Arranger Lists & General other Arranger stuff

emeraldimp · Post by **emeraldimp** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:52 am

This is kinda related to the namespace discussion, but not exactly, so I'm posting as a new thread.

As I mentioned in another thread, I have a bunch of music that is arranged. How are these to be handled? I would imagine that, currently, I would put that info in the 'editor' field, but 1) that's not strictly accurate, since editing isn't the same as arranging, and 2) there may be a significant number of pieces by a single arranger, and it might be useful to have a list of these.

My original thought was this: arranger categories, similar to but separate from composer categories (hence the namespace thing), but now I'm thinking that maybe it would be best to just use composer categories if we want to track such info.

Thoughts? Am I off on a bizarre tangent?

Post by **Carolus** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:30 am

This brings up the whole issue of how to categorize the numerous piano transcriptions and arrangements made by composer/pianists like Thalberg and Liszt of other composer's works. Shouldn't they appear under the orginal composer category as well? It gets dicey when the arranger in quesiton has basically composed his own piece around themes from another work - in contrast to a straightforward measure-for-measure piano trandscription.

Post by **daphnis** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:58 pm

I guess it depends what kind and type of arrangement has taken place. In general, I would say to list the work under the composer's name but obviously in the score type to list the arrangement type and arranger.
Can you give some specific examples where you might NOT want to list the transcription/arrangement exclusively under the composer's name?
As for the numerous Liszt transcriptions of Beethoven, I would certainly at least list them under the respective work under Beethoven's name, but perhaps as Carolus suggests to have a separate category of transcriptions/arrangements under the arranger's page, but probably only if they are numerous and special circumstances like Liszt.

emeraldimp · Post by **emeraldimp** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:59 pm

Carolus wrote:This brings up the whole issue of how to categorize the numerous piano transcriptions and arrangements made by composer/pianists like Thalberg and Liszt of other composer's works. Shouldn't they appear under the orginal composer category as well? It gets dicey when the arranger in quesiton has basically composed his own piece around themes from another work - in contrast to a straightforward measure-for-measure piano trandscription.

Indeed! I would expect to have the piece itself listed under both composer AND arranger, but, as you say, what to do when the piece is substantially a separate work?

Post by **Peter** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:19 pm

emeraldimp wrote:
Carolus wrote:This brings up the whole issue of how to categorize the numerous piano transcriptions and arrangements made by composer/pianists like Thalberg and Liszt of other composer's works. Shouldn't they appear under the orginal composer category as well? It gets dicey when the arranger in quesiton has basically composed his own piece around themes from another work - in contrast to a straightforward measure-for-measure piano trandscription.
Indeed! I would expect to have the piece itself listed under both composer AND arranger, but, as you say, what to do when the piece is substantially a separate work?

IMHO:
- pure transcription: certainly on original composer's page; like we do now. if transciber is important enough (e.g. Liszt) --> also on transcribers' page.
- paraphrase, variations, etc. --> only on new composer's page as it's a new composition.

Post by **Carolus** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:04 pm

Almost as if on cue, a poster named Vincio has put up Theodore Dubois' organ transcription of the "Wedding March" from Mendelssohn's incidental music to A Midsummer Night's Dream, under the category Dubois. It just seems to me that most folks would be looking for this piece under the composer's name instead of the transcriber's.

emeraldimp · Post by **emeraldimp** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:15 pm

Heh, can I call 'em or what?

True, but I could see a desire to search by arranger as well, for example, if you happened to like a particular arranger's work, or knew the arranger generally arranged for a particular group, but you didn't have a specific piece in mind. A specific example would be Theo. Moses-Tobani or Charles J. Roberts (I've seen them on a lot of theater orchestra music), or Merle J. Isaac (eventually).

Post by **imslp** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:39 am

I would make sure that the work is submitted to the work page of the original composer at least... and if the arranger is notable enough, we can just put a duplicate under the arranger's category

I think duplicate submissions is a great thing if used right. I've also clarified this issue on the score submissions guideline page:

http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Score_submi ... cial_cases

Post by **Funper** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:40 pm

Why should arrangments be submitted on the same page as the original work? Why don't you just link it from the original page?:

*See also Liszt's Piano transcription of Beethoven Symphonies, S.464

It much easier and the pages won't get overcrowded, as with Beethovens Symphony pages. There won't be any concerns with "arranger categories" this way to as they could quite easily be created.

Post by **imslp** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:09 pm

Funper wrote:Why should arrangments be submitted on the same page as the original work? Why don't you just link it from the original page?:

At this point its almost a matter of taste. I'd say that for a set of transcriptions/arrangements this may be fine, but for individual ones I would still definitely put it on the original composer's work page too. Linking in the Misc. Comments section is comparatively weaker than just having the file on the page (people don't notice it as much). I somewhat agree with the work page crowding, but that is usually with sets and not individual transcriptions.