Post any suggestions here!

It may be a good idea. Those interested mostly in music probably will ignore the "General Discussion" and will miss the "Introduction" thread. I remember the first times I was around this forum the only area I was looking was the "Music Composition" and "Music Discussion". I barely took a look at other areas of the forum.

Well yeah I have no argument against that suggestion, it should improve the forum for those who like to introduce themselves. For those that prefere to sneak in and lurk it wont matter anyway so all is good when you go through with this plan of yours.

By doing so, though, it will chop off more of the lower forums, so there's more beneath the fold. It would be better to figure out how to place child forums inside the parent forums' description. We can do that by setting the depth of child forums on the index to something other than zero[1].


1. http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-116145.html (http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-116145.html)

So, what do you think about giving the Introductions its own forum section instead of it being a sub-section?
I'll give +1 to this.

I'm not yet sure what M means.

Basically, I'm saying that exposing the child forum directly will increase the scroll length of the index page. Doing that will force the annoucements information off of the screen from browsing to the forum page at a regular resolution. The solution to that is to create child forums nested within the parent forum and expose the children directly underneath the parent that links directly to the child.

Similar to below, only less cluttered with moderation rules and more pronounced so that it's more apparent that there are child forums.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9682/selection091.jpg

There should be an option to upload a zip with the individual parts of a piece

There is already a forum for this.
http://forums.ichigos.com/showthread.php?17498-Forum-Suggestions
This a ichigos.com suggestion not a forum suggestion

This a ichigos.com suggestion not a forum suggestion
Technically true, but it's easier to just keep all suggestions in one thread. Making a new thread for each suggestion would probably add unnecessary clutter.

Zero: Perhaps you'd be willing to do me the favor of renaming this thread to "Forum & Website Suggestions"?

Nope, looks like we'll have to have a mod do it.

Considering the main web site : as some .mus file transcription are provided, I'm wondering about the pertinence to propose downloading lilypond source(s) file(s) when it's done with this software (yes, I'm using it ^_^).

Knowing there is an inconvenience due to some lilypond project that may include multiple files with sub-folders. So it would rather be a zip file or some other compressed file format.

There's actually been a lot of interest in post processing of music here recently. It may be time to present this.

If the webmaster (Gand) allows this, I'd like to suggest a translation project to convert the currently submitted sheet music projects to Lilypond format and provide the source code for the lilypond project on the main site. This will have five-fold meaning:


Lilypond, when used properly, produces very nice PDF scores that can easily be regenerated. Should a PDF be corrupted and an odd version of finale is used, it may be hard to recover the PDF. With Lilypond, it's trivial to recover.
The format is arguably more portable and translatable than the mus format, such as transcribing keys -- which is at least 30% of the requests made -- can be simplified to changing a header value.
Lilypond is a free tool that users can use to manipulate the music without the need to invest a large quantity of money for software such as Finale and Sibelius, or having to patch together something from a MIDI.
Introduces users to the rules of typography in music / engraving, which is a rarely talked about subject in any music course.
Project members could run this as a bit of a tutorial on how to use Lilypond and raise awareness of its pros and cons around the forums, as it appears as though we have some experts, but no real resource that can provide direction.


We'll need the following to start this up should it be allowed:

Standards Board -- Startup team who's soul purpose is to develop a process for the Lilypond team(s). The would define what kind of formats should be permitted (such as single ly file or the structure of a zip of the source ly files), code standards (comments, code layout, name conventions), template generation for Ichigos branding.
Lilypond Team -- A group of individuals that would donate their time to produce the actual translations to be submitted to the master site. Their outputs would be peer reviewed by other team members to verify that the content being provided does indeed match what the original was trying to convey without losing any meaningful detail.

Wow :eek:

I didn't think my suggestion would have this nice answer and that a huge project were in minds !

I completely agree with your five points, especially with the fourth (the more important point in my opinion) and what follows :


what kind of formats should be permitted (such as single ly file or the structure of a zip of the source ly files), code standards (comments, code layout, name conventions), template generation for Ichigos branding.

I'd like to suggest:

1) That M repost what he wrote as the start of a new thread in "Sheet Music Requests" and that that thread be stickied.

2) That M should head the Lilypond Standards Board and alpiso should be a member of either or both the Standards Board and the Lilypond Team.

