There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.

[Uni 306]

I have to draw the line on this one, guys. I refuse to get caught up in anything involving witchcraft.

What? A wiki? Oh . . . sorry. My bad.

I've gotta tell you . . . I've been doing some serious thinking recently about whether to start a project of some kind on the subject of filmusic. What I lacked was a clear vision of format. I didn't really want to build a blog from scratch; that sort of thing takes a different kind of effort, and too much of it goes to trying to attract followers. I don't feel I have the credentials to do a book on the subject (though I was in some serious talks with Michael Matessino ten years ago about doing an authorized biography of John Williams).

But this, on the other hand . . . this is more like it.

I confess I don't know much about the structure, approach, or procedural details incumbent on running a wiki, but I can't imagine it would be that difficult to brush up on the matter. What really appeals to me in this is the very notion of an objective source for filmusic information. There's no end of opinions out there (or in here!). Of course, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include links to reviews, opinion sites, that sort of thing. But I think the frontal elements should consist mostly of:

- Composer information

- Director/film info

- History of a particular score

- The spotting/composing/editing process

- Relevant "source" commentary (meaning quotes from the composer, production team, etc.)

- Critical reception

- Some brief analysis (strictly objective, and from someone who knows the subject) on the musical elements, use of motifs, how it compares to other scores, etc.

- Soundtrack iterations and availability

After all that, there could be some links to other material on the particular reference, including reviews, details on acquisition/purchasing, that sort of thing.

I'd rather call it FMDB (Filmmusic Database) and I already started a very basic version under http://www.fmdb.de - in german though. At the moment the whole thing gets a rewrite but these things take time especially when it's a one man show.

I'm sure people would contribute once someone comes up with and sets up a basic structure.

I think by "basic structure," he means the categorization and layout of the site. It should probably have several headings: Composers, Scores, History, that kind of thing.

If this FMDB is there and ready, we could set up the foundation for what we're talking about. I imagine there are plenty of folks who'd be interested in contributing articles. What I believe would be needed in a big way—and you'll forgive me for letting my own biases in at this point—is a small editorial staff to vet the material, clean it up, tone down any opinion-based thinking that slips through (this is why I wouldn't worry about people flaming up over differences in perspective), and give the whole thing a serious and professional look. I don't know if that kind of thing is even allowed in a wiki format, but it would go a long way in establishing credibility with any potential audience out there. What that structure looks like exactly (submissions? Editorial rules and parameters—a "stylebook" of sorts?) I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to work with whatever people come up with.

I'm thinking aloud through all this, but I guess this is my way of volunteering for duty. I'd be happy to contribute some stuff, but I'd be just as happy working as an editor (not a censor!) behind the scenes.

So then: where does one go to learn the ins and outs of wikiing. . . ?

- Uni

[Brónach 1,301]

- Some brief analysis (strictly objective, and from someone who knows the subject) on the musical elements, use of motifs, how it compares to other scores, etc.

- Soundtrack iterations and availability

-Complete score cue analysis for historically important scores? You know, like some do here, all the cues pointing out the different alternates and what's released and where, plus extra concert versions if they exist?

So then: where does one go to learn the ins and outs of wikiing. . . ?

I think wikipedia itself has some handy guides explaining things.

[Uni 306]

I think cue analysis would be a phenomenal element on a site like this. It'll be a rare thing—I doubt anyone's got it in them to give a cue-by-cue of thousands of scores—but anytime it's available, it should be included. (If he'll let us, we should just copy LeBlanc's excellent analyses over to the site as-is.)

http://soundtrackinfo.com/

Looks like this site is more just straight product information than a real wiki. (And any site that lists the "Top 10 Scores" under each letter of the alphabet, and lists both Step Up movies under "S" but makes no mention of Star Wars, is ripe for losing credibility.)

- Uni

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

I think wikipedia itself has some handy guides explaining things.

And every Mediawiki installation (which is the software that was written for Wikipedia, but is now used for tons of other projects as well) comes with a full guide. Just check the links on the left.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Here's a logo for you, Marcus. Should fit into the Logo area without having to mess with any CSS.

Mockup:

[KK 3,307]

Great logo Blume!

[Faleel 5,340]

Much better than mine!

though it it looks a little wierd how its in a frame, instead of a layer over the background.

[Uni 306]

Okay . . . having once again come too late to that invaluable life lesson—that it's best just to shaddup until you know what you're talking about—I'm tempted to wiki away most of my previous post. I did, however, say up front that I knew little or nothing about what a wiki was, so I guess that can stand as a disclaimer to everything that followed.

I've spent the time since then getting a general education on what wiki is, and now I'm in a much better position to offer some discourse and ideas on the subject. So here goes:

- First off: I love the name. Scorepedia. I'm glad it's available to us.

- I also love both logos. Surely there's a way we could incorporate them both in different areas on the site. . . ?

- And I love, love, love the entire concept of "wiki." I've used Wikipedia, of course, but my grasp of its function and structure was waaaay off. I'd assumed that it was a collection of articles and entries that were submitted to a central editorial board, who checked it, proofread it, threw in a few "citations needed" here and there before posting it. If I'd known that it was a wide-open community of information sharing, where anyone could add or edit anything at any time, I probably would've started making contributions myself years ago. (Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time for that now. I'll be busy on another site. . . .)

