User talk:KGill/archive7

Contents 1 fl. Date of Thomas Gobert 2 Bruhns/Rheinberger 3 Carl Blum Grand Potpourri 4 Template:OtherLangs:IMSLP goals 5 since you are on 6 Cui, César Antonovich 7 Naming conventions 8 Complete sortable list for Villa-Lobos 9 Composer(s) 10 ULB 11 Willner 12 Sabaneyev 13 Bach: Mass B minor 14 Walter Cosand 15 Ah, 16 FS 17 Benda: Caprices 18 Work genre page and Orchestral music with player's parts available 19 Brinquedo de Roda (Villa-Lobos, Heitor) 20 Pleyel 21 Voluntary by Maurice Greene 22 CPE Bach 23 Graupner 24 Friedrich Koenen 25 Edward Loos 26 Antony Choudens 27 Recordings

fl. Date of Thomas Gobert

I wanted to check with you why you indicated that Thomas Gobert "flourished" in 1643, as I think you have edited it. The biography I appended shows he was already Maître de chapelle du Roi in 1638. 1643 is the year of Louis XIV's accession.

Furthermore the verses that I uploaded for the 17th Psalm seem to have been deleted. I think it is important to associate the complete text with the music. Is there not enough room on the imslp servers for this information?

Thanks, Toph _talk

Thanks for pointing that out. The reason I reverted your edit was that you completely removed the floruit date and replaced it with a question mark (somewhat less helpful than an actual year); it's now been changed to 1638. As for the verses, the reason the file entry was removed was that you did not actually upload a new file - it was a duplicate entry for a file already on that page. That may have been caused by using the same filename for the verses as you did for the score. I do agree that it would be useful to include the complete text along with the music. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KGill, you were right, I uploaded a duplicate filename by accident, I'll change the filename and reload it . . .

Bruhns/Rheinberger

Hi KGill, I can't find my modern Bruhns edition this moment. But I doubt that it is a real arrangement ("für den Concert-Vortrag bearbeitet"). Perhaps I'll find it tomorrow. Regards --Ralph Theo Misch 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the score isn't marked the same way as it would be for an arrangement, and the title page gives no hint that Rheinberger's edition has a different instrumentation than the original. I realized that after creating a category for arrangements by Rheinberger, of course :-) KGill _{talk email} 00:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick search for Rheinberger arrangements shows one of the Bach Goldberg vars. made by him and later 'tweaked' by Max Reger (whether yet digitized or uploaded to IMSLP, not quite sure.) Another arr. or transcription of his own 2nd violin sonata into a clarinet sonata some years later, true. Eric 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Rheinberger's source was a tabulatur (as usual for keyboards that time) and he made a modern score... --Ralph Theo Misch 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Could be, but I'm still not sure that would count as an arrangement, since the instrument itself wasn't changed. KGill _{talk email} 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree--Ralph Theo Misch 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Translation" is a good word for that.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed :-) --Ralph Theo Misch 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Carl Blum Grand Potpourri

Hi KGill, I seem to have messed something up when adding this page as none of the links to add scores or performances are showing up as hyperlinks. I guess there might be something wrong with the title. Some help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, --Cypressdome 00:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I think the problem was that you included two sets of single quotes in the page title - the normal wiki notation for italics. I'm not certain why this would break the page, but moving it seemed to work, so if I were you I guess I'd try to avoid that in the future. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:OtherLangs:IMSLP goals

Hi KGill, some languages do not work if added to the sidebar or OtherLangs templates. The Korean shows up as red link (at least on my browser): ko:IMSLP:목표, also at the end on each of the project pages. Shouldn't we remove it until the system can handle this? Regards, Hobbypianist 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. The reason I transferred it was that it was originally in another OL template (unlinked), and I wasn't sure if it should be totally removed or not. KGill _{talk email} 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

since you are on

i want to know who is in charge of making sure this site look the same.. standard and uniform and stuff like that. who specializes in stuff like that. are there any like manuals for stuff like this, or something? thanks in advance, Jdoeman

We do in fact have a formal manual of style, with several subpages. Anyone can work on enforcing it - we encourage any interested parties to try their hand at it (if they can stand the tedium ;-) ). No one is really in charge of these things, unless you count the fact that it's normally admins who end up doing it - but no one is assigned to it. KGill _{talk email} 20:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

there are a lot of exceptions, such as schissel who wasn't made an administrator for years. i know that someone named carolous is considered the primary copyright guy, and feldmahler is the 'head' and according to this manual of style, i would assume that davydov is the unnoficial head of "standardization". standardization is the word they use on the forums..... and bkhon and perlnerd666 seem to be the other heads.. am i correct to assume so this? sorry for my english too im not from here. i want to be made head of this standardization because it will make the site look nice. ~

