Took me some time to answer, sorry for that.
2005/12/12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
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_IIfor 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! :)
We could add a function, for example, in whitch you have a keyboard on the screen, so people able to play a sound, but cannot handle the notation, can enter it into the database. I would like Lilypond to be the standardformat, maybe I wasn't clear about that, but I want more options to edit it. Dfferent interfaces, drag- and drop functions, so people with very little knowledge of music can reproduce a sheet of music, if they have it on paper to the screen etc.For you it might stay easier to edit directly into lilypond, but I think there are a lot of people not able to, and I would love this project to be as open as a wikipedia. Possibly the restriction could be editing the sheets, that could possibly be resptricted to a certain group of users.
And further: The Wikimusic I have in mind is not just sheet. It's also text, plain text (as for the anthems now in wikisource and/or wikipedia) and information *about* the music, so written in XXXX by YYYY, interpreation etc. (information now found in wikipedia sometimes as well. But that belongs as well in this kind of database. But I can think that some information wouldn't fit in WIkipedia, but would be wanted in a Wikimusic.) but also playeble music. So if someone can play piano, (s)he can play it, record it, and upload it. I'd love it to be multiple versions, one with piano, one with violin, maybe in different qualities. That are in my view the keys for a succesfull wikimusic.
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.
Asking to justify will be hard, just as in Wikipedia it is already hard. Asking with every edit for justification will be the neckshot for a starting project. But as there is this newfunction in the software, semiprotection, that might be a good way to semiprotect automatically all sheets, with (maybe) the exemption of the original uploader? Just some policythings to think about.
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 think talkpages will be usefull, because this will not be a imagedatabank. There will be more. There will be four kinds of data in every "entrence", at least (if it's a perfect "article"), and also information about, so discussion will be wanted. If you want justifications, you need talkpages. You can't discuss through summarylines, as some people think... ;-)
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 saw it on some other websites already happening. you could add a Parsons' code in the mediawiki. for more information about that: see the projectpage.
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. :)
great :)
i hope you understand me well: there has to be done a lot of things before such a project can start, because there are needed a lot of additions in the sftware, as i see it. I sincerely hope that the "technicians" will be looking to those points as well, which changes might have to be made, etc. That's an area I can't work on, as I have very little understanding of the complex MediaWiki-software.
Greetings, Effeietsanders