User talk:Carolus/archive22


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)


ah, thank you, should have checked for that feature- I think I can find that URL for the last few BNF uploads I made, in the interest of providing additional information :) so will edit them prob. tomorrow. Good to know! Eric 04:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carolus and Ok for Brandus - I 've seen in Eric discussion page the message about BNF and BT ... Since few months I've suppressed a lot of exact references in my ancients uploads, putting BNF or BT only ! Can you tell me where I have to look on Imslp for learning the lasts rules or informations ? Squin 05:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:External library templates lists all templates with usage instructions. Not all of them can input an exact URL, and there's no reasoning behind which get that functionality - it's essentially per request. I guess it might be a good idea to go through and enable it for all of them (if possible), but until someone does that you'll have to look on that page to be certain. KGill talk email 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

IMSLP Journal (Recordings)

Hi Carolus. I know that you have been doing a fair amount of file collecting for PD recordings. Since so many people associate IMSLP with just sheet music, I would like to write an article on journal publicizing our growing collection of recordings. Our web developer, Helen Hou-Sandi, implemented an MP3 system to the journal. This means an article on the sound collection could be illustrated with a selection of the sounds themselves. I was wondering if you could offer a list of a few suggestions containing rare, special, or high quality recordings, so we have something to write about. With kind regards, BKhon 02:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Right off the top of my head would be the outstanding series recorded at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. They have released them under a Creative Commons license for free download, and IMSLP is mirroring their collection. The performances are first rate and include a number of standard works. Also of interest are the series of recordings made available by the owners of the Pandora Music label, some fine performances by Musica Viva of Washington, DC, the young Italian pianist Stefano Ligoratti and an interesting series of orchestral performances featuring Barbara Schubert conducting two Chicago area orchestras: the Du Page Symphony and the University of Chicago Orchestra. There are also a number of historical performances available featuring artists such as Rachmaninoff, Artur Schnabel and Scriabin. Carolus 05:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Although the recordings are of quartets played/multisequenced by one person at all parts and so of lower quality than ideal, rarity value is considerable and to my mind so is interest - I am thinking of User Matesic's series of typesets and MP3 recordings (Steve's Bedroom Band) of mostly string quartets by MacFarren, Ellerton and others. Some good music there, in my opinion! Eric 06:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Steve's Bedroom Band is definitely worth a mention, too! The realizations are quite well done and it's a great way to get an idea of what some very unfamiliar music sounds like. Carolus 06:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

CC NC-3.0 license

actually, in your experience, has use of the non-commercial use license proved a sufficient deterrent for sites like - in practice they might only be deterred by more actual rather than potential lawsuit, alas quite possibly outside of this site and organization's means except if supported in specific cases? Easily tested I suppose by seeing if their website presently advertises anything that is not only from IMSLP but from a page whose license should forbid them from selling it for profit... Eric 06:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of LoadCD copying anything from living composers here, though some composers who have accounts at LoadCD also have their works available here. It's really the gang who sells CDs and DVDs over at Ebay who have been deterred thanks to some complaints filed with Ebay. Having the CC license gives one a leg to stand on with Ebay's copyright complaint system. Lyle Neff in particular managed to stop at least a couple of the Ebay sellers. i complained about a few violations as well, which seems to have stopped some of them from copying the CC stuff. The only CC licenses that actually prohibit the Ebay sellers from doing this are the non-commercial and share alike versions. Carolus 06:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

add a picture

Hi Carolus, I've found a picture of Heugel and would like to embellish this publisher's page. How to do ? Picture=Jacques_Léopold_Heugel.jpg Squin 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC) What do you think of that ? Squin 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture! Go take a look at the Heugel page now and you can see the picture next to the short history. Carolus 23:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice ! And about the free recordings from the site "musique ouverte" ? Squin 04:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)that

Yes, I noticed the recording links - thanks for the info. I'll see if any of these are free in Canada (performer's life + 50). For recordings, the EU actually has the shortest term (publication + 50), though I understand that the EU commission wants to increase this term to publication + 75, or even publication + 95. USA is an insane mess, where all recordings, no matter how old, are potentially protected until 2067. Carolus 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Dear Carolus! Could you delete the PDF-File of the "Geistliche Lieder". I would like to change the file. The quality is to bad. Regards

Not really necessary as all you have to do is click on the link for the file number, which takes you to a page where you can upload the new version of the file. Carolus 23:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have some problems to change the files. I´ve uploaded the new file, but there is still the old version.

You actually changed it to the new file successfully. The page cache needs to clear before you can actually view it, which can take up to three days. Carolus 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Handel: Organ Concertos Op.4, Arr. Samuel de Lange

Hi Carolus, I don't know, if those arrangements are by jr. or sr. - even the dedication to chrysander is not helpful. Worldcat gives the dates of jr. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is Jr. Carolus 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

re Hartmann op.80...

