User talk:P.davydov/standards

Contents

OK, first thing I would suggest is to put the Arrangements and Transcriptions in score order.

Solos

  • Woodwinds
Flute
Oboe
Clarinet
Bassoon
Ensembles
Duets
Trios
Quartets
Quintets
  • Brass
Horn
Trumpet
Cornet
Trombone
Tuba
Ensembles
Duets
Trios
Quartets
Quintets
  • Percussion
Solo
Ensembles
Duets
Trios
Quartets
Quintets
  • Keyboard
Solo
One player
Four-hands, etc.
Ensembles
Duets
Trios
Quartets
Quintets
  • Strings
Violin
Viola
Cello
Bass
Ensembles
Duets
Trios
Quartets
Quintets

Mixed Ensembles

Orchestra
Band
Other Mixed Ensembles
Duets
Trios
Quartets
Quintets

Many publishers order their printed catalogs somewhat differently. Typically, it's Keyboard, Strings, Woodwind, Brass, Percussion, Mixed Ensembles, Orchestra, Band, Vocal, Choral. There are naturally other variations.

Another, very thorny question is where should piano reductions of concertos and operatic (and large choral work) vocal scores go. As I mentioned on the forum, there are numerous cases where the vocal score is actually the original version or it was prepared nearly simultaneously with the original, same goes for piano reductions - especially those made by the composer. The most commonly encountered score for many, many operas is the vocal score. It seems very counter-intuitive to relegate them to the bottom of the page. This is one of the reasons I've really been in favor of a tab-type subdivision of each page into two or maybe even as many as four sub-pages.

I'm still inclined to think that the top level of:

  1. Composer's Versions (plus those created by others with the composer's supervision and/or approval at about the same time as the original)
  2. Versions by others (created after the composer's death or without approval or supervision)

might be the most workable way of handling the issue. Defining the original version is not always easy, and the chances are that most visitors are going to be looking for full scores, vocal scores or piano reductions, and parts before arrangements and transcriptions made long after the fact by someone else (like Liszt's piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies). Carolus 20:22, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Many thanks for your comments, Carolus. Taking the points you raised in order, I've no strong feelings about how the arrangements should be sequenced. Using descending numbers of instruments was a convenient method of sorting them quickly, but if they are all listed in the sub-headings (and therefore in the contents block) they can all be identified without having to read all the way down the page. I think this is also helpful in quickly identifying whether a vocal score or piano reduction of an orchestral work is available, and jumping straight to it. I wonder though if your suggested method would result in orchestral arrangements at the bottom of a page, below any transcriptions for kazoo quartet  :-)
Incidentally, I found that using sub-headings for arrangements was a very useful way of linking to arrangements that appeared on a different page to the work itself. For example, the collection of 12 "Organ Transcriptions" in the Tchaikovsky category actually comprise individual arrangements of various of his works by others, which can now be referred to and linked from their appropriate work page. The same applies to some transcriptions of T's works by other composers, such as Rachmaninoff and Pabst, which are housed elsewhere.
As for piano reductions or other arrangements made by the composer, I initially shared your view about composers' versions coming first, but found this problematic to implement for the following reasons. Firstly, it's not always possible to tell whether the composer was involved with a particular arrangement (e.g. a piano arrangement of "1812" whose authorship is disputed), or whether they sanctioned later editions by others. Then again, a composer might have done some of their own piano reductions, while leaving the work to others on other occasions, meaning that the reduction would be listed in different positions on different work pages. Then there are cases such as "The Nutcracker" ballet, where Tchaikovsky's piano arrangement was a simplified one intended for domestic performance, while Taneyev's is the original, and the one normally used at rehearsal. We might also end up with an awkward mix of the composer's orchestral and piano versions of a score under "Composer's Versions" at the top of a page, followed by a similar miscellany of arrangements by others lower down. But I think that performers generally know the forces available to them when searching for a particular score, and my view has evolved to be that the original work/arrangements structure would be best suited to that approach.
You're quite right to point out that the editors of the work pages might not have all the composition history to hand, but the original form of the work should be fairly simple to determine, as it's (usually) described in the "General Information" category on each page. Failing that, I've found the Library of Congress's on-line catalog to be invaluable in determining which versions of a work constitute the original. The LoC and other international library standard bodies also take the view that the original form of the work always takes priority over all the arrangements (even those made by the composer).
However, you have convinced me that that it would be worthwile adding another section for "Vocal Scores", coming between "Original Work" and "Arrangements and Transcriptions". Even the LoC treats vocal scores differently from other arrangements. Would you be comfortable using "Vocal Score" for this heading? P.davydov 06:25, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Update

