Talk:A Spiritual for Freedom (Oliver Barton)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Oliver. I fail to see the reasoning behind your removing the editions numbered CPDL #4741 (choral score) and CPDL #4742 (organ score) and changing CPDL #4740 (originally the full score) to an external link mentioning the availability of all three formats at your external site. Since these (now unlisted) editions numbers are indexed elsewhere, this creates some other necessary work to make corresponding changes.

Furthermore, simply removing the PDF, MID, and Finale 2003 links to the originally submitted editions does not actually remove them from ChoralWiki - they are still here, and I wonder what is your intention with regard to these now unreferenced sheet, sound, and source files. I also note that you have changed other works similarly by removing the links to your previously submitted files and replacing with external links, while the originally submitted files continue to reside at ChoralWiki.

I've just noticed your changes and am not sure how other CPDL Administrators will feel about these changes, nor do I have an opinion about what policy CPDL might have - or create - to handle such situations.

There's a big question there. We have about 5,000 external vs 6,000 direct PDF links. When I first contributed with some files, my first thought was to keep the files on my choir site. It wasn't to keep power on "my" editions, but just to submit corrections and other changes more easily. Rob explained me kindly it was better to upload. I did it some monthes later and now I've seen so many broken links to external files, I'm pretty sure it's better to upload (if your thoughts remain to let the community use your editions). We, at CPDL, have to explain all these broken links and other inavailability of files. We must also speak of files' usability: PDF without MIDI files, music facsimiles without musical files (vectorized PDFs or MIDI files), links so deep that you are drowned, etc. Claude 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Chuck, if you think my bad English can be corrected, please proceed ;-)

Hi Chuck, I'm sorry to have created a nuisance. My website URL changed thanks to Yahoo ceasing their Geocities website hosting, so that I had to transfer to their Small Business Web Hosting. They automatically redirect from the former to the latter, but I don't know for how long, and I wasn't getting any statistics on the new site from the redirected traffic. So I thought it better to change all the links on CPDL from the old site to the new. While I was doing it, I thought it would be easier to change the couple of pieces that I had actually uploaded to CPDL (before my site was operational) - for consistency, and so that if I make changes I only have to do it in one place. The other advantage to me is that when somebody accesses my site, they may also browse through other pieces and arrangements there that do not belong to CPDL (such as instrumental pieces and, although I know many would disagree, solo songs). I also had a vague memory that we were discouraged from uploading scores if possible becuase of the amount of disk space they were taking up on the CPDL servers (but this is probably way out of date and no longer applies). In short, I thought I was doing everyone a favour! But evidentally I was entirely wrong and I'm very sorry.

However, from my point of view, I'd still rather have people coming to my site than uploading all the scores to the CPDL servers. I do make changes sometimes, sometimes major ones (it's the perogative of the composer) and I can flag them and talk about them there if I want to, and have different versions as I please. The situation is rather different if I were only making editions of other composers' pieces.--MusicOLib 09:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When Mr. Oliver contributed his works back then, he used the "Personal" copyright license, so I think he is perfectly allowed to change their links to an external site, if he wishes so. In this process, he may have to merge 2 or 3 editions in just one entry, for the sake of conciseness. Chuck is correct though, that the local (outdated?) files should be addressed properly, possibly by being deleted. And I defend that the original edition's submission date should be maintained. —Carlos Email.gif 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)