User talk:Carolus/archive31



Hi Carolus,

I found 2 files, that seem to be the same, but I'm not sure. Could you please check it? 6 Morceaux, Op.55 (Vieuxtemps, Henri) Could it also be Op 61 ??? But the Capriccio is the same as here: Capriccio_'Hommage_à_Paganini',_Op.55_(Vieuxtemps,_Henri).

It's a strange case, but they are actually two separate works - issued posthumously by Brandus as Op.55. Carolus 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus, but it seems that the 6 Morceaux, Op.55 (Vieuxtemps, Henri) are op. 61, see here and here.--TobisNotenarchiv 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Brandus assigned the 6 Morceaux to Op.61 while keeping Op.55 reserved solely for the Capriccio. This seems logical, I'll do some checking on it when I get a chance. Carolus 02:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The two John Bishops

Hi Carolus! Not a big issue but when I added the LinkEd for the editor of The Art of Preluding, Op.300 (Czerny, Carl) who is named John Bishop it naturally linked to the existing composer John Bishop which now shows our 17th century Mr. Bishop editing Czerny's work in the 1830s. The LOC Authority record for both is John Bishop. How should we handle this? Thanks! --Cypressdome 02:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy! My absolute favorite headache.... If the 19th century John Bishop hasn't got anything else (or few other things) in print, I would recommend abandoning the LinkEd template and simply using "John Bishop (19th century)" in the editor field. Otherwise, we have to go to places we really don't like to go too often. Of course, if you happen to dig up his middle name, if it was a pseudonym (very possible) used by the publisher, or something similar, life would be easier. Carolus 02:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, both were English cathedral organists. I exhausted the list of biographical sources on MusicSack for the latter Bishop and there was never a middle name or initial listed. He appears to have edited a number of foreign pedagogical works for the English market and composed some vocal and instrumental works. I guess we'll let sleeping dogs lie and I'll remove the LinkEd and just list him with his dates. Thanks! --Cypressdome 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted, and then I came in − see this thread. − Pierre Ch. 12:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Opus posthumous

Hi Carolus - is there a standard for how to abbreviate Opus posthumous? I did a search and found "Op. post.", "Op. posth." and "Op.Posth." Is there any agreement as to which is correct, or to include it at all? If not, I will raise the question in the forums. Thanks! Massenetique talk email 03:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be cruising around here and so will add my two cents. I believe the most common is "Op. posth.", at least in my experience. Any how, it is the clearest of the three in my opinion. Daphnis 03:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that - there are a number of work pages out there using "Op.Posth" which looks wrong to me because of the capital P, and while I think the space in "Op. posth." is more elegant, might it be better to use "Op.posth." to coincide with our standard of no space before the number? Massenetique talk email 03:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although not with having no space between the two. Honestly, and I know this was the consensus here, I disagree with the decision to write opus numbers without a space. Generally speaking, there is always a space after an abbreviated term in most languages and style manuals. Daphnis 03:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we've (sort of) been using the standard of "Op.Posth." or "Op.posth" (no space), but you might want to check on a number of items. Daphnis is correct about the use of space after abbreviations. I think the custom started here because we had some type of sorting problem when we used it way back in the early days - now fixed. Still, the idea of moving the many thousands of pages which use no space is pretty scary. Carolus 03:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I'm trying to move 17thCentury scores to imslp from site (suggested in contributor page of imslp)but they're tagged with license CC by-nc-nd 2.5 when trying to donload them. They're re-writings in modern form of original manuscripts found in libraries.

My question is: -can their modern contributors to that site claim for CC by-nc-nd 2.5? -Have I to consider them, in imslp, as "retypesettings" o "new compositions"? -which license can I use in imslp? (CC by-nc-nd 3.0 cannot be chosen for "retypesettings")

Thank you very much! --jeko89 11:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC) [copied from P. Davydov's talk page]

It is perfectly legitimate to classify the typesets at the Duke University site as cc-by-nc (use 3.0 please). When you are uploading, simply add as "new compositions" using the cc-by-nc 3.0 option. Once uploaded, go into the edit window and change to "typeset." We will be working to add the Creative Commons license options to uploads for typesets, manuscripts and normal scans. Carolus 22:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Copyright Admin)

