This looks like a good initial framework. I think you can expand it with subgroups as you see what is needed. I suspect it’s a bit broad for “10,000 scores,” but I’m sure there are people, including me, who would be happy to help you reorganize things when you reach that happy milestone.
Stew
I don’t mean to sound pedantic, but a taxonomy should span the space it covers. Having ‘other’ under scores is not a good idea. although I see you mean it as a catch all, but it has the problem that nobody is going to search for scores/other really, and people could end up putting works better categorised elsewhere under that. I’d avoid it, by the simple technique of having an extensible taxonomy and add new categories when something new or surprising comes up.
And good grief Dan - song title? Have you succumbed to MP3 music site madness? It’s a pet peeve of mine that say Bach movements from concertos are called songs on all the music sites, because song is all they know or care. I hope this can be plain ‘Title’.
‘Created By’ is ambiguous. Work created by, or score created by? I think that’s Engraver.
Why do you need the fonts? Dorico tells you when you open the project. People can figure out if they want to get them or not at that point. Music font, maybe.
The taxonomy category field for submission is going to have to be a pick list not free text, especially if you have a deeper hierarchy (which you will!)
And Dorico version is not necessary is it? Projects get converted to the version you are using, and doesn’t Steinberg go to a lot of trouble to make sure this conversion is reliable and sound? And does it mean some users may not download a score because they think its old and incompatible (its always surprising what end users think)? I’d simply leave that out as redundant. [I’m aware that some people have issues with playback across some version differences but since people are probably not going to have huge libraries of every VST in the world to playback all the scores I don’t think this matters much, and let people deal with the technical issues around that if they must. In fact because oif the VST licencing issue I think the whole concept of expecting playback of scores on the site to be supported is problematical.]
1 Like
To a point, yes, though (for instance) there are issues with 4.1 and the conversion of lyrics from a font style to a paragraph style (which I should accept responsibility for, seeing as I was one of the people that requested it).
Reading the posts here and on the Facebook group, though, there are clearly people still using older versions of Dorico, and Steinberg can’t ensure that old versions are able to display files from newer versions as they’d show in the newer version (though they do seem to ensure that older versions can open newer files, which is more than can be said for some of the competition.)
3 Likes
“Other” seems reasonable to me for the purpose of browsing. “I’m looking for X, and it’s not any of these other categories.” I think it will be relatively easy to expand the taxonomy if it grows quickly.
Sure, I agree about Title. Text fonts, maybe. I don’t feel strongly about that.
“Created by” maybe should be “submitted by.”
2 Likes
I would call „miscellaneous“ „library“ (or similar) instead, to inform that these type of files are not content but … well: library files in Dorico. Master Pages, House Styles (thanks 4.1!) etc…
These things maybe should require a standard sample (or set of samples), that all use for preview. How does this page template render the well tempered piano compared to the other one? A picture quickly shows!
Re font lists, I have projects that use a few various fonts but I totally lose track of them. Apart from creating a PDF and examining the fonts there, how do you get a list of fonts in use in the score? Not referring to the music font - that’s trivial.
Fair enough. I can omit that field.
That’s a good idea, thanks. I’ll ask that users include a PDF that displays the library in action.
This is marvelous, Dan. I have all kinds of little arrangements that others may find useful.
2 Likes
Will it be possible for the uploader to edit the description at a later date (e.g. if there are new sub-categories) and to update or delete a file?
I’m not sure exactly. At this point it’s looking like users will be able to upload their own material and populate the data, and admins will approve it to make it public.
If a user wishes to have their material removed or edited, they may do so at any time, but they’ll probably need to submit a request.
2 Likes
Just a note to say development on the site is officially underway, with a rough launch date of July 1 (but that’s just an estimate). I’ll be calling for submissions soon.
Donations will be certainly welcome to help offset the costs. If you’d like to contribute any small amount, feel free to send me a PM.
1 Like
Did you consider going ahead and putting a Venmo or PayPal button on the placeholder page?
I was thinking of doing what Notation Central does: add items to your cart and name your own price, $0 minimum, at check-out. So users are welcome to get the resources for free, but each time they get them, there’s a little reminder. 
2 Likes
I’m not sure how many people are going to donate and contribute to everyone’s files, but if there are more than a handful, won’t that be a bit of a accounting and tax liability nightmare for you? If everything is being processed through your account, and you make “payments” to individuals, that means a lot of book keeping for you. Maybe you’re set up for that and don’t mind it - and maybe it will only be a couple. But something to think about if this grows.
Where as a PayPal link to me for my scores, removes you from the equation. I guess you would have to ask and trust us to send some money back to you for hosting the site.
I think a single donate button on the site is better. That’s what I do for my sites, as do many many others. The donations are to support the site costs, server etc, not go to the authors, is that not so? It looks too much like pay-per-view, and to me, it’s too much ‘in your face’ if on every page.
Also, I far prefer a simple download button, not a shopping cart. Though if you are using Wordpress perhaps you are doing this in WooCommerce? Sites like IMSLP don’t have a cart, just a plain download link.
Yes, 50% of any donations will go to the authors if they choose this option upon submission.
Again, there’s no requirement to pay anything. But these resources represent hard work that has value. “Name your price” seems very reasonable to me.
IMSLP also has ads to support their hosting costs, which I find to be much more “in your face.” And they need to ask for donations several times a year, if I’m not mistaken. They have a massive user base, and even then, I’d wager they have to work to garner donations.
Edit: yes, funding is an ongoing issue at IMSLP, and has caused no small disagreement within its user base.
I’ve not seen ads on IMSLP, but I have a yearly subscription for $20 or so which is good. Optional, but it removes the wait and smooths the download process. I’ve never had IMSLP request a donation - perhaps because I am a member.
It’s Wikipedia that asks for donations several times a year. I usually give some microscopic amount (because it all adds up) and they then send me two or three emails thanking me at great length for my enormous contribution. I always have a small laugh at this. Almost too sincere, if there can be such a thing!
3 Likes
I have the opposite situation, since I make a few edits on English Wikipedia but have not signed up for a subscription on IMSLP. All I get on Wikipedia are occasional event banners.
Might I suggest, if it hasn’t been suggested yet, that you make a core requirement that the music published to the site be automatically marked for Creative Commons or some variant that allows the free distribution and re-purposing of the music.
The DMCA is a bear, and you’ll have to have provision for removing copyrighted material that is reported, but beyond this I’d make it so that there’s no recourse for users who willingly upload their materials with copyright and try to recover damages for “breaches” on the website. Perhaps an agreement in the EULA that files uploaded are free from indemnity and all IP protections…
Just some thoughts.
3 Likes