Where a composer has subsequently orchestrated the whole of a work originally for smaller forces, it may be helpful to consider the original and orchestral forms as 1st version and 2nd version respectively. An example of this approach can be found on the page for Dvořák's Slavonic Dances P.davydov 16:52, 2 February 2009 (EST)

That's a very good point. It's also worth nothing that Bartos assigned the orchestrations their own catalog number, which would theoretically justify a separate work-page for the orchestral versions. That idea gets a bit more cumbersome for a composer like Ravel, who produced piano and orchestral versions for a large number of works. Thanks for finding the dates for Karel Solc, BTW. We might have to boot some of his piano transcriptions, sad to say, since he lived until 1985. I'd been looking for his dates for a long time and could only find the 1893 birth date. Carolus 18:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps if and when tabs becom possible on work pages, then it would help to resolve alleviate some of these issues. Once we start getting into definitions of what actualy constitutes a "work", thereby madness lies  :-)

Incidentally, the Solc dates came from the Library of Congress authorities catalog. In casdes when no dates are given by a name (unlike this one), it's often worth looking at the full record, as they can be hidden away in the references. I understand that Solc was at one time the editor-in-chief of the Dvorak complete editon, so maybe some of his transcriptions might be covered by the "Urtext" provisions? Just a thought P.davydov 18:22, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Solc was definitely involved in the Dvorak edition, I thought Sourek and Bartos were the ones in charge, though. Thanks for the LC tip. Another question that came to mind when looking over the new hierarchy as exemplified by Dvořák's Slavonic Dances, has to do with the subheadings under "Arrangements and Transcriptions": In the section "For Piano 4-hands (Keller)", do we add a redundant subheading like "For Piano 4-hands (Carolus)" if I make a piano four-hand transcription of my own? Would it be cleaner and better to group all of the piano four-hand transcriptions under a single sub-heading "For Piano 4-hands" in chronological order? How many differing editions of Keller's transcriptions are there likely to be? I could see a possible need for having different sub-headings for each transcriber when there have been numerous transcriptions by various well-known musicians - Bach's Chaconne being a particularly good example. Most works are not going to have multiple editions of different transcriptions, however. Carolus 18:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Having only looked at the Tchaikovsky and Dvořák pages in detail, I was surprised how many times there were arrangements for the same instruments by different authors. Thinking further ahead, there may be greater advantages in having the name of the arranger in the heading, as these could be used for having anchored links from the arranger's page straight to the arrangement. This isn't something we do at the moment, but it opens up interesting possibilities for future development. Another more immediate reason is that the various arrangements are identified in the contents box at the top of the page, so someone looking for Liszt's arrangement of a Beethoven symphony, for example, can tell immediately whether it's included, rather than having to scroll down and scan through a jumble of editions. I can foresee a difficulty in removing the authors' names and trying to sort similar arrangements chronologically, in that the date arrangement was made is made may not always be known. And if the date of the edition was used for sorting instead, then early and late editions of the same arrangement could be separated by similar arrangements by others.

I appreciate your comments Carolus, and it would be good if other interested parties could make their views known as well, so we can get a feel for the general consensus. Could I also solicit your views on two related issues, though?

