User talk:Funper

For private correspondence unrelated to IMSLP please e-mail me. You must have an IMSLP account with a verified email.

Contents

Archive pages for this talk page

More Recent Additions

Fixed...that was a great idea indeed.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you saw Special:ListFiles...took me a while. Click the arrows to go from IMSLP#1 up. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it...hope you like the template; it's a fun little toy. BTW it won't work properly for a while, I suspect. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Liszt Bi-Centennial 2011

Hi, I hope you can help us find some decent recordings of the Maestro's work to post in the next few months! I'll be looking around myself. Carolus 03:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a CD of recordings by Liszt's students, just got to check their copyright status and they'll certainly be up. --Funper 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dana

Almost done! Nice work-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) --Funper 19:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. I've set piupianissimo to work converting; you can see the first one on volume 7. Thanks again-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 18:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured Score

Before you say anything about my taking out the first edition part, I've already featured that twice, so I think it's gotten its due. Nice manuscript, though. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. I'm very happy, just glowing of joy, you should see me ! :D Why did you remove "magnum opus" ? --Funper 01:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that it's a little bit subjective (not that I disagree). I like to keep these objective (selection aside XD)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it's kind of objective. There's a general consensus that the sonata is Liszt's magnum opus. Besides, the feature score section is (like) a showroom; there's no need to even be modest/objective there  :) --Funper 14:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That is true. However, since enough of the site's users do not know Liszt very well, they might think that it's subjective :). Also (not to overquote Rosen), Rosen seems to think otherwise...Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument that stands under scrutiny. In order to learn about which composers the users of the site actually know about we would need to make a poll or some investigation of some sort, which we haven't. So we can't say that our users know this composer better than that one, based on any direct knowledge of the aforementioned sort. There is some indirect evidence that is contrary to your argument however; Liszt is the fifth most visited composer on the site, right after Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and Schubert, which speaks for our users being quite familiar with Liszt. I don't know who Rosen is but that matters little, since there is consensus that the sonata is Liszt's magnum opus. Furthermore, I see that you have made most of the edits on the featured section, which is very good since it was kind of stagnating in 2007, but I don't know whether you feel this or not, but sometimes when one works with something a long time, one feels that one "owns" it. I understand if you feel this since you have edited the featured section continuously and exclusively by yourself (in practical terms) since 17 October 2008, but this is a wiki where everyone can edit everything and I am going to quote yourself now "Feel free to get creative! It makes it a little less monotonous for the viewer ;)" and I think my effort was in accordance with this. So if you disregard any potential feelings for the page (and I am asking you this merely out of respect for your excellent work on that section) do you now agree with me including "magnum opus" in Liszt's entry? :) --Funper 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(N.B. I think he means Charles Rosen, a well-known pianist and musical pundit.) KGill talk email 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, KGill :D
Just because people listen to Pachelbel's Canon (no gigue, usually!) does not mean that they know much about the composer. His magnum opera could be the fugues on the magnificat for organ (even if some find his writing "pedantic"), but very few know anything about him. I think that it's fair to say that a great many of those Liszt visits are people looking for Liebesträume No. 3.
That said, I do think that many people here do know that Liszt's Piano Sonata is almost unanimously considered his masterwork. I obviously agree, having featured it twice already. I have thus made the change.
However, I do not feel that including such words as magnum opus fits in with the encyclopedic nature of something like IMSLP. I think that wikipedia is a bit extreme in its phobia of weasel words, subjective remarks, etc. (not to call these weasel words!) — obviously, since I'm including the words "magnum opus." I guess I'm conflicted, because I don't really know exactly what I want the featured scores section to be — thus I'm open to suggestions. Feelings of ownership and knowing what is "correct" are exactly what leads to incidents like we had with CC (who has calmed down since — I know he's reading along)
P.S. You may have noticed that this is replacing earlier remarks. I suppose I felt that I had adressed this inadequately. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Most people are not aficionados and are but looking for Canon in D, Liebesträume No.3 and similar works, but if the entries in the featured section were to consist of these kinds of words, their attention might be captured by them. Perhaps, in this way, they might be introduced to more "important" works.
I am going to quote yourself again: "Don't keep messing with a page if you hope for someone to be able to reply in a timely manner" ;) --Funper 21:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoisted upon my own petard! Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I have two wonderful additions to the featured list.
1) an extremely high depth holograph scan of Liszt's Ballade No.2, S.171, and, of coarse, the first edition from the Ruth Dana collection (also very good resolution) and
2) the first edition and holograph of Beethoven's piano transcription of Grosse fuge, Op.134; both extremely good (from the Juilliard Manuscript Collection).
--Funper 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of objectivity, my first temptation when seeing "Beethoven Op. 134" is to gag ;). Commercial hackwork....but a holograph and 1st ed. is good news!
No. 1 looks good. You should just put it in the suggestions box on the page and I'll move it to upcoming.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Liszt Ballade