Why are there no Recording-Links any more in the Frescobaldi Category

I just saw, that you deleted the links to recordings of two complete and uncomercial Frescobaldi Toccatas. I just had a discussion with someone of the german Wikipedia, who deleted those Links in the german Wikipediaarticle of Frescobaldi without any founded reason. So I am quite interested to know, for what reason you think that those links in the Frescobaldi Kategory deserve to be deleted while links to the Pianosociety in many categories for instance do not, having advertisment on their site, often without any really that outstanding quality of their amateur recordings or even not that an representative spectrum of compositions available there. The Pianbosociety-Link in the Clementi-Kategory leads just to 2 sonatas and a few of the sonatinas. That is far from being much more representative than two well interpreted Frescobaldi Tocatti on a historical instrument. In my opinion those Pianosociety-Links are still ok even with all their advertisment down each of their sites because it is at least free and more than nothing. But why should users interested in Frescobaldi not be informed about those free recordings that give an impression of the virtousity of Frescobaldis Toccati, where there are definitly no others recordings linked at all? With the same arguement one could delete all IMSLP entries with just a few scores of a composer available as not representative. You know that this would be nonsens, so why should this make sens when it comes to external links???--Fahl5 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to individual pieces should go onto the page for those pieces, not on the composer category page. If there was a link to a single page which had both of those items, it would be allowable. That's the case with Piano Society. If you actually click on the links to them, it goes to the corresponding composer page at Piano Society. If there is no workpage for the individual pieces you linked to, you might want to consider uploading your recordings here, where they would get a great deal of exposure. Nothing against these recordings, we just need to keep to our formatting rules. Carolus 22:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Admin)
I would add, I believe your recordings of the Klengel canons and fugues are exemplary and would be very warmly welcomed if you were inclined to share them here. (For clarity, sometime ago you wrote me a sharp message on the forums and I think it stemmed from a misinterpretation of something I’d said, which was not meant to be a negative criticism; I would be keen to re-iterate my point that any offence you received was definitely not intended.) Cheers, Philip @ © talk 04:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am not offended at all. I just didn't understand. But OK: Your "formatting rules" inspires me to do, what I would like to do in any way, to work a bit more on this wonderful composer. So hold on. I hope in a few month I may offer you a link to a more representative own Frescobaldi-section on my site ;-)--Fahl5 05:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, we'll be happy to link to them. If you have a page with a collection of Frescobaldi recordings, a link to that can actually go on the composer's category page. Carolus 05:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ebner's arrangements of Bach's Cello Suites

Hi Carolus, unfortunately I couldn't find out anything about Joseph (also Josef) Ebner. I think he was a violist. If this first file passes the exam, I'll scan the other suites. So I didn't upload it to the idividual work page for 1007. Cheers --Ralph Theo Misch 23:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything either. I'm tagging it C/V/C as it was published in 1913. It's possible that Ebner is still protected in the EU, but pretty unlikely he's still under copyright in Canada. Carolus 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Carolus - I've already continued. --Ralph Theo Misch 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pfitzner Cello Concerto, Op.52 cello/piano score

Hi Carolus! has Pfitzner's Op.52 Cello Concerto in an arrangement by Ernst Gernot Klussmann (1901–1975) that was published in Berlin in 1944. On first glance that would seem to make it under copyright most everywhere except for the fact that it would have seem to have been impossible for a German firm to register works with the U.S. Copyright Office in the middle of World War II. No entry appears in the CCE in the mid-1940s and I couldn't locate a renewal 28 years later. Therefore, I assume I can post it on the U.S. server, correct? Did the U.S. ever make any "special exceptions" for such works that would have been impossible for the composer/publisher to register with the U.S. Copyright Office? Thanks! --Cypressdome 02:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There was the whole "alien property custodian" business, but I don't think any musical works fell under it. I assume you didn't find any NIE over at LC also - in which case I see no problem with uploading it to the USA server. Carolus 02:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Searches over there came up blank. --Cypressdome 02:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Category: Instrument Composition Lists

Adding inst composition list

Hello Carolus:

I wonder whether I could ask for your advice.

I have aded a line to this list, but it does not display. Please could you check it.

It is "List of Compositions for easy piano trio" after "List of Compositions for piano trio".

Regards WilliamBunting

Addition to reccmo talk page

I just got an email announcing an addition of yours to my talk page. However, when I look at my talk page I don't see any changes since my own comments added some hours ago.

Do I miss something? Reccmo 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we're just on different time schedules, so it takes me a day to reply. Besides, keeping up with all the WIMA uploads is pretty time-consuming! It will be fantastic when it's all done and properly organized - just takes time. Carolus 02:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Carolus! I was wondering if the infringes any trademark laws? Also, what exactly is the difference between trademark and copyright law? Cheers, Lndlewis10 01:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, It probably does. Of course, it's not as if we are really able to engage Russian lawyers to sue over laws which are rarely if ever enforced there. As Leonard remarked one time on Feldmahler's page, expecting folks in Russia to observe copyright laws is a bit like expecting a warthog to eat with a knife and fork. To another question - since you have this talent for making catalogues for composers works, I was wondering if you might want to create catalogues for some of the Renaissance lute composers whose works have been inundating the site of late, like John Jenkins. You should get together with P.davydov to discuss this when things calm down a bit from the WIMA deluge. Some of the pages for those composers are absolutely horrendous. I counted over 300 items on one page alone. Carolus 01:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

See my response on Davydov's page :/ Cheers, Lndlewis10 19:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking long-term here, so there's no rush at all. The server issues are far more urgent right now. Carolus 02:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:LoC and Levy

