User talk:Carolus/archive26



Dear Carolus, we have a new (?) important source! Konrad Stein told me. Cheers! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks wonderful! Carolus 02:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Guido Brandaleone

Carolus, I'm trying to locate information or dates on this oboist/composer and have feelers out there elsewhere. Are you able to find anything on your end? He was apparently a student of Antonio Pasculli and was active in the 1930s as he published a set of 12 études for oboe. Thanks. Daphnis 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. So far, I have found references for 3 published items: 1) 12 Etudes (Ricordi, 1937, plate E.R. 1902); 2) 6 Capricci (Ricordi, 1937, plate E.R. 1929); and 3) 20 Etudes (Edizioni De Santis, 1951, 2 vols). Carolus 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, and I have those. Nothing in the way of dates, though. Daphnis 02:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No dates at all here, either. Carolus 03:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I figured. Thanks for having a look. Daphnis 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Manuscripts and copyright

Hi Carolus - I wonder if you might give us your take on an obstacle that's come up regarding my plan (with Eric Schissel) to transcribe and upload to IMSLP a number of manuscript pieces by the English composer Percy Hilder Miles (1878-1922). He published very little during his lifetime (the only 3 substantial works are already on IMSLP, the last publication date being 1919 so all PD) but a box of his manuscripts has turned up in the library of London's Royal Academy of Music. Apart from some substantial chamber pieces, the plum may prove to be a cello concerto which was supposed to have been premiered at the 1908 Proms, but for some reason was never given. In fact I have no record of any of this music ever having been performed. The RAM librarian's interpretation of copyright law is that all manuscripts unpublished before 1989 are copyright until 2039. I'm allowed copies for private study, but not much else. The reasoning is presumably that copyright belongs to whoever is in line to inherit his estate, but is it credible that nobody can do anything with unpublished manuscripts of long-dead composers? I sounded out the opinion of a small music publisher in the UK and he was also of the view that it isn't within a librarian's power to either permit or veto publication. However, I shall take good care to do all she asks, at least until we've got copies of the material! Matesic 01.03.11

In the USA, all of his unpublished manuscripts would be public domain. In Canada, they would possibly be protected until 2048 if it's true that they were never actually performed. In the EU, the protection and publication right for unpublished material of deceased authors varies. Once published, it's a 25-year term from publication under the editio princeps doctrine. The RAM librarian may very well be correct about the UK's treatment of unpublished material, as there was a fairly long transitional provision for such works established upon passage of the 1989 law (50 years) which might have been extended to 70 (or 2059). Other EU countries might not recognize any actual copyright in the unpublished works, but nevertheless assign the right of first publication to the heirs as an inalienable moral right. Carolus 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC):

That's thrown a real searchlight into my brain. I guess we can't do anything here, but Percy Miles will get his time in the sun if I have to go to jail for it! Interestingly the manuscripts travelled to his brother in Canada before coming back to the RAM (no surviving details of the donation). If they'd stayed there it sounds like the situation would have been even more hopeless. Many thanks, Matesic.

Additional thought: it doesn't help that there's very little biographical material that even MusicSack and VIAF were useless and that his birth and death years, even, had to be found elsewhere (though fortunately in more than one place each). There are two unpublished (that I know of) works of his that I am certain (... as can be) were performed publicly (... ... ok- maybe, in one case) - a piano trio of 1896 whose performance is noted in a contemporary Musical Times with the composer at violin, and two movements, Andante and Allegro for piano quintet which won the composer an award (after, I am going to have to assume, a performance- there I am assuming, I admit...) Neither, unfortunately, shows up in the RAM box, iirc. Hoping some definite public performance information will turn up for a work that -is- there, though searching for references to Miles, who usually is referred to as "P.H. Miles", is sometimes a bit like searching for someone named "Forrest Orville And" who writers would no doubt keep abbreviating as "For. Or. And" (probably intentionally, in that case. and funny- the first time.) (and that's aside from other reasons...) Eric 16:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very useful info, because Canada's law (and some others - in the EU mainly) treat a public performance as "publication" for the purpose of determining copyright term. So, even if the piano trio and quintet were never issued by a regular publisher, they would be considered public domain in Canada because of those performances. Carolus 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. I notice now the line that all his manuscripts would be PD-US - but even though I have permissions on that server, still since it's user Matesic in the UK who obtained and would be scanning them, that doesn't help much does it... :( Eric 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

re The Stars and Stripes Forever (Sousa, John Philip)

the new "Military Band" recording was uploaded twice by User:Zach l b, the first time with the extra information "Boston Pops/John Williams". The two files have the same size, suggesting to me they are the same file. Quick superficial searching suggests though doesn't prove that this recording of the Stars and Stripes - by the Boston Pops, not the USMB - may never have been freely released; a YouTube account which had it has been deleted for multiple c-violations (of course, that doesn't prove even so much as that the Sousa recording was one of them, though I suspect it. and YouTube does not seem to me to be as quick on the trigger as some other sites...) Anyhow, ... well.. erm... fishy? Eric 16:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's a Boston Pops recording, there is no way it is public domain - and extremely unlikely to have been released under a CC license. YouTube is not a reliable guide to the copyright status of either works or sound recordings. Carolus 01:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

found out that Mr. Pawlik

has a webpage and a Myspace profile and (apologies if this was rude or out of line - hope not?...) sent a message there (the webpage seems to confirm the profile's legitimacy) to confirm that the profile here is authentic... if he decides to respond, will pass response along of course... Eric 05:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. I was thinking of putting the standard composer message on his user page so he is aware of the Ebay situation with using the plain-vanilla CC license. We seem to be getting more composers uploading their works here as of late. Carolus 05:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

the reason I didn't use the "n.d"

is because of a second date stamp also visible on the scores that's in practice equivalent to a copyright - the "dépot légal" that in France basically means registered with the copyright office in this (written in the box) year. Had this explained to me by Daphnis, I think it was. (Unfortunately- but this happens of course with copyrights too, just moreso since here it's handwritten... - sometimes it's hard to read just what number is in that box...) Eric 10:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize that the date stamp is there for the dépot légal (and that those dates are basically the gold standard as to when something was actually placed on sale), I've been using the "n.d." to indicate there is no date printed by the publisher on the score itself. Since there were a few oddball publishers like Simrock, Belaieff and Rieter-Biedermann who actually did print the date on the title page or cover - even before 1891 (the date of the first series of treaties between the USA and European countries). The Chicago Manual of Style (section 15.175) states that when the actual date is known but not printed on the publication itself to put in brackets, which I guess we should do. Carolus 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll continue to do so in future then. Eric 03:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

