• 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

Hi, is this interesting project still active? I don't see a link in Scorepedia to register.

Yes, the project is still active and if you don't mind sending me a private message, I'll be happy to create an account for you.

Hehe, it died.

Nope, it didn't. I can assure you that the project is dead when the wiki got deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project is much needed, but will take time to find its footing. There's no use giving up on it just because the small number of initial contributors haven't had time to expand it much so far. Every little bit helps, and it will only gradually become established as a resource, but once that begins to happen I would expect it to get more exposure and thus a lot more people will begin to add to it.

Once and Marcus Stöhr like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay . . . time to break the silence on this. Like everyone else, the last six months have made it brutally difficult for me to commit extra time to this project. As the creator and "sponsor" of this thread, I carry an extra helping of the guilties over it--but what's done is done.

I'm going to make a real effort to get back to this, and in a better fashion than I did before. Part of the problem was that I burned myself out a bit in attempting to clean up every article that people imported from Wikipedia (by extracting the useless templates and links that were broken in the transfer process). That was ultimately some pretty tedious and unrewarding work. It got me away from what I really enjoy doing, which is writing the articles themselves . . . and when things got busy for me, the thought of spending my free time doing more of that kind of detailed nitpicking just didn't appeal to me enough to come back to it.

But I've thought about it occasionally, and regretted that we didn't get things off to a better start. And there's still nothing preventing that.

A couple of (belated) responses to comments left before:

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?

This was an excellent and necessary point. Ludwig, you were the one who wanted to add a "Style of the Score" section to the articles, a detail that would be too esoteric for Wikipedia's tastes. If you go on too long or indulge in fine-print excesses about a subject they feel only deserves a few paragraphs, the editor types get restless and start slashing prose. Scorepedia is exactly the place where that sort of information can flourish--which is precisely why there should be such a place existing independently of WP.

I think people are interested in seeing this work, and I'm thinking it won't necessarily require the amount of time and will you're talking about, Marcus. Here's the thing: the vast majority of members on this board will think nothing of spending five minutes writing about how Rambo or Total Recall were composed on the Jerry Goldsmith thread, or the importance of Cocoon amongst the early elements of James Horner's repertoire, or whatever. If each of those people were to spend that same five minutes writing the same information over on Scorepedia instead of here, in a few weeks' time things would really start to take off. What we're really asking people to do is take the stuff they're BSing about here and put it to good use there, just a little at a time.

Will they do it? That remains to be seen. Chances are better, though, if a few of us take the lead and set the example.

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.

This was a fantastic way to put it. We don't need to see the place explode overnight to consider it a success. It'll be much more successful in the long run if we take the time and caution to build a strong, solid foundation that'll give folks the right idea about how to approach this thing. The alternative is to rush something into place that's a mile wide and an inch deep, that outsiders will see more as just another fan site than a serious attempt to chronicle an important artistic form in its own right.

So I'm back in again. I'm going to commit to spending a few minutes every day adding something to the site--whether it's a new page or a short paragraph or a bit of editing--or even cleaning up an imported article once in a while, which still needs to be done (though not for hours on end). If a few others will join me in this, we'll see some growth before too long. I remain eminently optimistic.

- Uni

Once likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go get 'em Uni! :)

It's actually a fun stage of the project to work on, where a lot of big scores don't even have their own pages yet. Gives you a lot of freedom to work on the particular scores that interest you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay . . . time to break the silence on this. Like everyone else, the last six months have made it brutally difficult for me to commit extra time to this project. As the creator and "sponsor" of this thread, I carry an extra helping of the guilties over it--but what's done is done.

I'm going to make a real effort to get back to this, and in a better fashion than I did before. Part of the problem was that I burned myself out a bit in attempting to clean up every article that people imported from Wikipedia (by extracting the useless templates and links that were broken in the transfer process). That was ultimately some pretty tedious and unrewarding work. It got me away from what I really enjoy doing, which is writing the articles themselves . . . and when things got busy for me, the thought of spending my free time doing more of that kind of detailed nitpicking just didn't appeal to me enough to come back to it.

But I've thought about it occasionally, and regretted that we didn't get things off to a better start. And there's still nothing preventing that.

