User talk:Carolus/archive21


Diabelli and Goldberg Variations

Is it a good idea, or even worth it, to move these to their more proper titles (33 Variations on a Waltz by Diabelli, Op. 120 and Aria with 30 Variations, BWV 988 (Op. 4))? Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, as both are so well-known in English under their present (albeit technically incorrect) titles that it might make them more difficult for users to find (despite our redirects). I do like for the original titles to appear in the "Work Info" section whenever possible, in the original language (German for the Beethoven and Italian for Bach as I recall). Carolus 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds fine then (it certainly makes sense). Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


I received your voicemail message. Very good news! Also (you might already know this) the RAM upgrade was a great success. I thought it would help, but I was surprised by the amount of improvement. Even if our traffic doubles overnight the server should have no problem. I've also tweaked the server settings to make it even faster. --Feldmahler 03:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the improvement! Like night and day. Carolus 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

18 Canons Mélodieux, TWV 40:118-123 (Telemann, Georg Philipp)

Hi, No.2207 in the Merton project was edited by Carl Herrmann (1876-1975). The score contains fingerings and other possible original material. Do we know if the Wyatts have permission to print this? (it's under copyright in the US, too) And while I'm at it, have you heard from Theo regarding permission for the Erhart? Thanks, KGill talk email 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. I just sent him a second e-mail about Dorothy Erhardt's Piano Quintet. Carolus 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: My suspicions were correct. He didn't know that Erhardt (spelled more in the traditional German manner in the Chester score) was actually Dorothy Erhardt. There are a few glitches of that nature in the Merton collection, thanks for keeping a sharp eye out! Carolus 02:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

General Information

Thanks for the edits, and feel free to make more. There is post about this via forums, if you haven't already seen it. BKhon 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started. I've been out all day so I've not been to the forums. I'll visit there shortly. One thing I noticed was about the "Average duration" field. Most works beyond a certain size have an average range of duration, so it's a little nonsensical to include seconds in such a listing. Carolus 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Carolus, I think I know the answer to my question but I want to make sure and thought I'd ask you because you've helped in the past -- I have a full score to Delibes' Coppélia published in 1974 by Kalmus that is not a reprint but rather a handwritten copy of the manuscript. The editor's note (by a William McDermott) states simply this: "This score was copied from the original manuscript. The horns were transposed into F and the clarinets and trumpets into A and B flat." Would this meet the "threshold of originality" for copyrighted status?... or perhaps fall into the "scholarly edition" category? It seems from what I've read that transcriptions are editorially significant but I want to make sure because it would make a wonderful edition to IMSLP if public domain. Thanks! Massenetique 03:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The crucial question - because US Copyright is so crazy from many aspects - is whether there is a valid copyright claim printed on either the title page or the first page of music. Though I very much doubt that the score copied by McDermott (who is still alive I think, though nearly 100) - with clarinets and brass transposed into modern keys - would hold up in a court challenge on "threshold of originality" grounds. If there is no copyright claim, scan away, If there is a copyright claim, all is not lost, as I know someone in the management there. (They are somewhat sympathetic to IMSLP - unlike other publishers). Carolus 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The score actually does have a copyright notice -- (c) 1974 by Edwin F. Kalmus -- on both the title page and the first page of music. Massenetique 07:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll ask, and promise to include a link to the score at Sheet Music Plus. The worst they can do is say no. Carolus 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix Schroeder's dates

I see on this page his dates are (1908-1976) and on this (1876-1966). Which is correct? WorldCat doesn't have any dates for him, and I'd like to know if, depending on when he died, I can upload some Eulenburg score and parts to a Telemann oboe d'amore concerto. Daphnis 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

VIAF gives 1876-1966, which is from the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. I expect this is the correct listing. Carolus 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think his edition of the Eulenburg piece mentioned above would be safe since it was published in the 50s. Daphnis 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Most of his editorial work is of an urtext nature, so anything over 25 years old without a copyright notice is fair game. Carolus 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


What is the copyright status of a public domain work and edition, but the uploadeder added their own fingerings to the score. I know the insignificant, where sdding fingerings, articulations, slurs, dynamic and tempo markings from other public domain sources are not protected. But the fingerings are not from another public domain sources. Sorry if this is a stupid question and I'm wasting your time. Thanks, BKhon 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. Fingerings not taken from other public domain sources have been deemed original enough for protection in US courts. They could be similarly protected elsewhere, as there is arguably enough individual variation in fingerings to qualify as original material. So, the short answer is that original fingerings are not allowed without the author or copyright owner's permission here. It's not an urtext issue either, so it's life-plus-50 or life-plus-70. Carolus 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yet another absurd example of US copyright protection, but this is just my opinion. Daphnis 00:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Uh-oh...I have noticed a fair amount of parts on IMSLP which have fingerings and/or bowings written in by the people who played from them. No editorial credit was claimed, of course, because everyone does that. How can we deal with this? It certainly isn't feasible to go through every file on the site to see if it has stuff hand-scrawled on it. KGill talk email 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it unless someone complains. Most folks who write in fingerings aren't going to think about it in the first place. Secondly, there are no doubt lots of fingerings which are copied from earlier sources - even if by memory only. There's also the question of just how individual could fingerings really be for a given passage - which opens up the question of originality. The court decision was a) from a lower court; and b) a long time ago (1940s, I think). Carolus 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I bet if this were challenged today there is a good chance it would be overturned. Daphnis 01:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolus Vacation

It's that time of year again! Carolus is going on a two-week respite to the wilds of Northern Michigan. Nothing but sand dunes, the lakes (Lake Michigan and Crystal Lake), old-growth Beech, Birch and Maples, black squirrels and other assorted wildlife. I'll be gone starting Saturday (September 11) and will return on Sunday, September 26. If you have any pressing copyright questions between these dates, please take them to the other reviewers on our excellent (and fast) copyright review team (KGill, Perlnerd666, Daphnis, Pml, Peter, P.davydov, et al). Any other questions can go to Feldmahler, who should be available a bit more than this time last year.

