User talk:KGill/archive8



I'm sorry about leaving out the LinkEd's when I was cleaning up the Chopin works. I didn't know about it at the time. Lndlewis10 22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's not much work. KGill talk email 22:06, 4 December 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)
Sorry for the elapsed time in responding further (the above retrieved from your archive!). Here are my suggestions for including various parts pages on the new category pages:

Add the following line:

Category:Symphonies DONE

Add the following line:

Category:For strings
Category:For strings with continuo

Add the following line:

Category:For orchestra (without strings)

Add the following line:

Category:For orchestra with soloists
Category:Concertos DONE
Category:Concerti grossi

Add the following line:

Category:For voices with orchestra
Category:For chorus with orchestra
Category:For voices and chorus with orchestra

Add our magic header:
{{PartsNav}} to:
Category:For orchestra

--Homerdundas 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All done. Cheers, KGill talk email 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent!! thank you. --Homerdundas 02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lully's Le carneval

Hi KGill, my doubts grow continuously, but it's scanned now anyway. I just want to let you (and Carolus) know this and take cover ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking closer at it, I'd say that the (very elementary) continuo realization put together with the suggested ornaments and dynamics would put it over the threshold of originality; however, I'd also like to hear Carolus's opinion. It may have to be deleted. KGill talk email 23:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid you're right. Thanks anyway! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chopin editions (worov's uploads)


I'm not convinced these are Mikuli's edition. For one thing, the fingering is quite different in places. To make matters even more confusing, Schirmer issued at least two other editions of Chopin in the early part of the 20th century, one by Rafael Joseffy, the other by Arthur Friedheim. They may have re-engraved parts of the Mikuli edition for their reissue in 1934, but I expect there was a lot more re-pagination than re-engraving. In any case, I think the Mazurkas volume was simply assigned a new volume number and reprinted directly from the 1894 - page numbers and all. Trying to clean info from library listings is enough to drive one crazy and I don't have an actual copy of the 1934 printing here, so I could be very much off the mark about the nature of the 1934 reissue. Carolus 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I defer to your opinion but I should point out that at least the pages I looked at seemed to be completely reengraved - indications were in different places and more measures were fit onto each staff. I didn't exactly go over every bit of each score and compare it to the established 1894 Mikuli, but I think it's pretty certain that this edition is not a mere reprint. (N.B. The volume numbers for the 1894 and 1934 editions are in fact the same) KGill talk email 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a different engraving, and it looks like Schirmer's engraving to boot. I'm suspecting it's either the Joseffy or Friedheim edition. I don't think Schirmer actually re-engraved the Mazurkas for their 1934 reissue of Mikuli, because all the WorldCat records which included pagination info indicate that they simply assigned a new plate number for the Mazurkas, which start on page #3 in the 1894 (vs. page #55 in the edition worov uploaded). I'm sure it's PD, so I'm planning to leave as is until additional info surfaces. I was wondering if you might know some more info to add to my admittedly sketchy knowledge of the issue. Carolus 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I know more about it than you do, but perhaps we could compare the typographical style of Joseffy's edition to Mikuli's where possible (for instance here). Admittedly I'm not sure how useful that would be, but at least we would know what to look for to identify Joseffy's edition...I'm really grasping at straws now, aren't I ;-) KGill talk email 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hrm. Which of worov's uploads are creating the controversy- the ones from I don't think the local uni. library has Friedheim but it might have Joseffy for some of Chopin works, will have to check and can then compare pagination and fingering... Eric 03:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what do you think about this: it's a reengraving of Herrmann Scholtz's edition? Today Worov uploaded a bunch of other Chopin works from; I'm looking at Grande valse brillante, Op.18 (Chopin, Frédéric) and it seems to have the exact same contents as the Scholtz edition, except it's reengraved (although they apparently went to extraordinary lengths to duplicate what was in the older edition). It's also obvious that it's from the same edition as we were wondering about before. Do you think that's strong enough to identify Monday's fare as well? KGill talk email 20:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you think it may have been reengraved by Peters ca.1910? KGill talk email 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I found the exact edition...we have it on Waltzes, Op.34 (Chopin, Frédéric). KGill talk email 20:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasse Arminio

