User talk:Pml/Archive 3


List of compositions by Hector Berlioz, by catalog number

PML, do you mind if put the information on the List of compositions by Hector Berlioz, by catalog number into a sortable table? Operalala 01:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, but given that some of the list entries are quite massive, the sortable list might best be on another page entirely. Might I suggest some of the layout? Exempli gratiæ,
Holoman #
Year Genre Title Notes OBE NBE
48 1830 Symphony Symphonie fantastique Œuvre 14
Blah blah blah
[Band] I/[Plate] 1 [Vol.] 14
118 1855 Sacred Te Deum Œuvre 22
More blah
VIII/26 10
For some of the really complicated works you could do a "colspan=2" across Title and Notes to give yourself more space, seeing as those are probably where most of the lengthy text will end up.
And remember, whatever you do will probably be ruthlessly altered by me! ;-)
Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. OBE and NBE actually shouldn't take up much space. Do you really need a column for the opus #, seeing that only 20 of the 140 works have them? I was thinking of doing like the Sortable list of works by Richard Wagner, listing them first, then noting Op.# in the notes. Operalala 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, 1) is the OBE online anywhere, like the Liszt works? And 2) would the instrumentation be necessary on the table (other than giving a more specific genre) after the work page was created, and this information copied there? Operalala 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good idea about Opus #, I've altered the table accordingly. Actually, it's more like 30 opus numbers (some works had numbers reassigned, and Les Troyens was given a number posthumously), and another 25 odd-works in the list with numbers within opus numbers, which equals about half of the entire corpus of works, e.g. Villanelle = Op. 7 No. 1. Are you planning to split versions of works as separate rows, e.g. for La captive, H 60, there are six separate versions of the work listed in Kern Holoman's catalogue.
I suggest the year be restricted to any years of substantial composition, rather than occasional revision – that is best confined to the "Notes" – although parts of the Symphonie fantastique date back before 1825 (to the 1810s) or were composed in the 1820s, the principal years of composition are in brief, 1830–31 – which in long form would be, the initial version is 1830 utilising a lot of previously written music, heavily revised before first performance in Dec. 1830, more heavy revisions 1831 = close to final version, apart from lots of continuous minor tinkering until publication in 1845.
I've looked on-line for an authoritative listing of the contents of the Old Berlioz Edition, but couldn't find one – I might ask Carolus or Daphnis in that respect. My University library doesn’t have a copy of the Malherbe/Weingartner set, whereas I’m fairly sure there’s one in Daphnis’ part of the world. Nonetheless, I did find enough information in WorldCat and other places (besides owning a number of the Kalmus miniature score reprints and scrounging scans of some scores from the web) to be able to piece together all of the volumes, and most of the plate numbers. The only points of uncertainty are the plate numbers for the whole of Bands XVI–XVII, where I have no facsimile scores retaining the Breitkopf plate numbers, and no on-line library sources giving a 1:1 correspondence between work titles and the run of numbers required. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How important are musical keys for instrumentalists, and is there any use or advantage in having them sortable? Operalala 21:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the composition date for H 31 Nocturne à deux voix from 1818-30 to 1828–30.
For H 113 Le Trébuchet, I used the 1846 revision for the date instead of the 1820 composition date.

Faure pavane

Shouldn't we just delete the trio arrangement - 14 years is hardly close to now...-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I was initially surprised to see it was described as © free at Sibley, but then they only have to concern themselves with US status. Philip Legge @ © talk 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Missa Salisburgensis à 54 (Biber, Heinrich Ignaz Franz von)

Hi Philip. Should there be an organ (or two) included in the tag for this piece? — P.davydov 12:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah possibly! There’s so much else going on in that piece that you sort of forget there are at least two organs specified (and in 1682, they could have used five organs in Salzburg Cathedral!). I've just remembered – I changed the tag on Mahler 8 because someone forgot there are two mixed-voice choirs. I forgot there’s also supposed to be a whacking big organ in the piece as well (e.g. Part I, Bar 1!) – and I’ve performed the bloody piece! Regards Philip Legge @ © talk 23:33, 7 January 2010 (AEDT)

And I forgot the one in The Planets that I tagged yesterday :-) — P.davydov 12:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That’s another work I’ve sung in; no one in the audience can tell if you’re a man singing in an off-stage women’s chorus :-) PML @ © talk 23:57, 7 January 2010 (AEDT)

Mea culpa on the Mahler. I suppose that the Saint-Saens 3rd needs the change?-- Snailey Talk to Me Email me 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I believe you tagged the Saint-Saëns correctly. Cheers, Philip Legge @ © talk 07:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks! I would never have thought of those other concertos... ClassicalComposers 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Away until 25 January

I will only have intermittent access to the Internet until 25 January, so posting questions or requests of me may go unanswered in the meantime. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lamentationum (Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da)