A couple of (belated) responses to comments left before:

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?

This was an excellent and necessary point. Ludwig, you were the one who wanted to add a "Style of the Score" section to the articles, a detail that would be too esoteric for Wikipedia's tastes. If you go on too long or indulge in fine-print excesses about a subject they feel only deserves a few paragraphs, the editor types get restless and start slashing prose. Scorepedia is exactly the place where that sort of information can flourish--which is precisely why there should be such a place existing independently of WP.

I see what you mean, Uni. And yes, I agree that in-depth information would be great on Scorepedia and certainly set it apart from Wikipedia's soundtrack pages.

Writings about film music have really only flourished relatively recently, and there's still tons and tons out there that has nothing or next-to-nothing on it (I mean, come on - Star Wars, really?). So I would say that the wonderful kinds of details so many of us love on film music would have a happy home on Scorepedia. Count me in.

Smeltington likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I actually spent yesterday creating my case-in-point: Poltergeist.

It's not quite finished yet, but I've been working it up as a sort of "ultimate example" of what a complete score page can potentially be. For obvious reasons, I used a score for which a wealth of information is available (not all pages will be able to reach this level of detail). I'd really like to see us get some better formatting—tables for the soundtrack releases, cue lists, and that sort of thing, and I'd really like to see the template for the Infoboxes at the top of the page get up and running.

But with the tools we have available so far, this is the kind of thing I think we're aiming for . . . and it's another answer to your original question, Ludwig. Let's say you're a new collector interested in learning more about Goldsmith's score for Poltergeist. If you look the title up on WP, you can find one brief page summarizing all three films at once, and absolutely zero on the score itself. WP is frankly a dry well for this kind of specific information. And I don't know why we should slave ourselves creating pages for them over there when we can expend the same effort building something for a ground up that caters directly to film score lovers like us—and something we can put our own names on and take pride in helping create.

You'll notice that I left a space open on the Poltergeist page for your proposed take, Ludwig ("Style of the score"). I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to fill in that blank with the sort of thing you have in mind, so we have a better idea of what you're suggesting. With that in place, and perhaps a couple of other bells and whistles (such as a complete cue analysis), we might eventually be able to direct new contributors here as an example of how to build a new page for a score.

- Uni

Once likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I actually spent yesterday creating my case-in-point: Poltergeist.

It's not quite finished yet, but I've been working it up as a sort of "ultimate example" of what a complete score page can potentially be. For obvious reasons, I used a score for which a wealth of information is available (not all pages will be able to reach this level of detail). I'd really like to see us get some better formatting—tables for the soundtrack releases, cue lists, and that sort of thing, and I'd really like to see the template for the Infoboxes at the top of the page get up and running.

But with the tools we have available so far, this is the kind of thing I think we're aiming for . . . and it's another answer to your original question, Ludwig. Let's say you're a new collector interested in learning more about Goldsmith's score for Poltergeist. If you look the title up on WP, you can find one brief page summarizing all three films at once, and absolutely zero on the score itself. WP is frankly a dry well for this kind of specific information. And I don't know why we should slave ourselves creating pages for them over there when we can expend the same effort building something for a ground up that caters directly to film score lovers like us—and something we can put our own names on and take pride in helping create.

You'll notice that I left a space open on the Poltergeist page for your proposed take, Ludwig ("Style of the score"). I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to fill in that blank with the sort of thing you have in mind, so we have a better idea of what you're suggesting. With that in place, and perhaps a couple of other bells and whistles (such as a complete cue analysis), we might eventually be able to direct new contributors here as an example of how to build a new page for a score.

- Uni

Congratulations on some very fine work on Poltergeist, Uni. It's a good example of what's possible on the site. Well done.

For style of the score, I don't know this one well enough to fill it in myself, but what I'm suggesting is a brief paragraph or two that gives us a sense of why the score sounds like it does. The section would discuss some details of the score in terms of:

- Harmony - things like whether it's tonal, atonal, or somewhere in between, and if one dominates the score; also perhaps the genre the harmony evokes - for tonal, there's classical, jazz, popular, folk, and perhaps even more specific breakdowns of these (Mozart-like classical, Coltrane-like jazz, etc.); and for atonal, whether it's freely atonal, twelve-tone, aleatoric (chance music), experimental, etc.

