User talk:Feldmahler/archive8

Contents 1 Add "Ballet" to work type 2 Submission to US server 3 Merge Rameau works 4 Category talk:Beethoven, Ludwig van 5 Tui St. George Tucker

Add "Ballet" to work type

Opera exists, why not Oratorio or Ballet for sure? Daphnis 10:58, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, when I designed the system I thought it'd be fine to put ballet under "symphonic dances", though I suppose that is somewhat unfit. However, I'm strongly resisting the urge to add another category because that cataloging system is broken no matter how many categories are added (and there have been many requests). I have been planning to move to a real library cataloging system like the LoC or the British Music Cataloging system, but the hard part is who is willing to convert those to electronic form for me to use in the program... --Feldmahler 15:45, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Is that something I could help with? Not that I have very much time (see also my absence schedule on my user page), but... --Leonard Vertighel 15:48, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd be great if you could convert the LoC music catalog to some sort of text format; however, be warned that this is *not* easy and quite time consuming. Actually using all of the categories are impossible (there are just too many), so I resorted to using only the "main" types (with no .xx)... you can find the first 33 here. The whole thing is something like 150 pages and about 1500 entries (by entry I mean like the 33 ones I did) I believe (my memory is fuzzy on this one, but certainly a lot). You will also need the LoC cataloging book, which might be hard to get (since you're in Europe... maybe the British system is possible? I haven't looked at that one yet).

But overall, yes, it's not easy unfortunately :/ --Feldmahler 15:58, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Is there really absolutely no electronic version accessible somewhere? How silly. I mean, the digital era didn't exactly start yesterday... --Leonard Vertighel 16:09, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually, there is... except you have to pay a ridiculous amount of money for it... maybe someone should start an open library cataloging project ;) --Feldmahler 16:12, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

You have to pay to access the catalog? How... ehm... silly. Anyway, you don't happen to have access a) to the book and b) to a scanner with document feed? --Leonard Vertighel 16:29, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

This would be great. I admit this is the one big area I feel IMSLP is immediately lacking. I would be glad to help in anyway possible although I'm not familiar with wiki coding. Daphnis 17:06, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

While I do have access to the book, unfortunately my library does not allow me to check the book out, so I had to type everything at the library terminal (haha). I was googling for "open library catalog" right after I posted, and apparently there may be a few floating around (in electronic form)... but I haven't tracked any of them down yet. And thanks Daphnis for the offer... I don't think experience with wiki coding is necessary; it'd be comparatively straightforward to do if someone can get hold of an electronic version of some library catalog (I'd perfer LoC or the British music cataloging system)... --Feldmahler 20:27, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Give me the info. on the book and I'll see if I can get it at my library. If not, I'll just bring my laptop and scanner and scan the entire damn thing :) Daphnis 20:30, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

The following is the info:

• Title - Classification : Class M : music and books on music
• Author - Library of Congress. Subject Cataloging Division.
• Publisher - Washington : The Library : for sale by Cataloging Distribution Services, Library of Congress, 1978.
• Call number - Z696 .U5 M 1978

There may be a newer version, which is of course fine also :) --Feldmahler 20:34, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Based on that call number, yes we have that exact book. I'll see if I can check if out. If not, is there a specific section you'd want? Oh, and what size is the volume? A3 sized or will it fit under a standard scanner (in case I need to bring my equipment and scan in situ)Daphnis 20:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not A3... but it's not A4 either... if my memory does not fail me I think it is narrower than A4 (same height though I think)... but I didn't especially notice the size of the book so my memory *may be* wrong. The entire book will probably be needed... however, you can start first leave out the "books about music" half and do only the scores, since there aren't many books about music on IMSLP yet. We *may* need it later on, but we can just add it on in that case :) --Feldmahler 20:52, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Understood. I think the section on scores is by far the largest (if memory serves), but I'll go tomorrow and have a look and see what I can do. Daphnis 20:58, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Great hehe :) Thank you! --Feldmahler 20:59, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I went to our library to find the book only to discover it was nowhere in site. We also have a second copy in our repository which I'm going to request ASAP, but the head of the music collections brought to my attention that the 1904 publication of the classification catalogue is available through Google books online. Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=vJgTAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA99&dq=classification+music+M#PPA27,M1