Hi Philip. Can you confirm whether this is actually for mixed chorus (ch), or for combinations of solo voices (3vv ; 4vv ; 5vv ; 6vv ; 8vv)? — P.davydov 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Palestrina’s church music never explicitly differentiates solo lines (although any section in a reduced number of voices could well be sung solo or full), so the "ch" tag is correct. The 3/4/5/6/8 vv indication is extremely useful however, to any choir director who wants to programme the works, as some choirs may not have the depth to cover so many parts. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Philip, thanks in advance for your diligent custodial work on these present and upcoming Berlioz additions. Since I see these is a large need for these missing scores, I think I might just go ahead and work my way through the OBE right now. On that note, I hope you don't mind if I replace some of the scores you've kindly added from Band 14? Those from Band 15 I added today (complete) turned out rather nice, and I think these high-resolution scans of of the OBE would be quite a nice bunch of additions, especially since I have access to the complete set in pristine quality (for the most part). Thank you for your work on my behalf. Daphnis 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Daphnis, many thanks for these new uploads, they are most welcome and have made my day. As those scans of the OBE are not my own work but were pilfered from various places on the internet (I don't have a scanner) please feel absolutely free to blow away the old versions.
I'll be doing a various amount of “tidying up” after you, but, it’s mainly to organise the works on various logical lines. For example, the version of Le jeune Pâtre Breton that goes on the “collection page” Fleur des landes is the one for horn, voice, piano (H 65C = OBE plate H.B. 94) rather than the orchestral version (H 65D = OBE plate H.B. 45), since Berlioz never issued this opus in full score.
Oh, and I strongly suspect Malherbe and Weingartner (and Wikipedia) are wrong when they suggest that Opus 19 comprises six items; it is definitely only the three according to Hugh Macdonald (I haven't got a copy of Holoman to hand but he is the ultimate authority), so I’ll probably be moving Le chasseur danois (and any other Op. 19,4/6) to its own page. I suspect the error is owing to the Collection de 32 Mélodies, where the three additional items erroneously listed as part of Op.19 are reeled off directly after Op. 19 No. 3.
Best regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 01:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
And Holoman is right (pace Malherbe and Weingartner). Opus 19, 3 items only. Philip Legge @ © talk 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip, I fully expect you to re-arrange and tidy up in due course, and as you seem to be the resident Berlioz expert, please shuffle things about as you see fit. I'll try to place them to the best of my abilities but do peek over my shoulder. Apologies, also, for not including some of the obvious details. Since I knew you would come along and check my work, I left some of the details out in order to get these up faster since I was on a tight schedule today. P.S. I have in my hands the Choudens print of the vocal score to Benvenuto and will be adding it in due course. Daphnis 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries from me with hasty uploads, if anything I have rather too much documentation to fill in any gaps :) And re: your PS, is the Choudens VS what went into the Old Berlioz Edition supplement, or is there a full score lurking somewhere there as well? Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about what made it into the supplement because I haven't examined it carefully. It appears as though there is a full score lurking about, from Kalmus of 470 pages, catalog 513 (miniature). Choudens VS is 417 pages with a second reprinted by Kalmus of 327 pages (catalog 6052) and at least a third by Breitkopf & Härtel of 365 pages (likely re-issued from H. Litolff). I should probably at least get the Kalmus reprint of the VS with which to compare the Choudens. Daphnis 04:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I checked the Uni library today, and can confirm the two different versions of the Choudens VS. The Kalmus reprint is around 300 pages as you state (foolishly I didn’t check the page numbers), and musically it looks very much like Choudens’ typesetting, possibly photographically reduced to fit on fewer pages? (I can’t see how that would be possible, as it would result in obviously different page proportions). The score actually marked by Choudens is vi+417 pages, and the example of it here had a 1950 copyright mark. The third B&H score might well be the result of their editorial policy requiring parallel French, German (and English) singing versions; BC was performed in two different German translations (the latter one by Cornelius) under Liszt in Weimar, and the German vocal score was published there in 1856 - prior to the French version. Berlioz conducted BC at Covent Garden in 1853, but I believe this was in French (neither English nor Italian, with a cast comprising mainly native English and Italian opera soloists) but I might be wrong. Philip Legge @ © talk 13:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

These latest uploads conclude Band 14 (including replacement scans of existing scores). Daphnis 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So I see! I'll be looking at them shortly; thanks again. Philip Legge @ © talk 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that the Choudens VS that I hold is also dated 1950, although I suspect this is merely another instance of them confusing, in print, reprint with copyright date. I have yet to locate a Kalmus copy of the 300-pager. Also a note that Band IV is going up this evening and you may want to check over some of the previous uploads to ensure the page information lives up to your "standards", for example Sara la baigneuse, which I hastily created merely to have something on which to upload my file. Daphnis 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was my impression also that Choudens fraudulently cited the reprint date as the copyright date. Thanks for reminding me of that page for Sara the bather, as it appears I’d started work there but not finished the job. I was probably distracted from the task, as I’ve spent some time going through the thirty-three volumes of Haberl et al.’s Palestrina edition that have recently been uploaded, which otherwise would perhaps have been almost completely undocumented; so in honesty I’m grateful that you haven’t been doing much more Berlioz for the last little while after Bands 14 and 15. This also gives me an opportunity to thank you also for those new higher quality scans of the Elgar symphonies that you’ve done. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the remainder of Band IV now uploaded. Knock yourself out :) I also created some bare-bones pages for the two overtures not previously extant so as to give you free reign. Thanks again for your fine work on the site. Daphnis 02:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Knocked myself out nicely with those, and as always many thanks again for your scans – Philip Legge @ © talk 03:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PML, just a friendly tap on the shoulder about the Sara the bather page. It still needs the Philip touch. Daphnis 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again – PML

