Carolus 00:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

'Removed' copyright tag

Hi. I just re-uploaded all of my works under cc-by-nc, and upon (paranoically) deleting the old revisions, I now find that the copyright tag reads 'Removed'. Is this a problem to be addressed, or should I not worry? (Is that supposed to happen when you delete old revisions of files?) KGill _{talk email} 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't revert to "unknown" when you delete and replace, but keeps the tag as "removed." All fixed now. Glad to see you changes the CC license. The Ebay seller backed down, in case you hadn't seen the forums. Carolus 07:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Compositions Featuring the Horn

Thanks Carolus! I've been putting some time on the List for Horn. I'm really glad to hear that all I did wasn't in vain. I was quite disappointed at first when I realized that there was an automatic thing going on. So I guess if I check with the new list, I should be able to add virtually all the music for horn that is on IMSLP (in the future, I mean). Do you have any comments/suggestions about the changes I did to the List of Compositions Featuring the Horn?

Yes, you should keep checking the list I linked to, since the one you have been working on is much better organized. The list generated by the category-walker will be sorted by title only. No comment to add except thanks for the superb work! Carolus 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Carolus, I am done updating the "List of Compositions Featuring the Horn". I will continue to update regularly from the new categorization project. I've also updated the "List of Compositions for Wind Quintet". If there is anything else you think I could be helpful with, I would be glad to help some more. Otherwise, I'll go back to scanning some horn music! :)

RV 574

I saw you moved the entry for the Concerto RV 574 by Vivaldi from my initial suggestion containing all solo instruments to 'Violin Concerto'. I don't think this is a good idea, as the ordinary violin concertos Vivaldi is famous for contain only the violin as a soloist, while here there are horns and oboes which give the whole piece a more concerto-grosso like style. So my suggestion for Vivaldi concertos (I think I while start uploading a few from SLUB) is to really name all solo instruments. Another question concerns the key: Should it read just 'Concerto in F' or 'Concerto in F Major'? I'd prefer the latter one (that's what we have, e.g., with the works of Graun) but someone set it to the shorter version which would not allow to distinguish major and minor (or is F always major and F minor has to be denoted explicitly?). --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 10:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boccaccio. Was I mistaken here that the Horns and Oboes were intended as concertante instruments along with the violin? If so, my apologies. I thought it was for Violin solo with the Oboes and Horns part of the accompanying orchestra. I absolutely agree we should name all solo instruments in the title. I also thought it might be a good idea to use the pattern we've established for Haydn symphonies to deal with multiple concerti for the same forces e.g. Violin Concerto, RV ###, Key. This will sort them in RV number and yet retain the key as a helpful indentifier. However, if you think having the Vivaldi sorted by key is preferable, that's fine too. (I don't think there's an easy way to deal with cases like Vivaldi, who composed numerous concerti, etc. for similar forces - frequently in the same keys.) It looks like you've already set up the titles to sort by key (Violin Concerto in [Key]. RV ###) , so I am inclined to leave them as they are. Carolus 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure we could change the pattern to your suggestion. However one should keep in mind that there is one particular differences between RV and Hob. RV is sorted by key (as there is practically no chance to find out when a particular concert was written), so there is no real difference between the two versions apart from the fact that sorting by key as we do now lists A major before C major. The only works where sorting by RV might be an advantage are the more recently discovered ones which have RV numbers >740, but they might be difficult to obtain anyway. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning RV 574, Horns and Oboes are really concertante as are all instruments in the Concerti for multiple instruments RV 505-585. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, ABRSM never uses the word "major" in its publications. ClassicalComposers 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

English wikipedia always uses major, see, e.g., the List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Boccaccio: Yes, F is always major.

Ha! See my revised reply above. Let's just leave the titles the way you've set them up. No real advantage to sort by RV it would appear. Carolus 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to look it up in the Chicago Manual of Style - not certain whether "major" and "minor" should be capitalized or not. The general rule in English for titles is that the first and last words of a title are always capitalized. So if the complete title is "Symphony in G Minor", the minor is capitalized (as the last word). However, if the full title is Violin Concerto in D major, RV 574 - is the major capitalized? I'll find out... Carolus 20:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is just unusual to find "major" and "minor" capitalized. ABRSM doesn't do it. Most CD labels do not use it either. And besides, most of what we have here on IMSLP does not capitalize it. ClassicalComposers 20:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Major and minor are only capitalized if they are the last word of the title. If they're followed by a catalog number (RV ###, for example), they are lower case. Carolus 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I had a look at the J.G. Graun page. There we use 'major' and 'minor' which I think is ok. However, we should really stick to including 'major' even if it is not strictly necessary. Just for reasons of symmetry. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask if you read my last message concerning RV 574 on my page. It seems to be gone after I tried to move it. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet culturale

