Welcome to IMSLP, and we are very pleased that you allowing IMSLP to host your carefully-produced scores!
I just wanted to explain that Bassano's 20 fantasias (1585) are classified as a single work on IMSLP, and so your files have been moved to 20 Fantasias a 3 (Bassano, Giovanni). We've used Bassano's numbering for the sonatas (matching the VdGS number), which has some differences from the Breitkopf & Härtel numbering followed in your four fantasias. I hope this will be clear from the explanations on the page, and if you have any more works from this collection they should be added to 20 Fantasias a 3 (Bassano, Giovanni), rather than separately. Should you have any questions about uploading files to work pages then please don't hesitate to contact me on my user talk page — P.davydov 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, and I can understand some of the difficulties in moving from WIMA to IMSLP, which have two very different ways of organising the files.
One important distinction we make is between original works and arrangements, and so we need to be clear as to whether your files are arrangements of works that were originally written for other instruments, or if they are typesets of original works that could be played on viols or any other instruments? We believed it was the latter, which is why your files are not labelled as specifically for viol, but it would be very helpful if you could make this clear, so we can label them correctly. Many thanks — P.davydov 05:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the instructions for using the user_talk page or how to get to it, or if I do get to it, how do I put a message on it. And where do I look for an answer to it?
"The word at the top of the page "discussion" -- is that the tab marked discussion or somehow a bold heading on the page itself where mine now reads "Editing User talk:Afolop". Do I add a message by clicking on the "edit" tab at the top of the page or the (edit) word at the top of a message? I somehow got to a different page one time that seemed to have some answers for me, but I don't remember how I got there; should I have replied to those messages there?
Should I put a topic in bold type at the beginning of each communication? If so, how? I am guessing.
I am so mixed up by all this confusion that I don't know whether any help is being considered for getting my collection transferred from WIMA to IMSLP in a usable form or not. The first ones certainly are not usable. I am just going to suspend all actions and communications until things get clarified. Afolop 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC) or do I use ~~~~ Afolop 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Philip(?) When I want to answer something, do I post it on my discussion page or the one for the person who made the comment? How do I find out who that is? I hope I am not overreacting, but so many of my entries have been misinterpreted, both for comments and for actual compositions and I don't understand how to avoid this or to correct it. Afolop 12:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The four Bassano fantasias are all I have tried so far. I will try the next one today and see how it goes. Afolop 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I did it again. I submitted the next trial, Bassano #15 without getting the title entered. I think I see now where I should have done it, but I can't get back to the page to edit it. I think I missed the entry "For 3 viols" also. I checked again and see that I didn't make the arranger correctly. Afolop 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
And another trial -- this time for two arrangements. I couldn't see how to make the manual change for the arranger. I couldn't make any entries outside of the text entry blocks provided. Do I have to go back to the page to edit it after I have made the first save? I haven't found how to do this yet. It's coming; only 2910 more compositions to go! Afolop 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I went back and changed the arranger, but I wasn't quite up to separating the two compositions yet. Would you prefer each composition be entered separately? Afolop 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
individually, as separating them can be a bit fiddly.
One more -- No. 6 Resulting page displays:
but I don't see any problems. Afolop 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I will hold off on doing this for the moment until I get a little more comfortable with the IMSLP procedures. Afolop 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I got up enough courage and it seemed to work. This is all of my Bassanos -- on to more challenging efforts. -- By the way, in the publication of Bärenreiter, the first word is Hortus, not Hoxtus.
Do I have to do something to clear up this talk page, or will it automatically go to a new page when it runs out of space? Afolop 21:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I have entered two pieces. There are about 20 more of this type for Byrd. If I can find the right place and format before entering the rest, I can save a lot of editing. The originals each contain a series of parts which I have separated into shorter pieces. Hence the notation 1.1 1.2 etc.Afolop 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
On further looking around it is possible these should be entered on a new work page for Gradualia I. Afolop 12:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have found further information. The Gradualia were published (at some time at least) in two volumes, as indicated in the Alternative title on the Gradualia II page. The 3 part ones were in the first volume so I guess they should be on a new page headed Gradualia I. I will hold up transferring the rest until this matter is resolved. Afolop 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if I would just go on to some other composer until this is resolved. It would save a good deal of editing later perhaps and I have plenty of others to work on. I'll start on Jenkins Aires for 2 viols; there are 122 pieces in that set. Afolop 07:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just entered the rest of the 3-part Gradualia into Gradualia I where they belong. Now I need to transfer the two parts I erroneously entered uner Gradulia II over to join them. Can I just cut and paste, or do I need to worry about linking somewhere? Afolop 16:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it worked! Afolop 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I have put in four more, but on second thought, I believe I should just put in one or two and see if they are in the right place before I proceed with the rest. Hoping to reduce editing if I have chosen wrong.
Incidentally, I did not find Orlando Gibbons on the "browse scores, Composers" page. When I tried to enter a composer page for him, I was alerted that his entry already existed -- but I had a real problem finding it. I think I went to 'All people' then 'composers'. There already is an entry for Fantasias on his page, but they are not for viols, so I made a separate work page.
There are two sets of fantasias by Gibbons for 3 viols. One for Tr T B or Tr Tr B and another set with its own sequence (VdGS) numbers which use the "Great Dooble Bass". They probably need a separate heading, and I will put them in after the regular set of instruments.
Sources for viol music are not at all standard on the names Fantasia or Fancie Afolop 19:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That's all of this set. It might be useful to add a subheading over the last four pieces to indicate the use of the Great Double Bass (not an additional voice but as a special instrument for the bass voice) These are all original instrumentation, so no arrangements. Afolop 02:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It is noon (here) and suddenly The WIMA site has come down with a problem. When one of my files wouldn't transfer, I went to WIMA site and couldn't get past a point either in getting to any of my files. I'll keep an eye on the situation. I hope it doesn't affect anyone else's transfers. I sent an email to the webmaster at WIMA. Afolop 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I just got an email that the webmaster address that I copied from the error notification was unknown and my email could not be delivered. Afolop 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It's working again! Afolop 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I just changed the name of the page under John Jenkins from Ayres a 2 to Ayres for 2 viols following the instructions in the score submission guide to make a 'move' action. That seemed to fit in better with other viol pages, and I didn't do the accent on the 'a' correctly anyway. Now I can't get back to a page with these pieces to continue entry. Is the change a manual one that takes some time, or did I do something wrong? Afolop 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah! The page is back on the Jenkins composer page, but it is still under the name Ayres a 2. Afolop 20:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No. Divisions refers to special method of variations on a melody. That is not what these are. Viole da Gamba is a french name and implies baroque compositions with keyboard (continuo). That is not what these are, nor are most viol consorts. The English name is viol, and The whole group of viol consort pieces is distinctly English, although it did extend somewhat to other areas of Europe. The Viola da Gamba Society of Great Britain in their index calls the Jenkins group "2 - part airs for Tr B". The term used in the VdGS index often is of the form "Airs a 3 for Tr T B" (frequently without the accent on the 'a'). I suggest my change is the best compromise for standardization. My suggestion will be understood immediately by viol players and relates to the terms already used elsewhere in IMSLP e.g. "Fantasias for 3 viols" etc. Afolop 21:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The English name is 'viol' with the plural 'viols'. I strongly recommend you use that. Afolop 21:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If there are two collections by the same composer, the titles can probably be differentiated by additional information, e.g. Airs for 2 Viols (treble, tenor)? Afolop 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have added some fantasias for 3 viols, which I hope are OK. Now for Jeffreys: I now have 2 consort songs arranged for 3 viols in a 17th century manuscript. Do I make a work sheet for songs and add the two under it or a separate work sheet for each? The titles are just short abbreviations e.g. 'Le Parole Soave'.
Then I have a single fantasia for Tr B and organ from the same ms. I am not sure what kind of titles to use.
