User talk:Smithrob

Hi Smithrob, and thanks for your contributions! Just a note that your composer category has been moved to Robertson, Ernest John in accordance with our naming guidelines (specifically this section). Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons Licenses

Dear Composer or Copyright Owner,

s a composer or other copyright holder, please take time to carefully review the Creative Commons and licensing policies and guidelines.

For those uploading the first time, please remember choose the menu option "New Composition" when uploading your original works (even if they are scans of manuscripts or printouts), "New Arrangement" when uploading new arrangements, and "New Edition" when uploading new editions of public domain works. As it is normally assumed that composers and arrangers have edited their own work, please leave the "Editor" field empty unless another person has actually edited your work (in which case their name should be inserted). Note also that the English term "Editor" is not the equivalent of the French editeur or Italian editore. "Editor" refers to the person who reviewed and corrected the piece, while the French and Italian words are closer to the English word "publisher". In the "Publisher" field, please use your own full legal name, as making your scores and sound files available for free download on this site constitutes "publication" under the laws of most countries in the world. (Note that this is done automatically when using the standard upload tools).

You should be aware that Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 allows for the unrestricted copying, performance (live and broadcast) and recording of the work (including explicitly commercial use) at no charge, with no compensation or royalties payable to the composer or copyright owner for such commercial exploitation. Note also that the all of the acceptable licenses are considered to be IRREVOCABLE once a file has been uploaded with the lawful copyright owner's authorization.

You are free to change the license after upload to something more suitable. IMSLP as a matter of policy will list files under the most permissive licensing terms. Since licenses and public domain dedications are irrevocable, restrictions cannot be added later, but a more liberal license can be selected. Composers are also encouraged to make use of our new template {{NoPerf}}, which automatically places works into a new category - Unperformed Works. To add this template to your pages, simply copy and paste the little template above (curly brackets and all) into the "First Performance" field of the "General Information" section on all work pages.

Before you upload, remember these key points...

• All licenses on IMSLP are IRREVOCABLE. Once a file is made available here, it stays here and will not be removed as a matter of policy.
• The Creative Commons licenses terminate automatically upon violation by end-users. In other words, if the user fails to respect the terms of the license, then their use may constitute infringement.
• Your work is legally published (in most locales) the first time a file is offered for download by someone other than yourself. You are considered the publisher of your own work when you post it on IMSLP.

Using the simple "Creative Commons Attribution" (CC BY) does not limit the use of your work for commercial use by end users, who can do so without paying you any compensation whatsoever as long as they observe the requirement that your work is attributed to you, and the license is noted. Use of "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike" (CC BY-SA), conversely, requires that any user make their derivative work (that is, anything that incorporates your work) freely shareable according to the CC BY-SA license terms as well.

PS: For additional and more detailed explanation, please visit our Composer Portal page.

10 Duos for Flute and Clarinet, Op.56 (Robertson, Ernest John)

Hi Smithrob. The last ten files you added to this page appear to be just new entries for the ones already there (i.e., the flute parts). Perhaps you might try different filenames for the second batch? Cheers, KGill _{talk email} 01:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - I noticed you just tried to upload a corrected clarinet part for No.6, but I don't think it worked because you used the same filename for the new upload as you did back in January for the old one. Because of this, the new file was not actually uploaded, and another duplicate entry for the old file was created. I would recommend making your filenames more specific (e.g., including the instrument they are for) so as to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. Thanks, KGill _{talk email} 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploads

Dear Smithrob,

Please do not use the "Upload file" link on the left sidebar to upload PDF files. Instead you need to use the "Add multiple score files to this page" located on the actual work page. I'll go ahead and add the files you just uploaded to the page, so just remember this for the next upload. Thanks, Carolus 00:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Copyright Admin)

Chabrier parts quality

Dear Smithrob,

Recently, we (admins, reviewers) have had much discussion regarding a quality threshold for typesets as this is an area which is becoming more prominent within IMSLP. After some collaboration and discussion, we've put together a list of things to look for. Please have a look at this at Steltz's page (the author) when you have time: Typesetting policy. The idea behind the creation of this policy and its subsequent enforcement is to ensure that IMSLP's standards remain high in offering user-created or edited music to the masses. While we value any and all contributions, we must simultaneously maintain some sense of quality control so as not to tarnish our reputation through complicit supply of substandard and "dangerous" music. Unfortunately, several of us have noticed many such problems outlined in the typeset policy of which your recent submission of Chabrier's Suite pastorale are guilty. And speaking as an oboist myself active in solo, chamber, and orchestral repertoire, with all due respect, I would most likely refuse to play from these if they were placed in front of me. As a professional typesetter myself, I fully recognize the difficulty, time, and experience it takes to produce good-looking typesets. With all the various packages available today, the learning curves can range from slight to very steep and everywhere in between. Because of the issues present in these parts, we would like to kindly ask that they be withdrawn until such time as they can be sufficiently amended to more closely adhere to this policy. Please also note that several of us in the community are experienced typesetters with most main programs covered and would be glad to offer any advise or proof reading to help you satisfy these necessary requirements. Again, we very much thank you for your submission, and if we may provide any assistance or clarification on this matter or future ones, please respond here on your talk page or post in the forums. Best wishes, Daphnis 16:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (Copyright reviewer)