... erf.

This is exactly what I was talking about here - I name a page one way, it gets renamed (piano quartet, op.20 to piano quartet in E major, op.20). I agree that's a good idea, start following the new rules, and start getting those names changed back on me too... Eric 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I need to check in w/davydov - this may have changed since I last reviewed the guidelines. If so, sorry for confusing things. Carolus 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably misunderstood and in either case I apologize for my quite inappropriate and uncivil tone!... Eric 01:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand the rubric now. I see from the partial list of works that Hartmann's second piano sonata has no opus (at least not from the wikipedians), so therefore the key is useful because there opus numbering is erratic even within the "Piano Sonata" section. I also see that the New Grove lists Op.80 as Piano Sonata No.2 (just in case we aren't confused enough!). Carolus 01:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, things are even worse than I thought. Hopefully Wikipedia's source is fairly reliable itself... well, the reference for it is- apparently- Meyers (I'm looking for the pages at Commons.Wikimedia.Org but not finding them right at the moment... matter of time I think though. Hofmeisters is only helpful for publication date of the first of the 3 piano sonatas alas (and even then gives it the wrong key :) ). ... Unfortunately, unlike Chandos, Hyperion and Naxos, Dacapo doesn't seem to make the program notes of their CDs available as downloadable PDFs- that might be interesting as another source (if the notewriter to the CD of the 3 Hartmann sonatas on DaCapo is at all a scholar.) Eric 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


about that, BKhon 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Psaume 150 (Franck, César)

Hi Carolus, your upload has been very helpful for me. Nevertheless I am pretty sure that's an arrangement (for chorus and organ). Kind regards --Ralph Theo Misch 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think it is not a standard klavierauszug (vocal score in English) - but an arrangement where the work was abridged or modified? Jadassohn was notorious for making abridged versions of larger choral works, like several of the Handel oratorios. Carolus 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm - I hope I understood what you mean: It's really 'organ like'. Moreover I've searched a lot around the editions of that work, but never found an information about an Klavierauszug. Even the Carus' (Stuttgard) edition calls that version by Jadassohn an arrangement. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen it: Organ Reduction is elegant! ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So, the organ accompaniment is not a reduction of the orchestral accompaniment found in the original version? (As I understand it, Franck made his own organ reduction, which was not reproduced here). Vocal Scores are technically arrangements, even though they are often made by the composer or by someone hired by the composer (with operas, for example). I know that the term "klavierauszug" in German is more broadly defined than the English equivalents, which are "vocal score" (sometimes piano-vocal score, though it can be any keyboard instrument) and "piano reducrion" (most often used for concertante works reduced to solo instrument plus piano). We use the special category (three equal signs) "Vocal Scores" for operas and choral works, instead of placing them under "Arrangements and Transcriptions." If Jadassohn omitted music, changed the order of items, or otherwise modified the content or the forces required (other than reducing the orchestra to organ), then it should fall under the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" section of the page. Is this clearer? Carolus 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I try to follow (it's late here now) - Jadassohn omitted a lot, e.g. the fast figurations of the violins. I know Franck's original score quite well as I've made an arrangement for wind (military) band. Maybe it will be finished tomorrow (I only have to add the chorus part). Then we'll compare. Good night ---Ralph Theo Misch 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
....and let us not forget the glissandi and the broken chords in sixteenth notes played by the harp, of course. This may shed some light on this matter: Your upload is "Pour Choeur el Orgue". SYL --Ralph Theo Misch 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallelujah - ready! First performance will be Nov. 28. I omitted the harp part and when there were tremoli in the strings, I wrote triplets. Is it a wind band or a military band? Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Best wishes for a great performance. Wind band is the usual term, military band is an older term. Carolus 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - I'll make a report.... --Ralph Theo Misch 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PD / Checked

Hi Carolus. I see now that it says "files submitted before implementation of the copyright status tag", but wouldn't it make more sense to leave it as unknown until proof of the file being submitted legally exists? If it's U/U/U nobody can access the file, but if the file is tagged C/C/C it seems to me that it can be accessed by anyone (and possibly illegally). Is there a legal reason we are able to say it is checked in all countries for PD status, even though there is very little chance it's actually PD, or is it just convention? Would it not be more wise just to block the file until permission is explicitly given? With kind regards, BKhon 04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained this issue over at Goldberg's page.... Carolus 04:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I sent this before you submitted the message to Goldberg, so I didn't see it. I was just worried about the slight possibility of legal action, BKhon 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alte Meister: Cleanup