Hi KGill -- in tagging the page linked above I discovered there are two different operas entitled Arminio by Hasse, the second is not a revision but has a different librettist, etc. How do we differentiate the two without catalog numbers? By year? Thanks for the help. Massenetique 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do the two operas have different subtitles? If so, maybe we could include them in the page titles (once someone uploads the second one, at least). If not, then it might be more useful to somehow include the librettist in the title (although I'm not totally sure how that would work). Year is the usual practice in these cases, but it's questionable how helpful that would be to differentiate the two at a glance. KGill talk email 15:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The operas do not have subtitles, and at this point we only have a work page for the second version so until someone uploads a score from the first its not too important, but still I think there should be something indicating the one present is the second version. Grove lists them as Arminio [1st version]/Arminio [2nd version] -- if we went with librettists it would be: Arminio (Salvi)/Arminio (Pasquini), with years: Arminio (1730)/Arminio (1745). Not sure which of these, if any, is best. Massenetique 18:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I sort of misunderstood you. If the second version is really just that - a new version - then the two should probably just go on the same page. There are already cases of revisions of operas being put on the same page under headings, viz:
====1st Version (1730, Salvi)====
====2nd Version (1745, Pasquini)====
Do you think that be more suitable? KGill talk email 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that is fine, except the distinction of "version" is Grove's - I think they are still seperate and distinct works being that they have different librettists and the second is not a revision of the first. If it were, Grove would include them both under the same heading - as it is the two "versions" have seperate listings and two revisions of the second version are even mentioned. Confused yet? Massenetique talk email 21:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A little :-) Do you know where the score of the other one might be? If we could look at it, it would be a lot easier to settle the question of how different they really are... KGill talk email 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a question that they're different works - Grove would list a revision in the same space they list the original, not as a seperate entry. No idea where to find a score of the 1730 Arminio. Massenetique talk email 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
OK then, I guess I return to my earlier thought that they should go on separate pages in the forms Arminio (Salvi) and Arminio (Pasquini). At least, that's what I think - it may be a good idea to ask Davydov about it as well. Cheers, KGill talk email 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


I see that you took away the comma after the Op. number. For example: "String Quartet Op.18 No.2" as oppose to "Op.18, No.2". As I've been looking throughout the site, I haven't seen any predominant ways of notating this. In fact, the reason I left the comma was because I noticed that when Davydov moved a page he included it. Another common convention that doesn't seem to be inappropriate is "Op.18/2". Although interestingly enough, I now see that the manual of style does in fact call for the convention "Op.18 No.2", so... yeah, I should realized that. In retrospect it was careless. Thanks for fixing it about a minute after I moved the pages :) Lndlewis10 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. KGill talk email 19:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Manuscripts for Obscure works

I've been thinking about this issue somewhat, since we've seen a huge increase in the number with Bocaccio's uploads of Graupner from ULB, etc. While Canada's bar for Editio Princeps to apply to older works is quite high (no public performances), that of individual EU countries might be less, which leaves the status of such manuscripts ambiguous if there was no publication until ULB or another library posted scans of the work (assuming that such action even meets the definition of publication in the country of origin). I think the best course therefore is to tag these items as V/V/C where it's an obscure work which is unlikely to have been published. Beethoven and other items where there is a history of publication do not fall under this rule, obviously. Thanks, Carolus 04:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm guessing someone should go through Graupner's category and retag everything? (I see you already did a couple dozen.) KGill talk email 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going through as I have spare time. It's not urgent, so I just thought you might like to know my twisted reasoning behind re-tagging things at random ;-). BTW, I added a couple of little maintenance templates: {{NoPubID}} (for items needing publisher info) and {{PDFL}} (for locked PDFs in need of unlocking). Worov's recent dump of numerous files from made the usefulness of these apparent - tag now and clean up later! Carolus 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I finished letters A through E of Graupner, so you won't have quite as much work (although it's a pretty enormous number of files - 549 works total!). I hear you on Worov's uploads - sometimes I wish more sites (such as provided decent publisher information...but I guess that's our job ;-) KGill talk email 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ave Maria

Hi again KGill, this page doesn't seem to represent a unique work, but rather simply a piano arrangement of the Bach/Gounod Ave Maria... am I correct in thinking it should be deleted and the score moved to the appropriate page for the original work? Massenetique talk email 06:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Same issue here.