Heads-up that Band 6 coming your way. Daphnis 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. One of the works in Band 6 seems to be spurious, the fugue à 2 chœurs. Despite its appearance it isn’t one of the Prix de Rome fugues (only the 1826 and 1829 fugues are extant, and Malherbe & Weingartner only published the latter) and a search through my various reference works here doesn’t tell me anything about it. None of the titles to the compositions listed in Holoman’s catalogue satisfy the state or description of the music (and there are only a very limited number of pieces that Holoman actually omitted). Nothing more helpful became apparent by searching on the web, either. I don’t have a private copy of the NBE, so will need to double check that before I can say anything more about this piece, though my guess would be that M&W mistakenly thought it was one of the Prix de Rome fugues. Volume 25 might have something to say on where this piece came from. Philip Legge @ © talk 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if I can help further clarify anything. By the way, any idea why I'm not receiving email notifications when you edit your talk page, despite my having been subscribed to it forever now? Daphnis 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, if you have an opportunity to poke your nose into Band 25 of Hector Berlioz Werke, in the supplement section, to see what they say about Band 6, that would be helpful regarding that odd fugue.
As for notifications: I don’t know what’s up with that, I too am subscribed to very many pages around the wiki, but do not receive e-mail notifications for many of them. I suspect it’s either a MediaWiki bug, or on the other hand, one could post the theory that if you are actually logged into the wiki and doing any editing or related tasks at the time, perhaps the MediaWiki software will be clever enough to assume that you are tracking recent changes and occasionally look at your watchlist. But the e-mails arrive (or don’t!) inconsistently whether I’m logged in or not, which makes me think it’s a bug, and checking the watchlist is the most reliable option. Philip Legge @ © talk 01:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look first chance I get. And again re. notifications: I *used* to get email notifications of changes to your page, but they suddenly stopped over a month ago along with other people's pages, although some seem to work now. I asked this in a forum post but apparently no one is experiencing the same issues because I've yet to see a response to it...or maybe the same phenomena is at work there, too! Daphnis 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip, Band 10 now available for your maintenance skills. Thanks! Daphnis 05:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Band 13 also now available. Daphnis 05:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Philip, just a friendly poke for your clean-up work on the above-mentioned volumes. Thanks. Daphnis 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. The last 3 volumes (16-19) coming in the next week or thereabouts. Afterwards, Les troyens courtesy of Carolus. Daphnis 03:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Band 16 now available. Daphnis 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The only remaining question I have is concerning the prefatory matter in each of the volumes, and whether these are of any importance or interest to Berlioz scholars (possibly not, although I would like to see what the notes to Band 6 say about the second piece, plate H.B. 16). Of considerably greater interest would be the Band 25 supplement, containing explanatory remarks to volumes 1–20.
Also, the version of Béatrice et Bénédict that we have is the one with the parallel German translation (Band 19); the version with the parallel English translation (Band 20) would be useful to have, since the work is still occasionally given in English rather than French, owing to the lengthy portion of the opera which is spoken rather than sung. Also for non-Francophone listeners, the English translation is probably a reasonable aide-memoire to the action. Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 12:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Philip, I can scan the notes to Band 6 just for you if you're interested. I've clearly avoided scanning those notes since I figured (perhaps wrongly) they would have been superseded by the NBE's more thorough history and account of the pieces. The remaining volumes on my list are: 17-18, and 25 if I can obtain it. Outside that, Les troyens and my contribution to Berlioz will be complete, unless, of course, you found sometime I missed. (curiously, I'm still not receiving notification when you or someone else changes your talk page) Daphnis 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Benvenuto Cellini VS

Just a a word that by now you will no doubt have discovered this upload of the aforementioned 417-page Choudens VS. I'm in the process of getting my mitts on the 300-page job, but hopefully in the mean time you can discover from whence this 400-page score came and how it fits into the couple "versions" of which I'm largely unfamiliar. Cheers. Daphnis 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I just found a copy of the Kalmus reprint of the "327" page Choudens (which is actually 331 pages), which is uploading as I write this. No need to search unless you happen to want to look for the rather rare first edition, which was issued by Litolff in 1856 and is 376 pages with plate number of 12173. Carolus 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! One less thing for me to do. I believe I will locate a copy of the Litolff VS just to complete our collection, especially since it seems fairly readily available. I'm going to continue work on the OBE next week hopefully adding all the remaining volumes. The full score to Benvenuto, which was issued in the supplementary volumes of said collection, will take some time since I don't have ready access to it and I'd rather not use Kalmus' miniature reprint if possible. Looking forward to Troyens at some point in the future. Daphnis 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
From your description above, it would appear that Kalmus reprinted the 1886 Choudens score. The miniature format is especially bad for reproduction of the rather dicey Choudens engravings. The reductions of the Breitkopf are dubious enough as it is. I'm not sure what they are reprinting right now for their full score, but my bet would be the Breitkopf. Carolus 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe the Kalmus reprint is indeed using the Breitkopf source. Nevertheless, I did see references to early Choudens full scores of the same length, so I'm not quite sure what to make of those. BTW, take another look at the Cellini page after my edits. I believe the correct source plate is 989; I could find no references to a plate 969 in any WorldCat entries. Daphnis 03:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - you're right. The plate number is 989. I was putting in the publication info from the Hopkinson book, which I have here - just typed it in wrong. He makes no mention of the Breitkopf supplement score. I'll add the publication info from Hopkinson on these very nicely detailed pages Philip has made as I have spare time. Carolus 05:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Messrs Daphnis and Carolus. The 1863 date for the 327 (plus four) page VS squares with the style of typesetting and the printing of the Les Troyens VS (which being split in two volumes received the immediate previous plate numbers 987 and 988). The later score could be well earlier than 1950, though as Choudens occasionally “honoured” its contracts with Berlioz in rather a strange manner – e.g. typesetting a full score but not putting it on sale! – I suppose the 1950 date may even be when the work was first put publicly on sale, rather than the date of typesetting. The piano reduction is quite noticeably different sometimes, while large portions are identical to Hans von Bülow’s reduction.

