Talk:Sheet music/Archive 1

Sheet Music Archive
Unfortunately, the longstanding free sheet music bastion sheetmusicarchive, currently listed with "external links," is no longer available. If no one is opposed, I suggest leaving the link but posting a temporary disclaimer that it likely does not work. Any word on the problem? --Entangledphotons 20:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to be working now. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence
"In the case of medieval polyphony, such as the motet, writing space was economized by copying the parts in separate portions of facing pages, thus making possible performance by the fewest number of soloists needed." Huh? I cannot parse the last phrase ("making possible…needed"), and I suspect there is an implied causal step that I am missing. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, something like people standing next to each other, sharing the page while still looking at their own part? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't make any sense about "the fewest number of soloists". Maybe it's something about "the fewest number of copies"? Whatever is meant the sentence as it stands seems incoherent. - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SheetMusicFox
I noticed many of the external links are so useless to expanding upon the sheet music topic. How about adding an external link to a free sheet music library.
 * SheetMusicFox- offers free public dommain sheet music with a powerful search engine

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iotamary (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Literature?
I'm a pretty big literature buff, but was interested in sheet music. This line really threw me off. What does sheet music have to do with literature?

"As with literature, one must be able to read musical notation in order to make use of sheet music."

It's the first sentence of the secong paragraph under Purpose and Use.66.119.27.235 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point being that sheet music has its own form of literacy. I'll see if I can reword more clearly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Flummoxed
Why in the world does "Musical score" redirect here? Sheet music is one very small part of the world of musical scores. (See the New Grove article on "Score"; it's enormous!) Chubbles 05:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

German reader please
Notensatz is directed here but it doesn't seem to be the same as Partitur. Can somebody fix this? ALTON  .ıl  08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam control deleted my post!?
Hello, I don't understand.... I tried to include this: *Music scores of The European Library - browse and search sheet music from all over Europe

But when i did, I received a message from a robot (?) that this wasn't allowed because it is considered????? The European Library....spam??? Maybe someone can help?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.209.165 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RTL lyrics?
How do languages with RTL writing system write the lyrics on the sheet music? --­ (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam
And yet another page seems to be filling up with linkspam. Sure the pages are interesting, useful, and hell I even appreciate em -- but they DO seem to be often self-serving and somewhat against the rules. TIme for a trim, perhaps? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Any time you feel so moved, I'd be happy to see them significantly trimmed. I usually just don't have the energy to investigate all the external links which end up on this page. Mak (talk)  17:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I put a link to Classical Sheet Music Downloads® (www.virtualsheetmusic.com) which, I think, is an important reference to be added in the sheet music article (they are the leading site for pure digital sheet music), and it has been removed. Any idea? Instead I can find listed the Mutopia Project which is not an unique site (like that one there are thousands).
 * I didn't remove the vitualsheetmusic.com link, but I assume it was removed because it is a commercial site, where one has to pay, in this case, to be a member or to access the music without being a member. According to the Wikipedia guidelines: editors are supposed to avoid "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content." Mademoiselle Fifi 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the Chappell of Bond Street link. Innocent newbieness I assure you! I honestly thought it would be a useful resource... *hangs head in shame* Lesson learned about the Wikipedia definition of spam...

DuckyPoos (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kyle's Project
Added a link to my website. Very many different types of sheet music. Continually maintained... about 3,100 (1 gig) of sheet music as of today. Gpit2286 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of links, plus many of them probably are copy vios. So, I reverted it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the plural of sheet music?
"Sheets of music"? "Pieces of sheet music"? "Pieces on sheet music"? Heaven forbid, "sheet musics"? I do not think "sheet music" as a plural works when trying to make comparisons: "I have as many [plural of sheet music] as I have books." Robert K S 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be "I have as much sheet music as I have books". Sheet music is probably a mass noun. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Much" and "books" do not agree. You can't say "I have much books."  Just as you can't say "I have as much orange juice as I have apples."  I need some way to, as it were, compare apples to apples.  If you're wondering, this is for a translation from the French, where the word is partitions. Robert K S 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest asking here then? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You could try "music scores." It suffers from less of the "honey" "money" mass-noun factor -- good one Melodia :). "I have as many music scores as I have books." Problem solved. User:pianomanusa —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