Nice holidays! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just about to shut down here. Carolus 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check your email first! Daphnis 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll see you back today.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and This Article might interest you.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That article is concerning. I could see someone like UE wanting to have IMSLP blocked to EU access by making us out to be "pirates". Carolus 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My response

Hello! I get it from my friend. I didn't write it myself. I only wanted to upload it beacuse not many double bassists know this beautiful piece. Cheers! Virtuosito

Children's Corner (Debussy, Claude)

I know it'll be a while before I get a response, but when you get back, would you be so kind as to look at this? (i.e. Guifre's upload of the 13th) I noticed that you tagged some Henle issues as C*/N*/V*, even though the fingerings were left in (nothing else original was, though - I'm referring to Nerd's uploads of Beethoven piano trios). Is that not enough to meet the threshold of originality? Thanks, KGill talk email 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The tagging of the Beethoven trios might be an error. One school of thought with respect to Henle and similar editions is that the fingerings are considered "original" contributions by the editor (unless they're actually fingerings taken from an earlier PD source - as one sometime encounters with Chopin editions where Mikuli's fingerings are repeated) and therefore subject to a full "life-plus" term. I am not sure if this edition would be considered subject to such lengthy protection in the EU, however - in light of the maximum 30-year term accorded to urtext editions. The BSB, for example, even reproduces full-blown continuo realizations for urtext-type editions more than 25 years old. Canada's threshold of originality might be low enough to allow fingerings to qualify as original work. I recall there being a lower court case in the USA where fingerings were held to meet the minimal standard. I'll start a thread on the forum about this issue. Thanks, Carolus 22:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

About Japanese version of IMSLP

I would like to translate the Japanese IMSLP main page for the page is not translated good enough but I can't because I'm not a sysop. What should I do?--Kanon und wikipedia 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Contact Supertchan about that...his translations are normally very good...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi again. By any chance, have you been provided with additional music from the Wyatts? I remember you saying there were around 1300 titles, and we have approximately 750 at this point, so I assume there must be more on the way. (I just finished uploading everything on the FTP, excepting two files waiting forevermore for permission to be confirmed.) Cheers, KGill talk email 21:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Before Carolus can respond...that's quite a bit you've done then! By my estimates you've uploaded all but about 25 of those titles...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your Herculean uploading!! I'll be putting some more things onto the FTP as soon as I can (lot's of catching up to do here, naturally). Carolus 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to be a pain, but if possible would you mind putting another folder up? (I finished the string quintets about a week ago.) Thanks, KGill talk email 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll put up the remainder tonight. There's not very much left. Now that my taxes are done, I should have a bit more free time! UPDATE: I just did a complete file count. There are 1115 files altogether. They are divided into the following folders:

  1. Piano 3os (139)
  2. Piano 4tets (70)
  3. Piano 5tets (63)
  4. Piano 6tets (7)
  5. Str 2os (60)
  6. Str 3os (119)
  7. Str 4tets (475)
  8. Str 5tets (111)
  9. Str 6tets (24)
  10. Str 8tets (31)
  11. Vn 3os (13)
  12. Vn 4tets (3)

As I recall, you've uploaded everything except the Str 6tets and 8tets, Vn 3os and 4tets. Right? Carolus 00:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, with the addition of the Piano 6tets. Thanks, KGill talk email 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! UPDATE: Remainder now uploaded. Carolus 01:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All finished. KGill talk email 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

...and a tip of the hat and gracious bow for a job splendidly done! Carolus 00:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From Matesic:
Hi Carolus - is the Merton Music Project really complete? I've been waiting patiently for the appearance of 5 string quartets by John Lodge Ellerton that I previously purchased from Theo Wyatt. Another I notice to be missing is the A minor quartet of Charles Wood. Best wishes, Matesic

Hi Matesic, I will ask Theo Wyatt about the Ellerton pieces. I am in the process of compiling a list of missing titles to send him. His original catalog is around 1300 files, of which we have 1115. It might be complete as there could be some cases where the item was a new edition that is now being handled by Ourtext. BTW, your electronic realizations (Steve's Bedroom Band) are of excellent quality - I was listening to the Rimsky-Korsakov earlier today. Carolus 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I was a little hasty in proclaiming the project finished... KGill talk email 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's done for all practical purposes. We might have a few stragglers, but not very much I expect. Carolus 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Water Music

This needs to be split, but I notice you have a typeset which is under a Performance Restricted Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 1.0 license. That would mean we can't split it, since that would, I believe, classify either as adaptation or reproduction. You may need to split this file yourself as a result, BKhon 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolus didn't typeset it himself, he got it from somewhere (as I can tell without knowing for certain because of the name ;-) ) - but would it matter? We wouldn't be modifying the typeset itself, just the file it's stored in. KGill talk email 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that there's a good chance he didn't make the typeset, but that is besides the point. If the typeset was published with all the pieces together, then I believe splitting the file would be altering the actual publication. I'm not completely sure whether or not this actually fits the definition of adaptation or reproduction. If we are splitting the file, and then posting it somewhere else, that's reproduction (I think, but could be wrong). Why wouldn't it be adaptation if we would change how it was originally published? BKhon 21:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
My 2¢: arguably the Chrysander edition should be separated into slightly more manageable chunks, but the undivided PDF is worth keeping on the combined Water Music page – this page, like the similar pages for other “portmanteau” works, should be retained and should link to the separate works that comprise it. As for the Performance Restricted edition, it should not be split without permission – or else may need to be retained on the “combined” page if it includes movements from more than one of the suites. Philip Legge @ © talk 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
PML raises a very good point here. "Water Music" is frequently programmed and performed as a single work - despite having sections with separate HWV numbers. As for the file, I received permission to post that file from the copyright owner and would indeed need permission to split up the file - which is unlikely to be granted as it contains an embedded sound file. Carolus 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on a possible solution with this: Category:CompilationsP.davydov 06:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Very good idea! Philip Legge @ © talk 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re an archived conversation of yours-

