User talk:Emery/Archive 1



Belated and happy welcome! Eric 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Eric! Great to be part of project IMSLP, which I believe to be one of most organized online efforts to better musical community. Cheers to all involved - Emery 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


B dur does not mean B major. Eric 00:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (welcome still applies ! )

Dear Eric, B dur means B major I thought? Emery 15:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. Was responding (over-brusquely, apologies!!!) to something that may not have been your edit anyway, and no big deal anycase, fixed it anycase... was a mislabeling at Piano Quartet, Op.36, by Heinrich Marschner. Best! Eric 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Emery. Just to let you know she's been moved to Jacobs-Bond, Carrie in accordance with IMSLP's naming guidelines. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


thanks! was going to try to figure out how to do that myself since I have Sibley's RSS feed subscribed to and noticed those also- the C.F. Kahnt catalog is listed also (I think? sometimes they mislabel things of course, no more than anyone else of course- mind, I quite like the work of the Sibley admins and scanners, I should mention, and the responsiveness when one does have to mail them with a problem, too. Anyway :) Thanks again!)

I admit I did not quite know how to approach the situation either. One thing must be kept in mind about Sibley administrators is that they often are unreliable with dates. Sometimes there is no date listed in music at all, and the dates are off the mark sometimes. You're welcome for the Sibley scans, Emery 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

so far as I know it's not the Sibley admins per se who are unreliable with dates, but the library cataloguing system - if a date at another library (looking at other catalogs for comparison) would have said "ca.1870" eg their software rounds that to 1870, which I agree they should try to fix (or warn more people about- especially when it causes century problems...) People really should use HMB (and Pazdirek to some extent) (and similar sources) and not just plate tables e.g. more and more though, though the better-filled-out a plate table is, the more useful it is, too... it's been a good experience for me learning about how all this is estimated, that's for sure. :) Eric 04:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


Dear Emery, If you wish to change a composer's name like you just did and move all the titles, it would be a good idea to mention it first to some of the other admins and give your reason for doing so. Wieniawski's first name on Wikipedia is the original Polish form of Henryk. While I expect the French form of Henri is most often encountered, P.davydov or one of the other librarians here may have had a perfectly good reason for using the original form of the name. If you really want to move a composer, there is one I can think of who might very well need it - Rossini. We are presently using an archaic spelling of his first name (Gioacchino), while wikipedia (and most of the world) uses the present form of the first name: Gioachino. Thanks, Carolus 05:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I did happen to notice Rossini, and he is an excellent example of the archaic spellings lingering around IMSLP; therefore, I do wish to redirect those pages. I think the Henryk spelling was introduced prior to the realization of the LoC standard and recent composer naming guidelines, which is why it was not changed. Perhaps it went unnoticed, but I don't think there was a particularly strong reason for keeping the archaic spelling. Respectfully yours, Emery 05:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to confirm what Carolus said, it's best to check before changing composer names, as moves can often be controversial. In the case of Wienawski, the Library of Congress authorities site uses "Henri", so that's OK. They actually use "Gioacchino" as Rossini's first name too, so we should probably discuss this proposed move on the forums before taking any action — P.davydov 05:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to sincerely apologize for any trouble I may have caused in doing the actual redirect. This is the first and only Wiki I have ever edited, and I am not yet fluent in the editing tools. I would be grateful if someone could let me know how to do the redirects without potentially damaging any pages. Respectfully, Emery 05:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that Henryk was an old introduction as well - probably based on wikipedia (who still uses it). Be sure to place the colon in front of the category also when you redirect - otherwise you end up with a sub-category for the old spelling. Move the talk page also if present. Ask KGill and P.davydov about moving Rossini just to make sure, but I've been thinking it would be a good idea to do this soon. Go for it if they are OK with it. There some cases where we've used something slightly different than LoC (for example) and other sources for various reasons, which is why you should bring up your idea on the forums, to other admins, etc. as the reasons are not always well documented. Carolus 05:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are certain circumstances where one should probably avoid using the LoC. It is certainly not the be all and end all of standardization. In fact, there are many cases where it is almost fallible. If there is conflicting information then I would ask without hesitation, and see what other members thought. This case was something that I highly doubted would be met with much controversy. A case like Rossini would need to be mentioned to other members of the community since Gioacchino is the current LoC form, as Davydov kindly mentioned. For some reason I thought Gioachino was used at the LoC now, but my memory isn't what it used to be! That all being said, Wikipedia should never be used as a first resort either. Hopefully my change hasn't evoked too much vexation, and I will ask in the future. Respectfully, Emery 06:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a couple of years since I went through all the composer names to check their spelling, and the two main sources I used were the LoC Authorities, and Grove's dictionary, falling back on Wikipedia if it wasn't in either of these two. In the case of Rossini the two main sources don't agree — LoC has "Gioacchino", but Grove uses "Gioachino". Both the English and Italian Wikipedias have "Gioachino", which probably tips the scales in favour of the modern spelling, but when changing the name of a really well known composer it's probably a good idea to mention it first on the forums, and see if anyone comes up with a good argument against it — P.davydov 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a list of proposed changes to you and KGill, so you will see them shortly. I'm currently looking through the authorities to see if anything is out of date. Respectfully, Emery 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing pages immediately after creation

