IMSLP Forums

Hi all,

I recently finished a sortable list of works by Revueltas. It can be found here:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Sortable_list_of_ ... _Revueltas



I'm bringing this up because I used the "R." number for categorizing, which did not previously exist. There is no official cataloging number used for his works, though there are some unofficial catalogs themselves. In order to catalog on IMSLP, I thought it was crucial to use an established system of identifying works. According to this catalog, for instance, Sensemayá is listed as R. 46.

I was wondering what people's opinions would be to, for example, move the work title of Sensemayá to "Sensemayá, R.46". The criticism would be that nobody knows what that number is because it was invented about 3 hours ago. However, I also realize that we are a music library. Why should our work by limited to offering already available information? We have several very capable musicologists (whether professional or amateur), librarians, and reviewers. It's my opinion that we should not be afraid to invent catalogs where appropriate. Perhaps mine has some serious drawbacks (which I would be open to hear), but what are your views on the subject?

Also, on the same topic, the same concept would apply to Stravinsky (SV number since S is already in use from Liszt).

Thoughts?

I also want to mention my opinion that this should not be a static permanent numbering system yet. There are a few arrangements that need to be added. There is also a possibility of tracking down another piece. I think it could sit a couple weeks while we try to gather more information. Declaiming Sensemaya as R.46 is premature, but the concept remains.

I think this is absolutely excellent. Of course everyone could guess that I would approve of any research done on Revueltas, being the Latin-American fanatic that I am but I still think this kind of work is just great. There is no good reason I can see that IMSLP should not expand into more musicological research - provided it's done with care, of course. I also agree that this catalogue should at the moment be thought of as flexible; once we think enough information has trickled in, we can declare it solidified.
We also need to be sure of all the information on there. What sources have you drawn from, if I may ask? Listing them at the bottom will, I imagine, lend more credibility to the idea of a cataloguing system created on a wiki (of all things ).

Can I suggest, before you get people quoting from a list that isn't fixed yet, that you put a big notice on it saying that it is subject to change until the list is complete. You don't want someone looking for R.46 and it's a different piece than it was a few months ago. Also, in the column for "R. no.", perhaps clarify it with "Suggested R.no.".

@ Steltz - Who said the list isn't complete? The thing that was missing were the arrangements, and most were recently included. Sensemayá, for example, is R.46, 64 since it was written twice: once with a chamber group (Flute, clarinet in E ♭, clarinet in B♭, bass clarinet, bassoon, 2 trumpets, trombone, piano, percussion, 2 violins, bass) and once with a large orchestra. Nonetheless, a message wouldn't be a bad idea.

I will go through the list today and fill in any arrangement gaps, and hopefully after today, we can call the list "complete"

Cheers,

Nicholas Lewis

NLewis wrote:I also want to mention my opinion that this should not be a static permanent numbering system yet. There are a few arrangements that need to be added. There is also a possibility of tracking down another piece. I think it could sit a couple weeks while we try to gather more information. Declaiming Sensemaya as R.46 is premature, but the concept remains.

It was this sentence that made me think it was incomplete. My main worry is that numbers will change after people have started quoting them. It's usually better to be sure before publishing. Changes afterward are awkward. Just don't want people thinking it's fixed and permanent if it isn't.

I was going to reply to this when I saw the thread was bumped last night, but another posting with higher priority caught my attention.

I see the “Lewis number” has been applied to the title of the one Revueltas work that IMSLP has, which makes this less of a problem for cataloguers should the numbering change in the light of subsequent research. It’s normal to issue fixed numbers at the end of a research process, not in the middle — and I am well aware of having been guilty of that sin (of premature publication of unfinished research*). In my opinion it would be better not to append these to the IMSLP work titles presently.

Cheers, Philip

* In my own case compiling a numbered list for the British symphonist Havergal Brian, there were three prior worklists (un-numbered) and several reliable biographical texts as well as access to a very large number of written articles that I was able to draw on, in addition to providing fallbacks within the numbering system to admit several new discoveries without abandoning strictly chronological numbering. As a result, with the exception of one problematic area of works, the numbering I assigned has been “stable”. I don’t wish to question the thoroughness of Nick’s work (I’m aware he’s bilingual which would be a distinct help), but there is clearly a lot of research that has been done already and I wonder how much of it has been consulted to excavate references to minor works that may not have been noteworthy to mention in other contexts: the mere existence of these would upset a strictly chronological numbering.

As for my work, it has been officially abandoned (or postponed, at best) for a variety of reasons, the chief one being that I would have had to move to London to conduct the research properly in the depth it demanded as well as a view to doing it efficiently (and while that was a plan back in 2006 or so, it did not eventuate).

The list is now finished:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Sortable_list_of_ ... _Revueltas

And includes all arrangements and compositions by Revueltas. I no longer think it is premature to redirect the work page accordingly. I'm sure Davydov is having an epic Picard face palm moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI&NR=1

at how long this has taken, and probably laughing at the quality of the list. Probably would have taken him an hour ;P


Any criticism at this point?

@PML - It's the R (for Revueltas) number invented by IMSLP, not the "Lewis" number

@NDL: Sure it’s the “Lewis number”. I just said so, didn’t I? Who is this IMSLP person, when xe is at home?

:) P.

P.S. In reply to the original post: SV = Stattkus-Verzeichnis (Monteverdi)

If we can do this, can we please add the Lesure numbers for Debussy, etc.? I don't see any reason not to.
Excellent work, Nick.

Hi Perlnerd! Glad to see you back. I have absolutely no problem with adding the Lesure numbers. Without any objections (there are none) I'll go ahead and do it if you'd like. I was exhausted after the Stravinsky and Reveutlas list, but I'm now up and running

Lesure numbers appear to have been superseded by the CD numbers over at the Debussy website. (They still have the Lesure numbers but they appear to be relegated to supplemental status).

Carolus,

Until your revelation I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the plan to add the L numbers. (On the CD website they appear as bracketed numbers following a slash, unless they are identical to the number in the new system.) Do you know whether this is a revision of Lesure or a completely different catalogue?

Cheers, Philip

I took out the new catalog from the library once. It's in French so I'm not 100% positive, but as far as I could tell, it was done by Lesure himself.

I think we need to use Lesure numbers for the same reason that we're not using Wolff's new numbers for Bach—CD is not mainstream yet.
Eventually, I think Debussy and Bach are going to turn into what we have for C.P.E. Bach—two numbering systems.