IMSLP talk:Categorization/Project Members/archive8

Contents

Godowsky's Star Spangled Banner transcription

The Star Spangled Banner is an anthem, but the word isn't in the title. On the other hand, in this form, it's not very usable as an anthem. "pieces" or "anthems"? (Steltz)

Not "anthems" (which is for religious choral pieces), but "national anthems" would be the correct tag. Very few in this category obligingly contain the words "national anthem" in the title or subtitle, so this is one of the very rare exceptions to our usual strict rule...
Speaking of which, I'll continue to grumble that this, like all of Godowsky's transcriptions, should have been placed by the uploader under the original work (in this case here). Not a job for the tagging team, so we'll have to grin and bear it for now, but one day soon it needs sorting out... — P.davydov 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I am, for the moment, adding links where there are none, just so there is some way of navigating to the originals, or from the originals to the transcriptions, but I'm finding a mixed bag of actual files of transcribed pieces, links done by the {{Crossrefpage}}, and links done by "For so and so's transcription, see [[page]]." Things are a bit higgledy piggledy even without my adding anything, and the ones that are mere links are so small as to get a bit lost under the other ones. This will need a lot of cleaning up eventually. (Steltz)
Thanks for taking all that trouble, which will be extremely helpful when it comes to the big clean-up — P.davydov 08:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi P.Davydov,
I've well understood your broad hint...no reason to grumble about this transcription issue ;). You're right, this must be discussed apart from the tagging project sometime. But let me write some remarks here now. Actually, as far as I remember, it has never been clarified completely what exactly should be placed under the Arrangements, Transcription heading. It was a common procedure to post there the arrangements for another instrument and leave the real/concert transcriptions as more or less independent works in the category of the transcriber. Later sometimes file entries were even made in both categories. I admit that meanwhile it's a little mess...and I also want a solution.
I've been in many libraries within the last years and regarding transcriptions I can say that really every single one of them has two entries in their catalogue, which is quite understandable. I mean, if I were looking for the Liszt transcription of a Beethoven Symphony for example, I would first have a look at the Liszt category. For the sake of maintenance, of course, it's better to have only one file entry. So let me propose the following: move all the transcriptions to the page of the original work, but in case
- the work is an elaborated / 'decorated' / virtuoso transcription for concert purpose
- the work has an opus number or another work number
leave a link in the transcriber's category which redirects to the original work page or link from a page similar to this one. Everything else is probably a mere arrangement and therefore should be completely moved to the original work without link. On the other hand, paraphrases on just themes/motives shouldn't be moved at all because they use only a small part of the original work. Would you agree with that basically? Well, these are just some comments from my side, so let's hear the others, too. Regards, Hobbypianist 18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First I want to be clear that I wasn't getting at anyone in particular :-) It's just the inconsistency of how things have been done that can cause real headaches and prevent people from finding what they want.
Having said that, I think we have a broad measure of agreement, in that I'd like to see:
  • straightforward "bar-for-bar" arrangements always placed on the page for the original work;
  • paraphrases, potpourris, cadenzas and free transcriptions on their own pages in the category for the arranger, but with links to them from the page for the original work.
I'd also like to propose that for every editor or arranger there should be separate pages, listing all the works by other composers that they've reworked, transcribed or edited (including 'Variations on a Theme', and the like). These would have links to all the arrangements or editions concerned, wherever they're placed, so that they can be found more easily.
Those are my thoughts anyway, but it would be good to hear from anyone else here before we take this to the forum... — 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If I could put another two cents in, having been through many of these (with about 30 to go), the ones that seem to work best are the ones where the transcription isn't just a "See also" (which invariably is in tiny print), but where the file listed under the "===Arrangements and Transcriptions===" header as a "=====For blah dee blah (so-and-so)=====", and where the same file (same file number) is listed also under the arranger's page. I've been doing "See also" links because I don't know how to to move files to new pages, and I'm also not sure how to deal with issues where the transcribed work has a different opus number because the opus number is in the transcriber's oeuvre, not the original composer's. These are all issues that need a protocol. No one should do any general shifting (apart from temporary links) until a full protocol is agreed upon. If all transcriptions could be of an equal size, so nothing gets lost visually, that would be very good. (Also, in a very few cases, we have the same edition on two pages (original composer vs transcriber), with different file numbers. Though a tiny percentage of the whole of IMSLP, it seems redundant to take up server space with more than one file of the same version, and in at least one case, one file is good quality, the other poor. In these rare cases, deletion of the bad PDF would be preferable, and retain the better copy, but on both pages.) (Steltz)

