User talk:KGill∕archive6

Category Realization

Hi KGill. Any thoughts on where we go from here (if anywhere)? — P.davydov 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since Feldmahler has said that server load shouldn't be a problem, I think that it would be worthwhile to consider perhaps a set of rules for which categories should be realized (since I do agree with him that realizing the category of every single last tag would be of limited usefulness). How about this:

Any category linked to from IMSLP:View Genres should be realized (to better show off the system, and make it appear more consistent on its most important user-oriented page).
We would after that use Special:WantedCategories to find out what unrealized categories have above a certain number of members (10 perhaps?), and realize whichever ones did.

This would be a lot of work, but not insurmountably much - there are already some categories on VG which have been realized, and right now there are 334 listed in Wanted which have 10 or more members. Given the overlap, I guess we could be looking at ca.350-360 pages to create, which is a lot, but nowhere near the full complement (almost 2000). What do you think? KGill _{talk email} 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. How about a text template for the top of each page that can be customised, to help us include links to similar/overlapping categories? — P.davydov 20:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - are you thinking of modifying the template you already created? KGill _{talk email} 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've a few jobs lined up for the near future, but if you want to make a start I'll join in when I can — P.davydov 22:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I'll begin tomorrow with the categories on VG. Hopefully my descriptions will be up to your unrelentingly high standards ;-) KGill _{talk email} 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

<blush> I'm sure they will :-) — P.davydov

<offtopic>Thanks to you both for the Bach Organ works work :)</offtopic>-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Valse mélancolique in F-sharp minor, Op.A1 No.7 (Chopin, Frédéric)

I'm just slightly concernred that although the uploader claims this is his own new typescript, it looks more like a scan from a printed collection. Also, Wikipedia indicates the piece was only published for the first time in 1932, which might mean it's still protected in the USA at least. But I'm a little out of practice with the copyright reviewing, so I might be worrying unnecessarily! — P.davydov 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it really was by Chopin, then since more than 70 years elapsed since his death and the work's first publication, it was already PD when it was published. The work itself is therefore not under any protection. The only thing that worries me slightly is that you said it's spurious (is that correct?), but if it was written in 1838 then I don't think we have reason to worry in any case. Also, some people do print out their typesets and scan them to PDF (not being aware of the existence of PDF printers - I recall doing that myself when I first uploaded my own compositions here), and as I've seen some pretty amazing-looking typesets (e.g. Jawher Matmati) I'm loath to assume that it's from a printed edition, especially as Janno put it under a CC license. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Landon, Ronald (Sir)

Hi Kenneth. Just wondering about this one, as none of the other similarly ennobled composers on IMSLP have "Sir" in their titles — P.davydov 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but the LC header does give '|aRonald, Landon,|cSir'. Do we have a policy to leave out the section after |c? KGill _{talk email} 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is the established practice (e.g. Category:Elgar, Edward). Sorry, I thought you knew — P.davydov 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't - better late then never, I suppose. I don't think it caused any major damage, though, as I can only find two other composers like this in a search (Cowen and Macfarren). Thanks for the notice. KGill _{talk email} 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Senfl

Thanks! — P.davydov 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

4 Admins on at once!-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

whoops, thanks!! Eric 22:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, only happened once or twice. Welcome to the team! KGill _{talk email} 22:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much!! Eric 22:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Splitting job

Thanks for putting in the info I left out ;), BKhon 01:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Figured I might as well save you the trouble ;-) KGill _{talk email} 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Could be 2, though would be strange...

There is this genealogy book from awhile back here that lists a William Gardiner Hammond of almost the same birthdate who it describes as a musician (student of Spanuth in Berlin) Eric 02:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only William Gardiner Hammond I can find there is a lawyer listed as being born on 21 January 1802 (IIRC corresponding to the other authority record I found) - perhaps I'm missing something? KGill _{talk email} 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On rereading, the William Gardiner who studied with Spanuth and was born almost to the same day as William G. Hammond (... odd!) was a William Gardiner Smith - or not, depending on who his mother married, if Courtland E. Smith was his mother? ("Courtland E. Smith has dau. ... ... ... [son] William Gardiner b. Aug. 9 1874, musician who" etc.) up on the 2nd column of the page... quite confusing to me and maybe a quite irrelevant source. Sorry! Eric 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

vocalises

confusingly, Marchesi (the next set I was looking at) calls his songs vocalises when they do have texts - but the comment under the Concone score probably was referring to the notes about the score, not the score - thanks :) Well, consistency is not to be sought outside of cooking, and not even then. Cheers and thanks! Eric 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I guess ;-) If there's really that little consistency among vocalises as to the inclusion of text, then I guess one would have to make a point of opening a file for each individual work... KGill _{talk email} 00:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope not that little, no. Wouldn't know, actually. Was surprised to see any mention of text on the work pages at all, though. Eric 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes Category