- Melody - whether there are full-phrased themes (a la Williams) or short motifs (a la Herrmann), whether the melody is largely on-beat (more of a classical Hollywood trait) or more off-beat (in a more jazz or popular vein), whether there is a melody at all (often not in modernist scores), and perhaps something of the genre of the melody (this is usually tied to genre of the harmony as described above)

- Rhythm - whether it's generally rhythmically active or more relaxed, whether it has a regular or irregular meter or lacks a sense of pulse altogether, whether there are syncopations (off-beat accents) or not (again, this strongly ties into the genre)

- Instrumentation - speaks for itself, but would be good to describe a few unique aspects of the score in this respect

- Timbres - tone colour, meaning the quality of the sound - especially useful for odd uses of instruments or electronically-created ones

- Textures - whether it's usually the full orchestra blasting away, or small groups from the orchestra, or combinations thereof, or something in between

In analyzing style, different scores will call for emphasis on different combinations of these aspects. If I was analyzing a Williams score, for instance, I would focus on harmony, melody, and instrumentation, whereas if I were analyzing a Zimmer score, I would focus more on rhythm, timbre, and texture.

This may seem overwhelming, but not a whole lot has to be said to cover the main points of a score in these respects. Harmony's probably the hardest because it requires some musical training or at least an ability to discern different musical styles like jazz, pop, classical, etc. from the harmony of the music.

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I actually spent yesterday creating my case-in-point: Poltergeist.

It's not quite finished yet, but I've been working it up as a sort of "ultimate example" of what a complete score page can potentially be. For obvious reasons, I used a score for which a wealth of information is available (not all pages will be able to reach this level of detail). I'd really like to see us get some better formatting—tables for the soundtrack releases, cue lists, and that sort of thing, and I'd really like to see the template for the Infoboxes at the top of the page get up and running.

But with the tools we have available so far, this is the kind of thing I think we're aiming for . . . and it's another answer to your original question, Ludwig. Let's say you're a new collector interested in learning more about Goldsmith's score for Poltergeist. If you look the title up on WP, you can find one brief page summarizing all three films at once, and absolutely zero on the score itself. WP is frankly a dry well for this kind of specific information. And I don't know why we should slave ourselves creating pages for them over there when we can expend the same effort building something for a ground up that caters directly to film score lovers like us—and something we can put our own names on and take pride in helping create.

You'll notice that I left a space open on the Poltergeist page for your proposed take, Ludwig ("Style of the score"). I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to fill in that blank with the sort of thing you have in mind, so we have a better idea of what you're suggesting. With that in place, and perhaps a couple of other bells and whistles (such as a complete cue analysis), we might eventually be able to direct new contributors here as an example of how to build a new page for a score.

- Uni

That is one brilliant example! Very well done, Uni, very impressive! :worship:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I actually spent yesterday creating my case-in-point: Poltergeist.

One word: Wow!

Thank you very much for this in-depth article.

I will update the startpage of the wiki to add information about contribution and maybe even add a small showcase for outstanding articles like Poltergeist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing. If we can help people understand what we're looking for, maybe the process will be a little less intimidating.

I'm wondering . . . what if we put some sort of "Template" page in the left-hand menu? Something with all the headings and subheadings already in place, so people can open it up, click "Edit," then copy and paste it onto a new page. The layout will be there and ready to go; all they have to do is fill in the open spaces with whatever information they want to contribute (and the rest will be available for others to expand on).

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A template would be very nice, and help people avoid having to research too much about editing a wiki, which is a daunting first step. Of course, different film scores might require different treatments; for instance, there are some that we wouldn't have cue lists for. Maybe the template should be very thorough, and then users can delete elements that they don't need.

I love how you included details of all the track listings of the various releases for Poltergeist. It's very nice-looking, but I wonder if we should be using the track listing template we imported from Wikipedia. See my Chamber of Secrets page for a basic example. Note that not all the features for track lists are imported thus far, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A template would be very nice, and help people avoid having to research too much about editing a wiki, which is a daunting first step. Of course, different film scores might require different treatments; for instance, there are some that we wouldn't have cue lists for. Maybe the template should be very thorough, and then users can delete elements that they don't need.