Thank you − I will use the templates! Do we have a list of this kind of templates?
About the Lancer's Quadrille: I don't see why C. Schubert's version is more an arrangement as A. Tatzel's, or as the anonymous 1895 version. They're all (slightly different) arrangements of an anonymous (and popular) source; I think they all deserve to be tagged as arrangements, or not to be, but together. Cheers − Pierre Ch. 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the list is called External library templates. As you can see, we have quite a few now. I was following the indication on the title page of the Schubert version, but you're right. They really should all be under arrangements - at least until the original version shows up so we can decide what really is! Carolus 02:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I reorganized the page. − Pierre Ch. 11:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Herschel, William

Hi Carolus! I'm not sure whose attention I should bring this to but I've noticed this issue over the past few days. We now have six empty work pages under William Herschel. Do we know if the contributor plans to upload any of these scores? Thanks! --Cypressdome 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We normally only allow 24 hours, and it's been over a week now, which is quite long enough. Thanks for pointing it out, and I've deleted them t save Carolus the trouble :-) — P.davydov 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Office

Hello, Carolus! I've been looking on line, and I don't see anything about how to actually get a job in the copyright office. Do you know if a law degree is required? Librarian experience? Liberal arts? Thanks, Lndlewis10 19:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. It's great that you're looking to have a career at the Library of Congress, I hear that it's a nice and sometimes relentless place to work. I'm sure Carolus can answer this better than I can, I really don't know too much about it. I don't think there are any career opportunities relating directly to copyright law right now, but the education requirements really depend upon what exactly you want to do. There are many jobs in the copyright office besides determining whether something meets the threshold of originality. For example, secretary work requires little college education, but it is still a very important and valuable job. There are also important maintenance positions that require little to no education. On the other hand, some work naturally requires a degree in law. It really depends upon what you want to do. Respectfully yours, Emery 23:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, What Emery said about the qualifications is correct. Since the copyright office is a division of the Library of Congress, I expect all the hiring is done through their offices. Last I heard (about two weeks ago), the LOC was actually letting people go, due to budget problems. Still, you never know. Maybe you're just the person needed there! Carolus 01:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also heard that there were some layoffs. I think I heard that it really isn't really as bad as the media makes it sound; nobody I know well has been affected. I think it's possible you could get a job in the library because there is a lot of sorting that needs to be finished sooner or later. For example, I hear that there are a number of unreleased classical recordings that still need to be sorted. Respectfully yours, Emery 02:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Vaute

Hi, Carolus -- a couple of questions about Vaute: 1) I noticed you deleted a file (Danse naive) because it was only partial, and probably a tickler/advert for the full work as published by Armiane. Given that Vaute is deceased now, and Armiane is unlikely to approve upload of the full work, should I just delete the page? 2) Paysage has text by Simone Simon. I can't find anything about a poet by that name, just an actress who died in 2005. Given that some works by the WI contributors had copyright violations of text, can you find anything more on who this poet might be and what the dates are? Thanks, Steltz 08:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been having some e-mail exchanges with Martine, his daughter, who is trying to convince the publisher that it's a good idea to allow single movements here. So, leave it up a while longer. Carolus 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Koechlin posth. works pub before 1986

Would these be safe at least in Canada? Daphnis 03:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They must have been first published, performed or delivered before 1962 (for all practical purposes, since we're getting near to the end of the year) to be free in Canada. Apart from unfinished works, it's somewhat unlikely that may thing were unpublished in the sense used by the Canadian statute. USA is a different story, of course. Carolus 04:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this is kind of what I suspected. I was relying on the publication date since I'd have to establish when the work was first "delivered". Daphnis 13:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
With Koechlin works one may sometimes be able to check Orledge's Charles Koechlin (1867-1950) His Life and Works (out of print but at some libraries and Google Books-previewable) and some other books for more detailed information about first performances and thelike when needed. Eric 09:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ward, In Nomines

When you checked in the 5 John Ward In Nomines, among a number of other things, you changed the order of clefs for Treble viol 2 for In Nomines 3, 4, and 5. You changed the File Descriptions but you did not change the order of the files themselves. This left the wrong descriptions for each of those files. When I mentioned this on my user page, P.davydov went to the page and reverted all of the changes you had put in, leaving my (perhaps erroneous? or at least undesirable) original version of the page. I do not plan to get into a 'wiki-war', so I am doing nothing else now and leaving it to the Admins to sort out. Afolop 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll check it out. I could have made a mistake in that. Your uploading has gotten very much better - you seem to have learned how the basic layout works now. UPDATE: it was a simple fix - all OK now. Carolus 01:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi Carolus. I've managed to track down the mysterious "D. Usov" who translated Mussorgsky's songs into German for the 1930s critical edition. He turns out to be Dmitry Usov, who died in 1944 (some sources say 1943). I thought you should know in case it has implications for the copyright for those editions where he was involved (which are currently tagged V/V*/C*) — P.davydov 21:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it actually does have an effect upon EU status as all Russian authors who died after 1943 are protected for life-plus-70, so those translations are not free in the EU. I'll re-tag accordingly. Carolus 03:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