  • The use of "Cello" vs "Violoncello" in the names of parts;
  • The use of "Bb" vs "B-flat", vs "B♭" (and other flats, sharps, etc.) when describing keys.

Many thanks! P.davydov 03:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)

A few observations

1. The term for a vocal part is a "vocal score". This is hybrid of a vocal "orchestral part" and a piano transcription. You rarely find a simple vocal part like you find orchestra parts, because singers' parts are usually memorized, and the piano reduction is necessary for practice. Even when singing from a score in a recital, you will also have the piano reduction so you know where you are - unlike the orchestra (and chorus), solo singers are not supposed to have their eyes on the conductor.

It also helps immensely to have language subcategories (i.e. Italian/English) under the Vocal Scores.

Thanks for your input, Operalala. There is a problem in that people in different parts of the world use different words to mean the same thing. So for some people a "Vocal Score" is what others would call a "Choral Score"; while to other people a "Vocal-Piano score" is the same as a piano reduction, but others would think that the voices were missing.
Whatever term is agreed on, the vocal score is generally the only format that the vocal "parts" will be published in, and this is the format used in performance. I'd argue that vocal scores should not be classified as a transcription, even though a piano transcription is included, because the important part, the vocal lines, are "parts". (Whereas a plain piano reduction without vocal parts would be a transcription.) (The only other term I've seen for a vocal score is a "piano reduction", which is less accurate, and a "choral score" sounds like it would not include solo parts.)

2. There is also a difference between an arrangement and a transcription that affects the hierarchy. An arrangement is invariably excerpted from a larger work, but a transcription can be of an excerpt or of the full work.

This isn't necessarily the case. Here is what the Oxford Dictionary of Music says:
Arrangement = Adaptation of a piece of music for a medium other than that for which it was originally composed. Sometimes ‘Transcription’ means a rewriting for the same medium but in a style easier to play. (In the USA there appears to be a tendency to use ‘Arrangement’ for a free treatment of the material and ‘Transcription’ for a more faithful treatment. In jazz ‘Arrangement’ tends to signify ‘orchestration’.)
It's also clear from the forum discussions that people interpret these phrases to mean different things, so we need something that can be widely agreed on. This is the reason for the suggestion that we use a single heading called "Arrangements and Transcriptions". As for vocal scores, the consensus here seems to be that this should be used to an arrangement for voices with piano of a work originally for voices with orchestra.
Oh OK I see the difference between jazz and classical music.
The point is really that classical musicians can't agree on the difference between an arrangement and a transcription, so we should be cautious in our use of the terms.
Are you planning to keep separate headings for complete works and excerpts? Operalala 11:59, 14 February 2009 (EST)
No. P.davydov 03:34, 15 February 2009 (EST)

3. Does there really need to be a top level heading "Music Files" on every page? Wouldn't this be assumed? Other things, like books, could have a top level heading instead indicating that they are not music files.

That's an interesting point. There may be technical reasons why it's difficult to change, and maybe one of the administrators would like to comment. P.davydov 16:09, 14 February 2009 (EST)
That's part of the template. I don't think that there's really another way to separate the scores from the rest in cases with no headings.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:16, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Latest changes (15 February)

In the light of comments received, I've made the following changes to the proposals:

  1. The top-level heading "Vocal Scores" has been added, and the term "Vocal Score" has been defined.
  2. The sub-headings "Orchestra Parts" and "Vocal Parts" are now combined simply as "Parts".
  3. In the category of "Original Work", it is now recommended that complete scores should be listed ahead of any shorter extracts (if they exist), but without any special sub-headings.
  4. Notes on the naming of instrumental parts have been added.
  5. For chamber works, the full score and parts may be grouped together if they were issued as a set, and not just if they have the same plate number.
  6. The section concerning versions of works has been simplified.
  7. A new section has been introduced for cater for "Books".

