On 12/12/05, effeietsanders-list effeietsanders.l@gmail.com wrote:
hi Gregory, thank you for your imput,
No problem. I have also provided comment on the project talk page about copyright.
2005/12/12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Saying Lilypond is hard is like saying wikitext is hard. Lilypond is just one step above ABC and much more expressive, anything else would not be sufficient to produce and maintain a professional quality score.
I'm not convinced.
In short: I want not only "proffessionals" to add their information, but also people with little knowledge of music. This is very hard with Lilypond. Please take a look into http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/talk:Wikimusic_II for further discussion we already had.
Can you make an example for me of the sort of valuable addition which would be performed by someone who could not handle lilypond?
I haven't used lilypond in many many months, and never used it for much but here is the lilypond for mary had a little lamb in C "E D C D E E E D D D E G G E D C D E E E E D D E D C".
I'm not sure how much simpler you can get! :)
Most people qualified to edit such work would be able to visually qualify such changes.. How could you expect to help out if you can't read music? For such a project all changes should be clearly explained. I don't see the problem with regular wiki procedures.
If there come a lot of edits, it'll be hard to determine if a edit is okey or not. I'm not saying it has to be done the way I mentioned, but that we have to think about it.
If we demand that the scores be accurate and true, we can ask people to justify their edits. If we are only asking that they sound good then there isn't a clear model for success in the Wiki world. I've yet to see proof that Wiki's are a scaleable medium for material where there is not a set of fairly easy objective criteria.
There is already a great public domain score site, Mutopia. Tell us why what you propose would be worth anyones time when mutopia already exists?
There are even more small projects on the web, and the few I found, probably not even 10 % of them, don't have the infrastucture I would like to see in a wikimusic-like project. For example, they seem to have no talkpages, they seem to have no recent changes, they seem to have no "real music" files. They don't have possibilities for entering musin in an easy way as well, nor a way to find the music you search, as a non-musician.
True, Mutopia lacks performances... But it is not easy to get people to work on those in any case. They have also worked out much of the complex legal waters.
I don't see how talk pages would be all that useful.. We hardly use them for images....
Would music really see much fluid collaborative editing?
I just hope so much that the music will no longer be limited to a small group of people, that everybody can enjoy it. I hope so much that if I have a tune in my head, and I want to find out whitch one it is, how it is calles, and who composed it, I can easely find it. Through a WikiMusic.
Searching for 'tunes' is a hard subject. It is not at all remotely solved. Nothing you've proposed in Wikimusic will help people find some melody they half remember.
I really recommend you to take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/talk:Wikimusic_II , because some of the things you mentioned are already discussed over there. (As well as some legal issues). If you think there might be some problems, please add them.
I have. :)