User talk:Schissel/archive10

Physharmonika-Schule, Op.50 (Lickl, Johann Georg)

Dear Eric, uploading that file from SBB I remembered your remark at my talk page about PERMANENT LINKS. Unfortunately I did not quite understand. Could you please help me? Thanks and best wishes! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply - so even I was able to understand! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian composers as Music Publishers?

Did GClefpublishing do something crazy like add composers to the music publisher category? The Belaieff book is actually sort of a compendium of composer catalogs and will be useful to link to - especially for the more arcane composers. Nevertheless, I told him I would take care of the linking, so he might need a slap on the side of the head. Carolus 06:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

G.A.Schneider again

Hallo Eric, Have a look at the new workpage http://imslp.org/wiki/Concertos_for_winds,_Op.83-90_(Schneider,_Georg_Abraham). If this seems fine, I could put in redirects at all the individual workpages.--Kalliwoda 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Librettists

Is there any particular reason you are placing these in the subtitle or section listing part of the General Info? The reason I ask is that the General Info section is increasingly having the individual fields within "read" by not only the system here, but (in the near future) by the upcoming iPad app, etc. That's why it's probably better in the long run to place info like this in its respective field within the section. I'll be having more discussions with Feldmahler on this topic and making changes as needed to the style guide for the General Info section. As more things like the iPad app appear, I expect we'll need to make sure the info being read by such interfacing devices is in a format that can be easily "read." Carolus 02:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Malherbe

Was there any particular reason for going for the full name, especially when all of the authorities records on viaf.org usually prefer just Charles? I would have redirected CT to plain Charles – and when you edit the OBEds template, that means the majority of references will shortly follow. Philip _{@ © talk} 04:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Richmond, Op.54 (Moelling, Theodore)

Looks to me like this is a reprint of an 1863 score (see "Enetered according to the Act of Congress" notice on the 1st page) in which the composer is attempting to claim a new copyright - the 1863 copyright having expired in 1891 (28 years was the term back then). Interesting case. It was completely bogus, of course. The work was public domain by 1893. Carolus 06:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

W.F. Shaw

Was a Philadelphia publisher. I didn't find them in any other city. Carolus 06:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian’s Gothic

I see overnight someone was brave or foolhardy enough to scan and upload this! A few remarks from me:

1. Did the automatic page counter tell you how many pages were in the PDF? The Cranz full score is 259pp (with the first page of music being page 3).
2. As far as I can tell from the US copyright renewals, The Gothic was never registered with the copyright office upon first publication by Cranz in 1932 (unlike the VS of The Tigers, issued contemporaneously); it may have been renewed in 1959 or 1960, but I don’t have enough information to double-check this. My current suspicion is that it was not – but that suspicion would not give me any special reason to suggest our US friends should brazenly upload the work without further investigation. In any case, the file was erroneously uploaded to the Canadian server, when if there were any chance of hosting this at all, it would have needed to be submitted to the separate enterprise known as “imslp.us”.
3. It can’t have been a manuscript full score of the entire work: you are correct in that the MS of Part Two is still AWOL. I very much doubt it’s a manuscript of the first part of the work, which is held by the British Library; or for that matter a scan of Brian’s extant short score for Part Two. The typesetting of the Cranz score is of that peculiar type of 20th century engraving that looks like a slanted scribal hand. A lot of Schott’s work of the same period looks very similar.
4. I had to laugh at the incomplete tag of “symphonies ; orch” you applied. I think you meant something more like:
   symphonies ; te deums ; sop alt ten bass cch 2ch 4br org orch ; la
   We don’t have a tag for “kitchen sink”, since we’d have to include that as well.
5. The performance I sang in last year in Brisbane is on the radio this weekend – they have streaming internet radio available at 4mbs.com.au, which I don’t believe is region locked. It’s going out at 20:00 on Saturday 4 June (UTC +10 hours), which I think converts to 6 a.m. in your part of the world. Pretty much the wrong time of the day to be listening to such a piece, but such a time was always going to be inconvenient to someone, somewhere. Cheers, Philip _{@ © talk} 05:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

PS Don’t reply at my page – I have yours under watch, and will notice any additions. (I hate having Wiki conversations where you have to continually play ping pong between two or more different pages.) Let’s keep the discussion here, if it develops any further. PML

• you're right about the tag of course. hopefully I am usually somewhat more careful. As to its not having been a manuscript of the whole work, I was expecting the page to probably be deleted but in any case was suggesting, gently, that it was probably not the "manuscript scan" its uploader was claiming, whatever it actually was- couldn't see under the block (my admin privileges don't stretch that far). Don't remember, either, how many pages it was, but the answer 'too few' is coming to mind from memory. I'm a little surprised that the Gothic even potentially could be (legally) uploaded @ imslp.us , actually. (Edit: ah- then the uploader was confused by the Cranz typeset into thinking it was a photocopy of a manuscript, as I think quite a few published scores from the mid-20th century were (Novello's Frankel symphonies?...)... though I might be mistaken)