While currently in its 3rd edition, this should be pretty close to everything we'd need for proper categories since much of the changes in editions occur in the "popular" music areas and electronic areas. But let me know if this the Google books version is not sufficient for our needs and I'll gladly get a copy from the repository and scan. Daphnis 14:36, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I believe this should be very much sufficient for our needs, as long as "upgrading" to the latest catalog version does not require too many changes to the existing categorization :)

The problem now is how to convert them to a computer-readable format... preferably in the format I was using in the 33 item sample... OCR would be a nice idea, but unfortunately I don't have the software :/ --Feldmahler 15:16, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if we could get the OCR'd text from Google, since they've obviously done it if you can search the book. How much use is this? --Emeraldimp 15:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

No, nevermind, it's not any use at all. Another (slow) option would be to use the Distributed Proofreaders... dunno how successful that would be, though. --Emeraldimp 16:03, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

My library has four copies of the classification listing. When I get back to school I'll take a look; surely if a few of us get our hands on a copy it won't take too long if we split up the work. I think it's definitely something worth doing. --Goldberg988 17:29, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking the same thing... maybe one person can take 100 numbers at a time? We can do it like the BGA project :) --Feldmahler 18:13, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I could probably help with that. I contacted Google Books and the LoC, and Google wouldn't help, and the LoC pointed me to the listing I linked above. :-/ --Emeraldimp 12:51, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we can just manually get it off the scan? Even after OCR (if that's possible) we still have to manually sort everything out... especially since we are discarding the "sub-number" categorization (i.e. the .xx at the end of the catalog number). --Feldmahler 15:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I just used Acrobat to extract all the pages as images. After that you could OCR if you like, or Acrobat Pro has OCR built-in if you have it. Would it be helpful for me to post all the extracted images somewhere? BTW, did you notice that it's missing about 20 pages, the whole vocal section, after about page 19? I'm still going to get the '78 edition from my library and will probably scan that also, if nothing for future reference. Daphnis 17:23, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I didn't notice the missing chunk before you told me, but indeed there is a missing chunk. :/ Maybe scanning (and using) the latest edition won't be such a bad idea after all... Thanks for volunteering to scan it, btw :) It'd be a great help... and I really do think having a real catalog on IMSLP would do IMSLP much good. --Feldmahler 04:50, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

I've checked out the Class M classification schedule with additions and changes through 1992 and have been looking over it. After examining it, I am not sure that a strict adherance to the LoC classification is necessary or even desirable. The LoC classification is specifically suited to classifying publications, whereas we are only interested in classifying works. Thus, there is a great deal of numbers that will be left out (Monumental editions, collections, compilations, etc.). We can retain the classifications that we need, but simply ignore the numbers. I started something on my user page that shows what I'm talking about. (Unfortunately it's kind of hard to read, and I went into great detail, perhaps more than we is necessary). Another issue is when we should have a classification for transcriptions and arrangements. It seems unlikely that transcriptions and arrangements for instruments other than piano will recieve their own work page, so those numbers (i.e. 13, 44, 49, 54, etc.) should be left out. --Goldberg988 13:59, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Discussion moved to the forums :) --Feldmahler 16:18, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Submission to US server

Hi Feldmahler, could you please help me with submission to the US server? I tried to upload a file following the link mentioned in step 2 of the score submission guide (http://www.imslpforums.org/upload). It doesn't work, always error Not found. Has the link been changed meanwhile? I must admit this is the first time I try to upload something there :)... thanks. Hobbypianist 08:46, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I haven't re-enabled the uploads after the forums maintenance yet... I'll do this today, and it should be working by tomorrow :) --Feldmahler 15:16, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

And done :) --Feldmahler 18:13, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Merge Rameau works

Feldmahler, is merging work pages something I can do? I hate bothering you for this every time I come across one (even though I'm better organizing IMSLP :) ) In any case, this page needs to go inside the Pièces de Clavecin which is here. Thanks. Daphnis 21:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