A broad hint? ;-) I'll see (among the still lacking pieces from "Hallisches Klavierbüchlein" and S. de Lange's Arr. of Handels's Op.4).... IAC a rewarding collection! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just one of a number of the things in the "Various" category that it would be good to break up and include under the individual works for various composers - when anyone feels like it, or they have the spare time and would like to contribute, etc. I hope that Sibley will find volumes 1 and 2 of that collection. Carolus 00:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I feel. But I'll see in the first instance, if anybody is quicker. I'll follow that matter next days. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: "werthvoll" (th) is before 1901 (spellig reform). --Ralph Theo Misch 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Those volumes were actually issued before 1880. Breitkopf started their "Volksausgabe" series in 1876 and they issued well over 100 items per year. By 1880, they were up to V.A. 600 or so. Carolus 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This site is extremely dangerous for me, as it is so ingenious! Good night --Ralph Theo Misch 01:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I know exactly what you mean! :)) Carolus 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jadin Nocturne

Hallo Carolus, The Jadin Nocturne is a wind quartet (fl cl bn hn) - you can find it in worldcat published by Kunzelmann I fixed this, but with my change to "members of the Soni-Ventorum Quintet" I destroyed the performer link - cannot remember how to keep the link intact --Kalliwoda 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. The info provided for the recording was very sketchy, and I did not actually listen to the piece to hear the instrumentation. Carolus 19:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

First edition

Hi Carolus, yes, I ought to know it meanwhile. But I better want to ask you: I've found a first edition of Mendelssohn's violin sonata in F major (comp. 1820) - Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1977. Plate DVfM 8105. The editor is Renate Unger. Not in the CS but in the violin part there are some suggestions for the performance by Manfred Scherzer. Shall I start to scan? --Ralph Theo Misch 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this will be OK. It's probably best to omit the performance suggestions by Scherzer, as they might qualify as an original work of authorship. It's over 25 years old, an urtext edition and was probably performed in the composer's lifetime. The worst case is that it might not be free in the USA, but even that is questionable as DDR works (other than living composers or composers dead less than 70 years) are unlikely to be eligible for protection in the USA. Carolus 22:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It was on the evidence I can ascertain? written like some other works of 1820, as a composition exercise for his teacher Zelter - so for private than public performance (and only some of these early works may have seen performance before the family friends, others perhaps only before his teacher, for all I know). Does the distinction matter legally? Skimming Google Books preview of R Larry Todd's Mendelssohn: a life in music, other things ... Eric 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I've heard that when Mendelssohns had musical guests, Felix wrote during the morning. After lunch the piece was performed and discussed. Do we have to prove that those works were never performed outside that circles? - The CS is full of editorial additions, too and I can not remove them all before sunday night %-(( Let's wait what Carolus will say...--Ralph Theo Misch 00:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of the performance, display and recording qualifiers in Canada's 50-year term with respect to first editions is to prevent the type of absurdity one encounters with US law up until 2003 - where a newly discovered work by a long-dead composer is protected until 2048 if first published between 1978 and 2002, or up to 95 years if first published between 1923 and 1977. Since a copyright is normally vested in the author or the author's heirs, the whole question of ownership of works this old gets very complicated: Who is the rightful owner? The Mendelssohn family often had performances in their rather spacious home, with quite a few invited guests. Any performance of this nature would most likely qualify as public for the purposes of the Canadian law. There's also the Canadian attempt at Rule of the Shorter term - badly bungled as it is. It's a murky area, and there's not much case law to help. My inclination would be to tag it C*/C*/V* assuming we're presented with a score cleaned of any original editorial contributions. Carolus 04:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha- though I need to have a further look at the Todd, hopefully the whole book is at the university library... (also it mentions some works I'd never heard of, but that's neither here nor there.) Thanks. Eric 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of obscure mendelssohn—check out the works list.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll be very interested to see what you find out. If it was a case where it was maybe only played through with a few people present, then forgotten for over a century, things might get more complicated than they already are! Carolus 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Quid feci? :((( --Ralph Theo Misch 16:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, we know that the 25-year Editio Princeps term has expired in the EU. The critical question, I suppose, is how does this play in Canada? I will review the relevant section of the Canadian law, but my general impression is that it sets a very high bar for something to qualify as being "unpublished' when the author has been dead more than 50 years. As I mentioned before, there is good reason for this high standard as copyright is always vested in the creator of the work and his/her heirs. Mendelssohn had no direct heirs, and trying to track down distant relatives in the family tree is not very practical. Assuming for a minute that the work somehow qualified as a "first publication" under the Canadian law, the question arises: Was this publication authorized by the proper claimants to the copyright - the legal heirs of Mendelssohn? I seriously doubt it, unless one takes the argument that the DDR state, through the museum housing the manuscript, is the legal heir. That's why I'm strongly inclined to treat this as C*/C*/V* until someone proves otherwise. Carolus 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Two foreign languages - the juridical AND the English - are too much for me. But I think I understood the essence. So I'll continue cleaning. Next night I'll upload the result. Thanks a lot! --Ralph Theo Misch 23:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I’m looking forward to your upload. Might I suggest, in the absence of an opus number or an assignment of WoO, that you add the catalogue information from the MWV to the work’s page title? e.g. Violin Sonata in F major, MWV Q 7 (Mendelssohn, Felix)
Also, would you have any grave objection to the two separate pages for Frohsinn and Gesang hinter der Scene being united on a combined work page, seeing as they are 2 excerpts from item M 6 in the catalogue: Musik zum Festspiel „Was wir bringen“, and it’s not normal practice to redistribute excerpts this way? Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. But now the tagging needs to be changed (MWV M 6). --Ralph Theo Misch 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Excellent scan. I see someone already tagged it as I recommended. I see no reason to change this at present. Carolus 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! My comment referring to the tagging only affects "Was wir bingen" (M 6). Whereas the violin part of the sonata is really a puzzler. Cleaning it will take some time... --Ralph Theo Misch 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Hurray, we have another Various! But seriously: I don't know, if it is senseful to split that book - because of the multiple overlappings. Even new chapters do not always begin with a new page.--Ralph Theo Misch 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably not in that case. In such cases (where it is not practical to split the file), it might be best to move it to the editor's category page (creating a composer page for the editor if necessary). If there is no editor or compiler credited for the collection, it will have to remain in Various. However, it appears Mr. Stehle has a composer page already in place, so simply move to Liber Motettorum (Stehle, Johann Gustav Eduard). Carolus 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. Cheers and good night! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Critical Editions

