Ave Carolus, please excuse the weird side design. But it is hardly possible to obtain detailed information about the original shape of that opus. --Ralph Theo Misch 01:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Leopold Mozart: Sleigh ride
Hi Carolus,
there is a discussion on the forums if an edition of Kunzelmann (1985) or a adaption of it can be uploaded at IMSLP. See
http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5711#p30049 and http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5062. I think yes,
what is your opinion? Notenschreiber 19:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It would appear that the 1985 score was the first publication of Leopold Mozart's original version, as the Cursch-Bühren is truly a free arrangement (as opposed to being a re-orchestration) - arguably more Cursch-Bühren than Leopold Mozart. If this is the case (the Kunzelmann score is the original version by Leopold Mozart), the work itself is now free in the EU due to the expiry (on 1/1/2011) of the 25-year term for editio princeps. It would be perfectly legal to produce a new typeset. If the editorial contribution to the Kunzelmann includes original work (as opposed to being an urtext edition) one could not reproduce the editorial additions. If the Kunzelmann is an urtext, it could be posted directly to IMSLP's EU server. In the USA, the work would be under copyright until 1/1/2048/. Carolus 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. It may be important to add (for Canada and the USA), that in 1812 a "Klavierauszug" of the sleigh right in its original form has been published (Kalliwoda mentioned this).Notenschreiber 21:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The 1812 publication probably effects things everywhere, as Kunzelmann would have no real basis apart from the orchestration for an editio princeps claim. Their only real claim in Canada, the USA and (probably) the EU would be on the basis of the editing, which is very likely under Germany's 25-year term for urtexts (the 30 year EU maximum only applies if the country of origin has enacted a 30-year term for such editions. As far as I know, no EU country has. Carolus 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I need some help
Dear Carolus,
Could you please move my synthesized recordings of June Dances (Salamon, Sean Michael) into the "Synthesized/MIDI" category of recordings? For the life of me, I cannot figure out how I would do this. I need there to be the three live files under "General" and three synthesized under "Synthesized/MIDI."
I appreciate it!
Sean Salamon 04:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take care of it. Thanks, Carolus 22:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Sean Salamon 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Carolus, is this really the correct CR tag? --Ralph Theo Misch 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not. That's what happens when you tag things too fast! Thank you, Carolus 03:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Performer categorization of synthesized MIDI- and mp3 files
Hello Carolus
I still disagree in applying the performer category on synthesized MIDI- and mp3 files. As I understand this parameter it is intended for human performances.
Giacomo Andreola is an estimated professional recorder builder and player and would most likely not appreciate himself associated as performer with a 'primitive' MIDI file. --Reccmo 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's OK as I've been having second thoughts on the issue. Just don't list in the performer field using the {{LinkEd|xxx|xxx}} template. Since most of the MIDIs are of arrangements, using the {{LinkArr|xxx|xxx}} template is probably OK provided the MIDI is of an actual arrangement (though they're all arrangements in a sense). For composers with MIDIs of their own works maybe it would be best to just use the name without a template at all. It's probably best to keep the Performer category field reserved for actual human performances. You'll note that I didn't put Andreola in as a "performer" this way. Carolus 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Who on earth is this? Even Sir C. couldn't tell anything. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Carolus, presumably it's by the same editor as this: Georges Jacob (1877-1950). But I'm not sure. It comes from an unordered pile of sheets (which were given to me to scan them). There are some inconsistencies. Regards, --Ralph Theo Misch 00:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're quite correct here. Le grand orgue appears to have been a series edited by Jacob. Carolus 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I took it into account here. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apropos René Vierne: what's the CR status of this? Many thanks in advance! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think that one is free worldwide - unless it's actually another from the series edited by Jacob - who seems to have been especially fond of this unknown Vierne. In that case it would be almost the same as the above Intermezzo, except we know for certain that it is free in the USA. Carolus 02:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
According to worldcat it's edited by René's big brother Louis ([1] and [2] → "registrées pour l'orgue par Louis Vierne"). Thanks again! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"Scores and Parts"
this is nitpicky of me, but when there are only parts and no full scores yet (that i can see?) on a page, and given that it's helpful to performers to be able to search for pages that have parts in them (instead of just scores) why use the Scores and Parts tag which does nothing (yet) instead of the Parts tag which puts the page in the Pages with Parts category? Thanks :) Eric 17:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's probably best to just use "Parts" for the very reason you mention. I realize might have changed something to "Scores and Parts" recently as I was probably too tired and glanced at something I thought was a score (when it actually wasn't). When there is a Piano score (a score which also serves as the piano part), it's better to use the "Scores and Parts" heading since: 1) using "Scores" is redundant as the level two header already states "Scores"; 2) The score in question is both a score and a part; 3) it will hopefully encourage the addition of any absent individual parts over time. Carolus 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleting two works
Greetings,
I wish to retract two of my works, Scherzo for Octet, and Cold Mist. Could you delete those pages from IMSLP and all of their associated files? Thanks so much for your help.
