User talk:P.davydov∕archive5

Versions of Works by Others pages - links

Hi, Kerr Jamieson has suggested to me that the work page links on these lists point directly to the arrangement, rather than just to the top of the page. Does that sound like a feasible/reasonable change? Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the rationale, but often there isn't yet a sectionn for A&Ts on a main work page. Trying to keep track of whenever these sections are created and then updating the links, could be tricky, so it might just be simpler to link to the top, where the table of contents should list (and link) to all the arrangements present — P.davydov 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I shouldn't make any more of these lists...I don't have access to Grove, so I'm just adding whatever I find on the site. KGill _{talk email} 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Les Préludes ; piano arr.

The piano arr. is actually published. Liszt's arrangement is a revision of Karl Klauser's transcription. Leslie Howard's recording corresponds to it. --Funper 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the publisher and dates for this arrangement? I was under the impression that Leslie Howard recorded this straight from a manuscript score, although precise information is difficult to come by — P.davydov

The sleeve notes on the CD does not mention anything about it being recorded from a MS. The piano arrangement of Les Préludes was actually first published by Breitkopf und Härtel in Leipzig circa 1866, according to the earliest entry among these on WorldCat, on which there is a comment.. as follows: "avec des additions de F. Liszt" or something similar ("with additions by Franz Liszt"). By the way, from the quote of Liszt's letter (from the Letters of Liszt, available through Project Gutenberg) in the misc section of our entry of the piano arrangement, one can deduce that the transcription was revised by Liszt exactly in 1863, not only circa 1863. The publication date on the present score on our page is wrong, it was actually published in "188-?" in the first volume of a collection of transcriptions of the symphonic poems made by Liszt's students with some revisions made by Liszt himself (exclusively of Les Préludes and Orpheus). --Funper 01:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've written that the piano arrangement of Orpheus isn't published. It was actually first published by Breitkopf und Härtel in "188-?" in the aforementioned volume. It is a revision by Liszt of an arrangement by Fredrich Spiro. --Funper 01:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for shedding some light on S.511a to S.511e, which are recent additions to the Searle listing with very little information, and it's now clear that these refer to his students' piano arrangements of five of the symphonic poems. These arrangements (with Liszt's modifications) were all published individually by Breitkopf during the 1870s and early 1880s, before being collected together in the edition you found on Worldcat, and I've updated the entries accordingly — P.davydov 08:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Librarian Tools" in the sidebar

Don't know if you saw, but this should make things easier. :)

That's very useful, thanks!

Also, you might want to archive some of your talk page...getting a little long...Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 17:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because people keep leaving messages on it :-) — P.davydov 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for sortable Liszt Organ works! :)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and when you're done with Liszt: the untagged count has crept up past 6000 again...-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, this will help lots!!! (Steltz)

Raabe numbers

For some reason you removed the R. number from Liszt's sonata, See line 94. We have not added R numbers to Liszt's works, but is there a harm in doing so? --Funper 01:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Raabe numbers are very out of date, and are hardly used any more as a Liszt reference source. This is well illustrated by the fact that the R. number appeared on just one of several hundred Liszt pages (and if I'm not mistaken, this was added by you quite recently). Now that we're getting up-to-date S. and LW. numbers for every work, the R. numbers are something of an anachronism — P.davydov 05:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)l

Publishers

Nice new pages! May I kindly remind you to cite your sources in Chicago format at the bottom (viz. Breitkopf, Artaria, Walsh, etc.)? Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to link the publishers of all Liszt's works, but some of them are a little obscure, with only passing references (if any at all) :-( — P.davydov 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that tells us something, doesn't it ;). I see the problem. Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second...

I thought I had just realized that I have been botching the entire LOC thing - when they have parenthesized options in their headers, I thought for some reason I had to go with the fully-spelled-out one, until I saw today that we have it as W. C. Handy and realized its implications. So I just started to look for composers with two first names (that's almost always where it occurs) to correct it, and came across Category:Alvarez, Fermin María, which you created exactly one year ago today. I looked and found that it's given as '|aAlvarez, F. M.|q(Fermín María)'. So without realizing that you had created that page, I moved it to F. M. However, I'm now wondering whether I really did botch this job, since you have confirmed two different categories using different parts of the header. Which part should be used? Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Library of Congress and Grove's Dictionary are our two main sources for composer names (VIAF and Wikipedia being fall-backs if those two draw a blank). If Grove gives full first names where the LC have initials only, then I think it's safest to go with the fuller name, to avoid any ambiguity if another composer with the same initials (e.g. "Fellipe Manuel Alvarez") turns up later. As you know, the LC include birth and death dates with their composer names, so they don't have to worry about this happening so often. Incidentally, putting parenthesees in composer names is a bad idea because of the way IMSLP parses work page titles to identify the composer. So don't panic, you haven't botched anything (except maybe for F. M. Alvarez :-) ) — P.davydov 07:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I'm pretty relieved right now :-) Except that, as always, I unfortunately do not have access to Grove and (largely because of the price) am not planning to get it anytime soon. (Also, I thought VIAF pulled directly from LC along with the other national libraries? The headers are exactly the same; I at least can't tell the difference. Because of this, I like to just look at VIAF and MusicSack before resorting to a web search (this is for information in general at least), since that seems to get the maximum amount of information from pooling various national libraries and dictionaries.) Anyway, I'll move F.M. back to where he belongs along with a couple others. Thanks again, KGill _{talk email} 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What scores are to be moved to parent works?