PD-US status of a Howard Hanson work

Hi Carolus, in looking for scores online I ran across Hanson's Symphonic Rhapsody in what appears to be a copyist's manuscript of the complete parts. I haven't been able to determine if it has ever been published. Since it was written in 1919 what would its PD-US status be? Apparently, this library in Nebraska believes it to be in the public domain. Thanks, --Cypressdome 05:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that too. As far as I can tell it is an unpublished work and will be protected for 70 years after his death in the USA (1/1/2052). The librarians either have permission from the estate (very unlikely) or they have no clue about its copyright status.Carolus 05:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, I probably won't be around that long to see it posted here. Thanks, --Cypressdome 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we could contact the Hanson estate and see if they would allow it here. I promise not to repeat the response if it's (ahem) "less than polite" (once my ears are grown back after being incinerated). :)) Carolus 05:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Curious as to the gist, and whether they objected to the uploading of the one PD-US published work that was found (not to suggest that their objection had legal force, though if they expressed it I would be interested to know of it.) Eric 04:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No objection to the Clog Dance (not that I would much care if they did, as it is unquestionably free in the USA). It's the unpublished Symphonic Rhapsody that is the issue. The Lincoln City Library really has no business posting that work sans permission from the estate. He died a lot sooner than 70 years ago, so all the unpublished material is protected. Carolus 04:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


good point. should I remove the pages there for now? Eric 05:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not until July 1. After that point you can upload anything of his to the regular server. Carolus 05:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

oh- so that's why that happened... I had noticed but found it very odd. Only just started being able to do this at all... Eric 05:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. It's very different than uploading things the normal way! Carolus 05:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (The generate-script doesn't seem to completely work on my setup, either, but all's well so far... maybe if I use a different browser. I wonder if Deer 2.7 is out yet...) Caetani intrigues with all those préludes symphoniques that Sibley's uploaded in full score... :) but really, having this expanded canvas makes me very happy just generally! Eric 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


Can it stay blocked while we find out how extensive the changes are? To arrange a vocalise to instrumental, really all one needs to do is transfer the melody and keep the piano part the same. The orchestration wouldn't be allowable, but the piano part may very well be exactly the same as Roussel's original. My university library has the clarinet version, so I don't need to download a blocked file. I've asked for the Vocalise on the scores page, and if it is uploaded, I can check what, if any, the changes are. Steltz 07:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it up until you can have a look at it. It will be blocked to all but admins so there will not be any liability issues. Carolus 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

US-unknown files

Hi Carolus. Just wondering what is to be done about these? They've been languishing with the U tag since January - is there any way to tag them more definitively, or should they just stay like that (or be tagged as N or something)? Thanks, KGill talk email 00:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After talking it over with Feldmahler, we concluded it's just best to leave them as "unknown" since that's really where they are under US law - in complete limbo. There is a proposal to reform the law on sound recordings, but nothing has been done yet. Carolus 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Stravinsky - 4 études pour orchestre/Suite No. 1

The parts were included in the OM set and the score was once reprinted by Kalmus/Belwin Mills yet I don't see it in the current catalog. Is this piece (score/parts) indeed public domain in the US, or did the folks at OM goof? Looks like first publication was 1930. Daphnis 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Same thing with the orchestral score to the Suite No. 1. First publication was 1926 by Chester and parts were included in the OM set. Daphnis 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And, by the way, at this point everything in my Stravinsky archives has been added to the US server and is now reflected on the wiki, including all the orchestral parts. Daphnis 20:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Suites were restored by Chester. Kalmus took them out of print. I think CDSM is being stupid on this one. Carolus 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about the 4 études pour orchestre? And would it be better for me to remove the Suite No.1 from the wiki/US server? Daphnis 23:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It also applies to the Pulcinella Suite, the 4 Etudes and the parts for Histoire du Soldat. (I thought I had excluded those from what I sent you - guess not! - ugh!) Carolus 23:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go and remove these from the US server then and remove links on the wiki. Thanks. Daphnis 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we really should remove them as I seriously don't think CDSM has a case here. The only legal argument that could be made would be if they had a catalog or back-cover ad in hand that they could prove to be printed before 1923 that mentioned the works in question. Carolus 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the input. Daphnis 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Marcello Concerto for Oboe

Is the Lauschmann-Edition really in public domain? Notenschreiber 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looked to be minimally edited to me at first glance, which would more-or-less fall under the "urtext" category. The USA copyright was destroyed by publication with two dates. Do you think Lauschmann added significant original material? If he did, we'll have to reconsider. I know that there was an item posted before where his editorial additions were quite numerous. Look it over and let me know what you think. Carolus 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The concert was printed the first time 1716 in Amsterdam (Roger), but was rediscovered by Lauschmann in the twenties of the last century. Manuscripts of the parts of a concerto in c-minor by B.Marcello in the Landesbibliothek of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in Schwerin are probably the origin of Lauschmann's edition. He performed the concert the first time in 6. November 1922 in Kiel, before it was printed by Forberg. I don't have these manuskript parts of Schwerin, so I can not state exactly, what Lauschmann has added. But I am sure, that he made the piano extraction and the ornaments especially of the second movement. I remember, that he claimed, not to know the cembalo version of Bach before making the ornaments and he was proud, to find a lot of similarities in Bach's and his own version. (Like I mentioned in the forums, I havebeen a pupil of Lauschmann). It would be nice, to have this very famous oboe concerto at IMSLP in his first modern edition, but I am afraid that it is not in public domain.Notenschreiber 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If the work was published in 1716, that rules out any claim of first publication (relevant only from US view as even the 1923-24 issue was well over 25 years). The piano reduction could be a problem, along with any ornamentation. I am re-taggin it as "checked" C/C/C until we have more time to look it over. Thanks, as always, for your very informative input. Carolus 22:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of baroque concert editions with new piano reductions, but older than 25 years. I thought these concerts are nevertheless not in public domain, if the editor is still living or died not earlier than only 50 (or 70) before. For example concerts of Albinoni, Vivaldi, Telemann and others. The solo voices are often nearly without additions by the editor. Is it really legal to post such concerts, maybe for the EU server?Notenschreiber 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The copyright status of reductions is dependent upon the originality of the reduction. In other words, if all that was done to make the reduction was to simply copy the Violin 1 part into the keyboard r.h. and the basso line into the l.h., there is no originality involved and no valid claim of copyright under most laws. In older works of the Marcello era, this was often the exact procedure employed. The Bach cantata vocal scores are frequently just this type of mechanical work. On the other hand, if there was some genuine arrangement done in order to make the reduction work as a piano accompaniment, there is indeed a case for having a full life-plus-50 (life-plus-70) term as you describe. Based upon what you are telling me, I will probably end up deleting the Lauschmann score as there are just too many things about it which seem questionable from the standpoint of classifying it as "urtext." I have presently re-classified this as "unknown" copyright status for Canada and the EU (It's almost certainly free in the USA, and available from UCSD). If you happen to know members of Lauschmann's family, would you ask if they would permit us to make these available for download here under one of the stricter versions of the Creative Commons licenses? These scores do not appear to be available via regular printed music channels, so it seems unfortunate that they might be relegated to languish on library shelves in obscurity. Carolus 00:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the meaning of piano reductions for copyright questions.- The Lauschmann Edition is available via sheetmusicplus in a reprint of Forberg (with a new cover page) and as a copy from "International music company", the last one very low priced. There is also a publication of "Master music publications", but I don´t know, whether this is a copy of Lauschmann´s edition. The russian edition at IMSLP is also just a copy from Lauschmann.- Lauschmann has a daughter, she must be very old now, I have no contacts to her.Notenschreiber 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen, that you have blocked the Lauschmann-Edition and I think, there is no other possibility to be sure that no copyright infringement is involved (in Canada and the EU). But what about the edition of Soloduyev? It is a new typesetted version of Lauschmann´s edition, with minimal changes ( for example a double octave in the left hand of the piano part). But nearly everthing is literally the same as in Lauschmann´s work, especially the ornaments. In order to make it clear: I have no personal interest to protect the Lauschmann version of the concert, in contrary I think that everyone who is interested in this oboe concerto should now the version of Lauschmann. But i am very interested that IMSLP is not endangered.Notenschreiber 18:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and block the Muzyka edition as well until we can compare with a copy of the full score. If worse comes to worse, they will go onto the USA server as they are confirmed as public domain there. Carolus 01:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Publisher catalogs