fixed the bug that caused the tag 'vn hpd' to come out as violin and harp, and 'vn hp' to come out as 'vn and harpsichord'. that was the cause of the problem. (i hope that it isn't only P.Davydov who's allowed to do that- sincere apologies if so...) Eric 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he encourages others to do so (he certainly did me at least!)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Great news - I'd forgotten about it, actually! Carolus 22:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hammond, William G.

Why is he PD in the EU? Wouldn't his works enter the public domain in 2016? BKhon 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the text of the RoST template at the bottom of the file entries...note that many other American composers have similar the public domain page ;)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not too important, but...

Did you get a chance to check out the journal yet? You were away while most of the development was going on. Feldmahler will be making a section for on the portal page. I'm not sure how regularly you check the forums, but it's pretty flamboyantly apparent (since there is a new forum section for it). Anyway, if you have interest in writing some articles (maybe copyright related, or involving some publishing company or something!!) than feel free to write. With kind regards, BKhon 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked it out and like it very much! Perhaps sometime late this year or early next I can come up with a small contribution. Carolus 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

This year, where would Tcherepnin's Opus 5 Bagatelles (1922) stand in terms of copyright or public domain or very gray area? Alonso del Arte 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Alexander Tcherepnin died only in 1977, the piece is under copyright in Canada and the EU. If it was published in 1922, it is public domain in the USA only (the version published in 1922, that is). Obviously, it cannot be posted here. Carolus 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I won't post it here (neither the solo piano music nor my orchestration of it). Alonso del Arte 20:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Standardization Tip

Hey, thanks for the uploods (in general). However, one thing I notice is that you often don't format plate numbers correctly (not a big deal, though). It would be best if it was in the format "Plate ###.", rather than ", "plate ###.", or something along those lines. Thanks, BKhon 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those previously formatted plate numbers are from before the format was formally standardized. I usually employ the City: Publisher Name, date. Plate ### format now. (I sometimes might forget, though!). Before, I was putting a comma after the date info and not capitalizing "plate." Carolus 18:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lotti: La Vita caduca

Hi Carolus, I don't know, if it is important. But to avoid that anybody cherish the illusion that the Diözesanbibliothek Münster would send Pdf files: I got only the microfiches from there (that's great enough) and converted them myself at the University of Essen. I didn't want to put too many words into the box 'Scanned by'. Cheers! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it broke into 2 lines anyway, you might as well include yourself also! Carolus 22:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
OK - thanks --Ralph Theo Misch 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

4 Organ Pieces, Op.17 (Guilmant, Alexandre)

Hi Carolus, too late I recognized that Op.17 is part of Pièces dans different styles. Sorry --Ralph Theo Misch 22:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps all the opus numbers should be added to the title... --Ralph Theo Misch 22:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, really. I'll use a redirect. I'll think about adding those opus numbers. It might be a good idea. Carolus 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


For PLP, since Dover let the FS go out of print?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding! I have a call in to Dover about my editions of Mikado and Pinafore, which they appear to have also allowed to go out of print. Yes, Clemenza would be wonderful for PLP. Thanks, Carolus 04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

About my work with BNF

Dear Carolus After your note on my page, 29 september, I was very much disappointed (about that you can look at my message on KGill page) but i understand well that the maximal security is requiered. For the scores I had uploaded page after page on BNF, all are marked on bottom :"source:gallica...". It took me a lot of time to make a pdf compil and in thoses case I don't have the energy to do the work again. So I suppress all. On my list : Rameau, Gilles, Haydn symphonies & piano sonatas, Italians motteti of the XVI century, may be some Campra, some minors composers... It's always manuscripts & autographs or first editions. In other cases, I will remove the first page if there's no music noted on it and If there is some, I have to transform pdf into jpeg, clear the gallica reference, and transform again into pdf... I confess to you that it's not a very exciting work but that's how it should be. First I have to make an inventory. So, this big wash will keep me busy for a while. Have a good day Squin 13:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Squin, I think the only thing we really need to eliminate on BNF files is the separate opening page with the quasi-copyright claim. The ": source:gallica..." credit at the bottom of pages is not really a problem as it is not a claim of ownership or a corporate logo like Google or Microsoft. I will be able to help you with any of the files which you have uploaded where the opening copyright claim page is present. As I said on your talk page, your contributions to this site are superb and most appreciated. The good news is that the problem is much smaller than you thought it was. Carolus 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Carolus, Thank you for the encouragement. About your message on Chauvet pieces I wonder if i've made a misunderstanding. Was your remark about that ? I understand now well the word "quasi-copyright". In this case, I'm sure that I consentioulsly remove this page since my first contibution and Chauvet is an error. I do apologize. In this page, BNF say that Non-commercial re-use of this content is free but the source has to be mentionned, so I always complete the scanner field... Tell me Squin 04:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Squin, Yes, you should continue to credit BNF in the scanner field as you have previously. The only thing that needs to be removed from any BNF files is indeed that particular page, since it might confuse users of this site that it is not OK for them to download the files. The small "gallica" credits at the bottom are fine to leave in place as they are. I thought that one page was just an oversight, as BNF automatically generates those pages whenever one downloads a PDF from them. Thanks and Best Wishes, Carolus 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Carolus, you can't imagine how light I feel not having to play the myth of Sysiphus ... Cheers Squin 07:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize it doesn't matter, but according to , Mr. Lerique-Koechlin is Koechlin's grandson. Just remembered that. Not making a point one way or the other, as I said, just remembered that. Eric 20:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC) (edit: or so he claims - usual Internet proviso, trademark, patent pending)

