User talk:KGill/archive9


Glæser / Glaeser

Hey! I was still working on the work pages, when you renamed it! It was quite confusing for me... I suppose there is a good reason to replace the æ's, while leaving the ø's, é's, etc.. (Personally, I tend not to see any: I think that æ is considered as one letter in Scandinavic languages, and not as a ligature of 2...) − Cheers − Pierre.chepelov 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I did not choose a great time to move that category. All I know about the replacement is that the Library of Congress specifies the primary form of his name as 'Glaeser', and as it's our general policy to follow their lead on composer names, there would have to be a very good reason to override them. Thanks, KGill talk email 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this for a “very good reason”, then? I have no objection to the Library of Congress authorised headings where there seems to have been some obvious research done to establish a canonical name (and to establish uniqueness, biographical information where relevant often forms a part of these records). Looking at the LoC record for Glæser however, you will find that the Library of Congress is completely ignorant of his full name (he was Joseph August Eduard Friedrich) and nationality, and the source of their risibly incomplete information is cited as:
667 __ |a Data contributed by the Dance Heritage Coalition for the New York Public Library Dance Collection.
670 __ |a NYPL Dict. Cat. of the Dance Coll., 1974-
In other words, the supposed superiority of the Library of Congress heading is actually based on nothing more substantial than a deficient 36-year-old catalogue from the NYPL. At least the Danish wikipedia managed to obtain a full name, and place and dates of birth and death; considering these inadequacies I concur with Pierre Chepelov’s view that there is really no good reason to have renamed the composer’s category and works, except for blind compliance with policy of IMSLP’s names to agree with the Library of Congress’ records over and above the application of common sense. Sorry for the rant Kenny, but this move was in my opinion arbitrary and unneeded. Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 02:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Post-script: for two different and interesting examples of how the 670 field is used in researching people’s bios, check out the annotations for the LoC records of myself and Carolus. ;-) PML
Just to be clear, there isn't a rule stating that the LC version of the name has to be preferred to all others. KGill consults a variety of sources, including VIAF and Grove, but in this case only the LC has any reference to Glaeser. If it comes to a choice between the LC and a stub Wikipedia article (in this case translated directly from the Danish), then it's hardly unreasonable to go for the form used by all western libraries. That's hardly and "arbitrary and unneeded" decision, and we should be a little kinder to KGill for all his valiant efforts to ensure that the composer info is correct — P.davydov 06:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You can find no less than 161 items on WorldCat categorised under the name “Joseph Glæser” as opposed to the Anglicised “Glaeser” or the German form “Gläser”, which seems to strongly indicate the LC authority records are out-of-date. You can find Glæser’s tombstone via the Danish wikipedia article, which uses the Danish spelling. Other Danish and Norwegian composers’ names are represented on IMSLP using the extended alphabets common to those countries’ languages, and have LC records with relatively full biographical info, unlike Glæser’s. I have repeatedly articulated my position on these types of policy decision: IMSLP should not be under the imposition to replicate other organisations’ errors, especially where superior information exists elsewhere. This is one such case. Philip Legge @ © talk 08:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
For most composers' names you will find a bewildering array of spellings throughout the web, so we rely on the the LC, VIAF and Grove to ascertain the most reliable version. In this case "Glaeser" was the only documented spelling among those three sources, and KGill acted quite properly in adopting this standardized name form. While there may be other websites out there with variant spellings, we can't just assume that any one of these is inherently "superior" to any other. If you disagree with that decision then you're perfectly free to make an argument for "Glæser" on the basis of reliable documented sources, but it's exceptionally unfair to berate the person carrying out this thankless task, and I hope you'll reconsider the tone of your previous comments — P.davydov 18:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I could care less for tone, than for the fallacious argument from authority than has been advanced here. My first point elaborated that the LC is reliant on an old catalogue entry from the New York Public Library, which very probably lacked the finesse to represent an obscure composer’s name in its native spelling. Grove has nothing to say on Glæser, and the VIAF record is merely a pointer to the Library of Congress, so those three sources actually boil down to one, and an unreliable one at that. If VIAF were able to consult a Danish library such as Det Kongelige Bibliotek there would have been no ambiguity, as there Glæser’s works are only referred to by the Danish spelling – but the Royal Library of Denmark isn’t one of the libraries contributing to VIAF. Your argument that there are “a bewildering array of spellings throughout the web” is neither here nor there: there is a consistent Danish spelling of the name on all of the scores published in Copenhagen represented on IMSLP, as well as being found in most of the web pages emanating from the composer’s native country. The argument is thus round the wrong way: there really should be a better reason to alter the spelling from the native spelling than merely “the Library of Congress knows better than everyone else”. As it happens, I emailed them with an error report with respect to this composer, so we will see what comes of it. Regards Philip Legge @ © talk 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I merely explained the procedures we have for checking the validity of composer names, to demonstrate that KGill's move wasn't "arbitrary and unneeded" as you described it. It isn't your argument for "Glæser" that I'm disputing, but the way