I guess the question is whether the work page title refers to the one item to follow or is a generic title when there is only one piece and how its title covers several pieces not published together. Afolop 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess I have been remiss in my entries of titles by not capitalizing the word Viols. When I try to do this by editing, which page do I edit? I can't seem to get to the title of the work page and when I change the item in the information block at the bottom of the page, it changes there but not in the title.
I notice that Grayson lists himself a 'Editor' on his arrangements. I have not actually done the arrangements on these Jeffreys pieces. They were arranged in the 17th century manuscript and all I was, at most, the editor. Should I include both arranger and editor entries? Listing the arranger as '17th century' ? Afolop 13:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I am using this page for these questions to avoid mixing my stuff with all of the other thing you have on your talk page. Is that OK? Afolop 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have added a trial work sheet to John Hilton. The actual title I found uses the word Ayres, so I used that also. How is this format, in order to make the names of the individual 'ayres' searchable, perhaps showing up on a Category Walk? Afolop 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC) There are 12 more to go in this group. Afolop 18:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the of use different formats used in the arrangements for:
when one has subtitles for each piece and the other only incorporates titles within the Complete Score description. When do I use one and when the other? Afolop 10:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Where would I find DuCaurroy? under Caurroy, under DuCaurroy, elsewhere. If he is not there already, in what form would I put the name? Afolop 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My biggest problem is the IMSLP often doesn't adhere exactly to other standards, and my questions refer to a specific situation to see what the solution in this situation would be. In this case sometimes DuCaurroy is spelled as one word, sometimes with two. I don't find him in the IMSLP for either.
From the Composer page I see: "Note: Composers are not sorted on prepositions in surnames."
But I think you are saying I should initiate a Composer page for Du Caurroy, since I don't find one already there. My internet access is hung up right now, so I can't check again. Afolop 19:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again. Let's start with the 2-part pieces. The 9 canzonets (for viols) are on his composer page as a collection. This not the original edition of 1593(?) I have separate versions, that are not really arrangements, of each. I wanted to try one to see how it goes but couldn't figure out how. Should they go in a specific order(I don't know the original order)? My versions should not go under the one already entered, because they both are sort of on a par, being both derived from earlier sources--which have not yet been entered on a work sheet, and I don't know enough about the sources to make a work sheet.
Further investigation shows that these 9 pieces are only part of the original publication, and I have the arrangements for viols for the rest of the pieces in the publication which were for voices. Somehow I feel that (total) set should be under the whole original publication. But there should be some sort of a connection between my pieces for viols and the current group already listed. Can it get more complicated?? Afolop 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have put one piece in as a trial. By the way, the question mark was part of the original title. It was used there to indicate the pieces that were for viols alone. Afolop 17:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The same thing is coming up soon for A Plain and Easy Introduction to Practical Music (not Morley's spelling). My versions are derived from earlier sources than the existing work sheet.
But the basic collection on the work sheet isn't divided into sections; it is just a series of individual compositions, some of which are in the item under "selections", and the rest of the files will relate to individual compositions, including a different edition of those also included in the item under 'selections'. There is no group to list under 'First section'; only individual pieces. I have changed it. Is that what you mean? Would each succeeding piece then get a numbered section identifier? This seems a little too much. Afolop 01:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
In all of the matters (so far) in this section headed 'Morley, Thomas' I am referring to the work page:
I have now added an arrangement to:
Is its form OK? Afolop 14:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If life were simple! With regard to your answer to the Hilton question. There I am not sure I have the whole book, but I think so. Changing that will require changing each of the individual piece names to put them in the complete score file, will it not? That is the amount of editing that I am trying to avoid. 1. Here in Morley 2-part I do have the whole book; those in the first edition (=the work page) plus six more from the second edition which don't belong to the item on the work page. Then what? 2. In a number of future composers I won't know if I have complete contents of a volume. Then what? 3. Is there a difference if my pieces are editions or arrangements?
I have started to enter some more of the Morley arrangements. If I understand the comments above here; the way I had entered item 1 was OK, but you want me to enter pieces from now on in the format I have used in the next two items. Is that right? Afolop 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I am still having trouble with my internet connection. It works very sporadically with a couple of my PCs. It works much more reliably with my MAC laptop! Afolop 16:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that does it. Thanks so very much for being so patient.
Representatives from WIMA and IMSLP have been reviewing the way that the transfer's been working so far, and it's become apparent that one aspect of IMSLP's working methods may not have come across very clearly to WIMA contributors. Normally IMSLP contributors upload their files, sometimes after first creating pages for works and/or their composers. Then these submissions are reviewed for copyright by IMSLP admins, who ensure that the title, headings and section contents are correct, and who may also add other information about the work if it's missing.
We now realise that WIMA contributors may be under the impression that they're supposed to do everything themselves, including worrying about the headings, etc., when in fact all this is routinely taken care of by IMSLP admins. I might have unwittingly encouraged you to think this with my earlier postings here, but so long as you are able to upload the files to the right pages, and their descriptions are clear (so we can tell arrangements from original works, for example), you don't need to worry about any of the rest. Our copyright team have to check and approve every single file that's added to IMSLP, and it's at this stage that the page layout is tidied up, if necessary. Of course you're welcome to take an interest in how things work, but it's not a pre-requisite for transferring your files, and I'm sorry if I've led you to think otherwise — P.davydov 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a mistake in the last two parts for Fantasia No. 6 for the Fantasias for 2 viols. The titles are in the right place, but the musical parts in them have been inadvertently interchanged. How do I fix it? Who do I tell? Is there a place in the files themselves? or what? Afolop 18:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Another error -- Michael East Fantasias for 3 viols is obviously for only 2 viols. The 3-part ones are yet to come. Afolop 10:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Somehow the Suite No.2 for 2 viols and organ shows up under editions and under arrangements. I believe it should not be under arrangements; just editions. Afolop 20:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is the whole set of these. However, I just realized that 1-12 had texts and thus mine are arrangements; 13-24 had no text, so they are editions. Should they have come first in the order on the work page? Afolop 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm astounded when I look at these duets now. I didn't have them identified by text, but someone must have found a way to do it. The same situation confronts me with the 3-part pieces by Lassus. I have one set of them identified by words (about 26) and a similar set (about 21)identified only by number as "Fantasia No.1", etc. Should I just enter them as a batch and trust one more knowledgeable sort them out? I don't think I have the information to do better. In doing them I was only interested in getting some music to play with viols without much regard to their original form. I feel sort of guilty about this whole situation. Afolop 02:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess that again I did not make my point. I do not feel that the individual identification does anything more than make my music harder to find by the people it is intended for. I say again: Should I just enter them as a batch and trust one more knowledgeable sort them out? or...? Afolop 11:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The system is fine for someone looking for a specific piece (one that he knows of). I guess my problem is that I don't see how an outsider, looking for music for two viols, would run across these pieces without going through a daunting series of links that don't even mention viols. When he runs across the extensive confusion between viola, violin and viol in these links I think he would look somewhere else. I don't even know how to get to the category of my collection of viol music from the IMSLP main page. Yes, I am reluctant to spend the extensive time and effort to try to identify selections that I know of only by general terms such as duet or fantasia. Sorry to be so negative in my outlook.