I figured it was a relative - no one else (other than a few of the more insane publishers) would be so annoyed that there was such a thing as public domain after all. I'm thinking about limiting the ban to a few days, as I realize he may not have intended to vandalize the page. However, I really do not appreciate the nasty attitude at all. This site has probably done more to make his grandfather's work known than all of the publishers combined did in the last 100 years. Carolus 20:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclined to agree several times over, though then again I already (volunteer) work here and at a library too, and appreciate sites like Baen Free Library that have the same bright idea, so to speak... he decided to contact me by email (we don't know each other- maybe I worked on the Wikipedia Koechlin page, maybe he noticed my edit to his user page here, or something- I don't know ) and so I suppose I feel elected to be the one to inform him when his ban runs out when it does- I can do that. (Just because I wish to high something he'd been more civil and can't agree with his opinions doesn't mean I can't hope he'll decide to participate, if not in the site, then in a -civil- discussion if briefly and on the forums perhaps rather than here- eh, whatever. I shouldn't even be here, I should be cleaning my room in prep. for a visit. Exit distractable me. Best wishes!! Eric 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the ban to one week. If he's prepared to make his remarks in a civil manner, we can discuss things here with him. He should understand that we are not necessarily his enemy. I've put in links to Sheet Music Plus where his grandfather's work is actually available on the titles that are locked up under the infamous [TB]. Given the amount of traffic here, his publishers are likely getting more score sales than they would otherwise. Thanks for taking the time to answer him. I confess that I was quite annoyed by his attitude, but we all (you too) do a lot of work around here just because we want things to be available, which may be any number of things - but immoral is certainly not one of them. Carolus 20:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! I don't know why he thinks we're doing this but I know for me it's part obsession/fascination with music and also part intense desire that music thrive also. And other things...
Sent an email trying to explain some of that- will see if there's a response (tomorrow presum.) and if so what sort... Eric 21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on his response, I'm doubting we'll be seeing him back Eric 21:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New arranger template

Many thanks for your help with this — P.davydov 21:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you for coming up with the idea!! It's quite wonderful. We could probably do the same for editors, since so many composers seem to do that along with the composing and arranging. Carolus 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


I hadn't noticed and failed to catch it in a search, sorry about that. Eric 23:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A minor and G minor Brahms organ

are those two - the A minor and G minor preludes and fugues - versions of each other? I haven't heard them but thought otherwise. Their openings are very different for one thing... I really was thinking I should have just split up the PDF and since I think the G minor belongs on the other page (I may be mistaken though- and then there's the question of the A-flat minor fugue w/o prelude.) Eric 00:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the G minor is the earlier version and the A minor the final one. I could be wrong. It might be worth checking on - as I am relying on what may be a faulty memory of the piece. UPDATE: I think my memory is faulty here. The G minor really looks like a different piece altogether. Confirmed: It's a separate work. Carolus 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks! Though btw... now I think on it maybe the manuscript can't be easily split since it separates in the middle of a page, but maybe the published one can... will have to check since I am planning to try later and move the other WoO to the appropriate page unless we just merge them to 2 Brahms Preludes and Fugues as is sometimes done on e.g. recording tracks I think... Eric 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You could also just repeat the file on both work pages (WoO 9 and WoO 10). Just include the note that both pieces are included in that particular file. Carolus 00:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

BWV 61

Why the protection?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just seeing how it works. I'll unprotect again shortly. Carolus 03:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Mind you that non-autoconfirmed users can't move pages anyways...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

New editor templates

"LinkEd" and "EdIntro" are now both active. Have fun :-) — P.davydov 15:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Carolus 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress

Re the "we do ask.." of this page - more in the nature of a request - it seems a very reasonable one when time allows for satisfying it (to include information on the provenance of the specific item. I may go back and do so with mine, at least. Another thought - I've noticed some of the templates, eg SLUB, have that sort of provenance-acknowledgement built right in. Would it be difficult or unwise to have a step in that direction with the LOC template, in your opinion, is there someone else I should be asking, &c? Thanks! Eric 16:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing about LOC -- the scores in the Performing Arts section (which the Warren, Brahms, and others were from) can be easily downloaded as PDFs, the scores in other divisions can't :) (hence my deletion of the Jensen - I thought I'd created a PDF out of the Jensen gifs but had only created a one-page PDF out of the first GIF, had fooled myself otherwise and not checked until well after I uploaded the file- so deleted it since that was not how to proceed. Can restore the page if someone can put together their gifs as a PDF of the first movement of the suite, of course. At the moment I don't think I have PDF-creation software after all, just PDF-editing software. This will hopefully change v.soon. :) Sorry about irrelevant detail!) Eric 17:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for attribution and full credit to the organizations and people who created the scans. That's one of the reasons for our links to Sibley, LOC, DKB, etc. The only thing I take issue with are claims of IP - ownership of images of public domain material - which have been held to be "not the subject of copyright" in court. The whole idea of being able to impose limits upon the use of public domain material flies in the face of the very concept of public domain. So, as I understand it, they're basically asking that we give them credit for producing the scans. No problem here - include links by all means. I would not, however, state or imply that the use of these images is restricted in any way for the simple reason that public domain means there are no restrictions in the use of such material. I sometimes wonder if the librarians' legal counsel is overstating the case here in order to avoid any hint of liability should the grandson of a composer become outraged that his grandfather's work is freely available and engages the nearest lawyer to raise a stink. Carolus 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