Hi davydov, How come Valse de l'opéra Faust is not moved to the parent work while Tscherkessenmarsch aus Glinkas Oper Rußlan und Ludmilla is? --Funper 23:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was guided here by the Library of Congress catalog, which classifies the Valse as an independent work by Liszt, whereas the the arrangement from Ruslan is just "Glinka, arr. Liszt". The difference is that the Glinka piece represents a single section from the opera that's been given a concert transcription for piano, but the Valse includes material from other sections of the opera as well, so it doesn't follow the same structure/sequence as the parent work. Following the same logic, most of the pieces in this section of the Searle catalogue (S.383a to S.460) will continue to merit their own pages, with only a small number of exceptions, like the Glinka march. (The forthcoming "Versions of Works by Others (Liszt, Franz)" page, which I'm working on at the same time, should help our users find the Liszt arrangements, whichever section they're in) — P.davydov 07:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a search on both entries above in order to find out what differentiates one from another, but I found some ambiguities: Some entries on Gounod's waltz gives the related names section as "Gounod, arr. Liszt" thus being identical to that of Glinka's Tscherkessenmarsch. Could you tell whether Marche militaire is classified as an independent work or an arrangement? The "Related Names" section gives it as "Liszt, arr." so my money is on it being a independent work?

Sorry for the late reply. I had very limited internet access in the recent month of my holiday. --Funper 10:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The LC record shows this as a work by Schubert that's been arranged by Liszt, and that's consistent with our having the Liszt arrangement on Schubert's work page. However, on reflection I think you're right that Gounod Valse should be treated as an arrangement from the opera (with a note that it includes the duet as well as the waltz), so I'll change that... — P.davydov 10:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. By the way, I thought it may be a good idea to merge the two Searle work lists, so that the sorting function for LW. numbers can be fruitfully and fully used. --Funper 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think the page would be too long, then by all means give it a try — P.davydov 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Classicscores.narod.ru

Have you seen that this [1] catch imslp scores with no mention of the editor : I think to our contibutor SteveBNA that made french harpsichord fine own editions --Squin 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very big site! Can you say which editions you think have been copied? — P.davydov 10:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot I think... I had discover that looking from where came lasts Cypressdome's contributions I can't make you a list now but this evening (for me) i'll try to do --Squin 11:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that would help us to investigate further — P.davydov 11:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But this is already sure that a great part (may be all) of Steve Wiberg (SteveBNA for us)edition is on both site (Boismortier, Balbastre, Chambonnieres, Dandrieu, ....). Sure that there are a lot of non public-domain scores (for example I've seen some Alois Haba).. , I'll come back in few hours. --Squin 11:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this was already discussed in this forum thread, where Carolus also gives his verdict. KGill _{talk email} 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If any scores contributed to IMSLP under the CC licence have been copied by that site, then they would be guilty of copyright infringement, which is what Squin seems to be suggeesting (although we need some specific examples first) — P.davydov 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So, For example, about SteveBNA CC on the russian site : see : 3291 Balbastre, Claude. Balbastre PiecesDeClavecin Complete (the same as under with the 2 firsts pages removed) / 3293 Balbastre, Claude. Balbastre-PiecesDeClavecin-Complete / 26 Jacquet de la Guerre, Elisabeth. Jaquet de La Guerre PiecesDeClavecin 1687 -Complete / and following splited parts 27 Jacquet de la Guerre, Elisabeth. LaGuerre-I-2-Allemande / 28 Jacquet de la Guerre, Elisabeth. LaGuerre-I-3-Courante / .................an so on................. 51 Jacquet de la Guerre, Elisabeth. LaGuerre-IV-8-Menuet / and Soler, where imslp is even mentionned in files names : 6438 Soler, Antonio. IMSLP 18838-PMLP 12088-Soler-Sonatas R 101-R 110 / 6439 Soler, Antonio. IMSLP 18840-PMLP 44539-Soler-Marvin / 6440 Soler, Antonio. IMSLP 18845-PMLP 44539-Soler-Marvin / --Squin 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, which I'll bring to the attention of Feldmahler — P.davydov 19:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

May you take me informed for interest, Thanks --Squin 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess I'm not entirely surprised by a Russian site violating copyright. However, the issue is that IMSLP does not actually own the copyright to the CC-licensed works, and thus it may be better for the copyright owners to notify the site themselves. Of course, IMSLP will give the contributor/copyright owner its full support. Sometime in the future IMSLP may even have a boilerplate letter available for such purposes that contributors can use. --Feldmahler 14:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. One exception: if the site infringes the copyright of several contributors and all of them authorize and want IMSLP to send a letter to the site, I would be fine with doing that. --Feldmahler 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on Feldmahler's talk page. They are actually free to copy and distribute scores released under the CC licenses as long as they abide by the terms of the license - which means correct attribution, and no selling of items released under a Non-commercial (and probably Share Alike) versions of the license. The E-Bay issue is a clear case of violation of the terms. The Clarinet Institute of Los Angeles (among others) sells CDs/DVDs with cc-by-nc and cc-by-sa licenses, which they should not be doing. (Yes, I've already filed complaints with E-Bay about it.) Carolus 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Musica Divina. Sive Thesaurus Concentuum Selectissimorum