Hi Emery, it's common practice here that when an admin just created a page that you wait at least an hour to make any edits. I had just created the page for Lincke's Im Reiche des Indra and the changes you were attempting to make conflicted with mine. I know you are trying to help, but just a note for the future. Thanks Massenetique talk email 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that. To let you know, you did to the same thing to me last night if I recall ;) Anyway, understandably frustrating. Respectfully, Emery 06:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
An admin deleting non-PD files is a little different, but I see your point. No disrespect meant, Massenetique talk email 06:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you deleted the non-PD files you had made a separate edit that caused the conflict. No disrespect taken, Emery 06:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that I am an admin, but I still should have waited a bit, you are right ... The way you've taken to IMSLP I'm sure you'll be an admin in no time too so I should probably just shut up! ;) Massenetique talk email 06:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Composer names

Hello Emery. Thanks for your suggestions, and with the comments I made above in mind, I checked what the three main sources said for each of the four composers:

IMSLP current Library of Congress Grove Wikipedia (English)
Handel, George Frideric Handel, George Frideric Handel, George Frideric Handel, George Frideric
Mendelssohn, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Felix Mendelssohn, Felix Mendelssohn, Felix
Prokofiev, Sergei Prokofiev, Sergey Prokofiev, Sergey Prokofiev, Sergei
Scriabin, Alexander Scriabin, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Skryabin, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Scriabin, Alexander

In the case of Handel, my understanding is that he Anglicised his name after settling in Britain, and this is why we know him as "George Frideric Handel", instead of his birth name of "Georg Friedrich Händel" (which is preferred by the German Wikipedia). There's a comparable situation with Rachmaninoff, who chose that spelling of his name after emigrating to the United States, instead of "Rakhmaninov" (which would be the usual transliteration of his surname). As the existing name is that which Handel/Händel chose to adopt, I would recommend keeping it as it is.

Mendelssohn's family name was changed to "Mendelssohn Bartholdy" while he was still very young, and Wikipedia explains its usage. Interestingly the hyphen seems to have been added by the Library of Congress, and the German Wikipedia uses the unhyphenated form. There seem to be legitimate arguments on both sides, so I'd say this is one for the forums.