String Quintet (Bengtsson, Gustaf)

Do you think this is OK to keep? (I'm asking in light of a couple other permission issues we've had...) Thanks, KGill talk email 01:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case, yes. The editor is a relative who asked Wyatt to issue the piece under the Merton imprint. Carolus 01:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus. I just noticed you're changing the sorting of the Mozart church sonatas. Actually it is deliberate that they're currently listed by key, and not by Köchel number. While the new sortable Mozart work list now allows people to sort them by the numbering in K1 and K6, anyone who only knows the key and not the number can now find them easily in the alphabetical listing (something not easily done with the sortable work list) — P.davydov 18:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back as I thought the key sorting made more sense upon looking at it. Carolus 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! — P.davydov 18:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus, this morning for the Quintet I was wondering how to add to my upload NON PD EU ..??. And I can't see how now, after your correction... Squin 07:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Non PD EU" appears automatically after an item is tagged by one of the copyright reviewers - me in that case. The tag cannot be added manually. As you can see by looking at the tag itself (V/V/20), Turina will enter the public domain in the EU on 1/1/2020. Carolus 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


that was entirely a guess, but thank you :) Eric 03:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Graener Waldmusik

this is PD-CA in anycase since it was published no later than late 1923 say... but I don't see it as 'certainly' PD-US - see Category_talk:Graener,_Paul for my reasons (some better, some worse, none especially convincing I admit except the uncertainty of it all) - but I am no expert? Eric 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I answered over there (as you've no doubt already read by now). So, just to remind myself: check the NIE listings to see if somehow Kistner filed an NIE assuming it was actually published at the premiere. It could have been published before the premiere, especially by the 1920s as it would have been a means for Kistner to collect GEMA royalties (which might have been in play by then) for the premiere. In the 19th century, the practice (especially for operas) was to have scores available for sale on opening night. Carolus 04:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the overcommenting... NIE listings? I don't think I've even heard of those. I'll go have a look. Thanks! Eric 04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Dear Carolus! There is a problem to open the "Petits Motets" by Campra and I don´t know why.

Best wishes Bassani

Very strange! Left a note on Feldmahler's talk page. Carolus 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Harmonium Collection

Hi Carolus, tomorrow, I would like to scan, but I'm not sure about the CR - New York: G. Schirmer, 1909, CR renewal assigned, 1938, to G. Schirmer, Inc., revised, arranged and edited by F. Flaxington Harker (died 1936). Shall I start? Thanks and regards --Ralph Theo Misch 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scan away. The 1908 copyright expired in 1984 in the USA. Harker is obviously free in both the EU and Canada. Carolus 21:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine - thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lefébure-Wely, Postlude: I'm sure that it's one of those thausands of pieces from L'Organiste moderne. But which? :( --Ralph Theo Misch 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hard to know without actually looking it up! Carolus 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is no way round it. Tomorrow....--Ralph Theo Misch 21:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the contents of L'Organiste Moderne: No Postlude appears. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Wasn't sure how to check their IP- didn't want to permanently block a range of AOL or similar IPs so settled for a compromise for the time being :) Eric 05:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the block checks their IP address automatically. I'll ask Feldmahler about it as I don't know that's absolutely the case. Glad you undid his vandalism of the Paine workpage! Carolus 05:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Check you inbox whenever you have time. --Funper 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail in reply. Carolus

Hubay opera

It looks like about a decade ago I photocopied substantial chunks of Jeno Hubay's opera Anna Karenina op.112 (vocal score) (pub.1922, I am fairly sure, so just on the line for PD-US - UE 7189 so the UE page doesn't give a hint unfortunately...) on interlibrary loan. Unfortunately, I may have ruined it for scanning and upload by scribbling on various pages things like "act 1, scene 3" in an unsuccessful attempt to keep the individual pages in order (rather than - more sensibly - using, say, a folder!) As with Google marking I don't yet know how to use fill functions to remove these unsightly things. Would I be right in guessing I shouldn't upload these as is, and wait until I do know how to fill the areas where I wrote these things with white-block (or otherwise remove them)? Thanks much in advance... (the same probably applies to another photocopying job I did, of the first movement of Christian Sinding's string quartet op.70. If I can find those photocopies in my mess of papers :) ) Eric 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am generally of the opinion that a score is still useful unless the markings are of such an extensive and obtrusive nature that they obscure the notation - making it difficult to decipher. There's also the rarity factor. A vocal score for Hubay's Anna Karenina is not common by any means - probably not even available from UE. I think you should post it warts and all. You can clean it up later and post the cleaned version beneath it - as piupianissimo as done so beautifully with numerous piano scores. I noticed that you discovered the difference between 'tamburo' and 'tamburino' - that's always a tricky one! Regards, Carolus 22:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, apologies in advance for self-deprecation, but if-Wikipedia-translation-can-be-believed :):) - and thank you! Hope I do learn the cleanup method for removing the Google stamps on pages since things like Boisdeffre's oboe/piano suite and the (much much longer- a 120 page score - no parts ) string sextet by Clarke's (briefly..) teacher Percy H Miles do sort of look worth uploading! :) Eric 23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


The Schubert songs would be happy with his having a category now...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the Main Page in accordance with the new categories, BTW-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Schubert should be happy now. EM has lots of editions, so it's good to have him added! Carolus 04:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Strony