Looks good. My thing is, this is a featured scores section, and therefore is it within the scope to include trivia? Just wondering-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the wording of my summary is kind of bad. It is not trivia in this context, it is a description of the score, like those we had some time ago, see this. :) --Funper 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess in the contexts of manuscripts that that's actually a very good idea! (Dates). Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

8 Petites Pièces, Op.24 (Sor, Fernando)

Thanks for your welcome Funper.
Regarding the scnanned piece I actually did it in monochrome, only thumb is polychrome in order to show a better look.
One question though : I don't see any tab in the contributions (many guitar players use tabs). Is there any restriction or can I upload scores with tablatures ? Schneidy 08:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Schneidy, I don't know about any restrictions on uploading tabs. I won't be able to give an explication on why there aren't any here, since I didn't know that there weren't any. I can't think of any reason why there should be a problem in contributing tablatures, if they are in the public domain or released under a creative commons license, so fell free to contribute as many tablatures you want! :) --Funper 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I took a futher look at your score and it was actually scanned in grayscale. The difference is that grayscale scans become pixelated while combining them in PDF:s, since they become compressed. Monochrome scans don't pixelate. The quality of grayscale scans is therefore not as favourable as monochrome ones, and they are also larger with respect to their filesize. I recommend scanning in monochrome.. If one makes the effort of putting 2-3 hours of scanning a score, the difference in a few minor settings can make or brake the scan. --Funper 17:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A propos du site de manuscripts

Yeahhhhh.. Fantastics news..Thanks a lot for information ... It seem it would be not so hard to find a good software to recompose that (making some panoramics photos). I've tried with mine but the result seems porridge. I'll search in this direction ! -Squin- ...but I see now that this was writed in 2007 ! ..... Oh ! I know someone who can help us..... I'll try to contact him these days and take you informed.....-Squin- 18.06.2010

Nice! I will try to email you through the wiki. Answer it so I can send you the files that constitute a page. You will se that it's quite a big amount of files! One page is normally 368 JPEG files. --Funper 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't get anything - Squin 24/06

Sorry. The files are on another computer. Take a look at this instead: User:Funper/Sandbox. I have made some instructions on ripping files from the collection. --Funper 21:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Hello Funper. I'm sorry that I've had to revert your recent edits to the Dante and Faust symphony pages, either because they were incorrect, or inconsistent with current IMSLP standards. Similarly it's inadvisable to keep renaming pages, as this produces double redirects (and eventually broken ones).

You may not be aware that earlier in the year a group of "Librarians" was set up in parallel with the tagging project to make sure that the information on work and composer pages was given correctly and consistently, and also to ease the burden on potential submitters who might be put off making contributions if they didn't have the necessary work information. I know that you have only been trying to help, but could I ask you in future to refrain from making these kinds of changes, and leave it to the librarians who have taken on this task? This might also free up some of your time to concentrate on score submissions. Thank you — P.davydov 21:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) (Librarian)

PLP

Since next year is the big 200 for your favorite composer (I like him quite a bit myself), the folks at Serenissima (who own the PLP imprint) are thinking of issuing study scores for the complete tone poems, plus Faust - as we have fairly decent scans for all thanks to BSB and pianissimo. Questions they have: 1) Are the B & H editions from the early 20th century decent? 2) Would you like to write a preface or short article to appear on the scores if the project is approved? The projected prices would be very competitive - USD 11.95 to 19.95 depending on page count. Thanks, Carolus 21:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1) If the Breitkopf und Härtel editions are from the complete Ausgabe, they are decent since that edition generally keeps a "very good standard for its day" according to Leslie Howard, a Liszt expert/scholar and pianist quite en courrant with the composer. [1] The Breitkopf und Härtel edition of Faust, for which the same applies, is also "much to be prefered" according to him [2]. So the edition is good.
2) Yes. --Funper 22:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I will inform them. That's good news. Carolus 23:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Update: They're definitely going ahead with it. They were wondering what you would like for the prefaces. Email me at csimpson205@yahoo.com so we can discuss further. Also, it looks like part 2 of one volume, the Trauer-Feier Tassos = Le triomphe funèbre du Tasse, is missing from the material present on IMSLP. Carolus 00:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Op. 134