IMSLP is certainly inconsistent in its spellings of Sergey/Sergei, Nikolay/Nikolai, Andrey/Andrei, Aleksandr/Alexander, etc. from the Russian (or indeed the use of patronymics), but so are our three main sources! If we're striving for consistency, then changing the names of Prokofiev and Scriabin would affect many other Russian composers as well, so it's best to tread cautiously. Probably another one for the forums to consider... — P.davydov 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress usually prefers Sergey, Nikolay, and usually Aleksandr when dealing with Russian names, but there are several inconsistencies in the catalogs which should be fixed. In 2007-2008 there was a proposed project aimed at fixing the problem and establishing a standard, but an agreement was never reached. There are interesting debates for both sides. It seems that Bartholdy is not included in the surname of English speaking countries for some reason. There are strong cases to be made on both sides, and I'm interested to see what IMSLP decides as a community. Respectfully, Emery 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW, you might be interested to know that it was a major music publisher (of all people) who complained to me about the spelling presently used for Rossini's name. They use "Gioachino", which is a little unusual as they usually follow LoC. Carolus 03:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few publishers use Gioachino. Schirmer is the largest I can think of off hand. Respectfully, Emery 04:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You can see some of the issues involved when the authoritative sources contradict each other. If we were to just, say, always follow the Library of Congress, we'd have "Sergeĭ Ivanovich Taneev" [sic], but also "Giaochino Rossini". Grove, on the other hand, gives us "Sergey Taneyev" and "Giaochino Rossini". Following either source slavishly could have unforeseen consequences, which is why each case needs to be considered on its merits. The rules I used to go by were:
  1. if the existing composer agrees with either the Library of Congress or Grove, then leave it unchanged;
  2. otherwise, if the LC and Grove use the same name, use that instead;
  3. if the existing composer name, the LC form and Grove's form are all different from each other, use the English Wikipedia article to decide which is the most common form, and use that.
  4. when transliterating Russian names, avoid the uses of "ï" that the LC uses for the Russian letter "й", as there are display problems with that character in certain fonts
Not every name will appear in all three sources, which then reduces the number of available options. Occasionally you'll find a name that isn't in any of the three, in which case we have to resort to Google, or the Wikipedia in the composer's native language (if known) — P.davydov 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would suggest is always looking at the sources the LoC uses. The authority records are often modified as new sources and information are compiled. Sometimes the LoC authority records lack the cogency we assume they have. In summery, no source should be rigorously followed. There are a few additional resources I think are useful such as MGG online. Grove is usually safe to follow when it agrees with one of the other main sources, but it sometimes lacks the source material to buttress its preferred form. Wikipedia is a good source in some situations because it usually reflects the most common / well known name of the person. In other words, it reflects a general consensus. The case of Alexander Scriabin is difficult. Aleksandr Nikolayevich Scriabin should probably be used on IMSLP, but it would look very strange to most musicians who know him as Alexander. Changing Sergei Prokofiev to Sergey Prokofiev is more more stipulated; consequentially, I suggest we go ahead and move the page (KGill has agreed on his talk page as well). Respectfully, Emery 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If we change the "Alexander" to "Aleksandr", on the basis that this is the more authentic Russian spelling, then shouldn't "Scriabin" also become "Skryabin" by the same reasoning? The LC's hybrid English-Russian approach seems difficult to justify. But I've no problem with "Sergey Prokofiev" — P.davydov 21:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We can go ahead and change Sergey Prokofiev then. While we are at it, Taneyev, Rachmaninoff, Protopopov, Lyapunov and several more also need to be changed in accordance with the guideline. I can gladly move those composers to lesson the workload. I noticed that you wrote a new subset to the guidelines about Russian transliterations, and they look nice. I have a few points, and there may be a reasonable answers:

  1. How do we know what is common? It doesn't seem like there should be too many common composer names to list, so maybe they can all be listed in the section? I think that serves as a solution. We will also need to look through non-PD composers to check for exceptions in the future. Boris Tchaikovsky comes to mind.
  2. Edison should be added to the exceptions of rule four. Denisov comes to mind as starting with the Russian Э. It wouldn't hurt.
  3. "Change the letter "i" in the middle of a word to "y"' if it's followed by a vowel. Rodion Shchedrin would be changed to Rodyon if he were in the public domain? This seems extremely unusual. Vissarion Shebalin would also be changed to Vissaryon? There is good reasoning for the principle, but I have never seen their names written as Rodyon nor Vissaryon. Perhaps they should be added to the exceptions.
  4. We need to decide what to do with Skryabin. According to the new guidelines, it should be Aleksandr Nikolayevich Scriabin. The problem is that it raises the issue of the use of the patronymic. To avoid confusion, but keep consistent, how about we use the form Aleksandr Scriabin? This way we avoid the patronymic and keep consistent with the guidelines.

