User talk:KGill/archive11


Main page

Hello KGill,

is the layout of the main page the final version or just a beta version? If it is the final version I will update the German Hauptseite.

Two comments on the main page: It looks very serious, I miss a little bit the art or is IMSLP now a grown-up :-)? I miss the statistics and the other langs part of the "old" main page. Got it lost or is it wanted that it is missing now?

Best wishes --TobisNotenarchiv 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also short question from my side. Is there any reason why the other language Main page links have been removed? Some can hardly be found now. Hobbypianist 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The statistics have temporarily been moved here until the design is finalized (if it doesn't end up just being reverted). The artwork was intentionally removed, as the designer (Lndlewis10) felt that it cluttered up the page unnecessarily - something which I agree with, if truth be told. The absence of the links to other languages is IMO the most serious problem facing the new design. I tried to add them back (see this diff), but it looked terrible (I'm not any good at design) and I couldn't get it to line up the way I wanted (I intended to have it across from the 'Copyright' section on the bottom). The current design is in no way final (I wouldn't bother updating the Hauptseite at this point if I were you), and I'm worried that it might be scrapped entirely, as there have now been four or five people directly voicing opinions against it. Personally, I prefer the new one (apart from the problems already discussed), but that hardly matters if there are enough other people against it. Cheers, KGill talk email 21:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BWV 913 / Reger

Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Falconieri: Il primo libro

Hi KGill, I have seen here some parts of this work typesetted by Johan Tufvesson − many of his typesets are already here. I started to upload, but I stopped at the CC special page, with some doubts: is this a good idea? What is the appropriate license? And, as I think I already uploaded 5 files: how to resume?

What do you think? Thanks for your help. − Pierre.chepelov 23:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to this page, he's fine with non-commercial distribution. In some places here, I've seen them licensed under CC Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike 3.0, so I guess that would work fine here as well. To complete the upload, you can use the 'Add multiple score files to this page' link again, this time noting the Use this form for pseudoURLs and files already uploaded text at the top - if you navigate to the link indicated, you can copy and paste the wiki filenames for the already-uploaded files into a set of textboxes and continue normally. Cheers, KGill talk email 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! Pierre.chepelov 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Beethoven's 9th - II. Scherzo - Clarinet 2 (transposed to B♭)

Dear Kenneth,

I saw your upload for the 1st Clarinet part here, and I am currently looking for the same for the 2nd part. I am an Amateur clarinetist (explains the almost non-existent active transposing skills), and although I have transposed that part already for a performance in 1992, I am tired of reading it the way I did it then. I wrote it on three pages A3 size paper, Landscape, and I have no clue any more why, but it is significantly annoying during performance. (especially the huge waving movements when turning pages - that always catches the conductor's attention  ;-)

So here my question: Would you also have the 2nd clarinet part of the 2nd movement available for Bb clarinet ?

I have done my homework and transposed it already, but I do not think it is good enough to upload here. (could send it to you though, for a laugh) If you do not have it yourself, any chance you know who might have ?

Just now, I spent $2.95 for the 2nd part on, but the 2nd mv is also in C  :-(

Hope you can help me out ! Best wishes from Yokohama/Japan /Randolf

Hi Randolf,
Unfortunately I do not have the second part transposed - the reason I did the first was because a friend playing it requested me to :-( Moreover, I am almost positive I won't have the time to do this anytime soon, since I'm rather busy at this point. If you already have it transposed, though, I don't see why it couldn't be uploaded here - my typeset isn't all that great, after all, and I'm sure yours is at least as usable. If you wish to send it to me, I can probably find the time to edit it if necessary; what program did you use? Otherwise, you might wish to ask on the Score Requests section of the forums for a transposed part, as there may be a more competent typesetter than I who can find the time. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Volkmar, Adam Valentin

Hi KGill, thanks for your research! Uniform spelling in German speaking countries before 1901 is indeed a separate story... Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RVW’s Symphony No.9 in E minor