Check out the featured scores :)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I have made some amendments. --Funper 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No point in including date of rediscovery?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. --Funper 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
We should make a "featured score"-category using tags. You're a librarian, do you know how this would be done? --Funper 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried this a while ago. However, it is impracticable to implement - I had to stop once I realized how many composers' complete works we have.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's impractical to tag someone's complete works, but still, a tag to be used for individual works should be fairly useful and not impractical at all. --Funper 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But nobody wants to go through and re-tag a bunch of stuff now that we're this far along (ran up against that when I tried implementing "cycles")-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "this far"? I thought the librarian project was a progressive one ; i.e. that it will always be running since new pieces are added continuously. I think of it like this: a tag could be implemented and some users (e.g. I) that are familiar with it, not necessarily part of the project - could add it to featured scores peu à peu as we bump into them. --Funper 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that, because of past incidents, it's best to keep the tagging wholly enclosed, even with other admins, so noone can point to the exceptions. Sorry. BTW, I agree, and if you want to ask P.Davydov for permission to tag all of them I'm sure that he would let you. But then you have to do all of them-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"References"

Well, if you're going to change it on one publisher page, change it on all of them. Inconsistency is worse than an editorial consideration-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we make a bot to do it instead? The task appears awfully monotonous. --Funper 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Program one yourself, then. It's easy to say "can't we make a bot do that" — in principle, yes, but this is more efficient. Besides, a lot of the stuff we do on IMSLP could be done by bots.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The tagging project and adding entries on publisher pages, to name a few, could easily be aided with the help of bots. I will see what I can do in this respect. --Funper 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No tagging bots required, thanks. This is a job only humans can do, unfortunately ... – P.davydov 05:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But plate numbers on publisher pages...that's definitely a good idea.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

About Juilliard

Hi Soren, may be a good idea : instead combining multiple jpegs, one said to me it will be possible to enlarge the mini-window where appear the score and then capture a big part of the page in one shot. May you consider that and let me inform about your thoughts ? I'll ask some friends too about that way --Squin 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC) :)

I don't know, I am able to assemble a good 120 page score (See Große Fuge for Piano Four Hands, Op.134 (Beethoven, Ludwig van) in one day with my method. Would your method be faster than that? --Funper 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

C'est génial ! You're a big boss.. All thoses treasures soon availables ! Je n'avais pas vu... --Squin 17:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really easy. Try reading User:Funper/Sandbox, I have written on how to download and compile files from the collection. If you run into problems, you could ask me for help. --Funper 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Funper, I have to call you now "cher et vénérable maître" - I will take time soon to look this with attention. --Squin 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Forget all about that page.. I have found something better! Dezoomify!! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Zoomable_images/dezoomify.py --Funper 10:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Funper, I would really like to figure out how to use this dezoomify on the mac. Would you know how to get this script to work with the wonderful manuscript scores on the Juilliard site. If anyone knows how to implement this on the Mac that would be great. (BTW, I have done the screen capture method on this and other sites which works but is very time consuming.) I have read the instructions and don't quite understand how to use the script. I would imagine that the Terminal app would be used? Any and all help would be welcome. Thanks Generoso

Microsoft

You don't have to include the trademark symbol when mentioning their name - only when actually reproducing their logo. Nice improvement to the scan. Any particular reason you retained the blank pages? They're not very useful from the standpoint of a person printing out a copy of the score. Nice to have the Joseffy at last. Carolus 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The explanation for the inclusion of blank pages is that I try to follow the original as close as possible.. "facsimilesque" --Funper 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did you notice that the Amazon ASIN's are not the same from country to country when used for scores? The Henle facsimile score has a different ASIN in Germany and the USA. The ASINs seem to be fine for recordings, though. I tried plugging in the 13-digit ISBN for the Henle but Amazon bases their ID number on the 10-digit, apparently. Carolus 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright on Sound Recordings

