User talk:KGill/archive13

Again Rheinberger's Op.32

That's the book I had mentioned. I can't figure it out. Hm - Mbs may be 'Musiksammlung der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek'. Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. I can't find any evidence of there being a narrator from that listing, so I've gone ahead and changed the tag. The only thing is that it lists it for 'Kinder', but later in the listing mentions a 'Chor der Frauen' and 'Schlusschor' - do you think it would be better to just change it to a generic chorus tag? Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The list of people in the English version is "Narrator, Jairus, The Wife of Jairus, The Daughter of Jairus, Chorus". That probably mistaken list inserted by the translator is what I was going by. Sorry! Eric 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the recent tag children's (Kinder-) chorus is correct. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi KGill. I saw that you edited my composer page (John Manuel Pacheco). Thanks for fixing it. I had a question regarding the page. When I'm not logged in I cannot find the page in the composers list. When I go to my bookmark of the page it appears but without any of the works that I have uploaded. Why is this and how do I fix it? Also, I noticed that at the top of the page it says that since the work is not in public domain it is a candidate for deletion. However it also says that having a creative commons license would be allowed in lieu of being in public domain. Since I have this type of license I am wondering why the page states that it may be deleted. I want to upload more scores but would rather wait until this matter is resolved. Please help. Jmpunit 06:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To address your various questions:

1. The reason your composer page doesn't yet appear in the list is because that page's listing is cached, and the cache for each page is updated every three days or so. This means that the maximum time before it will be normally visible (like the other pages already there) is three days. This also explains why you can't yet see the work pages when not logged in. (The site behaves differently for logged-in users.)

2. That is an automatically generated message which cannot be removed (well, by normal means anyway) and appears for all living composers. Don't worry, your works will not be deleted unless you request them to be - they've already been through the copyright review process and have been cleared as permission granted (as you can see on the individual files, which are now marked !N/!N/!N).

Hope this helps to clear things up. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Editions by Otto Gauß (1877-1970)

Hi KGill, I don't know who of you both will be the first 'in service': I wrote Carolus about that matter. May you have a look? Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems as though Gauss made original contributions - it explicitly says in the introduction that he added fingerings, dynamics, and phrasing marks where he thought it necessary. If this extends to the new works in the collection (does it?), then I don't think they would be able to be uploaded. Is there a way to find out who edited each individual piece (it wouldn't be him in every case, I presume)? If so, then I would say that the works actually edited by him should be excluded, while works known to be edited by someone who died over 50 years ago would be fine. KGill _{talk email} 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Well, I asked two people and received two answers. So I choose the one that tastes best to me ;-)
But seriously, I do not know yet what I'll do. There is no way to find out the individual editor. I think in the case of those pieces of high romance, the editorial additions are restricted on the fingering and the pedalling. But the fingerings are often in the midst of the staves. It would be easier to make an own typeset (using OCR) than removing all those fingerings... --Ralph Theo Misch 23:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: There are not really two different answers. But it's my problem with the logical operation :{ Though I presume it's rather easy... --Ralph Theo Misch 23:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, to be sure. It probably depends on the individual piece. The preface also mentions arrangements and editions by others being included in the collection, Guilmant being one example whose name stuck out. Did Gauß add anything original to Guilmant's edition or arrangement, or did he just include it in the collection? The same question also applies for any pieces that were new when the collection was published: did Gauß add any original material to what the composer wrote, or did he merely tidy it up a bit? If there's a credit for Gauß on the first page of an individual piece, I'd be very careful in checking before posting. If it looks like a case of an earlier arrangement or edition being included in Gauß's volume, chances are stronger that Gauß added nothing important to it. Carolus 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The penny has dropped! Sometimes I'm concerned about my mental state. Sorry --Ralph Theo Misch 23:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Couperin, 6 Sonatas Op.2

Thanks - What happened ? --Squin 13:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Ok I see now...

New feature in MW:G

KGill, I thought I'd notify you of the new MW:G feature below. Feel free to either use it yourself, or pass it on to other librarians.

