• Announcements

    • Jay

      Donate to JWFan, win a CD!   05/30/17

      Hello!

      We are significantly behind on our funds for keeping JWFan alive, and need to collect donations again.
      As an incentive, I am offering a series of free CDS to anyone who donates over a certain amount!   Donate at least $10 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $250 goal:   Tyler Bates - God of War; Ascension (OST, La La Land Records) Danny Elfman - Planet of the Apes (OST, Sony) Danny Elfman - Taking Woodstock (OST, La La Land Records) Christopher Lennertz - Identity Thief (OST, La La Land Records) Christopher Lennertz - Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (OST) Michael Giacchino - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (OST, Varese Sarabande) Dave Holmes & Various - Ocean's 11 (OST, WB Records) Joel McNeely & Various - Hollywood '94 (Varese Sarabande) Joe Kraemer - Jack Reacher (OST, La La Land Records) John Williams - Born on the Fourth of July (OST, MCA Records)   Donate at least $20 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $500 goal:   John Barry - First Love (La La Land) Jerry Goldsmith - The Challenge (La La Land) Jerry Goldsmith - In Harm's Way (2009 Intrada edition) Jerry Goldsmith - The Red Pony (Varese) Alan Silvestri - Dutch (La La Land) Shirley Walker - Willard (La La Land) John Williams - Family Plot (Varese Sarabande) or, any of the above CDs if you prefer   Donate at least $30 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $750 goal:   James Horner - Gorky Park (OOP Kritzerland Edition) James Newton Howard - Outbreak (2CD, Varese Deluxe Edition) Laurence Rosenthal - Clash of the Titans (2CD, Intrada) John Williams - The Fury (2CD, La La Land) John Williams - Jane Eyre (OOP, La La Land) or, any of the above CDs if you prefer   Donate at least $50 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $1,000 goal:   Jerry Fielding - The Wild Bunch (3CD, FSM) Ira Newborn - The Naked Gun trilogy (3CD, La La Land) Shirley Walker and Various - Batman: The Animated Series Volume 3 (4CD, La La Land) or, any of the above CDs if you prefer     All shipping will be paid by me to anywhere in the world!   I will pull names from a hat for each pool, and you get to pick whatever CD set you want if I pull your name!   To be eligible, leave your JWFan username in the comments area of your donation.  If you want to donate but not be in the running for a free CD, mention that in the comment.   Use this link or the link on the mainpage.       Thank you!   Jason, Ricard, and Andreas.
Uni

SCOREPEDIA: Guidelines, Suggestions, and Q&A

89 posts in this topic

As most of you have seen on the other thread regarding this subject, some of us are attempting to take the initiative in building the foundational elements of a new website—a wiki encyclopedia devoted entirely to the subject of film music, called Scorepedia (click to head over there). In a sense, JWFan has the opportunity to become the “sponsor” of the website, the group of people most directly involved in its inception.

A lot of people have expressed interest in helping out, but there hasn’t been much action on the site itself yet. There are probably a couple of reasons for this. First, Scorepedia’s very nearly a blank page at this point. It’s always hard to take the first couple of steps, to chart unexplored territory, to know whether what you’re posting is approved, whether it helps the website, whether it’s too much, not enough, whatever. Second, a lot of people probably have the wrong idea about what a wiki is. (I know I did at first.) They may think the only acceptable submission is a complete, polished, and referenced article.

But that’s not the case at all. A wiki is a community built on shared information—any information that’s made available by any participant at any time. All it takes is someone posting a few lines about a specific score, or a composer, or an industry term, or a technique. Once that page exists, anyone can add their own knowledge, information, or experience to it. In other words, it’s a process
that grows by many small steps, not by a few great, galumphing gobs of information all at once.

So feel free to start small. In the beginning, the more pages we have, the better. New people who come across the site will begin to add more material themselves—if they have some good examples to follow. The key to the website’s success at this stage is for us to take the lead and provide those examples.