Hi Carolus,

With regards to Canadian copyright law, is an edition's public domain status in the country of origin (Germany in my case) matter at all? It was under protection for 25 years, entering the German public domain in 2007. I thought Canada employed something similar to the rule of the shorter term for works that aren't of NAFTA origin (section 9[2]). Or does it not matter AT ALL where it was published, since they get zero time - period. Thanks, Lndlewis10 02:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Section 9(2) is very problematic. It's fairly obvious that it was intended that Canada have a rule of the shorter term (with the exception of NAFTA works). However, the placement of the section makes it subordinate to section 9 (1) - meaning the section applies only to works where there are multiple authors, and - believe it or not - that's how a court actually interpreted it in a real case(!). However, Canada does have a threshold of originality that is fairly strict for something to qualify as an "adaptation." It is the position of a number of Canadian lawyers, including one we consulted, that critical editions are not subject to any sort of protection under Canadian law. Therefore, we voluntarily observe a 25-year rule on critical editions, so the net effect is the same as if there was a "rule of the shorter term" in play. Carolus 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. If you were unaware, this question arose apropos me taking the copyright review test. I emailed you the answers last night, so I'm wondering if you happen to receive them. I have hit "cancel" instead of "send", Lndlewis10 19:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not see anything in either of the yahoo e-mail boxes today. It's possible you did hit cancel instead of send, I suppose. Carolus 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have certainly sent it this time, since it said "success". Thanks, Lndlewis10 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Brossard 's Abraham

Dear Carolus, Just a word to ask you to suppress this file "PMLP115566-Brossard.pdf.pdf" oldly used by the page Cantate sacré / Abraham ou le sacrifice d'Isaac 'cause it was in fact a mix of Brossard 6 differents Cantatas. I've split it into 6 parts and distribued in 6 new pages. Thanks Squin 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK - Thanks! Carolus 21:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Szymanowski duplicates etc.