Thanks...good idea!-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 22:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: O Jesu Christ, mein's Lebens Licht, BWV 118 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)

Yes, of course! - Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: May be, the template for {{FE}} doesn't work? --Ralph Theo Misch 00:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean. The template displays fine for me - are you saying that it isn't suitable for the purpose in this case? KGill _{talk email} 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No - I only see the letters "First edition". In the case of templates I normally see a 'blue link' - here I do not. But perhaps it's not so important... --Ralph Theo Misch 00:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the template. This particular one doesn't link to anything, it just displays the text (and puts the page into Category:Pages with First Editions). KGill _{talk email} 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I see. Regards --Ralph Theo Misch 00:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Zöllner

Most sources do give the 4th for date of death, but MusicSack's most recent source (which Wikipedia-en agrees with) gives the 8th, so I went with that- what's the most authoritative source available though? Thanks :) Eric 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

LC cites Baker 7th ed. (1984), which is more recent than Grove 1980 (source no.1 on MusicSack). I guess the question is whether we always go with Grove when it's available, or give preference to other good-but-not-quite-as-good sources if they're more recent? KGill _{talk email} 15:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Grove's 2001 has the 4th-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clementi

I noticed you moved the Clementi Symphony. Clementi published 2 symphonies under Op.18. I'm about 90% sure this is the first symphony. Do you happen to know? BKhon 00:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since this is the case, it should be moved to "2 Symphonies, Op.18", BKhon 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I didn't actually look at the list (lazy!), I just went with the information on the page. I'll move it again. KGill _{talk email} 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Plante

Seem to have gotten in each others' way a little :)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit...I usually tend to make one large edit as opposed to several smaller edits, so that happens to me fairly often :-) KGill _{talk email} 15:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Opus Numbers

Ironic that we started working on it at the same time, even though it's been untouched for about a month. For some reason I can't link the composer back to their category page. BKhon 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to use a colon before the category link (e.g. [[:Category:Villa-Lobos, Heitor]]) - is that what you mean? And sorry about that - I had no idea you were editing it at the same time! I'm actually about to post a comment on its talk page about possible feasibility issues... KGill _{talk email} 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Category Walker

Hey, nice idea. Thanks, BKhon 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

String Quintet No.8, Op.24 (Onslow, Georges)

Like Schissel I also took an interest in the origin of the recording. Embedded within the audio file is the performer's name - Le Salon Romantique. They have a commercial recording of this work. On the ensemble's website they have posted audio for both Quintets Nos. 7 and 8 - albeit hidden beneath Flash.--Cypressdome 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I should have thought of looking in the audio file information. I'll delete the files and notify the uploader. KGill _{talk email} 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Aulin quartet

an unexpected treat, I've heard the Tale Quartet performance of that F major quartet over BBC Radio 3 - good stuff - but wasn't expecting a chance to see the score too. I seem to have this thing for Scandinavian quartets anycase (Aulin's brother's friend Stenhammar's are among my very favorites). Many thanks for these uploads and your help as well! Eric 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Template

I see the welcome template is now making a comeback ;) BKhon 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Demets E.2002 D.