Due to the extraordinary length of MW:G, I've added an "include" feature to MW:G. For example:

+ [[MediaWiki:Genres/Orchestral]]

will include the text of MediaWiki:Genres/Orchestral in MW:G (with or without [[]]). It has only one limitation: it only works if the genre category tree is split at the root (i.e. you cannot split off anything that has a parent node, but only things with one star * at the beginning). Otherwise anything can be split, including tags. Remember, however, that tags depend on categories defined before itself, therefore any use of categories defined after the tag will be the same as a use of an undefined category (this applies whether or not include pages are used), namely, they will be ignored. Please use the Special:GenreParserInfo page to check for any issues that may come up.

Hopefully this will bring MW:G to a much more manageable size, and ease editing. This will also be good for the server because currently each MW:G edit adds half a MB to the database. --Feldmahler 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. This is pretty powerful - I'll probably implement it right now, actually, seeing as I have some time. Always glad to make things easier on the server ;-) Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 20:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's done now. I have one question though - Special:GenreParserInfo seems to be indicating an error in the parsing of one of the files, but I can't find any reason this should be. The category flagged was defined before the inclusion of the page in question. What should I do? Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 20:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I just noticed something else now. The GenreWalker is now broken - see for instance Special:GenreWalker/Funeral_music. It won't list any of the subtypes, giving an error instead. The CW still works, however. KGill _{talk email} 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Fuchs (1972 version)

I've asked him for a middle name, since the present incarnation does not appear to alphabetize (and looks pretty weird too). Nothing like two composers with the same name. Which Robert Fuchs would you like with that score, sir - the living guy from the Czech Republic or the dead guy from Austria? Bet there are other ones too! Carolus 00:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably - it can't be that uncommon of a name. I was actually following the earlier precedent set by the two Heinrich Alberts (remember that from a couple years ago?), but I agree using the middle name would be a cleaner alternative, though I'm not quite sure that would still have the effect of immediately dissuading people to click on that link instead of the one they want. I guess that isn't too much of an issue, really. KGill _{talk email} 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Ludolf Nielsen's first name was Carl, Ludolf was his middle name. Carl Nielsen was not the name to have after a certain point to have in the 20th century in Denmark thanks to Carl August Nielsen- for positive, not infamous, reasons, though some (Rued Langgaard) did not quite agree, it is true. ;) Eric 01:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ah, ok.

actually, I think I do get it... sorry about that. Eric 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SBB links (permanent URL)

Hallo, I am not sure the link how you corrected it is reallly of any help to users of imslp, quite the contrary, because it leads to a page from which only someone with good german abilities may find its way an actual search page or the work in question. I know this is the current template for SBB, but this is in desparate need of improvement!!! I had tried to use the link like what is done for sibley, using the permanent url - if you click on it, you are linked directly to the work page, rather than a listing of all the digital music by year of issue. Could we please revert these links and maybe correct others in a similar way? --Kalliwoda 21:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to do was modify the template so that it would accept a PPN number as input and link to the exact page the files come from. I don't know why it isn't working yet, but I'll try to fix it; if I can't manage that, then I will indeed revert it. Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And it now works correctly :-) KGill _{talk email} 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(comes in late to the conversation) thanks! Eric 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer (Categorization Project)

Dear KGill, As described in the page of IMSLP categorization project, I am interested in joining as a volunteer in this project. Can you send me informations I need to do to start? Best wishes. Feduol 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the project! The most important page you should read is IMSLP:Tagging - it contains highly detailed instructions on how to tag a work, as well as a huge table containing virtually every different piece of syntax that one needs to construct tags. (It isn't necessary to memorize those tables - far from it - though eventually you'll memorize most of it anyway.) If you have any further questions, whether specific or general, you can simply contact me or ask over at the project members' discussion page. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you KGill, I will read the 'Tagging' page and start to work on some scores. Cheers! Feduol 23:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Composers with the same name