Yes, you're right - I'll move them. Thanks, KGill talk email 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Speaking of deletion privileges, how does one acquire those here? Is it reserved for admins/copyright reviewers? Massenetique talk email 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Admins only. Being a copyright reviewer exclusively gives one the ability to use the copyright tagging special pages - nothing else. KGill talk email 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. Not saying I'm necessarily qualified, but how does one become an admin? Massenetique talk email 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There's not really one set way, but usually it comes up for discussion in the restricted section of the forums. If there's a consensus to promote the nominated user, then s/he will get the rights. The discussions don't happen that often; usually they come in spurts where a few users are considered at once (the last time this happened IIRC was in late August/early September). KGill talk email 00:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I see. Well, I'm interested - been a member since March of 2007, am meticulous with my edits, have created almost 800 work pages (2.5% of all works on imslp), and feel a very close affinity to the site and its goals. I am also applying to graduate programs in library science and my affiliation with imslp is a real asset. Just putting it out there. :) Massenetique talk email 00:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Deutsche Weisen

Hello KGill. Thanks for your contribution to IMSLP. I'm uploading the complete edition of Deutsche Weisen at the moment. Please wait a few hours before changing the pages. It will get better and better :-) As I read on the Score Submission Giude I upload the edition on a "composer" page August Linder nevertheless he's the editor. --Kdkeller 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kdkeller. I redirected the page you created to the publication page, since all editions and arrangements should by policy appear only on the pages for the original work (with links to the editor/arranger). You'll notice that some of the files you already uploaded for Deutsche Weisen are listed under the two categories linked to from Linder's new page. Thanks, KGill talk email 00:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi KGill. My aim is to create the new Work page Deutsche Weisen (Linder, August) and then delete (with redirect) the existing page Deutsche Weisen. I have 10 pdf-files per 30 MB and I can't scan and upload the 300 songs one by one (though I wanted it). What do you think about it? --Kdkeller 00:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: Here you can read the exact reason (Number 2.)
In general, it's discouraged to set it up that way unless there is more than one work per page (which I don't believe is the case here). What exactly do you mean when you say "I can't scan and upload the 300 songs one by one (though I wanted it)"? Do you already have them scanned? If so, it's definitely possible to split it up without much trouble using a program like pdftk or PDFSAM (it would take some time, however). Even if a larger file has to be temporarily uploaded to the site (until someone finds the time to split it), the ideal outcome would be to have it broken up into individual works. KGill talk email 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello KGill, my sentence "I can't scan and upload the 300 songs one by one (though I wanted it)" has 3 reasons:

  1. In 20% of the songs there are in fact more than 2 songs on a page or the song is split into 2 pieces on 2 (not whole) pages.
  2. To make "nice looking" files for those 20% I don't have the time.
  3. Every week I get an e-mail from friendly (mostly very old) men who want a copy of the whole collection. It was a book they knew in their youth and for them it's very important to get the book unsplit.

I agree, it would be nicer to have seperate files, but let's look at the result. I wish you a Merry Christmas! --Kdkeller 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that that was the case (i.e., that more than one song was put on some pages). I suppose I got the wrong idea from looking at your cleaned-up submissions from 2007, where you fixed that :-) I thought of moving the page to be under 'Various', but that wouldn't be the ideal solution either because Linder put together the collection, and it makes more sense to have the entity as a whole appear under his category in some form. Not sure if how it stands right now is optimal/final, but agree that it's the best that can be done at this point. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, KGill talk email 22:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi KGill, thank you, too, for your critical review. I think now we have a useful solution. Greetings from Germany! --Kdkeller 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