I await any further comments ... P.davydov 17:53, 15 February 2009 (EST)

This is looking pretty good to me. I definitely see your point about including the transcriber's surname in the subheading so it can be spotted in the contents window. When you have multiple transcriptions (or arrangements) in the same medium by different transcribers (like piano transcriptions), would it be best to list them chronologically or in surname order? We've been going in chronological order for everything else, but surname might be better from seeing them in the contents window. Carolus 22:45, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Hi Carolus. Surname order in this situation would be more straightforward (particularly if the date of the arrangement/edition isn't known), leaving any anonymouos arrangements until last. P.davydov 01:05, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I agree. Another question (since you're re-arranging Eugene Onegin), what about the position of standard excerpts? For example, The Waltz and Polonaise are the standard orchestral excerpts from Eugene Onegin which are frequently performed on their own. Within the original version, I tend to think excerpts of this nature should go below the Vocal Scores (which are also part of the Original Version hierarchy). In chronological terms, such excerpts were often issued some time after the complete work was. Also, I think it's a good idea to have a sub-heading devoted to them (thus appearing in the contents box), since there will be people looking just for the Waltz and Polonaise. This arises most often in operas, especially in cases like the Ride of the Valkyries - which are often performed far more frequently than the complete work itself. Carolus 15:55, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I take your point about 'standard excerpts', but actually they're rather difficult to define when you come down to it. In the case of "Onegin", all the numbers were issued from day 1 as excerpts as well as full scores, meaning there was nothing particularly special about the Polonaise and the Waltz (except that they happen to be performed more often). The Waltz exists with and without the preceding entr'acte, and with or without the chorus and solo voices. Any thoughts on what might constitute 'standard excerpts' must, therefore, inevitably be subjective, and exactly what we need to avoid when trying to come up with a definitive set of rules. We should also try to look beyond the relatively small proportion of scores on IMSLP now (yes even with 26,000+!), to what might be added in the future. For "Eugene Onegin" alone there are more than 500 assorted published editions, i.e. complete/extracts, original work/vocal scores/other arrangements (all of which I've catalogued for my own database). If we're to handle the vast numbers of scores which could one day find themselves on IMSLP, then a sound and methodical approach is needed, which is what I'm aiming for (if not necessarily always hitting). Incidentally, the Ride of the Valkyries is a good example of an excerpt that's usually altered from the form it appears in the opera, due to it's somewhat anti-climactic ending in the original. If an excerpt is sufficiently modified from its original form for concert performance, could we treat it as a "revised version" or even an independent work? P.davydov 17:42, 16 February 2009 (EST)
The determination of 'standard excerpts' is indeed highly subjective. In the case of Eugene Onegin, there will be plenty who are merely looking for the Polonaise and Waltz instead of the complete opera. For certain operas like Rossini's Guillaume Tell, which is almost never done, the vast majority will be looking for the Overture. Would it not then make sense to give these excerpts their own subheadings? Also, the designation "- complete score" you're adding to individual parts has the potential to be somewhat confusing, since it's not a complete score, but simply the Cello part. You also raise an interesting question about what to do with excerpts where there is an orchestra-only version of something which includes voices and/or chorus in the original (like the Waltz from Eugene Onegin mentioned above). Should this go under "Arrangements and Transcriptions"? Strictly speaking, it's not the original version. Ride of the Valkyries is even more of an arrangement or transcription.
Here's another problem: Swan Lake exists in two very different versions. Tchaikovsky's original version of 1877 (almost never performed as an actual ballet) and Drigo's 1895 arrangement (which is the one you'd be most likely to hear - in some variant) in any ballet performance. This is not at all apparent from the workpage for Swan Lake. The Langer piano reduction is of the 1895 Drigo version, while the Kashkin is of the original 1877 version.
This is actually easier to deal with. Langer's piano reduction is the only score showing the changes Drigo made for his 1895 production, and the complete full score from the same year was actually Tchaikovsky's original 1877 version (albeit with a supplement of three piano pieces orchestrated by Drigo). Drigo's amendments were never published in full score, and by the time the first LP recordings had been made, the original version had come back into favour due to its republication in the Soviet edition of the complete works (Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 11, 1956). In the absence of any full scores or recordings of Drigo's changes, I think it's difficult to argue that these can stand as a version of the score in their own right — any more than any other changes made in connection with a particular production (like Matthew Bourne's). P.davydov 17:42, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Actually, the 1877 has only come (somewhat) into favor in Russia. Even there, the 1895 score (or variants thereof) are done much more often. (In contrast, the majority of recordings are of the 1877 version.) This is primarily due to Petipa and Ivanov's superb choreography, which is apparently far superior (as a ballet) than Reisiger's (or - later - Hansen's) for the 1877 score. It's true that Jurgenson issued (possibly re-issued) the 1877 version of the full score in 1895 with Drigo's orchestrations of 3 of the Op.72 piano pieces. They also re-issued Kashkin's piano reduction then (January 1895). The Langer score didn't appear until around 1900. At any rate, the 1895 score was considerably altered from the original and should probably be listed as an arrangement. While Tchaikovsky knew of the plans to stage Swan Lake in Petersburg with new choreography, but it's not at all clear that he actually sanctioned the drastic surgery carried out by Drigo after his death.