Hallo P.davydov, now, as I've found the entire collection online I'd like to remove the overview on my own scans from my user page. I think it would be useful to redirect that overview - in a similar manner - to the work page. In near future I'll add some Part Books of the motets. KGill told me that I should better ask you before I start to change anything on my own. Thanks! Kind regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I just moved it to the talk page of the collection in the interim. I personally think that an edition page would be best, but I'm not really up to setting one up.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 18:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think Snailey's solution is a good one, as it keeps the information together and accessible — P.davydov 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. BTW, I made "magnificats" a subcategory of "Vespers" as they are indeed just vespers.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen your changes - thanks a lot!! --Ralph Theo Misch 18:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Liszt

Looks like you're in the final stages of cleanup now. Are cantatas next on the Lis(z)t? (bad pun....)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There's still more to do on Liszt, and then I'll need to lie down in a darkened room for a while before tackling anything else 8-) — P.davydov 12:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bach

Thanks! Although, I'll probably take a while to wade through all of these! BTW, please make sure that your general information includes average duration, key, etc...easier that way. :)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Those fields aren't in the original pages, but I'll try to remember to add them. I don't want to make things too easy for you though :-) — P.davydov 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks seconded. Now I have to find out who actually did the reductions for those vocal scores! (Todt did a fair number, but there were others involved as well). Carolus 22:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Template

I understand what you did and why, but I did like the evenness of the old format, instead of having the Oster-Oratorium hang off to the side like this.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 22:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there are other cantatas not yet listed on the template, which should provide the chance to balance things up again. I haven't finished with JSB just yet... :-) — P.davydov 22:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Good to hear! :)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kotschetow

Thanks! Oh, definitely - I decided to use the version of his name that headed the entry in MusicSack, for want of a better idea. Maybe using the transliteration that Sibley uses, or something else, might have been better instead (people have mentioned using the LoC standards, and I often use catalog.loc.gov which I assume may relate, but that catalog itself, well... catalogs under a dizzying array of different names- those that are on the binding, I assume- rather than the rationalization-under-one-name that some other card catalogs use...) For want of a better idea indeed I should perhaps Read the Manual here - and will do so today. :) Eric 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will bookmark it. MusicSack is very helpful as are some other techniques picked up here and there, but each has its limits of course; hadn't heard of VIAF I think! Eric 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tagging

I will have a close look at the page, I believe I would be very interested. Thank you very much. Eric 18:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll wait to hear back from you in due course — P.davydov 19:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kreisler arrangement/Slavonic Dances

Hi, P.davydov, I just wondered about that. And as I had to make a scan anyway, I thought I could try it. But not every editing is like an arrangement, of course. All the best! --Ralph Theo Misch 09:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Category realization

Hi. I noticed that yesterday, Homerdundas created this category, which goes against what you decided before about leaving all of (or most of) the tag categories as redlinks. However, I'm wondering whether we can at least partially reconsider it at this point? The reason for that decision was that it would decrease the flexibility of the system to be 'grounded' in a realized category (if we wanted to change the name of the tag), but I'd argue against this for three reasons:

It's easy to move categories (both of us are familiar with doing it with composers); the work of changing the name would have to be done on each page in the category (i.e. for each tag) regardless of whether or not the category existed.
The standard text used on realized categories helps make the system friendlier by putting more easily accessible links to the CW, as well as giving descriptions of the sometimes confusingly similar work types to clear things up.
We almost certainly wouldn't change the name of most tags (how many have we so far?), especially the more common ones (which includes more than the ones you agreed to realize before).

What do you think? KGill _{talk email} 16:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Early on in the project I started to realize some of the categories in the way you described, but was asked not to do so by Feldmahler. Now that the tagging system has created well over a thousand new categories, I can see his point of view :-) But I did originally envisage that, say, the category "For String Orchestra" would have cross-references to categories for string quintets, etc., and "Adagios" and "Adagiettos" could be defined and linked, and I'm sorry this hasn't worked out.

Incidentally, it's not really the case that changing a tag category name would mean editing every page in that category. There's a master list at MediaWiki:Genres where the definitions are made, so if we ever wanted to merge, say, "For cello (arr)" with "For cello", then editing the text on that page would make it happen instantaneously. The old realized category would then just have to be deleted, making it much simpler than changing a composer name.

