Title / imslp.org main page

[clavecin]

I think having two titles is a bad idea. To have 'IMSLP/Petrucci Music Library' on the front page is unwieldy, and potentially confusing for newcomers.

Make it as simple as possible. E.G. Wikipedia isn't called 'International User-Generated Encyclopedia Project', 'IUGEP', or 'Jimmy Wales Factual Library'.

Personally I don't like either the long-winded collection of initials - IMSLP - or the commemoration-title using a person's name who no-one's ever heard of - Petrucci Music Library. Unless someone can come up with a better title for the whole thing, though, I think it's best to use one and lose the other.

I think it would be a lot better if the home page of imslp.org went straight to the page of the wiki rather than the branch to the forums and whatever else - after all that is the main thing, and what most people are looking for.

Above all though I think this website is one of the best things on the internet, on a par with wikipedia, youtube and so on as a great thing we could only have because of the internet - and I'd like to see it as welcoming and easy to use as possible so it can be as strong and successful as possible. Many, many thanks to everyone involved in this website and best wishes for future development.

[perlnerd666]

OK, wow...
1. I think that you don't give Ottaviano Petrucci enough credit. We aren't going to name a music library after someone more well-known who has too many connotations (e.g. Breitkopf) or a composer, which sounds biased towards something. I might agree with the two titles - for the main page, PML is probably enough.
2. While PML should be front and center on the portal (more so, probably, perhaps taking up two slots, and removing that eyesore IMDBP), I think that the portal is an important function, inasmuch as it keeps people reminded of where they can go for help.
Thanks for the input!
Harmonice Musices Odhecaton says that you need to review your Renaissance music printing

[pml]

Personally I don't like either the long-winded collection of initials - IMSLP - or the commemoration-title using a person's name who no-one's ever heard of - Petrucci Music Library.

Unjustified assertion!

I suppose you think the title should be reduced to some lowest common denominator to placate the ignorant?

Regards, PML (and, yes, those do happen to be my initials)

[daphnis]

I actually agree with two of Clavecin's opinions that the double name is confusing and that the front page (http://imslp.org) isn't all that useful, especially since it contains only two things, and the forums are clearly accessible through the left-side panel. However I completely agree with PML. Petrucci is perfectly applicable and is a hugely important name in all music and music publishing.

[Generoso]

I am for keeping the initials IMSLP as the name. As more and more people see and use this site these initials will become more and more known. Every knows what NASA is or what USA stands for. Most poeple know what HTML stands for. This site started with IMSLP and should remain with these letters.
This is just my 2 cents worth.

Generoso
(not my real name)

[tiorbinist]

Hello,

I think it might be worthwhile, now that the argumentation over whether Petrucci deserves commemoration in the name of the library, and whether the logo for the project should be the A from the front of Odhecaton, to review some music history.

Specifically, Harmonice Musices Odhecaton was _not_ the first printed book of music. It may have been the first book of polyphonic music to be printed without separate wood-block inserts. Its claim to fame is definitely that it is the first book of polyphonic music printed using movable type!

This places it besides the Gutenberg Bible in importance. Before the GB and HMO, books of music were either entirely made of woodcuts, or (between GB and HMO) printed with movable type, but with spaces left for wood-cut impressions of the music.

There are other features of the Petrucci prints worthy of praise: multiple impressions with amazing alignment, which allowed staves without breaks in the lines, the beauty of the fonts he used, the quality of the editing, etc. But the main thing that sets HMO apart from the rest of printed music over the centuries is that it was the first printed with movable type.

Likewise, I find statements like "IMSLP Christmas Cards are now available featuring designs from the Harmonice Musices Odhecaton , the earliest-ever printed polyphonic music, published by Petrucci in 1501" (Philidor's Christmas card announcement, Aug 25, 2011) [plenty of polyphonic music was printed before 1501, but not using movable type!] and " ", i.e., the general lack of any mention of the historical importance of HMO on its own page or on the portal (which doesn't even have the A logo by the link to the library!)

Finally, a pet peeve, since I've been championing HMO for decades, is the low-resolution and poor quality of the facsimile that is actually provided. Maybe this is the best that can be done because the few libraries with copies are so uptight over controlling their non-existent publishing rights, but can't someone get close enough to one to make a higher-resolution set of scans?

[cypressdome]

Hi tiorbinist!

After a quick internet search I could only find two institutions with digitized copies of Harmonice Musices Odhecaton available: Museo internazionale e biblioteca della musica di Bologna (whose copy has been on IMSLP since 2009 and the quality/resolution of our copy appears to be the same as being offered on Bologna's website) and the U.S. Library of Congress. If you know of any others please let me know. I have just finished posting the Library of Congress' copy which required downloading 6gb(!) of uncompressed tif files. Each page is a 400dpi color image approximately 3700 by 2800 pixels. I'm guessing this will most likely be the best digital copy of the original work we shall see for quite some time. I have no idea how this copy differs (if it does) from the Bologna copy. Somebody compiled a very nice table at the bottom of the work page showing what was in the original and what is in the Bologna copy. Someone smarter than me will have to update it for the LofC copy. I will probably try to convert the LofC copy to a printable black and white version over the next week.

Enjoy!
Cypressdome

[tiorbinist]

My extremely great thanks, Cypressdome!

I'll search LOC for the tifs and download them (since this is _not_ the version that Broude based their facsimile on, it'll be really interesting to see it in such detail!) I'm currently unemployed, and will be more than glad to make a PDF of printable BW images scaled to fit on letter size paper at 600dpi or 300dpi (to keep the file size manageable), but it might take me longer to do than a week. In the long run, my intent is to make it into PDFs that will print directly to 11x17 paper for fold-and-stitch booklet binding, so that it will sit on a stand. If you post the BW pdf before I get going on it, I'll post my final PDFs when they become ready, anyway, in the hopes that more people will print them and _put_ them on a stand and actually try playing from the original notation 8^)

Again, thanks.

(I would still like to see the many references to Odhecaton as the 'first book of printed music' corrected to at least conform to the Wikipedia article, which acknowledges movable type, triple-impression, etc.)

[icactus]

I agree that the portal is a bit cumbersome as an arrival point. Especially since the Forums and Journal are second and third fiddles to the actual library. Actually, now that there is a search bar at the top of every page we could probably find a good way to modify the Main Page to remove the redundant search box and isntead make some space to link to the Forums and Journal and eliminate the portal step altogether. One less screen between user and functionality.

[imslp]

I agree entirely with Icactus; I think this is a good project for the summer.