I haven’t had time to compare more than the first Act, which vocally looks almost exactly the same except in very minor details; neither score includes the spoken dialogue, though the later VS usually gives the last few spoken lines as a cue. The Litolff score is the first vocal score to give the complete Weimar version of the opera, with Peter Cornelius’ German translation (interestingly, it was the second German translation to be made); there were only selections published earlier by Schlesinger and others whenever Cellini was revived in Paris, Weimar, and London. The only publication of the longer Paris version is of course Bärenreiter 1994/96; no facsimiles of the original MSS (parts retained by the Opéra, full scores in various libraries) seem to have ever troubled someone’s scanner. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 08:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an aside that I did receive a copy of the elusive Litolff VS and will be posting when time allows, which should complete our trilogy of Cellini vocal scores. Daphnis 01:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Great. Philip Legge @ © talk 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: BWV Anh. 159 — Ich lasse dich nicht

Hi Philip,
many thanks for your message! Well - at first a wanted to contribute this piece to Joh. Christoph Bach. Then I considered that I'm not more clever than the modern Bach Musicology ;-) Best wishes! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Monteverdi Madrigals book 8

Hi Philip,

I'm looking around for a score of the Monteverdi Love madrigals, which are in the second half of book VIII and found your edition. Is the most recent version on IMSLP or have you done some more work on it since you last uploaded it. Also, could you give me a copy in something a bit more editable than PDF: if I have time, I would like to start filling some of the gaps and have the flexibility to produce a version with just the choral parts and a reduction. I'm intending on using Musescore, so I guess the best option for me would be MusicXML, although I think you use Sibelius? If you let me know what you can provide easily, I'm happy to meet you half way as it were.

Many thanks in advance --Francishemingway 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Message sent to you via the IMSLP user e-mail feature. I look forward to hearing your reply ;-) Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 03:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


I know it's a stretch, but do you happen to know any PD editions of the requiem? Then again, you might have made a typeset :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

CPDL has one but obviously being a typeset it's not PD, and it's hosted off-site. To be honest I'd be more likely to try a typeset of Brumel's! I'll go look in my collection of stuff to see what I can find in the way of other Ockeghems. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Missa Prolationum? :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd put some thought to editing the Missa cuiusvis toni, but was a little shy of re-setting the same music four times for the four different modes that it can be sung in. At least with the Missa prolationum there's only one canonic interpretation, albeit a rather cabalistic one. Incidentally, I had a little bit of inspiration strike this morning, so I'm taking from my typesetting to compose some mirror canons... Philip Legge @ © talk 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooh...make sure to post! :). Cuiusvis toni sounds a bit excessive...I was just thinking about requiems that we need (Brumel is on the list...), and I realized that our Renaissance music collection is still rather pitiful: no Busnois, practically no Binchois or Dufay, a small Josquin collection, very little Ockeghem, De La Rue, Clemens Non papa, Arcadelt, Willaert, Byrd, Tallis, Wilbye, Guerrero...we are only well-stocked in Palestrina, Victoria, a little Lassus, and some other later composers...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Etudes (Liszt, Franz)

You can probably see what I'm trying to do; is there any technical way to do it?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Naturellement. You need 2 boxes on the left to interleave 3 boxes on the right, so you need four rows with rowspans of (2,2) on the left, and (1,2,1) on the right. It then begins to look tricky because rows 2, 3, and 4 appear to have only one entry, which appear in the right-, left-, and right-hand columns respectively; in fact both columns are filled by the prior row's rowspan. Philip Legge @ © talk 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. Thanks for that (I'll keep it à l'esprit)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But the Paganini etudes and Concert etudes are now transposed?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Rows 2 and 3 swapped. I'd shifted the Paganini down one row (row 2 → RH column) when it should have been shifted down two rows (row 3 → LH column); I hadn't perceived that the boxes are following Searle's ordering. Philip Legge @ © talk 02:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, gentlemen :-) — P.davydov 08:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

VW - Sinfonia Antartica

A word of thanks for uploading my favorite Vaughan-Williams symphony. Scans are nice as well. Cheers. Daphnis 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think its predecessor is probably my favourite, but the Sinfonia is definitely in "equal second" place among the rest. I made the "mistake" a couple of days ago of putting on my recording to read through the score, with the predictable result that the climax of the Landscape has taken up residence in my head and refuses to move out. I'm looking at other earworms I can use to replace it! Philip Legge @ © talk 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Organ Works (Bach, Johann Sebastian)

Help...again...(I'm trying to get 3+3)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, new colours might not be the worst decision.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The colours are fine by me, but not everyone can pull off yellow... Philip Legge @ © talk 01:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:D-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Piano Sonatas (Haydn, Joseph)

...and again!

  1. Collapsible?
  2. Make it more compact??-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. No header rows were marked – you needed to preface the first row of each table with !
  2. Start with one of the two tables in collapsed form? Otherwise, not that much can be done...

Thanks. I was actually thinking about the length of the page titles; for those with smaller screens, this will overflow to two lines each, and it's a gigantic table for others.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 12:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve customised the traditional NoComp template with a special version, Template:NoCompS, which will do this and various other tricks. Please see if the edit looks any better. Admittedly, using a template to do this is considerable overkill, so I’ll leave it up to you if you want to leave the contents as:
{{NoCompS| work title | composer name | replacement text }}
or change them all to
[[work title (composer name)|replacement text]]... Philip Legge @ © talk 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is helpful with this specific problem, but I created a couple of templates a few weeks ago to display work titles, opus/catalogue numbers and composer names with various amounts of detail: Template:LinkWork and Template:LinkWorkN. If nothing else, they save a bit of typing :-) — P.davydov 05:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Davydov,
I’m not sure it does help, because the templates use custom variables helping to remove certain elements out of the work title, not quite the same.
Anyway, I’m in the middle of designing an even more esoteric template to try and help the sprawling Durand plate number table, which is one of a number of such tables that insist on specially linking composers (but surnames only) and works (with custom text). Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 05:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen...

