Ideas for updating the Formatting Guidelines

[Latios212]

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On the one hand I do like the idea of welcoming everyone regardless of arranging software - this would allow more people to contribute and not have anyone feeling left out. For example, Jester Musician uses MuseScore to make some very nice arrangements, and there haven't been any real problems when putting his sheets through the submissions system, because his sheets are, well, very good.

The problem, though, is when it comes to less experienced arrangers. It's easy for updaters and feedbackers to make some changes through Finale as opposed to opening up different programs and changing things there. We all know submissions take forever as is - I don't think we should try and work around different software if the arrangement's not already almost ready to go. The back-and-forth becomes more work.

Not to mention if we have no MUS an admin would have to rework the way the main site works. It'd be weird too if we had MUS files for every sheet except for a few current ones.

But most importantly, if we ever needed to make mass changes again (like the URL change) (or even just a simple mistake in a sheet that someone notices later on) we'd have to track down the arranger and ask them to change the thing in their program, and wait for them to make new PDFs as opposed to simply opening up Finale and clicking a couple of things.

In my opinion, to be more user-friendly, main site users should always be able to download Notepad and follow along with the playback. But I'm open to ideas about how to integrate sheets by other notation programs.

[MaestroUGC]

Well I still want to know what the download numbers look like for the various files we offer. I'm legitimately curious how that runs.

[Latios212]

Same here.

[Olimar12345]

Guys. We've always been a finale-based database. That isn't changing.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Isn't that the same line of thinking that went into justifying slavery? ie "We've always been a slave owning nation, that isn't changing".
It doesn't change if we're all close minded and refuse to accept the change.
Personally I would love to see the acceptance of other notations programs like musescore and the lot accepted, we'd have a lot more arrangers on site who can do their stuff.
Finale is horribly expensive for anything above notepad, as well.
The only issue I see arising, as Latios pointed out, is when a lot of updating is required, whereas a mus file helps do quick edits and things.

[Tobbeh99]

emm... really sorry to say this but.. this getting a bit of topic. The topic to be discussed in this thread is about improving the formatting guidelines. So, stick to the topic. Guess we won't write anything about using Finale, or the use of other notating programs in the formatting guidelines since so many people have different opinions about it.

So I hereby close this discussion. If someone feels really interested in discussing this, please create a new thread for discussing this.   

[Olimar12345]

Isn't that the same line of thinking that went into justifying slavery? ie "We've always been a slave owning nation, that isn't changing".
It doesn't change if we're all close minded and refuse to accept the change.
Personally I would love to see the acceptance of other notations programs like musescore and the lot accepted, we'd have a lot more arrangers on site who can do their stuff.
Finale is horribly expensive for anything above notepad, as well.
The only issue I see arising, as Latios pointed out, is when a lot of updating is required, whereas a mus file helps do quick edits and things.

No, it's not like that at all, actually. Everyone has a choice as to where they want to host their arrangements, you're not being forced to do anything. If you WANT to arrange for this site, then you'll need to adhere to our system-but it's COMPLETELY your choice. There's no need to over complicate everything. Hell, for the longest time we only hosted MUS and MIDI files.

Not to mention, the addition of yet another file type would require everyone to learn ANOTHER notation program. It's completely unnecessary.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

The point of allowing other programs is that we would only require PDFs, if I'm not mistaken, which we already require.

[Olimar12345]

We're not going to stop uploading MUS files just because a couple members don't want to use finale notepad. We all (myself included) had to use notepad at one point in time, and it's not like our community is really bad about helping out lower finale users (quite the opposite, actually).

[Echo]

We're not going to stop uploading MUS files just because a couple members don't want to use finale notepad. We all (myself included) had to use notepad at one point in time, and it's not like our community is really bad about helping out lower finale users (quite the opposite, actually).

But back in the day, Notepad was pretty much the only free music notation program we could use. Back then, it was pretty much Finale, maybe Sibelius, or nothing. Back then, it was the best we had to work with.

But nowadays there are (possibly better) alternatives. More recent users seem to have a preference for Musescore because it allows them more options than Notepad (I think, I actually haven't tried it yet). People with the more complete versions of Finale might be willing to help (certainly more so than a few years ago), but it still slows down the process with the constant back and forth, and it doesn't let the filthy peasants people that don't want to invest in the better Finale programs to finish an arrangement independently. It just causes frustration for those arrangers, and more work and wasted time for the generous users that help the Notepad arrangers. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing to just have the submission requirements be PDF + MIDI + a customizable sheet (whether it's a Finale file, or a Musescore file, etc.).

However, if I did have one suggestion for making arranging for the Notepad users to be more accessible, it'd be to make the template file contain what Finale Notepad users would want to include in their arrangements, but can't. By this I mean simple things like making it have a variety of time or key signature changes within the sheet (including ones not available by default, like 5/4), a bunch of expression and dynamic markings, pedal lines, treble/bass clefs for the opposite hand, 8va, grace notes, etc. That way, Notepad users could simply copy/paste things that they normally don't have access to, and could accomplish more on their own. They'd probably still need help with stuff like moving the staves/systems, but for the most part I think it'd be helpful if Notepad users could have a "resource pool" all in one sheet to work off of.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

But mandating them is unnecessary and requires people who already have a high end program like Sibelius to go down in quality.
I think what would work best is to stop mandating MUS files. Many people here already use Finale and that's great, but mandating that new users use a very counter intuitive notation program isn't necessarily a good idea.

[Olimar12345]

^Yeah, that's not going to happen. Sorry. Here at NinSheetMusic we've always hosted MUS files and have made it possible for people to arrange without the full version via our template file and our "help for notepad users" topic. I do, however, like the idea of a file with copy/pastable tools. I'll look into something like that.

If you would like to submit arrangements without a finale file, Ichigo's Sheet Music doesn't require it.

[JDMEK5]

I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing to just have the submission requirements be PDF + MIDI + a customizable sheet (whether it's a Finale file, or a Musescore file, etc.).

I'm not trying to bash or be insulting, but that would be taking a huge chunk of what order we do have and chaosifying it.

[Tobbeh99]

Ok, this thread has run to down into a side topic, but I want to hear what happen to the original question. Are we going to update the formatting guidelines as I said in the OP? Is it happening? 

[Olimar12345]

In working on a revision.