- One of the great parts about this particular wiki—and what makes it so great for the community of people who love filmusic—is that "contributing" isn't nearly so involved as I'd led myself to believe. I thought that this was going to require putting together entire pages of information before we could really get the thing going. But that's not the case at all. Making a contribution can be as simple as writing a few sentences, which can either be added to an existing page . . . or it can be a whole new page. In other words, since Scorepedia is a clean slate, with nothing on it so far, starting a handful of entries consisting of only a paragraph or two will represent an exponential increase in its mass. What's more, those minimalistic entries can be the starting point for everyone else. If you start a page on Jerry Goldsmith, for instance, that just gives a quick summation of his career at the top, someone else will step in and add a few lines about his best-known scores, and then someone else will talk a bit about his contentious relationship with Ridley Scott during Alien, then yet another person will post a complete list of his works, and pretty soon someone who considers themselves a Goldsmith expert will post a biography that'll flesh out his early life and career. And so it goes, until the page creates itself from the tidbits of a dozen fans writing about a composer they love.

(I know I'm only telling you guys everything you already know about this wiki stuff. But this is my first time wrapping my head around it. Be patient with me. Once more, I'm processing aloud.)

- This is what takes my earlier thoughts about categorization and layout and submissions and especially that bit about an editorial staff, and renders it all garbage. None of that is necessary. Anyone can write anything they want. They don't even really have to worry about polishing it up . . . because those of us who are natural wordsmiths can act as the "editing fairies" (or "trolls," depending on your general regard for editors). We'd read through and do whatever copyediting needs to be done. We wouldn't change the content, of course—unless it's blatantly false, or unless we wanted to add something to it. We would just smooth out the grammatical wrinkles, which would in turn give the site more credibility as a source of information. That would be a significant portion of our contribution.

- Here's the thing: if each day about 20 people added a new page/entry, and added information to another 3-5 existing pages, in a month we'd all be floored by how fast the thing had grown. At that point—once we have a solid foundation, and agree on the direction and "feel" of the place—we could leak word of it to FSM and the Hornershrine and whoever else might be interested. At that point it would likely explode in size. So much the better. (This is proceeding from the aforementioned assumption that JWFan would be "spearheading" this undertaking.)

We could continue to use this thread as a think tank for brainstorming ideas for entries, discussing ways to prevent or halt edit wars (which now I have to admit may come up, if people let their opinions dictate what they write), and posting links to our own entries as examples of what kind of thing works and what doesn't.

I'm getting stoked about this thing now. I'm gonna start putting up some entries, see how it goes. . . .

- Uni

[Brónach 1,301]

Sugestion: analysis of scores of TV shows are to be treated in an episode by episode basis, as if they were mini-movies. But the whole thing gets stablished as a single "multiple work" in a main page for the score as a whole.

And we should have pages explaining musical concepts, filmmaking/gaming concepts and scoring concepts and how it all ties together. What's a cue? What's tracked music? How do you score a film? What's the function of music in film according to composers and filmmakers? etc etc etc etc

[Uni 306]

Sugestion: analysis of scores of TV shows are to be treated in an episode by episode basis, as if they were mini-movies. But the whole thing gets stablished as a single "multiple work" in a main page for the score as a whole.

That'll depend on the author. Most folks aren't going to want to analyze in detail every single episode of a series just to pick apart how the score in one varies from another. They'll stick to general facts and analysis on the series as a whole. (Of course, if you want to break down 150 episodes of whatever, you'll be more than welcome to do so.)

But I do think television music should be included in the mix.

And we should have pages explaining musical concepts, filmmaking/gaming concepts and scoring concepts and how it all ties together. What's a cue? What's tracked music? How do you score a film? What's the function of music in film according to composers and filmmakers? etc etc etc etc

Yes. Absolutely. There should be pages for terms, equipment, software, anything and everything that goes into the process of scoring a film. It could be hoped that in the future (probably a few years down the road), people who are interested in taking up a career in film scoring could come to the site to gain a glut of knowledge on the subject.

- Uni

[Brónach 1,301]

Sugestion: analysis of scores of TV shows are to be treated in an episode by episode basis, as if they were mini-movies. But the whole thing gets stablished as a single "multiple work" in a main page for the score as a whole.

That'll depend on the author. Most folks aren't going to want to analyze in detail every single episode of a series just to pick apart how the score in one varies from another. They'll stick to general facts and analysis on the series as a whole. (Of course, if you want to break down 150 episodes of whatever, you'll be more than welcome to do so.)

Yeah, but at least we can leave that door open. That way, if someone wants to go into detail about some specific episode scores of their liking they can do so. The good thing is that, done like this, music written for TV could get treated on an equal level with film music, despite the difference in form and structure.

[Uni 306]

Of course. Like I said, it's up to the author, and we should leave all those doors open. But when you say they "are to be treated on an episode-by-episode basis," you're basically making a rule that says that's the only way you can do it—that unless you go into that level of esoteric detail, you're not allowed to post about T.V. scores at all. (In which case, no one would post about T.V. scores at all.)

- Uni

[Brónach 1,301]

I didn't mean to imply that. I just imitate expressions in English in the wrong place sometimes.

[Uni 306]

Understood. No worries!

- Uni

[Marcus Stöhr 34]

If this FMDB is there and ready, we could set up the foundation for what we're talking about. I imagine there are plenty of folks who'd be interested in contributing articles.

The main purpose of FMDB would be similar to Soundtrack Collector: A comprehensive database for available filmmusic releases but with a wider feature set. More on this later as I guess it is too early to talk about that. But I see common points where both projects, Scorepedia and FMDB, can be connected.