That's what I was thinking. Include everything, then delete what isn't needed (or just fill in the empty space with an "Information unavailable" placeholder or something similar).

I love how you included details of all the track listings of the various releases for Poltergeist. It's very nice-looking, but I wonder if we should be using the track listing template we imported from Wikipedia. See my Chamber of Secrets page for a basic example. Note that not all the features for track lists are imported thus far, though.

Absolutely—I would rather we use organizational elements like tables and charts. I missed seeing that we had this template available. I was going to add a bit of info to the cue list itself (the date each piece was recorded, for example), but that should be as easy as adding another "extra_column" preset in the right place.

I'll need a little time to reorganize the info onto this template, but I'll get it done. (Thanks for the reminder!)

UPDATE: Done and done. A bit of a pain, but knowing this template exists going forward I'll have an easier setup ready to go and it'll be much smoother sailing.

- Uni

Once likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay . . . I'm still working on the thematic analysis, and there's some reference stuff that needs to be added, but I figure it's about time for the next article to hit the site--especially since I got to see the movie itself in the theater for the first time ever tonight: Alien.

This one represented a big step forward for me, and hopefully for the site, too. First off, it's even longer than the one I did for Poltergeist, though some of that arises from the fact that Alien had a much more dramatic and interesting backstory to it. But this time it's not just about one page. I took a much more "organic" approach to it, thinking not just about the article itself but about its extensions and references.

It started as a simple desire to streamline the writing. I found myself inserting parenthetical descriptions of the exotic instruments Goldsmith used for the recording; then I realized how much easier, and better for the site, it would be if I just gave each instrument its own page, since it seems appropriate to have that kind of information there as well. So I copied over a few pages from Wikipedia, trimmed them down to a sleeker length, inserted a "Use in film music" heading . . . and suddenly there were a bunch of new pages, and much more efficient central article. (I did the same with a film scoring term or two.)

Then I started mulling over better formatting for the cue listing. I went back to the drawing board and learned table-making from scratch. From there I learned the craft of template-making, and started to experiment not just with the content but the visual appearance as well. Along the way I created new infoboxes for both composers and scores, a nice version of a quote box, and a few other odds and ends. Again, it's all trial-and-error, and wide open to comment and criticism, but I figured it's about time the place started establishing a look and feel that gives it some credibility. Hopefully that'll draw attention to it and inspire others to contribute.

So let me know what you think, and if you have any other ideas or questions.

- Uni

Marcus Stöhr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me know what you think, and if you have any other ideas or questions.

Wow, this is an tremendously detailed article. Thank you very much, Uni.

Uni, would you mind adding some information about registration to the first posting? Anyone who wants to register can contact me through this site or via mail to contact@scorepedia.org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hat is off to you. You did a fantastic job. I especially love the detailed info on all the releases, and the cue list, plus the info on the scoring sessions.

All I can say in the way of constructive criticism is that I think the colors on the cue list could be improved. Also, given your generous use of images in the article, it might be nice to have one of Goldsmith. I assume there must not have been any photos of the scoring sessions available, though, or you probably would have used them.

All in all, a very inspiring entry and a definitive resource for this score :) Great work Uni!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uni, would you mind adding some information about registration to the first posting? Anyone who wants to register can contact me through this site or via mail to contact@scorepedia.org.

This is what I needed! Thanks, Marcus. A couple of people have expressed interest.

Check your PMs when you get a chance. There's an item or two I can't get figured out that I'd like to see us using.

My hat is off to you. You did a fantastic job. I especially love the detailed info on all the releases, and the cue list, plus the info on the scoring sessions.

All I can say in the way of constructive criticism is that I think the colors on the cue list could be improved. Also, given your generous use of images in the article, it might be nice to have one of Goldsmith. I assume there must not have been any photos of the scoring sessions available, though, or you probably would have used them.

Thanks, friend. (I told you it was coming!)

