User talk:KGill/archive10


General information section

Hi KGill. I've put together some suggestions for tidying up some aspects of the General Information Section, which can be found here. If you have the time maybe you could take a look and let me know what you think? There are already some comments from Eric and Snailey on the discussion page there. Thanks — P.davydov 11:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll look at it and see if I have anything to add. Cheers, KGill talk email 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Louise Dumont Farrenc

is simply Louise Farrenc... :) Eric 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC) (further- before I move anymore of the Farrenc spouses' editions of the CPE Bach sonatas from Tresor des Pianistes from linkEd Louise Dumont Farrenc to Linked/Louise/Farrenc, have we decided pretty much for good that Louise Farrenc is where the category is staying? hate to change all 3 dozen or so -back- and soon :)

Yes, it should be changed to simply Louise Farrenc (LinkEd/Arr/Tr/Lib templates should follow the correct form if possible). That's what I get for not bothering to check ;-) I'll fix it, thanks for the note. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Helmholtz -> Zuccalmaglio

Hi KGill, I've just uploaded vol.1 of Deutsche Volkslieder mit ihren Original-Weisen. I think it would be correct to create a new category: August Kretzschmer (the main editor), and put vol.1 there. On the other hand it was rather inconvenient, because both volumes go together. What do you think? - Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ralph. Since the music itself has no author, IMO the easiest solution would be to place the page under Folk Songs, German (as that's what they are). Kretzschmer and Zuccalmaglio would then be listed as editors (as they are now), and the latter's category could stay. Do you think that would work? KGill talk email 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah - yes. I remember having recognized that category. That's where they belong to. Thank's! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. But now the category Zuccalmaglio is orphaned. Though he is really the (secret) composer or at least the arranger of several of those songs. But of which in detail? - I'll have to find it out... --Ralph Theo Misch 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's all right to have an empty category as long as it contains a link to scores edited/arranged by that person, so I don't think that's a problem. Admittedly I haven't looked at the score in any great detail, but does the music appear as just the voice part (one line)? Or was a piano accompaniment added? Are all of them authentic folksongs? KGill talk email 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
In particular your last question is 'a broad field' - I'll answer next session. Good night and thanks! |) --Ralph Theo Misch 01:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just found an article in MGG - please wait a moment.....--Ralph Theo Misch 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting, I didn't know that so far: Contrary to contemporary critics (esp. Erk and Böhme) it was Walter Wiora (Die rheinisch-bergischen Melodien bei Zuccalmaglio und Brahms, Alte Liedweisen in romantischer Färbung, Bad Godesberg 1953) who has proven that Z. didn't compose or fake those Folksongs. In some cases he arranged them slightly or underlayed old carols by secular words (ancient sagas, legends etc.). Be continued....--Ralph Theo Misch 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
E.g. see here, here, and here....--Ralph Theo Misch 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Just uploaded Zuccalmaglio's counterpart (Erk): Deutscher Liederhort (Folk Songs, German) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - that is indeed interesting. I've created the category for Zuccalmaglio's editions and linked to it from his composer page; at this point, everything seems to be in order as far as I can see. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi KGill ... Many thanks for the red star.... --Squin 16:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I have a problem since today with the "search" just on the left ... for any word I put in it I have a page "Fatal Error: Unknown search type. Please contact an administrator." --Squin 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not KGill, but I get the same message. It worked last night when I used it, so perhaps it has something to do with your network? Feldmahler recently implimented the changes at some point last night, so maybe something went wrong with the new code. You'll probably have to ask Feldmahler about it in any case ;) Lndlewis10 17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... It's Ok. It work correctly with "Go" --Squin 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Auguste le Duc

Hallo KGill, I removed your link to the publisher Leduc (Alphonse Leduc), because this firm was founded in 1841, no relation apparently to Auguste Leduc, for whom I found with a quick google search prints dating from 1790-1818. I changed the spelling to be consistent with the other works from this publisher on imslp. --Kalliwoda 08:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; I should have checked more thoroughly. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