Is it really necessary to have 3+ copies of the same edition of the same score? We could probably cut a fair amount of disk space by removing those files of lesser quality. Daphnis 15:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hesitant to add those, but the Sibley scans' quality was hard to beat. I expect it wouldn't hurt to dump one of the other ones there from before. You get to choose, since you're our resident scanning guru. Carolus 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I was speaking not only of these recent additions but at any point in the future. It would probably be prudent to choose the better of the two, upload the best (if the newest) and remove the older file. Daphnis 00:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll check w/Feldmahler about what kind of disk space we have and if it is a consideration we need to take account of. We are supposed to be mirroring Sibley as much as we can, so I see no problem having extra scans of the same work from them as their scans are generally quite good - unless there is an issue with disk space for us. The existing Szymanowski scans, for example, were not really bad (in contrast to the old "Variations Project" scans, which are low-res and huge). It's just that the Sibely ones were better. Carolus 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess either way it's not a huge deal, unless disk space is an issue. But the other is that it is kinda messy and maybe somewhat confusing for users to see 4 instances of "Complete Score" stacked on top of publication details, but maybe I'm just nuts...Daphnis 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does look a bit daunting to have 4, I must admit! But maybe some users appreciate having four different choices to download from. :)) Carolus 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to chime in: please don't consider disk space in making a decision on IMSLP, unless it is gobbling up many many GBs of space, which is not the case here. We have lots of free space at the moment.
Also a note on general philosophy: if in doubt, keep the file. That's because it is possible to remove a file, but not to make it magically reappear. I would say that as long as the file has some value (even if very small), I'd leave it up. The only exception might be if the file has no value whatsoever (e.g. the same scanner did a better scan of the same copy).
Also, this is an advisory opinion... I'll leave the final determination to the people who actually work on these files. --Feldmahler 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in! Carolus 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Disk space noted. I guess the better question to ask is does a file have any value if it has been superseded by one of superior quality and of the exact same edition? Reprints by another company are one thing as they can tacitly correct some things without notice, but scans of the EXACT same score are another. Just for the sake of tidiness if not space consideration, I would say 'no' but that's just me. Daphnis 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Dear Carolus, I didn't know who would see it at first. So I put my doubts to the discussion page. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Carolus 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I've seen - that's fine! Thank you! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor Template

Yeah, I'll get around to remembering to put that in for the rest of my typesets. For some reason I continuously forget... BKhon 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor Young (1899-1956)

Hi Carolus, I came across a large collection of scans over at by film composer Victor Young (1899-1956) -- all unpublished film scores from the 40s and 50s. What is the copyright status on this kind of thing? I doubt they are public domain but thought I'd ask since Boston University and think it's legit to propogate them. Thoughts? Massenetique 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a fascinating archive. With film music, the copyright is covered in the one for the film itself. Theoretically, the film company controls the music as a "work made for hire" commissioned by them for the film. Only in recent years have film composers managed to retain the rights to their own music, effectively licensing its use in a film. They're not actually unpublished, since the film was published. Unless there are provisions to the contrary in the contract between the film company and Young, Boston University and would need written permission to post the scores from the film company. If they've got permission, I suppose we could ask permission to post them here also. Interesting. Carolus 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And “works for hire” in the US usually had an extra-long copyright term as well, 120 years instead of the usual 95 years if I remember? Philip Legge @ © talk 03:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Only an unpublished, anonymous work made for hire is subject to that term in the USA. Otherwise, it's the usual: up to 95-years from publication if published before 1978, 70pma if published 1978 or later. Carolus 04:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ravel Pavane

Me again - I only just twigged that we've both had a go at this piece! No plagiarism for sure. Your string orchestra is rather more polished than my bedroom band (whose "warts and all" rendition I think I'll keep to myself), although some might think they overdo the portamento. Very best, Steve aka Matesic


This is a digital hi from your friend Ben :-) BKhon 00:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Back at you! You've been a busy bee - typesetting Beethoven and Berlioz! Carolus 00:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be uploading some Mozart shortly as well, BKhon 00:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Nice typesets.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They are very fine indeed. Looking forward to seeing more. Carolus 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel sort of bad for saying this, but what I've just finished uploading is all I've done up until this point. At least for another few weeks, BKhon 01:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I might be one to talk (pot, meet kettle), but after closer inspection there were a number of things not quite right with the Berlioz Fantastique, so perhaps a bit of proof reading and quality control might be in order, before rushing to annexe further territory. The Malherbe & Weingartner score, for all its faults and misrepresentations, is still the better score. In other words, I know you can do better :-) Philip Legge @ © talk 10:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Also looking forward to it.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I forgot about Pictures at an Exhibition. Any requests? BKhon 02:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ravel orchestration would be on the EU server, as it's not free in the USA. It would be nice if someone re-engraved the Tushmalov score, which is pretty marginal. Carolus 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nagels Musik-Archiv

Dear Carolus, I've got some more of those editions. But what's about those with continuo realization (by the editor)? Regards from --Ralph Theo Misch 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The rule we're applying for now is that a continuo realization is an arrangement. If the author of the realization died less than 50 years ago we can't post it here. Most NMA things published before 1964 are free in the USA, and I think the EU (or at least Germany) regards realizations as part of an urtext edition and protected only 25 years from publication. Of course, there are some realizations that are very elemental and not original and others that have real originality. Unfortunately, we have to draw the line somewhere. Carolus 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - I think most of them are just dry suggestions. I'll try it out next day. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

CPE Bach, Piano Quartet in A minor: I think you better should know that. Regards, --Ralph Theo Misch 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