• Wait, we don’t have a tag for kitchen sink yet? We’ll need one soon. And for vacuum cleaner, and starter pistol. (actually, belay that. whoever tagged Parade (Ballet réaliste) (Satie, Erik) decided that orchestra was sufficient. My mistake, then.) Cheers!! E Eric 12:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the intrusion but I just wanted to pass on this information. I noticed the file name for the Gothic that was uploaded had "mediafire" in it which suggests the file is the same one I was able to find on the net: the Cranz 1932 full score apparently scanned from a photocopy with a plastic spine that has had any Cranz copyright and plate numbers removed and has added "Copyright Havergal Brian Estate c/o United Music Publishers, Ltd, England. This edition reprinted in 2006. Copying of this copyright work is illegal." Philip is correct about the lack of copyright registration in 1932 as I could not find it among the Catalog of Copyright Entries available at Hathi Trust from the early 1930s. I also couldn't find a renewal for it in the volumes I checked from the mid-1950s up through June, 1960 (renewals for The Birds and The Land of Dreams appear in the last volume having been renewed in Dec., 1959). Frustratingly, they lack the latter half of 1961 and all of 1962 so I guess the renewal question is still unresolved. Can you renew something that was never originally registered? --Cypressdome 01:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that info, Cypressdome – UMP ran out of stock of the one-volume score of the Gothic full score shortly after I purchased my copy in 2004, and the new reprint is back into two volumes again, with each volume comb bound. Thanks for confirming this was a scan of the new reprint. So no original copyright of 1932 cited? Your report of no US renewal (along with the inconvenient availability of some of the 1961 renewals volumes) confirms my suspicion, but further investigation would still be desirable. As I mentioned on the Brian talk page, Hathi Trust scanned this and a variety of other Brian works, but are citing copyright issues with all of them, when at least one score (the Fantastic Variations) is PD in the US. Cheers, Philip _{@ © talk} 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Erg. Used to have a calendar for such radio broadcasts and that would have been highest priority in such a thing. Forgot, in the event. Time to restart one soon, I think... Eric 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

characteristic pieces

This might be a good candidate for the proposed or suggested tags page that we created. I've added it to http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Categorization/Proposed_Tags. I think let's leave it at pieces for now, but I think soon-ish we could start discussing the list as a whole. Steltz 14:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Music Publishers page

I'm wondering if we want to keep brief descriptions for publishers if they have separate pages. It seems a tiny bit redundant to me, and it does take up some space. What do you think?-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hofmeister Monatsbericht links

Since you and Cypressdome have been doing an absolutely amazing job of linking hundreds of titles providing us with dates of publication, I was wondering if you would find it advantageous to have a template available for this purpose - sort of like the ones we presently use for links to SLUB/Dresden? A template also has the advantage of being a 'plainlink' in style, without the funny little arrow at the end. I think the ONB's link-naming convention appears to be pretty consistent, so it should be possible to create a functional template without too much agony. Reply over at my page, if you please. Carolus 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New source??

Hi Eric, have you already seen this: ThULB? --Ralph Theo Misch 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Eric, hello WilliamBunting, I think the only way is this, e.g. Herzogenberg Legenden:
klick at the work titel (a new window opens) - select 'alternativ im DFG-Viewer anzeigen' under the thumbnail - choose the highest resolution (+) - then you have to save page by page. I hope I could help! Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Me again,Eric. I just saw that you have already explained the principle..... --Ralph Theo Misch 11:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Schissel

Thank you for uploading the Lassen work.

It has led me to a treasure trove of scanned rare viola music: Herzogenberg Legenden, studies by Hofmann etc. I would like about 4 works both for my own enjoyment and to add to IMSLP. However I can't download them. The thumbnail is a useless 12k tif file and the full pages are 23k HTML. All I can do is print them.

How can I get them?

Regards

WilliamBunting/Emil

Thank you for the reply. The DFG viewer seems to be the secret. Strangely I can get it on my univ computer but not at home. Luckily with studies the number of pages isn't too bad. I particularly like Hofmann; his easy studies on IMSLP are very good for a daily workout. By the way, if you ever see the Sitt studies op 32 arr for viola please contact me.

WilliamBunting/Emil

J. O. von Prochaźka

Hi, It would appear that the "American Elite Edition" was a fairly extensive series, of which J. O. von Prochaźka was the actual publisher. Don't know if it's worth setting up a separate publisher category for Prochaźka yet, but I seem to recall that our style guide for this type of thing calls for the name of the series or collection (plus volume number) to go on top with the usual city: publisher, date. Plate on a second line beneath (just as it does with the various collected editions issued by Breitkopf). I have to say I was quite unaware of Prochaźka's series, which just goes to show that one learns something new every day around here. Carolus 04:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

silver wedding marches etc.

I am thinking it's time to start discussing the list as a whole. There are other things -- many dances have their own tags, but we have dozens of quicksteps and they don't, and probably quite a few other dances as well. As for the silver wedding marches, it says "wedding march" which is a tag in itself, so I would go ahead and use it, regardless of it not being the original wedding. Usage is, in this case, at least related to the original wedding . . . ;-))) Steltz 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)