What I believe would be needed in a big way—and you'll forgive me for letting my own biases in at this point—is a small editorial staff to vet the material, clean it up, tone down any opinion-based thinking that slips through (this is why I wouldn't worry about people flaming up over differences in perspective), and give the whole thing a serious and professional look. I don't know if that kind of thing is even allowed in a wiki format, but it would go a long way in establishing credibility with any potential audience out there. What that structure looks like exactly (submissions? Editorial rules and parameters—a "stylebook" of sorts?) I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to work with whatever people come up with. I'm thinking aloud through all this, but I guess this is my way of volunteering for duty. I'd be happy to contribute some stuff, but I'd be just as happy working as an editor (not a censor!) behind the scenes. So then: where does one go to learn the ins and outs of wikiing. . . ? - Uni

I'm with you on this. The wiki currently doesn't allow any anonymous changes and this is done on purpose. After setting up the wiki I already had 3 spam registrations. If the project gets enough drive we should select / nominate certain people as staff or whatever it is then called. Basically the way Wikipedia works.

Here's a logo for you, Marcus. Should fit into the Logo area without having to mess with any CSS.

This looks really great. Thanks for that. Is this final? If so, I'd just upload and link it. Maybe we can have a different, unique style in the future.

Okay . . . having once again come too late to that invaluable life lesson—that it's best just to shaddup until you know what you're talking about—I'm tempted to wiki away most of my previous post. I did, however, say up front that I knew little or nothing about what a wiki was, so I guess that can stand as a disclaimer to everything that followed. I've spent the time since then getting a general education on what wiki is, and now I'm in a much better position to offer some discourse and ideas on the subject. So here goes: - First off: I love the name. Scorepedia. I'm glad it's available to us. - I also love both logos. Surely there's a way we could incorporate them both in different areas on the site. . . ? - And I love, love, love the entire concept of "wiki." I've used Wikipedia, of course, but my grasp of its function and structure was waaaay off. I'd assumed that it was a collection of articles and entries that were submitted to a central editorial board, who checked it, proofread it, threw in a few "citations needed" here and there before posting it. If I'd known that it was a wide-open community of information sharing, where anyone could add or edit anything at any time, I probably would've started making contributions myself years ago. (Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time for that now. I'll be busy on another site. . . .) - One of the great parts about this particular wiki—and what makes it so great for the community of people who love filmusic—is that "contributing" isn't nearly so involved as I'd led myself to believe. I thought that this was going to require putting together entire pages of information before we could really get the thing going. But that's not the case at all. Making a contribution can be as simple as writing a few sentences, which can either be added to an existing page . . . or it can be a whole new page. In other words, since Scorepedia is a clean slate, with nothing on it so far, starting a handful of entries consisting of only a paragraph or two will represent an exponential increase in its mass. What's more, those minimalistic entries can be the starting point for everyone else. If you start a page on Jerry Goldsmith, for instance, that just gives a quick summation of his career at the top, someone else will step in and add a few lines about his best-known scores, and then someone else will talk a bit about his contentious relationship with Ridley Scott during Alien, then yet another person will post a complete list of his works, and pretty soon someone who considers themselves a Goldsmith expert will post a biography that'll flesh out his early life and career. And so it goes, until the page creates itself from the tidbits of a dozen fans writing about a composer they love. (I know I'm only telling you guys everything you already know about this wiki stuff. But this is my first time wrapping my head around it. Be patient with me. Once more, I'm processing aloud.) - This is what takes my earlier thoughts about categorization and layout and submissions and especially that bit about an editorial staff, and renders it all garbage. None of that is necessary. Anyone can write anything they want. They don't even really have to worry about polishing it up . . . because those of us who are natural wordsmiths can act as the "editing fairies" (or "trolls," depending on your general regard for editors). We'd read through and do whatever copyediting needs to be done. We wouldn't change the content, of course—unless it's blatantly false, or unless we wanted to add something to it. We would just smooth out the grammatical wrinkles, which would in turn give the site more credibility as a source of information. That would be a significant portion of our contribution. - Here's the thing: if each day about 20 people added a new page/entry, and added information to another 3-5 existing pages, in a month we'd all be floored by how fast the thing had grown. At that point—once we have a solid foundation, and agree on the direction and "feel" of the place—we could leak word of it to FSM and the Hornershrine and whoever else might be interested. At that point it would likely explode in size. So much the better. (This is proceeding from the aforementioned assumption that JWFan would be "spearheading" this undertaking.) We could continue to use this thread as a think tank for brainstorming ideas for entries, discussing ways to prevent or halt edit wars (which now I have to admit may come up, if people let their opinions dictate what they write), and posting links to our own entries as examples of what kind of thing works and what doesn't. I'm getting stoked about this thing now. I'm gonna start putting up some entries, see how it goes. . . . - Uni

Thank you for your insights, Uni. Believe it or not but you are the first person who shares my exact sentiments when it comes to this project. This all started as a small community project on Soundtrack Board with content in german. But my vision was always to have it available in multiple languages as this what made most sense to me.

So after all these - literally - years this vision gets shared. Thanks for that.

[Once 604]

If I had more time on my hands and were better at English, I'd love to be a part of this project. At the moment I am just a curious observer.

[Jay 37,304]

I love this whole idea and want to contribute just having a busy week. The first thing I'll do is fully restore the LLL list the way it was intended then I'll copy over Intrada and Varese's lists too.

This whole idea is really exciting!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Marcus, I'd go ahead and put a logo up for now, so if people happen on the wiki it'll feel a little more complete. I'm sure I'll have refinements or even different ideas as I get more time.

