Liszt Faust Symphony

[LeslieHoward]

The version for 2 pianos says 'all movements' but Mephistopheles und Schlusschor is missing!

The orchestral scores are very different: the Breitkopf score is the 1857/61 version [much to be preferred]; the Eulenburg is the 1976 revision, with the timpani part completely bowdlerised!

[Davydov]

Thank you for that information, and I've made some changes to the page accordingly. Organizing the Liszt section has proved quite a challenge over the last four years, with a number of different approaches having been tried, with none quite managing to embrace all the complexities of the composer's revisions, variants, arrangements, etc. ...

[Funper]

I disagree. The way it was before (with all different versions under their own respective page) was completely suitable and simple. I had already pondered upon the issue of Liszt for quite some time in those days, and I found that way of organizing to be the best. I don't know who changed it by putting all versions on the same page. That's the reasons why it's all messed up right now. Take this as an example of the futility of the section's current state: There exists 3 different versions of most of Liszt's symphonic poems: Imagine every version of Orpheus (a piano duet, a two pianos, a solo piano, an organ, a orchestral version; of which there might exist a doussin of editions) on the same page. The result is a chaotic and difficult page to browse. It never fails to give me a headache..

[Melodia]

Imagine every version of Orpheus (a piano duet, a two pianos, a solo piano, an organ, a orchestral version; of which there might exist a doussin of editions) on the same page. The result is a chaotic and difficult page to browse. It never fails to give me a headache..

Well that's the way it is for the majority of works in the library, it just so happens that Liszt did a lot of transcriptions himself. There's a number of works which have well over five different versions.

The only justification I can see for splitting them is that they have different Serle numbers, but if one does that....one should with Dvorak too, and possibly others I can't think of right now,.

[KGill]

I agree - we can't make an exception for one composer just because he happened to make a lot of arrangements of his own works. And as for page clutter, that's really a matter of opinion. I personally feel that having separate pages for each arrangement would unnecessarily inflate the number of pages in Liszt's category and make browsing that much more difficult. Having the different versions of one work organized under a table of contents on one page to me seems neat and simple compared to accessing multiple separate pages. Of course, that is only an opinion, but so is your point of view.
We have policies for a reason...

[Funper]

Having the different versions of one work organized under a table of contents on one page to me seems neat and simple compared to accessing multiple separate pages.

That's the exact way it was ordered. A transcription would have its own page, and all other revision and editions would be under it. It would not be on the original work page, but it would instead be referenced ("see also") from there. I don't know when you joined IMSLP KGill, but back in 2007 when the site was fresh, Liszt's section was pretty much like this: a transcription of a work was cataloged and ordered according to Searle's numbers, e.g. all different revision and editions of a Liszt transcription would be under the work page of Liszt and not on the work page of the original composer (only referenced therefrom).

However, if there would be two different versions, e.g. one for piano solo and one for piano duet, they would have two different workpages, but only because they are ordered as such in Searle's catalogue.

Well that's the way it is for the majority of works in the library

Even if it's the way for the majority of works in the library, we have to be one step ahead and be flexible. Different catalogue orderings (e.g. that of Searle) require different approaches. Conventionality never goes to the books.

[vinteuil]

How about instead of using the "Arrangements" tag, we treat them as the separate versions that they are, using Level 3 headings (or even Level 2) for each? This clarifies things, and makes the consolidation easier. Then again, we do not have to make a heading for everything, and could use the file descriptions better...

[Davydov]

Level 4 headings are already used to differentiate between versions of the same work, but, as you say, the file descriptions can also be used to avoid pages becoming too cluttered with headings...

[gibarian]

Re: Arranging the Liszt page.

Might I suggest using the works list from New Grove and using the categorizations/groupings/versionings provided there. New Grove recognized a different presentation was suitable to different composers...and here, all the legwork of categorizing the different versions is done for you.

I'd like to see IMSLP work something like this for all major composers: the complete works are listed beforehand, and if IMSLP does not have material available, then there would be no link to that work's page (and it would be a different color). This has the advantage of immediately showing what scores IMSLP lacks and would like to seek out.

On a similar note, you could pre-list all the Stravinsky works, but have a non-functioning link for ones you know you can't host. Using the same principle, you could use this to block/flag major composers who are in public domain in the US but not Canada, so Castelnuovo-Tedesco or Pizzetti would get a non-link (maybe with a question mark next to it taking you to a forum page explaining the Stravinsky situation). [I also think you need to start setting up some cross-references...wcat has a good set for music librarians.].

I worked for many years at the UC Berkeley Music Library, and we had to deal with many of these categorization issues. I fully support what you do here...I've waited to see the internet make music accessible, and this is the most successful project I've seen.

-----------
FYI: Here are the groupings from NG:
Liszt Works
Piano
Piano four hands
Two pianos
Chamber music
Organ, harmonium, pedal piano
Organ with other instruments
Orchestral
Solo instrument and orchestra
Sacred choral with orchestra
Sacred choral music
Accompanied sacred solo vocal music
Secular choral music with orchestra
Secular choral music a cappella, or with ensemble or keyboard
Songs
Opera
Melodramas
Incomplete works
Unidentified fragments
Lost works
Planned compositions or transcriptions
Editions
Corrections and additions to works by other composers
Doubtful works

[Davydov]

@Gibarian. Thanks for your suggestions, but I wonder if you've been looking at the Category:Liszt, Franz page (which only shows works that have already been uploaded), rather than the comprehensive list at:
http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_compositi ... ranz_Liszt

Links are included to works that have been uploaded, which are in a different colour to those that are still lacking. They can all be sorted by title, date, genre or Searle number, and the initial arrangement follows Searle's classification (which is also explained separately).

There are similar lists for most major composers, although some are more up-to-date than others.