Hi KGill, I posted this question to Carolus but thought I'd ask you as well -- I am in the process of pulling a large number of scores from BNF by what appeared at first to be a single composer/arranger named Henri Cramer. There were already a few works on IMSLP by an Henri Cramer (1818-1877) but it has become clear that while some of the works on BNF are by this composer, another Henri(?) Cramer (always referred to on scores as simply "Cramer") are mixed in among them. It is obvious they cannot be by the same Cramer because they are arrangements of works written many years after his 1877 death. I am only assuming that this second composer's first name is also Henri because it is listed as such on BNF and a similar record appears on VIAF as well (Cramer, Henri - compositeur 18..?-19..?) - How should I go about creating a composer page for this second and later Henri Cramer? My guess is that he is the son of the one born in 1818 since the arrangements are in a similar vain (bouquets de melodies, etc) but I can't be sure ... Thoughts? Ideas for where to look for more information? Massenetique _{talk email} 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place I can think of to obtain detailed information that might help is MusicSack (archive search), but they only have an entry for the Henri Cramer born in 1818. A quick Google Books search seems to indicate that the elder Cramer's arrangements were far more popular than those of the younger, at least to critics - I couldn't find any publications that mentioned works that could only have been by the younger. Anyway, if you can find evidence that they really were father and son, then that would be the cleanest solution (the pages would be titled, respectively, 'Cramer Sr., Henri' and 'Cramer Jr., Henri'), but without strong evidence I'd say it would be better to retitle the categories based on their year of death, or latest floruit date in the case of the younger. This will be messy ('Cramer (d.1877), Henri' and 'Cramer (fl.19xx), Henri'), but there is precedent for it, and unless someone can think of a better way I'm not sure there's any more concise method to differentiate the two. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 14:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. There are other possibilities but less likely- anyway, Musicsack and VIAF at any rate aren't nearly as comprehensive as they could be - I've been able to add to the birth/death/place of birth etc. information in them in particular cases, e.g. Percy Hilder Miles for whom they list practically nothing at all, with just a moderate amount of effort (aided by User Matesic for some of that one). In some cases will be much harder of course.) Google books resources, if you have access to them, and stuff at libraries generally, contain at least a supplementary, sometimes a wider, range of relevant information in some cases. Eric 17:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Carolus suggested Cramer I, Henri and Cramer II, Henri as we have with the two Otto Singers. Over on Carolus' talk page I ran down all the various Cramers who were out there in the late 19th and early 20th century writing arrangements - impossible to tell if they were indeed all distinct individuals (N. Cramer, R. P. Cramer, L. Cramer, R. Cramer, A. Cramer in addition to the two Henri Cramers, the younger of which frequently was published as simply "Cramer", further complicating things)... If you think using I/II is a good option then I'll go with that, but if the dates option seems preferable then maybe we should discuss further ... Either way it may take me awhile to get the pages made and scores uploaded - the BNF documents need to be cropped and edited before being posted here. Cheers! Massenetique _{talk email} 18:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Using I and II would work, I guess, but it would have the same problem as using Jr. and Sr. - we don't know if they are actually family members, and listing them as I and II would imply that they are father and son. Because of that, I would personally say using dates would be preferable (since no relation is implied), unless of course you manage to find some firmer proof. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 19:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

new tags

Didn't realize it was a two-step process! Is there anything else, or if I fill in those two things, will it sort itself out? Steltz 15:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what categories are referred to in a tag definition. For new instrumental combinations that specify a category that doesn't already exist, it would have to be added to the hierarchy; if a new featured instrument was specified, then it would have to be added to the featured instruments section - so actually, it's possible for it to be a three-step process, or as little as a one-step process (for things like vocal and choral categories, which are not so specific in describing the exact makeup of a work). (This also goes for arrangement tagging, BTW.) Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GClef Publishing = Belaieff book

Thanks for reverting these. I have no problem with the reference link on the Belaieff page, which is fine. I was wondering if the book contained a lot of info about the works of the obscure composers represented, but the link really doesn't belong on the composer pages in the manner it was done. Carolus 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome - that's what I figured as well. I guess it would be one thing if it were a link to relevant excerpts from the book, or even if the book were specifically about the composer in question, but just including a generic link to a publication that presumably contains a lot of information on many different people would be about as helpful as adding a link to the Amazon page for Grove's Dictionary for every composer on the site. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll put in a word over at his talk page to explain. Carolus 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I now have links to the composer bios on his site (useful for some of the more obscure figures) on the composer category pages. It would appear to be a pretty useful book, provided anyone could afford it (168 USD - ouch). Carolus 04:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Template: ChopinPaderewskiPWM

