Hi KGill. I've put together some suggestions for tidying up some aspects of the General Information Section, which can be found here. If you have the time maybe you could take a look and let me know what you think? There are already some comments from Eric and Snailey on the discussion page there. Thanks — P.davydov 11:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
is simply Louise Farrenc... :) Eric 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC) (further- before I move anymore of the Farrenc spouses' editions of the CPE Bach sonatas from Tresor des Pianistes from linkEd Louise Dumont Farrenc to Linked/Louise/Farrenc, have we decided pretty much for good that Louise Farrenc is where the category is staying? hate to change all 3 dozen or so -back- and soon :)
Hi KGill, I've just uploaded vol.1 of Deutsche Volkslieder mit ihren Original-Weisen. I think it would be correct to create a new category: August Kretzschmer (the main editor), and put vol.1 there. On the other hand it was rather inconvenient, because both volumes go together. What do you think? - Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah - yes. I remember having recognized that category. That's where they belong to. Thank's! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for the information - that is indeed interesting. I've created the category for Zuccalmaglio's editions and linked to it from his composer page; at this point, everything seems to be in order as far as I can see. Cheers, KGill talk email 01:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill ... Many thanks for the red star.... --Squin 16:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I have a problem since today with the "search" just on the left ... for any word I put in it I have a page "Fatal Error: Unknown search type. Please contact an administrator." --Squin 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks... It's Ok. It work correctly with "Go" --Squin 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallo KGill, I removed your link to the publisher Leduc (Alphonse Leduc), because this firm was founded in 1841, no relation apparently to Auguste Leduc, for whom I found with a quick google search prints dating from 1790-1818. I changed the spelling to be consistent with the other works from this publisher on imslp. --Kalliwoda 08:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason why we should not indicate a source came from the CD Sheet Music collection as opposed to changing it to "Commonly available commercial source"? I saw this with some of the Poulenc piano works I submitted, which are in fact from that series. Daphnis 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the name CD Sheet music is trademarked-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of the name here is fine, because we are specifically talking about it, if I remember correctly-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting Caraman-Chimay to Mercy-Argenteau - I should have looked at her closely - An amazing woman ! --Squin 10:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallo KGill, I just downloaded the pdf and the works are for 3 different instrumentations, which I added to the work info. Could you fix the tagging for these works, not a single of them is for the instruments in the current tag. Thank you--Kalliwoda 15:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm really, really sorry. I thought I'd hit "quote", but it must have been "edit" instead. I didn't know I could edit anyone else's posts :-( — P.davydov 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for all of your hard work!
I have noticed that there are separate composer pages for Tranquille Berbiguier 1782-1838 (alternate name given as Antoine Benoît Tranquille Berbiguier) and Benoit Tranquille Berbiguier 1782-1835 (alternate name also given as Antoine Benoit Tranquille Berbiguier). Is this the same person? Aldona 12:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
KGill,
Impressive work, finding Muttusvāmi Dīkṣita's official and alternative names. Kudos.
Asian music is something that is largely neglected on this site, which at present contains mainly European and North American music.
Is it ok to post Indian Classical scores here? I've so far uploaded two carnatic songs as they are in standard western notation. Do let me know if this kind of music is welcome here. Cheers, Ananth 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello KGill. You have misread the title for my piece by Joseph Kelway. I did not post SIX Sonatas by Kelway. I posted the SIXTH sonata by Kelway. Yes, it is from the book of six sonatas by I only put up ONE of them. Please change the title back...
Actually it doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless you are then going to go back to almost everything I've ever posted and change all of them. For example go to the Maurice Greene page of which I've posted almost everything. The song Orpheus With His Lute is from a full book, but you don't list is AS the book. The same with his voluntary I posted which is also one of (I think) 12 from the book it came from. The same with the 3 lessons of Greene I typeset. They come from a manuscript of John Barker which contained 11 of his lessons/suites. Yet it seems ridiculous to list it as 11 Lessons and then only find 3. The same with the lesson I posted by JC Smith. Its also from a full book, but no one thought it logical to list the full book. Also the voluntary I posted by John Travers which again is a single piece from a full book. Also the lesson by Anthony Young, also Thomas Roseingrave, William Goodwin etc. etc. Chances are there's others I'm not even remembering off the top of my head. As one who USES imslp as much as I post, it would be a big letdown to see Six Sonatas listed but find only one.
I mean I guess if this somehow makes sense to you now feel free to leave it. But there's a whole lot of listings then which should also be relisted to reflect this decision :-) Grantco
OK, I can live with it :-) But like I said above, someone has missed an awful lot of the OTHER similar cases I've posted in the past then. The only thing I can guess is that this was the FIRST entry for Kelway posted as opposed to for example the Travers Voluntary which was added to a page which already had his canzonets on it. If you're concerned about this "standard practice" avoiding potential "chaos" I'd suggest someone go back into almost everything I've posted from similar publications.