This may be your first time working with a wiki, or maybe your first time dealing with one centered around a specific topic like this one. No problem. Here are some basic parameters, ideas, and guidelines you can follow:

  • If you’ve never posted on Wikipedia before, do yourself a favor and take 30 minutes of time to read through the editing and formatting tutorial on Wikipedia. It’s really very simple—much easier than HTML—and it won’t take you long to get a grasp of things.
  • You’ll need to sign up at Scorepedia in order to be able to post, and so others can see and follow the contributions and changes you make. (I would recommend that the folks from JWFan use a screen name there similar to the one they have here, so we can easily spot one another—but that’s entirely up to you.) NOTE: Because of early problems with spambots, there is no open registration at this time. If you want to become a contributor, contact the site's administrator, Marcus Stohr, either on this thread or directly at contact@scorepedia.org.
  • Each time you check in at Scorepedia, click on the “Recent Changes” link in the left column. That’ll show you everything that’s been added or changed since you were last on the site. (In the beginning, that list should be fairly short and easy for everyone to follow.) Look over any newly-posted pages. If you have anything to add . . . do so! Make any necessary changes, edit passages for smoother reading, whatever catches your eye. When it comes to wiki, you don’t need permission, you don’t have to wait your turn, and you certainly don’t need to fret over how much or how little you have. Any input you can offer enhances the entire project—especially in the beginning.
  • Please don’t let potential inexperience as a writer, or perhaps questionable command of the English language, discourage you either. Just make your writing as clear as you can. If there are any mistakes or grammatical errors in what you post, others will take care of them for you. That’s the beauty of a wiki: everyone works together to smooth out the wrinkles.
  • We’re going to be directly importing the Wikipedia pages for the most prominent composers (Williams, Goldsmith, Barry, Horner, Zimmer, and so on) very soon. This should save us loads of time in the long run. So if you’re interested in starting a page about a specific individual in the industry, check Wikipedia first. If they’ve got a sizable page there, chances are it’ll be popping up at Scorepedia soon. (If you have someone in mind who has a Wikipedia page, but hasn’t made an appearance at Scorepedia yet, then post a request in this thread. We’ll make sure it gets transferred.) Once the composer pages do get moved in, we can edit them in any way we please to fit the milieu of our website; it won’t change the article’s appearance on Wikipedia, only on Scorepedia. So if you feel a composer’s ariticle doesn’t make prominent enough mention of your favorite score, then by golly, get in there and make that mention more prominent!
  • Anecdotal information is often the best and most useful, especially for a place like Scorepedia. Posting that a certain score exists is fine; but if you have access to a story about how that score was composed, or recorded, or edited (or rejected!), that makes an article even better. This is the kind of thing that makes and excellent starting point for new articles. (Take a look under the heading "The Score" on the Alien page for several examples of appropriate anecdotes.)
  • Here’s a line of thinking that might prevent some people from contributing right away: a) Important and/or popular scores should be posted before “minor” ones; b) Major scores deserve full treatment (i.e., complete and polished articles) from the start; c) I don’t have time to do a full article on a major score; d) so I’ll just wait for other folks to lay the foundation before I add my two cents.

