In an email to me Jennifer Paull, head of the WIMA collection Amoris International, writes
I must insist that the titles remain as they are in Amoris. Why modify them?? They are the composer's own titles and appear on my scores and CDs as such.
Edwin Carr entitled this work 'Two Mansfield Poems', i.e. settings of poems by Katharine Mansfield. That is not a '2' and not 'pieces'. Another one of his works _is_ entitled 'Four Pieces'.
If you change their titles, how are people going to know the difference between
'2 Pieces'
and Carr's
'Four Pieces' ?
I second Jennifer's point and kindly ask "someone in the know" to update Edwin Carr's work pages such that the IMSLP titles are the same as those specified by the composer:
It's an alphabetization thing -- "Two" alphabetizes under "T" and "2" alphabetizes under "M". Other admins will have to comment, but I believe all libraries in the world ignore numbers in their alphabetization, and this doesn't happen if the word is written out.
It’s worth noting that “poem” isn’t recognised by music librarians as a musical form; even Chausson’s Poème for violin and orchestra is categorised as a “piece”. “Poèmes symphoniques” are a different kettle of fish, apparently (and in that respect, the tagging of the Chausson may be incorrect). Carr’s title retains the word “Poems” even if it’s not used as a tag for categorisation; the page hasn’t been renamed to “2 Mansfield Pieces”.
The Work title listed on the Carr pages themselves have now been amended with the composer’s titles (“Two Mansfield Poems” and “Four Pieces”), so these will be fully searchable, if anyone is Googling for a precise match. The pages themselves should not be moved, without better justification for going against policy. The ignoring of cardinal numbers for alphabetisation is actually normal practice — though with some strange results occasionally, since Messiaen’s “Vingt regards” are often sorted by librarians under V. (Perhaps if Mr Carr had chosen to set 20 of Katherine Mansfield’s poems, maybe we wouldn’t be having this discussion?)
Regards (probably not of the Messiaen variety), Philip