Is there any specific reason why we should not indicate a source came from the CD Sheet Music collection as opposed to changing it to "Commonly available commercial source"? I saw this with some of the Poulenc piano works I submitted, which are in fact from that series. Daphnis 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly standard practice, as they might take legal action if they were aware that their logos were being systematically removed from their scans so that they could be uploaded here. Now that I'm thinking of it, though, I'm not sure why they wouldn't know anyway, since they probably monitor the site...still... KGill talk email 21:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is standard practice then I wasn't aware of it; I'm not complaining, just wondered if something was up. In any case, in the event they did decide or even thought they could bring charges, their case would instantly be nullified because removal of copyrighted information from an already-public domain source, even with protection circumvention entering into the picture, is not illegal. Daphnis 21:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't deny that, but it's not as if UE had much more of a case in 2007, and they still managed to make it pretty unpleasant for the site (to considerably understate the matter). KGill talk email 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the name CD Sheet music is trademarked-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So...technically this discussion is illegal? ;-) It is a trademark, but does that alone preclude the attribution of scans to them? KGill talk email 01:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the name here is fine, because we are specifically talking about it, if I remember correctly-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting Caraman-Chimay to Mercy-Argenteau - I should have looked at her closely - An amazing woman ! --Squin 10:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of: Pichl 6 Divertimenti

Hallo KGill, I just downloaded the pdf and the works are for 3 different instrumentations, which I added to the work info. Could you fix the tagging for these works, not a single of them is for the instruments in the current tag. Thank you--Kalliwoda 15:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - the tags have now been modified to fit what the instrumentation actually is. Cheers, KGill talk email 22:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

I'm really, really sorry. I thought I'd hit "quote", but it must have been "edit" instead. I didn't know I could edit anyone else's posts  :-( — P.davydov 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I managed to get the old version back from my cache and paste it back, but it's now attributed to me instead of you for some reason — P.davydov 21:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's because I changed the poster to you using the admin tools when I saw that you had written your message there - I've changed it back now. Thanks for restoring it; since you saw it and responded, I guess it wouldn't have been that big of a deal to lose it anyway, but thank you nonetheless. KGill talk email 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Berbiguier - duplicate categories or different people?

Hello and thank you for all of your hard work!

I have noticed that there are separate composer pages for Tranquille Berbiguier 1782-1838 (alternate name given as Antoine Benoît Tranquille Berbiguier) and Benoit Tranquille Berbiguier 1782-1835 (alternate name also given as Antoine Benoit Tranquille Berbiguier). Is this the same person? Aldona 12:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the two are the same (Berbiguier, Tranquille is the correct form) - thanks for the note. 1838 is as far as I can tell the correct year of death, by the way; I haven't found any source that gives 1835, save Wikipedia. The pages have now been merged. Cheers, KGill talk email 15:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Asian Scores


Impressive work, finding Muttusvāmi Dīkṣita's official and alternative names. Kudos.

Asian music is something that is largely neglected on this site, which at present contains mainly European and North American music.

Is it ok to post Indian Classical scores here? I've so far uploaded two carnatic songs as they are in standard western notation. Do let me know if this kind of music is welcome here. Cheers, Ananth 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely - we do have a few other works in 'nonstandard' Western notation (see here for an example), and while it would probably be more useful from a practical standpoint to have a version in modern notation, I see no reason why the originals should not be present on the site. Indeed, they would be a highly valuable addition. Cheers, KGill talk email 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic! I'm working on few mores scores in solfa style Indian Notation (Sa ri ga ma...). Will be happy to share them here too. (Will also try to come up with transcriptions in standard notation whenever possible) --Ananth 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello KGill. You have misread the title for my piece by Joseph Kelway. I did not post SIX Sonatas by Kelway. I posted the SIXTH sonata by Kelway. Yes, it is from the book of six sonatas by I only put up ONE of them. Please change the title back...

I didn't change the title, Carolus did - but it is correct as it stands now. It is clearly marked on the file description that it is No.6, so there is really no reason to restrict the page title to only one sonata, especially as the six were published together. Thanks, KGill talk email 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless you are then going to go back to almost everything I've ever posted and change all of them. For example go to the Maurice Greene page of which I've posted almost everything. The song Orpheus With His Lute is from a full book, but you don't list is AS the book. The same with his voluntary I posted which is also one of (I think) 12 from the book it came from. The same with the 3 lessons of Greene I typeset. They come from a manuscript of John Barker which contained 11 of his lessons/suites. Yet it seems ridiculous to list it as 11 Lessons and then only find 3. The same with the lesson I posted by JC Smith. Its also from a full book, but no one thought it logical to list the full book. Also the voluntary I posted by John Travers which again is a single piece from a full book. Also the lesson by Anthony Young, also Thomas Roseingrave, William Goodwin etc. etc. Chances are there's others I'm not even remembering off the top of my head. As one who USES imslp as much as I post, it would be a big letdown to see Six Sonatas listed but find only one.