    But this is not an accurate perspective at all. As an example, check out the article on this “minor” score that’s already been put up. It’s a long way from being finished—there are plenty of anecdotal details to fill in, and I’d like to tie it to an article about John Barry’s score to Raise the Titanic, the other film from ITC Entertainment that sunk the production company but led to career expansion for Barry. I just didn’t have time to finish the whole thing during my first sitting. So what? It doesn’t have to be complete to be posted. And it doesn't have to be a game-changer of a score. This is the time to be planting seeds, not erecting whole forests of prefabricated information. Toss up some articles on a few of your favorite scores. Whittle away at them when you have time. They’ll be there when you come back.
  • Filmusic terminology can be even simpler. If you have a definition for something you can sum up in a sentence or two, get it in there. (Look here for an example.) Others will expand on what you start.
  • This is important: whenever you do start a new article, make sure you interlink any word or reference that would make a good page in itself. All you have to do is type the word or phrase in double brackets [[like this]]. That automatically creates a link to a new page on that subject. Don’t worry—you don’t have to fuss about going over and starting that new page yourself if you don’t want to. The term will appear in the text as a red link, which means a page exists but nothing’s been written on it yet. The idea of the red links is to inspire others who might know something about that subject to go start the article themselves. All they have to do is click on the link and start writing. (Take a look at that page on Clicks again. Follow one of those red links. You'll get the idea.)
  • Use the Talk pages! Every article has a “Discuss” tab at the top. Clicking on it opens the article’s Talk page, which is a place for contributors to chat about changes, ideas, or plans for the article. Many of them will also include a To-Do list at the top, where the article’s initial author (and others) can suggest elements to round out the page. (If you’re curious about how Talk pages work, check out a few on Wikipedia.) This is an especially important step at this point; everyone should be communicating about new pages, material, and templates as we go, so we can establish some continuity as the site evolves.
  • Remember that a wiki is designed to feature facts about specific subjects, not opinions. If we want to argue the merits or drawbacks of John's various works, we can come back here to do it. The information at Scorepedia should be just that: information. Be careful that you don't let your own high (or low) regard for any score or composer color the articles you write.

That’ll do to start with. We’ll add more suggestions and guidelines as the process evolves. (We’re also working on Manual of Style specific to Scorepedia that’ll help people better understand the formatting and parameters for the site.) You can consider this sticky thread a place for questions and queries, ideas, brainstorming, encouragement . . . anything you need to help you get the ball rolling.

Ultimately, though, what Scorepedia needs most right now is freelance contributors, folks willing to take the initiative and forge the first links in the chain. If you’re interested in helping build this project, you don’t have to post a resume and tell us you’re interested. Just go to the site and start posting articles. That’ll let everyone know you’re on board.

I sincerely hope this will become a growing endeavor that JWFan can proudly put its stamp on. Eventually we’ll be opening the door to other internet chat groups and message boards . . . but for now, this one’s ours. Let’s see if we can make it something special.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic that this really happens. I will gladly contribute.

A big thank you to Uni and all people involved for posting these guidelines and for all the effort!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great. I'd love to make some contributions of my own. Thanks Uni!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial observation: neither filmmusic nor filmusic are actual words, and I don't think they are used by any practitioners of the craft or anyone in the industry. I'd suggest changing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to contribute as time and energies allow. This is a great initiative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial observation: neither filmmusic nor filmusic are actual words, and I don't think they are used by any practitioners of the craft or anyone in the industry. I'd suggest changing that.

This is a personal conceit that actually does have some precedent. Critics who wrote film score reviews in mid-20th century periodicals often telescoped the term like that. I always liked it, and so I casually toss it in here and there.

Well . . . here, at least. There—meaning on Scorepedia—it's probably not such a good idea. (Though I have yet to see anyone use it over there.)

* * * * * * * * * * *

Okay, folks. As promised, about a dozen composer's pages have been imported from Wikipedia. As I mentioned in the post above, we're free to tweak these any way we please. So take a look, and have fun. ;)

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have the ability to copy the track list template from Wikipedia? As I'm working on my first page I realized it would be extremely useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which page are you looking at as an example?

I'm pretty sure we can transfer just about any template in from WP. We just need to know what we're looking for. (Alternately, we've discussed just posting a link to a database site.)

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic that this really happens. I will gladly contribute.

And man, did you ever. Absolutely phenomenal job on the Minority Report article! The anecdotal material is superlative. You nailed the formatting and layout on the head. You even took the time to transfer in the headings from the other pages. Very nice work indeed.