Thanks for all these comments.
The idea of seperate pages for every editor, arranger, transcriber present on IMSLP is nice. Maybe the listing of those pages could be linked on the main page similar to the Category:Composers....well, that's a detail and can be solved later on...
@Steltz: I know, the most comfortable would be to have two file entries with all info in both categories but to reduce the maintenance effort I'm inclined to have only one and just keep a page in the transcriber's category like this or a special redirect like this one. To answer your question how to copy / move a file: the code starts with {{#fte:imslpfile and ends with }}. So copy / cut it and anything between and then paste in the other page (after | *****FILES***** = ) Regarding duplicate files with different number / bad quality: if you find one just replace it with the better copy like described and mark the other file page for deletion.
I've tried to sort a bit the proposals, please correct if there's anything missing or wrong.

1.Supposed we want only one file entry:
"bar-for-bar" arrangements:

  • file always placed on the page for the original work
  • no link/page to original work in the (composer) category for the arranger (provided it exists)
  • link to the page for the original work in a separate page for the arranger (P.Davydov's suggestion)

transcription (usually elaborated for concert purpose):

  • file always placed on the page for the original work
  • link in the (composer) category for the transcriber to the work page for the original work (please link with #... to point directly to the transcription there. Link from usual page or as a special redirect, examples described above)
  • link to the page for the original work in a separate page for the transcriber

paraphrases, potpourris, cadenzas and free transcriptions:

  • always on their own pages in the category for the arranger/transcriber. maybe with link to page for original work "See also original work..."
  • links to them from the page for the original work, maybe as "See also cadenza/paraphrase/etc..."
  • @P.Davydov: also link to these pages in a separate page for the transcriber? I like the idea that cadenzas should have their own page, technically seen they are kind of paraphrase on some motives.

2.Supposed we want a file in both categories (composer of original and transcriber):
"bar-for-bar" arrangements:

  • always placed on the page for the original work (@Steltz: you want also arrangements to appear in both categories?)
  • no link/page to original work in the (composer) category for the arranger (provided it exists)
  • link to the page for the original work in a separate page for the arranger. (P.Davydov's suggestion)

transcription (usually elaborated for concert purpose):

  • file placed on the page for the original work.
  • file placed also on a page in the (composer) category for the transcriber. Maybe with link to page for original work "See also original work..."
  • link to (which one of the two pages?) in a separate page for the transcriber

paraphrases, potpourris, cadenzas and free transcriptions:

  • always on their own pages in the category for the arranger/transcriber. Maybe with link to page for original work "See also original work..."
  • placed also on the page for the original work? (I'd rather be against this because they are actually independent works)
  • also link in a separate page for the transcriber?

By the way, how many affected pages do we actually have? Hopefully not too many...Hobbypianist 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just had a glance at this -- my initial thought is that without downloading all of them and looking, which is very time consuming, it's difficult to tell what's bar-for-bar and what is elaborated. (Though I'm not a pianist any many of them know without downloading what's what, at least for the more known transcriptions.) As to how many there are -- there didn't seem too many with the word "transcription" in the header (+-80?), but I've just started the variations tagging -- these could be very similar to free transcriptions. I've realized that a lot of these could be cross-referenced to the original work, so if we have to look at paraphrase, potpourri, free transcription, and variation, it is conceivably several hundred? (This is off the top of my head.) Maybe it's just been a long week, but I seem to be leaning toward something simple to apply to everything equally without downloading and analyzing. That might not be academically very sound, though . . . . (Steltz)

