User talk:Jujimufu/archive 4


You're back!

Nice to see you back among active usership!-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot's happened since you were away - I'm User: Perlnerd666, but this is the first time I've contacted you (Only became a user like, 1 day before closing - admin since March, however) - you just have a great reputation. There are a few new admins and CRs, namely, User:P.davydov, and User:Kcleung, as well as me. But it is nice to have all of your info on one page, too ;)-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 16:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
nice to have you back! --Funper 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Christoph Steiner

Hi There, I assume this is someone you know and are posting with his blessing. Let me know if not so. Thanks, Carolus 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Finnish translation

EN: Hi! I just noticed that you had created a Finnish version of the IMSLP mainpage. Thank you very much, it's wonderful to see the translation exist.

Unfortunately I discovered a great deal grammatical mistakes and bad word choices; almost each sentence contains a typographical error or is strangely formulated. Would you mind if I correct them? Thanks, Sakvaka 09:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FI: Hei! Huomasin juuri että olit luonut suomenkielisen version IMSLP:n etusivusta. Kiitos paljon, on hienoa nähdä käännöksen olevan nyt olemassa.

Valitettavasti löysin siitä suuren joukon kielioppivirheitä ja huonoja sanavalintoja; lähestulkoon joka lause sisältää jonkin kirjoitusvirheen tai on omituisesti muotoiltu. Haittaako sinua, että korjaan ne? Kiitos, Sakvaka 09:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the user User:Käkki has also promised to help you in translating. Sakvaka 09:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moi, mulla valitettavasti aika näyttää menevän kaikkinensa töissä, enkä ole kerennyt/kerkeä suomennokseen kajoamaan. Toivottavasti apua löytyy. =) --Käkki 10:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Google scores and books

Hi, You have to get rid of the logos before posting them here. It also helps to get rid of metatags and other assorted nonsense they put in the files. If you can figure out a way to fix the bizarre random appearance of low-res grayscale sections (isolated pages, or even sections of a page), by all means do so. As it stands, the PDFs can crash some printers with their mixture of 600 dpi monochrome TIFFs and 150 dpi grayscale jpegs. I had to delete the ones you posted where logos are present. Clever folks over at Google, putting their logo on every page makes it technically a violation of their trademark to copy and distribute the file without their permission, even if the item they scanned is clearly public domain. Carolus 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Could you give the full name of this publisher? The only Munich Publisher I know of is G. Henle. Verlag is actually just German for publisher...-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it absolutely certain it's Munich? Could it be 'Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik' (from WorldCat)? KGill talk email 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I would go with Gitarrefreund as the name in the future.-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


As the word translates to "donor" or "contributor", it's probably not necessary to include it in the editor field as it would have no bearing on copyright status. Carolus 19:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Boije Collection

Hello, and thank you for your message!

I don't have any orderly way of uploading the Boije collection or the Danish Royal Library material - I just browse, and if I see something that is not on IMSLP yet and I have enough information to make a reasonably intelligent attempt at a work page, I upload it. I often have very limited time so I just add one or two things here and there. (I'm at work now and grab a few moments on IMSLP during lunch breaks and between patients).

Please feel free to upload anything you can find, in any order you see fit.

At the moment I am also looking around for any composer pictures I can find on the web, just to make IMSLP look nice.

Thank you for all your contributions - I am currently amazed by how rapidly IMSLP is growing. Aldona 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Composer Stubs without a death date