I noticed you changed the name of the source of my recently uploaded 'Alessandro Bala' from 'Conservatorio di musica S. Pietro a Majella, Napoli' to 'I-Nc' as a shorthand of 'Internet culturale'. I'm not sure if this is a very good idea as the 'internet culturale' page just seems to provide a convenient search interface to the staff from the different Italian libraries. So if we use 'I-Nc' instead of the individual library names we somehow take away their credit. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 19:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking we might want to go to using Library sigla. "I-Nc" is the actual siglum for Conservatorio di musica S. Pietro a Majella, Napoli (Italy-Napoli concervatorio). It is getting to the point that we're linking to a lot of libraries now, so I thought I would experiment by listing the sigla for a few and see how they look. I got the symbol from the list published in PDF form by RISM. I'm thinking of posting this list later on. The siglum for the Paris Bibliotheque Nationale is F-Pn. It appears they have about every library covered. The PDF list is 179 pages. Carolus 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I looked for this list myself. So SLUB should be changed to D1 in the future. Well, I must admit I'd clearly prefer to see full names or abbreviations which are either common or can be easily associated with a library. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's G-Dl. Not terribly attractive. SLUB Dresden is a lot nicer. It's just an experiment. I want to post the question on the forum, etc. before we even think of actually implementing such a scheme. Ease of use for the user is most important. If using sigla would cause confusion, it's not worth it. Carolus 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "D-DI"? Unless there's a Dresden in England somewhere :-) — P.davydov 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My list employs the English terms for the different countries. "Germany" is listed instead of Deutschland. Is it Deutschland in the one you downloaded? If they have multiple lists of sigla based on language, that could be a strike against using their system - sort of defeats the purpose of having a shorthand system to designate all the different libraries around the world. Carolus 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I downladed a list which uses English terms but has D-Germany. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we can scratch that idea! I'm somewhat surprised they would fail to employ a single unified system - at least for all countries which used the Latin alphabet. If every language uses a different designation scheme, it undermines the purpose of using sigla. Just do what we've been doing until someone comes up with a better idea. Carolus 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Keys

Hi, Carolus. Do we want hyphens between keys (i.e. E-flat) or do we want a space instead (i.e. E flat)? ClassicalComposers 20:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Major" and "minor" are usually not capitalized, and if accidental symbols aren't available, then keys should be written as "E-flat major" for example... Daphnis 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Daphnis is correct. flat and sharp are considered modifiers and are therefore not capitalized and connected to the item they modify with a hyphen. Since major and minor are also modifying adjectives, they are not capitalized unless they occupy the position of last word in a title. Carolus 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already moved all of the Vivaldi pages. ClassicalComposers 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But shouldn't we keep the 'major' assignment also for the Vivaldi works? --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think CC retained the major and minor designations, at least last time I looked. Carolus 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Oops, looks like he only retains the "minor." Carolus 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he deleted every 'major' (or nearly every). But from my point of view, it is just his personal decision to leave out 'major'. When he uploaded his first contribution here, he called the piece 'Sonata in F major'. He only changed it to 'Sonata in F' a week ago or so. Furthermore the statement in the Manual of Style which states that 'major' should be left out, also is due to him without any further comment. So I'm strictly advocating going back to 'major' and 'minor' (At this point, I don't want to comment on my impression from his discussion page that he seems to love doing things single-handedly without considering the rest of the community and with being quite rude from time to time). --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Another strong point against dropping 'major' is that now a piece in D major is placed behind a piece in D minor, thereby placing pieces in a different order than RV. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CC asked me about it yesterday, and I advised against making any changes for now, pending a possible review of all these kinds of issues later in the year. The tagging process is uncovering all sorts of things we need to think about it, many of which are a result of well-meaning people making uniltateral decisions about style. I wish I could say I was entirely blameless <ahem> :-) — P.davydov 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late, I just finished restoring everything. Now all works in the Vivaldi page follow the same style conventions. Maybe it is even a good idea not to try to get one unique IMSLP style but to have different though similar styles for either each composer or at least each epoche. I mean CC changed Strings to String Orchestra, e.g., which from a romantic point of view might be absolutely correct while from a baroque point of view is absolutely horifying as it reminds you of some Kreisler interpretation of the 50s or so but not of the historically informed performance we know today. Maybe we could even introduce some kind of 'adoption', meaning that one user takes care of certain composers and ensures that everything is kept unified in this domain. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. You'd already started your renaming when I posted the above, and I was referring to CC's activities. I've been retagging the Vivaldi works to match your instrumentations. Any mention of "strings" in the instrumentation automatically adds the category "String Orchestra" as well by default. Don't be put off by that too much at the moment, as the categories are still being fine-tuned, and this can be changed without having to re-edit any of the work pages — P.davydov 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2 Compositions for unaccompanied Male Choir, Op.42 (Strauss, Richard)