5 Motets (Franck, Melchior)

Hi Carolus, I just would like to know it: What's about the prefaces of those editions (CR)? I always leave them out though they are often interesting. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not so urgent - I hit the hay for now anyway .... |-) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This is another confusing aspect of Germany's section 70 (the urtext provision). It would appear, from the way major German libraries (like BSB) scan and make things available, that once a given work is deemed to fall under section 70 as an urtext edition, everything associated with it - including prefaces and continuo realizations - is subject to the 25-year term only. The whole rationale for IMSLP voluntarily abiding by a 25-year limit for urtext editions is that the music itself lacks significant original material from the editor under Canadian law. Prefaces and realizations, however, are actually original in nature. I note that the preface is there on this score. We can just let that little secret be between us as I am really loathe to demand that it be removed. If someone complains, we'll remove it. However, we should try to avoid this in the future as much as possible. Carolus 01:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
OK - thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 01:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Le Petit Rien

Hi Carolus. I recently typesetted a piece by Francois Couperin called "Le Petit Rien". Do you know what larger scale piece this is from? BKhon 01:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's from one of the Pieces de Clavicin volumes. Carolus 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it not Les petits Riens? (EDIT: Oops, that's Mozart)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Review

I figured you may see this before my email response. I've sent a message regarding copyright review (as I'm no longer on the team for a period of about 9 months). Please (when you have the time) check (which includes responding, ideally). BKhon 22:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I emailed lndlewis10 to send his test to a different email address as the one he sent last week appears to have been trapped by yahoo's spam filter. Carolus 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
He's now sent it via private message (on the forums). It should be impossible for you not to receive it now... BKhon 23:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
He's now a copyright reviewer, you'll be happy to know! Carolus 02:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not remember to send my revisions for the test, and I believe there could be addition questions. I am well aware that a new test is being prepared. Not the least of my complaints is the lack of European copyright questions. One other thing is that the practical examples are painstakingly obvious and should be adjusted to include urtext editions and modern typesets. Of course I will not go into specifics here, as it is a high-traffic page. This is, of course, just my opinion. I could very well be misguided, Lndlewis10 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
We're definitely going to revise the test to make it more challenging. We really aren't in dire need of additional reviewers right now, as it's quite rare that something goes for over 24 hours without being reviewed. As we approach 100,000 files, this is not surprising. The rate of growth slows as more files are added. At any rate, with the number of reviewers now available, the overall task should fairly easy to keep up-to-date. Carolus 04:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adeste fideles

Yes - but Wade could follow without any problems ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's getting to be that time of year! Carolus 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
To put some seasonal items on the market (like Transeamus by Mr. Schnabel). :-) --Ralph Theo Misch 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Numbers

Was this feature abrogated? I didn't include page numbers in my recent uploads, under the assumption that the automatic counter would sufficiently uphold. Lndlewis10 05:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It works erratically for Sibley uploads. I have no idea why this is so. It seems to work perfectly for everything else I've uploaded. If you're trolling Sibley looking for goodies, it's best to take a look and put them in. Carolus 05:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ben's Typesets

