Old talk archived 1 2 3 4

Music clips

I have decided to add audio clips to some articles. Mainly, I would like to record my own playing of certain solo piano and organ works, and add them to the relevant articles. While I am no great performer, I figure I can contribute clean recordings that are not encumbered by copyright. I'm hoping that I can start a trend, and that other amateur or student performers might be inspired to contribute their own clips.

I don't believe that much of this has been done thus far. I would like advice from the "musical Wikipedians" and the general community on how best to do this.

In the interest of specificity, I have at hand a completed recording of the g minor "little" prelude from BWV 558, doubtfully attributed to J.S. Bach. It is 2 minutes and six seconds long, and I have an OGG Vorbis file, recorded in stereo and encoded at quality level 6. At present we have no article on this work, but we could use one for the group of eight little preludes of which it is a part. For organ, I also plan to record the toccata from BWV 565 and perhaps some hymns, also a chorale prelude by Brahms and another by Dupre. And more stuff as time permits. On piano, I'm going to record several Joplin rags and a bunch of the more characteristic classical piano pieces (Chopin nocturnes, Beethoven sonatas, Debussy Claire de Lune, Satie Gymnopedie, etc etc).

So, how best to do this. Here's my thinking:

• Place recordings of complete works or substantial excerpts on the Wikimedia commons. Make links to these works from the article about the work. Add articles as needed (e.g. 8 short preludes).
• Create excerpts that are illustrative of a particular composer, genre, or instrument, typically 30-60 seconds long. Place these here on the English wikipedia and link them from the composer, genre, or instrument articles.

That's it. Please provide your comments, because if this is unhelpful or should be done another way or whatever, I'd like to know that before expending a great deal of effort on recording.

Good idea. You might want to browse Wikipedia:Sound/list. I decided to start that to catalogue the full length songs on wikipedia. (I've contributed about 5 so far, mostly mutopia conversions). I know there are a few others who have as well. →Raul654 22:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this will be helpful. I see from the list that there is only one actual recording.

It occurs to me that the GFDL is even more problematic for this than it is for the text. In the case of a musical recording, there really is no "transparent format" because audio can't be extended incrementally; though you could make the case for the best editing tools doing this, even with them you can't go back and change which stops are drawn on an organ or change the attack on a scale from legato to staccato. I'll be recording in MP3 (which is all my iRiver supports), and transcoding to OGG; if there were such a thing as a transparent format it would be WAV or PCM or FLAC, though an OGG at Q6 isn't bad. This should be addressed, but I'll continue for the time being.

What is the purpose of having recordings of full pieces? No offense intended. I have only created short audio files to illustrate examples (for example see Riff and Tonality). Hyacinth 00:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uh, for illustrative purposes for articles on musical theories and techniques, samples are fine. But we *want* to give people full musical songs where possible - how can an article on a song ever be complete without having the song itself? →Raul654 00:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is possible to understand musical concepts without hearing the music itself. Traditional print media, and most musicians, and especially people who write about music or teach it, make an assumption that their audience is engaging in music listening activities independent of the written or spoken word.

Because Wikipedia is multimedia, we can and should play to our strengths and include such recordings. I don't know whether or not it makes sense to include every work that is a part of the "standard repertoire" -- I'll leave that discussion to the inclusionists and deletionists. But at a minimum we could have representative pieces illustrating the major eras, forms, and composers. The Uninvited Co., Inc.