copyright problems

Thanks for the help with the Stamitz, I've sorted it out now. Can you please do me another favor? Rzewski's Antigone Legend has text by Berthold Brecht. It is PD in Canada so it should have a [TB] block. I can't do this because I'm not a copyright reviewer. Could you please block it? Thanks, Steltz 18:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thanks for the note. Carolus 03:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cantico del sol di Francesco d'Assisi, S.4 (Liszt, Franz)

Dear Carolus, #135865 puts #111913 in a different light (see also the discussion page there). I'm pretty sure that #111913 is an arrangement (or a vocal score) of the 2nd (orchestral) version. Yours respectfully --Ralph Theo Misch 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chopin 2 Mazurkas, B.16

Hi Carolus! For some time I've been trying to identify the first two Mazurkas (G major and B flat major) in the 1880 Breitkopf & Härtel edition. I thought they might have been the pair listed as B.16 but the one in G major didn't match the one we had posted. I found incipits for the Mazurkas here: which confirmed that they are B.16 but also confirmed that the items on the B.16 page are in fact Op.67 No.1. I didn't want to simply move the posted scores to the correct page because at least one of the typeset scores has B.16 at the top of the first page of music (the other has "WN26" which means nothing to me). What shall we do? Thanks! --Cypressdome 03:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I need to move the items presently assigned to B.16 to Op.67, where they properly belong! Thanks, Carolus 03:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravenscroft: Book of Psalmes, G.Gabrieli/A.Raverij: Canzoni per sonare

Dear Carolus

Thank you so much for revising the structure of the 'Book of Psalmes' (Ravenscroft) work page and adding the 'LinkComp' templates. I wasn't aware of that elegant facility which seems to be just what is needed for changing the current work page for 'Canzoni per sonare' (G.Gabrieli) into a 'Various' work page. As you'll notice from WIMA's page for this collection published 1608 by the Venetian printer Alessandro Raverij it contains pieces by multiple early 17th century composers, most of which are eventually going to be added to IMSLP. I've mentioned this in Davydov's talk page after he had removed the IMSLP person 'Alessandro Raverij' and the cross link to him which I had added to the 'Canzoni per sonare' work page.

Reccmo 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Christian, I think we've come up with a reasonably decent method of handling these collections where there are multiple composers. The Whole Booke of Pslames, like the Canzoni per sonare you mentioned, should ultimately be moved to the "Various" category, with cross-linking provided for all of the individual titles and composers contained within the collection and Ravenscroft listed as the editor (since he is the one who probably put the volume together, or at least is the composer most represented in the collection). When all the new workpages are set up, the page for the collection itself would be limited to only the complete collection (including arrangements of the complete collection). Because WIMA is so rich in early music - much of which was initially published in collections of this nature - we've had to expand the rules for setting things up somewhat. Fortunately, the system we came up with a couple of years ago is flexible enough to make this possible. Regards, Carolus 23:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Isaac, secular works

I just followed what was already entered. I would suggest grouping by either number of voices or by language, or by both. To list individual pieces gives a horrendous list for a user to plow through. I still have a few more to enter, these, I believe, are in the French group--I haven't verified this yet. Afolop 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the way you uploaded them at all, please continue as you are. This page was really a violation of the rubric from the start. As far as users plowing through works listed on a composer's category page, you do have a point. However, consider J.S. Bach's category page with its hundreds of works. Looked at by itself, it's very daunting indeed. However, use the Category Walker to search through that big list using various parameters and there's a much less intimidating list to look through. Likewise, one would ultimately be able to find a list of Isaac works by the number of voices or text language using the Category Walker, so how they appear in the composer category page is much less important than it would be in a printed catalogue, for example. Carolus 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Marenzio Madrigals for 4 voices

It looks like you started editing my entries here before I had completed the entries. The results were lost titles and pieces going into the wrong places. I still have a good deal of editing to do to these entries. May I finish that before additional changes are made, please. Afolop 00:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All I did was to move the ones in the front tab (Scores and Parts) to the bottom of the (Arrangements and Transcriptions) tab. It did appear that you forgot to add the title for the first version of No.21, which I added. That's it. Let me know when you're done as it can be confusing when there are edit conflicts. Carolus 00:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I believe some of my entries were overwritten when you saved your edits. When I enter a series that require the same editing I use the action on the page that returns to the page being edited and enter several more before I do the editing. If someone else is changing the page, that apparently may not return to the place I have been working. Hence, the last 3 entries went to the Scores and Parts tab rather than the Transcriptions and Arrangements I was working on. I saw that at about the same time you did and I tried to move those wrong entries also. It ended up with some of the titles going onto the wrong set of files. What a mess. I think things are straightened out now, and I have finished everything I have on that page. Thanks. Afolop 01:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't notice you were still uploading to that page until I already moved the items as described. When I saw you were there, I went over to Victoria - all of which was uploaded perfectly. I was probably a bit daunted when I looked at the list of files to be tagged and saw it was up to 400 items. Carolus 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Grieg Op.43