If Feldmahler's objection is purely on the grounds that it would take a lot of volunteer-hours to create the categories, then he might be persuaded to relent if we could show lots of hands ready and willing to make it happen. However, my impression was that he foresaw some technical difficulties, possibly to do with the server load of having lots of categories, but you could try sounding him out about some sort of compromise? — P.davydov 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually meant if we wanted to change the name of the tag itself, not the category it mapped to; just changing the category name would of course be much easier. Also, the server load argument would certainly tend to override most anything else, but I'm not sure it's justified in this case because the pages are already grouped into those categories anyway, so just realizing the page would only really put the same load on the server as the creation of any normal page (which I guess is pretty minuscule - we have almost 135,000 total pages on the wiki right now). Of course, what do I really know about it? ;-) I'm not sure that it's necessary to realize every single last category - for the extremely small, obscure ones, it may be of limited usefulness. Perhaps we could set a minimum number of pages in a category to justify realization (10 or 15?), and also look for areas needing clarification (ballads vs. ballades, for one)? For instrumental categories, I guess we could just rely on a numerical standard, as I can't imagine much in the area of clarification needed most of the time. Cross-referencing is a very good idea that I hadn't thought of, as well. Finally, I realize that it would take a while, but with your permission I'd be willing to assist, and Rome wasn't built in a day, after all. (That could be a sort of motto for the entire project, in a way ;-) ) KGill _{talk email} 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There must be some sort of an issue regarding categories and server loads, as whenever I created one of the new categories (or deleted the old ones), the site was unresponsive for anything up to several minutes afterwards. The more entries in the category concerned, the longer the downtime. I think this is because there's some sort of caching system that tries to keep the categories up-to-date. Anyway, this is the discussion I had with Feldmahler about it earlier in the year — make of it what you will! BTW, this came about after I manually created a list of categories in my Sandbox, which Feldmahler subsequently automated, and some of the comments relate to that manual list — P.davydov 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Two observations.

If you want to change or merge tags, please do not edit the work page! The entire point of the tag system is that category changes and tag merging can be done on MW:G without having to edit work pages at all, or else we could have just settled for a hard-coded category system. The only reasons to edit a work page are: 1) adding new tags (that cannot be achieved by tag merging or some other MW:G modification) and 2) splitting tags (though this should be extremely rare since the tagging should be very detailed [and this is the reason why I asked Davydov to make it detailed; merging tags should be infinitely easier than splitting]). If you really really do not like the name of a tag, create another tag with the correct name and use that tag from then on. However, never edit a work page simply to change the name of a tag.

I think part of the issue may be that the perfectionist in us want the tags on the pages to be up to date and not obsolete. However, this goes against the design of the tag system. The entire point of the tag system is that tags are cheap and expendable, so we can minimize inefficient retagging whenever we want to change the category tree. Please do not get overly attached to the tags. ;)

I would put the obsolete and merged tags in a different section on MW:G (if it is not already), so that librarians would know not to use it in the future.

Regarding realization of categories. I think server load is not the main issue (Davydov, I've fixed some code, so if you still get immense slowdowns after each category save please tell me, since it is a bug). My main concern is twofold: 1) that it requires too much manpower, and 2) that perhaps there is an automated way to create the page text. However, if there are elements on these pages not duplicable by machine (i.e. some sort of organic description as opposed to machine generated text), I do not have a problem with category realization. Of course, I would enclose everything in a template so we can change it easily later on.

However, I would still warn against realizing too many categories, especially small categories or categories deep in the tree. It just seems to me to not be that useful. However, I will leave this discretion up to the librarians. :) --Feldmahler 16:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@KGill: While I am here, I wanted to say that your submission of my very old paper on K.465 made me smile, and slightly embarrassed. :) Hopefully other more qualified music theorists will also upload their papers. After all, one of the goals of IMSLP is the discussion of music (speaking of which, there will be a nice brand new discussion system on the IMSLP wiki in about 9 months). --Feldmahler 16:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Raff worklist

Created a new Raff worklist page with all versions of (Raff, Joseph Joachim) subst w/ (Raff, Joachim) (simple matter!) but there are so many yellow links in it still of course that I will hold off on copy-pasting it in until ready? Eric 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a tool for moving categories? Does it still exist? --Leonard Vertighel 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't know- if that tool "moved" everything in the worklist too (when it existed), that would be sort of neat. Actually, anything that would check the links in a document to make sure they aren't redirects but actually go where they say they go would be nice to automate too, but I no longer have a clue how to do that. Eric 16:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The tool is supposed to move every page in a category, but I just tried it and it doesn't work. (Special:IMSLPMoveComposer) KGill _{talk email} 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, Eric! Some of the existing page names are inaccurate, so I'm checking and correcting them as I go along. I'm happy to update these links on the new worklist when that's finished.

Leonard, I tried the move composer tool, but it seems to be broken and will only do one page at a time (!) — P.davydov 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you know that you have to reload the page a bunch and it does the pages individually, @Kgill?-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 17:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that, actually, but if you can't move every page at once, then I don't really see the point of it (since it barely saves any time)... KGill _{talk email} 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but at least I can just set it to reload when it's finished and come back in 10 minutes :)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 15:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bach Cantatas

Watch for typos in the page names...I've found quite a few (this probably isn't your fault).-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I started from the list of cantatas we already had, and checked them against three other sources, which turned up several typos in the original, but there were minor differences between the lists. Some of these were because of changes in German orthography (like the "Noth" -> "Not" in BWV 38, which you picked up), and both Grove and the Library of Congress prefer "ss" to "ß". But I've rechecked BWV 40 and all sources (including bach-cantatas.com [2]) agree that the first word is "Dazu" and not "Darzu". So it just goes to show that there's not one single source that's 100% reliable — apart from IMSLP itself of course ;-) — P.davydov 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! The strange thing is that they even mistyped the text in the musical example! Thanks for pointing that out.
If someone can be 100% reliable, then they should be :)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Songs without Words