Hi, Funper,

There are two layers of copyright for sound recordings: 1) The copyright in the work itself; and 2) The copyright in the sound recording. The Debussy Children's Corner recording is an interesting example of the principle at work. The underlying music is of course public domain, as it the composer's playing of it and the piano roll produced from his playing. However, the recording of the restored player piano made in 2004 is the copyright of Dal Segno - even though it is a recording of a recording (an adaptation or derivative work of a public domain original). If you had made the recording of Debussy's piano roll yourself (as Ralph Theo Misch has done with a couple of things), there would be no problem, but unless you have a statement from Dal Segno releasing their recording under a Creative Commons License or suitable evidence they have done so, it will unfortunately have to be deleted. Carolus 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Funper, thanks for your very warm welcome! Does "Funper" mean you are a "fun person"? ;-)

Yes, I would like very much to contribute scores, but have access to very few that might not already be here on IMSLP. (My own scribbles excepted, but that's another story.) However, I do have a sharp "copy-editor's eye" and can spot a typo at 100 metres - pretty clever since I'm very myopic! So you may see me around here just tidying up typos, and simplifying the occasional difficult piece of writing.

Glad to hear you pay attention to Mr. L. Howard when he speaks of Liszt! He's not only an Aussie (like me), he's also a fantastic performer (unlike me), has hands big enough to challenge Liszt himself I believe (I struggle with tenths, whilst he rolls off the twelfths) and has a simply enormous repertoire (whereas I have only memorised "Chopsticks" in the last 52 years).

Thanks for making some Liszt available for me to agonise over! I always found Schubert's Marche Militaire hard enough to play decently, but suspect that when I finally summon the courage to look at the Liszt version, I will only be able to cry ...

Keep up the good work!

Yahya 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. I was a little boy when I came up with the nick and it has followed me since. At that time (I was probably 11 years old), I thought it would do with a contraction of "fun" and "person", so you are quite right! :)
Scores are, of coarse, not the only thing you can contribute. We do, however, encourage both professional and amateur composers to share their work on IMSLP. Most of modern writing consists of atonal music which I sadly do not understand, so I am personally not a fan of this modern predilection that is in vogue these days. Of coarse, there might be other people who appreciate it, although I do not understand these people either.
Mr. Howard has a good knowledge of Liszt and his works. The available score of Liszt's paraphrase of Marche militaire is actually scanned by him, and if you compare it with that of Tausig, you will see that it is even easier to play, but nonetheless as effective as Tausig's!
Thanks. I will see you around! - Funper 11:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Liszt (who else?): Prélude á la Polka d'Alexandre Porfiryevitch Borodine, S.207a

This edition is 2003, which would not even fall under the 30-year urtext provisions of EU law (25 years if issued in Germany or UK, 20 in Italy). 1980 is the most recent date for anything issued in Hungary to be posted here, since Hungary is now part of the EU. At least with IMSLP-EU up, we can liberate some of the Liszt volumes from the 1970s. Carolus 19:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ops! Sorry. --Funper 21:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cortot

Hi Funper. Unfortunately, files must be public domain in Canada to be on the EU server (cf. Feldmahler), and as we have a new policy to remove anything that falls into the PD in Canada later than next year, I'm afraid the file you uploaded here will have to be deleted. Sorry, KGill talk email 01:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected this and was about to make an edit asking about that which coincidentally conflicted with yours. We should make this more lucid on the Public domain page or perhaps even in the guidelines. I believe 'tis not the first time I unknowingly have uploaded something not PD in Canada but PD in US or EU, only so that it be removed later. --Funper 01:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's already pretty clear on this page, although it isn't explicitly stated (i.e. it just says something has to be PD in Canada to be allowed here). Do you think it should still mention the EU server? Thanks, KGill talk email 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware of that page. It's kind of lucid over there, but it could be clearer on the PD page. I "bolded" the text on the PD page, but I don't think its clear enough now either. It could be something similar to this: "While a upload could be in the public domain in the United States and/or in Europe, it must be PD in Canada in order to be released for access on the site." --Funper 02:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Or 'it must be PD in Canada in order to be -allowed- on the site'. Should the page also make clear our policy of keeping files for Canadian release next year? (that might also affect the wording of that sentence) KGill talk email 02:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would do too. The page should also make make that policy of keeping files clear, since I don't understand what it is all about either. Oh, btw, check the copyright tag on the recent Rachmaninoff recording of Prélude in C sharp minor. I have left a comment there. --Funper 02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, I've modified that page to include an asterisked footnote, which hopefully makes it more lucid. What do you think? (I also responded to the other comment) KGill talk email 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Marvel. --Funper 02:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Internet Archive Recordings