Will troubles never cease??? I started transferring the 3-part Lassus, and after 6 of them, upon checking I found I had omitted one part for each of the first 2 pieces. I have done some fancy trial editing and think they are now OK with all their parts, but would you check to see that I have not left anything messed up? Afolop 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Typo! The name of the piece is Parsley's Clock. Sorry Afolop 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I am ready to enter the selection of Marezio's Villanelle that I have. The numbering and order of the pieces in my source which I have used differs from that in the original, several volumes of which are already in IMSLP. (The numbers in the orignal are page numbers rather than sequence numbers.) I feel it is necessary to keep my numbers in the titles of the viol arrangements so that users can associate them with the pieces after they have been printed out. Is it all right to enter the pieces in the order I have them, with the numbers that I have on them retained in the titles? They will have to be split up because various ones are from different volumes of the original. I have 50 pieces and that is only a frction of those in the original. Afolop 17:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we are pretty close in understanding the situation. Except I have no idea how the pieces are "normally" identified because I have never seen anyone refer to them. And the numbers I have used are those used in my source, a 17th century handwritten manuscript which does not mention a source. Afolop 11:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
As you say Time waits for no man :-) I have already gotten a dozen of them entered. Afolop 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
With the new indexing that has been introduced I am feeling a great deal better about how people will be able to find things. Many thanks to all concerned! Afolop 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Smoething has happened to the template for the copyright notice. See Locke - Flatt Consort and Holmes Airs Afolop 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is a new one. The previous version and mine are essentially the same except I have two versions of the middle part. How do we include both versions but still keep them apart? Afolop 10:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not know the source of my version. It is not an arrangement. As I was afraid, it might be interpreted on quick glance as being for 4 viols, but it is really for 3 viols, there being an alternate clef for the middle part. I don't know the source of the other version either, but I suspect it was actually from a source related to viols. The versions are essentially the same. Afolop 10:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. Could you take a look at the "Treble1" and "Treble2" files under VdGS No.25, as they appear to be identical (i.e. not duplicates, but pointing to the very same file on the server). Thanks — P.davydov 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! You are right. I messed up, but I think I have it straight now. I hope I haven't left anything else awry here. With all of this transferring I am doing (something about 25,000 individual files I believe), I wonder how many other places I have hidden an error. Afolop 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a set of 17 motets arranged for viols. I think they should be kept together rather than listing each under the motet name. Could you suggest a title? "Motets for 3 Viols" ? "Motets Arranged for 3 Viols" ? ? ? There is no composer page yet; how do I get the umlaut over the "u"? There are two versions of most of them: the original key and then a key more suitable for viols. Any suggestions for organization of this are welcome. Afolop 18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ralph! Does the field you are talking about start "{{...." and end with "page" (in the first line)? And isn't the end of it at the very end of everything at the bottom line -- ending with a "}}"? I would be afraid that would transfer the whole page and all the "work info" and other stuff I don't need and don't know the effects of. In this case I needed only to transfer one set of files (I thought). Afolop 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you were talking about the umlaut. I see what you mean now. I was looking for a way to enter it in the initial entry. I didn't think about going back to edit it afterwards. Thanks. Afolop 21:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made a trial entry of the first motet. What do you think of it? I see that in the original edition I did not always make a score. Afolop 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I had hesitated to use key labels because the terms major and minor had not been developed at the time these pieces were written, but I suppose it would be best to use the modern terms now. Not all of the original versions have scores, the collection has only parts for some of them. In these cases, where should the key labels be placed? --in the first part listed? This has turned out to be far more complicated than I had anticipated. Afolop 22:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Where there is no score, putting the version after the Treble1 makes it look as if it is only that part that is in that version. Putting the version label before the Treble1 label seems to indicate better that it is everything following that is of that version. But that makes the whole process inconsistent! Quandry. Afolop 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Now, if I can keep all of my files separate, I am ready to go on. Thanks. Afolop 10:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder that extracts always go on the page for the main work, which in this case is The Pirates of Penzance (Sullivan, Arthur). Could you move it there under "Arrangements and Transcriptions"? Thanks — P.davydov 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I have moved the page now and I am supposed to tag the page "with the special Delete template" which I haven't found in my toolbox. Afolop 21:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I am completely lost now. The place where the viol music now sits under the Pirates.... has lost its identification with the Policemen's... and for a minute I saw the Policeman title showing up on the main Pirates page. Do I have to do anything more to straighten it out? Afolop 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Much clearer and a great relief. Thanks again. Afolop 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I am lost again. While I was entering some pieces by Jenkins, the work page disappeared. I was alerted that there was a: Fatal Error: Unrecognizable page 'Airs for 3 Viols (treble, tenor, bass) (Jenkins, John)'. Jenkins has a very long list of 3-part airs--confusing enough to be too long to go into a single list. They can be partially broken down by instrumentation and by other distinctions by the VdGS. Some are for Tr T B, many are for Tr Tr B and the VdGS has used several ways of grouping sets with various sorts of similarities. Sometimes they just set off a list that corresponds to the group in one of the manuscripts. I have tried to get guidance on how to show such distinctions. What do I do now? Afolop 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You have only a beginning of the complications. VdGS numbers are recycled, and frequently irregularly. Sometimes for specific composition types, such as Almaines, sometimes for specific composers, sometimes for specific instrumentations, sometimes apparently for specific manuscripts, etc. Frequently individual manuscripts have their own sequencing numbers. Many times VdGS numbers do not exist for specific compositions, or they are impossible to find because some later identification has been made of the composer, or an attribution is made to a different composer. There are long lists of compositions with the same "Title"; keys are sometimes an anachronism because modal scales were the norm at that time. The grouping characteristics are frequently quite subtle.
-
- The research you are suggesting for each piece will take, according to a rough estimate, perhaps the next 4 years of my entire working time. And the result seems to be unusable for the people the edition was prepared for; it is too complicated and is organized by information they will not use in their search. Viol players frequently look first an number of instruments, and then specific instrumentation which gives them the approximate range of the part (because many parts can be played by several instrument choices depending on the range). Frequently only then does the composer become a factor, because so many of the composers' names are quite unknown to the players. They are frequently on the lookout for a new piece, unknown to them, and specific titles, particularly for arrangements, are unknown.
-
Sorry for the shouting. I am interested in knowing how to make entries that are not lost or aborted by changes being made to the work page while I am contributing to it. It has happened before. Also, I am still not sure what form to use for individual pieces: should the titles go in the File description entry or should it be made (edited) into a subheading as has been done with the Jenkins Airs for 3 viols, but not some others previously entered.