Just realized I didn't answer a question here -- "(@Steltz: you want also arrangements to appear in both categories?)" -- there should be something on the arranger page (whether it is a link or the full file), otherwise people may look there and think IMSLP doesn't have the work. The other issue is that in some cases, the arrangement/transcription has its own opus number (or BV number, etc.) within the arranger's oeuvre. Unless the work is also on the arranger's page, it will look like we don't have his complete works. (Steltz)
Hi Steltz. Your last point would be addressed if we have individual pages showing all the works that were arranged, edited or transcribed by a particular composer. So within the Godowsky category there would be a listing of all his versions of works by other composers, listed alphabetically by the original composer and work, and with links to the appropriate pages (wherever they are). Most composers also have lists of their works by opus/catalogue numbers, where the links can also be placed.
As this discussion is now becoming quite long, so I'll attempt to summarise what we've established so far in a new section at the bottom of this page... — P.davydov 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
ok, now I understand what you mean with separate pages, you just want to add a page within the composer category of a transcriber and list there all his transcriptions, etc. First I thought you'd like to create such pages outside the categories. But how do we handle this with arrangers and editors, they usually don't have a composer category since they are not considered composers...? Only few of them have one, I could find spontaneously Otto Singer and A. Ruthardt. I mean, the easiest way would be then to create a category for every arranger and editor, too. Or what do yu think about this?
Yes, I am suggesting that pages should be created for each of the editors (see the new section at the bottom of this page)
Regarding the case if a transcription/arrangement has a definite opus/work number, I think there should be in any case a link/entry in the category itself (as I described above with example, because a category should list all works) redirecting then to the page of the original work. Hobbypianist 08:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
That wouldn't work with the standard wiki redirect (where the page containing the redirect effectively becomes 'invisible'. However, we could create a page that just contained a "See..." link to the original work; the risk then is that people could upload files to that page, instead of the one intended — P.davydov 09:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It works fine if you add the category to the redirect :), for example:
#REDIRECT [[work page of original]]
[[Category:Tausig, Carl]] I've already done this in some cases, like Henselt's Op.29. Hobbypianist 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Swedish language tag?

Do we have a tag for the Swedish language? (Steltz)

The official abbreviation is "sv" (for Svenska), and I've just added it to our lists — P.davydov 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cycles

I'll bring this up one last time before letting it die its death if ignored.
Song cycles are only one example of a much broader classification of works which includes not only song cycles but, practically speaking, every "named" group of pieces conceived as a whole by a composer. Thus, not only is Winterreise a cycle, but Livre du Saint Sacrement, Der Ring des Nibelungen, Carnaval, etc. Thus, it is an extremely useful genre to have.
Obviously at this point, it would require some retagging, but I think it's worth it just to be able to use this tag.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The main problem would be defining what constitutes a "cycle". If we took it very loosely to mean any work with two or more sections (as opposed to 'movements'), then we might be talking 10,000 or more works, and wading through a category of that size isn't likely to be productive! Thinking about how to narrow it down, we'd have to decide whether collections of compositions published together actually formed a cycle, or were just a group of diverse pieces that weren't necessarily connected. That's going to be a very subjective operation, and I couldn't even do that reliably myself for Tchaikovsky's works, which I know pretty well.
As we're very nearly at the 75% mark, it's really too late in the game to go back over the 18,000 works we've tagged since January. But if you did want to create a category for cycles, then maybe you could do this as a separate exercise from the tagging project? — P.davydov 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone is going to take on this project, I would like to suggest that (even though there is probably no precedent for this breakdown) there is a "meta" group called "cycles" after which there are smaller groups, one of which would be "song cycles" that would include only art songs. I'm not quite sure what to call the cycles of theatre pieces (e.g. the Ring), but the only way I can see that this amount of works would be even vaguely manageable or searchable would be to find sub-categories, each of which could still conceivably have several thousand items in it, but at least not more than 10,000! I'm also not sure the tags can be strictly hierarchical, because the Ring would belong to Operas equally as to the Cycle category. This needs some brainstorming, but could work as long as everything isn't all lumped into one (unusable) category. (Steltz)
Perhaps just the "named" collections. If we just started with things like song cycles, it still might be productive (and if there's no "trio sonatas", then...).-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