Hi Carolus. A couple of days ago TenderHooligan uploaded the 1903 catalog of CFW Siegel
Error creating thumbnail: The thumbnail for this file has not been created yet.
and was having problems linking to it on the publisher's page so I added the link. I thought this would be a great addition to the publisher pages and have found about a dozen catalogs that I could upload. The problem is that when you try to open/download the file (or the files for the 1915 Ditson and 1890 Novello catalogs on those publisher pages) you're given the message that the "Requested file not yet officially submitted to IMSLP." Any idea what the issue is? Thanks! --Cypressdome 01:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's a strange problem. We'll probably have to have Feldmahler address this issue when he returns next week. Carolus 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The answer is actually quite simple – any PDF (or MP3/MP4 in the case of recordings) has to be registered as an IMSLP item in order to be downloadable. The servers will not allow unregistered scores or audio files to be freely downloaded, unlike other uploaded media such as .jpg or .png graphics files. Since the file is already uploaded, you’d use the option for adding an “old” score to a page, Special:AddFiles (where it is the third parameter). Cheers Philip @ © talk 02:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Philip. I was able to add a new file to a publisher page but can't seem to get the form to register a file already existing on the server. I'm going to ask TenderHooligan if his file is the same as the two Sibley files I uploaded to CFW Siegel. If so, his can be deleted but that leaves the Ditson (from Sibley) and the Novello (unknown origin) that I can't seem to do anything with. Thanks, --Cypressdome 03:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Files cannot be registered as belonging to ordinary Wiki pages – the page has to have a composer implicit in the title, e.g.: Work title (Composer Name) — and most publishers’ pages don’t follow this format. So I added a page under the Category:Various which seemed appropriate, entitled Publishers’ Catalogues, and added the 18 or so catalogues you uploaded there – they are now all downloadable, at the minor cost of them having been injected into the IMSLP file system (as items #96695—96712). Cheers Philip @ © talk 09:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Philip. That seems to have greatly simplified matters. --Cypressdome 17:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerto Gregoriano (Respighi, Ottorino)

OMP seems to have missed this.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's in my file archive. Maybe one of us thought the present upload by Romanov was complete. I'll upload shortly. Carolus 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


now I think about it, I’m practically positive it is an address. thanks for fixing that... :) Eric 02:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be useful for dating into to include the address in the publisher page, now that I think of it. Carolus 04:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stravinsky: Le Sacre 4h

Hi Carolus, I've found it here and hosted it there. Well, it's a color scan and that edition already exists here as a reprint. As I can't have a look at the reprint, I don't know, if it is an enrichment.... I could convert the file to grayscale or even to 600dpi monochrome if hepful. Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 11:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite nice, really. A first edition - looks like it could even be the first printing (note the 1915 signature). Yes, I think a 600 dpi mono file would be a help to have along with this color file. I'll upload to the USA server in a couple of days. Thanks Carolus 01:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ready. I've put it into the same folder. Misc. Notes: Converted to grayscale (png), cropped images approximately to DIN format, converted to 600dpi monochrome, cleaned with 1-point algorithm. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Monochrome, arrghh!!! :-) Philip @ © talk 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course! Sorry! ;-) --Ralph Theo Misch 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hedien Woodwind Quartet No. 2

Just so you know, I added this work to the Hedien, Mark page. I am the composer, and I selected the Creative Commons license. Thanks again for your help, and let me know if you have any questions.

--Mark Hedien

Phantasy Quartet (Spain-Dunk, Susan)

I asked User KGill whether this work should be PD-US-only when it was uploaded , and he told me (in essence?) that Spain-Dunk's estate had released permissions- not sure if I'm reading what was written properly really... Eric 03:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The work itself is actully PD in the USA, even if the Sugita edition published by Merton is protected. Merton confirmed to me that they had permission from the estate. So, it's tagged as it should be and it's also fine have it on the Canadian server as it is. Carolus 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that Sibley had the parts and was wondering whether to upload them on the server or whether the permission that I thought had been extended extended to the parts too- guess that means the former- will upload the parts to then :) BTW have you noticed that some of the files on Edition Silvertrust's site - well, look at the ones for their parts from Straesser's 4th quartet- only the 2nd and 4th movements, exactly the ones that Steve recorded, are used. have talked with both Steve and Mr Silvertrust about this separately. They may get into communication about working together or something, that might not be a bad thing actually... I don't know. (I really don't and have no clue at all.) Eric 04:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would upload the original parts (Sibley scans) to the US server. The permission, as far as I know, was only for Sugita to prepare the edition for Merton and for Merton to publish it. That's why we only have the score from Merton - EU users have to theoretically buy the parts. So, Silvertrust has been using the files on this site? That's just fine since public domain is public domain, after all. If they want to upload some of their PD items like Merton has, that would be great. We can link to them or to Sheet Music Plus. BTW, I think Masters and Kalmus has used files on this site as well. Of course, we link to lots of their things at SMP to help "prove" the PD status of things, too. Not all publishers hate us....despite the murderous feelings of some! Carolus 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Erf, remembering a sooner-forgotten email exchange with a close relative of a much-admired composer, there. yes. erm. anyways. (I still wonder about the smp thing about Milhaud 8 provi... er.. erm... I can't think straight at 12:45 am. some other time.) /// Not strictly speaking the PD items so much as the CC items that you warned weren't CC-na. (some level of CC ...) - too sleepy, will have to look. it was clear from his use of only two sound files from the Straesser 4th quartet (and he admitted readily by email, was no problem - he's quite pleased with Steve's work, as are we :) ) that the source was here, but I would have encouraged attribution myself - well, he does want to get in contact with Steve, and will see what happens. Interesting to me is that he (Mr. Silvertrust) has played through all 5 of the Straesser qts (the 5th may lack a copyright notice, on inferrable but not certain evidence- I haven't seen it- so might be postable, but was definitely published after 1922 from HMB and other evidence). I like what I've heard of Straesser's works; one discovers sometimes some very good music here, of course. (There's a lot more I have not heard by him, including 3 symphonies I gather, one of which a friend has heard...) (... and then there's Giuseppe Mascia's quartets which I am wasting time typesetting and which make me feel Mascia-masochistic. gah, poor scan of handwritten manuscripts. OW! sorry about the ramble...) Eric 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The CC license - even the plain old vanilla "attribution only" version - require that the author(s) be credited (be properly attributed) even if there is no commercial restriction for their use. So, while Mr. Silvertrust is free to copy and redistribute Steve's recording files and use them in a commercial venue without permission, the one condition he has to abide by is to correctly credit the author(s) of the file. Interesting. Carolus 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Glæser: Romancer

Hello Carolus − I need your opinion before uploading nearly a dozen of Glæser Romancer sets I've prepared from DKB.

You dropped the "Nos." of the work pages I submitted yesterday. I naively thought that, in the absence of a proper "Opus" catalogue, these "Nos." were a practical substitute − after all, it's a clear, original, and chronological cataloging system. − Still, you left one "No.". On the other hand, you added librettists' names ("Romancer af..."); I did so only when it was actually the work name in the printed catalogue that stands on the first pages of the scores.

