IMSLP Forums

This has been uploaded from WIMA now, but also exists in:

http://imslp.org/wiki/The_First_Set_of_ ... _Thomas%29

Two options here -- split the collection (except that it seems to have published in that form in 1604), or move the individual to the collection page.

Which is preferable?

Both please? This reminds me, in the case of Lassus, we have one of the truly monumental collections, the Magnus opus musicum. It would not be sane or sensible to split it over 500 separate works pages — even if we end up with works pages from the Breitkopf und Härtel set. On the other hand, that page has been accreting extra typesets which I believe should be on separate pages (especially if they were not first published in the 1604 set, but published earlier in one of Lassus’s many other publications).

Back to the Bateson. If we have a typeset of the entire book – put it on a publication page for the first book. Only if the items are easily separable without lossage, should splitting it be considered. If we have a separate typeset for Dame Venus, then it goes on its own page.

Cheers, Philip

Presumably, then at least there should be a link between the two so that people can see we have 2 different editions?

Yes. This would be similar to the system of cross-references to arrangements/paraphrases we have of some pieces, or pages for collections (e.g. the Vivaldi opus numbers) which cite the individual work pages that are part of the collection.

When collections are of a multiple hundreds dimension, the best thing to do may perhaps be to link everything (even pages not yet created, if the likely formula for the target page can be safely predicted). The Bateson set is likely small enough not to make that too painful.

P.