Hi Carolus, thanks for cleaning up my submissions to Grieg Op.43. I had the not-so-bright idea to work on the site while waiting at the airport, and I had to sign off abruptly when they moved my flight to another gate! Best, Massenetique talk email 06:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Handel's Concerti Grossi, Op.3

Hi! I've read your observations on Concerto Grosso 1 and Concerto Grosso 2. I'm thankful to you for these. I wanted to clean these pages and to upload the other concertos but I've some doubts for the cleanup them: 1.

   tab "Full Scores" will contain:
     subtab "Complete"
       [1 pdf for full complete work]
     subtab "I. First mvt"
       [1 pdf for full 1st mvt]
     subtab "II. Second mvt"
       [1 pdf for full 2nd mvt]
   tab "Parts" will contain:
     subtab "Complete"
       [#instruments pdfs for complete work]
     subtab "I. First mvt"
       [#instruments pdfs for 1st mvt]
     subtab "II. Second mvt"
       [#instruments pdfs for 2nd mvt]

Is my idea correct??

Yes for full scores, no for parts. I really see no need at all to have parts for the separate movements. It is a major pain for any librarian wanting to use the parts for a complete performance of the concerto in question, as instances of a single movement being performed are very rare. The parts for the individual movements are also very small (1 and 2 pages, small file size) so there isn't any type of size consideration in play here. I'd have to check our typesetting guidelines to be sure, but I think that splitting parts in this manner would normally result in a rejection for failing to meet IMSLP's minimal standards for typesetting. This is entirely due to the practice of splitting parts for a standard-repertoire work like this into separate movements as the typesetting itself is OK. So, the all the oboe 1 parts should be merged, and likewise for each instrument listed. That way, you end up with a stack of 6 or 7 files for the complete parts of HWV 312, 313 and so on. It's also a good idea to have the complete parts as a single file so those wishing to use them can have the whole set in a single download. Carolus 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've cleaned the Concerto Grosso 2. I hope the work respects the guidelines...Cellos and Continuo parts are spanned through 2 files avoiding, in this way, page duplication problem (in the case visitors printed all files consecutively) and difficulty with the complete parts file.

I've listed complete instrumental setting for each mvt to avoid misunderstanding. If you have some further tips on it, let me know, please :) Many thanks! --jeko89 14:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2. If I merge some WIMA files in a pdf is it correct to mark it as a WIMAProject file?

Yes, the merged files should still have the {{WIMAProject}} appended.

3. After editing all 6 concertos, I'd like to clean 6 concerti grossi page, a collection of the six I was referring to before. How can I clean up this page?

   tab "Full Scores" will contain:
     subtab "Complete"
       [1 pdf for full complete work]
     subtab "I. First concerto"
       [1 pdf for full 1st conc.]
     subtab "II. Second concerto"
       [1 pdf for full 2nd conc.]
   tab "Parts" will contain:
     subtab "Complete"
       [#instruments pdfs for complete work]
     subtab "I. First concerto"
       [#instruments pdfs for 1st concerto]
     subtab "II. Second concerto"
       [#instruments pdfs for 2nd concerto]

4. and last question :)): For the 6 separate concertos' pages exist Brodersen's WIMA Full Scores and Parts. But in the 6 concerti grossi's page there are OTHER Full Scores and Parts: they're an older different edition (but more confusing, I think).

There cannot be a separate page for Broderson's edition. Although the cleanup notice claims the Op.3 six-concerto grouping was posthumously created, the Walsh edition (Handel's main publisher) from 1734 (in Handel's lifetime) indicates that the Op.3 page is a composer-sanctioned collection. All compete editions of the six concerti should therefore go on that page, oldest on top. As for subtabs (4 equal-signs) on a collection page like this, there are really only two to be used: "Complete" (a single file of all six concerti and stacks of six files for the complete set) and "Selections" (for a file containing more than one concerto, excepts from more than one concerto, or a stack of selected concertos or excerpts issued by the same publisher and editor). In either case there should be individual pages for all six of the concerti. Carolus 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's the more appropriate/appreciate division? single concertos pages --> Brodersen's (WIMA) + older edition split into separate concertos ?? collection page --> Brodersen's (WIMA) concertos merged + older edition?

Thanks for your time :) --jeko89 11:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your note about handling collections. I think we need to make a distinction between 'collected works' editions of a single composer (from the 19th century onwards), and collections of pre-baroque compositions.