Hi KGill, I see that you've put in music publisher the plate E.2002 D. from Demets, a Hennessy 1921 piece "Petit trio celtique". I've the same plate number E.2002 D. with a Charles-Augustin Collin's score : "Ricordando" dated 1906 by BNF. So, I don't know what's the matter with my score (may be you'll give me an answer) Squin 10:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Squin. That sounds rather odd, since a 1906 issue should have a plate number of about several hundred to 1000. Have you independently verified BNF's date? (It's not impossible that they used the same plate number more than once, but the date sounds suspicious to me.) Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but I see that there is a registration stamp on the score by the prefecture : "Dépôt légal 1906" . So, it's a mystery ... Squin 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I see now that this score appears in the desmet's 1910 catalog ...No matter, I let down, we have other fish to fry ("other cats to whip" in french) Squin 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Duration

I just notice that you changed the text for average duration (among other things). The only edits I agree with, but I had said the general range can be given for longer works for a reason. There are certain shorter works which do have expecific times. In fact, many of Bartok's works have something like "32 seconds" written physically in the score (for example in the mikrokosmos). There needs to be a clause dependent (bad pun!) on that. BKhon 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't there be longer works that have specified durations? I see no reason to restrict the use of a range to only longer works - maybe you meant works longer than two minutes, but in that case I think the text as it was was rather misleading. KGill _{talk email} 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

*ahem* 4'33" *ahem*-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unique piece, and my point exactly when I mentioned that we need to allow room for pieces which don't allow a range. I may have been unclear. BKhon 02:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To be (somewhat but not really) picky, not unique in most senses; I believe it's the first of several such time pieces in Cage's output, and of course was later imitated. Eric 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BSB stuffage ;)

I remember your mentioning two PDF-related programs for cleaning files - assuming they work on a modern Mac/Unix ensemble (I still have to reinstall XCode and Fink on mine before I can install them but will soon), I should be able to try them soon. Have found a few things on BSB worth uploading soon then- Widor piano conc. 1 full score, parts of an interesting-looking early-19th century piano concerto, Schillings violin concerto (1?) piano score, etc. (But then searches suggest BSB has lots of good things, though they limit use of their PDF downloader to a limited number of uses per ISP per day- understandable I suppose.) The question I suppose that I forgot to ask (and that as usual gets lost in all that is)- were the programs you suggested UNIX programs (hopefully in my case already available in the project called 'Fink' so I don't have to compile them myself...) or more PC-specific? :) Thanks cheers and best! Eric 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, never mind, I figured it out, and it's so obvious on a Mac... Eric 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

About quasi-copyright

Hi Kgill I've a big big problem : I recievied yersterday this note from Carolus, "Dear Squin, Please delete the BNF page making a quasi-copyright claim on the scans of public domain works before uploading. I just noticed the Chauvet piece has this. Many Thanks, Carolus 16:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) "

This is the first time after about 700 uploads and I want to told you about that. I try to do my best here and I'm always to learn how to do correctly but the quasi-copyright seems to me a curious notion. Scores are or are not on copyright I don't understand this remark. If all the BNF scores are on copyright ( fortunately I don't think so, the rules are clear ...),have we to supress mentions or pages where it is noted ? It's clear I'm also ok with Carolus : uploads are better without the mention "source: gallica.fr" at the bottom of somes pages. The reason why I don't remove this sort of page ? : there is justly informations about the publisher, the year and so the copyright on it. Following this logic, Have I to blank the places on scores pages where there is a stamp BNF ? If so, I'll had no time for that and the feeling to act like a little counterfeiter. So I'll don't want to do this work anymore. This project is fabulous, I'll be very disappointed but I'll prefer to leave. The scanner field in the main page also mention clearly the source so what's the problem ? I let you tell me what to do because a very big part of my uploads are concerned but I'm ok to delete if necessary. A last thing : I'm kind of quiet and friendly and don't want to have controversy with Carolus whose musical skill are certainly above the mine. Squin 08:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason Carolus recommends that the copyright page be deleted is that not only could it confuse users about the legality of the upload, but BNF may actually claim copyright on the copyright page itself (seems crazy, but one never knows...). I never noticed it in any of your other uploads that I've looked at, and in fact assumed that you were already removing them - it would be simple to do with a program like PDFSAM. However, I don't think it would be necessary to remove the library stamps (we conserve them with files from other sites), as they are not trademarks. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 22:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Merton Music