Hi KGill,
I defined the template {{ChopinPaderewskiPWM|Volume|Plate|Date}} to have the chance to leave out the date if it's 1949. I canceled your changes. Piupianissimo 20:09, 15 May 2011 (CET)

Category:Boero, Leonardo

Hi KGill, just seen: is he an undead? --Ralph Theo Misch 23:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what was meant was that he was born in 1921 - some people use a two-number date expecting that it will show up as four numbers. Anyway, I've fixed it now. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah - thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Titles for paraphrases

Hi KGill, I noticed that when you moved Louis Cramer's paraphrases you did not put apostrophes around the opera titles (ie. Illustrations sur Lohengrin, Fantaisie brillante sur Cinq-mars), but in the case of N. Cramer's Bouquet de mélodies sur 'Le jour et la nuit' you did ... Is there are reason for this? Are one-word titles different? I want to be consistent as I create work pages for all of these arrangements. Thanks! Massenetique _{talk email} 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the titles for a few pages, I can't see that there's any kind of standardization, except that you're not supposed to use double quotes when possible (I think that's somewhere else in the style guide) - I have seen both quoted and unquoted. I guess the reason I did the single quotes for the one title because it had so many lowercase words in it - but if standardization is what we're after, then I suppose there should always be single quotes around the title of the original work. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 00:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

e.g. Serenade in G major, Op.46 (Cazaneuve, Édouard)

hrm. the score has on it c.1872 and there in the top left, though hard to read in the scan, is the French dépot légal- usually reliable (no source is more than usually reliable and then only if used correctly). so why isn't 1872 a good estimate (parens rather than brackets)? I'm more and more confused... Eric 12:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the 'C.' for 'copyright' or for 'circa'? In either case, it would be good to clarify whether the date is actually an estimate or not - if it isn't an absolutely certain date, then it should be written like 'n.d.(ca.1872)' (or 'n.d.(1872?)', I guess); if it is confirmed to be that year, then it should be written as either 'n.d.(1872)' or 'n.d.[1872]' (the latter being the officially preferred style IIRC, though enough people use the former style that it would be fair to say that either is fine. I simply prefer the bracketed one, which is why I changed it - though I almost never edit a page for that reason alone, since I daresay it's not of primary importance). Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably for ca., as c. seems - I am not at all sure - to be the French equivalent for this, but I do not know. The notation is placed by the library (BNF in these cases). When there's a copyright-stamp one can usually- though as has been pointed out to me, not always - divine (so to speak) that it was printed in that year (I remember in one case where Squin, I think, noted the presence of a Depot-legal tag but argued his case why it was not as relevant as it might seem, and I've seen similar arguments in re some Hofmeister listings, etc., in the latter case in an interesting correspondence with a few librarians from, iirc, both Philadelphia and the LOC regarding a symphony by one of the Veits arguing that it was published at a rather different date than that listed in Hofmeister and elsewhere?... hrm. Must look for correspondence rather than go by memory- very sorry. ... (what I most remember about it was that part of their reasoning was that they used the IMSLP plate table pages as part of the reasoning against. ... Hrm. ... Well, actually, yes, that argues in favor of using your brackets when the case for parens is not better 1, defined and 2, proven (I am very much not being snarky. I -am- thinking about what I just said and thinking it over and through... hrm. Sorry... ) Eric 14:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've now gone ahead and changed the page to read 'n.d.(ca.1872)'. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete Works Editions

Hi—sorry it's been a while. I was thinking that we perhaps could cook up a manual of style for complete works editions (I can't find one at least), or perhaps all "edition pages." Right now we're dealing with a plethora of styles inconsistently applied and some pages are a bit sloppy—it would be nice to have a universal standard. If you think it's a good idea, I'll draft one up.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would probably be a good idea, as we currently have dozens of these pages with only rough similarities between them. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 00:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Perlnerd666/Sandbox-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for being proactive and helpful in the formatting of my page and works.

Sean Salamon 01:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)