The article on football doesn't have a clip of an entire football game, as the concepts and techniques used in football could mostly be illustrated with much shorter clips. Articles on books don't give the text of the entire book. Hyacinth 22:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True. But football is a sport, not an art. Accordingly, there are no individual football games that are held up as examples of what football is about -- no canon, if you will. While we don't have the full text of any books, that is primarily because that mission is fulfilled by other projects, such as Project Gutenberg and wikisource. We link to those where appropriate. There is no project that I know of that aims to create a Free library of music. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of audio recordings of classical works performed and recorded by students and faculty at my university, as all recitals are recorded; I doubt it would be much effort to convince the performers to release recordings of single pieces under...::reads up:: er, a suitable license. Problem is, even if the originals themselves are now PD, most performers are playing from copyrighted editions of the sheet music. Someone more knowledgeable than I about copyright willing to comment on the status of such recordings? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be great if it could be done, and the quality of the performances would probably be better than what I can provide. Copyright clearance and music department policy on recordings may be more of a problem than you might think, though. Many music students and faculty are opposed to royalty-free music on principle, because they see it as undermining the professional nature of musicianship. IANAL so I don't have an opinion on the sheet music matter, though I will point out that most recitalists play from memory after studying a number of different editions, some of which may be public domain; moreover, many sheet music publishers claim copyright where none actually exists. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I've added the Short Prelude and Fugue in G Minor. Not much, but I have to start somewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. However, I did make a few mistakes during recording which I basically hacked out, so when I get a little more proficient with the work I can reupload a better version. There are a few stylistic problems with that recording also; however it should be suitable for the moment :) Dysprosia 05:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A worry about quality

I want to address another issue concerning editor-created sound files, namely the issue of performance quality.

It's a bit awkward to say this, but I think some of the Wikipedia sound files for classical music that I've heard are musically just awful--thumping, clumsy, completely devoid of rhythmic or dynamic nuance. Please, nobody take this personally; I carefully refrained listening to sound files before writing this; so my remarks are based on my general memory and are not directed towards any particular person.

My point, though, is that if we are going to keep quality at an appropriate level, then the recordings should be made people with cast-iron psyches--if you make a recording, you should be ready to accept the verdict of other editors that it's not good enough, or that someone else's recording is better. Is there a consensus that people are willing to adopt cast-iron psyches for the purpose?

Is so, and if the necessary talent is out there, I'm all for as many sound examples as possible, of whatever length.

Cheers, Opus33 16:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I've done a few piano recordings myself--mostly just scales, chords, hymns--and I hereby decree that I wouldn't mind if people want to produce improved versions of them.

I just heard about this. Great idea. If I can figure out a reasonable way to make the recordings, I'll contribute decent renditions of some Scott Joplin works. Isomorphic 20:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gazwim

Could I ask you to certify this RFC, as you have left comments on his talk page previously? Thue | talk 23:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner

Geez, just frickin' speedy-delete it. It's not an RFC, and neither was it meant to be a RFDA vote, just a petition. -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

If I felt that it fit at all within the deliberately narrow guidelines for speedy deletes, I would. But it doesn't. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you being disruptive? You've now made an RFC which cannot actually be certified (being that none of the petitioners actually signed it). Now, from the other side, you're also disrupting an active VfD discussion. Put things back the way they were, and let the VfD finish. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

• Aren't we all allowed to speak? Who's being disruptive here? KingOfAllPaperboys 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what actions you consider disruptive. It is not possible to disrupt a process that doesn't exist (such as your purported "RFDA" process), and I don't buy the idea that you can't move a page just because there's an ongoing VfD, as long as the VfD page is kept up to date, which I did. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No clear consensus on my adminship - so I was removed

Thanks for your comments and support. One Salient Oversight 08:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABCD

I rarely vote on the nominations as there is a good likelihood I may be pushing the button or not, so I want maximum freedom to be able to evaluate the pros and cons in a tight situation without someone saying "didn't you vote (yes/no) and now you're making the decision"? But in the case of ABCD, I agree with you, support seems to be turning the candidate's favor without any of the negatives alleging wrongdoing. So if it keeps up like this, I would be inclined to promote, too. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk, Uninvited.

So have you heard of the band called The Uninvited? They had a couple semi-hits and broke up a year or two ago. The song "What God Said" is worth a download.

(Thanks for your note on my talk. I posted on the requests page.)

Best, - :)Ben Pfwebadmin 20:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baseline ... not-policy

Good addition .. thank you. Some people are all to eager to jump on suggestion and discussion as guideline and act as if it is policy. Courtland 19:11, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

You're welcome. This seems to have been more of a problem in recent months, and I'm not sure why. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Countdown deletion

I see you've marked it as {{rejected}}, which is odd, because it never was considered a policy in the first place. Is there a time limit to how long proposals can be discussed?