Hi Carolus. To avoid too many indents, I'll start a new section here to respond to your last points.

  • With regard to sub-headings for "standard excerpts" from operas/ballets, how would we decide which excerpts merit their own sub-headings, and how would we deal with selections? (i.e. one file containing several excerpts). We surely can't leave it up to personal preference, as that defeats the whole object of having standard rules. Isn't it a lot less messy just to list them in order after the full score — particularly where every number was published individually as an extract?.
  • However, I agree that it would be helpful for people to be able to see a description of the sections of larger works at the top of the page. The present system of having to click into IMDB and scroll down to find a list of sections (if there is one), isn't ideal.
  • I'd agree that orchestral arrangements of "Ride of the Valkyries" and the like should come under the heading of "Arrangements and Transcriptions".
  • I expermimented yesterday with "Cello — Complete Score", to balance out cases where we had "Cello — 1st movement", i.e. to make it clearer that the part related to the whole work. But if you think it might cause more confusion than it's worth, I'll change it back.
  • I must disagree with you over "Swan Lake". The 1895 score was very faithful to Tchaikovsky's original version, and to Kashkin's original 1877 piano reduction. The only concession to Drigo's changes was the appendix with the latter's orchestration of three piano pieces. Trust me on this  :-) P.davydov 07:11, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Hello P. davydov, I'll continue below with responses:

  • You certainly raise a knotty question. Perhaps the only reasonable thing to do is simply list them in order beneath the full scores, vocal scores and parts for the complete work. I absolutely agree that leaving it up to personal preference is a terrible idea. The pattern we've been using for multi-part vocal and piano works is to put the complete work at the top, with individual numbers beneath (in numeric order). I do think using the sub-headings is a good idea, for the very reason you employed them for each individual transcriber in the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" section. The worst problem arises when we have sets of parts for different excerpts. Thus, in Eugene Onegin you could have nearly 30 files all labeled "19. Polonaise - <Instrument name>". While I prefer vocal scores to appear above parts, the exact order is not so important as log as there is a sub-heading with links in the contents box.
  • OK, the items where the excerpt in question has been modified for concert performances (by the composer or others) should go under "Arrangements and Transcriptions"
  • I really think it's best to simply use "Cello." If we create a sub-heading for each excerpt, there would be no need to explain that the part in question was for the complete work or an excerpt.
  • I wasn't referring to the 1895 orchestral score (with the odd 1881 plate number), which is of the 1877 version plus the Drigo orchestrations, but Langer's piano transcription, which was made from the Drigo re-arrangement of the ballet score. It's substantially different than the original. The order of things was changed, major cuts were made, etc. Jurgenson didn't get around to issuing the Langer piano reduction until around 1900. Drigo was in sort of a lose/lose situation, and he apparently sensed it. Petipa and Ivanov's choreography demanded heavy re-arranging and Drigo, as the conductor at Maryinsky Theatre, had to produce the arrangement. He later implied that Tchaikovsky had sanctioned all of this drastic surgery, but that seems unlikely as plans were not that far along by October 1893. Sleeping Beauty and Nutcracker are fairly straightforward, since Tchaikovsky was working with Peitpa from the beginning. In contrast, Swan Lake has a much more checkered history. The bizarre tale of how No.19a - the so-called "Sobeshchanskaya Pas de Deux" came about (MrLopez over at Wikipedia even claims it's actually Minkus' music re-scored by Tchaikovsky - which seems unlikely, but not totally impossible), the odd plate number and lettering style of the Jurgenson full score, which suggests it was engraved in the early 1880s - even if they never released it for sale until 1895, and of course the drastic re-arrangement made for the 1895 revival (which continues to be performed to this day) add up to make Swan Lake the most complicated of the ballets to sort out from a historical perspective.