Taking the 'gesamtausgabe' first, the library approach is to catalogue these sets under the title "Works", with the earliest date of the edition. So in the case of J S Bach, the Library of Congress has:

  • Bach, Johann Sebastian, 1685-1750. Works. 1801 [for Oeuvres complettes de Jean Sebastien Bach. Hofmeister, 1801)
  • Bach, Johann Sebastian, 1685-1750. Works. 1851 (for the BGA edition, 1851-1899)
  • Bach, Johann Sebastian, 1685-1750. Works. 1954 (for the Neue Bach-Ausgabe), etc.

So if we were to follow the same principle, we might have:

  • Collected Works (Bach, Johann Sebastian)

... which could serve as a portal to Johann Sebastian Bach: Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe, along with anything similar for the same composer. Bearing in mind there are seven collected editions for Chopin, for example, for consistency's sake we probably should have a similarly-designed collected works 'portal' for every composer, and we can make sure it sorts first in the list of works in the composer category. Pages like Johann Sebastian Bach: Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe could have extra links to the whole volumes, as well as the individual works as at present, but we'd need to experiment with that a little.

As far as the earlier collections of works for composers like Jenkins and Purcell are concerned, things are less clear cut. The later concept of one work being composed and published as an individual item was a little more blurry in the 1500s, when it was more common for groups of pieces to appear sporadically in various manuscript collections (and in different versions), which makes it difficult to know what the original 'work' consisted of. The thematic indexes on the VdGS website illustrate this very well, and show the difficulties involved in collating the different manuscript and printed sources. We can't realistically treat each of Jenkins' compositions for viols as a separate work with its own page, and it makes as much sense to use the VdGS groupings (or Z. numbers for Purcell) as any others. That's not to say that the current groupings can't be improved, although it will be easier to deal with when all the WIMA files have been transferred so we can come up with a coherent and consistent approach — P.davydov 18:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Collections are really a headache. For J.S. Bach, would we use an LOC-style schema like "Works, 1801 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)", "Works, 1851 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)", and "Works, 154 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)" or "Works, 1801 (Collections, Bach, J.S.)", "Works, 1851 (Collections, Bach, J.S.)", and "Works, 154 (Collections, Bach, J.S.)"? If we used the latter, all collections (including the volumes of selected keyboard works assembled over the years by different editors, for example) would all be listed in the sub-category which should appear above the listing of all the individual works on a composer's category page. In the case of the three collected editions mentioned, the actual composer category (Bach, Johann Sebastian) could be added so that these collections appear in the regular list of works also. The idea of having a pseudo-composer category called "Collections, Collections, Bach, J.S." is to have a single portal for all of the various collections (not just complete works) issued over the centuries which contain multiple works of J.S. Bach (a piano volume containing selected 3-part inventions and 2 each of the English and French Suites for example). Please keep in mind that I am very much thinking ahead here - we shouldn't dream of actually doing anything until after WIMA is uploaded. I expect there are lots of angles and aspects of this idea that I've not thought of. I've been looking at the VdGS indices lately and agree that they would be useful as a starting point (as you have already helpfully done with the 2-part Ayres of Jenkins). You're quite correct that determining which version of a work is the original is very difficult with composers going that far back. Publications of the era most often consisted of multiwork collections, often with multiple composers, and even mixtures of vocal and instrumental works. Carolus 23:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

BWV 248

Hi Carolus, at the moment it is too dangerous to continue. The cat is constantly trying to conquer the keyboard. --Ralph Theo Misch 23:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I understand all too well. I have a miniature panther (all black with green eyes) here who likes to walk across my own keyboard from time to time! Carolus 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The predator's sleeping. I was able to secretly upload the other parts.
BTW: I think you'll know this :-) --Ralph Theo Misch 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad the ferocious one allowed you some free time! I am quite familiar with Simon's cat naturally! Carolus 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


I'll wait util you have finished changing my files before I continue to finish my entry and my editing of them. Let me know.

I didn't change any files. All I did was add the ===Arrangements and Transcriptions=== tab to the top of the page and tag for copyright approval. Continue uploading as I will not need to visit there until you're done. Carolus 00:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And that entry made the following new entries of mine go to the wrong place with no notification to me. This simultaneous editing of the same page by two people at the same time also seems to get confused because both may be attempting to change the same words. Twice in the past two days some of my entries have disappeared (been overwritten?) and had to be done a second time. This in addition to the need for a complete, detailed, review to see what, if anything, has been changed. I am sorry, but I have had it for today. Afolop 02:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That should not be happening, since all I was doing when you complained was tagging for approval - which doesn't even cause going to the edit window. You should (at most) be getting an "Edit Conflict" window instead of your uploaded files being jumbled up. I will ask Feldmahler about this. That's very strange. Carolus 02:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You also added the ===Transcriptions ....=== header which transferred my entries to the General (or Scores and Parts) entry position without any indication to me, so everything after that got into the wrong place and had to be transferred later to the proper sub head, an unnecessary burden if you had let me complete my entries. Afolop 11:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're finished with a page before I even tag for copyright status. Carolus 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo, HWV 7b