This is an interesting one… somehow I doubt that unlimited re-broadcast rights were negotiated at the time of the performance, which ought to result in a tag of N/N/N. This is quite an awkward issue, because it is quite possible in many countries for a recording of a performance to have entered the public domain, while the underlying musical work remains under copyright (e.g. pre-1961 recordings of UK composers †post-1940). Moderation forum topic? Philip @ © talk 03:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For this specific case, I don't think it's necessary - guess I could just delete the files, although maybe someone should bring this up with Carolus? (Judging from the fact that he edited the page, I assume he looked at and thought it was all right...could be wrong, of course.) For the latter issue you brought up, I'm not quite sure why a discussion would be of the utmost importance, since if either the recording or the composition is under copyright then it couldn't be hosted here anyway...could it? KGill talk email 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I, not Carolus, uploaded the files, and goofed here. (ah, I follow your reasoning though. Carolus uploads all the rest, I think, of the Schubert/DuPage-or-Chicago files from there; I was wondering why he hadn't uploaded that one. Now I know, though.) Eric 21:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I’m probably not alone (among the copyright review team) in finding these issues extremely confusing – especially when married to the need to mentally juggle the issues for three completely different legal regimes of CA/US/EU. That’s why I thought some elucidation of the matter (especially by Carolus) over at the forums would actually be valuable. Cheers Philip @ © talk 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
In that case, please go ahead as you see fit and bring it up with him; I must confess that some of the issues relating to copyright on recordings vs. scores (such as which supersedes the other, if at all) are not proving very easy for me to grasp either. Cheers, KGill talk email 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Hrm- probably right, as he only spent a year in the US before dying... what would you say is a reasonable criterion? (I have no way of knowing, I think, from the information most readily available whether someone actually obtained citizenship in a given country but also don't know if that is among our criteria.) Eric 03:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, citizenship is a decent criterion (I doubt he obtained it after spending a year in the US), but if there's much doubt, then I would either go with what most sources say (in this case, none mentioned an American nationality) or weigh based on where the person was born and where s/he spent most of his/her life. None of these factors would indicate that Grosz could be considered American, which is why I removed the second nationality field. Cheers, KGill talk email 21:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi there! I saw that you changed the José Maurício Nunes Garcia page a bit, but where did you take this alternate spelling from? It's quite un-portuguese, and I've never seen it. The scores I have of him have some letters transcribed literally (that is, in old portuguese spelling) and they never spelled his (or his son's name) like that. Also, he was a priest, so we sometimes in Brazil name him Pe. José Maurício Nunes Garcia.--SeuLunga 04:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Before I forget, where did you take that 09/20/1767 date as a possible for his birth? I ask this and the above because the scores I have of him always show 09/22/1767, and considering that who wrote the prefaces to them was the scholar responsible for cataloging his works (CPM takes after her - Cleofe Person de Mattos) and she always refers to that specific date (and specific spelling of his name, taken from letters and etc), I'd see that 09/20 as a mistake. (That alternate spelling may also be a mistake, as many people like to say portuguese things in spanish spelling, for example: Sao Paolo - correct is São Paulo).

Lastly (lol, I'll leave this alone after this!), one must understand that the alternate spelling is a translation, it's not portuguese anymore, it's the same as calling him John Maurice. I'm particularly aggravated by the ñ as that isn't accepted in formal portuguese, and is written by us as nh, the equivalent of changing his name to Nunhes.