Thanks, Carolus. Maybe it would be helpful to look further down the line, and imagine at some point in the future that for Onegin (or any opera) we have:

  1. the complete full score;
  2. parts for the complete full score;
  3. the complete vocal score;
  4. excerpts from the complete full score;
  5. parts fot these excerpts;
  6. excerpts from the vocal score;
  7. arrangements for orchestra alone for extracts from the full score;
  8. arrangements for other instruments of extracts from the full score.

The challenge is to present all these scores in the most user-friendly way, using rules that can be applied across the board to all compositions.

On the simplest level, we could either:

  1. group all the complete scores together, group all the extracts together, and then divide both these categories into sub-categories for full scores/vocal scores/arrangements.
  2. Or we could group put all the full scores together, all the vocal scores together, and all the arrangements together, and then further divide those categories into complete works and extracts.

My understanding is that we both feel that the second option would be better, but correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case, then we would probably end up with a system like this:

  • Full Scores
    • Complete Work
      • Parts for the complete work
    • Overture
      • Parts for the overture
    • Act I, No.1
      • Parts for Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2
      • Parts for Act I, No.2 [etc.]
  • Vocal Scores
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2, [etc.]
  • Arrangements and Transcriptions
    • Complete Work
      • Parts for arrangements of the complete work
    • Overture
      • Parts for arrangements of the overture
    • Act I, No.1
      • Parts for arrangements of Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2
      • Parts for arrangements of Act I, No.2 [etc.]

Is this what you had in mind? P.davydov 16:26, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Afterthought — there is a slightly simpler alternative:

  • Full Scores
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2
  • Vocal Scores
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2, [etc.]
  • Arrangements and Transcriptions
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2
  • Parts
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2 [etc.]

P.davydov 17:01, 17 February 2009 (EST)

This seems quite logical and flexible. Here's the one small change I would recommend:

  • Full Scores
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2
  • Vocal Scores
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2, [etc.]
  • Parts
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2 [etc.]
  • Arrangements and Transcriptions
    • Complete Work
    • Overture
    • Act I, No.1
    • Act I, No.2

I think it makes a little more sense to have the parts for the original version of the work - whether it's the complete work or excerpts - above the arrangements and transcriptions, which are frequently done much later (like Drigo's re-arrangement of Swan Lake) by people other than the composer. When there are excerpts issued separately, as the Polonaise and Waltz were from Eugene Onegin - especially in parts - it might justify a sub-heading to aid in locating the except in question. For full and vocal scores, the stacked files like we have on the Jurgenson full score for Swan Lake should suffice. I think this hierarchy is flexible enough to handle a large number of files for a single work. If we ever get to the point where the four main divisions could be set up as tabs or sub-pages, I think even those works with a ridiculous number or editions and arrangements - like Handel's Messiah could be navigated rationally. Good job - and thanks for all of your thoughts and insight. I modified Eugene Onegin according to the above hierarchy. Let me know what you think. Carolus 21:00, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Latest (18 February)