I mean I guess if this somehow makes sense to you now feel free to leave it. But there's a whole lot of listings then which should also be relisted to reflect this decision :-) Grantco

I see that Schissel has already explained the issue on your talk page - in essence, it is standard practice on the site (has been for years) to provide a page for an entire work, even if we do not have the whole thing there (all would probably be chaos otherwise). The issue then becomes whether the set of six sonatas counts as one whole work, or as six separate ones. Since they were published together, there is currently a strong case for the former. Thanks, KGill talk email 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can live with it :-) But like I said above, someone has missed an awful lot of the OTHER similar cases I've posted in the past then. The only thing I can guess is that this was the FIRST entry for Kelway posted as opposed to for example the Travers Voluntary which was added to a page which already had his canzonets on it. If you're concerned about this "standard practice" avoiding potential "chaos" I'd suggest someone go back into almost everything I've posted from similar publications.

Well, it simply depends on whether or not the other publications can be considered as one work or a set of disparate works. If most of them are just big collections of various works, then I'd there's really nothing to worry about at this point. (I meant 'chaos' if done like that across the board, not just in a few limited examples ;-) ) KGill talk email 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well no actually. Here's a list of everything else I've posted in the last few years which probably should ALSO be listed as the Kelway sonata if that's the preferred way to do it. There's no difference between a book containing six sonatas or six lessons, or twelve voluntaries. If they came out as a single book by a single composer then they fit the same criteria as what you are saying about the Kelway book/collection. My point in all of this isn't so much that I disagree with what you are saying but that until now no one else has bothered to list all the other things I've posted in this way. If by chance you or someone else is really interested in keeping the precedent you've established then ALL of these other things I have posted should be re-listed as well:

John Snow (variations from a book of variations) , John Alcock sr. (voluntary from a book of voluntaries), Robert King (songs from a book of songs), and all these from similar collections: Barnabus Gunn (lesson and song), Jeremiah Clarke (lesson), John Travers (voluntary), William Richardson (lesson), Maurice Greene (voluntary and Orpheus song), Thomas Roseingrave (fuga), William Goodwin (voluntary), JC Smith (sonata), Starling Goodwin (voluntary), Philip Hart (lesson), Anthony Young (lesson). All of these are from the exact same kind of books and the exact same kind of "collection" just like the six sonatas of Kelway.


Dear Kenny, I will agree to be an administrator. Thanks, Steltz

Excellent! I'll forward this to a bureaucrat so your user rights can be modified. Cheers, KGill talk email 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi KGill, I responded to your post on my talk page but thought I would respond here as well. I too would consent to the promotion and am honored to be asked. Thank you! Massenetique talk email 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the status for Massenetique and Lndlewis10 to admins, along with Steltz. Hope that's OK — P.davydov 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thanks! KGill talk email 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi KGill, this seems to be the place to respond to admin promotions and judging from the above it certainly is an honor one wouldn't refuse. While I'm not too clear on what the elevation entails I'm honored to have been considered and will accept. Thanks!--Cypressdome 02:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful - I'll contact a bureaucrat so that you can be promoted as soon as possible. Cheers, KGill talk email 02:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Dear KGill, I feel very honoured!! Thanks a lot!! Since I am a user of this ingenious site I've learned a lot. One thing is that CR is a complex matter. I have great respect for you Copyright Reviewers!
The problem is: since I was a child I have a fatal passion for ancient books and old sheets. Meanwhile I've lost overview – there is a myriad of things still missing here to be uploaded and still slumber in my cellar, the church or elsewhere. I am so glad to have the time to scan them poco a poco every night. I think that's my job here. The balance of scanning for one and a half years now is sobering: The progress is far to slow! It will take many years! So please don't be cross with me! Greetings from --Ralph Theo Misch 00:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to deny that you've made it your most constant occupation here to scan and upload obscure scores - I can understand that you might not want to add extra complications ;-) As you wish; I won't send you the test. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Obscure? - Really! ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Can you please check the renaming of the Category:Tallard, Camille ˜deœ. Also, thanks for coming up with more info on this composer!.
--Homerdundas 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think Pml already moved it - for some reason there were stray Unicode characters in the name that I copied and pasted from DNB (didn't show up in my browser for some reason). Seems to be fine now, in any case. Thanks, KGill talk email 22:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian names