Hi Carolus, I made my own arrangement of "Lashia..." aria from Handels Rinaldo, that I upload it last week into IMSLP, and you was revising my commit. But now I noticed, that I forgot the sharp in my arrangement and I would like upload corrected version of the scores. Is it possible? And more, is it posible to upload sibelius (.sib) file too? Sorry for my questions, i am novice in IMSLP. Thanks you Vladimír

Hello Vladimir, Yes it is actually very simple to upload a revised version of you file. All you need to do is click on the file number and follow the directions to "upload a revised version of this file." When you see the file is blocked again (awaiting copyright approval) you can tell the replacement was successful. You might not actually see the revised version in your PDF viewer right away as the cache has to clear, which can take a day or two. However, once the revised file is tagged for approval, anyone downloading it will be getting the new version. Carolus 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cabanilles T81 not visible on composer page

Hi Carolus, I've noticed that the newly uploaded Cabanilles Tiento 81 is not seen on the Cabanilles composer page unless (I'm) logged in. Hope it's an easy fix? Thanks Wrshannon 01:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because the cache hasn't updated. It takes a day or two. Until it updates it will only be visible when you're logged in. Carolus 01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Files by Mimihot90

I just had a look at some of the recently uploaded arias by Mimihot. To me, it seems that at least the typesets of the arias sung once by Farinelli (e.g. Ombra fedele anch'io) are not made by him/her as indicated on the corresponding work pages but are rather taken from the book "Die Gesangskunst der Kastraten" by Franz Haboeck. --BoccaccioTalk Email 12:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The Haboeck volume was issued in 1923 by our very favorite Viennese publisher and would likely fall under the urtext provisions (at least from the descriptions of the volume I read on WorldCat) in the EU and Canada. US status might be a bit more tricky, since it's 1923. I could tell that the items uploaded were recent typesets, and indicated on Mimihot90's talk page that this was the case. I'll ask if this was the source. Carolus 23:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn: Mass in B-flat major, Hob.XXII:10

Hi Carolus, I've found Haydn's autograph of that work. But it's a huge file (111MB). Shall I upload it tomorrow (the bonsai tiger is sitting in my neck)? --Ralph Theo Misch 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the royal panther if he can send a special feline transmission to the bonzai tiger to allow you to upload tomorrow. You should politely and worshipfully ask the tiger if it is OK. At 111 MB, it might be a good idea to divide it into sections, if possible. Cheers, Carolus 23:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Such a transmission would be helpful (German translation not neccessary). Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. But it was not easy - HER Majesty does not appreciate it when the servants pursue 'meaningless activities'. Cheers, --Ralph Theo Misch 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As Mark Twain observed long ago: Cats were worshipped as gods in ancient Egypt. They have not forgotten this fact. We are but craven servants, eager to obey every whim. :) Carolus 01:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pan (Brauer, Max)

It appears that this copyright was not renewed in the USA and can therefore be tagged and / or moved to the regular server.
Also, respecting your time, are you the best one to ask for such minor mods? Thanks. --Homerdundas 23:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Retagged. It appears to be on the main server, so no need to move any files. It's no problem at all and took almost no time to do. Thanks for checking! Carolus 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a few issues

Hi Carolus! While it's on my mind I wanted to ask you about three issues. First, the copyright tag on the Georg Schumann edition of Brahms' Horn Trio needs to be updated to reflect non-PD EU. We had it posted with no editor identified but it was identical to the one I didn't upload from RSL so I added the editor. Second is the copyright tag on the first edition vocal score of Wagner's Die Walküre which is tagged !V/!V/!V when all the others are simply V/V/V. Not sure what the former means. Lastly, the so called 3 Supplements to the Breitkopf und Härtel edition of Chopin's works consists of a little over 30 pages of editorial commentary on six of the volumes issued. From an obsessive completionist's point of view it would be nice to have here but how/where would I post it? Thanks! --Cypressdome 04:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll update the Brahms - thanks. The other is a simple error that must be the result of me or someone tagging too fast! As for the supplements, I was discussing with P.davydov the eventual idea of setting up composer-like categories akin to some of the ones we already use for Folk Songs" Collections, Chopin; Collections, Bach, J.S., etc. A workpage for the Chopin werke could then be established under the Collections category. This main issue as I see it is how to merge or integrate the existing category pages we have for some of these complete works series. I've had several people ask if we could have the 47 volumes of the Bach Gesellschaft available as they were issued - a complete volume. The trick is to make it possible but keep from cluttering up a composer's category page. Carolus 01:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