SheetMusicArchive
I'd like to see if we can get consensus on linking to SheetMusicArchive, instead of just edit warring over the link. I feel we shouldn't link to it, as Wikipedia is NOT a list of links, they're a commercial site, unlike most (all?) of the other sites, and worst of all, they're claiming copyright over scans of public domain material. Now go ahead, and try to change my mind. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the EL policy is quite clear that SMA is, if not actual spam, at the least NOT a valid link -- unless the article was about SMA itself, or it was being used as an RS. Since neither of those are the case here, it should stay out. But I'm sure anyone reading this knows that I think that anyway.
 * Furthermore, weather or not it's true that the IMSLP is violating SMA's copyright or not, it's completely and totally irrelevant to this page's EL section. *IF* (and ONLY if) there's a reliable third party source on the matter, that can be put forth on the IMSLP's article, and SMA still wouldn't be a valid link from here either way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, what about the commercial providers (including SMA) listed in the article text over at Digital sheet music? --Keelburg (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Digital sheet music's may be a bit tricky, especially considering some of the WP:OWN issues a couple of the editors have had with it. Probably should be discussed on that page, but I'm thinking that ELs should be turned into Wikilinks and if they deserve an article (per WP:N) then it's all good. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Digital sheet music is as big a leap from sheet music as word processing was typing, so I filed an AfD on it. Please chime in, I'm not very sure about my reasoning there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The point here (for me) is that SMA offers a huge amount of freely downloadable pdf files. Yes there is a subscription option. No, neither registration or subscription are required to access the free resources (WP:EL concern). And they are an original scanner as opposed to a lot of web sites out there which have actually used SMA original scans as a resource. It is true there is a MIXED characteristic of free and commercial but the fact is there are significant, truly USABLE (seems to be the whole POINT of the WP:EL guidelines -- usefulness criterion specifically) contributions available. It IS one of the largest collections on the web especially for piano and as far as it being an original source goes, all of its music links are to actual files it has, whereas many other sites provide a poorly navigable hodgepodge of links to outside resources. There is a pain-in-the-ass factor which SMA avoids, and it is a truly useful link as a result. There are only a handful of sites which meet that characteristic. This is one of them. User:pianomanusa —Preceding comment was added at 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, one of my biggest issues is SMA's attempt to assert copyright over the scans. That would seem to be an invalid claim, as per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service :
 * [54] We conclude that the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist were not original to Rural and therefore were not protected by the copyright in Rural's combined white and yellow pages directory. As a constitutional matter, copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity. Rural's white pages, limited to basic subscriber information and arranged alphabetically, fall short of the mark. As a statutory matter, 17 U.S.C. § 101 does not afford protection [p*364] from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality. Given that some works must fail, we cannot imagine a more likely candidate. Indeed, were we to hold that Rural's white pages pass muster, it is hard to believe that any collection of facts could fail.


 * [55] Because Rural's white pages lack the requisite originality, Feist's use of the listings cannot constitute infringement. This decision should not be construed as demeaning Rural's efforts in compiling its directory, but rather as making clear that copyright rewards originality, not effort. As this Court noted more than a century ago, “'great praise may be due to the plaintiffs for their industry and enterprise in publishing this paper, yet the law does not contemplate their being rewarded in this way.'” Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S., at 105. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is


 * [56] Reversed.
 * So, while SMA is in a dubious position in respect to copyright law, I feel we shouldn't send traffic there. These consist of scans of public domain material, rather than a compilation of facts, but I'm pretty sure the same principle applies. SMA might argue that this decision should apply instead, but I disagree.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's a more-relevant example: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..
 * ...a change of medium alone is not sufficient to render the product original and copyrightable. Rather, a copy in a new medium is copyrightable only where, as often but not always is the case, the copier makes some identifiable original contribution. In the words of the Privy Council in Interlogo AG, "there must . . . be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work." [n52] Indeed, plaintiff's expert effectively concedes the same point, noting that copyright "may" subsist in a photograph of a work of art because "change of medium is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work, unless the change of medium is so insignificant as not to confer originality . . ."
 * So it's pretty definite that a scan of a public domain work is not copyrightable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If these are all just scans of public domain music, simply mechanically scanning it wouldn't change that (similar to scans of old art), as SoV points out. Crediting them as a source for the scans is the polite and expected thing to do... but I can't see that they've done anything they could claim copyright in. (IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. So does that mean we should link to them, because the copyright claim is meaningless, or not link, because they're trying to claim it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Upload them to commons, link to them there. Problem solved. Public domain music is a perfectly reasonable thing to put in commons... I don't think we should be be going out of our way to promote a site that behaves anti-socially, and since we should include the material on our own site, there seems to be no cause to link to them. --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we really don't particularly need most of the music here on WP anyway, just fragments here and there -- the IMSLP and others have the archive factor covered. But moreover, even if they didn't make such a silly claim, there is still the matter of that they are a commercial site, which WP:EL specifically discourages unless they are the subject of the article itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Sheet Music"
The whole article, though excellent in its content, does not correspond to the definition of "sheet music" used by classical musicians and librarians. The MLA (Music Library Association), for example, defines sheet music as being printed one or a few folded double-sheets, and either unbound or bound my nothing more than a staple. Bound full scores are not sheet music, nor are bound collections of songs or keyboard music. Sheet music properly so called is almost entirely restricted to individual songs and short keyboard works, largely of popular music.

That being the case, most of the contents of this article should be placed under some such heading as "music notation" or "music printing"--if necessary, folded into an existing article, while the article at "sheet music" should be completely different from what is there now.

At the very least, disambiguation must be provided Ralph Dancis (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Musical parameters in infobox
I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, but I've started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_song, which essentially asks whether tempo and key should have their own parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Partiture
There is a redirect here from Partiture, but the word is not mentioned in the article - negligence on the part of the person who created the redirect. Koro Neil (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a WP rule, that the term has to appear on the page? It's basically just a translation of the title. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Add new content? Pre-reading sheet music
I think it will be beneficial to add pre-reading sheet music information on here as one of the types of sheet music prmiarly for children, or those with autism or behavioral disabilities who use music to meet goals, if that makes sense. I would dare call it "Methods of sheet music," as one of the contents so people get an idea of how to compose music of this fashion, the history, or even the overall structure of a piece like this. Someone please message me when they have written such a piece for this Wikipedia Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ovine body fluid
I accidentally transposed a couple of letters and typed "sheet mucis" into Wikipedia search, and it asked me if I meant "sheep mucus"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.248.162 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sheet music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515082007/http://bach.nau.edu/UWDigital/Washington.html to http://bach.nau.edu/UWDigital/Washington.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Screenshot general 3 large.png

Evaluating an Article Activity
Hello! How would you advise someone to practice reading sheet music at a beginner's level? Hsaeedm (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)