I still have several groups of pieces that fit the general category of Airs for 3 viols but I feel should be listed by group because of similarities in instrumentation or manuscript grouping, i.e. there is a group of Tr T B pieces (which I had started), then there are several manuscript groupings of pieces for Tr Tr B, and then there is a miscellaneous group, all Airs for 3-viols. In general, I do not have any complete collection of all the pieces listed in the VdGS Index for any of the groups of any categories listed there. I have just a miscellaneous collection of pieces picked up here and there from various manuscripts. When they have grouped them, I usually group them. How can I do this? Afolop 10:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a group of Jenkins for Tr Tr B with manuscript sequence numbers shown, all of these have VdGS numbers also:
The numbers are as shown and are not completely sequential in the ms. Note that without the numbers shown, nos. 1,15,16,20,21,22,24,25 would have identical names. The missing numbers may have been by other composers--I don't have the information at hand. Some of the items listed are also in other manuscripts, with of course different sequence numbers. Afolop 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC) And then there is a Corant from a different ms. that has a VdGS number within the sequence range of the others; including it would give a continuous sequence of VdGS numbers. Afolop 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
All are on page Jenkins-43, VdGS Nos. 85 - 103. My next group start at 104; note the change in ms. at that point. Some things later on are not so regular. Afolop 13:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this pretty much resolves this set. I have however continued to enter them on the current (previous?) page and have finished that. By the way, the ones on page 34-35 are for Treble, tenor, bass, as the general information sections says. These are the ones I had entered earlier and are now at the top of the list. I tried to separate the two groups on this page before I got your message. Am I supposed to make the changes to the ones I have now already entered? Afolop 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I thought things were resolved, but looking back over previous conversations I see the although we are back to square one to separate pages by instrumentation as I started out, there are still uncertainties about IMSLP requirements. I see that contributors are not supposed to be changing page names after administrators have changed them. I am also wary about getting into a contest with two people trying to make changes to the same page at the same time. My latest entries are apparently now on the wrong page. I think I'll just sit this one out until things settle down. Afolop 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand that this whole project is still under development, in part because of the many newly met situations my collection presents. My concern (and pressure, to be sure) is how I should format my entries and when necessary generate new pages. One problem is that I don't know in many cases how the pieces were originally published, and indeed, some have never been published, so I am looking for details on how I format such entries. I am completely comfortable with many of my contributions being entered as arrangements; I believe I entered the Crũger items as such at the start. One detail I am still uncertain of is whether the title of a set should appear in the File Description of the complete score or above the set as a subtitle. Both forms appear in the items entered to date. I am happy with any format that has been used for my contributions so far. But I hope the work title in the General Information block for the Jenkins Airs can be modified to avoid saying that all of the airs are for treble, tenor, and bass viols because some of them are explicitly for treble, treble, bass. I am reluctant to change any of the accommodations the admins have made to my entries. I will continue to enter my contributions in the best way I know how. Thanks for your consideration. Afolop 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
When I enter a group such is these, I have to do some editing on each one to complete the entry as well as entering such items as "Transcriptions...". It is easier if I enter the rough copy of each of the sets and then edit them all at once. This is the problem I have had before when someone starts changing my entries before I am done with them. I have tried entering just one or two at previous occasions and am met with the comment that the admin does not know how to handle it util he sees the complete set. So again we seem to be working at cross purposes. Afolop 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a little slow in getting the feel for this. Is this correct: If the whole group of pieces have the same number of viols, the For X viols comes first for the whole group and the individual titles are then below below that with the next level of indexing; and if the individual titles have different numbers of viols, the number of viols come under the individual name. If that is so, the lowest would have 5==s and the level above would have 4==s? or??? Afolop 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
More complication: I have a set of viol arrangements for Bateson's 4-part madrigals--complete, I think. There is a work page for the complete madrigals and there are separate work pages for several of them. If I can put the entire set of viol arrangements under the complete set of madrigals, it will keep them together. If I have to put the arrangements for the individual madrigals under the individual pages, and the ones without individual pages under the complete collection, it will scatter the viol arrangements and make them hard to consider as a group. If another madrigal is given a separate page at some future time, this would require breaking up the viol group also. I would prefer keeping the viol arrangements under the collected edition as the 3-part arrangements have done. How do I handle this? Afolop 17:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I have an additional set of 24 airs for 3 viols by Charles Coleman from a different ms. than the one currently entered. They have their own ms. sequence numbers, mostly but not entirely, sequential in two ranges. Keys are not identified. They are not separately grouped by VdGS but they do have VdGS nos. which vary all over the place. I plan to enter the group in the order they appear in the ms. along with the ms. sequence numbers. Typical identification would be
As I have said before, I don't agree with your premises. The users, that is the people these editions are designed for, are players looking for something new to play. They will very rarely, very rarely, look for VdGS numbers in a search. The are interested first in the word viols, the the number of voices, and along with that, the size of instrument, i.e. Tr, T, or B and combinations of these. They will sometimes look for a familiar composer name, but the whole point of including unknown names, is to expand their horizons beyond the known repertoire. This, by the way is a 17th century tradition and procedure; hence the popularity of madrigals with viol consorts in that day. This approach is facilitated by grouping pieces of similar characteristics, frequently found in one manuscript together; hence the use of ms. sequence numbers.
After repeating this many times over the past month I see that no one at IMSLP understands this and that my cause is hopeless. My transferring material is merely shifting it to avoid complete loss on the internet, only to place it in an atmosphere where the users can not find it.
It was readily available and used worldwide during the year it was on WIMA, in a very usable form. I have to reconsider if my time is worth spending in the current useless endeavor.
Incidentally, I find that using the category walker to find pieces for viols sometimes leads only to pages with the word viols in the page titles. Afolop 10:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying in answer to my problems and about the in progress status of the WIMA to IMSLP transfer. But I don't think you understand what I am really talking about. So, let me give you an example:
This is the indexing my users need.
I don't really see any direction of effort toward making my music findable. And the most alarming thing I see is the use of the word "viola" in the discussions and effort. You might just as well use the word "sousaphone"
I also understand your situation as a volunteer in this effort. My entire contribution has been in this status, and I see more than forty years of my effort smothered or disappearing in the current process. Afolop 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll stop sending scores over. But I still see a lack of understanding of what I am saying. I have, never, never, never heard of a viol player entering a VdGS number into a search box to find something to play. Just enter "viol" into the instrumentation/genre search box and enjoy the list of 1092 responses: For bassoon and violin???????????? I would appreciate some indication of when I should resume transferring files; I have about 2000 more compositions to go. Afolop 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I just put "treble viol, treble viol, bass viol" into the instrumentation search box. The results:
It never occurred to me to search with a detailed input so early at the site. I did not, and I am not sure how many people would recognize the magnifying glass as a search box identifier. Perhaps the word "search" in or near the box would help. Or perhaps just moving the sidebar search box up enough to be visible on the initial page display. When you are not expecting it, having to scroll down to see it will make many people miss it.
I also see that the search engines can work with the instrument abbreviations (tr t b). I think I will start including them. It seems the best place would be in the Misc Notes at the end of each piece. Would you recommend it being placed before or after the current note about WIMA? I am sure the people who would use it would recognize just including Tr Tr T B. Would it need parentheses or any other identification for IMSLP purposes?
Things are looking better all the time. I recognize that the detailed formats are necessary for such a large site. It will just take a little instruction and guidance for newcomers like me to be able to use them. Afolop 13:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Are the subheadings correct for the arrangements for 3 viols? I hesitate to change things which may have been set up already. And I don't want to add the ones for 4 viols until I know things are correct. I suspect the correct entries should be
No, it's the other way around. instrumentation heading always has 5 "=" signs, and the work section headings (including "Complete") have 4. So I've swapped the two headings round to their correct position. The rest of the page layout is fine as you had it. Could you make sure to use "Viols" (with an initial capital) instead of "viols" when it occurs in a page title or section heading? Thanks — P.davydov 07:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I have received an email from a person saying that they are going to print out the pdf files and distribute (i.e. publish?) some of the files which I later put on WIMA and now IMSLP. The files had been distributed through a line of CD copy of CD copy, perhaps through several generations of informal distribution. I do not believe they are making a commercial venture of this; just distributing to local friends and players, but I don't really know yet. Are there any copyright questions here for IMSLP? Afolop 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I have 3 pieces by Michael Meech, a modern composer. I don't know if he is still alive. He gave these to me personally in 1966 in manuscript form and authorized me verbally to distribute them with my other music for viols that I was distributing at that time. Is there a copyright problem here? He was Secretary of the Viola da Gamba Society of Great Britain at that time. I have never heard from him since.
I am ready to start transferring files again. But before I do, I still have some uncertainties about the desired format. There are variations for the currently entered pieces for which I do not understand. I have asked these questions before but either the questions were not fully understood or the answers were not fully understood, so I am going to start all over again. I will try to give a listing of the headings I think are desired (required?). In the following, examples start with the heading "Scores" which is on the level of "Performances" and "Scores". Composition title and number of viols is to be included in these entries only if it does not appear in the title of the work page. In each case, a major uncertainty is whether the individual composition title, if needed, is shown as a 5='s subtitle or included in the File Description along with " - Complete Score".
3='s "Scores and Parts"
4='s (any subgroup title such as "Set No. 1")
5='s For x Viols (Folop) - (if not included in the work page title)
5='s (Individual composition title if needed.)