[Uni 306]

What I believe would be needed in a big way—and you'll forgive me for letting my own biases in at this point—is a small editorial staff to vet the material, clean it up, tone down any opinion-based thinking that slips through (this is why I wouldn't worry about people flaming up over differences in perspective), and give the whole thing a serious and professional look. I don't know if that kind of thing is even allowed in a wiki format, but it would go a long way in establishing credibility with any potential audience out there. What that structure looks like exactly (submissions? Editorial rules and parameters—a "stylebook" of sorts?) I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to work with whatever people come up with. I'm thinking aloud through all this, but I guess this is my way of volunteering for duty. I'd be happy to contribute some stuff, but I'd be just as happy working as an editor (not a censor!) behind the scenes. So then: where does one go to learn the ins and outs of wikiing. . . ? - Uni

I'm with you on this. The wiki currently doesn't allow any anonymous changes and this is done on purpose. After setting up the wiki I already had 3 spam registrations. If the project gets enough drive we should select / nominate certain people as staff or whatever it is then called. Basically the way Wikipedia works.

We may want to consider the order of things, just so we don't do anything to dampen that drive. I think we've got a few people here who are excited about the possibilities, and in short order we should have enough folks on board that the spammers won't be so much of a problem—because, in true Wiki tradition, the people who are passionate about seeing this thing work will knock any illegitimate nonsense off the table in a hurry. What I'm afraid might happen if we try to do too much "admin" stuff up front is that, while we wait for the drive to pick up, then go through some sort of selection/nomination process, then lay out the rules, and then finally open up the gates . . . people will have lost interest by that point, and the drive may already be exhausted.

Honestly, I think a few on this board want to start making contributions now. I'd hate to waste any enthusiasm we already have on hand. I actually have part of an article that I'm ready to put up myself. And it was slightly disappointing not being able to. Again, I worry that if too many others experience that kind of obstacle, they'll write the site off and we won't see them again.

I think if you have a couple or three folks who are serious about committing to the vision—doing whatever it takes to ensure things get started on the right foot and head in the right direction—you can allow them editorial access to the site, and they can start fielding submissions. Once we put up a few entries that cover the "range" of what we're looking for (composers, specific scores, industry terminology, other people in the biz, etc.) so people have an example to follow, then we can open it up to anonymous submissions and edits. In the beginning, there will likely be so few items that they'll be easy to track, polish, and monitor for spam.

In the meantime, we can also be working up a specific manual of style and entry parameters, so people can see how to format these subjects properly (remembering, for instance, that movie titles should be italicized, while tracks from the score should be in quotes—as in "Out to Sea" from Jaws). I would say should get a meeting of "editors" together to discuss those parameters . . . except there's really no reason not to do it here, on this thread, is there? We're not going to have any spammers interfering in this place. And it's not like we're talking about Top Secret information.

Thank you for your insights, Uni. Believe it or not but you are the first person who shares my exact sentiments when it comes to this project. This all started as a small community project on Soundtrack Board with content in german. But my vision was always to have it available in multiple languages as this what made most sense to me.

So after all these - literally - years this vision gets shared. Thanks for that.

You're certainly welcome. I'm thrilled to know I'm not taking this in a direction you don't want to see it go. Frankly, I'm also glad I didn't have to wait "years" for this. You have no idea how much of a relief it is to find the initial step of having a website in place already taken care of. That in itself literally shaves a month or two of detail-wrangling off the agenda. All we have to do now is settle a few housekeeping chores and let the thing take off. And I'm giddy with the idea of watching this thing happen, and honored to have a hand in it. Thanks for that.

I think you're going to find the drive is there this time around. I can't say why it missed the mark the first time you tried, but that's not important now. I just find it fascinating that you just had that conversation with LeBlanc, and you guys just loaded up that software again, and then Blumenkohl just decided to toss out the idea of starting a wiki . . . all within a week or so. Amazing. Guess it was all destined to happen this way!

- Uni

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

Legal question: What's the deal with using soundtrack album covers in articles about scores/score albums? Wikipedia does it, Soundtrack Collector does it - can we assume this is fair use? Or could there be copyright problems?

Especially considering that I assume this site is probably hosted on a server in Germany (too lazy to check). Different laws may apply there.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Legal question: What's the deal with using soundtrack album covers in articles about scores/score albums? Wikipedia does it, Soundtrack Collector does it - can we assume this is fair use? Or could there be copyright problems?

Especially considering that I assume this site is probably hosted on a server in Germany (too lazy to check). Different laws may apply there.

[Edit] Fuck this is more complicated than I thought it would be.

My research shows basically this: Unless you are commenting on the album art, it is not fair use. Technically. But fair use itself is very grey area. The fact that there aren't take downs of album covers on wikipedia means it's likely non-issue?

I think you're going to find the drive is there this time around. I can't say why it missed the mark the first time you tried, but that's not important now. I just find it fascinating that you just had that conversation with LeBlanc, and you guys just loaded up that software again, and then Blumenkohl just decided to toss out the idea of starting a wiki . . . all within a week or so. Amazing. Guess it was all destined to happen this way!

- Uni

Son, this was originally started in October of 2012.

I also proposed we get John Williams to do an interview/answer some JWFan questions, within two years, and the clock is still ticking on that.

COME ON JASON LEBLANC!

[Uni 306]

Okay . . . uh, dad. Three month's time, then. Still a pretty small window in the bigger picture.

All right—I took a shot at it. Tried my hand. Gave it a go. I posted my first page on Scorepedia, really just as a test to see how this kind of thing might appear and to try my hand at wiki formatting. It isn't much (laying down a bit of track, nothing more), and nowhere near the full potential of a page like this, but it's a start. You can check it out here: Raiders of the Lost Ark (Score)

This was tougher in some ways than I thought it would be. First off, referencing the title in the lead presents a unique sort of challenge based on the artform we're dealing with here. The score isn't called Raiders of the Lost Ark; the movie is. This is the score to Raiders. So how do you introduce it as such in the first sentence? There are a couple of ways, I suppose:

- "Raiders of the Lost Ark is a film score to a movie of the same title, composed by John Williams." (This is awkward, and again, isn't really the case. The score isn't called ROTLA. The movie is. Also, this kind of approach will get old if we use it for every single score in the database.)