I noticed Sibley uploaded something by Charles Strony yesterday. Were you able to find out when he died? He seems to have had a most interesting history and was once at least described (maybe by his publicist? one never knows, I admit!) as quite famous- but Jongen dedicated a work to him, there's other material that would count in Wikipedia terms as 'significance' biography wise (including a mention in the New York Times- several in fact- their very benchmark :) - he was arrested in 1916 on suspicion of starting a fire in Toronto in a concert hall, but then released... oy...) - anyway, alive and musically active 1910s-1930something apparently (at the latter time i think he was an opera conductor at the major house in Lyon.) And of course, totally unknown now- Worldcat lists that one piece by him, other searches turn up maybe 2 - 4 more. so it goes?... he does show up in viaf but without dates. Anyhow, you probably know all that already- was wondering if you could add anything though :) (it's unfortunate when Sibley posts something by Wellesz, for instance, a composer I like very much indeed, and some of whose works are PD-US, but whose music can't be hosted by IMSLP until 2025... for instance- under current law; and the law might change, at that. No idea when Strony died, so...) Sorry about the incoherence but I've been summoned to hurry downstairs- any information would be appreciated though - thanks!! Eric 18:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a death date. The Lyon municipal library has some references going up to about 1948, which is getting too close to our 1959 date for comfort. He was the principal conductor of the Opera de Lyon in the 1930s and 40s. He seems to more or less vanish from the records after 1948, but that doesn't mean he necessarily died then. Carolus 22:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

True. And according to a NY Times article, he was born ca.1888 ("he described himself as one Charles Strony, 28 years of age"- this in 1916) - so he would not have been by modern standards so old in 1960. Well, I'll still see occasionally if I can turn up anything- I'm buoyed by the fact that I've had unexpected luck in the past with composers about whom no birth/death date seemed available at all... (Joseph Raff, composer of some martial pieces and parlor songs (I would describe them) now scanned in at the LoC and available on the LoC sites, was discovered by some Raff experts I know - not by me! - to very likely have been Joachim Raff's brother who settled near Binghamton NY, for instance with birth and death dates determinable; but a few other cases too... Eric 16:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Do you think having the possibility of video (for ballet and opera performances) on IMSLP be too far out of copyright reviewers area of specialty? A lot of people are struggling with audio now that we have added that. Thanks, BKhon 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the interjection, but what exactly do you mean by 'struggling'? We're managing fine with audio (although the US copyright is a little weird) - I don't see how anyone's struggling with it... KGill talk email 22:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's not released under a creative commons, a lot of people tag them incorrectly (as though it's the same as other US copyright law). I've seen it many times, BKhon 22:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We presently do not accept video formats. Unless there is a wide assortment of videos available out there, I don't see us hosting them in the near future. I'll mention it to Feldmahler next time I talk with him. The audio files have two layers of copyright, which makes review more of a challenge. Carolus 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BKhon, everybody (including you with scores ;) messes up upon trying a new thing. It's supposed to be natural. Things get fixed. I think that we've ironed out the difficulties mostly.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that it's slightly more difficult than the copyright of scores. Especially when there are factors such as engineering on the sound clip, etc. On video there is even more to deal with. There are pictures, potential privacy issues (people in the audience), etc. BKhon 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bellon, Ponscarme et Cie

I guess it's not usually done actually but should I link Bellonetc to Rouart's page since they acquired the firm a few years later? Thanks again! Eric 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we do this sometimes when a short-lived publisher was absorbed by a well-established firm - like H.A. Probst was by Kistner. I don't really see any need for a separate publisher page for Bellon, Ponscarne et Cie. at this stage of the game as there are just too few issues to bother with. So, linking them to Rouart makes sense. Carolus 21:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sergei Pavchinsky

Hi Carolus. There's an arrangement of Tchaikovsky's Third Symphony here by one Sergei Erazmovich Pavchinsky, who it appears died in 1976 [1]. It had been previously been tagged as Urtext and PD, but that seems difficult to justify, even though it's a 1953 Muzgiz edition. I've put a block on it for now, but I'd be grateful if you could take a look and give your expert opinion? Thanks! — P.davydov 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I originally had no idea of who Pachinksy was and assumed it was merely an editing of a 19th century arrangement. This does not fall under the urtext rubric, so it will have to be deleted. There are probably other, PD arrangements out there. BTW, what do you want to do about arrangements by Rimsky's wife Nadezhda? There appear to be some under her maiden name (Purgold) and others under her married name. My own inclinaton would be to list everything under the name Nadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova. Carolus 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly. As far as Miss Purgold is concerned then I'd agree that she should be known in her later incarnation as Mme Rimskaya-Korsakova, which is how she appears in the Library of Congress authorities file (which is always useful in helping to make up our minds on these types of things) :-) — P.davydov 20:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregh Editions

Hi Carolus. I have a score with the plate number 2824 dated from 1888 so I was sure that it was the same date for my Collin 's others uploads. I'll put it on line in a while so you'll see (Collin's Elegie) Squin 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

I am sure the date of 1888 is absolutely correct. However, the year is not actually printed on the score itself (it looks like BNF may have stamped a date - "C.1888"), hence the "n.d." (=no date). Most European issues before 1891 are undated (the exceptions being Simrock and Belaieff), though it is often possible to track down the exact date (even the Month and day) of publication thanks to records in places like the BNF, periodicals like Le Menestrel, etc. Those are very interesting scans from BNF. They will give us a much better picture of the publisher Gregh, whose output is not common here. Carolus 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I thougt that n.d. was for "not determinated" (It's very confusing, that's the french acception) Squin 21:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I had no idea that was the French usage. One learns new things here every day! The "n.d." abbreviation has been used by English and US libraries for "no date" or "not dated" since they started collecting things. Carolus 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Dear Carolus! Could you delete the PDF-files in "Der General-Bass in der Composition" by Heinichen. I think the files are damaged and so I will renew the book. Regards, Bassani