These are very well put together guidelines. They addressed a great proportion of my concerns. I'll take these to some of my colleagues on Monday and see if they have anything to add. Respectfully, Emery 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Emery, and I've tweaked the guidelines to reflect your concerns. I was discussing the use of patronymics with KGill and NLewis late last night, and we had come to the conclusion that they should only be used to disambiguate between two composers with the same name (e.g. Aleksandr Aleksandrov). Having slept on it, and seen your comments, this seems the right course of action.
As I have some time today, I'll make a start on moving some of the less famous names (since these changes should be uncontroversial), but let me know if your colleagues raise any other issues. I'm happy to leave Sergey Prokofiev to you :-) — P.davydov 07:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dates on publications

Hello Emery, I noticed you changed the date to the orchestra parts to D'Indy's Op.25 to 1890. If there was no date originally printed on the parts, you should use "n.d." Very few European publishers printed dates on scores before 1891, the effective date of several bilateral treaties between western European nations and the USA. Simrock, Belaieff, and Rieter-Biedermann are the only three I can think of who printed dates on scores fairly often. Also, if you're taking the 1890 from Sibley, you should keep in mind that Sibley's dating for publication - especially for some of their earlier uploads (2006-2008) is often wildly off the mark. The best way to find the date something was actually issued (in central Europe, especially) is to look it up in the Hofmeister Monatsbericht. If you have found a reliable source of info for the actual date of issue, insert the date in square brackets after the "n.d." It's also highly unlikely that Hamelle issued the parts at an earlier date than the score, though not totally impossible. Carolus 03:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Sibley is often off the mark as I was saying to Eric in the above 'catalog' conversation. I did not use the Hofmeister Monatsbericht, and I was confusing different IMSLP conventions and information. Thanks for the correction. On another note, I noticed that there are a few incorrect copyright tags. I suspect they were correct according to IMSLP conventions at the time they were tagged, but have since become obsolete as a result of the accumulation of checked status rules. For example, some works should be tagged V/V/C because of the rule of the shorter term. The Rost template should also appear, which I completely forgot when uploading Carpenter earlier today... Sorry about that. Another common "mistake" is when certain covers are tagged v/v/21 (for example) and V/V/V when they should be V/V/C (probably, sometimes V/V/V depending on the circumstance). Legally, none of this matters much, but should they be fixed in the future? I don't know what the conventions for copyright review procedure are on IMSLP. Respectfully, Emery 04:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the cover issue arises when you have works (like the Carpenter you mentioned) who are tagged V/V/C but the covers are tagged V/V/V - it generates links for Performers Editions and Petrucci-Merton when both are officially limited to items tagged V/V/V. It's entirely possible the cover in question actually is V/V/V, but PE and PM don't want to be annoyed for requests for pieces they cannot print. So if you see a cover tagged V/V/21, change it to V/V/C just to save PE and PM some annoyance. Also, it's good that you're taking a second look at some of these older entries as information about the composer, arranger, etc. has frequently been added - which can mean a tag change is really needed. Thanks, Carolus 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I only suspected that might be why covers were tagged V/V/C, but wasn't sure. That should probably be added to the guidelines. I would need to send you a message about changing any tags because I'm not a reviewer. Just a new user who's still getting used to the way things are run around here. Respectfully, Emery 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll gladly retag things as they turn up. Carolus 04:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

James H Rogers

was informed by someone at the LOC that there is anyway some doubt whether some works, esp. some of the songs, published just under 'James H. Rogers' are by James Hotchkiss or Henderson Rogers, near-contemporaries/overlapping with somewhat different fields of interest (Hotchkiss mostly in organ music, James Henderson Rogers in band music, both composed vocal music) - most sources seem to plop for the former with many of the songs, they - LOC - for the latter with quite a few of those though..., they tell me on stylistic grounds. even on these composers there are experts who may be able to tell them apart... all I can say is that as often... caution, who knew and I have no idea whether I have a point here alas. Eric 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I ascribed it to Hotchkiss was because of the harmonic style of the song and the prominence of the organ. Another difference is the preferred choice of voices. Hotchkiss preferred using baritone ("medium voices") while Henderson preferred the outer range voices, such as soprano or bass. This is what I remember at least, so it's possible I'm wrong about the attribution. I'll have look through the LoC archives later in the evening once I'm off work to compare styles. Who is your contact? Emery 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

actually, noticed - I think - that you uploaded several of his songs yesterday - and at least one was an anthem for baritone and organ - but this really was not a complaint (admittedly, with my keyboard - erm - there is no polite way to put it - anyhow, having to find workarounds for the simplest things right now - I should probably at least wait until later before writing anything - and it may well have come across as one - apologies...) - but did not know if you were aware of the issue in this particular case; rather doubt many people even among our - editing community are. ... hrm. anyhow, a part of the email I received from Mr LaVine at the LOC Music Division after asking about this - about specifically - last oct., went as follows --