- "Raiders of the Lost Ark is a 1981 movie with a score by John Williams." (This is problematic because it makes the movie the subject of the lead, not the score.)

See what I mean? Trying to name something that has no name in the lead of an article—which requires the name of the subject you're articleing about—makes for an interesting challenge. In the end, I decided to go at it from an "active" point of view:

- "In 1981, John Williams composed the score for Raiders of the Lost Ark. . . ."

I don't know if this is the best option, but I couldn't think of anything better.

I stuck some historical info in, from the bare bones I had on hand. (Hopefully other people will add more to this section.) I also wanted to include some cursory information about the themes and motifs. That section was a bear to write, because it's such a simple thing to drift away from the objective and into opinion and bias. I suppose if you're going to speak about this stuff, you have to describe it somehow. Direct musical terminology would probably be even better for this kind of thing; hopefully some folks will add that in as well.

I want to include details of all the releases of the score, and I'd LOVE to see LeBlanc's complete cue list in there as well, but I can get to that soon enough. (I'd like to do the cue list as a table, but I haven't had time to figure out all the elements of constructing one in wiki editing language.) I also tried to add an image of John conducting the sessions, but the image posting code is giving me the dry gripes too, so I'll have to figure that one out.

However, if nothing else, this provides a fundamental example of how a page like this could be laid out and what it might feature. I'd love to hear more ideas, alternate options, or anything else that comes to mind when you look at this. We had to start somewhere. Might as well be with this. (I just think it looks bitchin' next to that shiny new logo. . . . )

- Uni

[Brónach 1,301]

Raiders is the title of the score, in my opinion.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

This was tougher in some ways than I thought it would be. First off, referencing the title in the lead presents a unique sort of challenge based on the artform we're dealing with here. The score isn't called Raiders of the Lost Ark; the movie is. This is the score to Raiders. So how do you introduce it as such in the first sentence? There are a couple of ways, I suppose:

I don't think we have to be so exact. For Wikipedia, I suppose it makes sense to distinguish between the movie and score title, and to start the article in such a formal way. But Scorepedia has a context - it's about film scores, and a large percentage of its pages will deal with a specific film score. I think it's perfectly ok to refer to the score by its, as extension of the movie's, common title. And I also don't think the formal opening from your first two examples is at all necessary.

We should however have these little info boxes typical for the various standard types of Wikipedia pages. For example, a page about a score should have a box listing at least the title, composer, and year of release, as well as the director of the film it was written for. Optionally also orchestrator, recording engineer etc. Pages or sections about specific CD release should list the label, release year, type of release (regular, limited, etc.), duration...

I've used a couple of wikis, including Mediawiki, but I've never looked into how to do these boxes, or supposedly pages types which then will automatically have them.

Raiders is the title of the score, in my opinion.

Agreed.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,301]

I think the title of the article should simply be the title of the film. If info of the film needs to be given it can be done within the article itself instead of a separate article. The difference between this and wikipedia is that there's a focused theme through the wiki. In Wikipedia you'd have to specify.

[Faleel 5,340]

or: "Raiders of the Lost Ark, is the soundtrack to the film of the same name, Composed by John Williams in 1981".

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Uni 306]

I don't think we have to be so exact. For Wikipedia, I suppose it makes sense to distinguish between the movie and score title, and to start the article in such a formal way. But Scorepedia has a context - it's about film scores, and a large percentage of its pages will deal with a specific film score. I think it's perfectly ok to refer to the score by its, as extension of the movie's, common title. And I also don't think the formal opening from your first two examples is at all necessary.

This makes sense, I suppose. I was thinking we'd need to distinguish between articles about the scores and articles about the films, but really we should need any articles about the movies. This isn't film wiki; it's a music wiki. So we ought to be able to drop the "(Score)" designation from the title, and just refer to the score by the title of the film.

We should however have these little info boxes typical for the various standard types of Wikipedia pages. For example, a page about a score should have a box listing at least the title, composer, and year of release, as well as the director of the film it was written for. Optionally also orchestrator, recording engineer etc. Pages or sections about specific CD release should list the label, release year, type of release (regular, limited, etc.), duration...

Absolutely. This makes perfect sense for this setup—though the information on specific CD releases will probably be included as part of the body of the article (since there are often so many to choose from).

I've used a couple of wikis, including Mediawiki, but I've never looked into how to do these boxes, or supposedly pages types which then will automatically have them.

I'll see what I can find on it (I've crammed quite a Wiki-education into the last 24 hours).

or: "Raiders of the Lost Ark, is the soundtrack to the film of the same name, Composed by John Williams in 1981".

Or maybe "Raiders Of The Lost Ark is the soundtrack to the film of the same name (directed by Steven Spielberg), composed by John Williams (son of Esther Williams (who was born in 1909, when her father David was 50 years old and her mother Ada 46 years old. That's very late, as far the time period is concerned)), in 1981 (the year, NOT the film of the same name)".

THAT'S IT!!! See? I knew people would come up with better stuff!

- Uni

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

We should however have these little info boxes typical for the various standard types of Wikipedia pages. For example, a page about a score should have a box listing at least the title, composer, and year of release, as well as the director of the film it was written for. Optionally also orchestrator, recording engineer etc. Pages or sections about specific CD release should list the label, release year, type of release (regular, limited, etc.), duration...

Absolutely. This makes perfect sense for this setup—though the information on specific CD releases will probably be included as part of the body of the article (since there are often so many to choose from).