Nice work. I think these are probably OK. Watch out as there are some much later (and obviously not PD) things posted there. Also, for USA, it is not by any means certain if any sound recording is public domain until 2067 due to the absolute insanity of the copyright law provisions with respect to recordings. Therefore "C" is the best we can hope for in the case of pre-1923 issues. Carolus 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Faust Symphony, S.108

You need to revise that thumbnail so that Eulenburg's logo does not appear on it. (Yes, Schott - who owns the imprint - complained last year about it.) Carolus 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bach Partitas

Two things:

  1. "Clavieruebung"
  2. It is actually listed as his opus one, not just "Keyboard-Excercises I"-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually... this is an umlauted "u", so it should be "Clavier-Übung" or "Klavier-Übung" (or "Clavierübung", "Klavierübung", etc.). And the opus 1 is a later publisher's numbering, not JSB's! :-) — P.davydov 12:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"Klavierübung" would be the correct modern German :-) Hobbypianist 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice list! Here is mine:
Two things:
  1. May I remind you that GNU 1.2 neither permits absolute authority of Wiki articles nor ownership of them. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."
  2. Most of my edits are constructive. If you have an opinion about any of them, or anyone else's for that matter, you should preferably go to the contributor, me, or at least give a reason for changing it/reverting it (presuppose that unconstructive edits aren't made through my account. Then by all means, revert them as fast as you can! :O) I would never revert constructive edits.
Your number two may account for your reversion of my edit (although it's not very convincing), but it doesn't account for your exlusion of the title of the publication, "Klavierübung I", and since it's now apparent that opus one is a later publisher's number, then I believe it is more appropriate to mention "Klavierübung I" instead, since it's more relevant in relation to this featured first and unnumbered publication. :--Funper 14:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@P.Davydov: I know; sorry, my keyboard sometimes works for accents, and sometimes not...
"While each of the Partitas was published separately, they were collected into a single volume (1731), known as the Clavier-Übung I (Keyboard Practice), which Bach himself chose to label his Opus 1"
From Wikipedia :)
@Hobbypianist: Yes, but the older orthography has a "c"
@Funper: The main reason for my "revert" was the fact that you misspelled Klavierübung with a u instead of the i and I also couldn't get the umlaut to work. :) I did retain the "self-published," however (and now the "Clavier-Übung I" part :)
Also, I might remind you that you have mentioned your first point on many occasions. I see this as merely a constructive edit that I might have made to any page, and I immediately notified you with my reasoning. With all due respect, I simply see this as good stewardship of the wiki.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Perlnerd: yep, it's an old spelling....really outdated. Ok, as additional info on a work page it's acceptable if it appeared in the old edition (but as work title it wouldn't be ok. However, this is another point I'll adress separately.) Hobbypianist 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
@Perlnerd: According to Grove, the partitas were first published separately (1726-31) before being collected with the title Clavier-Übung as Op.1 (1731), although I give you that did happen was in Bach's lifetime. But shouldn't they be on separate pages anyway?  :-) — P.davydov 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the repetitions, but I have seen some good articles that individual users have single-handedly transformed for the worse on Wikipedia (a certain anonymous scholar on Liszt article, par example), and I don't want it here :) Better safe than sorry --Funper 18:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Funper: absolutely no problem
@P.davydov: Note that this particular edition is the first collected edition of 1731 (although apparently a seventh may have been planned?), which is why I chose this wording. I guess we all like splitting hairs :D-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FS—Liszt

Woops. Thanks!-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Recordings

Could you please talk to Fahl5 to see why he reverted your edit? I'm sure he has a good reason.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Liszt

Hello Funper. Those links are being removed from all the composer pages, as the arrangements and editions are all now listed underneath the compositions. The old arrangement and edition categories are empty now — P.davydov

I see! Very neat --Funper 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Liszt's Two Concert Etude

Hi Funper, do you have Liszt's Two Concert Etudes or Two Concert Studies scores? It is a set of two piano works by Franz Liszt. It consists of Waldesrauschen (Forest Murmurs) and Gnomenreigen (Dance of the Gnomes). Thanks, Nicho 12:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Flash-Based Websites

Hello, Funper, I noticed your wonderful manuscripts you uploaded from the Juiliard Site and was inspired to make a Music from Flash-Based Websites Tutorial on how to do such a feat on the Mac with a lot of help from others. Thank you for your inspiration. Generoso 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://imslp.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Funper&oldid=733645"