75%

We're now over three-quarters of the way there! Only 5,988 works to go... — P.davydov 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Arrangements and Transcriptions (summary)

Trying to summarise the discussion further up the page, the main ideas seem to be

  1. We should try to avoid having the same file duplicated on more than one page, for ease of maintenance
  2. Arrangements, transcriptions and editions should normally be placed on pages for the original work, unless:
    • the form of the new work is different from the original (e.g. concert paraphrases, free transcriptions, cadenzas), so that it doesn't represent a bar-for-bar orchestration or reduction. In the case of Liszt, the "S" numbers make a distinction between his "free transcriptions" from straightforward arrangements.
    • they form part of an larger work (like Tchaikovsky's Mozartiana suite with orchestrations of 4 different pieces by Mozart, or collections of short pieces arranged for a particular instrument that can't be split due to their layout.
    • they form additions to existing works by other composers (like Binder's overture to Orpheus in the Underworld
    • the composer of the original work can't be identified (e.g. traditionsl folk-songs)
  3. If the new version of a work is on a different page from the original, then there should be "See also" links from the original work to the arrangement, and vice-versa.
  4. If the page for the original work doesn't exist yet, then it should be created, even if it only contains the "See also" link
  5. Each editor and arranger would have a special page in their own category, called something like "Versions of Works by Others (Godwosky, Leopold)", listing all their arrangements, transcriptions, editorial works, cadenzas, potpourris, variations on a theme, etc., with links to the scores in question.
  6. If an editor or arranger doesn't have their own composer category, then it should be created, even if it only contains the "Versions of Works by Others" page

Is this an accurate reflection of the discussion so far? If everyone here is in broad agreement then I'll post these proposals on the main forum... — P.davydov 09:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

1. yes, I also prefer only one file entry.
2. ok. For titles like "Paraphrase..., Transcription on... / Cadenza... " it's clear, they'll stay on their own pages. Coming back to Godowsky's The Star-Spangled Banner: supposed the original melody is used bar-for-bar then it should be moved. What if Godowsky added / omitted bars, what's the limit so that it can be considered a free transcription with own page? What I want to say is that it's difficult where exactly to draw the line. So, for some works we may have to check if the complete original work is used or not. Or is there an easier solution than examining the pieces?
Regarding the Liszt Searle numbers: I've addressed this already, this is indeed a case where an arrangement has a work number. So, even if the files get moved we should keep a redirect then in the Liszt/transcriber's category (see my answer above from yesterday).
Once a corresponding wiki page is set, maybe we can give examples for each of the points.
3./4. ok.
5. ok. (To be consistent such a page should always be created even if the composer composition list already has linked the works.)
6. yes, this is the easiest way. Hobbypianist 08:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The only other thing I would add is that we need to standardize where these things go on a page.
1. Links from arrangements to original works -- right now, "See also" links to original works are sometimes at the top of the page some of them are in the comments range. If a work is going to stay on its own page (because of not being note-for-note), then a link is necessary, but we should standardize the placing of it.
2. Then we may want to consider adding see also links from the original to a work such as variations, but where these go should always be the same. (Steltz)
It seems to me that the link from the adaptation to the original work should be quite prominent, so I'd favour the top of the page; on the other hand, the reciprocal link from the original work to any adaptations might go best immediately under the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" heading. What do you think? — P.davydov 08:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds logical -- the person looking on the original page is unlikely to have variations on the work as a priority. (Steltz)

Just to mention that I've taken the discussion to the Forums — P.davydov 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

secular oratorios

Schumann's Szenen and Paradies have been tagged as Oratorios, which is what schumann called them, but they are labeled as religious, which they most certainly are not. New category?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed the labels to either "sacred oratorios" or "secular oratorios", as we already do for choruses and cantatas — P.davydov 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

danzon

I was under the impression we can't use accents etc. in tags, but Danzon is listed as Danzón. Is this right? (Steltz)

No, it should be "danzon". Apologies — P.davydov 08:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

2 piano pieces with empty pages

The pages for Mourey, Aux églantiers de Bagatelle, and Quezada, Variations on the salzburg 'Le reminiscenze di Mozart Geburtshaus', op.303 were both created on 23 May. Nothing has been uploaded yet, though I know that for a couple of days there were uploading problems. Apart from these two empty pages, the piano pieces are done. (Steltz)

We normally allow 24 hours for people to add files to new pages, and it's been 48 hours since the server problem was fixed, so these two have now been deleted.
The "Piano Pieces" category is the single biggest of them all (6,515 entries), accounting for over 25% of all the works on IMSLP, so completing this is a very significant milestone. I know that you did most of the work in this category single-handedly, and I'd like to thank you on behalf of everyone here for your exceptional efforts over the last few months — P.davydov 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and thanks to those who helped with it. I will look in on the other categories I did just to pick up the new uploads, but in a little over a week's time, I will disappear for a month -- research trip to Europe (trawling around museums, etc.) If nothing else pops up between now and when I leave, I will check in in July!!! (Steltz)
I hope you enjoy a well-earned break! — P.davydov 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Switching off the old categories

Around 4 out of 5 works on IMSLP now fall under the new categorization system, but that still leaves 5,000 or so (mainly vocal works) that haven't yet been tagged. For the most part we've been working systematically through the list at IMSLP:Categorization/Project Members), converting the old genres one at a time.

If we were to 'switch off' the old genre categories now, then we wouldn't be able to carry on using the list at IMSLP:Categorization/Project Members), and would instead have to use the Category Walker to display all the untagged pages. At the moment this output is a little confusing, because it includes pages which have not yet been tagged, yet which contain arrangements that are already tagged (!), and there are overlaps where the new and old genres have the same names. Most of the old genres are displayed in the "Unknown" category, but they would all disappear once the old genres were switched off (which is a very simple operation).

The completed old genres names have already been 'hidden' from the work pages, and we could continue to do this until all the remaining 5,000 works have been tagged. The overall performance of IMSLP should be slightly improved by switching the old ones off completely, but it would be less convenient for the tagging team, because the untagged works wouldn't be conveniently grouped by the old categories (like "Opera", "Other (sacred - SATB choir with accompaniment)", "Cantata (secular)").

So we need to decide whether to keep the old categories alive while we carry on tagging, or just to take the plunge and switch the old ones off. Comments please! — P.davydov 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

At whatever point it gets turned off, how do we know where to look to tag the new uploads? (Steltz -- not on break just yet!)
Either through Category:Untagged pages (as an alphabetical list), or the Category Walker link mentioned above (broken down by composer, etc.) — P.davydov 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As there were no objections here, I've just completely deactivated the old genre categories. They can be quickly restored in the event of an outcry, but let's see if anyone even notices ... — P.davydov 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Scores vs Arrangements and Transcriptions

E.g. Holst, Short Festival Te Deum, there is a note at the bottom that this is an arrangement for choir and piano, but with a hierarchy heading of "Vocal Score", though the note makes it seem like this is a performance version, not a rehearsal version. It was done by Douglas Walczak, so isn't by Holst himself. When do we use the Arrangements and Transcriptions heading? If the arrangement is intended for performance? Also, Grove doesn't list the original language, but I would be surprised if it was really English -- I think probably Walczak translated it into English? Does anyone know the original work and what language it is in? (Steltz)

I can't help with the language question, but "Vocal Score" would be fine in these circumstances, assuming that the vocal parts haven't been radically altered (i.e. apart from metre changes required for the translation) — P.davydov 10:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Schmelzer, Missa nuptialis

This has orchestra and continuo in it, but I can't get both of them to show. For baroque works with continuo within the orchestra, do we even bother listing the continuo? If I do "ch orch bc" it doesn't see it but it doesn't complain about unknown tag. If I put "ch bc orch" says it is an unknown tag. Is it a case of adding as a recognized tag, or should I leave the bc altogether? (Steltz)

The correct tag would be "ch orch bc", which will appear as "For mixed chorus, orchestra". In other words, the continuo element doesn't display, following international guidelines to libraries not to bother about continuo if it's part of an orchestra. However, IMSLP users might eventually decide to go their own way on this, so leaving "bc" in the tag keeps that option open — P.davydov 10:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ostijn, Canzon

Canzons are supposed to be tagged as canzonas, but the definition of these are 16th or 17th century instrumental works. 18th or 19th century instrumental works of a song-like nature are canzoni, not canzonas. This is from 1960. "canzonas" or "canzoni"?