I see we have quite a few of these now... Here's the problem from a copyright point of view: If we do not know the death date of a given composer, we really have no little idea of whether or not the work is free in either Canada (extremely important) or the EU. Thus, when you're adding things by composers like Max Schulz (who I found was born in 1885 along with his complete first name), there is a high possibility that they are not really PD in Canada. It's not such a problem with earlier publications (like 120 years old), or those consisting of much older composers, because the odds of the obscure composer having lived to be 95-110 years is reasonably low. This is not the case with the early 20th century items you've been adding, however. I would suggest that you refrain from adding items in this collection unless you actually know the composer's year of death - which should be no later than 1959 - until the composer's death date can be found. Thanks, Carolus 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this issue a little. So far, the only one I'm really concerned about is Schulz. For most, I think that using the formula of "Birth Date=ca.1870" and "Death Date=ca.1940" on the composer's category page should suffice. Since you're already including the more info tag, it show a good-faith effort on our part to determine the composer's dates and observe the copyright law. No, I'm not going to delete anything unless new evidence surfaces which forces me to do so. Carolus 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, instead of actually deleting a page (e.g. Duo Nocturne No.6 (Lhoyer)), you can just redirect it to the proper page (if the file isn't to be deleted, that is). You most likely know how to do this: replace the content of the page with '#REDIRECT [[wherever]]'. This prevents any references to the old page from becoming broken, etc. Thanks :-) KGill talk email 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, We established a protocol for dealing with arrangements and transcriptions since you were here last (after much discussion). When you know something is an arrangement, it should always go under the heading of "Arrangements and Transcriptions", even if you don't know what the original was scored for. For example, on the page Andante Cantabile (Sarenko, Vasilii Stepanovich), we don't really know what Sarenko originally composed the piece for, as all we have is Boije's transcription for solo guitar. When you know the arranger (or transcriber - which are basically two interchangeable words in English), always include the dates (as on the page now) so that the copyright reviewer can make a quick determination for Canada and the EU (where the terms are calculated on death date of the last surviving contributor). Thanks for such a terrific job on adding the Boije collection. I think we had some items previously, but nothing compared to what's been added in the past week. Carolus 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Piano archive files