(in the File Description for file No 1:) "Complete Score"
3='s "Arrangements and Transcriptions"
4='s "Complete" or "Selections"
Possibility 1 where individual pieces have different number of viols:
5='s (composition title if needed)
5='s "For x Viols (Folop)"
(in the File description for file No 1) "Complete Score"
Possibility 2 where all the pieces in the next set have the same number of viols:
5='s "For x Viols (Folop)"
(in the File description for file No 1) "(Individual composition title) - Complete Score"
or Possibility 3, same situation: where all the pieces in the next set have the same number of viols:
5='s "For x Viols (Folop)"
5='s (composition title if needed)
(in the File description for file No 1) "Complete Score"
I need answers to:
Question 1: is the Situation 1 format correct?
Question 2: is the Situation 2, possibility 1 correct?
Question 3: In Situation 2, which of Possibility 2 or Possibility 3 is the correct format?
Question 4: Are there any other variations I should consider?
When I get these answers, for any of the previously entered formats that do not agree I will make the necessary changes to have them conform.
No problem, the basic rule is:
More detail is given on IMSLP:Score submission guide/Layout of Work Pages.
If your arrangements relate to the whole work, then this is the preferred method:
===Arrangements and Transcriptions=== =====For n viols (Folop)===== Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score
You'll note that the level 4 heading "Complete" can be omitted, and so your arrangement for n viols is assumed to relate to the whole work. The titles of each section go in the file description. This is the simplest and most straightforward situation, which will apply in most cases to your scores.
To give you an example of when level 4 headings are needed, let's assume that a Mr Smith else now comes along and adds their arrangement for the 2nd part/movement (only) for solo tuba. We would alter the headings like this:
===Arrangements and Transcriptions=== ====Complete==== =====For n viols (Folop)===== Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score ====Name of 2nd part/movement==== =====For Tuba solo (Smith)===== Complete score
We now need an extra heading to show that your arrangement is complete, but Mr Smith's is specifically for the 2nd section only. We don't need to prefix his complete score with the name of the 2nd part/movement, because the heading specifies that whatever follows only relates to the 2nd part/movement.
If Mr Smith subsequently added his arrangement of the 3rd movement, we would need to change things again:
===Arrangements and Transcriptions=== ====Complete==== =====For n viols (Folop)===== Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score ====Selections==== =====For Tuba solo (Smith)===== Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score
... and if he went on to upload the remaining movement, we would end up with:
===Arrangements and Transcriptions=== =====For n viols (Folop)===== Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score =====For Tuba solo (Smith)===== Name of 1st part/movement - Complete score Name of 2nd part/movement - Complete score Name of 3rd part/movement - Complete score
You can see that if Mr Smith were to ask us about what headings should be used for his arrangement, our answers would be different depending upon whether he had uploaded 1, 2, or all 3 parts. And I think this is how the confusion crept in, when you began to upload the first parts of your arrangements :-) But is that any clearer now? — P.davydov 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I am still talking about Coleman. Afolop 16:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If you go ahead and correct the Airs for 3 Viols, I can use the time to get some more things entered. There is still a long, long way to go. Thanks. Afolop 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
When there are only 3 or 4 pieces for each instrumentation, which would be the preference: Have a separate page for (for example) Airs for 3 Viols and Airs for 4 Viols, or to have a page Airs for Viols and have subheadings: For 3 viols and For 4 viols? Afolop 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I found that I had a wrong file on WIMA for one of the parts to Wilbye, Madrigals - set 2, the very last file of arrangements on the page: the version in C major of "I am quite tired...". It was the very last part; for bass viol. I corrected the file on my home computer and tried uploading it; it was the very first time I have tried to upload a non-WIMA file. Of course I put it the wrong place on the page, under General rather than Arrangements and Transcriptions. and had to move it. I think everything is now OK, but would you please check to see I haven't left something all messed up.
:I used the "Add File" procedure. This way made a separate new piece which included only the one part. Then I had to move the file for that part to its place in the piece already entered and delete the file I was replacing and then delete the rest of the entry for that spurious piece. Is there a more direct way to transfer a corrected version of a part from my home computer replacing a part that has been previously entered into IMSLP? Afolop 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If you follow that path, at the very top of the next screen you get:
To submit a score, please use the link "Add a file to this page" on the appropriate work page. For further details, please see the Score submission guide. (This is copied and pasted from that screen.) Afolop 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I"m sorry, I have clicked on the exact links you show, on the file history page and click on "Upload a new version ... " line you mention and get the warning I quoted. I have tried several different files, exactly as you say, and I always get this same warning. Afolop 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you (Afolop) are on exactly the correct page. You can just ignore that warning - Special:Upload is used for both uploading images of composers (that's why it's in the left sidebar) and for uploading new versions of files, so the warning is the same. Cheers, KGill talk email 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has just deleted my last 4 fantasias of Ward 'in Paris'!!!!!!!!!!! Can they be recovered, or must I enter them again? Afolop 01:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I see what happened now. It was all my own doing. I was aware of the mistake and trying to correct it when everything fell apart. Thanks. Afolop 09:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this for now to the most current revision that could be read consistently by my browser without a server error making it impossible to read anything at all of the page, after this problem was reported to me. Please by all means correct, check and fix using the page history. Thanks! (You may also want to use RISM to check the original instrumentation and publication dates of the Ayres to see if they were for viols generally or gambas :) ) Eric 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't get in at the beginning of this, so I don't know what the problem is. Even if I did know what was wrong, I don't know how to correct, check of fix anything using the page history. I don't have a specific record of what was on the page of Ayres for 2 Viols (Jenkins,John) but it was probably the set of 122 ayres (certainly the ones there now are the first 15 of this set.). These probably contain six files for each ayre. They are all from a single manuscript, and so far as I know, have never been published. A scattering of the individual pieces appear in other mss. and just a very few may have been published also in various publications, from the 17th century to the present. The VdGS-uk index lists this series on pages Jenkins-22 to 31. There is no question in my mind that they were originally for viols (viols and gambas are equivalent terms for the same series of instruments). Is there anything that I am supposed to do right now? I will suspend entries until things get settled. Thanks to everyone for their concern and help. Afolop 21:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, what I mean is that sometimes RISM is very specific that works were written for bass gambas, etc. since they have access to the manuscripts. Another guess why the page may have caused a server error, though a less likely guess as this probably would have caused a different error (I am guessing ...) , is an equals or other etc. mismatch- with so many equals-levels on the page it is easy to lose track I do think and fail to write the right number/fail to balance parentheses/brackets/etc. . Somewhere around the edit from 3 am at September 5 it seems the server error occurs - I think... :( (but things are not, I think, quite as simple as that , either. Hrm. Despite our preferences, it may be better to split up the page?) Eric 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (also, it's all still in history or it should be ,unless I am quite mistaken about what I did... my reversion should just have brought up an earlier version to the top?) Yes, it's all still in the page -history- so it's not actually lost, just an earlier uncrashing-i-hope version has been brought to the top to make it workable for the time being. I really apologize if I went outside what I ought have done here...
Sure. I'm glad to try any method that will keep things going. Does that limit refer only to new uploads or does it also apply to minor edits of items already installed. I note that some changes have been made that will require extensive minor edits to much of what is already there: e.g. changing 'treble1 viol' to 'treble viol 1'. I notice also that the Ayres for 2 Viols by Jenkins are still only showing the shortened list. I am not sure how to correct this. Afolop 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I just tried to upload a single file for Brewer, Airs for 4 viols, that I had mistakenly omitted earlier and I received a 'Server error'. Afolop 13:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I tried again to upload the single file correction to the Brewer page and this time it worked. I then did the necessary editing to incorporate the new file, and also a good bit if minor edits, the preview worked OK, but when I tried to save the page I got a 'Server error'. I tried to save again: 'Server error', but on the 3rd trial it finally saved the edited page. When I then checked back on the page, everything looked OK, with all the edits in place. I'll try some more when I get free this afternoon. Afolop 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I have 90 files entered on the Brewer 'Airs for 4 Viols' page and have about 50 more files to go for that page. Should I continue to add to that page or should I break the rest up and put them on another page? When I tried to look at the first two Jenkins pages (1-30 and 31-60) I got 'Server error'. The rest of those page showed up OK. When I went back to the 1-30 page I got 'Server error' again, but for 31-60, this time it showed up OK. Should I continue to try the additional Brewer entries or try someone else?