in which you chose to "rant" (to use your own expression) at KGill, rather than to assume he was acting in good faith according to the evidence available to him — P.davydov 11:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@Pml - Yes, in retrospect it doesn't exactly seem to have been the best choice, and I don't have a problem with moving the category back to Glæser (actually, I'll do it after finishing this message, on the basis of the information provided here); however, I do wish that you had presented your arguments in a more moderate way, rather than almost explicitly stating that I habitually consult one source only for composer information (you can read the general procedure I follow here, if you're interested). That being said, I do not really have the time or the inclination to scour the web for information (beyond the couple sites I always check) for every single composer I look at; normally, if what I find adds up to what I judge to be adequate and/or complete information, then I will go with that rather than taking the time to search publication records, doing a general internet search, etc. - that's normally limited to cases where the standard sources don't provide decent information. This case was no exception to that rule, and I hope that it can be considered an isolated incident of inadequate information posing as adequate rather than a systemic failure. Thanks, KGill talk email 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kenny,
might I make a number of observations?
First, please don’t alter the category back until we see what response the LC dignify my submission to them; my argument was that given the general obscurity of the composer, there was really no special reason to justify their choice of an Anglicised form. I haven’t written to them to similarly complain about their preference for the name “Orlando di Lasso” (where specialist knowledge, combined with Grove or MGG, does suggest that the Italian form is not the best form to use); I think the horse has bolted in that case. So, they may believe that retaining the current record is justified (despite the comparative abundance of almost completely unanimous Danish sources).
Second, I was aware of the new page, IMSLP:Composer Names, and had read it immediately prior to making my initial comment – and you yourself had emphasised “follow[ing] their lead” in reply to Pierre, so that is the part of it I addressed. I know the policy crystallises the general habits that the team have been following for a considerable amount of time, but the page is newly created and if it hasn’t exactly appeared as a fait accompli, by the same token neither does it currently reflect that there is not unanimity at an admin level (no prizes for guessing whom) about relying on the Library of Congress authorities in every instance, which in the absence of Grove or VIAF providing information is exactly what the policy entails.
In fact, in one aspect, the policy where it refers to omission of name information is not strictly correct: some records do put qualifications like “Sr.” or “Jr.” into name records under the |c field, and we do include those.
Thirdly, I am not suggesting that you should have to scour the web to double-check extraneous references, or that my criticism implied that you had failed to do what was required, and if you have read that implication into my earlier post then I am very sorry for being misleading. What I think might have been recognised was that the undoing of a specifically Danish spelling of the name of a Danish composer ought to have qualified as the starting point of a “very good reason to override” the LC. The idea of a preferred name gets only murkier when considering names outside the expanded Romanic alphabet, as is the case for virtually all of the Russian/Eastern European/Asian etc. composers on the site; so the ones where a native alphabet is employed (Albéniz; Dvořák; Martinů; Borgstrøm) really shouldn’t be this problematic.
There is one more interesting aspect on this Glæser: he was born in Berlin, since his father was a composer who worked most of his life in Germany, unlike the son. Thus the majority of the published material of the father (being from Germany, not Denmark) favours Gläser, and the LC’s authority record for the father follows the German form – not the Danish, nor the Anglicised form. Although the familial relationship has nothing to do with what is decided as the preferred form in the authority records, I think it does show that these cases aren’t (or perhaps the word is, shouldn’t) decided by following a formula.
Finally, I have to confess having noticed maybe one or two earlier moves of similar nature (and not all of them by you) that to my mind similarly lacked somewhat in their justification, which made me more eager to pounce on this one. That was completely wrong of me, rather than doing the right thing bringing the matter up separately and neutrally in the appropriate forum for such discussions, and so in the light of the frequent displeasure which my opinions seem to raise, I’m strongly considering – given my sizeable commitment of time to other activities – whether I shouldn’t add my name to the list of admins/CRs who should be retired for non-performance of their duties: should I do so, then you would be free to complain all you like about me behind my back on the moderation forum.
Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Philip, if you honestly think that I would take advantage of your exclusion from the moderation forum to make derogatory comments about you there, then perhaps it's my own status as admin that should be called into question. As it happens, while I recognize that whether or not you want to continue in an administrative capacity is your own business, I do not think that it is altogether advisable for you to consider resigning at this point for the reasons you offered (or for any others I can think of, for that matter). Why should the expression of dissenting opinions be grounds for removal from the moderation team, whether by individual decision or consensus? If it were, then we would be in sorry shape indeed - so stuck in the rut of conformity are we that we can't even stand to have providers of alternate views in our midst. That got just slightly poetic ;-) and a bit exaggerated, but I do mean it. I hope that you don't decide to leave the team, and sincerely apologize if my comments here have factored negatively into that decision process. KGill talk email 21:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Coste op.47