Thanks. Those files were really huge. That's an important book on the interpretation of figured bass, so I'm glad you're going to re-submit. Carolus 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


And Archive.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, we now have 102 music publisher pages.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's more than wikipedia has. Also, our info is a lot more in depth. On to 200! Carolus 17:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

head guy

hi, so i see you are the head copyright reviewer. very well indeed. apparently no one has been able to answer me about this. who is the head of standardization? thats what its called in the forums. apparently davydov wrote the two main manuals: page titles and general information guide, so is he basically the 'unofficial' head? i just want to know what each admin does on this site. i also see bkhon and perlnerd are moderators on the forum of categorization and standardization and stuff, so are they the heads too? and dont say there is no head because there is always someone people ask for things like that. thanks in advance Jdoeman 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jdoeman, P.davydov is indeed the head librarian, though (as you've already noticed) all of the admins participate in the standardization of things as we go along. KGill, Perlnerd666 and the other regular admins all know the style manual and can answer any question you might have. I saw from a couple of uploads of yours that you seem to have a good grasp of the basics, so with a little time I'm sure we would all be delighted to have your help in the routine cleanup and standardization of things here. Best Wishes, Carolus 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hate to intercede here, but I wrote the manual of style for general information :). There really are not heads on IMSLP, but I do understand what you mean. Yes, Davydov is pretty much the "senor" in terms of standardization and especially categorization, Carolus is the "head of the copyright review team", KGill is practically the god of the category walker templates, Schissel has done an amazing job with Sibley, and everyone else is unique in some way (except for me, who has been inactive now for the past week or two :)). Good luck with contributing, BKhon 00:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Bkhon did indeed write the manual - which we are very thankful for. P.davydov has very extensive library experience, which is why he is referred to as the 'head' librarian, not from any official rank. I suppose the only two admins here with actual official ranks are Feldmahler and myself as we are both officers of Project Petrucci, LLC - who owns the site. Carolus 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Red Album of 20 Pieces for the Organ

Hi Carolus, indeed. I've already splitted the pdf file. I'll try to assign the pieces to individual work pages next days (poco a poco). --Ralph Theo Misch 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I sometimes am concerned we'll end up with way too many things sitting in "Various" - which is not exactly an easy way for people to find the individual composers and titles. Carolus 23:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Finished. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Good job - thanks! Carolus 22:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus, do you happen to have reliable dates of Gino Enrico Moroni? To my knowledge he was active as editor, arranger in the 1930s and early 40s. Another point: how much of a logo is allowed? During review I've deleted a vocal score because Google was half visible. Actually, similar case with Il Voto and Mors et Vita. Hobbypianist 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The only Moroni I could find which has anything to do with music was a Gabriele Moroni (no dates) and Umberto Moroni (1878-1924). You're correct to take down anything with the Google logo. As a logo, it is IP whose presence is a problem legally. That's how CD Sheet Music "protects" their scans of PD music scores, BTW. Carolus 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

3 Elegies

Dear Carolus! I´ve uploaded the "3 Elegies" by Henry Purcell and John Blow. How I can make a link to this file on the categories to theses composers? At the moment you can only find the files in the category "Various".The compositions are very fine and important. Regards, Bassani

Hi, I added the categories. Look at the bottom of the page in the edit window and you will see how it is done. [[Category:Purcell, Henry|Elegies]][[Category:Blow, John|Elegies]]. Don't use the 3 in the title as it will not alphabetize under E in the composer category pages for Purcell and Blow if you do. Carolus 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

about ||

Hi! Is || supposed to make the content to the right of it on the line invisible? (In Toccata, Op.108 (Kalkbrenner, Friedrich Wilhelm)) Odd effect... Eric 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(not Carolus) It's supposed to signal a new field in a table, which doesn't explain why it has the effect of hiding the rest of the line...that is strange. I changed it to <br>, in any case (as that seems to fit better here). KGill talk email 13:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm - very odd. Guess that experiment didn't work out the way I thought it would. Sorry Carolus 22:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

5 Lieder, Op.48 (Strauss, Richard)

Hello Carolus, in this case I didn't know exactly how to integrate all informations according to the standardization. Sorry- --Ralph Theo Misch 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost perfect. Use 4 equal signs to designate a single number from a multi-number piece (you used 5). Carolus 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruckner's Erinnerung

I'm fine with you deleting it, but why did you delete it? --Lisztrachmaninovfan 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright. It's a 1988 publication from the complete works - an urtext less than 25 years old not free even in the EU. I'm a little surprised that Henselt has it available. The UE edition (Stradal) and the even earlier Doblinger edition is OK. Carolus 01:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

also about IP label issues

noticed at least one other document - will be able to find it again if I didn't bookmark it - that was scanned by "Internet Archive" (who I think are a fairly free-access-committed group, but it's true I wouldn't want to bet the farm on that either) but unlike the Jadassohn Harmony manual they helped scan, this one had their stamp/logo on every page, Google style. Should I hold off on uploading this one until I've figured out how to clean/fill it (a little harder in this case maybe because the background color as I recall wasn't white as with most Google documents, but if I can learn one I'll be able to learn the other... anyway!) or would you judge this probably less of an issue than with Google? (Enough so that I should consider saving/collating/uploading if the document itself seems worth it, that is :) ) Thanks! Eric 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm. Apologies for all the parens up there. Eric 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If they have a logo on every page, I would hold off. A lot of IA stuff I've dealt with has been saturated with Microsoft logos, since they provided funding and tech support for the scanning programs of the New York Public Library and some other university libraries. Unlike the Google Books files, these are not easily cleaned of logos. A decent percentile of IA stuff is logo-free, but you just have to examine everything you download. Carolus 16:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Eric 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Your Uploads (download counter)