I entered arrangements for 4 single pieces of Costeley, a total of 32 files, with no problems. I will take a pause now just to be on the safe side. Afolop 20:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded the rest of my Costeleys this morning and everything went OK--about 75 files. I am ready to go ahead with the remaining Brewers later today. I notice that the Jenkins 1-30 still gives a 'Server error'. Afolop 10:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I added a couple more Brewer pieces with no problems.Randomly checking around I find the the Jenkins 1-30 page now comes up without error but several others still have the 'Server error': Jenkins, Airs for 3 viols and Newberry Airs, Coleman, Airs for 3 Viols, among them. I will hold off any more today unless there are any further developments. Afolop 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Jenkins Newberry Airs (336 files) came up this morning without a server error! Afolop 14:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has relabeled the Treble 2 parts for No.3,4,5 so they now have the wrong clefs indicated in the file descriptions! If the order of the clefs is not the desired one, not only the file descriptions can be changed, but the files themselves have to be moved to correspond. Making these changes without letting the originator know not only can result in wrong information being displayed, but does nothing to solve the problem in the future. Afolop 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again. In acceptance of Pavans for 4 Viols, the title Pavan has been moved from the File Description to a sub-heading. For Fantasias for 3 Viols, the title Fantasia has been left in the File Description. Which should I do??? I still have s few Fantasias for 4 Viols to enter (8 I believe) but that would go over the 100-a-day file limit for today. Afolop 14:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Albert. I wonder if you'd like to contribute to this discussion on the forum, and give us the benefit of your expertise? Thanks — P.davydov 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have another set of 9 Fantasias by Purcell; this time for 4 viols. In looking around I find some confusion. There is a page 'Fantazias and In Nomines, Z.732-747 (Purcell, Henry)' previously entered that I did not realize when I entered the Fantasias for 3 viols. It apparently is for an undated (printed?) collection which includes the whole known set including the ones I have. There have been other collections printed, such as the Purcell society's 1959 edition that are not entered in IMSLP. Neither is a true original. In addition there are two other separate pages for individual fantasias entered in IMSLP for the composer, both of which are in the listed collection. As I understand it all of the pieces should be entered somewhere under a complete edition. This leaves me with two questions.
:1. Should my Fantasias for 3 viols be moved to somewhere else? and
:2. How should I enter my Fantasias for 4 viols--under the collective page listed above; separately as Fantasias for 4 Viols as the ones for 3 viols have been; or how and where? Afolop 18:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I will not have the entire group -- I am missing a few. Thanks for the help. You will notice that Z.745 (the page immediately above the page of the complete group) is also a single item that is part of the series. Afolop 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have 14 4-voice Palestrina madrigals and have entered two of them. Before I enter the rest of them,is this the right place for them? Afolop 22:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Albert
I recently got access to a facsimile of the John Merro partbooks from the Bodleian. I started to do some transcriptions onto computer of fantasies for two bass viols such as VdGS 477 but, on checking, I see that you have already transcribed these pieces. Have you typeset the whole of the Merro partbooks and, if not, is there any easy way for me to tell which pieces still need to be transcribed? I'm happy to do some work on these but don't want to duplicate work that you've already done.
Many thanks. StephenWest 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stephen
Thanks for the information on the indexes to the Merro partbooks.
I have been trying to include VdGS numbers for everything, but I am sure I have missed some. The Admins guided me to put them in the File Descriptions. Most of my work has been from an older printed version of their catalog and I haven't delayed the transfer effort to check everything against their web version, so I would guess I have missed some changes. And I just noticed when I entered the Michael East fantasias that we have some more duplications. But if we both have versions we should make both of them available. I have just started entering my 5-part items, and there are more than 1000 of them to go! And then the 6-part ones. Afolop 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, I offer every encouragement to continue your working on viol music. The best way to find what I already have is on the WIMA site, where it is indexed by composer and by instrumentation. Items that I don't yet have on WIMA are mainly 5-part madrigals from Eg 3665. The problem I have encountered with regard to style on the IMSLP site is that each moderator seems to have his own ideas on the style. And sometimes when a moderator has changed things to his desired style, the next moderator will change the changes to match his own ideas. I see very little uniformity there. Sometimes a moderator will change his mind and make changes to his own changes. As for identifying music originally for viols or not, I have given up. If there is any doubt, or even if there isn't sometimes I will just let them mark it as an arrangement and let it go. It is still viol music and playable by viol players. Specifying a key for a piece was only rarely of importance in 1600 so I don't worry about it now. I feel that the IMSLP method of cataloging and presenting viol music is pretty much useless to viol players, but I don't have any control over it so I am just going to let it go. As you see I am no little bit frustrated. Cheers to you! Al Afolop 13:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This has been moved to Gelobet seist Du, Jesus Christ (Scheidt, Samuel) because the word "Motet" isn't part of the title. — P.davydov 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a similar problem with 2 Palestrina pieces. they are titled 'Magnificat Tone1/part1', and 'Magnificat Tone1/part 3'. I have no idea where they belong among the Palestrina works. How do I enter them? Afolop 16:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
These compositions are from different sources than the one already entered, so I have no indication that they are related. I had difficulty reading the scanned entries, but I could not match anything I had with anything already there. Afolop 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I can live with this. Thanks. Afolop 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a transcription of the hymn 'In the beak Midwinter' by Gustav Holst. Is that still under copyright, or can I use it? Afolop 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have been, and am now, trying to identify the works by Scheidt you submitted, comparing them (mainly) with the old Urtext edition of Tabulatoria Nova by Seiffert. I need some help! Maybe you have informations I don't have, in the source material of your viol arrangements.
I think that the "motet" Gelobet seist Du, Jesus Christ in two parts, that is currently in a dedicated work page (IMSLP#139586 sqq. & #139593 sqq.), is the two first verses of the 'Psalmus' Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ that is in Tabulatoria Nova, part II, No.9, SSWV 135 (Seiffert p.129 =149 of the PDF) − the 1st verse transposed a 5th higher with a simplified ending, the 2nd verse in the original key, beginning from the last bar of the 1st verse (this is quite strange, isn't it?).
This being said, the "Hymn" Gelobet seist Du (#139578 sqq.) that you uploaded in the Tabulatoria Nova page, seems to have nothing to do there. As Scheidt wrote several settings of this chorale (how confusing it is !), and as I cannot read all of them, I can only say that this one is also not the 8-voice Gelobet seistu, Jesu Christ in Cantionæ sacræ No.11, SSWV 11, of which some of the original parts are available here. AFAIK, according to the catalogue, it may be: − the Prima pars: Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ in Geistliche Konzerte III, No.3, SSWV 282, − or one of the versions of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ in the Görlitzer Tabulatur-Buch, No.2, SSWV 442a & 442b.
Then I found that the separated Et exultavit (#139569 sqq.) is the 1st verse ot the Magnificat 5. toni in Tabulatoria Nova III, No.6, SSWV 144 (Seiffert p.181 =201 of the PDF).