While the digital scan of the work in question that appears on the Library's website was chosen and identified by choral music experts from outside the Library, it is certainly possible that this information provided by those experts may be incorrect.

I think I only uploaded one work, and it was for baritone and organ. In any case, I'm fairly sure I ended up attributing it to the correct person. I had a chance to look through a few works by the two composers. I didn't study them too closely, and I'm far from a composition expert, but I suspect the work is question is by Hotchkiss. Thanks for the notification. I'm surprised at how quickly things are noticed on IMSLP. Respectfully, Emery 00:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

i'm not either, and by the way, oddly the composition i pointed out to him was, as you say, for middle voice, so probably should have been recategorized at loc in the intervening months - like sibley, i think they're usually good about such things there, or better than some other places... - i've had good experiences with the people at hathitrust too when pointing out scanning issues which they then fixed if they could but that's offtopic if in and of itself worth pointing out... apologies for odd formatting etc but my keyboard is dying not very slowly here, with both shift keys among the fatalities already. eh to that... and thank you again of course... Eric 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Thank you! — P.davydov 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Emery. Since you have displayed a great deal of competence thus far and also seem highly interested in the inner workings of the site (including the copyright review process), would you like to take the CR test? It can be found here if you're interested. (When you finish, it would be best to email your answers to Carolus so he can grade them.) Thanks, KGill talk email 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi KGill. Thank you for passing the test along to me, but I'm not so sure I've shown a great deal of competence! I would be happy to help with the team as time permits, and will email the answers to you and Carolus. But I have to honestly admit that I may not be able to dedicate the amount of time necessary for the position. I have a heavy workload this summer. IMSLP is a great hobby, and I enjoy doing the activities I currently do, but my career in real life involves copyright. I'm not sure I want to be put in a position of doing the same thing during my breaks (lunch, after work) that I do almost every day except Sunday. Hopefully that makes some sense. In any case, I will take the test and email the answers tonight. Respecfully, Emery 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Emery. We're going to leave Rachmaninoff as "Sergei", because this is the form of the name he chose himself, so there's no need to start moving any pages in his category. Thanks anyway — P.davydov 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Davydov. Thanks for letting me know before I moved anything. It might be a good idea for that to be listed in the exceptions of the guidelines. I noticed the exception with his last name, but did not notice any indication that the first name was supposed to stay the same. When I mentioned changing it above there was no disapproval, so I assumed it was OK. I'll go ahead and move Youferoff, Zagny and Yusupov. Let me know if there is any other work to be done. Respectfully, Emery 23:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I did leave a note on the Rachmaninoff category page to explain why "Sergei" was being used in his case, but maybe I should have mentioned it here as well. But no harm done, and thanks for your offer to tackle Sergey Yuferov, Sergey Zagny and Nikolay Yusupov. If you make sure when you've finished the old categories just contain a redirect link to their replacements, with all the old text deleted, this will stop the old categories from still appearing in the listings. Thanks — P.davydov 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Mr Zagny is a living composer uploading his own works, in which case we should respect the spelling of his own name that he has chosen, so I've reverted back to "Sergei". I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that beforehand, but thank you for moving Messrs Yuferov and Yusupov. Another day or so and the task should be complete — P.davydov 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hi Emery. I'm sorry if I caused you edit conflicts on the Ferreri page after you tagged it - that was thoughtless of me and I'm not really sure why I did it. Sorry, KGill talk email 00:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi KGill. No problem at all. Your edit was more accurate than mine because I wrote "piano" instead of "keyboard", so you would have had to revise it anyway ;) Respectfully, Emery 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)