Should I just move it back to my userspace, then? I still want people to see it and edit it, without them thinking "oh well, this was rejected, so there's no point, move on". Obviously it's not policy and I don't want anyone to think it is, but calling it "rejected" seems very weird. RickK is the only one who even ever expressed open rejection of the idea. JRM 20:08, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I will rephrase the template text to make it clear that it most often applies to proposed policies that have been rejected by the community. If you believe I have categorized it in error and it is still under active consideration, please change the tag to {{notpolicy}}. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technically, of course, I can't determine whether it's under active consideration, but since there's never been a vote or any dismissal beyond RickK's, it's definitely not rejected. I've changed it to {{notpolicy}}, which should serve the purpose of alerting people to the unofficial status equally well. JRM 20:21, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there have been a plethora of related proposals over the years and none have been accepted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know. I wouldn't have exhumed this if somebody else hadn't thought it was worth it. It's probably not, but then, I don't consider myself the "owner" of this proposal. If it rots in obscurity for the rest of history, too bad... JRM 20:33, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

re: Template:notpolicy

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns. I understand more clearly what you are trying to do. I'll put some thought into next steps for those articles where the the template might not (or no longer) be a perfect fit. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I anticipated some discussion over the wording of each template, and anticipated that the visibility will lead to some recategorization of a few pages. I am surprised, though, at Netoholic's suggestion that categories should not be used in templates, since as you point out there are many templates so structured. Hopefully that will be resolved as more people become aware of it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hi there! I've noticed your new semipolicy and notpolicy templates. I have some concern about the wording thereof, and made an attempt to clarify them. Of course that is still open to discussion so please tell me what you think of it.
• A small remark on layout... on the notpolicy tag refers to the 'discussion' page as 'wikipedia_talk_talk:...'; maybe that could be fixed somehow in the template?

Yours, Radiant_* 07:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Deletion_policy/schools page from Wikipedia_talk: to Wikipedia. Substantially all the other policy proposals are in Wikipedia: rather than Wikipedia_talk: so that seemed to make the most sense. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was wondering if there has been any discussion prior to creating these four templates, and if anyone other than you is involved in spreading them. Yours, Radiant_* 09:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Policy classification

Given our current methods of classifying policies, I believe we may need extra classification, or we may need to rethink it. "Official policy" is clear. "Semi-policy" is not, however - in this case, it refers to something that is commonly done but that is subject to substantial controversy (see RPA talk). In other cases, such as style guides, it is something that nearly everybody agrees to, but that doesn't sound 'official'. Similarly, "rejected" can refer to something that hasn't gathered consensus, OR to something that has gathered significant consensus opposed to it. Radiant_* 17:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I will reply at Template talk:Semipolicy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

You mentioned an edit war in this template on my talk page, and my heart sank when I discovered who was at the heart of it. I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to understanding people's thinking (my spousal over-unit is convinced I'm "asbergal") but it seems to me that a certain person would be much happier if the template transclusion system simply did not exist. Your thoughts? --Phil | Talk 15:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for your supportive comments on the 3RR rule. This seems to me to be a classic example of the cure being worse than the disease. Since Jimbo blessed the idea that we needed more aggressive action against edit warriors, the 3RR people feel especially empowered. The comments revealed in the current RfA on Chamaeleon (or whichever spelling he's now using) support my contention that 3RR blocking is a tool to be used to support majority opinion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi there! At the RPA page, you claim we should change our policy to expose more sockpuppets. Per recent incidents, I am inclined to agree (since recently, two long-time users are alleged to be the same person, who has two accounts for double-voting; and there have been several recent instances of vandalism that were clearly instigated by a knowledgeable wikipedian who wanted to anonymously make a WP:POINT). However, Talk:Sockpuppet does not seem to be very active. Do you have earlier experience with the issue? Should we put up a talk page and/or policy proposal for this? Yours, Radiant_* 15:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This has been an issue for quite some time, and my personal baggage from it is rooted in my dealing with User:142, who has had a number of aliases here as well as at other wikis. However, the 3rr is making it far worse, as is arbitration, because before those two things it didn't matter much since people could just be pests with a single login and get away with it. Anyway, it's a tough issue, because most of the developers are meatball:CryptoNauts, and Jimbo has cryptonaut leanings. This is compounded by the fact that Chinese contributors both here and to the Chinese wikipedia do have a legitimate fear of government prosecution for their activity here if they are outed. Altogether, as a result, nothing gets done. All that compounded by the sort of Wikipedia groupthink where people are afraid to stake out controversial positions, Wikipedia:all reputation is negative.