Are you considering doing a 2nd round of Merton Music uploads at some point in the future after taking a well-deserved pause for breath (that was yeoman's work and no doubt of it) and if so should happy parties take a look through their catalog to make requests for favorite scores/parts for consideration at some point during aforementioned 2nd round :) Just asking - apologies ;) Sorry about all the silly comments. And thank you very much for your continuing help! Eric 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I will start uploading from Merton again as soon as Carolus puts more of their files on the FTP (the reason I stopped was that everything on there was uploaded to the site - I otherwise don't have access to them). Once he gets around to that, I'll be happy to take requests :-) KGill _{talk email} 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded the string quintets (which I see you've already discovered) and will be adding the remainder of the Merton items soon. Carolus 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! KGill _{talk email} 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the catalog :) They have Felix Draeseke's string quintet op.77? That really is neat (the recording that came out a few years back may soon go out of print having been almost a private production of the late Alan Krueck's, and that would be a real pity - I really like the piece anyway.) Any Antonín Reicha string quartets too from their list (if they're in the FTP queue) would be welcome - Ron Drummond has been trying to get them reprinted and performed for some time now. (I know there are Czerny string quartets, or that at least one or two survive and have been performed-- I wonder if Merton will publish those :) anyways. oh, and if I'm being wishlisty, the score to String Quartet No.4, Op.25 (Stenhammar, Wilhelm). May as well ask for my favorite piece, since all I think is there are parts- though parts are important as anything in getting the piece played, don't I know. Just being impish. Thanks again !!

(That's odd. Ries quintet in C minor op.28? Op.28 belongs to a clarinet trio. Well, not the first nor the last time something like that has happened, by any stretch of the imagination) Eric 02:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for those and upload them today. (Also, for the Stenhammar, there are both parts and a score on that page...? All of the string quartets are done anyway.) KGill _{talk email} 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there are? Look before leap, right, right :) Thanks!!! Eric 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arrangers

Just to let you know about this. It will probably mean a few more composer pages :-) — P.davydov 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - it's a good idea. Are you thinking of integrating it with the 'Versions of Works by Others' pages? KGill _{talk email} 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The template itself can place works into categories, but not into ordinary pages like "Versions of Works by Others". The template was intended to avoid a lot of manual labour in creating the "Versions of..." pages, but those that already exist could be linked to from the new "Arrangements by..." category pages — P.davydov 06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Leó Weiner

probably the right move- all too confusing though- I went to wikipedia:Leó Weiner and it redirected me the other way. :) Not sure who made that choice or why. (My own choices of names on that site have hardly been consistent then again... Kozeluch for one article but Kalivoda for another...) Anyhow, thanks! Eric 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they were just trying to anglicize it - I can't see any other reason for the change. 'Leó' is the form of his name given by LC and other references (as far as I know)... KGill _{talk email} 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New categories

Hi KGill. I understand your concerns, and I was going to contact you about this. Feldmahler asked that we avoid using sub-categories (although I must admit to testing this out, and found that it completely disrupted the layout of the composer pages). One page per person makes more sense than having several different ones for the same individual; if you think that Rachmaninoff, for example, could be a composer, editor, arranger, librettist, translator and performer, then things could very quickly get out of hand if he had a different page for each of those roles!

I suspect that the present composer categories will adapt to include all of these things, but for the moment we find ourselves with: (a) categories without compositions that just have the new "Works edited by" and "Arrangements by" links, and (b) redlinks to unrealized categories for editors and arrangers. The "(b)"s should quickly reduce, as their numbers are limited, and I hope we can continue to distinguish between the "(a)"s and categories that are truly empty (i.e. without any links to editorial works and arrangements). We really do need a way to link arrangers and editors to their work on compositions by others, and this is a much more streamlined method than the "Versions of Works by Others" pages, which never really caught on because of the effort involved. By comparison the new "LinkArr" and "LinkEd" templates are very easy to use, and they have the advantage of ensuring that names of composers, arrangers and editors will always given consistently throughout the site, which they aren't always at the moment.

Don't worry about realizing the new redlinked categories, BTW (unless you want to), as there are plenty of librarians to share the workload, and I'll be doing my fair share now that my internet connection has finally been mended! — P.davydov 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I also hope to still keep track of which categories need deletion, but fear it will be a lot harder (as there were something like a dozen empty categories added just today, and I expect many more). There's no realistic way I can think of to distinguish the two, so I will just have to go through them all every day. Not an enormous problem, although I still wish there could be a more elegant solution in terms of the contents of each category. I cannot deny, though, that this is far superior to anything we have ever had in the central organization of editors and arrangers. Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 00:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I replied at my talkpage (from about 2 weeks ago). Mikemoral 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KGill/archive6

Contents