Thanks Carolus. The only change to the above I'd suggest is placing the section for parts immediately after the full scores, as there is a direct connection. I think this system should work for most types of composition, and I'll try it out more thoroughly later... P.davydov 06:32, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Version 2

OK, after a little experimentation, I've codified the latest proposals as "Version 2". They should cover most eventualities, and I've started to implement them on the Tchaikovsky guinea-pig, erm, I mean composer pages. Post your comments here ... 08:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)

OK, I think I got the hierarchy correct on this item. Seems fairly practical to me. I can see that having the vocal scores (a category which does not always appear) just above arrangements and transcriptions makes a lot of sense. The contents box deals with the possible issue of more people looking for vocal scores nicely. Carolus 13:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I've applied the same rules now to all of Tchaikovsky's, Dvorak's and Taneyev's compositions, and the system seems to be flexible enough to handle every case, even complex ones like "A Midsummer Night's Dream". I've made a few small changes to the latter, such as removing extra headings for "Complete Work" where there were no excerpts in the same category. You'll see what I mean if you compare the two versions. Incidentally (no pun intended), I changed the description to "Complete Work" as it's something that can be used regardless of the type of composition concerned.

In case you were wondering, I knocked off some of the descriptions of "arranger" and "transcriber" because of the problem we had definining arrangements and transcriptions (is he an arranger, a transcriber, or even a piano reductrist?). My reasoning was that the headings immediately above would make their role clear, but if you feel differently then perhaps we can agree on a consistent approach.

Since we're doing the sub-headings with surnames, the designation arranger or transcriber is probably not necessary, apart from the fact that it appears in the "Editor" field, which was the original thought behind using the designations (to differentiate from actual editors). I wound't spend any time getting rid of what's already there, but since arranger and transcriber are such ill-defined terms, it's not a big deal. Carolus 15:17, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Are you comfortable with the use of "Full Scores" for orchestral and chamber works, "Piano Scores" for works that were written for piano (not later arrangements/transcriptions), and "Vocal Scores" for voices and piano (including Lieder, song cycles, etc.)? I couldn't think of any other way of doing it, as "Full Score" could be misleading in these cases -- P.davydov 15:54, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I am quite comfortable with those. Carolus 15:17, 22 February 2009 (EST)
When listing transcriptions (or arrangements), is there a need to use: "For Piano 2 hands" instead of "For Piano"? When something has been transcriber for piano, it is normally understood to be piano (1 player = 2 hands). That piano 4-hands always includes the number of hands since it's a somewhat irregular configuration. There are naturally things which have been transcribed for 2 Pianos, 6 hands or even 8 heands, which always include the more specific description. Carolus 15:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)
I started off using "Piano solo", but found that the use of "2 hands" was increasingly widespread in the sources I was consulting — presumably to remove any ambiguity in the use of "solo" (which non-English speakers might interpret as one piano or even one hand). There is also a natural symmetry when the term appears alongside arrangements for "4 hands" and "8 hands", and although this persuaded me to change, I appreciate that there are arguments in both directions — P.davydov 16:50, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Final update (21 February)

My thanks to everyone who made suggestions, and to Carolus in particular. Unless there are any other comments (please shout now), it looks like we've come up with a very consistent but adaptable system for the layout of composer work pages P.davydov 16:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

This should totally go in the manual of style. Well done.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 22:44, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks, Snailey, and I've added the information on a new page to the style manual. — P.davydov 10:02, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Vocal Scores

Could you leave the Language subheadings under the Vocal scores? This makes it much easier to find the original language and/or translations one can work with. Operalala 13:03, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your input, Operalala. Do you mean always have a sub-heading showing the language of the vocal scores, or only if there are different translations on the page? P.davydov 13:48, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Yes (always) because that will let the reader know what there is. Operalala 19:03, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://imslp.org/index.php?title=User_talk:P.davydov/standards&oldid=203148"