Hello − I'm sorry, but why did you delete the first version of this work? There are many examples here where there are several files with quite the same engraving. The title difference in itself is interesting, at least from a musicological point of view... (I won't say the music itself is marvellous, however...) − Cheers Pierre.chepelov 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The first file on the page was an exact duplicate of the file you uploaded for Divagation, Op.45 (Coste, Napoléon) - sorry for the confusion. I actually was going to send you a message about it but forgot to when I left after the site temporarily went down for the third or fourth time (part of Feldmahler's maintenance, I guess) - lame, I know... KGill talk email 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it was my mistake − I did too fast that damned Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V thing. Now I think this is well done! Pierre.chepelov 22:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

William Wallace Gilchrist

Hi KGill, you're one of three admins/librarians (p.davydov, KGill, and Massenetique) that Carolus suggested I contact regarding the formatting of titles for the composer William Wallace Gilchrist. As none of his works were assigned an opus number I've been posting them in the format of "Title, Schleifer nnn" which references the number in Gilchrist's catalog of works compiled by Martha Furman Schleifer. Carolus was wondering if there was a preferred abbreviation for referencing Schleifer's assigned catalog number. I certainly have no idea. I've posted this query to the other two admins/librarians as well. Many thanks!--Cypressdome 06:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't find that many websites that even reference to Schleifer's catalogue, much less abbreviate it - the couple I have seen use the full form (i.e., 'Schleifer ###'), the same as you've been doing. Probably the best way to be certain would be to actually look at the book which contains the catalogue, but for now I concur with Davydov that it's best to be as clear as possible here and not come up with our own abbreviations, even if that means longer page titles. Cheers, KGill talk email 14:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance. It would seem that the consensus is to continue using the current format. In the catalog at the end of her book on Gilchrist Schleifer doesn't use her name or an abbreviation in the numbering of Gilchrist's works. They are simply numbered (within categories and sub-categories) 1 to 493. It would be interesting to know if the references on other sites to Gilchrist's works using the Schleifer catalog number pre-date or post-date the posting of his works on IMSLP starting in late July, 2010. Perhaps IMSLP's format is helping to set a standard.--Cypressdome 03:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


I realize that this is a fairly large collection of tunes, but to we really have to split it up into separate pages for every 2 dances or so? Unfortunately, we don't have the original yet. Otherwise it might be easier to determine how it should be split - assuming it really has to be. Carolus 03:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the main reason I didn't merge them into one page was that I was too lazy to pick through Martin's files and create all the subheadings (sorry about that, should have handled it better). I think the reason cited by Martin on one of the talk pages for the splitting was that he was going to upload scores, parts, and audio files for multiple arrangements of each individual piece, which would create an enormous and rather ponderous work page if consolidated. That may not be a valid argument, the two extant pages should be merged, then? (If there are no other arguments for artificially dividing them, that is) KGill talk email 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I was wondering if the original fell into manageable sections, because (as you mention) trying to have everything on a single page could easily grow into something quite horrendous. I know that this has been reprinted in facsimile, so I'm going to shop around and see if I can find one to scan in the case there are none floating around the net. Just leave as is for now. Besides, the server move is coming upon us fast. Carolus 21:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How to correct

Hi KGill,

I'm not very used to changing something in imslp, so I think I did something wrong. I wanted to replace the Complete Score of the TWV 43:A7, for there were two misspellings in the foreword, but the new file was immediately removed. How can I do it correctly?