...Cantatorium Codex Sangallensis 359 (Anonymous)?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! I very nice addition by Christoph L., and probably our earliest musical manuscript. Now, if someone would get us the Winchester Troper... :-) Philip Legge @ © talk 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's in the Bodleian Library Oxford. But I couldn't find it there. These could be useful links:[1], [2]. Moreover we need Codex 121 Einsiedeln - I fear it's not available online... Regards from--Ralph Theo Misch 11:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And this of course :-) --Ralph Theo Misch 11:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks again – I’ll have a look sometime soon. Philip Legge @ © talk 12:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Brilliant! Looking forward to the finished product-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m putting in links to works today, if I have time I’ll get to making the table sortable by year (but that does involve looking up dating for nearly 750 individual pieces. Urk). Also I will eventually be looking to document if works have been published in either the old Breitkopf [Rietz] or the new [Leipzig Mendelssohn-Ausgabe]. Philip Legge @ © talk 22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! This is a fantastic resource-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to have the key contain links to the pertinent letter?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought about that, but I’m not sure anchors will work in a sortable table. They might!
They don’t. Tried a couple of different methods to sneak around, but bottom line you don’t get an anchor tag in the html.
I’ve noticed one or two small errors in the current version of the table (beyond the omission of obvious info, like the remaining 300 dates in the “Year” column! eek) so let me play around with implementing it. Also thanks for adding it as a link on the category page, though it might be worth emphasising the MWV a bit more. By the way, I’m going to cross-post three of Felix’s pieces to Fanny [Hensel]: it’s a known fact that 3 of the songs in each of Felix’s Opp. 8 and 9 were published under her brother’s name rather than her own. Philip Legge @ © talk 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a very good idea. My only problem with the catalogue is its treatment of the fragmentary nature of Mendelssohn opera...I'm so used to having just one number for Op. 35, not 12! Cheers, -- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they just liked bumping up the numbers of works out to 787. However, it does reflect the fact that many of the opus numbers were compiled from non-chronologically composed works (especially the posthumously published opus numbers upwards from 73). Philip Legge @ © talk 23:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I didn’t notice you poking around editing the page, so some apparent improvements you made might have dropped out as a result of my editing. In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m updating the list off-line, which is resulting in these slight edit conflicts – so I’ll take care to restore your additions. :-) Philip Legge @ © talk 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. They're pretty minor; I'll hold off on any somewhat major edits (for which I can't forsee a need!) until you're completely done.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I just got the anchors to work (span id is the trick), so please retain them! :) Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That’s a trick well worth remembering! I notice it follows around the resorted table to where ever the first work of the set is, but that’s the expected behaviour, so all good. I’m away for the weekend visiting my brother in Tasmania, so after today I don’t expect to get much accomplished on the page until Monday. A mini-update later this morning is all I’ll have time for. Philip Legge @ © talk 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, great (evening for us EST people, BTW :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m done here until Monday or later, so if you have something substantial to change on the page before then, please also take the time to shift the year column for items K 121 to K 127 (I’m not bothered fixing things unless there’s major additions to make also), otherwise I’ll fix it up later. The dates are coming from R. Larry Todd’s brilliant life and works biography Mendelssohn: A Life in Music, which when I first read it completely changed my view of him (for the better). However, plugging through 700 dense pages for info on the 787 items in the main table is slow going. I haven’t yet really attacked the songs (K), solo piano music (U), and chamber (Q, R) repertoire except for the pre-1825 juvenilia.
Lastly, I decided to use capital letters for the anchors for the sake of parity. Also, I used the {{PAGENAME}} variable for internal linkage as it is smaller, cleaner and a bit more portable. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 02:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And I have indeed had that signed by Prof. Todd! He is fantastic, and I'm going to try to get this list to him...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Well, if you do pass it on (perhaps wait till I’m a bit closer to having it complete!), please also convey my sincere admiration for his work on the new Leipzig editions and partly thanks to his fine book, another step in the long-overdue rehabilitation of Mendelssohn’s reputation as a composer. Philip Legge @ © talk 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No kidding, and also his new Fanny Hensel book (highly recommended, BTW)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to work on List of Compositions by Fanny Hensel‎, be my guest :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Switch statements

Is there any way to create a template designed to be substituted in but that uses a switch statement, the output of which is all that I want substituted in? I'm referring to Template:I.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bump-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Perlnerd,
sorry for leaving this for a while, but I’ve had very little time to look at IMSLP this last week. I’ve had a look at your work on the template and it looks as though it should work the way you want: but what I don’t know is how you want to extend it, or use it in a more flexible fashion – for instance, {{I|custom orchestration}} puts in the default voices (SATB soli et coro) in too, and the way of cancelling it out, by adding |||novoc}} is a little inelegant. Am I guessing that you want a second-order template to avoid this? Or did you want the template to be able to use the custom options only if the extra fields are invoked?
Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 07:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just don't want subst to substitute in the entire switch, just the output.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. The trouble would be if the substitution acts on the template before the parameters are parsed, but from testing it looks like they aren’t.
Say for example, you wanted, {{subst:I|X|Y|Z}}, then this should generate:
Vocal — Soloists (Y), Chorus (Z)
Orchestra — X
According to Wikimedia meta, the parameters should be interpreted as given, and if they aren’t then you get the defaults. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 05:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I see, the template hasn’t been expanded before substitution, although parameters have been passed in. Interesting – I’ll try looking this up. Philip Legge @ © talk 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Is this announcement still valid? It's been there for a while now. --Leonard Vertighel 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leonard,
I’ll take that as a “hurry up!” that I should integrate my separate work on the Mozart list back into the main list. It was mainly to discourage someone putting a lot of effort into the list which would largely end up duplicating what I was looking at doing as comprehensively as possible. Thanks for looking into improving the worklists generally – regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC),