Do you think this should be split, seeing as it is a composite of different opus numbers? I think the full score does come in handy sometimes (e.g. if you want to print the full score), but for organization's sake, I don't think it's the best. What's your thought on the subject, BKhon 05:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like should be split, but it might be an idea to wait until User:PML has finished his new work list, so that the MWV numbers can be included in all the titles — P.davydov 05:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely missed that project somehow... Good idea on PML's part though. Thanks, BKhon 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's complete, BTW. However, MWV numbers would have to be included in all the titles if they were in these, so that seems a bit much. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied rather hastily this morning, as I was on my way out. Looking more carefully, I think that (1) MWV numbers should only be included in the titles for pieces without Op. or WoO numbers, and (2) yes, the Songs without Words compilation should be split between its constituent opuses. Ideally the Mélodies Choises should be split as well... — P.davydov 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The Mélodies Choisies at least deserve a gramatically correct title in the meantime ;)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl Schuberth

do you remember when you created the category for Carl Schuberth where the dates 1804-1875 came from? I may have added string quartets belonging to an entirely different composer than the Carl Schuberth you intended the category to refer to (Sibley's Carl Schuberth lived from 1811-1863. Assuming that you may have meant that one, though, I changed the dates... still, not sure who you meant. There was a Julius F G Schubert who lived from 1804 to 1875.) Eric 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (Apologies for tone- just confused!)

Hello Eric. I'm afraid I don't remember (it was a category redirect from Charles Schuberth), but 1811-1863 looks to be correct. Thanks for spotting that — P.davydov 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Scores

Hope this hasn't already been discussed. Shouldn't they get an arrangement tag? Or something like what we have (pages with parts) for parts? Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll raise it with Feldmahler when he gets back, to see if he can include an auto-tag for the heading "Vocal Scores" (like he's already done with the arrangements). We'll have to watch out that the heading is used consistently, as sometimes it's just given as the main heading for songs, for example — P.davydov 05:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Re- Cadenzas (Godowsky, Leopold) (redirect)

Hi! Back in February you redirected Cadenzas (Godowsky, Leopold) to a Mozart concerto which is a bit confusing since Godowsky cadenzas for a number of different concertos (eg Beethoven's 4th) redirect to it. I'm thinking maybe that should be changed but I'm not sure in what way :) - any suggestions? Eric 15:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We adopted a rule last year (after a proposal from Carolus, if I remember correctly) that cadenzas should be included on the work to which they have been added, and not on separate pages. The page Cadenzas (Godowsky, Leopold) contained cadenzas for concertos by Beethoven and Mozart respectively, which back in February I moved to their respective works. This left an empty page, which I redirected to the new page for the Mozart cadenza (it being the last one remaining on the old page). I was guilty of not checking for double redirects at the time, but now you've pointed it out I've fixed them by pointing them to the appropriate pages. Apologies for any inconvenience caused — P.davydov 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Now that the genre row is no longer used for new work pages, how are new pages found to be tagged (e.g. newly-added symphonies, which are not in the Genre symphony unless someone manually adds the line Genre=Symphony to the work page?) Also, I have read and bookmarked the documentation, and would be happy to be considered for the tagging project team - sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Thank you. Eric 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's not really a way to find specifically new untagged pages - you would just have to look in Category:Untagged pages, where all of them appear. Eventually, when the (still huge) backlog is taken care of, you will effectively be able to use it for new pages. KGill _{talk email} 02:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Further question - if a page is in the "unknown tag" category because it just has too complicated a voice listing, should I leave it be and assume that the tag list will be expanded to include those voice listings later, or somesuch? :) Thanks! Eric 01:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for answering again instead of letting Davydov do so - yes, at some point the unknown tags will either be added to the system (by Davydov, almost always) or changed to an already-known tag (in the case that it's incorrect). Also, Davydov's tag here was not in fact a typo; it's customary to put separate tags for alternate instrumentations (which the flute is there - note that your edit created a duplicate tag). Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 01:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Eric - I just now realized that your edit was correct...sorry! Must have gotten mixed up somehow (it was pretty late at night)... KGill _{talk email} 14:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Almost" indeed. You could probably figure out the internals of the system, KGill...it's pretty easy once you get the hang of it.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but I've never really bothered to look at it, mostly because early on in the project Feldmahler said that only Davydov would do it for a while :-) KGill _{talk email} 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to KGill and Snailey for helping Eric while I was catching up on my beauty sleep :-) My internet connection died before I could finish the Handel tagging, and update the master list of tags in MediaWiki:Genres. As the cast of most of the Handel operas is quite small, and lacking a chorus, I've tagged them as solo parts with orchestra. And even though, for example, the tag "3sop mez alt bass orch" still maps to the category "For 6 voices, orchestra" at the moment, it leaves open the possibility of having more detailed vocal categories (or a more detailed search facility) in the future... :-) — P.davydov 07:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do tell me if I messed up any of the thinks on M:G yesterday...-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@KGill-Actually I'm thinking we were both right, but for a reason that's been bugging me that can be shorthanded as "bc". :) Eric 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Handel Sonatas