When sheet music is submitted to the site, only the PDF is required. The .MUS file is actually just a zip file (since sometimes Finale needs multiple files as well) so it can be in either finale or lilypond. Since lilypond is free I imagine more and more people are using it (a good thing!), so the lilypond files can be zipped up and submitted along with the PDF files. PDF files sill always be required though as it is universal and not everyone has lilypond. Also, who knows if lilypond will exist 5 years from now? PDF still will...

That said, I think it's quite ambitious to re-transcode over 1100 sheets on the main site, but new sheets can certainly have lilypond sources instead of finale .MUS in their ZIP file. I can update the verbiage on the site to reflect this.

That might work, but given the purpose of the site, that's potentially alot of resources spent on a questionable impact.

People come here for PDFs. Original score files can be useful if they want to transpose or arrange it.

I'm not sure about lilyfying the entire library. It seems like alot of work for very little return.

If there are people willing to work on it, voluntarily, it probably can't hurt to let them get started on the process. I would think there would be a way to retain PDF files, which I also agree should stay, even if redone using LP.

Perhaps figure out a way for current site staff to not have to do anything, or at most, very very little?


In short, why not let M and alpiso, at least, try it out, as well as try to find other people willing to help, and see how it goes? If it doesn't work out, no sweat off the backs of non-participants, and if it does work, then it could potentially be a benefit to all of us. Let's just establish ahead of time that Gand doesn't have to do anything... at least not yet. Let them organize it and if they start churning out LP stuff in earnest, then maybe Gand can step in and begin the replacement process? As long as a way is figured out to put as little burden as possible on Gand.

I know that, ultimately, it's not up to me, but it's just a suggestion for how to approach this.

Well! I could say: why not ?

First, it is clear to me that the PDF must remain.
I think everyone agrees on the qualities of Lilypond and about its accessibility: it is free, anyone can use it.

Thus, if, today, Gand agrees and that it does not overload the work of everyone (starting by Gand :) ), making the use of Lilypond files possible as .mus files are is very good!

The next step (or in the same time) we should have a sub-forum section dedicated to lilypond. The First step would be to support users and give a "how to write a lilypond file for Ichigo site" topic, like M says. I think it's the most important point if lilypond files are allowed.
Then, we could launch the "translation" project.

This project, although it appears to be a long task, even tedious, has its benefits : myself, when I came to this site I regretted not being able to modify the score for my own personal needs (simplification, transposition...) : either because it's a .mus file, or because the source is not provided. But that's another question.
And I agree, the question of profitability is here: does it worth to transcribe the whole library for a dozen users?
I have no answer and I think I'm not the only (to do not have the answer :D )

So if from the beginning we say : let's see who is interested and want to invest himself, we will know how to put our efforts in this project (because we all have a real life :sweat: ), the rules are clear and there will be no disappointments.
Personally, I do not mind if after the launch of the project there is not answer: we have discussions about issues of lilypond that will always serves others (eg: how to write a good lilypond file ...) and we will have a dedicated place to lilypond in the forum :lol:

At last, I wonder : if the project goes well, is it very good that no one can't give .mus file ? Wouldn't be nice to offer both .mus and .ly files, then, a simple call for volunteers to translate the source in the other format would be done ??

The next step (or in the same time) we should have a sub-forum section dedicated to lilypond. The First step would be to support users and give a "how to write a lilypond file for Ichigo site" topic, like M says. I think it's the most important point if lilypond files are allowed.

That would be better if it is taken as a Notation forum rather than a forum for a single software. There are people with questions related to Finale, and there are other notation software like Sibelius, notion, the cheap minority and the free ones. And there is the question of how to notate something correctly which goes to Notation issues. Keeping the subject wider would be more beneficial.

The next step (or in the same time) we should have a sub-forum section dedicated to lilypond.
The thing is, you don't even know yet how many people will participate. So just start by creating a dedicated thread first, and then if the response is good, scale your ambition upwards accordingly.

Realize though, that even if you happen to receive an overwhelming response, the likelihood of having an entire subforum dedicated to just LP is still extremely low, as Nyu pointed out. That said, if you get at least 5 or 6 people who are truly dedicated, your project might be best served by requesting a social group. An SG would fill the role of having a single place to discuss and engage in an ongoing LilyPond project, without adding an unnecessary subforum. That is, assuming the project gains enough support. You'll never know until you try though. =)


The First step would be to support users and give a "how to write a lilypond file for Ichigo site" topic, like M says. I think it's the most important point if lilypond files are allowed. Then, we could launch the "translation" project.
Perhaps PM with M to discuss a guide, and at the same time, either he, or you, should probably start a thread, like I suggested, to test the waters and detect the interest-level towards such a project.