Do you think this correct? I'll do the moves when sure. Cheers − Pierre Ch. 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Pierre: Thanks. Does that straighten all the thing out? I notice that for the 'Et Exultavit' the instrument names have been changed, e.g. from 'Treble viol' to 'CTreble viol' etc. I am not sure when or why. It would seem to add some question. Afolop 09:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize I had made a typo making a new composer page until I was checking over a work page after the entry of a composition. Now I can't see how to correct it. The name is Dulot, not Duloot. Afolop 13:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I found out too late that Van Wilder's first name is Philip. I don't know how to add that. Afolop 17:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Afolop 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
But somehow the files that were under the work page for 'En esperant...' have gotten lost. The work page is there with no files entered under it. Afolop 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I am about to begin the sets of 5-voice pieces. There are fairly large groups of these, e.g. 75 madrigals by Gesualdo, 100 by Pallavicino, 21 by Wilbye, etc, for a total of over 1100 5-voice pieces. If I can get a firm decision on how to enter these now, it may save a lot of editing later. One of the big problems is that many (most?) of these were published in the composer's lifetime or soon thereafter and some of these publications are already in IMSLP, but not always containing the entire set for that composer, e.g., only vol 5 for Pallavicino, apparently 2 sets for Gesualdo, with vol 3 missing in one of them. I would guess that many of these composers have had someone make a list of their compositions, but I do not have knowledge of or access to these, nor a long enough lifetime to match everything up.
I am pretty sure I do not have complete sets for many of the composers. Question: do I enter individual work pages for each - resulting in a gigantic set of individual pages that will be impossible for users to navigate through; do I try to enter pieces under one of the published volumes containing it - a tremendous task to identify these and many of my pieces will not be covered by one of the volumes now in IMSLP; or do I group my pieces according to the ms. I found them in, under a general title Such as 'Madrigals for 5 voices'; or how? All of these methods seem to be used in various places somewhere in the IMSLP collection. Afolop 18:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess I didn't make my question clear. I am trying to transfer a set of files from WIMA to IMSLP. I am not asking how to identify the piece; I am asking where do I upload it to. Afolop 19:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess the problem is that we are talking different languages. I can identify every piece in my collection. Each has a unique identification. There are no ambiguities. You want a different identification that I am not ready to do extensive research to find out. Often it is very arbitrary: e.g. Coperario: VdGS nos., Charteris nos., and even Meyer nos., plus even more obscure ones such as Tregian nos.; all of which have been published and are in print. I have used one of these well publicized sets and then you want me to do additional research and use another. Even your Admins cannot agree on what form to change thing into: e.g. look at Bateson and the various arbitrary changes that have been made there. But when I try your 'temporary holding page under a general title' it is removed without notice before I can even make use of it.
My task is to transfer my files from WIMA to IMSLP. What is done with them after that is beyond my control. I will therefore without further ado make a general practice of establishing a 'general holding area' and let someone else take whatever further action they find necessary. Please let me know if this is acceptable or not. I will suspend operations until I find out. I am sorry I have to be so blunt about the whole affair. Afolop 11:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess I have been a bit unclear in my questions. I have seen many minor changes in my entries, e.g. 'Tenor viol, alto clef' changed to 'Tenor viol (alto clef)' for which I could avoid an editing if I knew which form was desired. However, I find that moderators don't seem to agree, so I will just let it go. I don't find any recognizable uniformity in whether piece titles are to be put in 'File Description' or in a subheading, and I see one moderator changing it to one form and another moderator changing it to another, so I will just let it go. I strongly feel that placing each single piece along on its own single page results in a unbelievably long series of pages, the form of whose contents are not immediately recognizable. That eliminates that page from useful consideration by viol players, so I will do whatever you want just to avoid completely losing the music on the internet. The idea of uploading one piece of a group to see if the place and form were suitable before the rest of the group is uploaded has not worked at all. I have no idea how to notify unseen moderators when a group of pieces has been completed. Were would they be inclined to look? Could some agreement among moderators on these matters be reached before I continue? ;-) Afolop 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
OK Afolop 15:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, another mistake on my part! I entered a composer page for Joseph Lupo and a work page for his pavan without realizing that I had not yet uploaded these to WIMA. I don't think I am up to learning that procedure yet to put them on IMSLP. Would you just throw them away for the present. Thanks. Afolop 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about. Fantasias for 3 viols and for 4 viols have been changed to different formats for each set. Those for 5 viols are even more complicated because each has an additional title. They are not transcriptions, but were written and promulgated as being for viols from the start. I have entered the first one to get guidance on how to format these entries. There are 48 more of them to come in the group. Afolop 15:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You have me completely confused now. Although the 'Fantasias for 5 viols' shows up on the composer's page, I can't get to it to add the additional pieces. Fortunately, the WIMA site is down and nothing can be reached on it, so I can't continue. I will use the time to reflect on what is going on. Afolop 18:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
...You seem to have really learned the system very nicely. It appears to be going very smoothly and fast - just the way it should be! Carolus 04:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Afolop 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have now transferred all of my Coperario pieces - it's all yours! Afolop 18:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Finished with Wilbye, Madrigals - set 1. Afolop 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Finished with Wilbye, Madrigals - set 2. Afolop 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I am now finished with all Gesualdo entries. Afolop 21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
All of my Bateson's are now entered. Thing go noticeably faster since the recent upgrading of the server. Afolop 14:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
All Lupo's are entered. Afolop 15:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Entries for Fontanelli are done. Afolop 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
All 5-part Gibbons are now entered Afolop 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything I have by Weelkes is now entered. Afolop 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And only 1000 more compositions to go of the WIMA set, and then about 300 new ones. All of my Schũtz are now entered. Afolop 04:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
All that I have in Pallavicino books 2, 4, and 5 are done for the time being. Afolop 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
And the rest of the Pallavicino from WIMA is done. Afolop 01:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The Dering Fantasias are now transferred over. Afolop 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The Marenzio Madrigals are done. Afolop 20:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The Agazzari Madrigals are done. Afolop 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me know when you are finished so I can do a little re-organizing on that page. It will probably be better if we group them as in the original: Madrigals for 3 voices, for 4 voices, etc. BTW, in reference to the 'temporary holding page', the Morley page you're uploading things to now is a good example of that. Eventually, we'll have separate pages for each of the madrigals under its own title (as you no doubt know, many of them are actually best known under their own titles). That way the original published collection, or multiple selections taken from it, will be the only thing on the original workpage where you are now uploading things. If you wish to combine scores (probably only the scores, not the parts) for your viol settings into "Madrigals for 3 voices", etc. , they could appear in the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" section of the present page. The bulk of the arrangements would go to the new pages for the individual madrigals. Carolus 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it advisable to separate scores from their parts. Thanks. Afolop 04:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have 8 Fantasias for 5 Viols by Richard Dering. One of them (VdGS No.4) has already been entered on a page 'Fantasia' as an arrangement for 5 recorders. I suggest that the name of this page be changed to 'Fantasias for 5 viols' leaving the current entry under 'Transcriptions and Arrangements' and mine be put on the same page under 'Scores and Parts' or 'General' or whatever, as original compositions. But I leave such changes to one of the Moderators. Afolop 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The following warning was received:
Warning: This page is 59 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.
I have about 12 more pieces to enter. What do you suggest? Afolop 21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a piece by Da Nola. If someone will udertake making the composer page, I will enter the piece under it. The following is the information from viaf.org.