I do have one question, and it involves something I might want to put up there in the guidelines: you did reword the external articles you cited, right? I mean, you didn't just cut and paste them as-is? Copyright issues make that kind of thing sticky. (I'm assuming you recast it all. I just want to make it clear to everyone what we can and can't do in cases like this.)

Again, great work on this.

A big thank you to Uni and all people involved for posting these guidelines and for all the effort!

Quite frankly, if you want to thank me for the effort I've put in so far, this is unquestionably the best way to do it. . . !

And on that note: though he hasn't mentioned anything on these threads about it yet, Faleel also did a kick-ass job breaking down the themes in Super 8. (You guys are starting to make me look lazy by comparison!)

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's their track listing template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Track_listing

I was able to create a template on Scorepedia, but simply copying the code from Wikipedia didn't seem to work.

I'm currently working on that. But your basic intend was right: Just copy the template from Wikipedia and you're set. However, in this occasion a bit more work obviously needs to be done. :)

Here's their track listing template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Track_listing

I was able to create a template on Scorepedia, but simply copying the code from Wikipedia didn't seem to work.

I've successfully integrated the template. You can see a use case here: http://en.scorepedia.org/wiki/Super_8#Soundtrack_Releases_and_Cue_Lists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic that this really happens. I will gladly contribute.

And man, did you ever. Absolutely phenomenal job on the Minority Report article! The anecdotal material is superlative. You nailed the formatting and layout on the head. You even took the time to transfer in the headings from the other pages. Very nice work indeed.

I do have one question, and it involves something I might want to put up there in the guidelines: you did reword the external articles you cited, right? I mean, you didn't just cut and paste them as-is? Copyright issues make that kind of thing sticky. (I'm assuming you recast it all. I just want to make it clear to everyone what we can and can't do in cases like this.)

Again, great work on this.

>A big thank you to Uni and all people involved for posting these guidelines and for all the effort!

Quite frankly, if you want to thank me for the effort I've put in so far, this is unquestionably the best way to do it. . . !

And on that note: though he hasn't mentioned anything on these threads about it yet, Faleel also did a kick-ass job breaking down the themes in Super 8. (You guys are starting to make me look lazy by comparison!)

- Uni

Well, i didn't reword the interview and liner notes... but if i have to i will although that would be a pain in the ass. Is it really necessary? We are not writing a scientifical thesis and even then i could copy the text as is as long as the citation is right and it all appears in italic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's their track listing template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Track_listing

I was able to create a template on Scorepedia, but simply copying the code from Wikipedia didn't seem to work.

I'm currently working on that. But your basic intend was right: Just copy the template from Wikipedia and you're set. However, in this occasion a bit more work obviously needs to be done. :)

>Here's their track listing template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Track_listing

I was able to create a template on Scorepedia, but simply copying the code from Wikipedia didn't seem to work.

I've successfully integrated the template. You can see a use case here: http://en.scorepedia.org/wiki/Super_8#Soundtrack_Releases_and_Cue_Lists

Thank you, Marcus! I'm looking forward to giving this a try later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i didn't reword the interview and liner notes... but if i have to i will although that would be a pain in the ass. Is it really necessary? We are not writing a scientifical thesis and even then i could copy the text as is as long as the citation is right and it all appears in italic.

Well, copyright laws for a thesis are just the same as for any other work. As far as interviews go, I assume we can use them based on fair use (and there's no point in re-wording an interview), as long as they're appropriately quoted.

I've been thinking about something else... and I understand that I've been taking the easy way so far, commenting on procedures without actually contributing any content myself (all I've done so far is sign up for an account). But does it really make sense to import entire articles from Wikipedia? Of course, it's nice, easy content, but there might be some issues with it down the road. If something gets corrected at Wikipedia, we'll still have the old version. If someone notices an error here and fix it, exactly the same correction would have to be done at Wikipedia. (I understand that similar problems will occur, to an extent, if we write our own articles, as much of their content will undoubtedly still come from Wikipedia). But also, many of the links in those articles probably won't quite fit into our structure. When composer X write score Y, Wikipedia will mostly talk about X providing the music for film Y (with the corresponding links), whereas on Scorepedia, it'll be about the music anyway, i.e. X writing Y.