It was a genuine question - I was wondering if we should attempt to add all the missing links (a huge number), or if you would then soon overwrite it anyway. If you expect it to take a while to finish your new list, that's fine, just let us know so we can fix the existing one in the mean time. Thanks, --Leonard Vertighel 08:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi. 3.1415926 03:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. How are things, ≈π? Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Perlnerd (I know you’ll read this!),
as you might have gathered, I’m a little too busy to have done very much on IMSLP since getting back from Tassie. You might be interested to discover that this has begun to occupy a considerable part of my attention!
Just to explain a few little changes on the Mendelssohn list. I added a header row to the index, because otherwise the raison-d’être for the page, the new MWV, is cited at the very foot of the page. The shorthands for the works editions M.B. and LMA I moved to directly appear above the header of the worklist itself, since that way the explanations for the abbreviations are in closer proximity to the table.
Within the table itself, I noticed your correction to my mis-reading of Todd and the organ works: with a lot of ground to cover quickly I made some gaffes (including denoting one of the dual piano concerto being in E rather than E).
In general, I wanted to keep disparate year references out of the Year column, and document these in the Notes column; so a wordy explanation such as "lost, incorporated in Op. 65/3" has been pushed aside into the more appropriate space.
Also, because the table is primarily sorted by the MWV, please do not reference other works without also providing the MWV for ease of finding it: thus the preceding comment was amended to "lost, incorporated in Op.65 No. 3 (U 58)"
I also have a bit of work to do on the Mozart workslists at some point as Leonard kindly pointed out above.
Philip Legge @ © talk 04:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My talk page next time ;)? I'll keep this in mind.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 12:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


I tried with Erlkönig, but it hasn't worked. Could you explain why? Than~ks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Pml, but it's probably due to caching? I can see it fine. KGill talk email 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, caching is at work here. I did a purge on both of the FTE pages immediately after editing, but this is probably insufficient for it to work instantly across the entire site. As Kenny points out, a purge on the target page should do the trick. Philip Legge @ © talk 01:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. We need to implement this a lot! (I'll do a bunch tomorrow). For now, though, what format do we want? Italics? Quotes? Plain?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m inclined to think, because these are poetic quotations, that something format-related is needed. If quotations marks, then these should perhaps should be appropriate to the language – inverted commas are placed differently for German as opposed to English, and guillemets point inwards or outwards varyingly also! Perhaps italics would be the safer option, since these could be specified directly at the FTE page rather than on each single page. Philip Legge @ © talk 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me

The only problem is that we've decided that incipits for multi-part sets are best left in the section listings...thus this is useful for a limited number of songs (mostly Schubert :P)...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That’s not a really colossal inconvenience, however. So all is well. Philip Legge @ © talk 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

True. I instituted the italics on the FTE, BTW-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I thought you might like to know about a simple work-around I discovered (slapping forehead) for this broken feature, which is to use the Category plus the pipe-symbol then title. This is how I fixed Richard Strauss' Eine Alpensinfonie [[Category:Strauss, Richard|Alpensinfonie, Op.64]]. It at least will enable us to deal with some of the worst examples. Carolus 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carolus,
I’m aware of this work-around, but unfortunately it only works for one category at a time, which means that the work gets sorted differently depending which way you use the category walker (starting from Strauss, or looking at types of works or instrumentations).
Enjoy your Michigan holidays! Best regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tallis: Spem in alium

Many thanks for your wonderful scores - we all enjoy them! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks C! Break a leg for the performance! Philip Legge @ © talk 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Antiphonale (Anonymous)

Isn't this best titled as "Antiphonale Romanum"? Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Title page: Antiphonale / sacrosanctæ / Romanæ Ecclesiæ / pro diurnis horis (etc)
Alternative title: Liber Antiphonarius
Given that the big fat title in bold letters on the cover is “Antiphonale”, and the rest is in small letters, I simply went with that. Another alternative title would be “Vatican Antiphonale”. Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

But is "Graduale Romanum" titled such? Or Vesperale?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you’re expecting consistency, prepare to be disappointed! Graduale Romanum is a common fall-back short title for the usual more elaborate formula of Graduale sacrosanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ, as seen in the books themselves; but curiously, this short-titling doesn’t always seem to apply for every long title. The Kyriale for instance, simply is the Kyriale, without qualification. We normally don’t include sub-titles in naming, so Antiphonale sacrosanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ would not be preferred. Also, this is a considerably older publication (1913) so it is not likely to be the same as the current publication (from Solesmes) going under the name Antiphonale or Antiphonale Romanum
More of an issue to me would be the ascription of the composer to Anonymous – we have categories for various types of folk music or other ethnic classifications where the identity of the composer isn’t fussed over, so perhaps we should have a Gregorian chant category (and yes, if we end up hosting collections of Ambrosian, Mozarabic, or Sarum chant I would be happy for those to be categorised similarly in their own niches). Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 23:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think that Gregorian chant would be welcome. I'll create and move. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian Chant. Feel free to futz with it.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

La Captive, orientale, H 60 (Berlioz, Hector)

Hi Philip. Should not the original versions (A and B) for voice and piano come first, with C, E and F below under "Arrangements and Transcriptions"? — P.davydov 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but if so, for consistency this would need to be done for all of Berlioz's orchestral transcriptions, almost all of which were done a considerably long time after the piano/vocal versions, usually when he wanted to present a song in an orchestral concert. Applying this rationale would really mess up the page for Les Nuits d'Été, for example, because the orchestral transcriptions are that – transcriptions – even though 99 times out of a hundred, if you hear of Les Nuits d'Été, it will be the orchestral version, and not the piano/vocal version written 15 years earlier. What d’ye think? Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


