Gigault organ scores

Reports of various issues on work pages.

Moderators: vinteuil, Leonard Vertighel, Lyle Neff, Wiki Admins

Keanur
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:34 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Gigault organ scores

Postby Keanur » Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:51 pm

I wonder what happened to the 185 organ pieces I painstakingly and very carefully transcribed from the original 1685 edition and posted on IMSLP over 2 years! Everything is GONE!!! even the MIDI files!!! The whole shebang ERASED! OUT! OFF! Now the user cannot pick a single piece or a group of pieces, he/she will need to download the complete 303 pages edition. I think it is UNFAIR that the work of an editor would be wiped out savagely without warning, without any prior consultation as if he/she where nobody and his/hers work nothing important at all. Is this the new philosophy of IMSLP? Really? Maybe I put too much work and effort on that "library" and should consider stopping definitely any further participation. À bon entendeur, salut!

Choralia
Site Admin
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:08 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Gigault organ scores

Postby Choralia » Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:25 pm

It seems that this page includes many individual pieces, while this page includes the whole collection as if it were a single large work. Is this wrong?

Max

Keanur
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:34 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Gigault organ scores

Postby Keanur » Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:37 pm

No, it is not, you're right Max,I found the missing scores and tutti quanti... thanks! However I guess, that after over 6 years of daily use, I'll never get to understand how IMLSP manages some multiple scores... mea culpa! Let's hope users are smarter than me!

pml
Copyright Reviewer
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:42 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Gigault organ scores

Postby pml » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:07 am

It does seem odd those two pages differ only by one using the ordinary vertical apostrophe mark, while the other uses the typographically preferred apostrophe — I would assume the one individual score on the page with the ordinary apostrophe has been misplaced. The whole set, whether diligently split apart or combined, belongs on the one page, surely.

Given a choice between large comprehensive downloads, or downloading individual movements, I tend to go with the large download — but we could debate the merits in ‘lumping’ or ‘splitting’ until hell freezes over. And then some, probably.

Marvellous work on that edition, by the way!
--
PML (talk)

Keanur
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:34 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Gigault organ scores

Postby Keanur » Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:23 pm

I agree that those to pages should make only one, as it is the case with many of other publications, hence my horrified reaction to the almost blank page I met when clicking on the usual link. It's always difficult to discuss such classification matters with the very busy IMSLP editors who might or might not answer such inquiries... and still more difficult to get any significant changes. Sometimes, wandering through IMSLP is close to getting lost in Warehouse 13! And thanks for the appreciation of my work on an injustly neglected French «Grand Siècle» organ music composer.

cypressdome
active poster
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:10 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Location: the piney woods of Florida

Re: Gigault organ scores

Postby cypressdome » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:52 am

Both pages have now been merged into the collection page Livre de musique pour l'orgue (Gigault, Nicolas).


Return to “Work Page Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests