User talk:Mjolnir/Resources

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OK. It seems to me that it is a worthy idea that there should be a place where choir directors and managers can find an increasingly encycopedic list of resources of interest to them. Such a list would include books about all aspects of choral music, a list of notation software, with reviews, and comparison charts; sources for choir apparell. Or not.

The purpose of this talk page is for the CPDL community to discuss the notion: what format the page should take, what format the information on the page should take &c.

What is posted on the content page now, is a first suggestion; even as the creator, I find it weak, uninspiring, and in need of reorganization and reformatting, so write what is on your mind--you won't hurt my feelings.

Noel Stoutenburg 7:18 GMT, 19 January, 2007

I've added Toobaz's music notation software info from the Forum and added some info for Sibelius. I've also added the RSCM. As far as I'm concerned, the gerneral layout seems fine so far. We just need to put some info in now! Thanks for getting things off the ground, Noel. Bobnotts 08:46, 20 January 2007 (PST)

After further thought, I've decided that a better way to handle resources is to parallel the way scores are handled on CPDL. Each resource, whether a book, accessory, software package, &c. should be given a separate page. The resource page will be a list of categories. This will also minimize space required, because many items may fit into more than one heading on the resource page. For example, MakeMusic publishes the software package "Smartmusic", which besides being software, is a practice aid. In like manner, an old music tutor might reasonably be included in both the section on Music History and the section on Music Education.

Noel Stoutenburg 1655 GMT, 20 January, 2007 Noel Stoutenburg

The entries "Anthem Collections" under "Music"; "Music Notation" and "Choral Music History" under Books, and "Music Notation Software" under Software illustrate my view on how this page should be constructed. In a more general sense, the "Resources page" is a portal, and I would submit that the content should be a bit deeper, as in the case of Finale.

I would also suggest that in most cases, information on WIKI should not duplicate material available elsewhere. Thus, rather than including specifically the information on what formats Finale supports, I link to the comparison page on the Finale site. There is a bit of laziness admitted here. Why should I have to review the page on a schedule of greater or lesser frequency, when by linking to external information, I can leave the updating to those who are most knowledgeable.

Noel Stoutenburg 1838 GMT 20 january, 2007

There already _was_ a link to the Finale page, though it may not have been overtly obvious on the Resources page. The link "Music Notation Software" takes one to the page "Category:Music Notation Software" , where there is to be found an abstract if information about notation software products from MakeMusic!, which abstract includes links to relevant MakeMusic! pages.

The goal here is to keep the Resources page as clear and succinct as possible, and if possible to less than three screens, doing this by putting the actual links to items on subsidiary pages. I've re-ordered the page in accordance with the stated goal. No material was removed, but material was moved. The descriptions of Software exchange formats are now resident in the music notation software category page; the information on the Royal School of Church Music was moved to its own page and wikified. New headings were created for libraries and vendors.

Noel Stoutenburg 1844 25 January, 2007

Not much later than I saved my previous comments on the layout of the Resources page, I decided that they layout could be improved upon, and tweaked it further, and further, and further.

1944 25 January, 2007


May I suggest that a link to the above website appear on the resources page? The URL is -- Bobnotts 09:44, 24 February 2007 (PST)

Yes, you may suggest it, but even more, feel free to add it. Noel Stoutenburg 1306 GMT 26 Feb 2007