I was looking through some of your typesets (and your recent upload). Very nicely done, BKhon 03:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the categories for my editions and arrangements are filling up nicely! Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 04:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Charteris Numbers of Gabrieli

I have checked up on the Charteris numbers of the 1597 canzonas and not all the titles on IMSLP are correct. I have put in some comments in the discussions. Do you have the power as a moderator to change the titles please? I can't think off hand whether there are multiple settings of text by Gabrieli which will need numbers as they appear but I imagine he set Hodie Christus Natus Est and others more than once. MartinY 09:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi PML. Since I've been doing a few typesets lately, could you give me some advice / criticism. Obviously my typesets are no where near your incredible standards, so any push in the right direction would be appreciated, BKhon 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First piece of advice, re IMSLP # 85323. Don’t pass off other people’s work as your own? I’m looking at Rafael Ornes’ original, and the only difference I can see between them is slight repagination from the Finale file, along with an unneeded fourth page and the legend in the top right hand corner of the first page. Sorry, but not cool! Philip Legge @ © talk 02:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't typeset half the stuff that was uploaded... Nor did I upload it. I wouldn't pawn off something as mine that isn't mine... BKhon 02:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
What is going on, Ben? Philip Legge @ © talk 02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm deleting the one's that aren't mine. I'm pretty sure it's either my brother, or someone else has access to my account that's not my brother. I'm looking into it... BKhon 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ben, on the strength of the suggestion from Carolus that you should e-mail one of the admins those uploads that are not yours, I’ve blocked your account for 24 hours – if you want to me to remove any of them, my e-mail is philip.m.legge AT gmail (as I’m sure you recall). I imagine you’ll be able to catch up with the admin team over at the forums; we really need to sort out what is going on in Washington Crossing! Philip Legge @ © talk 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Transferred from Talk page of Kubla Khan, Op. 1

Hi, I got your message about incorporating more information about my work and the next that you upload, install them. I have a query about my page in IMSLP, I would change my image, but something prevents me. If you are so kind to help me to change it, thank you very much.


Ignacio Quiroz

Hi Ignacio. It might be a better idea to contact Philip here, where he is more likely to see it and respond. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing Ignacio (and thanks Ken – though that page is on my watchlist ;-).
The comment about adding more info is that there’s nothing to say what your compositions are about, what instruments (or players) might be needed to perform them, or even when you wrote them – and you as composer are in a much better position to add those details than anyone coming to view your scores “from the outside”.
All you need to do with adding a picture to your composer page is use the Upload file link that’s in the Toolbox in the left-hand margin to upload the picture you want; then the following two lines should be added to your composer page:
 |Picture=name of the file you uploaded
 |Picture Caption=any text typed here will appear as a floating caption
Have you used a Wiki (such as Wikipedia) before? It might help if you make a test page in your own user space to get used to editing Wiki pages to display things the way you want to. The IMSLP pages for composers, and for musical works, are usually divided into sections with the capability to add blocks of information, but you have to be a little bit careful not to break the formatting. It shouldn’t be too hard to look at how e.g. another composer’s works page is designed, for you to be able to add a similar feature to your own. For example, most composers have a line in their page starting with:
 |Nationality=guess what goes here? (In my case, “Australian composers”)
Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Berlioz Les Troyens recording notes

Hi Philip, I found myself reading through some of your brilliant notes and annotations provided on the work page and discussion (thanks for this great work, by the way) coming on the heels of Carolus' recent upload and wondered what sort of insights you might have for any and all recordings of the complete work? This may be an impossible question, but it also may be another set of nice notes to have on the work page. Thanks again. Daphnis 05:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daphnis! The second of the Choudens VSs with the Narici piano reduction is actually much closer to completeness then either the 1863 vocal score (which had been trimmed to match the Théâtre-Lyrique production) or the 1885 full score, but oddly the Chasse royale et orage features at the end of “Act II” (= Act IV) – not the start. There have been at least eight full recordings of Troyens, as well as two sets of excerpts, and I only know three of them, so it would be beyond me to give a comprehensive run-down on all of them – Davis’ seminal recording of Covent Garden in the Berlioz centenary year; Dutoit’s superb Montréal orchestra in a 1993 studio recording; and Gardiner’s production at the Châtelet in 2003. The older recordings such as Kubelik’s, Lawrence’s, and Prêtre’s predate the publication of the NBE volume and thus are unfortunately reliant on the suspect scores with their various cuts.
Davis’ studio recording utilised Hugh Macdonald’s critical edition for the first time and is a superb, epic achievement with a truly heroic Jon Vickers as Énée; Josephine Veasey makes a superb, darkly-coloured Didon – though judging from the disc of excerpts conducted by Sir Alexander Gibson, Dame Janet Baker perhaps might have slightly outshaded her had she had the opportunity to record the entire opera. Davis’ tempi sometimes tend to be majestic or slightly lacking in energy compared to either Dutoit or Gardiner, but this set is still a magnificent acheivement.
Dutoit has a slightly less-stellar group of singers for the great roles apart from Deborah Voigt’s Cassandre, who comparably outshines Berit Lindholm in Davis’ set. Gary Lakes nonetheless is a thrilling Énée, Françoise Pollet perhaps a little less convincing as Didon lacking the richer colouring that a mezzo would bring to the rôle. Dutoit’s faster tempos are often persuasive and the orchestra is at its best in the great Act I set piece with all of the off-stage brass bringing the Great Horse into the city; and this recording has two little extras: the Prologue to Les Troyens à Carthage is played as an entr’acte between Acts II and III; in Act I the recording utilises Hugh Macdonald’s orchestration of the scene involving the Greek spy, Sinon, which was cut by Berlioz owing to length in 1862 and only survives in the draft copies of the 1862 vocal score.
The Gardiner performance is a live DVD/Blu-ray recording and so you get to see the staging, which is halfway to being minimalist but nevertheless quite effective; only the ballets are perhaps somewhat disappointing (and the unsubtle political point made by the invasion of Troy in Act II). There’s a wonderful moment in Act II when the Ghost of Hector appears to Énée: the face of the singer is projected onto a huge mirror at the back of the set, where it gradually blends into the face of another Hector; the mirror also enlarges the scene to evoke the city-scape of Troy and the Horse. Anna Caterina Antonacci is brilliant as Cassandre, Gregory Kunde and Susan Graham are wonderfully matched as Énée and Didon (their Nuit d’ivresse is well represented on the tube of You) without being individually quite as wonderful as others to have sung those rôles. Gardiner’s surety of touch with Berlioz is firmly in evidence, orchestra and chorus are both outstanding, and this is a strong reading. At the end of Act V, this performance dispenses with the usual short ending (itself slightly unsatisfactory) and reinstates Berlioz’s first attempt at the ending (another Macdonald reconstruction of part of the original Imprecation) – with Antonacci reappearing in a coup de théâtre as the muse of history, Clio, to cap the opera with “Fuit Ilium, stat Roma” (What Troy once was, is now Rome).
Philip Legge @ © talk 00:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lully: Le carneval, LWV 36