New stuff: I made a mistake considering the Laudate Dominum, as I wrote the name of another psalm I intend to upload (together with some info that I already corrected). The work page is already all corrected but I needed you to change the name of the work again, to Laudate pueri, CPM 77. I'm very sorry about that. --SeuLunga 16:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To address your various points:
1. The alternate spelling 'Núñez' is taken from the Library of Congress. The point of the 'alternate names' field is not necessarily to provide alternate forms of someone's name in the same language, but simply to assist in searching by providing any alternate spelling, irrespective of how 'correct' it might be. (The most common spelling is given by the title of the category.) Compare, for instance, the Russian composers on the site - not only are their names already transliterated into another alphabet, but there are Germanic, Polish, Anglicized, etc. spellings of their names given as well. That's why they're 'alternate' - none of them are 'correct' in the sense you mean. (Except for the original Cyrillic spelling in that case, of course ;-) )
2. Mattos's book is from 1970, and in the link I gave above you'll find that LC cites a 1999 source that gives 'Sept. 20 or 22'. Please let me know if you've found a still more recent source that supersedes that, though - we're just going for the most recent reliable information. (BTW, it is unclear what sources Wikipedia uses, as there are no inline citations.)
3. The title has been fixed, thanks for the note. You actually have the ability to do this yourself - if you click on the 'move' tab at the top of a page, it will let you change its title.
Cheers, KGill talk email 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd still dispute that 09/20, as it may be a mistake that's spreading (after a quick google search, I've found only pages in english to carry that date), but that's a minor concern. Also, I moved the Laudate Pueri again, to Laudate pueri, CPM 77. Now I tried to create a page for the real Laudate dominum, CPM 76 but the existence of that earlier mistake made it impossible, so I created as "Laudate dominum". Is there a time when the database drops old page names? Sorry about the mess, --SeuLunga 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Page names are never dropped, no - but it's of little import here as I've now moved it to its correct spot (deleting the old redirect page is something only admins can do). It's no problem; individual page names are a relatively minor thing to fix. :-) KGill talk email 22:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear KGill, fortunately you are too far from here to hit me because of this question: If I made a recording of a work by a still living composer (or my own arrangement of it) and uploaded it at youtube, anyone will make any noise. If I uploaded an own recording of a piece by Rachmaninoff (e.g) here, even this would be non PD EU at IMSLP. Why? Does youtube have special rights? Thanks! (I take cover) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No reason to take cover; it's a perfectly legitimate question ;-) The main reason is that even though YouTube's official policy is to root out copyright infringements, they have such an incredibly huge number of (mainly illegitimate) recordings being uploaded all the time that it is nigh impossible for them to keep tabs on all of them. (My internal conspiracy theorist suspects that they might also deliberately play the rules a bit loose so as to make more money, but that's purely conjecture ;-) ) Anyway, we have a very tightly controlled system - every single file's copyright status is looked at - so it's much easier for us to enforce the law. It also helps that we have orders of magnitude fewer files to deal with, I suppose. I would guess that the reason YouTube hasn't been gone after more often is the immense amount of money backing their lawyers. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I expected something like this (?). Thank you very much!! --Ralph Theo Misch 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Can you get on the IRC when you get this? Thanks ;) Lndlewis10 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I've been on the IRC for hours. KGill talk email 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Chaulieu, Charles

Hi KGill, I have another Charles Chaulieu - born in 1816 according to the BNF notice - He his sometimes named Chaulieu fils, so probably the son of Charles Chaulieu father - here. Please can you create a page ? Merci --Squin 15:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the old category here and created a new one at Chaulieu Jr., Charles. Cheers, KGill talk email 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Do you happen to know why the IRC isn't working right now? It seems to be down or something... Thanks! Lndlewis10 14:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now I assume you're in school (actually, I know you're in school, because I can see you from here), which means that it's blocked by the content filter. Or have you got it to work here before? KGill talk email 14:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worked here before, actually... Oh well, I guess they blocked it. Lndlewis10 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been blocked ever since it was up...I've never been able to get on. KGill talk email 14:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well... I have :P Lndlewis10 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

De Mars

Hi Kgill I Created this composer's page : [1]. It seem to be Demars, Jean-Odéo (1695-1756). But the harpsichord piece i put for him may be due to Demars, Charles (1702-1774) BNF notice say Jean-Odéo Demars : Compositeur prétendu = composer claimed ; Charles Demars : compositeur

I read this on wikipedia : Jean-Odeo Demars is a French organist and harpsichordist of the eighteenth century.