Dear Carolus, I'm not sure about the status of this. It's a GDR-printing from 1959, edited by Fritz Koschinsky (1903-1969). It seems to be urtext, the continuo realization is quite functionally. Shall I post it? Thanks! - Humble serviteur EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH E023.png EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH A016.png --Ralph Theo Misch 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not renewed in USA. I'm inclined to say go ahead and post it, seeing that you have demonstrated the proper attitude. :) Carolus 01:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


Sibley has a number of compilations some of which may pose some less usual copyright issues maybe. For instance this contains several works some of which are PD-US/CA, published mostly before 1923 and then compiled by John Holler (1904-77). The publisher seems to be saying - I may be putting my words in here and just hoping this is so - that only compilation, not editing, occurred and that the scores themselves are identical to their original printings, so that the compiler's work was in selecting them for the collection. (If not, then would have to upload the subselection or two of this i am taking out, to the PD-US server.) Any advice? :) Eric 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a collection of items from the "St. Cecilia Series" that was assembled by Holler. As long as the items were first published before 1923 and are uploaded as individual works under their respective composers, there should be no problem since any claim Holler might have is based solely upon the collection itself, from what I can tell. Carolus 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sibley doesn't have them uploaded separately, I think, so comparison between the originals and the amount of editing if any done by Holler (though perhaps the plate nos. etc. might also make it seem unlikely any was done- not sure... ok, enough tangents) - if any, yes- would be difficult right now. (If I understand! ) Eric 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC) (that said, since another of my goals in doing this is just to add to Eric de Lamarter's category, Hathitrust has some items, so that's good too. :) )

Dobranoc, oczka zmruż (Oczko, Michael John)

Hello Carolus. It appears that the librettist for this modern composition perished in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. I've changed the EU copyright tag to the year 2014, but I'm not sure of the correct status for the US. Could you take a look and make whatever changes you consider necessary? Thanks — P.davydov 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find any reference to anything published. If the text was published chances are high that it's still protected in the USA. If unpublished, the text is protected until 2014. Carolus 00:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Marx's Herbstchor an Pan

Hi Carolus! Sorry to keep bugging you but you seem to be the go-to man around here. I'm trying to transfer some scores by Joseph Marx from the Internet Archive to the US server and am a little puzzled over the status of Herbstchor an Pan. You can view the full score, vocal, score and vocal parts here. The vocal score and parts would seem to be modern reprints of the original scores from a century ago (UE plates 5236 and 5237) but with a modern header and the copyright date removed. I assume they are all eligible for the US server. The full score would appear to be a facsimile of a manuscript (the composers(?)but undated and unsigned) with cover pages similar to the vocal score, no copyright date, modern header, and an UE plate number of 5239. Can this go on the US server? Also, thanks for the information above regarding collections. I shall wait to post the critical commentary until all that gets worked out. Thanks again! --Cypressdome 00:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly can. It was issued in 1911, so the fact that they elected to reproduce the composer's manuscript has no bearing on the status. (UE did the same thing for Schoenberg's Gurrelieder the next year, by the way). All items are eligiblefor USA server. Carolus 00:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Now I just need to find out when Gustav Binder died. --Cypressdome 01:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Katzenduett (Reissiger, Friedrich August)

Dear Carolus, I had to ad this (Royal Decree). At least to clear that matter: Duetto buffo di due gatti (Rossini, Gioacchino). --Ralph Theo Misch 00:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! - It's a completely different composition. A single glance would have sufficed... --Ralph Theo Misch 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's actually very curious. They're in the same key, and the accompaniment is very similar. As far as I know, Rossini actually did compose the Duetto buffo di due gatti. While different, the Reissiger has a number of similarities also. Carolus 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm - the subtitle of Reissiger's work ('cat duet') is: 'On motifs of Othello by Rossini'. Unfortunately I don't know that opera (like so much - incredible!). --Ralph Theo Misch 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought Weyse did compose the first part of the famous duet, am I wrong? − Pierre Ch. 20:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(In a hurry:) Weyse's version and that rossini attributed are very similar. Reissiger drifts. --Ralph Theo Misch 00:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

to be re-CR'ed

Hi, could you please have a look at these pages? I corrected small things about the librettists, and maybe it can change something regarding the CR. Thanks − Pierre Ch. 19:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

2 Mélodies, Op.97 (Lenormand, René)
Lost and Found (Rzewski, Frederic)

Gluck, Clemenza di Tito

Hi, Carolus: This work has a [TB] block, though it seems to be the original manuscript. Is this block correct? You will see that I've added notes as to a discrepancy in instrumentation that would affect tagging (chorus vs. no chorus), so I wouldn't mind looking at the score, if the [TB] is in error. Thanks, Steltz 20:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it as soon as I can. Over 455 uploads today. Is anyone paying attention to the site notice? UPDATE: First publication apparently 1995. Thus tied up in USA until 2049, 25 years for Editio Princeps in EU. If it were actually published before then in some form, those terms could change of course. Carolus 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)