Help! What happened with the templates for General Informations? Regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. You had an extra double bracket, which caused the page to act strangely. Carolus 06:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

About/Around Date

Hello: Quick question: What is the right way of notating an approximate date, if there is one, for example "about 1819"? a.1819? about 1819? circa 1819? Best regards! Patremblay22 06:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, here's the style we're using for dates. If the date is printed on the score, it is given in plain numerals, like "1814". If the date appears on a preface or an advertisement, it is given in parens. If the date is known (from a reliable source like the Hofmeister Monatsbericht) but does not appear on the score, it is given as "n.d.(1894)". If the date is estimated from a source like our publisher pages (with lists of plate numbers), it is given as "n.d.(ca.1855)". If you have no idea of what the date would be, just use "n.d." So, the whole publisher citation is ordered thusly:

[City (principal headquarters of publisher)]: [Name of Publisher (as it originally appeared on that particular engraving, if known)], [Ed.(edition number, if known)], [date (if known - see above)], plate [plate number (if known), including any plate number prefix (like Durand's famous "D. & F.")].

BTW, I saw you uploaded a new version of the Dauprat. Do you want me to delete the old file you uploaded the other day? Also, the Danzi scan was superb. Hope you can provide the piano part as well. Carolus 06:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The new version of the Dauprat is definite. The other one can be deleted. Also, I now know from a very reliable source the title of the work: Trio pour deux Cors-Alto et Cor-Basse avec Accompagnement de Piano ou de Violons, Alto, Violoncelle et Contrebasse, Flûtes et Hautbois Op. 15 (published around 1819). I suggest that we rename the file by the name of "Trio pour deux Cors-Alto et Cor-Basse avec Accompagnement de Piano, Op.15". Would that seemed fine to you? Also, yes, I will upload the piano part for the Danzi tomorrow. Patremblay22 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to the Danzi.

On the Dauprat, we normally use English titles for generic works like Trios and try to avoid the overly florid titles (really descriptive paragraphs) of that era, which is a little misleading as it stands since the accompaniment is either piano or small orchestra (as the full form of the title explains). It's also a little confusing to call it a trio, as it is really an accompanied trio (though I expect we'll still have to use "trio" regardless since the composer apparently used that term). That said, since Dauprat is a fairly empty category, it's OK with me if you really want to use the French, but how about "Trio pour 3 Cors (do we really need to specify the now-obsolete instruments here?) et Piano, Op.15." I think you probably should get P.Davydov to OK it also, as I really appreciate having his input (which is really expert input) for this type of thing. It helps that there is an opus also.

As you've seen with the Horn category, we now have am instrumentation system under way which will enable one to find just about any combination they are looking for. I expect that adding the opus should help to achieve the objective here, which is to give the work a sufficiently unique title to avoid confusion with other works (by the same composer). This is sort of a complex case, truth be told. (Most are much simpler). Also, when you have a fairly prolific composer who wrote a large number of sonatas, concertos and other generic titles for different instruments, things are much easier to find by using the formula we used for Beethoven's Op.17 - Horn Sonata, Op.17. This way, someone does not have to stare at a long list of "Sonata for [Instrument] and Piano", etc. Once you get beyond the generic titles (Symphonies, Concerti, Sonatas, Duos, Trios, Quartets, etc.), it's preferable to use the original language (as long as it employs the Latin alphabet). The Dauprat is an interesting example of the extension of the baroque-era concept of a Trio-Sonata into the realm of concertante music for horns with accompaniment. Carolus 07:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Carolus, to me this seems more like the extension of the opera world (Duetto, Terzetto, Quartetto) to instrumental music with a complete disregard for the efforts of the orchestra or the pianist (grin!) see also my post on Patremblays talk page--Kalliwoda 23:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great!