Hi, How do you want to list these? Key order (<instrument> Sonata in <key>, HWV <###>) so all the E minor sonatas (there are 3 of them in Handel's case, I think) will be together in HWV order or would you prefer an ordering as we done with the Haydn symphonies (<instrument> Sonata, HWV <###>, <key>) so all the Violin Sonatas will appear in order of HWV number? I'm fine with either, now that we appear to be getting started. Carolus 18:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My thought was that the main Handel worklists will give the sonatas in HWV order anyway, so it would be more useful to be able to see them grouped in key order. What do you think? — P.davydov 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think most users are going to be looking for the key - or will be more likely to remember the key. HWV numbers are relatively recent, so I suspect fewer are likely to know a given generic work like a sonata by the number. Carolus 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing titles of Chopin works

Just wondering what was up with that. I left comments on the talk pages for Souvenir de Paganini and the Op. 2 Variations saying that the titles should be reverted -- which was before I clicked your name and found that you're a VIP around here.

I'm genuinely interested in an explanation of why you might think titles that are used by no one (that I'm aware of) are better than the ones by which the works are commonly referred to.

Please don't take this as confrontative, as I don't mean it that way. I'm honestly even more perplexed by this now that I know you're a sysop, copyright reviewer, etc. than when I thought it was vandalism! Thanks for any insight you can provide. --Steve Bob 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On IMSLP we use the main title of the work in the language in which it was first presented by the composer. The exceptions to this rule are if the work is a standard title (e.g. Symphony, Sonata), or if the work is better known by the English title. Davydov is the one who wrote the manual of style for Score submission, so he would know better than anyone ;). But in this particular case, I think I'm in agreement. I do think variations is a fairly standard title?, and the title was better known in the language it was written in previously. It may give people a hard time finding the work. BKhon 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve Bob. Sorry I didn't see your comments on the Chopin pages. I haven't entirely taken leave of my senses (I hope), but it was part of an ongoing attempt to bring IMSLP's work titles into line with those used by other libraries. The main source for this is the Library of Congress authorities catalog, which decides how the works should be referred to by English-speaking libraries. The Paganini variations are listed by them as "Variations, piano, B. 37, A major", which is how we get to "Variations in A major, B.37" on IMSLP (as we usually omit instrument names in titles for reasons of brevity).

The Op.2 variations are more complicated, and I must admit to going out on a limb slightly by preferring the first edition title Variationen über Là ci darem la mano to the plain Là ci darem la mano used in the Library of Congress catalog. The LC aren't consistent in their handling of titles involving variations, and on reflection I think Variations on "Là ci darem la mano" would have been better. I will change this now...

The underlying aim was to give Brown catalogue numbers for all works without opus numbers (instead of the various different systems previously in use), and to follow the title rules recently agreed in our new manual of style. There were a couple of instances of there being two pages for the same work under different titles, which hopefully the new guidelines can avoid in the future. Anyway, I'm sorry if the changes left you puzzled — P.davydov 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks very much for taking the time to provide a detailed explanation. Much appreciated! --Steve Bob 04:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Weber Concertos, Konzertstück

Hi, I'm just curious why you've added the key to the titles, especially for the concertos (which have been here with English standard title.) I thought the key should only be used if there's no unique work number. Hobbypianist 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The new page title rules allow more flexibility in the inclusion of keys, and the Weber changes are part of a trial run to see if introducing them more widely causes any difficulties. As you may have seen further up this page, Carolus is intending to do the same with the Handel sonatas. There have been instances (one recently with a Chopin bagatelle) where the work numbering was actually wrong, and this would almost certainly have been noticed sooner if the keys had been included. It also resolves another anomaly where, say, titles of unnumbered quartets mention the keys, but numbered ones by the same composer don't; or if the numbering has changed (like the symphonies of Schubert and Dvorak). If you happen to feel strongly about this one way or the other, your comments would be appreciated — P.davydov 17:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the rules you've written are rather strict than flexible I would say ;-). I would favour a mixed solution: I think for Baroque composers like Bach, Händel (but also for some Classical composers...) the use of the key in the title can be useful in order to avoid confusion. That time it was not common to use a consistent numbering system of the works. Many work listing have been made by music researchers after the death of those composers. Also, the work titles are quite different compared with work titles by Romantic, Modern composers. For such single works like the mentioned Chopin pieces pupl. posthumously the key is useful, too. However, for example from Late Classical/Early Romantic, Beethoven, Hummel, etc. on many composers used opus numbers and they are established now. I guess no one would mix up for example the violin concertos by Beriot, piano concertos by Rachmaninov, or symphonies by Beethoven. So I don't consider the keys necessary for composers whose works definitely have an established / accepted opus number. (And by the way, I like short work titles ;). Don't get me wrong, I can also accept key signature in titles generally. But in this case we should add them to all standard titles: symphonies, concertos, trios, sonatas, etc. and not only to concertos to have a consistent naming throughout our library. Hobbypianist 08:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful response. I've just posted something on the Forum to try and get a discussion going — P.davydov 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. Hobbypianist 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points

Hi again, another two small questions: I've noticed that there are some pages with really oldfashioned German titles "Concertstück", "Characterstücke", "Clavierstücke" (I try to find more...). As I wrote on Funpers talk page, it's ok if the old expressions appear as info but for the title itself we should use the modern German spelling. I'm not speaking of Baroque song titles (they're ok) but of standard German expressions like mentioned above. What do you think? If you agree I'll go ahead and move the pages accordingly to "Konzertstück", "Charakterstücke", "Klavierstücke"

Yes, it makes sense to use to standardize the spelling to modern German. We need to retain a distinction between "Stücke" and "Klavierstücke" though, depending on the original title, if known. Just as an aside, during the tagging we've come across hundreds (if not thousands) of examples on IMSLP where "Stücke", "Morceaux", "Pièces" and "Pieces" have been used as if they were interchangeable (whatever the composer originally said), not to mention "Lieder", "Songs", "Gesänge", "Romances", "Mélodies", etc.