If there are people willing to work on it, voluntarily, it probably can't hurt to let them get started on the process. I would think there would be a way to retain PDF files, which I also agree should stay, even if redone using LP.

I think everyone's on the same page with this. My original intent was to host the files side by side, not eliminate. Thus, you have a PDF and an optional MIDI, MUS, and/or Lilypond downloads. To provide an extra format that people could use.



That said, I think it's quite ambitious to re-transcode over 1100 sheets on the main site, but new sheets can certainly have lilypond sources instead of finale .MUS in their ZIP file. I can update the verbiage on the site to reflect this.


That might work, but given the purpose of the site, that's potentially alot of resources spent on a questionable impact.

People come here for PDFs. Original score files can be useful if they want to transpose or arrange it.

I'm not sure about lilyfying the entire library. It seems like alot of work for very little return.

Well, I'm not going to lie that it will take time. But when I realized that it could do on the fly transposition I thought that it would provide some worth for our site. Considering most composers have a lot of transposition requests, I figured by having this at hand, it would provide a shortcut to complete that process. I also don't foresee this and the transcribers having any conflict. We've never placed any demands short of providing a PDF, an engraver file, and branding from a transcriber. Accepting Lilypond format would not change this. Also, it's strictly volunteer work. Should anyone find that it's too difficult, they're free to come and go.

Essentially, the purpose of this project would be to raise awareness of and to teach Lilypond at the forums for those interested in it, but don't know where or how to start.



Perhaps figure out a way for current site staff to not have to do anything, or at most, very very little?

This was my intent and goal. I didn't want to make heavy demands out to the staff, and at the same time provide a new avenue for the user base.



That would be better if it is taken as a Notation forum rather than a forum for a single software. There are people with questions related to Finale, and there are other notation software like Sibelius, notion, the cheap minority and the free ones. And there is the question of how to notate something correctly which goes to Notation issues. Keeping the subject wider would be more beneficial.

I agree to this. Lilypond isn't big enough to have it's own forum. Like Solaphar said, if the forums begin to go greatly astray from their original purpose, then migration to a social group would be best. I'm not certain how many would be interested in Lilypond, so the Composition forum (picked due to the rapid nature of the sheet music request forum, and that majority of transcribers review both subforums) will be getting a user interest poll in the near future with a sample of how much work it would be for a user to set up shop with Lilypond and work on the project.

Although, I'm not adverse to having a notation forum should we need to further tier topics, I also like simple structure, so it might be too much to do this, especially since this is really a post-production attribute to the music. Let's see how things pan out.





So if from the beginning we say : let's see who is interested and want to invest himself, we will know how to put our efforts in this project (because we all have a real life :sweat: ), the rules are clear and there will be no disappointments.
Personally, I do not mind if after the launch of the project there is not answer: we have discussions about issues of lilypond that will always serves others (eg: how to write a good lilypond file ...) and we will have a dedicated place to lilypond in the forum :lol:


Realize though, that even if you happen to receive an overwhelming response, the likelihood of having an entire subforum dedicated to just LP is still extremely low, as Nyu pointed out. That said, if you get at least 5 or 6 people who are truly dedicated, your project might be best served by requesting a social group. An SG would fill the role of having a single place to discuss and engage in an ongoing LilyPond project, without adding an unnecessary subforum. That is, assuming the project gains enough support. You'll never know until you try though. =)


Perhaps PM with M to discuss a guide, and at the same time, either he, or you, should probably start a thread, like I suggested, to test the waters and detect the interest-level towards such a project.


I'm not certain how much time I can dedicate due to my Job eating up 60% of my day and the other 35% of life related activities (and the fact that I don't really know a lot of detail behind the lilypond format other than what it promises and my two shot transcriptions I've done in it), but I'll eventually get something spun up to find out just how interested the forums would be in doing this.

At last, this project seems to be too premature. It's better to talk about it later.


My original intent was to host the files side by side, not eliminate. Thus, you have a PDF and an optional MIDI, MUS, and/or Lilypond downloads. To provide an extra format that people could use.

So do I ! If it's granted, that's great !!! (I'll post my first transcription :sweat:(*))


That would be better if it is taken as a Notation forum rather than a forum for a single software.

Perhaps PM with M to discuss a guide, and at the same time, either he, or you, should probably start a thread, like I suggested, to test the waters and detect the interest-level towards such a project.