Just something that occurred to me, and maybe you completely disagree. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think importing stuff from wikipedia makes perfect sense as long as we 1) Check for mistakes and correct them

2) Keep them up to date but not necessarily the same as wikipedia

3) Have the correct citations

Our version will be different (much more details, informative) than wikipedia but parts of it can stay the same if well written. Don't change good things for the sake of change, that makes no sense except it is necessary because of copyright issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i didn't reword the interview and liner notes... but if i have to i will although that would be a pain in the ass. Is it really necessary? We are not writing a scientifical thesis and even then i could copy the text as is as long as the citation is right and it all appears in italic.

Oh, yes, it's absolutely necessary. We can't just copy text outright from another source and use that for articles on SP. Wikipedia doesn't allow it, and while we may have a little more flexibility when it comes to certain wiki concepts, this isn't one of them. It's a bit of a pain, yes, but that's part and parcel of writing an article in any format: you have to do some writing.

Now, here's the thing: I don't want you to worry about it in this case. This'll make for a good example of how to take an original source (liner notes, periodical material, internet information) and recast it so you convey the same information in essentially your own words. You won't change the wording of the quotes themselves, of course. Only the "narrative" stuff has to change . . . although it can also make a nice effect to take the information from some of their quotes and change it into narrative style for variety and readability.

You can actually see an example of this in the Raiders article, under the heading "The composing process." I got everything from the Laurent Bouzereau interviews, but did a little creative reshaping, using the information from the Williams quotes to tell the story and the Spielberg quote for the final emphasis.

I'm going to do the same with your Minority Report article, just to show you how it works. So you don't have to burden yourself with this particular pain in the ass. ;) Like I said, it'll make for a good way to show the sort of thing we need to do in order to avoid any legal problems in the future.

I've been thinking about something else... and I understand that I've been taking the easy way so far, commenting on procedures without actually contributing any content myself (all I've done so far is sign up for an account). But does it really make sense to import entire articles from Wikipedia? Of course, it's nice, easy content, but there might be some issues with it down the road. If something gets corrected at Wikipedia, we'll still have the old version. If someone notices an error here and fix it, exactly the same correction would have to be done at Wikipedia. (I understand that similar problems will occur, to an extent, if we write our own articles, as much of their content will undoubtedly still come from Wikipedia). But also, many of the links in those articles probably won't quite fit into our structure. When composer X write score Y, Wikipedia will mostly talk about X providing the music for film Y (with the corresponding links), whereas on Scorepedia, it'll be about the music anyway, i.e. X writing Y.

Just something that occurred to me, and maybe you completely disagree. :)

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as a problem. The thing is, we're not responsible for Wikipedia's content. We're going to be doing some resculpting on these articles to reflect the viewpoint of this website. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, while Scorepedia deals specifically with a very narrow and focused subject. Think about it this way: if you wanted to find out about something—let's say an automotive engine—you might look it up in your Encyclopedia Britannica to get the general picture. But if you wanted to know the history of automobiles, or how to rebuild the motor for a Volkswagon Bug, or something along those lines, you'd get your hands on a book or manual devoted entirely to that subject.

Wikipedia is the Britannica in this case. It may have some useful info about these composers, but there's more to be had. Someone looking up one of these composers on Scorepedia is expecting to get more and different information than they would on the general site. The imported articles aren't meant to mirror what appears on WP. They're just foundations to be built on, to save us some time so we don't have to do them from scratch. I expect that if you come back in a few months or a year and compare them on both sites, you'll see they've become quite disparate (and for good reason).