Hi Carolus. I wanted to inform you that I've found evidence that the typesets that Ben uploaded as his own, were actually done by someone named Steven Hagger. This could very well be a pseudonym for Ben, but I think it's a matter worth looking into. All of the typesets I've seen so far appear to have been posted on the finale showcase by Steven Hagger. One example can be found /here. The typesets are very similar, and the possible plagiarism has gone unnoticed so far, Lndlewis10 01:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, if that’s the case, then it’s clearly unacceptable, but I would express one caution. I’d been asked by Ben to look at a typeset of Dvořák’s Slavonic Dance Op. 46 No. 8, which was obviously typeset with the aid of a MIDI file, rather than relying on a Finale source file, in order to effect the majority of the note entry – separate of the formatting and other material changes which have to be made to result in a musical score. I doubt there is the capability to ensure that all new typesets on IMSLP are devoid of having incorporated note entry from MIDI files which crop all over the Internet. I certainly have used MIDI from time to time to assist with the bulk of note entry, prior to extensive re-formatting and layout changes – and there are numerous problems associated with doing that.
Exactly what similarities exist? Do the works have the same stave layout and titles? Are there identical tempo, expression marks or associated quirks of engraving? Are there any obvious mistakes that the two sets of works share? (Also bear in mind that the Malherbe and Weingartner edition is in the PD, so it is possible for two different editions to be in agreement with one another by copying the Old Berlioz Edition.)
Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 02:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking in more detail, I have almost no doubt that these are the same. In fact, it looks as though the only difference is "Typeset by Ben Khon". In fact, even subtleties with the slurs are identical. The score layout is exactly the same as well. It seems the only other thing changed is the copyright notice at the bottom, which simply states "[copyright]". Lndlewis10 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can all confirm this, then the only decision that is viable is to ban BKhon à la Quezada—we must be consistent on this.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, OK. Does anybody else agree?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is always possible that Steven Hagger is a pseudonym, but if this is the case, why on earth were the typesets on the finale showcase since 2008, and Ben hasn't bothered to upload them until now? I would, at least, ask him about it. I think Davydov was right in his forum post when he said "and he expects us to believe this?". Wise man, if this is - in fact - the case. EDIT: Oops, sorry about the redundant post. I didn't mean for it be there... :)Lndlewis10 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I’m in the middle of downloading the free Finale Reader so I can make a comparison of Mr Hager’s work myself. I’m tempted to prejudge the matter slightly by ascribing this to stupidity on Ben’s part, as opposed to the obvious malicious intent of Quezeda… but find myself in agreement with Perlnerd: we must be consistent in applying the same rules, and the blatant copying of other’s work without attribution is beyond the pale. Philip Legge @ © talk 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do let us know what your findings are. If my "typesetting" knowledge (which is little compared to you guys) is right, this is clearly not Ben's work. The evidence is that every single work he submitted has been done by Steven Hagger. I suggest we flesh out everything that was done by Ben to see which are - in fact - his own typesets. So far, it looks as though only the Villa-Lobos was not done by Steven Hagger, but you (PML) would be a much better judge than me. Lndlewis10 03:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I should be banned at all. PML suggested I should show a clean breast on your talk page. The works I uploaded were not mine. I was going to argue this, but PML trapped me. I thought that Mr. Hager's typesets were marked with a defective copyright notice, because they were marked [copyright]. My case is different than Mr. Quazaldas, and I make much positive contributions to this great site. BKhon 03:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As Ben’s comment above suggests, I suggested (via FaceBook chat) that Ben make some explanation of his doings here. I reject the implication that I have “trapped” Ben. Without revealing the exact conversation we had, I questioned Ben’s source for the Berlioz typesets, and after three attempts at deflecting the existence of the typesets on the Finale Showcase website, he owned up to copying them from there without attribution, on the assumption of a void copyright notice. I think a low sense of self-esteem may be the root cause for these acts of monumental stupidity on his part, in attempting to seek recognition for making worthwhile contributions. But this is not the way to go about receiving recognition in the good sense.
In the meantime, I’ve examined the first movement of the Fantastique, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the score is a copy of the file from the Finale Showcase; a small question remains, given that Steven Hager’s work on that site is so prolific, whether his work is that original in any case – although it would be harder to prove his typesets derive from the MIDI transcriptions of others (a quick check of “Ben’s” typeset of the Dvořák Slavonic Dances did not establish anything conclusive; I haven’t had time to check any of the other typesets). It doesn’t really make any excuse for the blatant disregard for the implied copyright status from the Finale website. Philip Legge @ © talk 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's address the copyright claim being made here, since it's serving to obfuscate the real issue (plagiarism): Since March 1989, lack of notice or defective notice no longer even possibly invalidates a copyright claim in the USA. Even before then (back to 1978), defective and missing notices were fatal only if an amended claim was not filed and substantial numbers of copies were produced that way. Even if Hagger had somehow done the work in 1988 (the year Finale was released), Ben has no right to represent Hagger's work as being his own. The far more important point here is that he apparently is willing to pass off another person's work as his own. It would be far less egregious if Ben had simply uploaded Hagger's typesets, duly credited him as typesetter, then made a claim that the defective notice cast the work in the public domain (which only applies for the USA, by the way, and does not even apply there since March of 1989) which therefore allowed Ben to submit Hagger's work here without his permission. Bottom line: The plagiarism is almost as bad as Quezada's. Carolus 04:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Earlier this afternoon I pointed out to Ben that defective notices are no excuse whatsoever (though my memory was at fault: not being nearly so well versed in US copyright law as yourself, I gave the wrong year that this took effect). I think the only possible mitigating factor is thoughtless stupidity and naïveté, as opposed to malicious intent, and in that case, I suggest the person in the best position to offer an opinion on that, is Nick Lewis. Philip Legge @ © talk 04:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed Steven Hager to confirm that he did not give Ben any sort of authorization for this, or anything that could be remotely construed as permission. I'm not expecting an affirmative answer, needless to say. Nevertheless, the record will be established. Carolus 04:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in school right now (lunch break) so excuse me for my concise responce to all of this. I did call Ben last night to see why on earth he would do something so incredibly stupid. The impression he gave me was that it was due to low self esteem, not malicious intent. I would certainly agree with PML, and attribute this to monumental stupidy. Apropos, I think some sort of ban is needed. However, I must admit that he has done fairly good work around the wiki, so I'm not sure if the ban should be infinite. Perhaps during that time he can think about what he did, and hope there is no legal action against him. The most important thing, however, is that all of the typesets be deleted to prevent a legal threat on our end. Lndlewis10 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've received a response from Steven Hager, who is a big fan of IMSLP. He did not authorize Ben to upload any of his work, much less for Ben to falsely attribute the work to himself. Nevertheless, he is not angry and wishes Ben well. Like many composers, editors and arrangers, Steven was mainly concerned that we had old, uncorrected files instead of his latest versions. He may be uploading these himself in the future. Carolus 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may ask - with regard to the one (?) work (what he entitled prelude op.1 no.1 when uploading) Ben claims to have composed as well as typeset, does this appear on Finale Showcase also? Eric 02:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Prelude looks like an original work, though a rather slight one. 13 bars for piano in a modal sort of C, starting in the minor, working its way round to the major. There’s probably way too many pieces on the Finale Showcase to sort through to absolutely rule out plagiarism, but this piece doesn’t strike me as a knock-off of someone else’s work. Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 06:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can assure everyone that it is not Ben's piece, but he did have permission to attribute it to himself. KGill is aware of this as well, and actually helped compose the last few bars. It was by my own decision that I decided to delete the piece from IMSLP, and I will attribute to myself once it's revised ;) Sorry for that bit of confusion. I didn't realize that the template explaining the situation woudn't be seen as a result of the deleted page, but it makes sense in retrospect, Lndlewis10 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very peculiar, Nick. Back in late August Ben sent me a couple of Finale files without any hint of hedging about the identity of the composer as being himself – one of the two pieces was the Prelude, and the other was a somewhat more substantial Andante, purportedly the second movement of a violin sonata he was working on: about five pages, mostly in 4/4 and finishing in ambiguous tonality (key signature of 1 flat, final chord rooted on A with 2+, 5, 6–). Is this not his work, as well? Would it be too much to ask for Kenny to verify his contribution to this bizarre spectacle, seeing as he clearly applied the “plagiarism” comment to not only the Steven Hager typesets, but also to the aforementioned Opus 1? Philip Legge @ © talk 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Nick sent me the prelude, telling me it was by Ben and asking me if I would like to edit it. I have frequently consented to do this for Nick's compositions over the past couple years, so I didn't see any problem with it. A day or two (I don't remember exactly) after sending the (somewhat) revised version back to Nick, he told me that he actually wrote it, but had given Ben permission to claim it as his own (and upload it to IMSLP under his name). I thought this was rather odd, but didn't trouble myself overmuch as consent was clearly given by Nick, and I've always given consent for my edits to appear in Nick's compositions without mention. As for the violin sonata movement, that sounds like the slow movement of Nick's own violin sonata that he was working on (IIRC it has the same characteristics), but of course I can't verify that as this is the first I'm hearing of it. KGill talk email 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I presume neither you nor he would mind me forwarding it to you if you would like to check it? Philip Legge @ © talk 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he would mind (and I certainly don't), although I'm not certain exactly how pertinent it would be to the discussion here... KGill talk email 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Pertinent to the consideration of any basic truthfulness in Ben’s statements over a period of time; you presumably know Nick’s violin sonata well enough to recognise it. (I don’t have Nick’s e-mail address so would not be able to use the IMSLP’s email function to reach him with an attachment.) Philip Legge @ © talk 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Carolus May you delete please the 5 lasts uploads i've just done on Viñes, i've made an error. So I wait to reupload good ones. thanks Squin 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)- excuse me again... Just the file nO 2 in fact has to be removed and replace by my very last upload....