I would love to have found a pic of Jerry during the scoring sessions for this. As far as I can tell, none exist. And I'm not too terribly keen on just sticking in an arbitrary pic of the composer on every score page we do. (Once you really start broadening the pool for guys like Goldsmith and Williams, pretty soon you're gonna run outta pictures to use.) The people who visit this page first and want to know what Jerry looks like can just follow the link to his page.

You say the colors can be "improved." Can you be more specific? I was experimenting with the idea of having each cue list reflect something of the natural color scheme of the film's marketing and imaging. (You can now see a similar example over on the Poltergeist page.) The background was a bit darker before, but I changed it at the last minute. It may not work, but there's no reason not to give it a try and see how it flies.

While we're on that, I'd be curious to know people's impressions of the new infoboxes—not just for the scores (you can see that example on the new page), but also for the composers, which uses a different color scheme. And take a look at the main page while you're at it. I've added a banner that lines up the categories for visitors. I would really like to put in some relevant daily material there as well: a featured article, birthdays of people in the business, maybe even a summary of interesting film score events that happened on "today's date" in history. That'll take some more code research, though. I'm working on it.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed scorepedia is/was back on track, but there are no posts since october. What's the current status? If this keeps going i will also try to contribute a new score entry like my Minority Report article ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should! I hope to make some kind of further contribution in 2014 as well. November/December are crazy every year though. But if you have a new entry in mind, by all means, go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the goal? It doubles the info already in Wikipedia?

I asked something along these lines before in this thread, and Uni had this to say:

This was an excellent and necessary point. Ludwig, you were the one who wanted to add a "Style of the Score" section to the articles, a detail that would be too esoteric for Wikipedia's tastes. If you go on too long or indulge in fine-print excesses about a subject they feel only deserves a few paragraphs, the editor types get restless and start slashing prose. Scorepedia is exactly the place where that sort of information can flourish--which is precisely why there should be such a place existing independently of WP.

After that, I was convinced of Scorepedia's merits, so I'm all for the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that is currently missing in Wikipedia (for John Williams by example) is a detailled article for each work, soundtrack and album/single.

Sorry to tell you that, but I think that creating such articles in a look-a-like Wikipedia site, that nobody knows the existence of, is futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that is currently missing in Wikipedia (for John Williams by example) is a detailled article for each work, soundtrack and album/single.

And that could be provided by Scorepedia. So you then say that...

Sorry to tell you that, but I think that creating such articles in a look-a-like Wikipedia site, that nobody knows the existence of, is futile.

:conf::conf::conf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i updated some entries with our established structure and added pictures (Lost World, Chamber of Secrets, Super 8, Minority Report, ET). Now it is easier to tell what is missing in each entry and you can add stuff without having to think about the subtitle structure.


The thing that is currently missing in Wikipedia (for John Williams by example) is a detailled article for each work, soundtrack and album/single.

Sorry to tell you that, but I think that creating such articles in a look-a-like Wikipedia site, that nobody knows the existence of, is futile.

Did you not read Uni's response which Ludwig quoted for you? Wikipedia wouldn't allow detailled information or more than just information cause they want it as short as possible and in form of a lexikon. Scorepedia is more than a lexikon and may contain more esoteric sections, long articles for unimportant scores, sound files, made up names for themes, critzism, etc...

The wikipedia editors often are a pain in the ass. For example when i tried to add a paragraph about the horrible reception the new german Game of Thrones translation got they wouldn't accept it. They just deleted my stuff and dismissed all my arguments. Wikipedias rules seem to be overly restrictive and conservative.

Once likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to tell you that, but I think that creating such articles in a look-a-like Wikipedia site, that nobody knows the existence of, is futile.

No need to be so defeatist. The project has to start somewhere.

Once likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay . . . I'm still working on the thematic analysis, and there's some reference stuff that needs to be added, but I figure it's about time for the next article to hit the site--especially since I got to see the movie itself in the theater for the first time ever tonight: Alien.

This one represented a big step forward for me, and hopefully for the site, too. First off, it's even longer than the one I did for Poltergeist, though some of that arises from the fact that Alien had a much more dramatic and interesting backstory to it. But this time it's not just about one page. I took a much more "organic" approach to it, thinking not just about the article itself but about its extensions and references.