Well no actually. Here's a list of everything else I've posted in the last few years which probably should ALSO be listed as the Kelway sonata if that's the preferred way to do it. There's no difference between a book containing six sonatas or six lessons, or twelve voluntaries. If they came out as a single book by a single composer then they fit the same criteria as what you are saying about the Kelway book/collection. My point in all of this isn't so much that I disagree with what you are saying but that until now no one else has bothered to list all the other things I've posted in this way. If by chance you or someone else is really interested in keeping the precedent you've established then ALL of these other things I have posted should be re-listed as well:
John Snow (variations from a book of variations) , John Alcock sr. (voluntary from a book of voluntaries), Robert King (songs from a book of songs), and all these from similar collections: Barnabus Gunn (lesson and song), Jeremiah Clarke (lesson), John Travers (voluntary), William Richardson (lesson), Maurice Greene (voluntary and Orpheus song), Thomas Roseingrave (fuga), William Goodwin (voluntary), JC Smith (sonata), Starling Goodwin (voluntary), Philip Hart (lesson), Anthony Young (lesson). All of these are from the exact same kind of books and the exact same kind of "collection" just like the six sonatas of Kelway.
Dear Kenny, I will agree to be an administrator. Thanks, Steltz
Hi KGill, I responded to your post on my talk page but thought I would respond here as well. I too would consent to the promotion and am honored to be asked. Thank you! Massenetique talk email 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill, this seems to be the place to respond to admin promotions and judging from the above it certainly is an honor one wouldn't refuse. While I'm not too clear on what the elevation entails I'm honored to have been considered and will accept. Thanks!--Cypressdome 02:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear KGill, I feel very honoured!! Thanks a lot!! Since I am a user of this ingenious site I've learned a lot. One thing is that CR is a complex matter. I have great respect for you Copyright Reviewers!
The problem is: since I was a child I have a fatal passion for ancient books and old sheets. Meanwhile I've lost overview – there is a myriad of things still missing here to be uploaded and still slumber in my cellar, the church or elsewhere. I am so glad to have the time to scan them poco a poco every night. I think that's my job here. The balance of scanning for one and a half years now is sobering: The progress is far to slow! It will take many years! So please don't be cross with me! Greetings from --Ralph Theo Misch 00:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Obscure? - Really! ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please check the renaming of the Category:Tallard, Camille de. Also, thanks for coming up with more info on this composer!.
--Homerdundas 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill. We've traditionally had a lot of inconsistency with the way in which some Russian names are transliterated, because of the different systems used in the different sources. For example, "Николай" is rendered as "Nikolaï" by the Library of Congress, but often appears as "Nikolai" without the diacritics, or "Nikolay" using Grove's spelling. A quick search shows that "Nikolai" and "Nikolay" are used almost equally at the moment. This applies to Anatoliï/Anatoli/Anatoly and Sergeï/Sergei/Sergey, etc. as well as some surnames ending in "skii" (sky).
There are drawbacks in using the "ï" symbol from the Library of Congress's catalog, as the double dot isn't always clear on the screen, and it affects searching/sorting. We could get around this by:
This would let us keep "Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov", for example (where in Russian the last letters of Nikolai and Rimsky are actually the same). I'm not necessarily suggesting we start changing any existing Russian names that don't fit this rule, but it might help to avoid inconsistency if we use it for new composers. What do you think? — P.davydov 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kenny, perhaps an simple example. But even in such a case I would be completely overcharged as a CR reviewer: Set II. - CR by Frank Bridge, but "Printed and published by Galliard Limited, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England". :{ --Ralph Theo Misch 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
HI KGill, I have to inform you that the pièce cited below is not from Victor-Gustave Lefevre, but from Victor LefeBvre, a composer from Douai (northern France)
I'm actually searching about VGLefevre, that's not his work, sure... On the first page in nota: "notice necrologique de l'auteur", that's what we need to prove wich Lefevre or efebvre refered this pièce
thank to move again this part from page VGLefevre on ISMLP
EMPROVINOIS
Hi KGill. What do you think of the first draft for a recording policy on IMSLP? Any input would be appreciated ;) Lndlewis10 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We should certainly put it as a subordinate of the performers portal. I suppose it would be fair to discuss point number three as the practicality is questionable. As a rule of thumb, however, I don't think it's a bad idea. Lndlewis10 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you PML :-) Lndlewis10 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I realize I let the category empty too long… however, hopefully I've added it properly. If you get a chance, can you let me know if you see any issues? User:Srl 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi KGill--
I take it you are a musician, which I am not. Looking at the listings for Villa-Lobos, for the piano trios (W042, W105, W142), the instruments are listed as "Violin, Cello, Piano", rather than "Piano, Violin, Cello" which is the format I would always use unless the title specifies "Trio for ... [etc]"
The Notes column lists the piano first for W042, but as violin, cello, piano for W105 and W142.