Certainly. Mediawiki seems to have a feature of having per-section (per-section-type?) side boxes, as some Wikipedia articles about albums or songs show different sideboxes with cover art and release information in separate sections about different releases of the work, all in the same article.

[Marcus Stöhr 34]

Marcus, I'd go ahead and put a logo up for now, so if people happen on the wiki it'll feel a little more complete. I'm sure I'll have refinements or even different ideas as I get more time.

Looks great.

What I believe would be needed in a big way—and you'll forgive me for letting my own biases in at this point—is a small editorial staff to vet the material, clean it up, tone down any opinion-based thinking that slips through (this is why I wouldn't worry about people flaming up over differences in perspective), and give the whole thing a serious and professional look. I don't know if that kind of thing is even allowed in a wiki format, but it would go a long way in establishing credibility with any potential audience out there. What that structure looks like exactly (submissions? Editorial rules and parameters—a "stylebook" of sorts?) I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to work with whatever people come up with. I'm thinking aloud through all this, but I guess this is my way of volunteering for duty. I'd be happy to contribute some stuff, but I'd be just as happy working as an editor (not a censor!) behind the scenes. So then: where does one go to learn the ins and outs of wikiing. . . ? - Uni

I'm with you on this. The wiki currently doesn't allow any anonymous changes and this is done on purpose. After setting up the wiki I already had 3 spam registrations. If the project gets enough drive we should select / nominate certain people as staff or whatever it is then called. Basically the way Wikipedia works.

We may want to consider the order of things, just so we don't do anything to dampen that drive. I think we've got a few people here who are excited about the possibilities, and in short order we should have enough folks on board that the spammers won't be so much of a problem—because, in true Wiki tradition, the people who are passionate about seeing this thing work will knock any illegitimate nonsense off the table in a hurry. What I'm afraid might happen if we try to do too much "admin" stuff up front is that, while we wait for the drive to pick up, then go through some sort of selection/nomination process, then lay out the rules, and then finally open up the gates . . . people will have lost interest by that point, and the drive may already be exhausted.

I'd suggest we just see how everything is going (let people contribute, add, change) and after some time we see who is active. This way the drive won't get lost as people are not hampered contributing.

They can already start and contribute. There is nothing that prevents this.

In the meantime, we can also be working up a specific manual of style and entry parameters, so people can see how to format these subjects properly (remembering, for instance, that movie titles should be italicized, while tracks from the score should be in quotes—as in "Out to Sea" from Jaws). I would say should get a meeting of "editors" together to discuss those parameters . . . except there's really no reason not to do it here, on this thread, is there? We're not going to have any spammers interfering in this place. And it's not like we're talking about Top Secret information.

Either the thread or, the more logical choice, the wiki itself would be a good place for a discussion like that. We should take a look at how Wikipedia is doing these kind of things. There is lots to learn from them.

Thank you for your insights, Uni. Believe it or not but you are the first person who shares my exact sentiments when it comes to this project. This all started as a small community project on Soundtrack Board with content in german. But my vision was always to have it available in multiple languages as this what made most sense to me.

So after all these - literally - years this vision gets shared. Thanks for that.

You're certainly welcome. I'm thrilled to know I'm not taking this in a direction you don't want to see it go. Frankly, I'm also glad I didn't have to wait "years" for this. You have no idea how much of a relief it is to find the initial step of having a website in place already taken care of. That in itself literally shaves a month or two of detail-wrangling off the agenda. All we have to do now is settle a few housekeeping chores and let the thing take off. And I'm giddy with the idea of watching this thing happen, and honored to have a hand in it. Thanks for that.

I think you're going to find the drive is there this time around. I can't say why it missed the mark the first time you tried, but that's not important now. I just find it fascinating that you just had that conversation with LeBlanc, and you guys just loaded up that software again, and then Blumenkohl just decided to toss out the idea of starting a wiki . . . all within a week or so. Amazing. Guess it was all destined to happen this way!

I just crawled the FSM-Forum where I initially talked about the Scorepedia (beside my very own forum of course) and it started in 2008. I never thought it was that long ago but maybe it wasn't the right time back then.

The conversation with Jason was a shot in the dark because I didn't knew how he would respond.

Legal question: What's the deal with using soundtrack album covers in articles about scores/score albums? Wikipedia does it, Soundtrack Collector does it - can we assume this is fair use? Or could there be copyright problems?

Especially considering that I assume this site is probably hosted on a server in Germany (too lazy to check). Different laws may apply there.

It's a bit different: I'm located in Germany, so the domain itself is registered on me. The server is located in France but this doesn't matter as I'm responsible for the content in some way or another.

Legal question: What's the deal with using soundtrack album covers in articles about scores/score albums? Wikipedia does it, Soundtrack Collector does it - can we assume this is fair use? Or could there be copyright problems?

Especially considering that I assume this site is probably hosted on a server in Germany (too lazy to check). Different laws may apply there.

[Edit] Fuck this is more complicated than I thought it would be.

My research shows basically this: Unless you are commenting on the album art, it is not fair use. Technically. But fair use itself is very grey area. The fact that there aren't take downs of album covers on wikipedia means it's likely non-issue?

That brings me to another question: Do we really want articles for a wide range of releases? Is a wiki the right place for that? In my definition this is more suited for FMDB and the likes.

[Marcus Stöhr 34]

I just fixed the issue with the not displayed thumbnails on http://en.scorepedia.org/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark_(Score) - should be all good now. Although it's a strange issue I must investigate further.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

That brings me to another question: Do we really want articles for a wide range of releases? Is a wiki the right place for that? In my definition this is more suited for FMDB and the likes.