It's definitely something you can do. Basically, copy over the file entry, and make any modifications as necessary, and put a note on the top of the old page for an admin to delete it. :) You can use the delete template for this, like {{Delete|reason here}}. --Feldmahler 00:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok. Can you check to make sure I did everything properly? Thanks and hopefully I won't have to bother you now :) The only question I had was where to insert the {{Delete|reason here}} template, so I stuck it atop the heading for the page. Daphnis 11:36, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

You did it properly :) And I've removed the page. --Feldmahler 15:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Category talk:Beethoven, Ludwig van

For the latest issues I have responded to regarding Beethoven, see the bottom of this page. My earliest contributions, most of which you reverted, were edits that I believe were correcting errors within the pages, if you know what I mean. Marcus2 21:09, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Tui St. George Tucker

Hi Feldmahler, I noticed that most (if not all) of the work pages for this composer have the following template: !!IFLANG!!(~!en):

This work is not in the public domain in Canada or in the EU, but is in the public domain in the US, due to the pre-1923 copyright law. Therefore, the files on this page are hosted on IMSLP's US server. By clicking the file download link, you acknowledge that you understand this situation.

(~!es):

Esta obra no está bajo dominio público en Canadá, pero si lo está en Estados Unidos, según la pre-1923 copyright law. Por lo tanto, los archivos en esta página están almacenados en el server estadounidense del Proyecto IMSLP. Al hacer click sobre el link del archivo, usted reconoce que entiende esta situación.

(~!nl):

Deze compositie is niet in het publieke domein in Canada of in de EU, maar wel in de VS, dankzij de pre-1923-copyrightwet. Daarom worden de bestanden op deze pagina gehost op een server in de VS. Door op de downloadlink te klikken, geeft U aan deze informatie te begrijpen.

(~!el):

Αυτό το έργο δεν ανήκει στον δημόσιο τομέα στον Καναδά ή στην ΕΕ, αλλά ανήκει στον δημόσιο τομέα των ΗΠΑ, εξαιτίας του Νόμος περι πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων των ΗΠΑ για πρίν το 1923. Έτσι, τα αρχεία σε αυτή τη σελίδα φυλάσσονται στον διακομιστή του IMSLP που βρίσκεται στις ΗΠΑ. Πατώντας στον σύνδεσμο κατεβάσματος αρχείου, αναγνωρίζετε ότι καταλαβαίνετε αυτή την κατάσταση.

!!ENDIFLANG!!

. That's not accurate in this case, because none of her works were published - and certainly none before 1923! (she was born in 1924.) All the works are under copyright in the USA along with everyplace else. Was this an automated feature that was generated because the composer died less than 50 years ago? I'll ask over on the forum, too. Thanks, Carolus 22:10, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

OK, did a bit more checking. It appears that if I put in the year of composition as 1964 or later, the template changes to the following:

I think this template (WorknotPD) should automatically go to all works that were published after 1981 (more than 25 years ago), and to all works of composers born after 1960. Composers who died less than 50 years ago should get the "copyright" template on their composer pages. Urtext edtions of Beethoven published as recently as 1981 in Germany, for example, are PD in Canada due to section 70 of the German law and Canada's rule of the shorter term application.

Hi Carolus! Regarding the Tui submissions, they are actually fine; I asked the submitter over e-mail about whether he has permission from the copyright owner to post them, and he said yes.

About the auto tagger... I think your right about the date of birth (which I actually haven't used yet in the auto-tagger) also mattering for the copyright term in the US; I'll add this to the auto-tagger tonight. By the way, the manual for the auto-tagger can be found here; it describes exactly what the auto-tagger does to determine the tags. The Urtext editions will have to be manually tagged at the file level; I think the different combinations of the elements (including some rarer ones such as the Urtext law and the Czech govn't publication law) render automatic-tagging at the file level impossible (though this should be mostly taken care of already at the work page level; only differences from the work page tag need to be addressed in file-level tagging).

About the publication date, when no publication date or date of composition is specified, it is not taken into account when choosing the tags (i.e. the auto-tagger acts like it is published on the year zero). I thought the opposite would be unfeasible considering the number of pages with not-specified date of publication... --Feldmahler 00:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)