Danzi

Yes, it is a recent typeset on whice every aspect of the original page layout has been retained. Her (his?) name is Viola Roth. Patremblay22 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's dated of 1997, so I guess it won't work. I asked on the forum before scanning it and the answer was positive that I could upload it. But I guess you are the specialist! :) The piano part that I will upload is not a typeset but a copy of the Breitkopf 1836 edition, so that shouldn't be problematic... Patremblay22 07:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A scan of the 1836 is absolutely free. If there's a 1997 copyright claim, I'll have to get rid of the Krufft part - which is too bad because it's very nicely done. Do you have anything legal for the Krufft, or should I get rid of the page itself also? Carolus 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://www.imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3165. The piano part is legal. Will be there romorrow too. Patremblay22 07:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am inclined to approve this Horn part also, since it literally a note-for-note re-engraving of the original. That does not qualify for protection under either USA or Canada law. If there is no editor credit, I'll tag it C/C/C.

Great news! :) Patremblay22 05:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

La Serva Padrona

Hello Carolus, The score that was created by Damien H Zanette was taken directly from a manuscript of the opera, one that was digitized by the Unviersity of North Texas. He created a score and parts for each aria and recit individually, I merely organized them into one single file for each instrument part. His scores are not arrangements. Except for the viola part, which merely doubles the bass line in the arias.

I was under the understanding that because the score was in the public domain that it was fine to create the parts. Please advise on this because I am currently working on a set of parts for John Blow's venus and Adonis.

If all Zanette did was to duplicate the manuscript at UNT, I am inclined to approve your submission. That's not an arrangement, just a typeset. All you did was to extract part from his typeset. Thanks for letting me know. Carolus 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kalmus GATT/TRIPS restorations

First of all, jeez, your talk page has to have more action than the entire wiki! Second, is it a pretty fair guess that any Soviet reprints by Kalmus that are *not* currently in their online catalog were restored by GATT/TRIPS and should therefore be avoided? I see they reprinted Glière's Red Poppy suite at one point and it's no listed in their current catalog, so it was likely restored to copyright. Daphnis 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it gets a little busy around here. Your guess about Kalmus is correct. All of the stuff that was restored was sold off in an enormous "fire sale" 12 years ago. If a previously printed title is not in the online catalog, it's a GATT/TRIPS issue. BTW, I talked with Jim Farrington today, He is interested in hosting your Stravinsky collection along with the Orchestra Project Stravinsky files we have. Carolus 06:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me, of course. Daphnis 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Griffes Poem

Have you found a renewal or something? It seems as if OM would hardly have a Non-PD score, even with permission...-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Schirmer did indeed renew it. I am actually doing a bit more research on this as there may be an error in the notice on either the score or parts issued by Schirmer. Also, there's the whole issue of when first publication actually took place under US law. The definition of publication found in Nimmer on Copyright would appear to support the view that the full score (the original version) was first published when the flute and piano reduction was published in 1922. The basic doctrine is that publication of a derivative work constitutes publication of the original. If someone else orchestrated the piece from the reduction, one could make a case for the full score's first publication in 1951. The orchestration is the composer's original however, so this argument is very dubious. Carolus 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So...how did OM pull this off??-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it has to do with the legal definition of publication. They've been quite adventuresome for several titles, and I've been a bit surprised that Boosey & Hawkes, et al have not tried to shut them down. I'll be discussing with Feldmahler, too. Carolus 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Naderman

Is it possible, given Martenot's dates, that this is a re/offprint?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 04:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I just checked on OCLC. Martenot's (not the inventor of the instrument- whose first name was Maurice, BTW) edition was first issued in 1925. The engraving is consistent with that date also. Carolus 04:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks (that clarifies an Ondes point...speaking of which, Varèse is out of copyright in CA in 2016! And nothing will be in the US XD)-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 04:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his publications in the 1920s with Curwen resulted in some messed up dates and notices. I think there might be some 'holes' there to be exploited - if I ever get hold of scans for the music volumes of the Catalog of Copyright Entires from 1923-1950, and the renewals files between 1950 and 1977. Carolus 04:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting...of course, 3 pieces would be what, 1/4 of his whole oeuvre? My complete works set is 2CD :)
And has the "anonymous" publisher mentioned on Homerdundas's page (is it masters or Kalmus?) found anything? (couldn't they scan the catalog as a "present" if this turns up something? :)-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple volumes, and the set they have is untouchable. I already asked, and they said no. As I said over there, they're actually making a personal trip to LoC in March - which is pretty unusual - to conduct a search themselves on the Pines. There should be some sets of CCE around in Federal depository libraries. The folks at Stanford have entered only the items in Class A (books) in their database. Carolus 05:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK.-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)