Having contributed some to the Vierdanck en-Wikipedia page but never having heard his music, belatedly sending thanks your and the other performer's way for making that recording of his capriccio Eric 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not a great recording by any means, but perhaps somewhat useful as a sample :-) KGill talk email 01:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that-

failed to take care of the rest of it after blocking the spammer... Eric 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Maid of the Mill, D.795 (Op.25) (Schubert, Franz)

Hi KGill, that long procession of plate numbers is not a form of vandalism - it's correct :((. I am trambling (CR renewal)..... --Ralph Theo Misch 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am glad!! Cheers!! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

José White Lafitte (Joseph White)

Are we sure that he should be referenced here as Joseph White when Grove and other sources indicate his name as José White Lafitte? I don't add composers without some consideration and research into their most widely accepted name, are you finding some information that I am not (other than he published works as Joseph White)? Massenetique talk email 07:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

According to, the national libraries of the USA, Germany and France all use "White, Joseph, 1836-1918" as their main heading for this composer. Judging by their long list of "Alternate Name Forms" , it seems he was known by a dozen different names during his lifetime (including "José Silvestre de los Dolores‏ White y Laffita" !), but "Joseph White" was the most widely accepted — P.davydov 09:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, my research was mostly from the musicological end, where he is listed as "White Lafitte, José" in the prominent reference publications. I would also like to mention that changes such as this, when they are done over the edits of an experienced user, should include the input of that user. Otherwise, it appears the admins' unilateralism aims to diminish the hard work done by others. Massenetique talk email 11:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I can understand a certain irritation with me for not letting you know beforehand of the change; however, I'm afraid I do not understand how your work was diminished in any way, or why the decision was unilateral in any meaningful sense. LC Authorities names are used in 99% of cases here (unless there is a very, very good reason not to), because they are commonly accepted as a standard, have a strict internal set of rules on determining the most widely used form of a name, and often consult dozens of available sources (including, most likely, all the ones you looked at). The decision to use LC was made years ago and established by consensus long before I got here, and therefore by continuing that tradition, as it were, I am not really acting unilaterally at all. If I were, in fact, you would probably never see me move a composer page, because it's less work to just leave it there ;-) Finally, the effort you put in - finding information on White and compiling it into a composer page, supplying an image of him, and uploading some of his works - was not diminished at all, it was merely moved to a new title and modified slightly. I am a bit disconcerted by the sentiments you expressed above, because they seem to be bordering on a feeling of ownership of the pages you worked on. Anyway, I think it would probably be a good idea to create some sort of page detailing the methods by which composer names are determined here, in the interest of transparency among other things. I've been thinking of it for a while, and now seems to be as good an opportunity as any... KGill talk email 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I certainly would not claim "ownership" of any pages I've worked on, but I think it is reasonable, as adults working together in an online community, to involve each other as much as possible when making changes like this one. I know it seems silly and inconsequential, but something as simple as a note on my talk page to the effect that the LoC uses "Joseph White" and maybe a suggestion that I refer to a particular online resource when confirming the best name to use would suffice. Otherwise, it seems somewhat dismissive of my intelligence and not helpful in the long-term for me to be a better contributor. I know you do not intend any offense and I apologize for wording my concerns a bit too strongly - thank you for all the work you do here, I understand it is often tedious and thankless ... Happy 2011! Massenetique talk email 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's always room for me to improve - in the future, I will notify users more reliably when something they have done needs to be adjusted in a major/noticeable way (including, of course, moving composer pages). Thank you for the apology, but perhaps I should also apologize, since it was I who caused this incident in the first place. (I can, however, confirm that no disrespect to your intelligence was intended.) Cheers, KGill talk email 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
IMSLP:Composer Names KGill talk email 14:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! We do sometimes swim against the tide though (don't mention Mendlessohn) :-). Anyway, thanks for all the hard work you put in to the library side of things here, and all the best to you for 2011 — P.davydov 17:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, excellent resource! Massenetique talk email 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :-) KGill talk email 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice page, but from whence should it be linked?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style? Probably also the add composer page (just for convenience), and possibly the 'how to edit this composer page' help page. What do you think? KGill talk email 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's only useful if people can get to it...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See Forum Thread

-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. KGill talk email 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)