Hello Emery! Thanks for all your cleanup work and such! What you're doing with Handel (first performance dates) is useful (first performance and external links). Where are you actually getting the information? Also, did your colleges at the LoC get back to you about the composer names? Cheers, Lndlewis10 01:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. Thanks, but I'm really just plugging in information from another useful website! My source is which is listed on the Handel category page. Yesterday was a busy day, and I was not at work today, so I have not asked about the guidelines yet. Respectfully, Emery 01:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, thanks. Not to nag you, but any news on the composer names? Also (I can email you about this), but there are a few questions I have about renewal records. You have access to all of them, right? I remember you saying you worked at the LoC (copyright office, librarian?). It would be useful for some of the years that aren't online already (though a lot of them are convenient for IMSLP now). Cheers, Lndlewis10 03:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I did receive some feedback which I'm looking forward to sharing with everybody. I think the main concern is over-simplification and over-standardization, which can sometimes be just as dangerous as none at all. I do have access to renewal records, although that is not specific to the Library of Congress. Other libraries have the complete Catalog of Copyright Entries as well, and a lot of them are also online. Cypressdome did a wonderful job at compiling many of them here for easy access on IMSLP. You can send me an email or write a message on my talk page if I can help you with anything. Respectfully, Emery 03:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see Cypressdome's sandbox page, and s/he did a great job :-) Just wondering, before I possibly assign catalog numbers to it, what do you think of the Stravinsky work list? Cheers, Lndlewis10 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on music, and certainly not an expert on Stravinsky! One small thing that I should point out is that the Tarantella written in 1898 has been published by now as part of an urtext anthology of Stravinsky's piano music. Was your source The Composer and his Works by Eric Walter White? A lot of Stravinsky sources were written in the 1960's and musicologists have discovered more about his life since then, and a few works have also been posthumously published. In addition, there are a few gaps in the orchestration which would be useful to have. I understand some of it can be difficult to track down, so maybe something can be done on my end. I don't know enough about Stravinsky to offer any more advice other than suggesting the possibility of including a works cited. It looks like a wonderful list and I'm sure it will come in handy. Respectfully, Emery 00:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You certainly seem like an expert... You managed to correctly guess the catalog I used at least ;) I'll make the changes accordingly. Thanks! Also, is it possible to ask your librarian friends to scan certain works that we need on IMSLP? Cheers, Lndlewis10 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


To be honest, I'm not sure I could. While I may work in the Library of Congress, I'm not a librarian. I have almost no power over their scanning plans other than a possible nudge and a polite request that probably won't go very far. They actually have very strict rules governing what they can and can't digitize that sometimes has nothing to do with copyright law. I have some interesting items in my personal collection that I will scan, so maybe that could help fill some gaps. For example, the old magazine published by Theodore Press called The Etude might be a nice addition. I'll have to figure out where to post it though! I suspect making a separate composer page for magazines, similar to what we have for publishers' catalogs, would be the best option. Respectfully, Emery 02:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not a librarian? What do you do (out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking). Scanning "The Etude" would be absolutely fantastic! I agree that having a category for magazines would be great. Newspaper category would also be useful. Cheers, Lndlewis10 02:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of newspapers online that would be nice to have on IMSLP. For example, the American Historic Newspaper website of the Library of Congress has various articles from the 1920's and 1930's. Among the more interesting selections are the critical reviews of George Gershwin. Respectfully, Emery 02:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
excellent idea specifically and generally - maybe bringing it up also on imslpforums (if you haven't - I haven't really checked there the last while, I should!!)... would also create a discussion? we could add to Etude and the Historic Newspaper perhaps any issues mirrored from Hathi/Google of some of the excellent music magazines they have there which are wonderful resources for any number of reasons (indeed for the 1810s-20s I find myself needing the Allgemeine musikalische zeitung and some other magazines that mention new music releases, to approx. place some titles' first date of publication, as HMB does not go back that far...) Eric 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eric. There are a number of historic musical magazines that would be worth adding. Another notable magazine is called Musical America, first published in 1898. The early editions are certainly public domain by now. You are welcome to broach the topic on the forums, although I'm not sure there is much to discuss other than the two concise following points:

  1. Category Page - It makes the most sense to create a composer page called "Magazines (Various)" and "Articles (Various)" respectfully. We already do this for Publishers' Catalogs.
  2. We need to create two work-type tags: magazines and articles.