Carolus is the head of the copyright review team, and has his hand in a lot of other matters, such as high-level administration and, yes, standardization. Davydov is the head of the categorization project (Perlnerd, Schissel, and I - along with a few others - are members), and could be considered the de facto head of standardization (since he has written and revised most of the style guides). Feldmahler is the site owner (=the big cheese), but doesn't participate much in the day-to-day running of the site. I noticed your remarks on Carolus's talk page, but I would still stress that no one is really the 'boss' in the sense that would imply a chain of command. Carolus and Davydov are probably the most senior among us, but Perlnerd, Hobbypianist, BKhon, Schissel, myself, etc. all participate in the management of the site. KGill _{talk email} 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that incidentally "seniority" doesn't mean length of tenure, which differs by about a year or two in the case of Carolus and Davydov.
BKhon has (if I remember properly) tried to establish a standardization team; I think that were that to be set up, Davydov would be placed at its head.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cui, César Antonovich

Hi Kenneth. I notice that the (un?)holy trinity of the Library of Congress, Grove and Wikipedia now all use just plain old "Cui, César", and wondered whether we should consider changing our "Cui, César Antonovich" to match? — P.davydov 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

it does sound a fair idea to conform to those sources. Jdoeman 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This might raise the question of whether we should re-look at LC every once in a while to find out whether they've changed their entries...what a nightmare ;-) In any case, I'll be happy to do the page moves. KGill _{talk email} 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for volunteering to do the moving (which I'd have been quite willing to take on) :-) — P.davydov 05:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I thought I was supposed to follow authorities.loc.gov as possible ... (their listing is "Elliott, J. W. (James William), 1833-1915" so I really couldn't follow them, but I tried to come close.) Frustrating really :) Eric 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The LC headings are a bit confusing, and overcomplicated for our purposes. It's pretty standard practice to use the full name in parentheses if there is one, instead of the initials (unless of course only the initials appear in the heading); any text after '|c' is also ignored if applicable. Sorry if that wasn't made clear before - maybe there should be some sort of page detailing how to use LC to title composer categories... KGill _{talk email} 01:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Complete sortable list for Villa-Lobos

I'm sure you've heard this alot, but is the Villalobos.ca worklist a good place to start from for that? Making a sortable list from that may be the hard part... Eric 02:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did actually start from their list last August, but the problem is that it's far from complete (lists mostly major or well-known works of interest), and the information is not always as detailed or as accurate as a standard reference work (even a semi-outdated one such as Appleby). One example is the exact orchestral instrumentation - Appleby 1988 has far more listings, and far more accurate ones. The only downside is that I have to type every bit of information myself this way :-) Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Composer(s)

Thanks for the correction. I'd never noticed! — P.davydov 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ULB

I just noticed you changed the ULB template. In principle a good idea as it is now more user friendly... unfortunately this screws up all the stuff I uploaded recently from there (basically the instrumental works). How did you manage to repair all the cantata links? Is it possible to automatically correct all other links as well? --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 14:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's automatically possible - I went through and edited every single page so that only the number itself was entered into the template. It's not much of a problem to go through your recent submissions and do the same. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh you did a tough job then...it would have been easier to let everything the way it is, I guess. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 15:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Willner

Hi KGill, yes - for violin and ORGAN, of course. Sorry! Thank for correcting it! --Ralph Theo Misch 01:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No.3: I took the CR note from here - I hope it's correct. Regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 00:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be no different than the other piece in that respect; I don't see any reason not to copy the note. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sabaneyev

Hi, KGill! It's about Sabaneyev's scores... I thought that there was an exception for the scores published _before 1923_, that's why I've submitted it... Is there something that I don't understand? San-ia-Soone 01:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're correct for US law - as it was published before 1923, it's public domain there. Everywhere else, though, relies solely on the author's date of death, and as Canada's copyright term extends for 50 years after death, and as we're in Canada, Sabaneyev cannot be uploaded here until 2019 without breaking the law. (The link I gave you also includes an explanation.) Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for misunderstanding. San-ia-Soone 03:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bach: Mass B minor

Hi KGill, would you please have a(n inconspicuous) look at Willner's arrangements? Kind regards --Ralph Theo Misch 00:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (I assume you meant the copyright tag). KGill _{talk email} 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter Cosand

