User talk:Cjshawcj: Difference between revisions
(→SortWorks: new section) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
4 editor-induced errors (two bar zeros, and all subsequent bars misnumbered) corrected. Amended pdf will be posted soon. Thanks for the observation. [[User:Cjshawcj|Cjshawcj]] ([[User talk:Cjshawcj|talk]]) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | 4 editor-induced errors (two bar zeros, and all subsequent bars misnumbered) corrected. Amended pdf will be posted soon. Thanks for the observation. [[User:Cjshawcj|Cjshawcj]] ([[User talk:Cjshawcj|talk]]) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
== SortWorks == | |||
You may have noticed that we have been making significant changes to the composer pages over the last few weeks. The main purpose is to automate, as much as possible, the process of uploading editions to the site. We have eliminated the file information from the composer pages because we have found from experience that when people upload new versions of files the are often unaware that the files on the composer page need to be adjusted manually. We were therefore ending up with a mismatch between the files. Another reason is that people need to be aware of any copyright restrictions before they download a file and these can olonly be found on the works page. | |||
One side benefit is that the new system picks up works which have not been added to the composer page. (My record so far is 21, including, embarrassingly, one of my own!) It will also identify works where the composer is identified as arranger; any work in the list which has another composer's name is an arrangement. | |||
It becomes less useful on the more complicated composer pages, particularly if the works are arranged by opus number, or by publication, but that covers considerably less than 10% of composers. | |||
As one of the major contributors to the site, it would be very useful to have your feedback, whether positive or negative, on the changes.[[User:Jamesgibb|Jamesgibb]] ([[User talk:Jamesgibb|talk]]) 08:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:59, 27 April 2016
Tallis Dorian
As far as I'm aware, "short service" and "Dorian" are both 19th or 20th century titles, and both remain in use. There is an older title, the First Service (which, at a guess, was coined by John Barnard), but I can't say that I've heard it used. "Short service in the Dorian mode" seems reasonably unambiguous. Adrian M. Wall (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Webbe You gave me your heart
Possible errors:
Bar 20: Alto - last note should be B, not A
Bars 23-24: Tenor I - Missing slur.
Bar 14: Tenor I - G natural rather than G sharp feels more appropriate to me.
Jamesgibb (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
4 editor-induced errors (two bar zeros, and all subsequent bars misnumbered) corrected. Amended pdf will be posted soon. Thanks for the observation. Cjshawcj (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
SortWorks
You may have noticed that we have been making significant changes to the composer pages over the last few weeks. The main purpose is to automate, as much as possible, the process of uploading editions to the site. We have eliminated the file information from the composer pages because we have found from experience that when people upload new versions of files the are often unaware that the files on the composer page need to be adjusted manually. We were therefore ending up with a mismatch between the files. Another reason is that people need to be aware of any copyright restrictions before they download a file and these can olonly be found on the works page.
One side benefit is that the new system picks up works which have not been added to the composer page. (My record so far is 21, including, embarrassingly, one of my own!) It will also identify works where the composer is identified as arranger; any work in the list which has another composer's name is an arrangement.
It becomes less useful on the more complicated composer pages, particularly if the works are arranged by opus number, or by publication, but that covers considerably less than 10% of composers.
As one of the major contributors to the site, it would be very useful to have your feedback, whether positive or negative, on the changes.Jamesgibb (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)