Again, it's all trial-and-error, and wide open to comment and criticism, but I figured it's about time the place started establishing a look and feel that gives it some credibility. Hopefully that'll draw attention to it and inspire others to contribute.

So let me know what you think, and if you have any other ideas or questions.

- Uni

Well, hats off... great work and nice to see/saw you back on it in september and october. Your excellent Poltergeist and Alien entries really were my motivation to continue and build on the foundations you have set. I only saw it a few days ago, otherwise i would have contributed earlier. I just need others doing stuff too to get in the mood. So if no one else contributes substantially over the next few weeks i may lose interest again...

Now about what i have done over the last few days. I basically took your structure from february and applied it to many other articles. I uploaded covers and created infoboxes in your new design for many entries.

But we should start to agree on an ideal structure which we can apply to all the entries on the wiki.I still used the older one for now cause we don't have the ideal one yet:

But i also saw your updated structure in the Alien entry which i will post here under the spoiler too.

Now my suggestion for an ideal unified structure would look as follows and we could apply that without too much effort just by adding or renaming the certain subtitles in relevant entries.

I would put the Comission and Temp tracking sections under the bigger section "The composing process" to make them optional subsections only if enough informations are available to make them worthwile.

I would suggest renaming the "Recording" section into for example "Recording the score"

The "Post-production changes" section is a great idea considering how often things get changed.

I also suggest two seperate sections called "Structural Analysis" and "Themes and motifs" instead of only the "Structural Analysis section". My reasoning is to give more emphasis to the "Themes and motifs" section which is better visually seperated and visible that way. This is important to make looking for the audio snippets as easy as possible.

I don't know what's the better name for the last section, References or Sources?

In my opinion the biggest highlight of the wiki now are the small audio snippets of the thematic material. Great job adding the audio player template Uni. I always envisioned a perfect wiki where you can easily check out and listen to every thematic idea of a score in a fast and easy way. We can now offer that with the "Themes and motif section" and this may be one of the biggest reasons scorepedia will be successfull in the long run.

It's just such a convenient tool. Let's say you mention a motif and another person doesn't know it. Then you can just link to scorepedia and tell him/her to play the correct audio snippet of the motif. You even have a tracktitle and timestamps if he/she wants to check it out on cd.

The important thing though is the server load and space. Therefore i suggest to create ogg files with the lowest possible resolution of 94 kbs which only need about 200-300 kbs of space. That would mean about 3 Mb for a big score and should be justifiable even on the long run.

I added audio snippets to my Minority Report entry for every important thematic idea present in the score. I also started fleshing out the E.T. entry and posted a few audio snippets.

It would be great if we could agree on an ideal structure now so that we could have templates for every entry to make adding stuff easier without having to think about which sections are still missing.

Once and Jay like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arright . . . I owe everyone an apology (especially you, SF1) for not responding sooner. I had to take one of my periodic hiatuses from both the Scorepedia project and this place. Happens at least once a year these days, and usually for several months at a time. I just have too much going on, and sound prioritization forces me to set some things aside regardless of how much I like taking part in them. I've been working on some other score-related material in the meantime--some of which I'd like to "debut" on JWFan here in the near future.

I can't say that my time-out period is altogether at an end just yet, but I wanted to get in a few posts and some replies to comments made here. Just because I can't be contributing as much or as consistently as I'd like doesn't mean I've abandoned the project. Nor does it mean I think it's doomed to failure . . . unless you're an eternal pessimist, like this guy:

Sorry to tell you that, but I think that creating such articles in a look-a-like Wikipedia site, that nobody knows the existence of, is futile.

Most things worth pursuing reek of futility when they're first starting out. They only fulfill futility when the people involved take on an attitude like this. I think the value of Scorepedia, in comparison to what's provided on Wikipedia for the same material, has already been demonstrated by what's been posted. Wikipedia doesn't have the space to provide the level of detail that will appeal to scorephiles like the articles at Scorepedia can. It's going to take a long time to get a good amount of material up on the site, but something that requires patience does not automatically equate to "futility." (And as I've said before, if we can get a good system in place with easy-to-use templates and helpful guides, we can open up the idea to other film score sites--at which point the contribution level will likely increase exponentially.)