I should mention that Walter Cosand sent me an e-mail (quite some time ago) asking that we not list him as the scanner of the files from his site, since he did not scan them. Thanks. --Robert.Allen 02:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I would argue that the 'Scanner' field is still the proper place for a link, as it's sometimes more generally used as the place to note what site the file was obtained from (for instance, that's where we put links to the Henselt Library, another non-scanning site). Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah,

yes, I wasn't sure if "Phantasy" should have been moved to "Fantasy". Sorry, BKhon 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to - could you point me to the page you mean? Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

FS

Thanks for getting rid of the category.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Benda: Caprices

Thanks for your help! As you've seen it's always the same edition. Assuming that David didn't touch the essence of Benda's original, I declared only the corresponding 2nd file as an arrangement. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. The only thing I'm not sure about is the date - WorldCat gives 1910, but it doesn't list every item in the collection (only one caprice by Benda, for instance). The original version (unedited by Petri) appears to have been published probably in the 1870s. KGill _{talk email} 00:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

At WorlCat I've only seen 19XX - before the spelling reform (1901), some words would have been spellled in another way. Is Franz Benda really a baroque composer? I know that C.P.E. Bach had "stolen" from an Benda for his Pasticcio Oratories, but I don't know from whom of the Bedas this moment. Maybe I'll find a publication of (one of the) caprices at bachdigital. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Work genre page and Orchestral music with player's parts available

Some time ago I added a link to Symphonies with players parts available, to the Category:Symphonies page, which you removed again. I'm not sure if you are the right person to address on this point, but I have been maintaining the pages of 'works featuring the orchestra/xxxxxx' where xxxx are a few genres of orchestral music. The only way of accessing these lists is via the featured instruments section - which is far from prominent.
As a librarian of an amateur orchestra, I know these are valuable pages - as the route to discovering playable works is *typically* "what can we get for free" (or as close thereto as possible) "that we haven't played recently". "Aha - we can print it out".
I tried to add these links to a few genre pages - but some have a restricted list of editors. I'd welcome your comments - or should I post this on the forums for wider audience? --Homerdundas 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly why I removed the link - it seems a very good idea. The only thing is how far to go with linking to these pages. There are dozens and dozens of different tags for different combinations of voices, chorus, and orchestra; it certainly isn't practical to link to the page on all of them. Where do you think it would be best positioned? KGill _{talk email} 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brinquedo de Roda (Villa-Lobos, Heitor)

I typesetted this just for you (since you're a Villa-Lobos fan). It was the only Villa-Lobos I had in my collection. Hopefully you don't hate the typeset. If you do, feel free to tell me what to change and I will, BKhon 23:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would I hate it? Always good to have some more out-of-the-way repertoire at IMSLP - thanks very much. The only thing I'm concerned about is its US copyright status - it was AFAIK first published in 1940 by Irmãos Vitale. Is this the copy you were working from? If so, does it have a proper copyright notice on it? I ask because although South American publishers were and are known for their habits of leaving off critical copyright requirements for US law (such as valid notices), it's always possible that they actually get it right, and as no one appears to have reprinted it I have to wonder whether they did in this case. Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't copy it exactly. In fact, it's largely my own edition. I added several "new" articulations, dynamics that weren't in the print, slurs, etc. The copy I was working on does not - in fact - have a copyright notice on it. BKhon 01:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even better :-) KGill _{talk email} 01:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pleyel