So I'm a little bit confused, I need your guidelines! Thanks. Pierre.chepelov 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, This was a very difficult case. The numbers were used only for the series published by H & E. They were dropped when Hansen later reprinted (selected) songs - I don't think Hansen even reprinted the whole series. That's why I thought it was probably not such a good idea to employ the H & E series-numbering as a catalog number. There is also the possible issue of what (if anything) has been reprinted elsewhere (Classical Vocal reprints and Masters, for example). Unfortunately, I can't find where anyone has come up with an actual catalog for Glæser's works. Perhaps we should create our own catalog, first asking on the forums to see if anyone else knows of a catalog or has ideas about how best to do it. I was in a hurry last night and left one in place. The problem with very generic items like 2 Romancer or 3 Romancer naturally arises when there is more than one collection issued - hence my addition of author names to differentiate them. It would be a first for IMSLP (creating a catalog for a composer), but I see no reason it could not be done. Carolus 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
At a guess (I do not know for sure) there’s probably some editors here who have helped compile work catalogs already in use - to some extent - and might have some advice (beyond some obvious points)... Eric 23:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, an excellent point. We absolutely need their input. Carolus 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RE Op.36

Hm, all I can tell is that everything that was on there before, 3 sonatas, are still there. I just meant to rename it. There is another Op.36 of Sonatinas that are unrelated. Let me know if I made a big mistake, I'm still getting used to this. Thanks! Alex 05:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fine as long as you didn't redirect over an existing page with other files present - that's what results in orphan files (which are somewhat of a pain to deal with for the admins). Clementi's opus numbers are very confusing, so I wonder what a page for the other "Op.36" sonatinas you mention should be named when they show up (assuming they're not already here). Wish there was a modern catalog of works - I'll have to check on it. Thanks, Carolus 05:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see! Yes, there was not a previous page under that heading. The other sonatinas are there, also Op.36 but for now it's the best we can do as both were published like that. Ut Orpheus is publishing the complete works and they may have a working modern catalog of works. I can try to find out about that. Alex 05:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's good news! Thanks, Carolus 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


I just received an e-mail from Palestrina64 about his blanking of pages. Apparently he was trying to delete his own compositions from IMSLP. While they are CC-licensed, since it was submitted before we had the licensing page, perhaps we can just take the two pages down and not worry about it. --Feldmahler 05:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if it was something like that. Does he just want those two deleted, or all of his works? If he wants the rest to remain, tell him he should consider using the cc-by-nc unless he's OK with his stuff being duplicated and sold on Ebay. I'll get rid of the 2 he blanked earlier. Send my apologies, but blanking pages is usually a bad sign. Carolus 05:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Symphony No.2 in F major, Op.81 (Martucci, Giuseppe)

possible problem here, as I can't locate any published score of this work during the composer's lifetime or even before 1990/2000 or so (will research further). the manuscripts are indeed at - should have posted a warning on the talk page of the category that that was not a good idea (inserted a note to that effect on the page of symphony 1 of the same composer- that work at least was published in 1896 - but that's a bit hidden.) I may be mistaken- the preface to the score of sym 2 at may be online and may clarify, I'll check. Likewise question of performance during his lifetime (which may be clarified in preface and elsewhere) may affect question of copyright as you informed me. anyhow wanted to seek your advice! cheers... Eric 12:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) -- above-mentioned preface at here says first publication in full score was by Ricordi in 1906. Worldcat says nothing about this I think but- boo to Worldcat :) - anyhow. Sorry. Ignore this paragiraffe. Apologies for crying wolf.

No apologies needed. it's a perfectly valid concern from a copyright POV. First publication is very important info for determination of US status for anything published before 1/1/2003 (the day all unpublished items of authors dead over 70 years automatically entered the US public domain). EU has the editio princeps which establishes a 25-year term from first publication for posthumous publications of authors dead over 70 years. Canada has a 50-year editio princeps but is very strict about what qualifies. The above symphony would not qualify if first published in 2000 under Canada's law if the work had been performed, for example. Carolus 18:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

... hrm. if a work has been performed (e.g. all those many Baroque works written by conductors very much with performers and immediate performance in mind, and not so much a publisher, rather than maybe the other way around as maybe later on...) that makes it more copyrighted if it receives its first "professional" print publication (aside from performance-publication) in 2009, rather than less copyrighted)? I'd somehow understood otherwise - or am I misreading again?... Eric 19:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, the performance way back in the day counts as "publication" for the purpose of term determination - which means a modern publication is protectable only as an edition ("adaptation" in Canadian legalese). In the USA anything that old unpublished on 1/1/2003 is free - only an edition of the work can be copyrighted. Items published before then are more problematic. The EU has the 25-year rule, though I'm not sure how strictly it is applied in the different locales (some might have a Canada-style qualification to prevent very old items falling under an editio princeps copyright). Carolus 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reger Sämtliche Werke

Hi Carolus. Do you know the extent of the additions of Helmut Wirth et al. for the 1957 Breitkopf edition (Band 9 in this case)? At first, I thought they were actually new editions, but now I've seen some of the editions they claim to use as sources and have found that it is pretty much an exact reengraving; in the examples I checked out, I wasn't able to find a single difference between the two. Until I found this out, I've been tagging V*/C*/V*, but if Wirth didn't actually change anything, then what do you think it should be? Thanks, KGill talk email 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of the Reger critical edition that would rise to the level of original work. There are even quite a few instances of things not even being re-engraved, but simply corrected reprints of earlier editions. I would go on tagging them just has you have been. Carolus 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean V*/C*/V* or V/C/V or V/V/V (as Hobbypianist did when he uploaded some of them in 2009)? KGill talk email 00:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I would put the stars in as long as it's from the collected edition - even if it's a reprint. Carolus 00:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK then, I'll change back what I marked as V/V/V. Thanks, KGill talk email 00:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Divertimento in D major (Haydn, Michael)

Dear Carolus, just want to let you know this. If necessary I could remove those additions in brackets. But the long appoggiaturas - that would be complicated...--Ralph Theo Misch 22:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No need. It's been reprinted in the USA. It was actually published in 1927 before Baerenreiter took over Nagel. Carolus 22:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very pleasingly. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pièces de Clavecin (Daquin, Louis-Claude)

I came across this and (following my eyes nearly popping in surprise) tracked to the submitter’s talk page… did the contributor offer proof of authorisation? There is no obvious indication (e.g. here, or here) that permission was granted. (I can however understand why this might have been kept low-key – I just can see no equivalent of a “paper trail” to subsequently justify the claim.) Regards, Philip @ © talk 15:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they really did - I'll have to go back to my e-mail archive for 2009 to double check. You're correct that the paper trail needs to be publicly displayed, however. Carolus 01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravel - Frontispice first edition

Carlous, I noticed you added the first edition tag to this. Technically speaking, the 1975 Salabert issue was not the first edition as I detailed the entire publication history in the misc. comments field below. Thoughts? Daphnis 02:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your nice and helpful history! Corrected. The 1919 print would be PD in the USA. Hope we can find a copy to scan! Carolus 02:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The 1919 print seriously calls into question the legal validity claimed by the Salabert 1975 issue. It makes no mention of an editor or any additions. Daphnis 02:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It actually blows their claim out of the water - completely. Carolus 02:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarantelle No.2, Op.21 (Smith, Sydney)