Also, as before, one of the things that pushed me to take a break was my own insistence on putting together some of those helpful guides--i.e., a Manual of Style and some ground-level informational material for new contributors. I think it's necessary for this to work well, but I can also tell you it can be dull work. It certainly isn't as much fun as researching and writing articles. That sorta burned me out (again). Not sure how I'm going to overcome that one, other than just putting my nose to the grindstone for the sake of the end result.

Now my suggestion for an ideal unified structure would look as follows and we could apply that without too much effort just by adding or renaming the certain subtitles in relevant entries.

I would put the Comission and Temp tracking sections under the bigger section "The composing process" to make them optional subsections only if enough informations are available to make them worthwile.

I would suggest renaming the "Recording" section into for example "Recording the score"

The "Post-production changes" section is a great idea considering how often things get changed.

I also suggest two seperate sections called "Structural Analysis" and "Themes and motifs" instead of only the "Structural Analysis section". My reasoning is to give more emphasis to the "Themes and motifs" section which is better visually seperated and visible that way. This is important to make looking for the audio snippets as easy as possible.

I don't know what's the better name for the last section, References or Sources?

These are good ideas, which I agree with . . . almost entirely. My only nitpick would be to disagree about making the "Structural analysis" a heading separate from (but on the same level as) the "Theme and motif" section. Actually, I haven't quite got hold yet of what I'm looking for there. I really think both of these should be subheadings of a larger section, but I haven't yet figured out what to call it. The "Structural analysis" (in scores where the concept applies) would take a closer look at the fundamental layout of the score as one type of approach contrasted to another--i.e., a broad palette of underscoring (such as in Children of a Lesser God, for instance) as opposed to a leitmotif-based work from someone like JW. It would also take a look at some of the basic building blocks of the score (like the analysis of Goldsmith's use of the whole tone and tritone in his score for Alien, something else I plan to add to the article at some point).

We could also have a third subheading in this section for "Instrumentation" in order to point out any unique orchestral or synthetic approaches to the project. Just an idea.

Also, under "The Composing Process" (1.1), I like the idea of making those two points a subheading. But that should render "Commission" as 1.1.1, and "Temp tracking" as 1.1.2, in that order (since that's the order of the process). But you would then need a 1.1.3 that discusses the actual composing work itself. It could just be called "Composition"--my original 1.3. That lays everything out clearly.

I'm not inflexible on any of these thoughts, though. Ultimately I do agree that we should come up with a centralized template common to each score that contributors can use as a general outline for their articles.

In my opinion the biggest highlight of the wiki now are the small audio snippets of the thematic material. Great job adding the audio player template Uni. I always envisioned a perfect wiki where you can easily check out and listen to every thematic idea of a score in a fast and easy way. We can now offer that with the "Themes and motif section" and this may be one of the biggest reasons scorepedia will be successfull in the long run.

It's just such a convenient tool. Let's say you mention a motif and another person doesn't know it. Then you can just link to scorepedia and tell him/her to play the correct audio snippet of the motif. You even have a tracktitle and timestamps if he/she wants to check it out on cd.

The important thing though is the server load and space. Therefore i suggest to create ogg files with the lowest possible resolution of 94 kbs which only need about 200-300 kbs of space. That would mean about 3 Mb for a big score and should be justifiable even on the long run.

Well, I appreciate that. Actually, that came about because of an aborted attempt to post the themes as they appear on the music sheet--a couple of measures, treble clef, notes and/or chords, etc. That's how I wanted to do it, but my stupid and cheap notation program just plain refused to export simple images of that sort. I tied myself in knots trying to figure it out, until it popped into my head almost as an afterthought: "To bad I can't just stick in the short sections of music right out of the score." That got me thinking, and sent me back to Wikipedia (where I've learned all of the how-tos on making things work in a wiki), where I discovered the ogg files inserted in articles. I figured out how to make that work . . . and I'm glad I did, because I think it's far more effective than the musical images would've been, seeing as those would have required a knowledge of how to read music. These are easier to make and much more illustrative of the point.