Does that make sense? We should want all of this information to be presented in a manner that's distinct from WP . . . otherwise, we'd do just as well to simply edit and add what we've got to WP and leave it at that.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yes, it's absolutely necessary. We can't just copy text outright from another source and use that for articles on SP. Wikipedia doesn't allow it, and while we may have a little more flexibility when it comes to certain wiki concepts, this isn't one of them. It's a bit of a pain, yes, but that's part and parcel of writing an article in any format: you have to do some writing.

Just for clarification: Wikipedia generally does allow you to reuse their texts if you keep the license:

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.

Scorepedia uses the same license, so copy/paste is fine in both directions, although in both cases the original authors must be credited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i already changed the text. Interview quotes have to stay the same and therefore must not be changed . The same thing is true for personal quotes. Spielbergs quote has to be taken as is, everything else would not reflect his own wording. These two things are essential in my opinion for scorepedia to work.

I agree about all the other points, articles should be reworded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though he hasn't mentioned anything on these threads about it yet, Faleel also did a kick-ass job breaking down the themes in Super 8. (You guys are starting to make me look lazy by comparison!)

- Uni

I can't take credit for that, I used Jason's Analysis for the themes, and just edited a few things here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked over your changes. They're much better, certainly.

But just to be clear: you can recast a quote as a story, using the quote as the source. For the Raiders article, I had two interviews to draw from, one for Williams and one for Spielberg. I used the Williams quote as grist for the "story" preceding Spielberg's quote. But I could just as easily have done it the other way around. I could've quoted Williams word-for-word as he spoke about the difficulty in finding just the right iconic, "inevitable" theme, and then written this to follow it:

Spielberg's only input, after hearing the two themes, was to ask Williams whether he could use both. Williams agreed, using one as the Main Theme and the other as the bridge.

There's nothing inaccurate or dissembling about this. You're not changing anything by extracting the relevant information from a quote to shape your anecdote. Newspapers, magazines, and all other press sources do that in every story they write. That's how they get the information they reveal in their articles. And it's a good way to break up a long quote in a way that provides balance and variety.

Just for clarification: Wikipedia generally does allow you to reuse their texts if you keep the license:

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.

Scorepedia uses the same license, so copy/paste is fine in both directions, although in both cases the original authors must be credited.

Just for further clarification: I wasn't referring to copying pages from WP over to SP (which, as you say, we can do). I was talking about copying text, other than direct quotes, from outside sources directly into an article. That we can't do.

I can't take credit for that, I used Jason's Analysis for the themes, and just edited a few things here and there.

You can take credit for making the effort to do so . . . and you should! Just like you deserve the credit for the rollout of roughly 200 new pages (or so it seems!) in the last few hours. The site's growing exponentially already, and it's mostly because of one person. . . !

EDIT: Forget what I said about the extra templates and interlinks being a problem because of the importing process. Looks like they wind up on SP regardless of the way we get the articles there. So for now I'm spending most of my time deleting all that useless stuff to clean up the articles. We can use some templates (if we import them from WP), but most of them are for options I don't think we really care about at this point.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked over your changes. They're much better, certainly.

But just to be clear: you can recast a quote as a story, using the quote as the source. For the Raiders article, I had two interviews to draw from, one for Williams and one for Spielberg. I used the Williams quote as grist for the "story" preceding Spielberg's quote. But I could just as easily have done it the other way around. I could've quoted Williams word-for-word as he spoke about the difficulty in finding just the right iconic, "inevitable" theme, and then written this to follow it:

Spielberg's only input, after hearing the two themes, was to ask Williams whether he could use both. Williams agreed, using one as the Main Theme and the other as the bridge.

There's nothing inaccurate or dissembling about this. You're not changing anything by extracting the relevant information from a quote to shape your anecdote. Newspapers, magazines, and all other press sources do that in every story they write. That's how they get the information they reveal in their articles. And it's a good way to break up a long quote in a way that provides balance and variety.