Hi KGill. We've traditionally had a lot of inconsistency with the way in which some Russian names are transliterated, because of the different systems used in the different sources. For example, "Николай" is rendered as "Nikolaï" by the Library of Congress, but often appears as "Nikolai" without the diacritics, or "Nikolay" using Grove's spelling. A quick search shows that "Nikolai" and "Nikolay" are used almost equally at the moment. This applies to Anatoliï/Anatoli/Anatoly and Sergeï/Sergei/Sergey, etc. as well as some surnames ending in "skii" (sky).

There are drawbacks in using the "ï" symbol from the Library of Congress's catalog, as the double dot isn't always clear on the screen, and it affects searching/sorting. We could get around this by:

  • using an ordinary "i" instead of "ï"
  • changing any resulting "-ii" endings to "-y".

This would let us keep "Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov", for example (where in Russian the last letters of Nikolai and Rimsky are actually the same). I'm not necessarily suggesting we start changing any existing Russian names that don't fit this rule, but it might help to avoid inconsistency if we use it for new composers. What do you think? — P.davydov 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would probably be a good idea. Do you think we should simply modify the LC heading in the way you described, or perhaps use one of the subsidiary names (they often include a more 'standard' transliteration)? (Also, I'd be willing to go through Russian people and change any names that don't fit this if you wish.) KGill talk email 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
For the moment we can probably draw the line at the "-ï" or "-ii" endings (like in Category:Azanchevskiĭ, Mikhail Pavlovich). Otherwise to change all instances of "Nikolay" to "Nikolai" would be a lot of work. Looking down the list, there's an issue with "Alexander" vs. "Aleksandr" as well (compare Category:Dargomyzhsky, Alexander Sergeyevich and Category:Famintsyn, Aleksandr Sergeevich, for example, whose forenames are identical in Russian). Most of these discrepancies are historical, and the use of patronymics also seems a bit random, so we might have to take each one on a case-by-case basis — P.davydov 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that seems fair. From the perspective of a new user trying to search the site, 'ï' vs. 'i' is probably a bit more important than 'Alexander' vs. 'Aleksandr' anyway. KGill talk email 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Miniatures, H.87 - H.89 (Bridge, Frank)

Hi Kenny, perhaps an simple example. But even in such a case I would be completely overcharged as a CR reviewer: Set II. - CR by Frank Bridge, but "Printed and published by Galliard Limited, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England". :{ --Ralph Theo Misch 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this case doesn't even really have to do with the copyright tag itself (which would of course be V/V/12) but the publisher info. This work was published by both Galliard in London (the primary publisher) and Galaxy in New York. The copy you've uploaded seems to be a later printing, judging from the absence of a copyright notice and the attribution to Augener (presumably they later acquired Galliard) on the cover page. (You can see the appropriate WorldCat entry here.) Cheers, KGill talk email 01:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC),_Gustave

HI KGill, I have to inform you that the pièce cited below is not from Victor-Gustave Lefevre, but from Victor LefeBvre, a composer from Douai (northern France)

I'm actually searching about VGLefevre, that's not his work, sure... On the first page in nota: "notice necrologique de l'auteur", that's what we need to prove wich Lefevre or efebvre refered this pièce

thank to move again this part from page VGLefevre on ISMLP


Thanks for the note - the work has now been moved to Lefebvre, Victor. Cheers, KGill talk email 15:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