Mr. Robertson, per your last email to me, I'll respond here publicly should any of our members like to weigh in on this issue. In fact, I have played in various ensembles ranging from opera to Broadway to ballet and agree with the subpar quality of much of the parts floating around out there. From under inked and poorly written manuscript facsimile to rental parts which have been marked up to hell and back, there are lots of good examples of illegible music parts we are asked to play from. I also know what it is like to waste hours of rehearsal time (and, subsequently, thousands of dollars) just trying to decipher the parts placed in front of us. This situation (personal typesets from full score) is really nothing like those. In typesetting, we have the chance to 1.) provide clear and legible music to musicians that adheres to modern notational practices (as opposed to archaic and outdated ones, ex. transpositions, clefs, and pre-modern notation), 2.) produce new parts that can be exchanged in a digital manner and can be easily and quickly edited from the source, and 3.) to correct any errors that might be present in previously available full scores or matching engraved parts. It is therefore important that any new typesets of music that has been available for years (or centuries) be "up to snuff" in satisfying these three conditions. Not doing so and, in a larger sense, having error-riddled and confusingly produced typesets collected in a single place diminishes our reputation at large and makes available materials that can sometimes be more harmful than beneficial despite all best intentions being made. Aside from many errors being found in your parts (as noted by one of our members and included in the "Misc. Notes" field of the first movement of your Chabrier parts), they are full of non-standard and ill-executed directions. Since I mentioned in specific the oboe part and you asked for examples, a brief list includes:

General - Systems for instruments not group into staves (piano, harp, string divisi) do not receive braces at the beginning
m. 1, etc. - Multimeasure rests are not indicated with an Arabic numeral overlaid atop a whole rest.
m. 1 - Collision between tempo indication. What does the second one behind the first that begins "Andantino, poco..." say?
m. 6 - These are cues, but for what instrument/group of instruments? Cues are always identified with this information.
mm. 7-8 - Slurs for the cues are not attached at the correct places.
m. 9 - Double tie
m. 9 - I assume this is a "sfp" indication, but it is not ever indicated in this fashion and is confusing to see.
m. 9 - Aside from "sfp" being a single indication, the characters should all be the same weight, point size, and typeface
m. 12 - Collision between "cresc." and the slur
page 2 - The instrument name need not reappear, and the initial system therein should not be indented
This is not an exhaustive list but a good idea of the kinds of things we're talking about here. I apologize if my initial statement irritated you, but I wanted to be clear that these parts are highly problematic. In saying that, I would again like to point out that 1.) These are not merely my personal observations but are issues at odds with standard practice, 2.) we, as in many other copyright reviewers and administrators, have worked together to decide on a set of basic rules and practices that should apply to user-created typsets, and 3.) we very much appreciate every user contribution and would be interested in providing any assistance necessary. Each contribution enriches IMSLP and furthers our goal of providing free music to any that should want it and we value this and other similar contributions. Regards, Daphnis 03:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (Copyright admin)

There's another factor to be considered in this particular case (Chabrier's Suite pastorale). The parts for this work are readily available in a reprint edition from Kalmus, for 160.00 USD for a complete set with strings 4.4.3.3.2. This is not at case where there is nothing out there to play from. While the original Enoch parts have all the quirks of late-19th century French publications (notably having doubled parts, as in oboes 1 and 2), they are reasonably accurate and are moreover not divided up into separate movements - making collation a major headache for any librarian assigned to the task. Carolus (IMSLP Copyright Admin) 06:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mozart Upload

Hi Smithrob. Thanks for all your work with typesetting the horn part of Mozart's 35th symphony! Would it be possible to condense the movements for both horn 1 and 2? There are 8 horn files, and I think it would be a lot more economical to create two files for horns 1 and 2. It would take up less space on the page and also less time printing. Respectfully, Emery 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smithrob. Unfortunately, I must inform you that these typesets do not meet IMSLP's minimum quality standard (as discussed above) and had to be taken down. Sorry, KGill _{talk email} 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)