So, is "Piano Trio" simply a name of convention but the listing sequence depends on either the relative importance of the instrument, or the relative fame of the performer; or is the sequence entirely random? I'm familiar with the information given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_trio, but this doesn't seem to address my question.
I have a Marco Polo CD of Villa-Lobos's trios #1 and #3, listing Antonio Spiller, violin; Monique Duphil, piano; and Jay Humeston, cello, without providing a formal name of the performers' group. (Trying to research these trios looking for dates and Appleby numbers is how I came to the Villa-Lobos page at IMSLP, and thus to your talk page.)
Somewhat similarly I'm trying to remember if I've ever noticed a "Violin Sonata" listing the piano first, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
I guess this is a dumb question, but it's something I've been puzzled about. Milkunderwood 08:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
For a trio, the names of the performers are almost always listed. For woodwinds, the order is usally descending pitch: flute, oboe, clarinet, horn and bassoon (or sometimes flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and horn, to put the brass instrument after the woodwinds).
A violin, cello and piano trio is usually listed in that order, even though the group is often called a "piano trio" to distinguish it from a string trio (violin, viola and cello). However, the pianist's name sometimes comes first. This began when Arthur Rubinstein announced that he would never again take second billing. He said: "From now on, it will be Rubinstein, Heifetz and Piatigorsky. If God comes down to play violin, it will be Rubinstein, God and Piatigorsky." Generoso 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
All I can say with regards to the ordering of performer's names (apart from what Generoso has already said) is that it can vary from group to group and performance to performance; there really isn't a 'standard' ordering that I'm aware of, except that I don't think I've ever seen the cellist put first. As regards the Villa-Lobos list, I can explain the discrepancy: I was typing up the details from Appleby without thinking at all about the order the performers might go in, and that happens to be the order in which they appear there. 'Violin, Cello, Piano' is the standard ordering used on IMSLP - we put the keyboard instrument last, and put the other two above it in score order (actually, in the case of piano trios it's overwhelmingly common for publishers to put the piano at the bottom of the score as well). 'Piano Trio' is one of those general labels which usually refers to vn/vc/pf, implicitly putting the piano first in order of importance (as back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the piano typically got most of the notes, the strings being comparative decoration on top). Appleby's original listing (which I have not retained here, since it conflicts with our style guide) is 'Trio no. 1', for 'Piano, violin, and cello'; No.2 is in the same order, but No.3 is for 'Violin, cello and piano'. Honestly, I don't see any reason for this difference - perhaps that's how they were listed on the original program. Cheers, KGill talk email 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at Beethoven's entire works for cello and piano. Playing them in sequence is a very different experience from playing any of the works separately; it is like a journey through a composers life. One incredible facet of all the sonatas is that they represent all of Beethoven's three major creative periods. The first two, in F major and G minor, Op.5, were written at a time when the composer was carving out a career for himself as a virtuoso pianist; in those days, of course, most performers themselves composed. Beethoven performed these pieces with the famous French cellist Jean-Pierre Duport in Berlin, at the court of King Friedrich II of Prussia (an amateur cellist himself, for whom Haydn and Mozart had written quartets). This was in 1796, when Beethoven was just 25 years old, not yet suffering from the deafness that would transform his whole existence. The two sonatas are real concert pieces, large in scale, full of exciting effects that would have left the Berliners gasping. They are really sonatas for piano with cello, not the other way round; although there are unexpected flights to high registers for the cello (as there are in all three sets of variations for cello and piano that Beethoven wrote between 1796 and 1801), there is no question as to which instrument gets the lion's share of virtuosity here. Beethoven was not going to let himself be overshadowed by a mere cellist! The third sonata, the A major, Op 69, inhabits a different world altogether. Beethoven worked on this sonata between 1806 and 1808; by then, his deafness was acute, if not quite complete. The A major Sonata is a thoroughly classical work, its proportions are carefully measured, the themes answering each other in perfect symmetry. It is also the first equal sonata for cello and piano. Previous cello sonatas had either been cello solos with continuo accompaniment or, like Beethoven's first two, piano sonatas with cello obbligato. Here, every theme is perfectly conceived for both instruments; Beethoven had invented a new genre.Generoso 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