When I have time I will scan a few old choral works and magazines / articles. I can't promise they will be finished with punctuality because it's a busy year at work. I will try to have several uploaded before the end of August. Respectfully, Emery 02:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Might I jump in here and add Allegemeine Musikalische Zeitung, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, Cäcilia, etc.? Very interesting indeed. :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
All of those are very interesting periodicals. I see no reason they shouldn't be scanned as well. Respectfully, Emery 22:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Instead of creating one page for all magazines, why not have a composers page for each magazine? That way we can create maybe a workpage for each year—some magazines would have far too many issues to post on one page. Cheers,-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We will have to think about what to do. We have one composer page for publishers' catalogs, but there are usually more issues of magazines than of catalogs. Your suggestion is also viable since we have the category walker to view all magazines; therefore, that shouldn't pose a problem. Respectfully, Emery 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I like the documentation-first approach (which IMSLP seems to have adopted :), so why don't we put this on the forums, make a page and standard, and wait for submissions? Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and apologies for the multiple rapid edits—hope you don't mind the subdivision...cleaner...Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Might I bump this for a response?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Perlnerd666. It would not be a bad idea to bring up on the forums, so you are welcome to go ahead and broach the topic. I'm not sure we should create the category first, however, because we do not have any magazines to put there. The category might remain empty for some time, and I can't promise to scan any magazines within 24 hours. I think we should remain patient before acting on anything. I will try to scan a 1896 edition of The Musical Record tomorrow evening. Respectfully, Emery 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. One week of an empty category won't kill us.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any forums account under your name, but you can find the thread here-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Perlnerd666 and Lndlewis10. I just want to let you know that I scanned the July, 1896 edition of The Musical Record and will be ready to upload it at any time. Let me know when the problem is settled and a category is created. Respectfully, Emery 22:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a problem, per say. I heartily recommend that you follow the discussion on the forums.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm now up to date on the forum discussion. Thanks for sending the link. Respectfully, Emery 23:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute to it too. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a complex situation, and I don't think there is a particularly simple solution. The simplest short term solution might be to create a work page for each magazine. The problem with this, that Perlnerd666 brought to light, is the potential size of each category. For example, one periodical may have published as often as one time per week. Let's look at two possible solutions to this problem:

  1. A majority of periodicals were probably not published once a week - so let's wait until the second solution to analyze this scenario. Most periodicals were published once a month, which means would be dealing with organizing 12 issues per year. I would not mind having a maximum of 60 issues category page, which means at this rate we are dealing with a 5 year time span. Since we have tabs, it may be easy for each tab to contain 5 years worth of periodicals. For example, one tab would be "1865-1870". Even this, however, could potentially generate an overwhelming number of tabs.
  2. For works that have 52 issues per year (once a week) we might be able to implement some sort of accordion-type collapsible table. That would serve to organize all 52 without cluttering the work page what-so-ever. I'm not sure if this is technically possible as I'm not altogether familiar with MediaWiki, but it's something to possibly consider.

Another overarching solution to the problem is to create a non-category page for each journal (.org/Wiki/Name of magazine) that would contain direct links to the PDF. All of the information about the periodical would probably be listed in a template at the top-right of the page that I would need to create (infobox). Since the publisher information should be the same, it won't be necessary to have publisher information for each periodical except for the year (level 3 heading) and month (next to the PDF link). A table of contents would be necessary as well. The obvious problem with this solution is ease of submission. It seems as though the PDF files would need to be directly uploaded using the "upload" link on the MediaWiki sidebar. In addition, this is usually a frowned upon practice and might give the wrong impression to new users; consequentially, how about we consider this to solve both problems:

  • We create a composer category page called "Periodical submissions" where any regular user can submit a scan of a newspaper, magazine, article, etc. Any experienced user can then transfer the article accordingly and delete the work page used upload the file.

