IMSLP Forums

Hi, everyone. Yes, I am ClassicalComposers (Perlnerd666 has authorized my request to create an account on the forums).

When browsing through work templates (and also WTC), I notice that some of the minor keys are not capitalized (e.g. g# minor instead of G# minor). This, along with two other issues (C major/C Major and D major/D) are present in the IMSLP library and usage is fairly inconsistent. Though I have taken a stand previously, I wish to remain neutral in this situation.

Please explain in detail what is to be done.

Thanks!
CC-on-the-Forums
(ClassicalComposers)

Hi CC,

thanks for your recent Holst typesets – are your various Mozart offerings under revision (and will they resurface)?

My view on this subject is probably well-known as well: some templates were initially nothing more than a laundry list of the work titles, which themselves were of little help in navigating to a specific work in the set, seeing as the page names for standard types (symphonies, sonatas, concertos etc) have often been lacking. (For examples of this, vide first edits of the Mozart piano concertos template and the Beethoven piano sonatas template.)

Since the category page is limited to the titles of the work pages, which often lack important information (such as the correct catalogue number; or the key; or a “sobriquet” by which a well-known piece is often referred to), the templates are sort of a stop-gap solution: e.g. you might have found yourself on the wrong page of a set of works, say the one which is in G minor instead of the one which is in A major, but instead of having to search every single page title, the template acts as a key with all of the extra nitty-gritty info to help you find the one you want. (Again to use an example, if you were looking for the Mozart symphony with a catalogue number of "173dB", you would certainly not find it listed that way on the Mozart category page.)

My view is that under this remit, each template should include a maximised quantity of helpful detail in as concise a form as possible, and be self-consistent in the way it is formatted: I don’t see that this implies that each template has to feature exactly the same type of information and the same formatting (though some common features are obviously desirable). In other words, I am happy for each template to be slightly different, all the better to easily present the salient distinguishing features of each body of works, provided that the information in the template itself is presented in a self-consistent fashion.

An example of this would be, yes, the way key signatures are displayed. In Haydn’s 107 symphonies there are only eleven minor key works; and only two in Mozart’s 50-odd. So for obvious reasons, the word “major” has dropped out of each template rather than have 150 repetitions of the word. I don’t think this is particularly controversial in the case of Haydn: the works with sobriquets and unusual key signatures are quite obvious to the eye. With Mozart, the situation is a little less happy, because the Köchel catalogue is unfortunately rather messy and almost half of the works go under more than one number, and the result is cluttered. The two minor key works are often called the “Little” and “Great” G minor symphonies, so the template used the lower-case convention (“g” = G minor, as opposed to “G–”) rather than repeat G minor twice on each line. Other differences may be noted: the Haydn symphonies are strictly in Anthony van Hoboken’s catalogue order – which is far from being strictly chronological, unlike the sixth Köchel catalogue (which is still “not quite right” either).

Outside the classical period, it makes rather less sense to assume either a major tonality as representing the majority of works, or to assume the composer has insisted on a central tonality – for six of Mahler's nine symphonies it is foolish to define the work by a single key centre such as C minor or D major. Should there be an attempt to resolve this by some system for describing axial tonality (where two keys work in alternation or opposition, like Nielsen’s 5th) or progressive tonality (a planned journey of two or more keys, as in most of Mahler’s)?

Anyway, that’s all I want to say for the moment on templates: in terms of what is displayed on the Work page in the General information box, there’s better scope for lengthy key information. The capitalisation of "Major" or "Minor" should be unequivocally removed when it’s found, but the trouble is with so many thousand pages and numerous contributors filling in the information about works, to ensure complete consistency is a hair-tearing exercise best left for robotic minions to straighten out.

Regards, PML

CC-on-the-Forums wrote:Please explain in detail what is to be done.

Since all work here is done on a volunteer basis, someone would have to volunteer to go through 27,000+ work pages to clean this up. If someone were willing to do that, I'm sure it would be welcomed, but until someone steps forward, I'm afraid the short answer is that nothing will be done.

In the quick guide to score submission, the issue of capitalization of keys isn't covered, so perhaps an addition to this page would help a bit with a "house style" for those who read it?

I think that it's worthwhile to set up guidelines regardless. Over time, we have gradually standardized descriptions and headings, and largely thanks to the efforts of a few, that has been successful.

My two cents are: for general information, "C Major" and "c minor"

Of course, I've never been consistent about that.

Sorry Snailey, but "major" with a capital "M"!!! Really? In current English-language reference sources (e.g. library catalogues, Grove, Wikipedia, etc.) the use of "C major", "C minor", etc. is pretty much universal.

Because we can't use the sharp or flat templates in page titles, we still have the thorny question of whether, for example "B-flat major" is preferable to "B flat major", but library catalogues generally omit the hyphens, which is a strong argument for IMSLP following the same practice.

(BTW, Feldmahler says he's thinking about creating a wikibot to help deal with these sorts of standardization issues, so we shouldn't necessarily worry about having to manually edit thousands of pages in need of a clean up)

I surrender! Chicago, btw:
7.145: "Many musical compositions, because of the nature of the art, do not have descriptive titles but are identified by the name of a musical form in which they are written plus a number or a key or both. WHen used as the title of a work the name of the form and the key are usually capitalized:
Fantasy in C Minor Sonata in E-flat."
(13th ed.)
Dead unhelpful.

I am not a native speaker, but I would prefer D major and D minor.

@ Davydov

I usually find that it's a dead heat race as far as B-flat vs. B flat.

@ Perlnerd

The problem with this is that, because of the varied nature of music title publishing, a standardized name for generic titles like Beethoven sonati, for example, is difficult to know. This may be a case where, when this is know and necessary to include, we might want to override Chicago, as much as I like to adhere to it, to maintain internal consistency.

I prefer B-flat, as the flat is subordinate to the B. After all, its length alone makes it visually stand out, and we must tie it to the key.

I agree with Perlnerd. The hyphen has a visual effect on tying the "B" and the "flat" closer together.

I violently disagree with the Chicago Manual of Style, for what it’s worth (which in terms of my opinion, isn’t worth quibbling over). In general the key name (A through to G) should be capitalised; neither accidentals nor modalities should be, and the use of the hyphen is an abomination, besides being inconsistent. I can only presume the hyphen is the preference of the Chicago manual because they aren’t musicians per se, and are not knowledgeable within the field, where usage seems to favour non-hyphenation about 90% of the time, in my (quite possibly limited) experience. I also note that in your cited example the piece in “E-flat” was probably lacking the term “major” as is often the default in classical period works.

Thus a few key signatures for you: A minor; C major; D dorian; E flat hypomixolydian; F sharp locrian...

Also, words like sonata and concerto, while Italian, have been directly imported into English as loan words, and follow English rules for pluralisation: thus, sonatas and concertos. Let’s not have “concerti”, and above all not “sonati”!

My 2¢ (exponentiated several times, probably)

PML

I would favour using a hyphen. At least this would be consistent with the general use of hyphens in English: You talk of a quantum dot or a spin valve without a hypen. But when it comes to a quantum-dot spin valve you use a hyphen in order to indicate that quantum dot belongs together in these four words. So as B and flat belong together in B-flat major, I think a hyphen would be nice to have.