I would say "canzoni", leaving "canzonas" for the 16th/17th-century works — P.davydov 17:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Letters

How are we tagging letters? I've come across a couple now, and left them. One (I can't remember whose now, but I'll find it again) was just an historical letter that outlined a lesson, but had no actual music in it. The second is Colette Mourey (De l'atonalité à l'hypotonalité), has an opus number and a duration to it, and she has put in "voix parlée" as instrumentation. She is at least still living, so I can contact her and make sure it is intended for performance (in which case -- piece?). But the other letter? (Steltz)

Not something I've come across before, but my initial thoughts are:
  • If the letter is being included because it contains a musical work, then we should do our best to tag it according to the musical content, rather than the medium itself.
  • If the letter contains musical instruction, then it could be tagged as "lessons" or similar.
  • If the letter is being included as part of a famous musician's correspondence, then "correspondence" would seem an appropriate tag.
I don't know if that helps, but I hope it does — P.davydov 17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

solfege tutors

Danhauser, solfège des solfèges, technically to be sung, but not meant for singers exclusively -- for all musicians, actually. And certainly not a vocal "work". Any ideas? I suppose it could be tagged as a method without an instrumentation. (Steltz)

If you don't think tagging for voice is appropriate, then you could use "exercises ; 1open" — P.davydov 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
good idea!

puppet show music

de Falla, El Retablo de Maese Pedro, was a puppet show. Incidental music seems to me to be the closest, but I always thought that was fairly intermittent music in between other things, and a puppet show might have music similar to a ballet. Does anyone know this work, or have any ideas about how to tag it? (Steltz)

Incidental music covers a wide range of sins, so I'd have thought it would be OK here, unless anyone else has a different view? — P.davydov 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

tag for Hungarian language?, Beischer-Matyó

The tagging page doesn't show a tag for the Hungarian language, would it be "hu"? (Steltz)

Yes, that's right. I've used it myself recently for some of the Liszt vocal works, and it's now been added to the 'official' list — P.davydov 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

definition of hymns

Contant's "Nous Sommes Enfants" is a hymn, but is a hymn to French Canada, and in the tagging guidelines, a hymn is supposed to be to a deity or a saint. There is no other word in the title that would do, so I've tagged it as a hymn, but will change it if people think it's not appropriate. (Steltz)

Only the primary meaning insists on a hymn being a religious song of praise to a god; the secondary meaning is somewhat wider in allowing hymns to be in praise of someone or something. Apparently the original Greek term (ὕμνος) wasn’t quite so specific as the primary meaning, while not quite as arbitrary as the second meaning.
I’d suggest that just as you can have such oddities as “secular oratorios” (the word oratorio deriving from the name of a religious building, hence the oratorio was an inherently religious form), it might be an idea to tag these as “secular hymns” to differentiate it from the garden-variety religious kind. Philip Legge @ © talk 11:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

tag for armenian language?

Jeff Manookian Hayer Mer is The Lord's Prayer in Armenian. Tag? (Steltz)

Sticking with the ISO abbreviations, it will be "hy" (don't ask!) — P.davydov 12:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

generic label for choral works

Is the generic for a choral work that has no other tag in the title "choruses"? (Steltz)

Yes. BTW, when tagging multiple individual voices it's "2vv", "3vv", "4vv", etc., with "v" representing one voice — P.davydov 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing unless I can find specific numbers of, for instance, sopranos etc. I've just been leaving things where I have to download to find out whether it is clearly choral or clearly multiple individual voices. I've also been leaving things that I would have to download to find out things like language or accompaniment. (Steltz)

Psalms as text but not in the title

If the text for a sacred vocal work it taken entirely from a Psalm, but "Psalm" is not in the title, should it be tagged "Psalm" or "sacred cantata"? (as you can see, choral/vocal works aren't my main field . . . .) (Steltz)

