Portal for performance notes and analysis

[sstrader]

This is a request for suggestions on a community web site that I wish existed. Apologies if this has already been asked and thanks if it already exists and you have a link.

I was recently working on a Chopin Mazurka when I came across a phrase whose fingering initially stumped me. I eventually found something workable for me but was curious about others' solutions. Basically, I missed the days of music classes with practice rooms filled with immediately available opinions and piano teachers on hand for more seasoned direction. Google searches produced nothing.

With an abundance of scores now immediately available on IMSLP, such an online forum is easier to achieve. However, are there other musicians out there who would either want such a forum or want to contribute to it?

The first and simplest option would be to use the discussion pages for each piece here on IMSLP with headings and subheadings to break down the movements, sections, or pages depending on the work. Another option would be to create a separate wiki in order to allow greater structure. This would allow choices such as 1 wiki page/manuscript page, thematic discussions separated from the performances notes, pages on theory, etc.

Am I offering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? What interest is out there? I'm a software engineer who loves interesting side projects if there's a need.

Scott D. Strader
sstrader@mindspring.com
http://www.scottdstrader.com

[imslp]

I would actually very much encourage such discussion on IMSLP. There are currently two routes: the talk page of the piece, and the "Music Related" section of the forums. The problem with talk pages is that they seem to tend to go largely unnoticed, especially given the number of scores on IMSLP. So a more realistic way may be the forums (though I still urge lengthy analysis/papers to be put on the wiki, and maybe with a link to the section from the "misc comments" section of the main page).

Feel free to suggest how I can expand the forums with new sections focusing on music discussion! As the IMSLP goals say, IMSLP aims not just to be a music library, but also a place of music discussion. While the library portion of IMSLP needs as much objectivity as possible, I welcome all sorts of subjectivity in musical discussion

P.S. The idea of separating the talk page into sections is interesting, what I'm not sure right now is if that will generate more traffic to the talk pages. Implementing it will also not be extremely easy, though possible (at least for newly created work pages). Already existing work talk pages will have to be run through a bot.

[sstrader]

I agree that the discussion pages are somewhat hidden from the score, but the forums would probably be even more so. Maybe a new/existing template could be used to direct people from the score to its forum thread.

Although, where the forums allow free-flowing conversation, the discussion pages allow structured addition. In a forum, people continue to add linearly and two comments on the exposition section of a piece might be separated by 50 additional comments (although still searchable). In a discussion page, comments and corrections for a section would be developed side-by-side. Forums provide a hierarchy of forum > thread. Would that translate to Performance Notes > Single Work (with a single thread per work)? A discussion page provides the possibility of greater structure. I had thought about using headings in the discussion page like how they're used in Wikipedia discussions (e.g. double-equal signs surround top-level, triple-equal signs surround the next level, etc.).

Forums would benefit the contributor by allowing people to add freely; discussion pages would benefit the reader by providing a linear map of the work. I'm not sure I'm pushing one approach over the other, just trying to think out the limitations of each.

I agree that the more intimately performance notes are joined with the IMSLP scores, the better. A link from the score's main page to whatever location would tie them together. A template could take the thread ID or a discussion section as a parameter:

“thread=592” becomes a link to
viewtopic.php?t=592

“work=Diabelli_Variations%2C_Op.120_(Beethoven%2C_Ludwig_van)” becomes a link to
http://imslp.org/wiki/Talk:Diabelli_Var ... ance_notes

[scottorr]

I think if we were to use the discussion pages of each score it would be easier and more accessible. For instance, if you were to use a forum as the number of discussions grew it would get more and more difficult to find one that you were looking for, unless someone kept a constantly undating TOC in a sticky topic or something of the like. Of course, this is already a feature that IMSLP has in the score information section at the bottom of each work page, it just needs to be started and continued.

[Leonard Vertighel]

The idea to use the talk pages seems to be attractive, but as it is it appears to just not work. We've had this message on the Main Page for a long time:
IMSLP also encourages the exchange of musical ideas, both in the form of musical works, and in the analysis of existing ones. Therefore, feel free to create/edit a page with your analysis of a particular piece (please use the "Discussion" link on the work page of that particular piece).
Nonetheless, I haven't seen a single analysis posted on an IMSLP talk page so far; if there are any, they can't be many.

So I guess the first question to ask (and to answer) should be: why doesn't it work like that, and how can we make it work? (Sorry for a not very insightful post.)

[imslp]

I think the main problem is that the talk pages are scattered far and wide; I know of a few analysis on talk pages, but they are in the single digits. One idea is just to make a special page that lists non-empty talk pages, perhaps including their size as well (so we get an idea of what they are used for).

[sstrader]

I think the main problem is that the talk pages are scattered far and wide; I know of a few analysis on talk pages, but they are in the single digits. One idea is just to make a special page that lists non-empty talk pages, perhaps including their size as well (so we get an idea of what they are used for).

MediaWiki allows categories in talk pages. One or more categories could be added to the talk pages that contain relevant commentary, and the category page could be used as the index to those talk pages. Two possible categories: "Performance notes" and "Analysis". Although, starting simple may be a better option.

[imslp]

That would of course be ideal... but the problem is that we cannot really count on most IMSLP contributors to know to put category tags (much less correct ones) on the talk pages; humans are just not made for mechanization... standardization of procedure should really be left to the software. One way might be to have a bot that does this (or perhaps an auto-tagger-like thing?), but all the talk pages would be lumped into one category.

One way around this may be to have a page explaining the procedure involved in opening a discussion, with an emphasis on adding category tags, but I would really rather the process be at least partly automated. Perhaps I can write an autotagger-like function, and then leave the detailed cataloging up to IMSLP contributors.

[Yagan Kiely]

I think if we were to use the discussion pages of each score it would be easier and more accessible. For instance, if you were to use a forum as the number of discussions grew it would get more and more difficult to find one that you were looking for, unless someone kept a constantly undating TOC in a sticky topic or something of the like. Of course, this is already a feature that IMSLP has in the score information section at the bottom of each work page, it just needs to be started and continued.

Forums are much more community based and rely strongly on new threads with a few large threads that just stay around. Forums have a much more discussion based design.

Personally I think that a forums is a better place to have discussions because it also enhances the community, and of course the forum (at least to me) appears much more active than the discussion pages.

[sstrader]

Interest appears pretty low and no real consensus/direction has formed. However after reading the comments, I'd like to suggest a possible approach:

Add guidelines in the FAQ. Just as people won't magically understand how to contribute scores and so an entry in the FAQ is beneficial, people won't immediately know where to go to discuss scores.

Discuss scores on their discussion pages. This would parallel Wikipedia's discussion of articles. Wikipedia is a lingua franca well understood by millions, and IMSLP shares the same underlying software and looks similar.

Add a category for tagging discussions. A simple comment in the FAQ and periodic monitoring by admins (again, cf. Wikipedia) can keep this up-to-date. That category could then be linked from the "browse scores" or "other" menus on the front page to spur contributions and facilitate those searching for performance recommendations. The category page itself could also contain guidelines from the FAQ.

I feel that those three items are simple changes that would help create a framework for discussing scores. Using the discussion pages would more closely bind analysis to the scores, and a category would collect all analysis under a single, searchable heading.