I completely agree with you that it is unusual to add the dedication of a work to the page name. But I still think that in the special case of Pleyel's quartet's dedicated to the King of Prussia, the Prince of Wales and the King of Naples, the dedication is (apart from the Benton number, which, however, few people will know by heart) the most easy and certain way to identify these works (the opus numbers are too contradictory to be of much help here), and they are actually referred to in this way already by Pleyel's contemporaries (e.g. Boccherini in a letter to Pleyel). Would it be possible to make an exception here (possibly in a shorter form, e.g. "12 String quartets, B.331-342 (King of Prussia)", or should we follow the general rules for page names? Best wishes, Cgo 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could. I probably should have consulted before moving those pages; sorry about that. I would suggest something like 12 String Quartets, B.331-342 'King of Prussia' rather than the parentheses, as those tend to be used for alternate catalogue numbers. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this conversation after posting to Cgo's talk page on the same subject. Instead of putting "King of Prussia" in the work page titles (which isn't standard practice), how about creating a template be created for Pleyel's quartets that includes this information, and can be added to every page for the Pleyel quartets? This would work in much as in the same way as the templates for Bach's cantatas or Mozart's symphonies — P.davydov 11:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a good idea. I could supply the information on all quartets of Pleyel, but I don't know how to create such a template. Maybe it would be useful to include there an overview of the different opus numbers and book numbers of Pleyel's quartet's, too - but I have not yet a good idea how to do this; but normally the editors at Wien, Paris, London, Offenbach and Amsterdam/Berlin each used their own opus numbers, so it would be interesting to have an index of the quartets that compares them all; the identification of newly added items would be much easier then. Maybe we could create a list which names on the left side the Benton number and the date, and then the opus numbers etc. from Wien, Paris, London, Offenbach and Amsterdam/Berlin (i.e. Hummel), and additional information like the dedication. But this would mean we have to create a list with 7 columns. Would this be possible? Cgo 12:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A sortable list of works page would be the best place to include a table showing the different opus numbers (and Benton's numbers), while the templates are usually quick navigation guides so that people can move between works of a similar type. It's up to you, but I'd suggest starting with a sortable works list, and then base the template(s) on that. The sortable work lists are basically just spreadsheets that have been converted to Wiki format (there are a lot of websites that will do this for free). This one for Smetana has a lot of columns, and you could try adapting the layout for Pleyel. There are plenty of people around here who'll be happy to help if you get stuck — P.davydov 12:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that there have been further changes, and things are getting rapidly out of hand (!). Can I suggest that because the opus numbers are inconsistent they should be omitted from the page titles, and that the subtitles also be left out as per our current guidelines. I now have access to the list from Grove and will try to tidy things up a bit, and there's an existing sortable worklist for Pleyel which can be utilised more fully — P.davydov 17:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, removing the opus numbers would be a possibility. But I think it's not a good idea to change the titles of the duos again. For the names I followed exactly the names give the works in Benton's catalogue (the standard reference work for Pleyel), and a lot of useful information would get lost by removing these details here. Cgo 18:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the details about instrumentation could also be included in a template... Cgo 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary by Maurice Greene

Hi KGill, I didn't know if this is how to talk to you, but the voluntary by Maurice Greene is not from a manuscript but from an actual book which was published in 1779. grantco

Fixed, thanks for the note. For future reference, to leave a new message on someone's talk page, you can press the + button at the top - that will take you to a new page which will let you specify a title and text for the message. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 23:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

CPE Bach

Hi KGill, for that matter please have a look here. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the edition you uploaded does not contain continuo realizations of any kind, since the original was written with keyboard (pianoforte or harpsichord) in mind. He also notes that an earlier editor (during Bach's lifetime?) added the cello part - so this edition would appear to be wholly urtext in nature. Or is there something I'm missing? KGill _{talk email} 00:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks like the case to me at least-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to me, too. Really nice pieces - they should be available for everybody! I couldn't believe it that they were not already here. Unfortunately I've only those in A minor and D major... Good night --Ralph Theo Misch 00:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hogwood's recording is fantastic.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Graupner

I guess the picture of Graupner you added rather shows his employer, Landgraf Ernst Ludwig von Hessen-Darmstadt. I remember having read (but I don't remember where) that no painting of Graupner exists today. --Boccaccio_{Talk Email} 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I removed it - thanks for the note. Now that you mention it, I also remember reading that somewhere. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Koenen

Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome :-) KGill _{talk email} 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edward Loos

Hi KGill, it's not unlikely that you will have to delete him, but I wanted to try it in any case. Regards --Ralph Theo Misch 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is rather close to 1960, but I don't think we really have to remove it unless proof is found that he did live until somewhere around that date. Until then, I tagged it as C/C/N. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that gives cause for hope...--Ralph Theo Misch 01:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find a renewal?-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 04:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't looked, but now that you mention it, I can't find anything registered under that name except a book of poetry by a guy who was born in 1923. There wasn't a notice on the score, in any case. KGill _{talk email} 12:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We're probably not going to get anything better than this, save a long-lost relative stumbling on this site-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 14:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Antony Choudens

Hi KGill, sometime back you deleted the page I created for composer Antony Choudens and moved it to Antoine de Choudens. This is not correct -- Antoine de Choudens was the famous publisher and father of Antony, who was a minor composer. Can you please revert this change? Thanks so much. Massenetique 07:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what happened. I decided to go with BNF, which gives both as 'Antoine de Choudens', without noticing that there was someone else by the same name. I'll fix it, thanks for the note. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 12:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Recordings

They actually didn't turn out that badly. I look forward to making some more! ;) Lndlewis10 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that bad, no. Most of the Halven is actually quite good. As for my piece, well... :-) I'm not sure I have time next week to come over. KGill _{talk email} 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We can always redo your piece. Winter break is when we can make a majority of our recordings (!) Just go ahead and select stuff (I'll do the same) so we can actually practice, instead of site reading ;) Lndlewis10 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)