As I've said before, I'm far from a librarian - and perhaps for good reason! Respectfully, Emery 04:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Emery. Just to let you know of ongoing developments at the forum topic. It would be great if you contributed to it as well :-) Cheers, KGill talk email 04:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


This sounds like an excellent idea. Thanks for doing it Emery! Are you at all interested in the categorization project? You're already suggesting tags and you seem careful enough. You've only made one copyright mistake so far and you caught the mistake anyway! (The others were due to "new version of file uploaded). You really have done perfectly so far. Not sure if you'd be interested, but if you want to start tagging, I'm sure someone would be more than happy to give you privileges. Cheers, Lndlewis10 04:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. I'm flattered that you would consider me as a candidate for the tagging team, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject the offer right now. I know only very little about librarianship and I'm not sure I really am careful enough to handle something as delicate as categorization ;). It seems like P.Davydov runs an incredibly effective, efficient, and knowledgeable team. Thanks for the offer. Respectfully, Emery 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I cleaned up a few of the genres on the Stravinsky work list. You really did a nice job with this. I can't imagine spending my entire vacation on Stravinsky and Revueltas! In fact, I can't imagine getting a vacation... Respectfully, Emery 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought you said you knew nothing of librarian work ;) Cheers, Lndlewis10 23:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the scanning. Since I'm sure you have access to an incredible amount of scores, could I make a few requests of some pieces that would be nice additions?

  • Balaieff (1897) edition of Scriabin's preludes, Op.13
  • Gluck's Alceste "Divinites du Styx" (Aria for Mezzo-Soprano), edited by Max Spicker and published by Schirmer in 1889.
  • Will Lamartine Thomson's Concert Quartets (specifically the one titled "The Better Day Coming To-Morrow").

Hopefully those won't be too difficult to find. No problem if you can't, so there's no pressure at all. Just some ideas. Thanks again! Lndlewis10 03:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. I'm open to requests, and I will be sure to add those pieces to my list of items to scan. If I can find them, I will upload them tomorrow evening. Let me know if you can think of anything else that would be nice to have. Respectfully, Emery 03:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I just want to let you know that I finished scanning your requests. I grabbed what I thought were the right editions, so please let me know if I made a mistake. Respectfully, Emery 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you completely nailed the editions I was talking about. Thanks so much. Cheers, Lndlewis10 01:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Just let me know if there is anything else you want me to scan. Respectfully, Emery 01:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you already made a nice scan of Good Night! Sweet Dreams! by Harrison Millard, is there any way you could upload more pieces by him? Cheers, Lndlewis10 00:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. He wrote one fairly well known song called Waiting Song, so I will try to scan the piece by Monday evening. Respectfully, Emery 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thompson, The Better Day

I am tagging this and I need to ask if it is really choral, given that the subtitle is "quartette". Or perhaps it should be tagged for both multiple and single voices? Steltz 08:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steltz. Thompson & Co published a handful of vocal quartets, which means that only four singers ( sop alt ten bass) are present singing, accompanied by one piano. It is not a choral piece in the conventional meaning, so I think tagging the work for single voices would be best here. Respectfully, Emery 17:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Would you like to become an administrator? The team would be very happy to have you, and you are obviously *highly* qualified-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Perlnerd666. What a nice and and unexpected surprise. What exactly does this entail besides having the extra tools? I would be happy to become an administrator. Respectfully, Emery 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you participate in discussions on the forums available only to administrators (I highly recommend your creating a forums account now), involving future modifications to the site, etc. Tools include banning, deleting, protecting, patrolling, etc. We'll be happy to have you!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and make a forum account. To be honest, I'm not familiar with the software which is why I didn't create one before. Respectfully, Emery 23:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Publisher Cleanup

Thanks for converting everything to CSW! You should also consider checking to make sure all the titles are up to date. Cheers, Lndlewis10 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. No problem at all. I actually have several steps planned for the overall cleanup of the Breitkopf und Härtel publisher page, so your request will be fulfilled by the end of the day:
  1. Convert to CSW where possible
  2. Change everything else to LinkComp which saves space
  3. Check all titles against work pages and other sources to make sure current titles are correct
  4. Check dates against HMB and other sources

Also, I have not forgotten your scan request. I will do that Monday evening as I don't have practical access to the score today. If it's an emergency in that you need the score by Monday, I can put on hold the publisher pages and get the piece for you. Respectfully, Emery 17:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)