Indeed, Lilypond is not so big to give it more importance, opening a dedicated forum is not intersting, I misspoke. Getting a sub-forum (eg. "Notation softwares") like the existing "Audio production" would be more judicious. In this sub-forum we could find threads for each software. I talk about it by taking in mind the organization. But, if you think it's too complicated and would be simpler to create a simple thread in the "composition" section like the "Finale/Sibelius Notation software -- Support", it will be fine !

It's a good beginning and will allow to "take the temperature". Curious and interested persons who will find .ly files on Ichigo will have a place to discuss about it, then things will go by themselves, gradually, step by step. So if Lilypond become more important, we will be able to reconsider the relevance of this translation project :).



I wrote to M ^_^.
(*) no, I'm not waiting for this, I just need to be sure about my transcription (the final verifications) :heh:

A simple way to get things started and to test-pilot this:

1. Translate a few sample sheet music (say, begin with the first page of sheet music on the main site)
2. Start a thread on Lilypond, introducing the software and showcasing how it might be useful to people, using the sample sheets as examples

I completely agree that PDF is the core of the website, as it is necessary for printing.
However, I see a major issue with this:
The new requirement (PDF only required) for sheet submissions seems to somewhat degrade Ichigo's quality standards. As a visitor from time to time, the act of previewing of the song that i'm about to try with the midi was always welcomed. Without this (and the PDF), Ichigo's website begins to lack its enjoyable moments.
Thus, I believe that you should once again enforce the need for submissions to attach a midi version aswell.

Other files that are not pdf or midi should remain optional.


Thanks for listening (or reading).

I completely agree that PDF is the core of the website, as it is necessary for printing.
However, I see a major issue with this:
The new requirement (PDF only required) for sheet submissions seems to somewhat degrade Ichigo's quality standards. As a visitor from time to time, the act of previewing of the song that i'm about to try with the midi was always welcomed. Without this (and the PDF), Ichigo's website begins to lack its enjoyable moments.
Thus, I believe that you should once again enforce the need for submissions to attach a midi version aswell.

Other files that are not pdf or midi should remain optional.


Thanks for listening (or reading).

I know what you mean... it's really nice to be able to hear the sheet music. MIDI is just a really old format and a lot of people don't even know what it is, let alone create one. I've thought of adding a Youtube field, or maybe dynamically generating one since youtube videos are rarely permanent.

MIDI is just a really old format
Yeah, it's old but there's really no universal substitute for it yet. What other file format can be commonly opened by a wide variety of music and audio programs? There are many programs, like Finale, MuseScore, and Sibelius, et al that have their own incompatible file formats, but MIDI can be opened or imported into all of those (pretty sure), and also can be loaded into most DAWs (FL Studio, Sonar..) and media players (like winamp, and so on). MIDI is the most universal format currently available.

Kind of iffy on the youtube idea. It couldn't hurt as a nice addition, but it's unlikely to represent the notes as displayed on the uploaded sheet music, especially since many piano uploads are unique arrangements written by the uploader, so Youtube likely won't have the tune as shown by the uploaded sheet music, unless the uploader makes such a video. And the whole point of an attached MIDI is to be able to hear the notes as shown on the sheet music.

If people don't know how to use/create MIDI files, then maybe we should post a tutorial or something. Like, we could make one sticky post somewhere and have it contain links to various picture tutorials of how to export a midi from any of the most commonly used sheet music programs. Perhaps we should start with an optional poll of uploaders to gather data on which programs they use to make sheet music? Just an idea. Other suggestions on how to solve this issue would be good too.

Just so it's clear, I'm not supporting making MIDI a requirement in addition to PDF (as One_1 seems to be suggesting), but I do think an attached MIDI should at least be encouraged to some extent.

For general playback midi has been surpassed by video streaming sites.

Midi is useful when somebody wants to work directly with the midi file - say, they want to transpose or arrange the sheet, or for the more ambitious render it in a DAW.

Chances are anybody who's transcribing is using a software that can export midi files. All they have to do is make sure they've got the right instrument for each staff and set a reasonable tempo.

Yes. I totally agree that streaming sites are far better, quality-wise, but like I said, "the whole point of an attached MIDI is to be able to hear the notes as shown on the sheet music."

Unless the sheet music transcription is 100% full (all instruments) and accurate (no mistakes), then sites that stream the original song/tune (that the transcription is based upon) won't accurately reflect the sheet music, and so won't serve as an adequate aural rendering of how the sheet music is supposed to sound when played by the instrumentalist(s). And I thought that hearing the notes on the sheet music is what One_1 sought, but maybe I'm mistaken.

