Jump to content

Marcus Stöhr

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Uni in SCOREPEDIA: Guidelines, Suggestions, and Q&A   
    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
  2. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Smeltington in SCOREPEDIA: Guidelines, Suggestions, and Q&A   
    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.
  3. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Marian Schedenig in Jurassic Park 20th Anniversary OST (Digital only release)   
    This is cool news. Or would be, if only they wouldn't ban me from buying it. And not just because of the US only thing, but because I'd have to buy Windows or an Apple computer to access the store. Imagine if Amazon stopped their website and instead required you to install an application on your computer to buy books from them.
    iTunes is evil. Give me a physical CD, or at the very least a DRM free download (preferrably lossless) in a standard web based store.
  4. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Uni in Jurassic Park 20th Anniversary OST (Digital only release)   
    I can't bring myself to complain about what they haven't released, or might not release, or the quality of what they have released, on a day like today. If someone had told you people on Monday you'd be swimming in eleven minutes of unreleased JP music on Wednesday, you'd have pissed yourself with glee.
    I'm thrilled with this—and somehow the fact that they didn't trumpet its imminence for a month ahead of time makes it even better. Think about it: we always hear about upcoming releases these days. We're constantly ticking off the days until we're able to pre-order a new release. How great is it to wake up and find one of our grails, something we've been waiting years to get our hands on, right there in arm's reach? That alone has enhanced this experience. It leaves me that much more grateful to the folks who put this together.
    I think the remastering is instantly apparent, and the sound quality is fantastic. I love the new music . . . and somehow, today, it almost seems like the "old" music has a new feel to it. Maybe that's just because I'm so happy to be getting this. Whatever. I'll enjoy this as it was meant to be enjoyed, as the Maestro clearly intended his audience to enjoy it.
    Thank you, John.
    - Uni
  5. Like
    Marcus Stöhr got a reaction from Once in There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.   
    And, please, don't hesitate to just create a rough and unfinished page. Even with small basic information these pages can lay the foundation for further, more detailed work. It doesn't need to be perfect in the beginning.
  6. Like
    Marcus Stöhr got a reaction from Once in There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.   
    One one hand much stuff has already been done. I just imported a good dozen composer pages from Wikipedia to have a solid basis. And on the other hand I'm too busy to fully focus on the Scorepedia right now when it comes to the technical side of things. But I think we have a solid stand on which we can build up.
    Just browse to the page you want to create. If the page doesn't exist it will tell you how to add the page. You need to be registered and logged in to create pages.
  7. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Uni in SCOREPEDIA: Guidelines, Suggestions, and Q&A   
    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
  8. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Andreas in JWFAN.NET updates to version 3.4.4 / Bug reports   
    My englisch is not the best.
    "Yoda talks" says Stefancos, i think.
    And I am only the technical admin.
    The master is: Ricard
    The second master is: Jason.

    Andreas (Admin)
    PS: Ihr schreibt am besten jetzt alle in Deutsch, dann kann ich auch mitmachen
    (OK das versteht hier gerade eh niemand!)
  9. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to BLUMENKOHL in There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.   
    [Edit] Fuck this is more complicated than I thought it would be.
    My research shows basically this: Unless you are commenting on the album art, it is not fair use. Technically. But fair use itself is very grey area. The fact that there aren't take downs of album covers on wikipedia means it's likely non-issue?
    Son, this was originally started in October of 2012.
    I also proposed we get John Williams to do an interview/answer some JWFan questions, within two years, and the clock is still ticking on that.
    COME ON JASON LEBLANC!
  10. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Jay in There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.   
    I love this whole idea and want to contribute just having a busy week. The first thing I'll do is fully restore the LLL list the way it was intended then I'll copy over Intrada and Varese's lists too.
    This whole idea is really exciting!
  11. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to Uni in There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.   
    Okay . . . having once again come too late to that invaluable life lesson—that it's best just to shaddup until you know what you're talking about—I'm tempted to wiki away most of my previous post. I did, however, say up front that I knew little or nothing about what a wiki was, so I guess that can stand as a disclaimer to everything that followed.
    I've spent the time since then getting a general education on what wiki is, and now I'm in a much better position to offer some discourse and ideas on the subject. So here goes:
    - First off: I love the name. Scorepedia. I'm glad it's available to us.
    - I also love both logos. Surely there's a way we could incorporate them both in different areas on the site. . . ?
    - And I love, love, love the entire concept of "wiki." I've used Wikipedia, of course, but my grasp of its function and structure was waaaay off. I'd assumed that it was a collection of articles and entries that were submitted to a central editorial board, who checked it, proofread it, threw in a few "citations needed" here and there before posting it. If I'd known that it was a wide-open community of information sharing, where anyone could add or edit anything at any time, I probably would've started making contributions myself years ago. (Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time for that now. I'll be busy on another site. . . .)
    - One of the great parts about this particular wiki—and what makes it so great for the community of people who love filmusic—is that "contributing" isn't nearly so involved as I'd led myself to believe. I thought that this was going to require putting together entire pages of information before we could really get the thing going. But that's not the case at all. Making a contribution can be as simple as writing a few sentences, which can either be added to an existing page . . . or it can be a whole new page. In other words, since Scorepedia is a clean slate, with nothing on it so far, starting a handful of entries consisting of only a paragraph or two will represent an exponential increase in its mass. What's more, those minimalistic entries can be the starting point for everyone else. If you start a page on Jerry Goldsmith, for instance, that just gives a quick summation of his career at the top, someone else will step in and add a few lines about his best-known scores, and then someone else will talk a bit about his contentious relationship with Ridley Scott during Alien, then yet another person will post a complete list of his works, and pretty soon someone who considers themselves a Goldsmith expert will post a biography that'll flesh out his early life and career. And so it goes, until the page creates itself from the tidbits of a dozen fans writing about a composer they love.
    (I know I'm only telling you guys everything you already know about this wiki stuff. But this is my first time wrapping my head around it. Be patient with me. Once more, I'm processing aloud.)
    - This is what takes my earlier thoughts about categorization and layout and submissions and especially that bit about an editorial staff, and renders it all garbage. None of that is necessary. Anyone can write anything they want. They don't even really have to worry about polishing it up . . . because those of us who are natural wordsmiths can act as the "editing fairies" (or "trolls," depending on your general regard for editors). We'd read through and do whatever copyediting needs to be done. We wouldn't change the content, of course—unless it's blatantly false, or unless we wanted to add something to it. We would just smooth out the grammatical wrinkles, which would in turn give the site more credibility as a source of information. That would be a significant portion of our contribution.
    - Here's the thing: if each day about 20 people added a new page/entry, and added information to another 3-5 existing pages, in a month we'd all be floored by how fast the thing had grown. At that point—once we have a solid foundation, and agree on the direction and "feel" of the place—we could leak word of it to FSM and the Hornershrine and whoever else might be interested. At that point it would likely explode in size. So much the better. (This is proceeding from the aforementioned assumption that JWFan would be "spearheading" this undertaking.)
    We could continue to use this thread as a think tank for brainstorming ideas for entries, discussing ways to prevent or halt edit wars (which now I have to admit may come up, if people let their opinions dictate what they write), and posting links to our own entries as examples of what kind of thing works and what doesn't.
    I'm getting stoked about this thing now. I'm gonna start putting up some entries, see how it goes. . . .
    - Uni
  12. Like
    Marcus Stöhr reacted to BLUMENKOHL in There needs to be a film score wiki. And JWFan should spearhead it.   
    Here's a logo for you, Marcus. Should fit into the Logo area without having to mess with any CSS.

    Mockup:

×
×
  • Create New...