(! i'm astonished to read what is noted above !)

If someone hasn't already taken care of it, I will. Really interesting to have some original pieces by Viñes, who was very famous as a pianist. As for the wild stuff above - I think we're all pretty astonished! Carolus 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A very great Ravel's friend ...I see that I've made another mistake, the very last is not the good one, I'm so stupid ! I will do a correct work tomorrow (for me). I look all this from far but may be this Ben is still a very young man and, as Montaigne said : "de toutes les rêveries du monde la plus reçue et plus universelle est le soin de la réputation et de la gloire" Squin 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

N.B.: Talk:Fuga in A major (Smetana, Bedřich)

Hi Carolus, PLEASE feel free to correct my nebulous formulations! Another sentence from the preface by Jiri Reinberger: "...Not even the Fugue A major published in this selection is an independent composition for the organ, it is but a modernized form of a contrapuntal exercise dating back to the days when Smetana had studied the art of composition with Josef Proksch....". Thanks a lot! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, we don't have access to the MSS, but my guess is that Smetana's exercises were spread across 4 staves and all Wiedermann was condense them to 2. Unless W. added voices or completed an incomplete piece, I don't see any need to list him as arranger, though the mention on the talk page should clarify things for anyone curious to know. Carolus 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If I knew Reinberger's 'very small' alterations, I would make a scan of that organ transcription - Wiedermann died in 1951, but Reinberger in 1977. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)