I think it's a matter of taste then. I simply prefer to read and use the exact quotes as much as possible because they provide the most detail in itself. But i don't necessarily use all the quotes of an interview. But when i use quotes i want them to be as accurate as possible meaning i use exactly what they said or wrote. It more than often happens that crucial things get changed in newspaper recastings of interviews that destroy the context and meaning of a quote.

Of course i could also reword JW's or Steven Spielberg's quotes but often the way they say things cannot exactly be replicated by rewording it. It is also more credible to have the actual interview quotes in my opinion. And it's no problem as long as the citation of the source is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who wants to, can contribute information from their Analyses posted in the reviews section here.

I just ported my Themes analysis for The Ten Commandments over to Scorepedia myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only just read through this thread and think it's a great idea. I have a couple of suggestions - let me know what you think.

First, I think it would be useful to have a "Style of the Score" section on each entry that discusses general points like

-harmonic style (tonal, atonal, modal, etc.)

- melodic style (intervals emphasized, whether there is a predominance of themes or not)

- instrumentation

- use of diegetic music (occurs in the fictional world of the film, heard by the characters) vs. non-diegetic music (not occurring in the fictional world of the film)

- use of original vs. pre-existing music

These sorts of things - you could have more or less depending on the score. None of these require too much detail, but I think something like this would give people a sense of what the score's about, musically speaking. And it would also be a good summary of the character of the score. It might be a good way to describe how one score differs from the next.

Second, I could add a sentence or two about the musical features of the score's themes that contribute to the theme's emotional character. Just simple things, nothing too theoretical. Things like use of dotted rhythms to suggest a military feel, or rising fifths to suggest a heroic character. That sort of thing. Not too much, but just enough to give an idea of how the composer makes the theme sound like it does.

I would be happy to add what I can - I have had extensive training in composition and music theory, and these kinds of things would not take long to add for a single score at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would, of course, make an outstanding edition to the articles on Scorepedia. Feel perfectly free to add a new heading ("Musical analysis" or something similar) to any page already posted. Alternately, you could start a new article on any score for which you already have this information. Don't feel like you have to fill in the rest of the info under the other headings; just kick it off with a summary sentence and jump straight down to your analysis. As I've said above, someone else will come in behind you and flesh out the rest of the piece.

So knock yourself out! Any ground you break with this kind of thing will be an example to encourage others to do the same.

* * * * * * * * * * *

While we're on the subject of that first sentence of an article's opening summary: we've been experimenting on some of the pages already in place, and we're settling on a sentence type that seems to work pretty well. First off, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic presentation, so the first sentence should be a declarative statement, not a verbal narrative. In other words, it shouldn't open with something like this: "In 1991, Steven Spielberg created his own take on the Peter Pan legend, and once again invited collaborator John Williams to do the score. Thus, Hook was created." That's known as "burying the lede." The score—which is the main subject of the article—should be mentioned first, not last.

Also, this being a site specifically about film music, we don't need to state the obvious and make some kind of delineation between the movie and the score (with an awkward phrase like "for the movie of the same name"). Scores always share their titles with their respective films, so there's no reason to be needlessly redundant.

So the opener should first mention the film, then the composer, then give information about the movie (year, subject, etc.) and its director. This is a good lead to follow: "Minority Report is a John Williams score for the 2002 neo-noir science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg." Basic, straightforward, informative. Go and do thou likewise.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note: The server is currently unavailable due to unknown reasons. The tech-team of the hosting company is aware of the problem and is dealing with the situation. Once the server is back up, I'll inform you.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

And we are back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion for all articles in the Score category: The name of the article shouldn't contain the phrase Score and/or Soundtrack. Unlike the Wikipedia there won't be an article for the film itself as it would make no sense. It looks just strange to have it here or there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I also noticed Wikipedia has fairly extensive articles on the Star Wars scores. I wonder if we might want to import those as a starting point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion for all articles in the Score category: The name of the article shouldn't contain the phrase Score and/or Soundtrack. Unlike the Wikipedia there won't be an article for the film itself as it would make no sense. It looks just strange to have it here or there.