Thanks for the info about the Chopin Preludes download status. When I joined this site I had no idea it got so much traffic. I see that two users (out of nearly 2000?!)have rated the file which only got a 5. That's somewhat disheartening given that it was one of the best LofC scans I've run across and required minimal cleanup. If a file is replaced with an updated version (same file name) does it inherit the previous version's quality rating? If so, would it be best when replacing a file with one of better quality to delete the original and change the file name of the new file so the new file can be rated on its own merit? I know that would mean also restarting the download counter. Thanks. --Cypressdome 23:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the rating does not re-set. Of course, as more ratings are added the average changes. Replacing a file is always best to do by clicking on the file# link and following the instructions from there. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the file ratings as a lot of people seem to rate a file on how much they like the edition rather than the quality of the scan itself (yes, I know our instructions say to rate on scan quality alone). The fact that the file has more than 2000 downloads speaks for itself. So, 2 people thought the file was so-so (for whatever reason) and 2000 thought well-enough to dowload it. Carolus 23:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Malicious Recordings

I see you removed a file, as it was a "virus manifestation". What exactly do you mean by "virus manifestation". When I listened to the file, it had no ill effects. BKhon 22:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you went to the page for the file itself, there was a warning that the file was infested with malicious code that could infect your computer if you opened it. I hope you did not open one of those MP3s uploaded by Cviii, as the wiki's own virus and malware detection software issued this warning. Carolus 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This worries me. Are you certain that the wiki's virus detection software is accurate? My computer's antivirus software doesn't raise any alarms whatsoever (I downloaded and played one of the files out of curiosity), and has not for the several dozen (!) other files I have seen on the site that bear this warning (it's not just on MP3 files, but also on a fair amount of MUS and SIB files, IIRC). I guess that I should check through all the recordings on the site to make sure they're OK... KGill talk email 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the only time I've seen this warning on a page for a sound file - granted I've not looked at every page for sound files, but I've seen a fair number. I knew about the Finale and Sibelius files, which we are going to be getting rid of anyway. It could be nothing - but it certainly raised a concern so I didn't want to take a chance that it could infect users' computers who innocently downloaded the file expecting a piano performance. Carolus 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, then I'm definitely going to check through the recordings tonight. (Shouldn't take too long, as you've uploaded most of them, and I think I can trust your files ;-) ) KGill talk email 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If my files are untrustworthy, we have a real problem!! Carolus 23:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The first two I found were uploaded by Ralph: File:PMLP144369-Lemare,Improv.onOldFolksAtHome.mp3 and File:PMLP111679-Bach,PrelAndFugueBWV532,Lemare.mp3. As more than 150 people have downloaded the Bach file (and I downloaded both and found them to be fine), this makes me think that perhaps the autoscan is not so reliable...after all, it does merely say that the file 'may' contain malicious code. KGill talk email 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're probably right. I listened to both of those file myself with no ill effects. I'll ask Feldmahler if he has any idea why the wiki software is viewing these files as malware. Carolus 23:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's probably the best way to find out. (Incidentally, every single file under Category:Bodhipaksha, Kevin is marked for malicious code.) KGill talk email 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Talked with Feldmahler. We think it's a failure of the wiki software to recognize the MIME/file type tag - probably due to the way the mp3 was generated (there are numerous methods by which the files are generated, some older than others). The files themselves appear to be fine and play without a problem. The Scriabin has been restored and is now available. Carolus 05:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Janacek - Diary of One Who Disappeared

dear Carolus,

I've been trying to submit a file meant to substitute the Complete Score available foráček,_Leoš). the old file is missing pp. 14-15, that's why I'm submitting it again. I've encountered some technical problems, since after my upload the new link was still pointing to the old file. I also wonder how to proceed to the elimination of the old link - would it be your work, or could I do it myself?

thanks in advance!

Hi, It's very simple if you know the trick: simply click on the file number that is below the "complete score" description (#83419) and it will take you to a page where there is a link to "Upload a new version of this file". Click on that link and follow the instructions to upload the file and it will replace the current version. You might not see the new version immediately unless you are logged in as the cache has to be renewed (up to 3 days). Best Wishes, Carolus 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Just a note to say that, if we take the LC and VIAF authority files as our guide, he should be "Pavel Lamm", as professionally his patronymic was hardly ever used. I've amended the entries we have accordingly and created a new composer category for him (apparently he did dabble a little!) — P.davydov 19:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There will be no complaint from this quarter! Being somewhat lazy, I never liked typing out Pavel Alexandrovich (not that I actually typed it out very often). Glad you added a composer category too. BTW, I think we now have all of Sibley's Tchaikovsky items apart from 2 which were arranged by people who died after 1961. We're well over 500 arrangers last I checked, and nearing 500 editors. I really like the ability to link an arranger or editor. Do you have any idea of who arranged "Le Cygne" from Carnival of the Animals in the set of parts uploaded earlier today? Carolus 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the usual sources have come up a blank, but the "Dying Swan" subtitle suggests it might have been done for one of several 20th-century ballet versions. I'd be interested to know if you find out... — P.davydov 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the "Dying Swan" title as well. I'll continue to look around. Carolus 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Willner - BWV 248

Hi Carolus, I wrote CS, but the aria (XIX) and the chorale (XXIII) have a text underlay (overlay?) in German/English. I forgot the right word: Are they piano scores now? --Ralph Theo Misch 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they still count as piano scores unless they actually have a separate staff for the vocal part. The text overlay is a common feature on opera piano reductions, which are still piano reductions and not vocal scores. Carolus 19:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)