I have asserted before and will continue to assert that all computer-mediated communications mechanisms where there is no means to identify all contributions that originate from the same source are bound to fail. There's a Clay Shirkey paper on that floating around the net somewhere.

There are all kinds of answers technically. UBB handles this very well, logging IPs but only making them available to forum hosts and only for a limited time, and optionally requiring confirmation of an email address. I don't think either of those are an excessive burden on participants.

I've been beating my head against the wall so long on this one that I've given up. Maybe someday someone else will come along and carry the torch. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat vs. Fadix

Hi, Thanks for ditching the template; I would ask that you add the most recent changes User:Coolcat made to the template -- probably while it was on your clipboard. I'd do it, but I'm a party to the case, and you've begun the process. I would suggest protecting the template (I have not checked to see if you're an admin). I expected User:Grunt to deal with this. — Davenbelle 02:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that; must have been a cache issue; really looked that way... — Davenbelle 02:36, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mending the social fabric of Wikipedia

I am speechless in awe. -- Thank you; glad you enjoyed it. But I'd rather you were not speechless, but joined with me in speaking for structural changes to our community, to preserve and repair our social fabric. I cannot do it alone -- not had I great power. Social fabric repair must be a group process. — Xiongtalk 06:25, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

BTW, the article I think you indicate is at: Shirky: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. — Xiongtalk 06:28, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Convention

Would you consider a Charter Convention? — Xiong熊talk 02:25, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Would I consider one? Yes, though I would have to be convinced. I agree that there is a problem with instruction creep, but I'm not sure a "charter convention" is the best way to solve it. It is not a new problem. My ongoing efforts to organize and categorize policy are one of my responses to this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:UninvitedCompany/notes

Please remove (or 'nowiki') the {{dlete}} templates from User:UninvitedCompany/notes; the page is showing up on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's OK — easy mistake to make. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peter Kreeft

Why are you deleting the Kreeft links? His argument is serious philosophical one that must be contended with. To remove the links is to silence one part of the argument about personhood and conception.

Peter Kreeft has important point of view that isn't otherwise represented on Wikipedia. The articles on personhood are all biased heavily toward the view that personhood does not begin at conception. Such articles either don't mention the personhood-at-conception POV at all, or they treat it as somehow extreme. This is unacceptable, so I have begun to add Prof. Kreeft's article as merely one example of the personhood-at-conception POV.

You are a silly man

I am reverting the pages because my changes were useful and important for providing a neutral point of view. What is wrong with giving people access to both sides of the argument?

Who are you, anyway?

Uncle G extension

I've extended the voting time on Uncle G for 48 hours for reasons I've stated on the RfA pages. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What can I do?

What can I do to make it so that you don't feel like you need to attack my character so often? Do you use IRC or an IM programs with which we could talk? -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I don't recall attacking your character either recently or in the past; rest assured that if I have done so at all it has not been often. If you're referring to this edit, it's nothing of the sort and I find it hard to believe that you could read any malice into it. I believe that my one-time dispute with User:Daniel C. Boyer over the article about him spread to more pages than your present dispute with Xiong over templates has, though at the rate you're both going, you may well catch up.

I participate in IRC, albeit rarely; when I'm there I can be found in #wiki and #wikipedia, and occasionally the tech channels. If you have something to say, email to uninvited-company@nerstrand.net works best; I do treat incoming email as confidential.

Best regards

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)