Any way you can unlock these before uploading? If not, don't worry, we'll do it eventually. Thanks, Carolus 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am using a mac, so I can't use the earlier version of pdfsam to unlock them. :( If someone else could do it that would be great.
Unless you mean to remove the logo, in which case I'll be doing it later today :) • jujimufu (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jujimufu, Fabulous essay on notation. Thank you very much for sharing it! KGill talk email 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it :) I'm all for sharing, but I usually just have to wait until my essays have gone through the assessment board before I upload them here, as I don't want to be accused of plagiarising! (a friend of mine uploaded one of his compositions on a similar website before his composition was assessed, and they found it online and accused him of plagiarising... himself!). Are you interested in notation too? It's sad we don't have a "graphic scores" category here. It would open up some interesting possibilities, even if that was just people asking "what do you mean by 'graphic scores'?" which would introduce them to the world of graphic notation! • jujimufu (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask Davydov about it - it seems like it could be pretty useful. It may be better to get it included in the new categorization system than to just have it as a category all by itself. The Category Walker can process it, but it's hidden at the bottom in the 'unknown' section. What do you think? KGill talk email 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds great! I was really busy with uni stuff the time when the Category Walker was put up, so I have absolutely NO idea how it works. The only reason why I created a category on its own is just to kind of try and gather up works with graphic notation around IMSLP into one page, so we can deal with them more easily when we know what we're going to do with them (e.g. the new categorisation system).
The main problem I had was that a) there are non-graphic compositions which involve (live or not) electronics (which I think deserve a category on their own); b) there are non-graphic compositions with aleatoric/indeterminate elements to some degree; c) there are text scores with instructions rather than music notation; d) there are (for the most part) graphic scores, in the sense that the graphic elements in the piece are of more importance than the non-graphic); and lastly, e) there are pieces involving more than one kinds of notation (graphic + traditional, indeterminate+determinate etc). I think of these five as distinct categories for compositions, although the last one could be unnecessary if there's the possibility of overlap (i.e. a composition being both a traditionally-notated composition and a graphically-notated composition, or a graphically-notated composition being also an electronic composition etc). Should we start a forum thread to get feedback and perhaps come up with a solid lineup of categories with regards to the notational/visual aspect of compositions and their categorisation? • jujimufu (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the talk page for the tagging project is here - starting a forum thread is more public, but probably only the same people would comment there ;-) However, I'm afraid a couple of the types you mentioned may be a bit outside the scope of the project (although I could be mistaken). It may be better to simplify it by keeping the tag for electronic instruments separate from the others and introducing only two new tags, one for the general concept of graphic notation and another for indeterminate stuff. (Multiple tags can be used where applicable, of course.) Maybe 'outside the scope' not so much, but probably too specific. However, I do think there could definitely be some modification to the current system.
I just thought of a possible problem, though - your highly nontraditional works have not escaped the notice of the team, and we've already thought of a few ways to at least fairly accurately classify some of your pieces based on traditional means. For instance, I remember one example where we had it as 'pieces ; 2nar', plus the language tags - i.e. a generic piece for two solo speakers. In such a composition, which was only written in text, there are obviously indeterminate elements, but we didn't need to take that into consideration when tagging it because according to the guidelines we're largely concerned with what the composer called the work (with the exception of most early music), what s/he scored it for, and what language(s) it's in (where applicable). The other members might use that as an argument against creating new tags, citing the fact that we don't classify works based on whether they were written in mensural notation, etc. I could be wrong - I'd say it's worth a try anyway. (Graphic notation is kind of a different concept than mensural notation...) KGill talk email 21:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You made it sound really simple (looking back at mine, they're too complicated for categories). I think electronic, graphic and indeterminate are generic enough to be applicable to the majority of compositions, and - as you said - multiple tagging would solve compositions which dwell in between categories or in more than one.
With regards to electronic, I think we should have two distinct categories: compositions which are purely electronic (e.g. Solitude by Hans-Christoph Steiner) and compositions which involve live electronics (e.g. Spiral 1 by Robert Davidson). Of course again there can be overlap (e.g. a composition which involves both the execution of an already-recorded electronic track, and live electronic manipulation of acoustic elements) but I think there should be a clear distinction between purely electronic compositions, and compositions which involve live acoustic elements and electronic manipulation of the sound.
I saw that thing about the narrators, and I agree with you that the focus of the score is not its indeterminacy, but the textual elements of the pages the performers have in front of them. (Besides, indeterminacy exists in all scores, from monteverdi to mozart to boulez - but in some pieces it is a side-effect, while in others it's the main focus). For more peculiar scores like that we could just add the occasional category depending on the piece.• jujimufu (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. There's a discussion going on here, which you may want to look at/add to as well. So far, it looks like we will have a future tag for graphical scores. We have some electronic tags, but they don't really reflect the fundamental difference you mentioned. I'd like to get an indeterminate tag, too (the narrators piece probably doesn't need it, but others could use it), but it may not happen. Thanks for bringing this up :-) KGill talk email 22:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilson J. Smith

all I have on him is that he was born "in" 1855- the dates 1856-1929 are much more helpful, where'd you get them? he edited a lot of things and I'm now putting the 'LinkEd' template on him to give him site credit for that so to speak... Eric 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC) erm, Wilson G. Smith...

Hey man, I don't really remember where I found his dates. It's probably google or one of the links on this page: Composer Stubs.
Hope this helps! • jujimufu (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Jujimufu, I'm trying to tag JAM+. We don't have a tag for "conductor". Does this guy do anything other than the usual conductor stuff in this piece? If so, what? Thanks, Steltz.

The players have a some fragments on their page, and the conductor indicates which group of fragments they should choose from. So if he indicates 4, 5, 6, they should play a fragment with 4 semiquavers (sixteenths), a fragment with 5 and a fragment with 6, which he conducts to make things easier.
In the instructions I refer to that role as conductor/leader - do you think this role deserves a special page? You could just ignore it altogether, and we could just include the piece in a separate category, named "Games" or "Compositions for ensemble with leader" or whatever. • jujimufu (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)