Yup. It is, after all, a wiki about film music, not the movies themselves, so there's no reason to have "Score" in the title. (I've been trying for a while to figure out how to get rid of the one hanging on the end of the Raiders of the Lost Ark page title. Still not sure how to get that done.)

Agreed.

I also noticed Wikipedia has fairly extensive articles on the Star Wars scores. I wonder if we might want to import those as a starting point?

This seems like an excellent idea. No reason not to do it—for these, and for any other particular scores that have a significant page on Wikipedia.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably going to have to just make a new page and redirect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to see that all enthusiasm for the pedia seems to have vanished as fast as it appeared...

Well at least i can say that i have contributed one article. Still, as no one seems to organize and motivate people to actively add stuff i decided to wait till it picks up steam again for my next contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the difficulty of this project is the unavoidable perception (whether it is true or not) that Scorepedia duplicates what is already present on Wikipedia. Perhaps the site's purpose is at present consumed by the soundtrack pages on Wikipedia. Scorepedia's name, look, and editable-by-anyone format may be too similar as is. And we've even talked about importing material from Wikipedia. What we have to ask ourselves is, what does Scorepedia offer that Wikipedia does not? If we can come up with something clearly different, we should focus on that and hopefully interest will again resurface. If not, perhaps we should focus on improving the existing pages on Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I would warn Marcus etc. that we are getting spam accounts, with "porn" links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the difficulty of this project is the unavoidable perception (whether it is true or not) that Scorepedia duplicates what is already present on Wikipedia. Perhaps the site's purpose is at present consumed by the soundtrack pages on Wikipedia. Scorepedia's name, look, and editable-by-anyone format may be too similar as is. And we've even talked about importing material from Wikipedia. What we have to ask ourselves is, what does Scorepedia offer that Wikipedia does not? If we can come up with something clearly different, we should focus on that and hopefully interest will again resurface. If not, perhaps we should focus on improving the existing pages on Wikipedia.

A project like Scorepedia can be much more specific as Wikipedia when it comes to such specialized topics like filmmusic. Obviously this is true for every specialized wiki.

If I see what trouble the La-La Land Records entry on Wikipedia got I see the value in such a project like Scorepedia.

The greatest problem we have is the will and time to participate. In the last months I was unable to devote any time to the project. But this is the vital point. Having enough time and will to support this idea. So the question is: Shall we proceed with the project? Or should Scorepedia ultimately die to have an answer to the question if such a project useful?

Just thought I would warn Marcus etc. that we are getting spam accounts, with "porn" links.

I've taken care of these users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want this to work, I think it could be awesome. That said, it's not something I have the time to do, unfortunately! Which is frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More spam users.

I have purged those accounts and also added email confirmation for each account. If you want to contribute you need to confirm your email. If this doesn't work I'll restrict registration for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Marcus - the big problem for all of us who are excited about Scorepedia is finding time to work on it. Still, I feel strongly that it's exactly what we need here at JWFan and over time, as people get excited about various scores and releases and do new work analyzing them, the usefulness of Scorepedia will become apparent and new content will gradually appear.

I think it's important not to rush the gestation of a project like this. If it takes time to build steam, that's actually better than populating it with tons of content before we have taken the time to thoughtfully establish some early articles and organization as a solid foundation for others to build on. I say we continue to contribute here and there as we are able, and the project will build organically at a measured pace. Once it becomes a good enough resource, at least for certain scores and composers, it will attract more attention from other score enthusiasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big free-lance projects don't start up overnight. Giving up on them ensures that they never will get there.

You need a looong breath to see this to conclusion. If people think it is worthwhile, keep it up! (Y)

Smeltington likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now