Also, I've seen several versions of sub-headings, for example: =====For 2 Pianos (name)=====, =====For 2 Pianos, 4 hands (name)=====, =====For 2 Pianos 4 hands (name)=====. Which one is preferred? I guess =====For 2 Pianos (name)===== ?!... (Well, actually it's clear that if a piece was arranged for 2 pianos then in 99% it's for 2 pianos with 2 hands each. If not, one should add additional info.) Thanks. Hobbypianist 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the headings for arrangements should be the same as the categories they convert to (which you'll see at the bottom of the pages in question, with "(arr)" added). So your examples would all be "For 2 Pianos", or maybe even "For 2 pianos" if we use lower case, as in the category names — P.davydov 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Berlioz’s concert overtures

Hi Davydov,

I’m confused by the rationale for the renaming of the concert overtures to King Lear and Waverley – surely the Rob Roy Overture should have been changed also? Anyway HB seems not to have contemplated composing extended theatrical works on any of these subjects, which differentiates these works from the case of the overture to Les francs-juges, which was always intended to be an opera overture attached to a substantial theatrical work (which sadly happens to have been largely dismantled and lost). If you were to evaluate the contents of the works by the title alone, “Roi Lear” or “Beatrice et Bénédict”, you would be forgiven for assuming that each was an opera based on Shakespeare. Also, for titles I’m using Holoman as my source and/or

Error creating thumbnail: The thumbnail for this file has not been created yet.

; a few of the titles given to works in the Breitkopf & Härtel edition were arbitrarily altered by Weingartner or Malherbe (particularly work subtitles), though many are okay. Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 12:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you chose to revert those two changes, because they weren't made lightly, and follow the rules about titles in the manual of style that were recently agreed. The Library of Congress, and hence all other libraries in the English speaking rule, simply refer to these as "Roi Lear" and "Waverley" without qualification. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone searching for the Waverley Overture would automatically look under "G"? We should be making works easier to find, not more difficult! — P.davydov 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I am unaware that the IMSLP policy had been changed with such completely unqualified assent so that page titles for works must now always follow the librarian’s Uniform title, presumably, rather than the composer’s own title, or the title as given in the catalogue of the composer’s works (and not all of the works in the catalogue may possess a Uniform title anyway: albumleafs or minutiæ especially). The Uniform titles normally dispense with definite and indefinite articles such as La, Le, and these are omitted from IMSLP’s sorting rules, so there appears to be no particular need to rename e.g. Les Troyens as merely “Troyens”, in order to reach agreement with the Uniform title. I also notice the Uniform titles sometimes dispense with opus and catalogue numbers (why?), but I see no evidence to alter titles to eradicate that information!

Thus, the only real concern I can see you’ve raised is that the works tend to be sorted under G instead of W for Waverley, or R for Roi Lear, and for this the optimal technical solution is that the {{DEFAULTSORT|sorting variable}} sorting key should follow the Uniform title. The fact that the {{DEFAULTSORT}} key doesn’t currently work is a bug I’ve already raised with Feldmahler, and one that he is unfortunately unable to resolve at present.

Thus, I reiterate my main issue with using the Uniform titles for these works as page titles is that they omit the fact that they are concert overtures only – the Uniform title for each should really read something like “Roi Lear. Overture” and “Waverley. Overture” instead, especially as the composer’s titles for these works indicated that the musical form (overture, and in fact a “grand” overture at that) and the content (program music abstracted from a particular literary work) were both equally important. Now while I’m aware the category walker amply allows you to discern overtures from symphonies from concertos from sonatas by interrogating a composer’s category, I do not see the value in removing information about the musical form of a work that was already part of the work title – if not the Uniform title. Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Philip. Forgive me, I was a little tetchy last night when I gave my first reaction. This isn't an attempt to foist the Library of Congress title system on IMSLP (something I would argue against), but rather a recognition that: a) the page title is vital in picking out a work from an alphabetical list, b) using a consistent format in the page titles is therefore helpful to our users, and c) the title of the page and the title of the work don't need to be identical. The page titles function like an index to a reference book — providing just enough information to identify a work uniquely, and then leading to the work page where full details (including the full title, and its variants) can be found.

With the tagging system in its final stages, it's now possible to produce categorized lists by work type (e.g. operas, overtures) and instrumentation by clicking on the "Show works by type/instrumentation" link on a composer's page (which could be made a little more prominent). In the majority of cases this frees us from the need to indicate instrumentation or work type in the page titles, except where they're needed to tell apart different works that happen to share a main title (like Tchaikovsky's unconnected opera, melodrama and symphonic poem each called The Voevoda). We also have our growing series of composer work lists, which facilitate identification of works by date, nicknames, opus/catalogue numbers, etc. The general search box on IMSLP will also pick up key terms within the text of a page, such as "Grand Ouverture de Waverley", or "King Lear" (for anyone searching for Berlioz's overture under its English translation).