I'd imagine a "pedia" like this to be as comprehensive as possible. Ideally it should be *both* a wiki and a database, in one structure, but I don't think such a system exists. Either FMDB supports full encyclopedia pages, and can thus replace the wiki, or the wiki should have information about individual releases.

[Marcus Stöhr 34]

That brings me to another question: Do we really want articles for a wide range of releases? Is a wiki the right place for that? In my definition this is more suited for FMDB and the likes.

I'd imagine a "pedia" like this to be as comprehensive as possible. Ideally it should be *both* a wiki and a database, in one structure, but I don't think such a system exists. Either FMDB supports full encyclopedia pages, and can thus replace the wiki, or the wiki should have information about individual releases.

As Mediawiki has a decent API I'd suggest connecting both: All release related information are stored in FMDB which can embed information from Scorepedia. In full or partial has to be determined. A page like http://www.fmdb.de/person/john-williams-8.html could list all releases FMDB has and fetches it's information about the bio of John Williams directly from Scorepedia incl. a link for more information. On the other hand could all release related information be available via an API and be listed in Scorepedia. This would make complete lists like the one in en.scorepedia.org/wiki/La-La_Land_Records also irrelevant.

[Uni 306]

Oh, and we also have the ability to import pages from Wikipedia. I did that with the La-La Land Records article and it worked very well. It did need some afterwork though but that was better than writing anything from scratch.

Does this mean we're able—or allowed—to import pages from Wikipedia? Will any edits we make be limited to the local page? (In other words, changing an imported page on Scorepedia won't do anything on Wikipedia, right?)

This would save a considerable amount of time and effort. Rather than constructing entire encyclopedic pages from scratch, we could import information (particularly about composers) and add or change things to make it more appropriate to this site. It would provide a wider base as a foundation to build on.

As Mediawiki has a decent API I'd suggest connecting both: All release related information are stored in FMDB which can embed information from

Scorepedia. In full or partial has to be determined. A page like http://www.fmdb.de/person/john-williams-8.html could list all releases FMDB has and fetches it's information about the bio of John Williams directly from Scorepedia incl. a link for more information. On the other hand could all release related information be available via an API and be listed in Scorepedia. This would make complete lists like the one in en.scorepedia.org/wiki/La-La_Land_Records also irrelevant.

I think the latter option would be best. It would be good to have all track information available for each release of any given score, but having to retype all that information—if it's there and useable already—seems like a waste of time.

On the other hand, I think we should have complete cue lists displayed (when available) as part of the article. I don't mean track listings; I mean the cues from the recording sessions themselves. That's the most relevant list when it comes to classifying and describing any score.

- Uni

[Marcus Stöhr 34]

Oh, and we also have the ability to import pages from Wikipedia. I did that with the La-La Land Records article and it worked very well. It did need some afterwork though but that was better than writing anything from scratch.

Does this mean we're ableor allowedto import pages from Wikipedia? Will any edits we make be limited to the local page? (In other words, changing an imported page on Scorepedia won't do anything on Wikipedia, right?)

This would save a considerable amount of time and effort. Rather than constructing entire encyclopedic pages from scratch, we could import information (particularly about composers) and add or change things to make it more appropriate to this site. It would provide a wider base as a foundation to build on.

Yes, as Wikipedia and Scorepedia use the same Creative Commons License and this allows us to import anything from Wikipedia we wish to. Any edit we do is limited to Scorepedia only. If you (and everyone else) wishes to use this feature please approach me with a list of pages to be imported as this is something I need to do directly on the server. The process itself is really resource intense causing the browser to stop the import.

As Mediawiki has a decent API I'd suggest connecting both: All release related information are stored in FMDB which can embed information from

Scorepedia. In full or partial has to be determined. A page like http://www.fmdb.de/person/john-williams-8.html could list all releases FMDB has and fetches it's information about the bio of John Williams directly from Scorepedia incl. a link for more information. On the other hand could all release related information be available via an API and be listed in Scorepedia. This would make complete lists like the one in en.scorepedia.org/wiki/La-La_Land_Records also irrelevant.

I think the latter option would be best. It would be good to have all track information available for each release of any given score, but having to retype all that informationif it's there and useable alreadyseems like a waste of time.

Well this is really a long term feature but it's definitely on the roadmap.

On the other hand, I think we should have complete cue lists displayed (when available) as part of the article. I don't mean track listings; I mean the cues from the recording sessions themselves. That's the most relevant list when it comes to classifying and describing any score.

I like that a lot. Wasn't there a thread here somewhere listing all cues from a session? Can't find it anywhere.

[Uni 306]

Yes, as Wikipedia and Scorepedia use the same Creative Commons License and this allows us to import anything from Wikipedia we wish to. Any edit we do is limited to Scorepedia only. If you (and everyone else) wishes to use this feature please approach me with a list of pages to be imported as this is something I need to do directly on the server. The process itself is really resource intense causing the browser to stop the import.

Wikipedia doesn't have many pages on film score terminology (that I've seen), and those look pretty short—something that would be easier to recreate manually. It doesn't feature much in the way of articles on individual scores, either, so we'd be making those ourselves. It's the articles for the composers that we'd want to be the most extensive on Scorepedia, and those are the ones most fully represented on Wikipedia. So I think those are the ones we'd be looking for . . . the John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, James Horner pages and so on.

I can see about putting together a list of the major ones, who'll have the longest articles. The lesser-known guys will have pages short enough that we can reconstruct them ourselves. I don't want to stress you or the servers any more than necessary.

I like that a lot. Wasn't there a thread here somewhere listing all cues from a session? Can't find it anywhere.