If there's no other title or subtitle, and only the text of a Psalm is used, then "psalm" should be OK. Incidentally, because the old category system used "Cantatas" quite extensively, this term was probably over-represented in the past, and we need to be wary of things described by the uploaders as cantatas that are really something else. If you're not sure about a particular work, then this is the place to ask — P.davydov 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking also at whether there is no accompaniment or accompaniment (cantatas have accompaniment), but the "sacred cantata" also gets used if it would be a sacred song, e.g. voice and piano, so I think it has been overused, but I can't find anything else for solo sacred songs. Also, if there is a question as to whether it is large enough to qualify as an oratorio, e.g. Vaughan Williams' Sancta Civitas, I'm leaving it for someone else. (Steltz)
I can sympathise with your desire to avoid downloading the 100 MB vocal score of RVW’s Holy City. It’s described as an oratorio on the title page, solos, choruses, organ and orchestra as described. Philip Legge @ © talk 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

method books and language tags

Since method books have written instruction as well as music, it would be useful to have the language tag attached, even though that's mostly for vocal works. Any other opinions? (Steltz)

Yes, good idea — P.davydov 13:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Enescu, Chamber Symphony

Where a piano exists in an orchestral group, but not as a solo instrument, where does it go. I've tagged this work "ww br str pf". (Steltz)

If it's not a solo part then it shouldn't be listed separately, so "orch" covers a piano playing as part of the orchestra — P.davydov 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bach, Inventions

Just noticed that Bach's Inventions BWV 772-786 have been tagged as duets, though "duet" or any derivative isn't in the title, and they clearly are for one keyboard player. Is this wrong? (Steltz)

Yes, I've changed it to "pieces ; kbd" — P.davydov 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bateson, Adieu Sweet Love

Whoever uploaded this listed it as for choir, but the volume title says ". . .English Madrigals . . for four voices . . . "so I've tagged it "4v". Is that right? (Steltz)

Actually it would be "4vv" (see above). A lot of sources (including Grove) state '4 voices' for works when they mean '4-part chorus' (etc.), but in the context of these madrigals they are more likely to be solo singers — P.davydov 19:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

motets vs. sacred cantatas

Anerio's "Alleluja.Christus resurrexit" is a cappella. I've seen motet defined as an unaccompanied choral sacred work. Does this get tagged as a motet or a sacred cantata? (Steltz)

The published edition is entitled "Libor Motettorum", so on that basis I'd recommend "motet". Otherwise it would have been "sacred choruses", unless the word cantata appeared in the title or subtitle of the work — P.davydov 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hurlebusch, violin concertos

As with the Schmelzer, I put bc after the orchestra, but it shows as unknown tag, probably because it's not a full orchestra, so I had to tag "ww str". (Steltz)

Rodriguez, Ave Maria, Misa and Pater Noster

I don't know whether the organ should show as an instrument -- it might be similar to the "bc" with an orchestra, where it shouldn't show, but since an organ is very venue-specific, it might make a difference whether a string orchestra is with or without organ. This also applies to Sgambati's Versa est. (Steltz)

I'm at work with limited access at the moment, if you tag it with the organ I'll take a look tonight when I get home — P.davydov 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

double quartets

Spohr's Double Quartet has the word "quartet" in the title, but is for 8 people. On the other hand, it is 2 string quartets, so the tag quartet would have some logic to it. Opinions? (Steltz)

Bit of a tricky one this, but if we stick with the official designation of "quartet" then it will be listed in that category, as well as in the category for 8 players — P.davydov 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

secular hymns

America the Beautiful would also qualify as a secular hymn. I think it might be a good idea to add this as a tag? (Steltz)

OK. At some point we should probably go back over the hymns that have already been tagged and amend the ones that qualify as "secular" — P.davydov 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bach, Sinfonias BWV 787-801 (for solo harpsichord

Just noticed that these are tagged as trios. Is that right? (Steltz)

I don't know how that happened, but it wasn't me  :-) I've just changed it to "sinfonias" — P.davydov 15:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://imslp.org/index.php?title=IMSLP_talk:Categorization/Project_Members/archive8&oldid=476010"