Thanks Michel

The simplest way to replace a file is to: (1) click on the little 5-digit number under the download link for the original file (e.g., #40000); (2) go to the 'Upload a new version of this file' link; and (3) select the new file from your computer and upload it using the page that appears. It's possible to just upload an entirely new file, but that requires the deletion of the old file, and you would also need to make sure that the new filename is different than the old one (or else it will just create a new link to the original file, which is I believe what happened just now). Cheers, KGill talk email 21:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(I should also perhaps mention that it usually takes a couple of days for the new version to actually appear upon download - the old one will still appear until the cache is cleared.) KGill talk email 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Juan Ramón Jiménez (1881-1958)

I see this author died far enough back that there would have to be permission from his estate for the settings recently uploaded by Luis Ignacio Marín García. I asked Marín García, who has set a number of his texts, if he has permission. Carolus 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean for the US status specifically (which might cause the files to be blocked), or just in general? (I ask because technically there isn't a problem with hosting the files, since they're OK in Canada at least.) KGill talk email 21:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If he did not obtain permission, it would probably be illegal for him to have uploaded the files here in the first place (but not illegal for them to be hosted in Canada), as Jiménez is of course protected in the EU (and therefore also in Spain, where Marín García lives). Carolus 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Cesar Cohen

Could this be Eric Quezada making yet another attempt? Carolus 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to think so - is it the birth date that makes you suspicious? KGill talk email 02:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That, and the sudden appearance of 2 toccatas and a suite. Looks like the new items have been done in Lilypond. Quezada used Finale as I recall. I'll go ahead and OK them - just wondered if you might have noticed anything I didn't. Carolus 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Helmholtz

Hi KGill, I've already tried it myself, but there's no MOVE button at the category pages. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 09:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Flute Concerto in G major 1 (Croubelis, Simoni dall)

Why not "Flute Concerto No.1 in G major"? The category lists "Flute Concerto in G major 1", and "Flute Concerto in G major 2". It doesn't appear that it's a revision of the same work, nor is it a movement of the same work. Could they be separate concertos that just happen to be in the same key? Lndlewis10 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they're not actually numbered, they're just (as you say) two different concerti with the same key. I'm not aware of any numbering system for them - if there is one, then that would be the best solution - but in the meantime, I don't really think we can classify either as 'No.1' or 'No.2'. Maybe the titles could be 'Flute Concerto in G major No.1/2' instead, I don't know. BTW, I'm going to be late to your house today (obviously, since it's almost 12:30 and I'm still here ;-) ) KGill talk email 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Excuse me for the error - you're working with a fabulous speed - what have you eat ? --Squin 21:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Chor til Concerten for de Blinde (Weyse, Christoph Ernst Friedrich)

Hi. I just wanted to point out that there is actually no complete score for that piece. The currently so-called "Complete Score" has only the parts for the flutes, clarinets, bassoons, and horns. Thanks, N6 (IIb) 02:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it's been changed. Cheers, KGill talk email 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn PDF

Hello, KGill, I have a very stubborn PDF file that is locked. I am on a Mac. I have tried many different ways to edit. I am trying to get rid of some unwanted marks. Do you have any way of unlocking this? Then I edit out the unwanted marks. Thanks. Generoso 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried using an old version of PDFSAM? (You can get 0.7 here.) It ignores any encryptions and allows you to process the file as if there weren't any. If that hasn't worked, I'm afraid I don't know what would; you might try asking Carolus if you have further difficulties. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you that worked!Generoso


Hi Kenny. Davydov said you were more concerned with the area of creating category pages for arrangements. He said it was fine if I helped, but I just want to double check to make sure it's OK with you. I've read the rules on Davydov's talk page -- Lndlewis10 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, since I thought the basic rules were here ;-) I'm fine with you realizing them, but there is one other thing I think you should keep in mind. If you look at many of the ones that are already created, you'll notice that many of them contain links to other tag categories in the 'See also' section. This is largely subjective, but it may be worthwhile to keep in mind the internal rules I followed: if a category specifies a specific number of something, and other categories specify other specific numbers of that same thing, then link to all of the others on each category; if there is a supercategory of a category that might come in handy (e.g., Tangos -> Dances), then link to that (don't link to the subcategory from the supercategory, though); if you can think of very similar instrumentations or work types to the one for which you're creating a category, then create links on each page to the other. Obviously, following these to the letter isn't important, but one of the main reasons I wanted to realize the tag categories in the first place was for the 'See also' links, so I would be very happy to see that practice carried on no matter who's doing the work. Thanks, KGill talk email 22:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

...again Bach's Violin Concerto in G minor

Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)