Jason LeBlanc's done several complete cue lists on JWFan (for Hook, HP & The Chamber of Azkaban, etc.). I imagine he'd be open to letting us transfer them directly into the articles for the appropriate scores.

- Uni

[Once 604]

So is nobody interested in doing this, or is everybody just too busy?

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

Partly busy, partly lazy, partly forgot about it. I think it's important to keep this thread visible, so whoever might contribute to the project is aware of it.

Myself, I'm still wondering what to contribute. In-depth articles aren't really my thing anymore (it must be years since I've last posted something here that was longer than a few lines), but perhaps some more database-type stuff like info pages about specific scores/releases etc.

[Once 604]

Any contribution would be useful. It can always be expanded by others!

[Smeltington 1,436]

I'm certainly very interested in contributing - it just may take some time for those of us who haven't edited a wiki before to get up to speed. Personally I see it as a great way to collect the kind of information that is mainly only available in scattered posts and threads around this forum. It would be fantastic to have a guide for the layperson that is score-oriented, rather than release-oriented, detailing each score as written/recorded and explaining in detail what releases contain which material. Similar to Jason's extremely helpful cue lists and writeups, but with the potential to be updated by anyone who has further information to contribute.

First things first, I've got to figure out how to add a page...

[Uni 306]

Actually, there's been quite a bit of work going on behind the scenes (laying foundation, mostly). We're trying to get things to a point where people who've never taken part in a wiki can be made to feel comfortable with the process. There are also a few tools that need to be opened up on the page, stuff that'll help us help others know what to do.

For now, the door's still wide open. If folks want to start contributing, they can. Don't let detail or length discourage you; at this point, a few sentences in a new article page will significantly increase what's available at the site now.

I'm certainly very interested in contributing - it just may take some time for those of us who haven't edited a wiki before to get up to speed. Personally I see it as a great way to collect the kind of information that is mainly only available in scattered posts and threads around this forum. It would be fantastic to have a guide for the layperson that is score-oriented, rather than release-oriented, detailing each score as written/recorded and explaining in detail what releases contain which material. Similar to Jason's extremely helpful cue lists and writeups, but with the potential to be updated by anyone who has further information to contribute.

First things first, I've got to figure out how to add a page...

This is a good way to look at it. The emphasis and angle should be on the scores, and not so much on the various releases (though there's obviously a place for that type of thing as well).

Take some time—no more than 30 minutes, really—and go through the tutorial on Wikipedia to learn how to add new pages and edit existing ones. It's not nearly as hard or intimidating as it seems.

We may have some of those guidelines for you soon . . . if LeBlanc will check his PMs, perhaps. . . ?

- Uni

[Jay 37,304]

I've just been too busy. I'm definitely interested in helping out

[Smeltington 1,436]

Actually, there's been quite a bit of work going on behind the scenes (laying foundation, mostly). We're trying to get things to a point where people who've never taken part in a wiki can be made to feel comfortable with the process. There are also a few tools that need to be opened up on the page, stuff that'll help us help others know what to do.

For now, the door's still wide open. If folks want to start contributing, they can. Don't let detail or length discourage you; at this point, a few sentences in a new article page will significantly increase what's available at the site now.

I'm certainly very interested in contributing - it just may take some time for those of us who haven't edited a wiki before to get up to speed. Personally I see it as a great way to collect the kind of information that is mainly only available in scattered posts and threads around this forum. It would be fantastic to have a guide for the layperson that is score-oriented, rather than release-oriented, detailing each score as written/recorded and explaining in detail what releases contain which material. Similar to Jason's extremely helpful cue lists and writeups, but with the potential to be updated by anyone who has further information to contribute.

First things first, I've got to figure out how to add a page...

This is a good way to look at it. The emphasis and angle should be on the scores, and not so much on the various releases (though there's obviously a place for that type of thing as well).

Take some time—no more than 30 minutes, really—and go through the tutorial on Wikipedia to learn how to add new pages and edit existing ones. It's not nearly as hard or intimidating as it seems.

We may have some of those guidelines for you soon . . . if LeBlanc will check his PMs, perhaps. . . ?

- Uni

Ok, nobody move! I'm making a HP:CoS page

[Uni 306]

Okay . . . it's been made official. Check back on the General Discussion page in a few hours. You'll see a new post featuring guidelines and suggestions on how to contribute to Scorepedia.

- Uni

[SF1_freeze 131]

I would also be interested to contribute!

[Uni 306]

The Guidelines thread is up (it's a sticky at the top of the General Discussion page). I'm beginning to wonder if putting it up there was a mistake—some folks tend to skim right past the pinned threads and go straight to the regular stuff. . . .

- Uni

[Marcus Stöhr 34]

So is nobody interested in doing this, or is everybody just too busy?

One one hand much stuff has already been done. I just imported a good dozen composer pages from Wikipedia to have a solid basis. And on the other hand I'm too busy to fully focus on the Scorepedia right now when it comes to the technical side of things. But I think we have a solid stand on which we can build up.

I'm certainly very interested in contributing - it just may take some time for those of us who haven't edited a wiki before to get up to speed. Personally I see it as a great way to collect the kind of information that is mainly only available in scattered posts and threads around this forum. It would be fantastic to have a guide for the layperson that is score-oriented, rather than release-oriented, detailing each score as written/recorded and explaining in detail what releases contain which material. Similar to Jason's extremely helpful cue lists and writeups, but with the potential to be updated by anyone who has further information to contribute.

First things first, I've got to figure out how to add a page...

Just browse to the page you want to create. If the page doesn't exist it will tell you how to add the page. You need to be registered and logged in to create pages.

[Smeltington 1,436]

Thanks Marcus! I'm working on my first page.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I'd be happy to contribute towards the musicological stuff.