Hi Philip,

Since you've been around the block with producing new editions, I'd like for you to look at the Husa edition posted to see if your opinion on the nature of Husa's contribution here is similar to my own (see my talk page). Thanks, Carolus 01:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Which Neue Mozart-Ausgabe though? The one that was prepared just after WW2 when many manuscripts had gone missing (the editors had to work from copies, not always reliable, or so I gather...)? There's a new one in preparation now about which at least the rumor-mill says much Mozart accepted wisdom will be turned on its ear in part because of those manuscript originals that came back from Russia where they were taken after the war... etc. ... what that might mean for KV404a I have no idea, what it means for reliance on the NMA in general might be "caution" in my honest though insufficiently knowledgeable opinion. (Moreso in some cases than others, of course!) Eric 14:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In part that’s why the dubious/spurious items were relegated to series X of the NMA, whose volumes are still gradually coming out… even though they were all supposed to have been finished by 2006 in time for the 250th anniversary!. For that matter, the revised New Köchel by Zaslaw is still delayed. But if those preludes and fugues were seriously in the picture there would be something recent to indicate that the sixth edition of Köchel – and the NMA – were in error to have omitted them.
If I had all of the recent Mozart Yearbooks to hand I’d go riffling through to see whether the piece was debunked in there, or if new info is to hand. All I have in print here are a few books such as Robbins Landon’s Mozart compendium, and while it lists over sixty dubious or spurious works, this ain’t one of them. :-/ Philip Legge @ © talk 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I replied you both here. --Ralph Theo Misch 01:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

... hrm. er, wait, did you think it was my typeset, or...? ...Eric 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (ahh, I understand now...)

No, I was replying to Christoph – his comment directly above mine. (Yes, I know you worked it out – but just to be perfectly clear.) Philip Legge @ © talk 04:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And here again :) --Ralph Theo Misch 12:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane Gothic 2010

Just a note to say I will be back later today from my excursion northward to sing in the Antipodean première of Havergal Brian's Symphony No.1 - the first performance of the 21st century, and we know it is not to be the only one (along with the date and venue, we have details of the conductor and one of the choirs engaged to sing).
It was pretty much the smallest Gothic on record, with about 162 orchestra (including off-stage) and a relatively small chorus (190 adult voices and 40 children), but the decibel level at times was not impaired by not being up to Brian's specifications! It was a superbly musical rendition as well (with some minor caveats). You may register your congratulations below ;-) Phi1ip 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That and envy... Eric 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Think we can get permission for a recording here? It would be a wonderful thing to add! Carolus 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry Carolus, no chance whatsoever. However, we should be able to put up the two pre-1923 Brian piano pieces which I have scans of (from the MIT collection). I have a video sample of me singing the bass solo, Dignare, Domine in the absence of the bass soloist, which I'll be hoping to upload to YouTube once I get back to Melbourne and edit it down to a useable excerpt. Phi1ip 00:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think they were published in 1949 though composed before 1923. If I'm right, then they can't be put up on the PD-US (erm, not server- external hosting somewhere, but I haven't looked into how it's done yet. will do, will do...) - they can be put up on the main server in 2023 depending on the editors etc. ... Eric 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (as to the Gothic, completed in 1927, published in an imperfect score- the full manuscript score of the second half of the symphony is I gather missing, so this is not good - by Cranz in 1932. so non-PD-US, composer's death year of 1972 again places it outside of PD-CA and EU in any case.)
Actually, having done the research (or rather, Malcolm MacDonald, has!), the first two pieces in the piano music set represented in the MIT collection were published by J. & W. Chester in 1917 and Augener in 1919 respectively. They are definitely PD in the US. Phi1ip 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected!! Eric 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
After being delayed getting back to Melbourne, I’ve spent the morning unpacking and uploading stuff, including my first three YouTube videos:
I sang the bass solo better on another day (substituting for the real bass soloist) – these were recorded on the third day running of all-day rehearsals, and I was pretty vocally tired by this point! Philip Legge @ © talk 02:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)