I'm pretty sure that was a 1904 reprint... it seemed to say it was... ?!?!? was the information not useful to include? Eric 03:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it - but I didn't see anything on that score which mentioned 1904. Ashdown & Parry (the imprint) had been out of use 20 years by then. I'll look again. If you're thinking of the line of type at the bottom of the last page, it's a printer's name and address "190 1/2 High Holborn" (which could be confused for 1904 unless you zoom in). Carolus 03:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Ok, I say to myself, seriously now.) Yep, that was it. Thank you. (Time to go do things that can be done without eyes... eep.) Eric 03:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

you mentioned that we don't yet have a Ashdown and Parry table. While I don't know yet where SSA gets their date estimates, and the only exact-ish dates that I can think of that we have for Smith compositions are for the Schott repubs., not for the original A&P.s- except where reviews and advertisements can be caught in contemporary magazines, etc. , which is always something to try to catch, I think (where google books really is useful, I do think...)- as with J. J Hummel whose small table has lots of approximations and a couple of more or less exact "anchors" as I think of them... - anyway. It might be worth my or someone else's starting that page in the near future. I may regret having said that, but I say it anyway. Likewise for a few other publishers who keep turning up often enough and meet other conditions (a threshold of no. appearances in search, enough historical data to fill a biographical section at some point, something else... I don't know what's required, as yet, and I should, I really ought to. I speak as too often beyond my limited knowledge out of enthusiasm again... though the fact that in the conversation I mentioned below the IMSLP publisher-plate-tables were part of the evidence used against my hypothesis gave me a lot of ironic cheer and pause for thought- "these things are as useful as I am beginning to think and more!" Eric 03:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to try and remember the title and author, but I seem to recall that some English musicologist actually produced a book of detailed information about the English publishers similar the the Lesure and Devries book on French publishers which Squin managed to obtain a copy of from a library in his locale. That might at least give you a start if you really wish to proceed with the endeavor, which is one of those things that makes this site the amazing resource that it is. My copy of Grove has only very minimal info about them. Carolus 03:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Now- hrm... this is not it but is an interesting find- I need to collect more documents like this and make intelligent use of them while looking for the book you mention... Eric 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


I rather suspect you're right. (and for a lot of uploads made during the Great Sibley-simplifier-interface-Crash of Spring-Summer 2010, too. I suppose if one really wanted to check, could on one or two of those pages submit the files Sibley does have, and see if the duplicate-catching software detects anything- not foolproof but might in some cases, so long as Sibley's files were uploaded as is and not edited etc. I think beyond filenames of course ... (especially since I'm not actually assuming malice or anything even vaguely remotely like it.) Eric 04:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We always seem to be running quite a bit behind Sibley in the "official" file count we have listed, so I suspect you're right about there being a fair number lurking about the archive. BTW, I noticed in the duplicate you uploaded from Sibley of the one previously uploaded by Ys that the file had been renamed by him, which changed the file size just slightly, even though they were identical. Carolus 04:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the - I tend to think relatively few, but ... well, a subject for another time - advantages of my mental makeup - is that sometimes when I see something used I pick up on the how of it and its advantages - ... quickly enough. ... sometimes. :) Anyhow. Thanks! (For now going to try to fill in the T.F.A. Kühn publisher page table a bit more... why not... then call it a night reasonably. Re Sibley, I find the attitude - near as I can tell - of the main contact there rather a contrast to that suggested by some other sites that I guess I don't want to name :(... (well, both Sibley and LoC are in fact!... - they have friendly librarians happy to help out. Which doesn't of course always mean in agreement- had a very interesting interaction by email just a few days ago between a librarian at Free Library Philadelphia, at Library of Congress, and- myself, about the proper publication and composition dates of Veit's symphony iirc. HMB and other sources listed one thing, they listed another, but their listing was compatible with our B&H chart and some other reasoning so I agreed - silently; I do owe them, by my own reasoning anyway, a response at some point - that there was cause for doubt and that the HMB-caught later date issue might have been a republication... interesting exchange really. Be nice to look at and hear the score, in any case. sorry again to ramble...)

Jim Farrington at Sibley has been absolutely wonderful. I've not had much contact with the LOC folks, but then I've not heard of them whining about IMSLP either. I expect a fair percentage of librarians are generally positive about IMSLP - despite there being a couple out there who complain. I sometimes think that music publishers have been so nasty over the years about claiming everything is protected by copyright that a number of libraries end up behaving like victims of domestic violence - siding with their victimizers. Carolus 03:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have this conjecture (based on something that happened at one point, not a totally random guess) I ... eh, may as well place on a public page, why not, it's only a conjecture and I assume does no one any harm??? - that Mr. Farrington is in fact one of our editors, too. But- who knows... Eric 03:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (and I agree. My interactions with him can only be described as his going beyond the call of duty to fix damaged scans, among other things etc. etc. ... wonderful is a good word for!)

Speaking of T.F.A. Kühn

I should find out if they were absorbed into the brieflived Lauterbach & Kuhn (Kühn?)... Eric 04:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good theory. UPDATE: Not the case, however. Lauterbach & Kuhn was founded in 1902 and absorbed by Bote & Bock in 1908. Carolus 04:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

from what little I understand about Grainger and some other composers indeed

corner market on Tylenol/equivalent stat :) Eric 05:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely!! Grainger produced multiple versions of numerous works - both "concert" and "standard" versions were "dished-up" for piano solo, not to mention all sorts of instrumental combinations. I think P.davydov's reasoning here is to avoid mixing up different versions of works (like Wagner's Dresden and Paris versions of Tannhauser with transcriptions or arrangements for different ensembles or instruments (which is picked up automatically by the category walker). So, if you encounter complicated situations like the Smith Op.132, pick whatever you think is most likely to be the original arrangment and go from there, adding alternate instrumentations under the arrangements and transcriptions section. It's good to mention the composer's different settings in the General Info section, of course. Carolus 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • nod* Between him, Busoni, Liszt, and certain others (have seen/heard/... a few other composers... hrm. Langgaard maybe?... ... not Sorabji quite so much though there's something of that in ... anyway!...) too whose worklists, if not their names, are on the side-of-the-mind, filled with transcriptions and self-and-other-arrangements and re-arrangements and, as with Liszt, re-arrangements back into the medium of the original source :) ) a librarian-of-sorts with any wish for order-of-sorts is kept on their toes alright. Of the three mentioned so far I think I've heard the least by Grainger, but that'll change. Anyhow- again, much appreciated!! Eric 06:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Menuet, minuetto

Berwald (re Minuetto, Op.23 (Chaminade, Cécile)) brings up a good point. While we don't have the score as originally published, just a later reprint, the reprint does have Menuet, consistent with the language of the place of publication, of the composer, etc. (Nor is it that horrible Fritencalhian "Menuetto" that exists only in Music, indeed...) the title of the page when created was indeed Menuet, Op.23 but 3-odd years ago it was moved to its present place (only that detail changed - no spaces removed in the title, &c.) Do we have a policy of strongly preferring particular titles irrespective (ow) of National origin etc. - and if so why not Minuet rather than Minuetto or Menuet? :) Eric 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Menuet would be the correct title from what you describe. Is there any reason I'm not thinking of that it should not be moved accordingly? Carolus 00:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

nope, will move it back over the redirect. just wanted to check first - have tripped over myself a couple of times lately about a few things... Eric 01:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder about that- I've seen it done so often I