So let's try to hammer out some of these details, and I'll try to summon the strength to get those foundational articles done. I swear haven't given up on this thing yet. . . .

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see some activity here again. I found some time recently to update the HP:CoS page I had been working on, and I just amassed a large collection of articles mentioning JW to use for reference for all articles going forward. I'm trying to cite as many sources as I can so that those interested in the score know where else to look for research material.

As far as the question of hosting audio clips, is there some kind of streaming service we could use (something like SoundCloud) to avoid hosting the files ourselves? I'm not sure whether short clips like we're talking about would violate any copyrights or not, but if this was possible it would ultimately save us a lot of server space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he's back. He comes and goes now. Y'never know when he'll sneak in. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as the question of hosting audio clips, is there some kind of streaming service we could use (something like SoundCloud) to avoid hosting the files ourselves? I'm not sure whether short clips like we're talking about would violate any copyrights or not, but if this was possible it would ultimately save us a lot of server space.

As i said earlier:

The important thing though is the server load and space. Therefore i suggest to create ogg files with the lowest possible resolution of 94 kbs which only need about 200-300 kbs of space. That would mean about 3 Mb for a big score and should be justifiable even on the long run.

As far as copyright goes i guess it's within fair use and shouldn't cause problems with these 10 second snippets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SF1, it sounds like you're talking about hosting the files on Scorepedia. I was wondering if we could avoid hosting any audio at all by posting to a streaming service instead.

To use a similar example, if you wanted to share a video online, you'd upload it to YouTube, and let them deal with hosting and bandwidth concerns, rather than hosting it on your own site. There may be a good equivalent out there for audio clips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just reading the article on Alien. Can someone confirm the source of these facts:

'The final two cues recorded on the afternoon of February 23 involved the "alien effect" of echoplexing the Indian conch—an effect Scott loved.'

I thought this was a superball mallet rubbed on the soundboard of a piano, as in the Main Title from OUTLAND.

'To lend an appropriately alien atmosphere to the texture of the music, Goldsmith augmented the orchestra with a serpent, a shofar (an instrument he previously used in Planet of the Apes), an Australian didjeridu, steel drums, and a shankha (an Indian conch).'

There is no shofar or ram's horn specified in the written score, though there is a shawm (a medieval double reed). It's possible that it was overdubbed, and if so, I'd like to know the timestamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow—I apologize. I missed seeing your questions before.

The source for nearly all the information in the article was Mike Matessino's notes for the Intrada release, which in turn borrowed heavily from the interviews of Goldsmith, Scott, and Rawlings conducted for the Special Edition DVD release of the film. The Intrada notes mentioned Scott's affection for the "alien effect" (the conch fed through the Echoplex) at least twice. It also listed the exotic instruments Goldsmith used, and—for the most part—mentioned in the track descriptions when and where the instruments were used. I'm afraid I don't have the time just now to look back through the whole thing to find specific timestamps for you. Your best bet would be to pick up the release for yourself, which I can assure you would be well worth the investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Uni. I was wrong. Goldsmith must have been after a similar effect in OUTLAND but through different means.

I think the conch that was used create the effect in Alien was a Pacific conch (C. tritonis) pitched in B (a semitone below middle C) and does pitch bends down a whole tone to A and back up, coupled with an MXR Echoplex.

Also, see:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j8eWAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=Horns+and+Trumpets+of+the+World:+An+Illustrated+Guide++By+Jeremy+Montagu&source=bl&ots=EG379kK1e0&sig=ikIHjGEuNLm8EKk6PJbsa175wbM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vCjSU9_9BJGA7QaC8YHgCw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=goldsmith&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to ask if you were just speculating, or if you had a tangible reason for thinking so. Then I click on the link. Beauty find! I was going to add some new info to that page (I never knew about the Nostromo Enterprises CD), so I'll put that stuff in where it belongs. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, plus the handwritten orchestrated score, which is fairy easy to come by these days.

IIRC, a 'Pacific Conch' is asked for in Drop Out. While in other cues with higher register parts, an 'Indian Conch' is a specified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just added DOS to the wiki.

Let me know what could be added/changed.

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