IMSLP:Performers Portal

Hi KGill. What do you think of the first draft for a recording policy on IMSLP? Any input would be appreciated ;) Lndlewis10 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea - for some reason I'd thought something like this was already on the site - but do you think it might be better to consolidate it with the Performers Portal? Neither page is that long, so it might be better at this point to keep it simple with one central reference page. Also, I didn't think there was a consensus on point no.3 (high-quality recordings - the slippery slope issue was brought up, as I recall). What do you think? KGill talk email 15:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We should certainly put it as a subordinate of the performers portal. I suppose it would be fair to discuss point number three as the practicality is questionable. As a rule of thumb, however, I don't think it's a bad idea. Lndlewis10 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I bumped the old forum thread for you. Cheers Philip @ © talk 01:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you PML :-) Lndlewis10 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

deletion of Category:Loomis, Rebecca

Hello, I realize I let the category empty too long… however, hopefully I've added it properly. If you get a chance, can you let me know if you see any issues? User:Srl 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine - I can't see any problems with it. Thanks for the upload! KGill talk email 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Welcome- thank you for your response. 「ѕʀʟ·」 03:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

a general question about "piano trios"

Hi KGill--

I take it you are a musician, which I am not. Looking at the listings for Villa-Lobos, for the piano trios (W042, W105, W142), the instruments are listed as "Violin, Cello, Piano", rather than "Piano, Violin, Cello" which is the format I would always use unless the title specifies "Trio for ... [etc]"

The Notes column lists the piano first for W042, but as violin, cello, piano for W105 and W142.

So, is "Piano Trio" simply a name of convention but the listing sequence depends on either the relative importance of the instrument, or the relative fame of the performer; or is the sequence entirely random? I'm familiar with the information given at, but this doesn't seem to address my question.

I have a Marco Polo CD of Villa-Lobos's trios #1 and #3, listing Antonio Spiller, violin; Monique Duphil, piano; and Jay Humeston, cello, without providing a formal name of the performers' group. (Trying to research these trios looking for dates and Appleby numbers is how I came to the Villa-Lobos page at IMSLP, and thus to your talk page.)

Somewhat similarly I'm trying to remember if I've ever noticed a "Violin Sonata" listing the piano first, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I guess this is a dumb question, but it's something I've been puzzled about. Milkunderwood 08:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not KGill, but the answer is that we try to list the instruments in a standardised order, as given here, to make it easier for people to search for particular combinations — P.davydov 16:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Then I take it this "standardised order" used here by IMSLP is carried over from violin sonatas to piano trios, showing the violin - and all strings? - first. Somehow this still doesn't explain the discrepancy in the different listing sequences shown in the Notes column; nor does it explain why many CDs or LPs of trios, such as this CD of V-L #s 1 & 3, appear to list the players/instruments randomly.
On the one hand, while Faure wrote his trio "pour piano, violon et violoncelle", Ravel specified "pour violon, violoncelle et piano", but Trio Fontenay lists itself as piano, violin, cello. Then you have trio ensembles with an acknowledged group leader, listed as Stern-Rose-Istomin; Busch,A-Busch,H-Serkin,R; "The Grumiaux Trio". Or Beaux Arts, where instead Pressler was the guiding force and is listed first, as piano/violin/cello. But then Oistrakh-Oberin-Knushevitsky, with piano second. Or the pick-up group Grumiaux-Fournier-Magaloff, performing a one-time series of Schubert and Mendelssohn when they bumped into each other in Switzerland. I can see Grumiaux as "leader" here, but then why Fournier before Magaloff, as opposed to Oberin before Knushevitsky - just because they're better known? Oistrakh worked extensively with Oberin, but I'm not aware of any Grumiaux-Fournier relationship. Might it be fair to assume that with the Villa-Lobos trios, Spiller is acting as leader? Thus, is leadership, together with name recognition, the real criterion for listing sequence, rather than anything intrinsic to the music? String quartets are much easier to decipher, where presumably 1st violin is automatically the leader. Milkunderwood 19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to interfere but here is a nice bit of info:
If the Almighty himself played the violin, the credits would still read 'Rubinstein, God, and Piatigorsky', in that order.
note: Whenever Heifetz played in trios with Arthur Rubinstein (piano) and Gregor Piatigorsky (cello), Rubinstein always got top billing.
-Jascha Heifetz, "Los Angeles Times", August 29, 1982 ----Generoso 20:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not "interfering" - thanks for that quote. This goes a long way toward answering my question. (Kind of like who gets top billing on a movie.) Milkunderwood 20:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For a trio, the names of the performers are almost always listed. For woodwinds, the order is usally descending pitch: flute, oboe, clarinet, horn and bassoon (or sometimes flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and horn, to put the brass instrument after the woodwinds).