- well, I think I've seen it done so often (though again probably mostly in cases where it is not an issue most of the time) that I think I forgot to ask about it. thanks. Eric 04:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to check it out when you add the next thing by a composer dead less than 70 years to see if the issue comes into play. Carolus 04:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


this is probably a silly question but - well, not sure when I'll be nearest a recent Grove (actually, might be tomorrow if I leave for my library volunteering job a bit early...) - failing that, any suggestions as to a good source for biographies of e.g. the Hainauer publishing house? I have a notion I may be trying to create a couple more such pages in the future if only since there seem to be some major gaps if I understand the needs aright (and I am not sure I do of course...) Eric 04:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Grove has much of anything on them. There might info in the Riemann Musik-Lexikon or MGG (a German-language equivalent of Grove, except it's probably more extensive and detailed). They were very active for a while and suddenly vanished sometime after the first world war. Carolus 04:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Will check next I’m on campus. the early edition of the Musik-Lexikon we have at IMSLP has a brief biography of Hainauer himself, which is good. Something found on the web seemed to say something about their stock being sold to the British(or another?) Library or something or other which I do know happened to some British publishers (I have been told that's what happened to Spain-Dunk's usual publisher for instance along with the manuscripts of some of her unpublished works.) Eric 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (haven't used MGG myself but hear very good things about it. Love the title, sounds very sweeping. anyhow. thanks again! :) )

Musical treasures in Dresden

Hi Carolus, some days ago I found a new project from the Technical University in Dresden with many new editions of old music: There are published under Creative-Commons-Lizenz (by-sa)and can be downloaded freely. So I think, one can upload the music to IMSLP, am I right?Notenschreiber 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I think it's actually (by-nc-sa) but either way you can upload these here. Be sure to include a link back to them (which they will hopefully appreciate, as you know). Carolus 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


I am sorry to notice and report that my After the Ball cylinder discovery should more accurately be described as Song without third verse. Not the "complete" song.

Maybe I can make up for this by recommending the expressly Public Domain audio mp3s that are linked on these video pages:

Olmsted 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are two layers of copyright protection involved with sound recordings 1) the work being recorded (extremely important); and 2) the recording itself (which is sometimes released under a CC license. To take the first example in the list, Albeniz didn't really compose anything for guitar so Sharon Isbin would be performing an arrangement, which may be protected (though I expect there are public domain guitar arrangements of Albeniz around). Looks like some decent recordings can be had from the series, however. Carolus 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Publisher's plate tables link policy

Hi Carolus, I've been checking the Schirmer plate table and noticed that we have several instances of having a link to a work page in which the Schirmer printing actually isn't there although other published versions are. Examples would be 4098, 11617, 11623, 12726, 12943. Even if the information is correct we still don't have the actual item and this seems somewhat misleading to me. Do we have a policy regarding this? Thanks, --Cypressdome 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. There should not be a link to a work page unless the actual plate number referenced is present on the page itself. Carolus 04:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I'll start removing them. --Cypressdome 04:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
in my opinion just the links, though - still very useful to have plates for items we don't or don't yet have if only because it fills in table(s, along two axes sometimes. I begin to think that carefully used and with attention paid to exceptions - like the unusual but comprehensible Heugel- that really is very useful). Eric 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it's definitely quite OK to have something filling the position in the table. It's actually helpful. I think Cypressdome was referring to the links themselves, not the table entry. Carolus 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thought as much, wanted to ascertain. :) Eric 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bote & Bock

I do think that move would be a good idea (I'd half-noticed that the German publishers that survived into the 20th century typically used GmbH but only Bote & Bock had its page sited there, true. had not thought to ask.)- hrm, even though Germany was late to incorporate as a country, I didn't know that it was 1904 before they had that sort of corporate law... and yes, that sort of information does seem useful. Eric 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

James Fuld's book is a real treasure-trove for this type of arcane information. Fuld was a lawyer and knew all manner of things for establishing dates. Carolus 03:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Partita in A minor, BWV 1013 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)

Dear, I have corrected your edition concerning the 'Publisher Info.'. It is not a Bach's manuscript, but it is a work of two unknown scribes, as disposed here. Regards. Feduol 11:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering if that was not actually his manuscript. Carolus 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Editions by Otto Gauß (1877-1970)

Hi Carolus, this is a sample of that large and great publication. Those pieces with the remark 'Originalbeitrag' (original composition) at the bottom of the page are First Editions, specifically composed for Gauß's collection. So may I upload them? I also told KGill. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 21:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Gauss is the compiler of the collection, sometimes called a "general editor" rather than the editor for every single piece in the volume. If this is an accurate description of his work, we could not have the complete volume posted as a single file as it would be a violation of Canadian copyright. However, there would be no restriction on uploading individual pieces as long as he did not actually edit them, but the other contributors mentioned in the preface. Carolus 00:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Carolus! KGill answered me, too. I wrote some lines there. Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 23:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We're both correct, of course! See my remark over at KGill's for a little explanation. Carolus 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I wrote a short remark at KGill's to you both. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Chopin Etude Op. 25 or Trois nouvelles études

Hello Carolus, I have downloaded Chopin Etude Op. 25 edited by Arthur Friedheim at : ,but the content is not Chopin Etude Op. 25. It is Trois Nouvelles Etudes. May I know the original scores of Chopin Etude Op. 25 ? Looking forward and hearing from you. Thank You and Best Regards, Nicho 04:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nicho, The Trois Nouvelles Etudes has now been moved to the correct page. I am looking for the Friedheim of the Op.25 and will upload it when I can find a copy. Thanks, Carolus 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your information,Nicho 05:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

understood and will

certainly do that. (not pleased about all this- of course...) Eric 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've calmed down a little now, but steam was billowing our my ears earlier today after Feldmahler's call. Very, very annoying. Carolus 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I am thoroughly perturbed as well ... keep having visions of publishing moguls with bloated stomachs and bushy moustaches, wearing top hats and monocles, chewing on their cigars and laughing over the trouble they've caused us peons ... Better to hold off uploading entirely until this is resolved or just to go more slowly? Massenetique talk email 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just go a lot more slowly. The British MPA really is one of the worst of the worst. They are enormous and have lots of money to spend making trouble. The USA MPA is basically a gentlemen's club (by comparison). Carolus 04:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely incredible. Don't they understand they're pissing off their last remaining customers? Massenetique talk email 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The majority of British MPA member numbers are pop-music publishers. I doubt even the classical publishers in the ranks have any real understanding of your concept. A case could be made, given the Sheet Music Plus links (1060) and Amazon links for scores on sale, that this site probably increases their sales. My impression is that the British MPA, made-up of largely of pop-music publishers (usually lawyers' offices) who've seen a serious drop in revenue over the past 20 years thanks to the internet, is looking for any target of convenience. Carolus 04:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's just hope it can be resolved quickly. Tough for us out here in the ether when there is so little we can do! Massenetique talk email 04:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

hrm. if no major

changes have to be made for compromise's sake in our mode of operations, found another composer or two I can add to the group (and works of theirs I can upload, that is). some promising-looking brief works by Castelnuovo-Tedesco online published in 1921 I can try to use for example... Eric 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you can upload as you normally would now - at least for the time being. MPA has retracted as you probably know. Carolus 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am SO glad!! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not alone, by any means! Carolus 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