Sean Michael Salamon 18:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not Carolus, but both works have now been removed. Cheers, KGill talk email 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kenny! When will you be uploading a new work of yours? Sean Michael Salamon 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure. I have a suite for string quartet almost prepared (one movement needs further revisions - I tend to be incredibly lazy about that), so it's possible that it will be on IMSLP sometime this winter break. Other than that, I have several works sort of half-completed and/or in sketch form and another large work needing lots of revision (it's just how I work, in a perpetual state of incompletion). Cheers, KGill talk email 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Carl Sagan Text
Hey, just wanted to tell you that I replied to you on my talk page regarding your concerns. We can continue to have the discussion there, if that is okay with you. Sean Michael Salamon 02:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Linking to publications offsite
Hi Carolus! I know you are probably going to be terribly busy but I thought this might be happening under your radar. Could you look at this user's page. Instead of uploading any of his works(which don't appear to have any declared license) to IMSLP he appears to be simply linking them on his user page to an offsite location. I don't know if we have (or should have) a policy regarding this. Thanks, --Cypressdome 02:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is definitely against policy. I am probably going to ban him for it, though I might remove all the links on his page and ask for an explanation first. Thanks very much for bringing it to my attention. He must have done this late in the overnight hours on a busy day. Carolus 02:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Recovery
Hi Carolus. I'm not sure if you remember me, but a couple of months ago I tried my best to lend a hand every once and a while on IMSLP. I think I'm starting to make a recovery and will be able to start helping again. I was wondering if a new copyright review test has been made because I would be interested in taking it so I could have copyright reviewer tools. I'm not too great with copyright law, but I think that I could maybe help unclog any backlogs. At least I could maybe tag some easy files so you and KGill only need to worry about the tough ones. I know I haven't been around in a while, so I'll understand if I need to contribute for a few months before earning any of the special tools. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience, I'm sure everything has been great since I left. I really only dabbled here and there, but I still feel badly about taking a temporary retirement. Respectfully yours, Emery 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly remember you, Emery, and am very happy to read of your recovery. The copyright review text was upgraded last summer so you can take it any time. To tell you the truth, I really could use some help in the next couple of months as we finish up the merge with WIMA. Several composers and arrangers associated with them have a very large number of files (as you can see, we're already over 150,000 and we were nowhere near that when you took a break. With Kenny in school the tagging load can get pretty intense on some days (400-600 files is not uncommon). The WIMA items are generally very easy to tag - about the only thing you have to watch out for is when a composer has used text by an author who is not public domain. Since most of WIMA is early music, that's not a huge concern. Carolus 04:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back Emery! Does he really need to take the copyright test again to get his rights back? That seems a bit unnecessary to me... he's probably one of our most knowledgeable reviewers and was a designated reviewer (along with you) for the CR project. I personally at least think he should just get his rights back since he's thankfully up and working again. He proved himself already! Cheers! Lndlewis10 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Emery, it is great to hear of your recovery! How could you think we'd forget you? It's not like we get a lot of users with your level of copyright knowledge :-) There is really no need to try the test again, since it hasn't changed since 1 July (i.e., before you took it) - no need to reinvent the wheel. You already earned all your rights, and I've now given them back to you. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- (BTW Carolus, I haven't been contributing as much as I should - starting in the next couple days I will try to rectify this. KGill talk email)
- Kenny and Nick are correct - you do not need to take the test again. For some reason I thought you had taken the old test, but this is not the case. You passed the current one with flying colors, so welcome back! Carolus 01:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
LOC template
Hi Carolus! I'm assuming since you made such a minor change to the LOC template that you approve of my changes ;) I was trying to make it more flexible to cover linking directly to sheet music pages in multiple collections. Unfortunately, there in one collection - African-American Sheet Music, 1850-1920 - that uses a permanent link of hdl.loc.gov/loc.award instead of hdl.loc.gov/loc.music which is why I used only hdl.loc.gov/loc. in that variable. Do you think it would be preferable to revert it to that or to add another variable to cover that particular collection alone? The way the template currently stands we also can't link back to items from the Sousa collection without adding another variable or creating a separate template perhaps to go in the miscellaneous notes area. Thanks, --Cypressdome 05:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's a very good idea, but it does not appear to actually work. I think the problem is having three alternatives. I'll be looking it over more later on. I didn't know about the one oddball variable you mention, so we'll need to change it back for starters. Carolus 05:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's odd. Since variable 2 doesn't build upon variable 1 the default values for both of them if no value is input is nothing. Variable 3 provides the default LOC url so that in order to suppress that if you are linking directory to a score (inputting a value for either variable 1 or 2) you must input something for variable 3 in order to prevent the default LOC url from being tacked onto the end of the sheet music's url. It was the only solution I could come up with and it worked for Sonata Heroic (Campbell-Tipton, Louis) and Concert Polonaise, Op.6 (Scholtz, Herrmann) (the later before your change). Thanks, --Cypressdome 05:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
What's the status on this, considering editio princeps?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- If performed in composer's lifetime (which seems likely -even if in private) no problem as far as Canada is concerned. If not actually published (in the usual sense) until less than 25 years ago, not free in EU, otherwise (published over 25 years ago) free. USA is more complicated (as always). First published 1923-1963 either w/o notice or no renewal after 28 years, it's free (ineligible for restoration); 1964-77 protected for 95 years from pub. date. First published 1978-2002 - protected until 1/1/2048. First published 2003 or later only the edition is protectable, not the work itself. Carolus 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I highly suspect publication after 1963, but before 25 years ago. Yes, every organ work he wrote was almost certainly performed by him in private or church. Thanks.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Another wrinkle is if the publication took place in East Germany, which had no copyright relations at all with the US until 1973. Even works issued after then are very spotty. Carolus 04:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. The go-to edition for these works (i.e. the one I have) is the Novello published in the late '80s, edited by William Little, so we know that they were all published by or at that time. Also, the new complete edition has two 2004 volumes (that, from my comparison, differed very little from the Novello) containing many of those works, so it could be that either they got permission or there was a prior publication.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 05:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I know that many of the youthful works were first issued by the various branches of the East German State Publishing house in the 1950s and 1960s (the string symphonies, for example). I've tagged them "C" in the USA for the time being, but this can be changes easily enough as more precise information surfaces. Carolus 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