Nothing is known of him except that he was organist of the Cathedral of Vannes in 1735, the year of publication of his first book of harpsichord. The coverage of this, we learn that he was nicknamed "the younger", which may suggest another musician among his brothers (probably Charles Demars, 1702-1774).... according to the BNF dates , the younger (le cadet) is Charles, so he's the real composer

Musicsack makes no difference between Mars, J. de and Mars le cadet... Il let you see which to choose and modify the composer page , but i plaid for Charles. --Squin 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC) .... .... I see just now that steveBNA made a personnal edition of this score on a Jean-odéo Demars (in one word) [2]

If the work was actually composed by Charles Demars but merely attributed to Jean-Odéo, then I think the best solution would be to put the work page under Charles, leaving a redirect in Jean-Odéo's category and putting a notice at the top of the page to the effect that the work was misattributed to Jean-Odéo. There is precedent for this, significantly the dozens of works published under Bach's name but actually written by others. Cheers, KGill talk email 20:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Merci --Squin 05:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AmazonLinks template

The Category "External Links templates" now includes all the pages with Amazon Links. Is there a bug, or was this a result of placement? Carolus 21:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that you had accidentally placed the new category inclusion in the template in the section 'includeonly' rather than 'noinclude' (understandable, as that template is something of a morass of formatting marks). I noticed this and moved it to the correct spot, but there are still a lot of pages whose caches have not yet cleared. As far as I can tell, the list is steadily decreasing in length and should be down to just the relevant templates before long. Cheers, KGill talk email 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed the list is getting smaller - thanks! 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

R.M. Stults

Hi. Death date pretty clearly 1933, not 1923. See p. 7 col. 3, which I should have found yesterday.
Could we now link his arrangement of The Star Spangled Banner (uploaded yesterday) to his Composer/Arranger page? Not something I know how to do. Thanks. Olmsted 00:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It's a wonder that none of the sources I looked at (there were several) didn't find his obituary (see the category discussion page for my reasoning behind my edits). In any case, the most likely correct date is now given in the category. Linking to an arranger can be accomplished through use of the LinkArr template, which would be used in the 'Arranger' field in the file entry similar to the following example: {{LinkArr|Robert Morrison|Stults}} (1861-1933). This automatically causes the page to appear under the linked-to person's category in the section 'Arrangements by [name]'. (There are analogous LinkEd[itor], LinkTr[anslator], and LinkLib[rettist] templates as well.) Cheers, KGill talk email 01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Very satisfying for imslp to clarify what LoC et al. did not, albeit for a lesser name. Lesser but not insignificant: his Sweetest Story Ever Told was recorded by Rise Stevens and Bing Crosby, among others. See Youtube. Thanks again. Olmsted 01:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

in re Taras Yachshenko et al.

In general I understand. And if I understood what I was doing better I should not have jumped the gun. Would it have been too much to ask, that understood, that when he restored his file, recreated his workpage, etc. he write in the comment section something generally akin to "ok'd by (KGill/other admin as appropriate to the particular case)" rather than leave one in the dark as to what was actually going on. .. probably, as I did jump the gun and violated several deletion rules besides , again. Anyhow. Thanks Eric 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that the marking of the copyright tag as permission granted (!N/!N/!N) would not be sufficient? I suppose it wouldn't be a problem to put a note on people's userpages to the effect that they had the necessary permissions, but as that's anything but standard practice at the moment I'm a bit worried that the adoption of such a policy would result in additional confusion and/or previously unnecessary work, since there's probably an enormous number of such people who have nothing of the sort marked anywhere non-CRs can see it. Also relevant is the 'signature' feature (introduced ca.May 2010), which asks users to enter their real name if they upload anything under a CC license - this is extremely useful since in many cases it obviates the need to contact the uploader at all. (This is only visible to those with CR rights, of course.) What do you think? KGill talk email 01:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Eric 01:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

24 Pièces de Fantaisie, Opp.51, 53-55 (Vierne, Louis)

Do you think we should split these?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure they need to be, to be honest. What would be the reason to split, apart from the fact that they've always been published in four separate volumes? Most references I can find seem to consider them as one big collection rather than four smaller ones. KGill talk email 19:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)