question from Alphanikonrex

I have a question: one copyright/contribution page says "It is essential that all music scores that are submitted to IMSLP be in the public domain at least either in Canada or the US", whereas another states that "For a work to be allowed on IMSLP, it must be in the public domain in Canada." These are contradictory, as the first one states that the work CAN be in public domain in the US but not Canada. The works I wished to upload were all published before 1923, making them public domain in the US. Even when I started uploading the Kreisler piece it said that it would be hosted on US-servers for US visitors to the site only. So I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks--Alphanikonrex 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that the page is contradictory in its wording - thanks for bringing that to my attention. The main server is in Canada, so anything you upload using the normal upload system has to be public domain in Canada. Ideally, if you want your contribution to be available for download to everyone, it should be free in both Canada and the USA. We do have a USA-only server which does not directly interface with the wiki (also hosted in Canada) in the same way so that we can have works that are free in the USA only available (without violating Canadian copyright). Right now, only admins who have access to the US server can upload things there. In the case of Kreisler, his work will enter Canada's public domain in 2013, so his things will have to go on the US server until then. You are quite correct that the things you uploaded (which I unfortunately had to delete) are indeed free in the USA. Carolus 05:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
answered on your talk page also, hopefully not confusingly and not unhelpfully. Eric 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks you two. --Alphanikonrex 05:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Schott

I was thinking that number looked low-ish, hopefully later I can localize (around) when his various early works were published a little better. I'm intrigued by the 1943 book about him and wonder if I can track it down - and if it will help at all... actually, a search at Cornell's library is promising- they have Scharnagl's edition of Sterkel's piano concerto opus 20, and other things (editions of much earlier music by him)- though perhaps not that particular book... Eric 06:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some earlier Schott prints here with numbers in the 100s, nothing down in the first 30 though. Naturally, the publisher page only has a sampling of what's actually here. Have to find some publisher gnomes and get them working. Carolus 06:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, have been trying to fill publisher pages recently- with works not on our site as well as works with, so long as they're works for which reasonably accurate date information obtains- in the belief that this can be useful and that it will keep me off the stree... belay that last bit. anyhow. thanks again - Eric 06:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Zanella, Oriental Fantasy for six 'cellos

Dear Carolus, I got this nice message from Jacopo about this piece. As you are the expert on copyright I thought I would ask you about it. Here is the Message:

Dear Generoso, this morning I came into possession of the scan of Zanella's "Fantasia Orientale" for six cellos. It's an unpublished work, existing only in manuscript form. As I know NOTHING about copyright laws and stuff, I'm asking you, as I'd be interested in sahring this piece with as many people as possible...what should I do? Could you please help me? Thanks in advance,

Thanks. Generoso 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

btw a quick check here not limited to Worldcat though mindful of my limited resources suggests it may not have been published during lifetime or since, by the way. (then again I kept noticing how poorly Italian publications- of the 19th century in this case - were represented on e.g. Worldcat when I tried to investigate the publication status of works by someone else and found several works in HMB neither in internetculturale nor Worldcat. Erm. Alas Internetculturale seems to have no manuscripts by Zanella, more's the pity!... maybe because of his later deathdate or other reasons? don't know. lovely very useful and eye-opening, intriguing site I say quite sincerely. ... anyhow.) Eric 14:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Zanella died in 1949, any unpublished works remain protected in the USA until 2020. It would appear to be the same for the EU (whose 25-year editio princeps term commences upon publication). In Canada, the work is most likely free unless it was literally never publicly performed in the composer's lifetime. Other countries with 50-pma terms allow for a term of protection for such posthumous works. Since it's under copyright in at least some parts of the world, Zanella's heirs would be the ones who have to grant permission for the work be freely available here. I recommend that Jacopo contact the legal heirs of Zanella and obtain their permission to make the work available here under one of the Creative Commons licenses. The non-commercial version would allow for the heirs to collect the customary royalties for any performances and recordings done on a commercial basis. Carolus 23:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Marcello:Oboe Concerto in D minor

... unless I can get them from the same source he did, I'm afraid I'm blocked in downloading the scores to upload to :) Eric 14:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not not have admin privileges? I thought you did. I think you were officially nominated. For now, I will re-tag these C/V/N until you have downloaded them. Carolus 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it (my page and the sysop grouplist) say I'm an admin (as of 9/9/07), I was assuming the reason I couldn't work out how to get past the block page was because one has/had to be a copyright admin to do so... hrm... maybe I was going about it wrong?... erm. apologies... Eric 23:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Can't seem to get the links to work though I think I've checked them several times..., but hopefully that can be fixed tomorrow. Best! Eric 01:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Jonathan changed the directory somehow. Hmmm.... Don't really know. Carolus 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried one or two other PD-US-only pages, like String Quartet in A minor, Op.17, by Marcel Labey. worked fine. however, I got the same error when I renamed the Tcherepnin directory (having noticed that I put his birthdate, not his deathdate, in there) and manually went in to the one affected workpage to make some fixes. I wonder if it's some fiddling around I was doing or trying to do in the box that did it... it's conceivable. though I did cut-paste-replace the material that I was supposed to have, in the case of the Marcello, so it's weird that's still not working... Eric 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Composer Page Delete

Hi. Is it OK to delete my composer page at here? There's only 1 composition in it and I would really, really like to make improvments on that. --Notnd 07:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) -If possible, plaese also delete File:PMLP17449-Weinawski Legende.mp3.--Notnd 07:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, If you plan on posting a revised version of your piece, I would recommend that we keep your composer page and simply delete the file - even leaving the workpage in place so you can upload the new version of the file directly ti it. Best Wishes, Carolus 05:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

page A desiuner la belle andouille


please, could you correct my name in the link Nicolas Sansarlat in the bottom of the page A desiuner la belle andouille?

And is it possible to class alphabetically the page link category in letter A and not D ?


Hi Nicolas,
I’m not Carolus, but the link has updated – possibly you were viewing a cached version of the page where it hadn’t.
As for sorting the page under “A”, in English that word means the indefinite article, so it is not regarded as a valid word to establish the sorting order (and the Wiki isn’t clever enough to realise the context is actually French, not English). It’s a bug, unfortunately… Cheers Philip @ © talk 12:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


if I remember correctly, while the page guidelines specify the absence of keys in most cases from page titles, I kept finding my pages titles being moved to ones including keys, and asked the other admin who was doing so at the time (I can't remember but will look at my talk page contributions...) whyso and was given a reason that seemed to apply to all but the best-known works. so that's what I've been doing since then. ... but then, the work page creation form still says "genre: mandatory" (etc.) Eric 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the general rule is to not use keys unless they are needed for identification. In general, keys are not needed for 19th century and later composers whose catalog has a coherent opus number (or other widely used catalog number system) in place. When we get back to a composer like Boccherini however, keys suddenly become more important since composers of that era often wrote scores of concerti, sonatas, etc. - including multiples in the same key. So, while we have a very coherent cataloging system for Boccherini (the G-numbers), adding the key helps in fast identification of the particular item (oh, that G-major concerto instead of the other 5). At least this is my recollection of a discussion some time back about the issue with p.davydov (who sadly had to retire from here due to neural damage). So, for Tchaikovsky - who has a coherent opus system in place that is widely used, and who didn't composer multiple like-titled works in the same key, keys are superfluous. Haydn is another matter, however. There are more than 100 symphonies, for example, with multiples in the same key. So adding them to the title as we did (Symphony No.XX, H.I:number, key) makes the rapid finding (hopefully) easier. The exception to the exception (don't you love it) comes when the cataloging system itself is key-based, like Telemann's TWV system - where we don't repeat the key as it is expected that a reasonably informed user would know that TWV is a key-based system. Carolus 02:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact(????) that opus numbers or even opus number and type of work seem to fail to uniquely identify a work with a number of pre-modern composers (Krommer is coming immediately to mind at least where opus numbers are concerned- at least until the Padrta system which seems to uniquely identify his works becomes more used than opus numbers are. If a later generation actually has a hankering for Krommer, we're all doom... belay that thought. ;^) Apologies and best Eric 02:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Krommer is a pretty good example of the type of composer where keys would most likely be a help in identification, since the opus numbers can get confusing (depending on which publisher was issuing the piece). It seems that the business of muliple publishers issuing things with their own opus-numbering systems was pretty much over (at least in central Europe) by 1850 or thereabouts. Over in the USA and England, the idea of a uniform title and opus number took a little longer to take hold. Schubert's opus numbers are a real mess, too. Thanks to Deutsch, there is a more coherent system - but there are just so many scores around which still have the old opus numbers we had to include them in parens for a lot of things. Deutsch's system has been around well over a century now, and we still haven't washed the crazy old opuszahls out of our systems even now in the 2000s! Carolus 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