Afolop 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried to enter a work page under Mundy, William titled 'Sermone Blando'. It was refused saying that such a page was already entered. I could not find it to add an arrangement for 5 viols. Such a title is not apparent on his composer page. What do I do? Afolop 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of these composer names have so many variations. Would it be a good idea if I checked on questionable ones before I initiate a new composer page? I have some compositions by Gio. Paolo Nodari. Is this a good form for the name: 'Nodari, Gio. Paolo'? Afolop 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a set of 39 dances by a wide variety of composers that I have arranged for viols that I would like to keep together. I don't have a record of where I got them all. A few have specific names, but most are just generic names. None seem to me to be significant in itself to give it a separate page, but each has a title and an attribution to a composer (which in some cases may be the publisher). Could I just enter them as 'Dances for 4 Viols' under 'Various' and call them all 'transcriptions and arrangements'? How would the titles and composers/publishers be entered? Afolop 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that I actually made the selection from various sources; I have must have gotten it from somewhere else because I have numbered the pieces. It is very likely that someone else has brought the group together. So I don't really want to claim it to be my property. My contribution was making the viol arrangements. The individual pieces date from the mid 16th century to the mid 18th century. I haven't been able to find the set as a group in any volume of music that I have. Afolop 01:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if I did have to enter the set as you specify, I don't see exactly how to include both composer and title of each piece on the work page supporting the set. To list each piece on a separate work page would result in a pile of generic titles, some from completely unknown composers. This does not seem to be a helpful way of presenting the pieces. Afolop 10:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What would happen if the original organization of the set was originally from a copyrighted collection that I can no longer identify? Here is the list:
Afolop 10:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Afolop. Just to let you know that the file labeled as '9. O primavera gioventu' (score) on this page is really a link to the previously-uploaded file for 'Ne tien face' (I guess on a different page of madrigals). Would it be possible to separately upload the correct file? Thanks, KGill talk email 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I hope it is fixed now. Afolop 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I knew something was wrong, but I was well along the way before I realized that the problem was that sections of each suite were for 4 viols and sections for 5 viols. Then I wasn't sure just how to organize that. So I just uploaded all of the sections, and hope that they can get straightened out eventually. Thanks for making order out of chaos. Afolop 22:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have 10 songs attributed in various manuscripts to Wm Byrd, but either not listed by the VdGS or listed as being doubtful or not by Byrd. So where do I put them? They are somehow related to Byrd. How about a page 'Songs attributed to William Byrd' and then enter them as transcriptions for 5 Viols? Afolop 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
These songs would have to appear under the composer page for Byrd because of their connection to Byrd. The problem is how to indicate that not everyone agrees that it really is Byrd. What about those where in different mss. the piece is attributed to different composers? Then the connection to each of the possible composers would be needed (or to Mr. Anonymous).
There are many mss where the pieces of one composer have been collected together by a different person. In most of those cases, the collector is of little importance, just the actual composer is of interest. Afolop 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I have Fantasia VdGS No.1 by Simmes with the note values halved from the original. Is this an arrangement, or can this still be considered the original composition? The same piece has been entered in an arrangement for recorders with note values only half of mine (one fourth of the original), and not marked with the VdGS number. I also have difficulty considering the style of this piece to be 'baroque' as the current entry classifies it. Should I enter mine separately and let the moderators fit the two together, or how should my version fit into the current entry? Afolop 20:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I hate to get into a contest by changing the data on someone else's entry that I don't agree with, so I will enter my version as a separate page and leave it for the moderators to reconcile the two. Afolop 13:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I did it again. I made a page for a set that I have not yet put into the WIMA collection. I think I had better put off handling it until the current transfer project is completed. Could you delete the page for the time being. Sorry. Afolop 01:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I have 2 compositions for viols by David Goldstein, handed to me by him personally for me to distribute. They are obviously based on songs entitled: Fairest Lord Jesus and The Little King. He was a pediatrician in New York City who died about 8 or 10 years ago. I do not know the copyright status of the pieces. Can I upload them? Afolop 20:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I have anything from him in writing. Our meetings were all at VdGSA annual conclaves. The pieces are actually fantasias based on the melodies of these songs, so they are not actually arrangements but almost certainly original compositions by him, but they might be arrangements of recorder versions of the pieces. My notes indicate my copies are from a manuscript copy. Afolop 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Another name: Giovanni del Turco. How should the composer page be listed? Afolop 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
VIAF seems to have some problem with the first name: is it Balthasar or Balthsar? German WIKI sources referenced on the WIMA site seem to prefer Balthasar, as do my sources which reference a date of 1606, but VIAF does not seem to agree. Can I use the name Balthasar without getting into trouble or conflicts? Afolop 21:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
VIAF lists both Eremita, Giulio and Heremita, Giulio without giving any indication that they might be the same person. Which do you prefer? Afolop 10:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
A similar question arises with Baccusi. Should I use the first name Hippolito or Ippolito. Both are listed in VIAF with the majority starting without the H; my source uses the H: should I? Afolop 10:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And more: Verdonch, Verdoncq, or Verdonck?
And more: Gio. Bap. Recalchi, with no separate verification: should I guess at the full names or leave them as abbreviations? Afolop 12:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And more: John Cowden, or as in VIAF Coudeno, Giovanni [Inglese]? Afolop 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Christoph Demantius was also known as Johann Christoph Demantius or Johannes Christoph Demantius. Should the alternatives be added to the composer page? Afolop 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The name has been copied and pasted directly from VIAF, although my source spelled the name Auffschnaidter. Afolop 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find these three in any lists for Palestrina, so I put them in a separate work page under his composer page. Afolop 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I just found out that I entered the Gagliard (arranged by Peter Philips) under the wrong Bassano. It should be under Bassano, Augustine. I will enter the composer page for Augustine because I have several more of his, but because of the possible linkage problems, I will leave it to one of the moderators to make the actual shift for this piece. Afolop 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
When I try to enter a category page for Augustine Bassano, I am met with an error notice saying that such a category already exists. I cannot find it on either the Composers or All People Category lists. What is going wrong? Afolop 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have 5 new pieces from one manuscript, four which are specifically attributed to Augustin Bassano in the ms.(the final e is omitted from the first name) and the other to Aug. Bassano with the note 'Set by P. Philippi'. Afolop 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I find I have a bunch of errors in entering this set. Please don't make any changes until I try to straighten them out. Afolop 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I have it all in order now. This is all of the set of Bartolini madrigals that I have. For some reason a bunch of my complete scores didn't transfer, even though I was almost certain that I had them designated properly. I will have to check on this more carefully in the future. Thanks. Afolop 02:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made some errors in entering several of the Pallavicino madrigals. Please don't make any more changes until I can get these corrected. Afolop 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I have it all corrected now. Thanks. Afolop 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have about 10 more Pallavicino, but they are further down the list. I have about 200 more in all from various composers, depending on how many of these need further editorial work when I get to them. Afolop 10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I still need answers to items on this talk page: item 58 - Byrd Songs and item 68 about Augustin(e) Bassano. Afolop 11:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no point rearranging into numerical order at the present time because there are quite a few more to go. I won't be able to do all of them in one session. Afolop 11:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And I have 2 more In Nomines by Ferrabosco, Sr., among the Motets in my source manuscript.They are different from the ones already entered on a separate page and each has a VdGS No. Where should I enter them? They don't really fit in the Motets because they are not really arrangements; they are basically originally viol pieces. And they don't fit under the work page for '2 In Nomines' which has already been entered--unless that is changed to '4 In Nomines' and the original entry is changed to fit. Afolop 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Whew! My set of Ferrabosco Motets have all been entered! -- Now for his Madrigals; some 53 of them. Afolop 12:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
'Tis the season to be jolly! I think I now have all pertinent pdf files in my collection transferred from WIMA to IMSLP. There may be a few stragglers. I will still have to consider what to do with my MIDI files on WIMA. There are some special factors to consider in them. My next effort will be to find errors and correct them by replacing individual files on IMSLP. I have a start in this with a number of corrections that I had not yet put on WIMA. I am also getting help in finding these from various users of the files. Merry Christmas to all! Afolop 02:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mass confusion. The files that appeared on the page for this piece up to now had the number --0419-- which were the wrong files. I have downloaded the set of files with the number --0418-- which is the right set. When I did this, a notice appeared that these files (--0418--)had been downloaded before on 17 September. I have no idea how to find where they went, but they are now in the right place here. I deleted the set of --0419-- files from this page, but they still appear in the right place on the page for RC 15. And I have no idea who to tell about this situation. --Afolop 21:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Dear Albert, You should be aware that we have been under a vandalism attack this evening, so please be careful about uploading. Thanks, Carolus 23:28, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