One issue that isn't easily overcome by the above is that of key signatures. Even the sortable work lists don't enable straightforward searches for, say, a Weber piano sonata in C major, or a Haydn symphony in B♭ minor — especially if the groups of works are unnumbered, or the numbering has changed. Like you, I would argue that in these circumstances there's a strong case for including key signatures in the page titles. We probably have some way to go to persuade the rest of the IMSLP community, but it is a pretty strong case...

Coming back to Berlioz, I hope this adequately explains why I changed the page titles to Waverley and Roi Lear, which follows the principles of the Manual of Style as amended last month after this Forum discussion. I sincerely believe that our users are most likely to look for these two works under "W" and "R" respectively, and that leaving out the term "overture" won't automatically mislead people into assuming that both works are operas (misconceptions that would be swiftly dispelled anyway). It would be a great shame if people thought these two works were missing on IMSLP because they weren't where they expected to see them, and I hope you'll reconsider your objection? — P.davydov 09:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think I might have been equally tetchy in response, for imagining you might be under the impression that my work on the Berlioz pages hadn’t involved a good deal of consideration of these issues in the first place, and soul-searching on how obvious the French language titles are to equivalents in other languages. For English speakers, searching for Roi rather than King requires some knowledge of etymology (e.g. where a word like royal derives). Possibly a categorised redirect might help with that. Other titles may be a bit of a no-brainer, like Harold en Italie, while others are not so straight-forward. Having read the page in detail I actually believe most of the titles are in keeping with the general rules, although some of Berlioz’s own work titles are unwieldy (Valse … Espagne), and in some cases the subtitle for the work has been attached to the IMSLP page, when the style manual proscribes it (e.g. Le cinq mai only).
As a compromise, because of the non-working defaultsort key, perhaps the overtures might be moved to Rob Roy, overture; or Waverley, overture; another possibility is to leave the pages as is but hard-code the most important categories with an explicit sort key (but as new arrangements of the works appear on the pages these would tend to follow the alphabetic sorting). I really hope Feldmahler could address the technical bug to allow the appropriate technical solution to work, since we do have a clear need for being able to resort works when the sorting method fails to ignore unimportant words in the title. (As far as I’m concerned, that would be the having your cake and eating it solution.) Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Plate Numbers

Broaching the possible issue (as it's not mentioned in the style guide) of plate numbers. It wouldn't be discouraged to simply have "Plates 9825-26.", as oppose to "Plates 9825, 9825"? Since we follow Chicago style, I suppose the standard for sequential plate numbers would be "9825-26", however there isn't a strict policy in place for this on IMSLP. Kind regards, BKhon 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally would but in and say that the shorter form (9825-6) is always preferrable.-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m sorry to be a curmudgeon and a pedant, but...

(a) if the Chicago style allows numerical ranges of the form 1234–6, then I will flag that this practice is frowned upon by various other style guides around the place: numeric ranges should either be spelled out in full (1234–1236) or if abbreviated, should include the last two digits of the numeric range (1234–36), not merely the last digit. The shorter form with a single digit following is not universally mandated as “correct style”; and

(b) yes, I am that pedantic to bother quibbling about (a); and

(c) this unquestioning reliance on the Chicago Manual of Style (whether it follows musical usage… or not), or the Library of Congress authorities (whether they have useful titles or correct names for composers… or not), etc. seems to be another example of the Americanization (sic) of what is supposedly an “International” project. It’s quite noticeable owing to the dominant proportion of North American English-speaking contributors as compared to British and Australian contributors, along with the tendency of Wiki content to slowly mutate as a large number of small edits are made. The use of language, say the gradual replacement of words with American terms or the ever present over-capitalisation of unimportant words, is getting to the point where I’m thinking of asking Feldmahler to drop the “International” from IMSLP. It’s a nice idea but along with half-hearted support for non-English languages, it’s beginning to seem like mere lip-service.

It's quite common to have hyphens in plate numbers, so the forms "1234-5" and "1234-56" aren't uncommon, and this is something we need to take into account. So I'd recommend the form Plates 1234 to 1256 to avoid any ambiguity when quoting ranges of plate numbers.

While several contributors from the U.S.A. rely on the Chicago Manual of Style, I don't remember a decision being taken that IMSLP as a whole should always be bound by it. Philip's quite right to point out that there are perfectly fine style guides from other English-speaking countries too :-) — P.davydov 05:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And we haven't even started on MLA ;)-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC) If we don't abide by a specific style guide, why shouldn't we? It would make standardization a lot easier. Personally, I tend to see a lot of discrepancies between the style guides written just for IMSLP. For example, I notice that often times when a new guide is written, the "work submissions" page lags behind and isn't edited. BKhon 11:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IMSLP's requirements are fairly specialized, so we need to think each issue through for ourselves as it arises, with consideration to how it might affect other aspects of the project. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a dedicated area on the forums to discuss issues concerning categorization and standardization? — P.davydov 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:P.davydov/archive5

Contents