and "don't get me started" so to speak on composers who just look like other composers (in HMB for example - too too many examples of composers writing at about the same time with very similar names, sometimes related to each other, brothers even) which relate not only to this problem but play right havoc with attempts to construct ad hoc worklists for amateurs like me :D Eric 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (I should add hastily that the opportunity to learn about all this is very welcome for me in quite a lot of ways despite some of the frustrations. anyhow. I should sleep. thanks again!)

Just when you thought it was safe...... I noticed.... THIS GUY! Want to do a composer verzeichnis? How about Mr. Cambini? He churned the stuff out like Pepperoni, apparently. (It's actually not bad - listen to the wind quintets we have recordings for). Evidently, the only modern catalog attempted for was the quartets (more than 100 of those on their own). Seriously, I wonder if this is a case where the collaborative power of a number of us could be put to advantage in a community project. Carolus 04:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
supposedly he's the target of the satire that Mozart's 4th flute quartet may partially be (Mozart's opinion of Cambini's quatuors dialogé's was apparently somewhat lower than not bad, but I did like what I've heard. It does also seem to be true that some works of his were recorded with some symphonies by J Kraus mistakenly attributed to Cambini- both at the time of publication of the music and on the CD label, with clarification received by the CD reviewer but still not having reached some info pages and whatnot- the symphonies are by Kraus, the sinfonies concertantes by Cambini- with the reviewer's opinion, anyway, being that the Cambini works were indeed nice enough but the Kraus works were quite a level higher. well, I have room for both. still want to hear in re Krommer the surviving 8-plus-a few unnumbered symphonies, violin concertos, ... of which i've heard maybe the 2 symphonies on Chandos and that is maybe it... at least some of us here have professional and other serious experience doing worklists iirc (with Palmgren, Brian and others) that I do not have... Eric 04:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of DDR publication of Mendelssohn's two Concertos for 2 Pianos

Hi Carolus, I found scanned copies (which will require some clean-up) of both of these works which were edited by Karl-Heinz Köhler and published by Deutscher Verlag Für Musik Leipzig in 1960 or 1961. It appears that Kalmus reprinted them in 1990/91. What is their copyright status? Are they able to be hosted on IMSLP (without Köhler's preface)? On a side note, I can't tell if the original scanner just didn't scan the copyright notice on the page after the title page or if any copyright notice was included? Do you know if publications in the former DDR typically included the standard copyright notice? Thanks! --Cypressdome 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

btw a permanent link to a catalog entry about this Köhler edition, if it helps at all, is here Eric 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Free in the USA because DDR items had no protection under US law until 1978 or so (still available from Kalmus, btw). Free in EU due to editio princeps and urtext expiration (25 years) and in Canada due to probable performance in composer's lifetime and lack of originality of urtext edition. Carolus 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

question about that next-to-last bit that may apply more generally with manuscripts of Baroque works pre-Telemann for example- how public does the law require the performance be, exactly, and what is its definition of public? I don't know if the Mendelssohn’s gatherings necessarily qualified (in the case of many Renaissance and Baroque works written for a single performance in chapel or court but not as relatively open to a somewhat wider public as Telemann's subscription concerts - hence my bringing him in - I wonder if they would count as anything other than semi-private by some definitions, which has been dorkishly running through my mind a bit lately especially after noticing Brown's edition of the Quantz sonatas whose manuscripts are at SBB. anyway.) Eric 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC) (this is more re manuscripts than editions.)
Thanks for the info Carolus! --Cypressdome 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any actual case law on the issue. As I wrote at the forum, it appears the Canadian parliament's purpose here was to filter out the works of long-dead authors being tied up for 50 years just because someone discovered a long-missing manuscript. So, I expect the only performance that would not meet the definition of 'public' under these circumstances would be those where the composer played for himself, or perhaps for his immediate family only. If any guests were present it may well cross the line into being considered a 'public' performance. I'll have to do a bit more reading on the issue to see if I can get a better idea. Carolus 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Carl Maria von Weber: Tanzbüchlein Ed. Wolters

Hi Carolus, I've uploaded the entire book for the juridical archive or for interest of science. The file includes those pages I didn't upload so far (preface etc.). Regards --Ralph Theo Misch 08:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Typo'd Title

Hey's I haven't uploaded in a while and just uploaded a new David Hamlin piece. But typo'd the title. I abbreviated E minor as Em which is out of style with the other pieces on that page. Could you fix this please? I tried to but doesn't seem to do a thing. Avianne 10:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Divertimento in E-flat major (Haydn, Joseph)

Me again... - enclosed the preface for the documents. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Geiringer's preface is not to be allowed, naturally. I thought that Kalmus had reprinted this one but see no evidence of it for now and have tagged accordingly (EU server). I understand that Baerenreiter generally did not renew the NMA items, but there were a few cases where the individual editors or their descendants actually did. I've been enjoying the recordings you've posted! Carolus 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am delighted - thanks!  :)) --Ralph Theo Misch 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Recording of Handel's Messiah

And again Ralph Theo. What's about the recordings at the German Wikipedia? Are they really PD? --Ralph Theo Misch 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

These are actually at the English wikipedia also. They are done by the MIT concert choir and are released under a CC license. I will be uploading them at some point after our page-layout improvements take place this summer. The work page for Messiah is already huge with just scores, so I'd really like to wait until the new design (with tabs) is in place. Carolus 03:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian State permissions dept.

Carolus, thought I'd ask you about this since you seem to be in the know regarding Muzyka. To whom should I apply in seeking academic reprint permissions for a score issued by them in the 1970s? I honestly have no idea. The composer in question was a Russian citizen and I am not aware of this piece being published by anyone but the Russian state. Thanks. Daphnis 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the official representative in the USA for all of the old VAAP (Soviet copyright agency) works (all members of the composers' union were automatically in the catalogue) is G. Schirmer. My understanding from others who've tried this route is that it will be difficult at best, so having a plan-B of contacting the composer (or his/her heirs) directly is strongly advised. Carolus 21:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, many thanks. Although the composer in question is deceased, there are some close relatives still living that might be able to help. In any case, I'll give Schirmer a shout first. Daphnis 21:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)