A violin, cello and piano trio is usually listed in that order, even though the group is often called a "piano trio" to distinguish it from a string trio (violin, viola and cello). However, the pianist's name sometimes comes first. This began when Arthur Rubinstein announced that he would never again take second billing. He said: "From now on, it will be Rubinstein, Heifetz and Piatigorsky. If God comes down to play violin, it will be Rubinstein, God and Piatigorsky." Generoso 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,
All I can say with regards to the ordering of performer's names (apart from what Generoso has already said) is that it can vary from group to group and performance to performance; there really isn't a 'standard' ordering that I'm aware of, except that I don't think I've ever seen the cellist put first. As regards the Villa-Lobos list, I can explain the discrepancy: I was typing up the details from Appleby without thinking at all about the order the performers might go in, and that happens to be the order in which they appear there. 'Violin, Cello, Piano' is the standard ordering used on IMSLP - we put the keyboard instrument last, and put the other two above it in score order (actually, in the case of piano trios it's overwhelmingly common for publishers to put the piano at the bottom of the score as well). 'Piano Trio' is one of those general labels which usually refers to vn/vc/pf, implicitly putting the piano first in order of importance (as back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the piano typically got most of the notes, the strings being comparative decoration on top). Appleby's original listing (which I have not retained here, since it conflicts with our style guide) is 'Trio no. 1', for 'Piano, violin, and cello'; No.2 is in the same order, but No.3 is for 'Violin, cello and piano'. Honestly, I don't see any reason for this difference - perhaps that's how they were listed on the original program. Cheers, KGill talk email 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, between these various responses this has been a very helpful discussion to me.
First, "even though the group is often called a "piano trio" to distinguish it from a string trio (violin, viola and cello)" takes care of the question of the name. And I didn't mention Rubinstein-Heifetz-Piatigorsky, but am certainly familiar with their recorded output. I had not known about Rubinstein's insistence on first listing.
Next, I suspected that the apparent discrepancy in the Notes column for V-L #1 probably had to do with the original program notes.
So many thanks to all participants.
EDIT: I guess I intuitively list winds by descending pitch, and would put brass following all woodwinds. Milkunderwood 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Beethoven's entire works for cello and piano. Playing them in sequence is a very different experience from playing any of the works separately; it is like a journey through a composers life. One incredible facet of all the sonatas is that they represent all of Beethoven's three major creative periods. The first two, in F major and G minor, Op.5, were written at a time when the composer was carving out a career for himself as a virtuoso pianist; in those days, of course, most performers themselves composed. Beethoven performed these pieces with the famous French cellist Jean-Pierre Duport in Berlin, at the court of King Friedrich II of Prussia (an amateur cellist himself, for whom Haydn and Mozart had written quartets). This was in 1796, when Beethoven was just 25 years old, not yet suffering from the deafness that would transform his whole existence. The two sonatas are real concert pieces, large in scale, full of exciting effects that would have left the Berliners gasping. They are really sonatas for piano with cello, not the other way round; although there are unexpected flights to high registers for the cello (as there are in all three sets of variations for cello and piano that Beethoven wrote between 1796 and 1801), there is no question as to which instrument gets the lion's share of virtuosity here. Beethoven was not going to let himself be overshadowed by a mere cellist! The third sonata, the A major, Op 69, inhabits a different world altogether. Beethoven worked on this sonata between 1806 and 1808; by then, his deafness was acute, if not quite complete. The A major Sonata is a thoroughly classical work, its proportions are carefully measured, the themes answering each other in perfect symmetry. It is also the first equal sonata for cello and piano. Previous cello sonatas had either been cello solos with continuo accompaniment or, like Beethoven's first two, piano sonatas with cello obbligato. Here, every theme is perfectly conceived for both instruments; Beethoven had invented a new genre.Generoso 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I was vaguely aware of this sort of historical transition. And with KGill's "as back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the piano typically got most of the notes, the strings being comparative decoration on top". But it hadn't really gelled in my consciousness as to how the relative primacy of instruments, if any, might be given in later compositions. Milkunderwood 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have an interesting (and lovely) CD of Johann Schobert quartets, trios and sonatas performed by Ensemble 415, that perfectly demonstrates the older style of pianoforte primacy. Milkunderwood 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)