If an aural rendering of the sheet music is not what One_1 is after, and he/she just wanted to hear the song/tune that the sheet music is based upon, then yeah, Youtube or other streaming sites would be the best option.


Oh, you make a good point about being able to easily transpose or alter the sheet when a midi is available. You're also right that finding a midi export option is usually not difficult, so perhaps a picture tutorial would be unnecessary after all.

As a visitor from time to time, the act of previewing of the song that i'm about to try with the midi was always welcomed

A agree with this point, a midi file allow me to "preview" the sheet. Adding it with the sheet should be encouraged !


good point about being able to easily transpose or alter the sheet when a midi is available. You're also right that finding a midi export option is usually not difficult, so perhaps a picture tutorial would be unnecessary after all.

Of course midi give these opportunity.
However, about altering the sheet, as everybody knows, depending of the software used by the transcriber, the midi file won't be such accurate than an audio or a re-worked midi file. I'm thinking about trills, dynamics, special effects from some instruments and others... Just take a look about threads which discusses about getting a sheet from a midifile....
In my opinion, if anyone want to alter the sheet, it's better to provide the "source file" of the sheet, if the transcriber want to do that, else this person will have some work to do ^.^

I think so, tutorials for exporting a midi file should be proposed.

And we may discuss about the possibility to allow sheet altering, no ? I'm thinking about people asking for specific instrument's transcription : they could do some easy modifications to an existing sheet to obtain their own :think: (I know, this is a recurrent question :heh:)

As I look through the recent submissions, most pdf-only sheet music has a tempo marking, meaning they played back the midi file while they were transcribing.

That in culmination with the submission instructions:
MIDI: (optional)
Please make sure it plays OK and sounds good. If you used a MIDI to make the transcription, please do not submit the original MIDI, but instead submit the MIDI generated from your sheet music authoring software.

Perhaps make midi a requirement? As the vast majority of Ichigo's sheets are midi-equipped.

However, about altering the sheet, as everybody knows, depending of the software used by the transcriber, the midi file won't be such accurate than an audio or a re-worked midi file. I'm thinking about trills, dynamics, special effects from some instruments and others...
Yeah, that's true. There is also the Events List to consider, which usually contains those special effects. That's how you program, for example, crescendo or portamento into MIDI.


In my opinion, if anyone want to alter the sheet, it's better to provide the "source file" of the sheet, if the transcriber want to do that, else this person will have some work to do ^.^
...
And we may discuss about the possibility to allow sheet altering, no ?Wasn't that what the LilyPond project was supposed to do? That seemed like the best way of altering sheets, but maybe I've misunderstood.


Anyway, in summary, I think, instead of the word "optional" next to MIDI: on the submission page, the word some of us would like to see is "encouraged" within those parenthesis. I believe that's (at least partly) what we've been getting at since One_1 posted.

Where we're at right now, MIDI is not encouraged, merely an option, so we should keep discussing and thinking about whether to change that and straight-up ask submitters to "please include a MIDI file for the benefit of others".



As I look through the recent submissions, most pdf-only sheet music has a tempo marking, meaning they played back the midi file while they were transcribing.
Yeah, I think in many cases, the transcriber listened to the MP3 or streamed audio and figured out the tempo through trial-and-error.


That in culmination with the submission instructions:
MIDI: (optional)
Please make sure it plays OK and sounds good. If you used a MIDI to make the transcription, please do not submit the original MIDI, but instead submit the MIDI generated from your sheet music authoring software.
Good idea. It's also good to ask them to check and make sure the exported MIDI is an accurate rendering of the sheets when they're submitting it. In other words, if stuff didn't get messed-up during the export (which happens sometimes).


Perhaps make midi a requirement?
Yeah, there is indeed a strong argument in favor of this, since we've already established that pretty much all music programs can export the midi format (as far as I know). I've certainly never encountered one that couldn't.

But on the other hand, there is the danger of driving submitters away when they see that. Hence the reason I proposed the "export tutorial" to assist submitters who may not know how to create a MIDI file with their program.


Hmm, anyway, let's keep thinking about all of this. It's certainly not a hurry to make a decision on this issue.

Yeah, that's true. There is also the Events List to consider, which usually contains those special effects. That's how you program, for example, crescendo or portamento into MIDI.

Wasn't that what the LilyPond project was supposed to do? That seemed like the best way of altering sheets, but maybe I've misunderstood.


No, you didn't misunderstood at all !

I mean that if someone wanted to alter a sheet from a midifile and hoped to obtain the same quality of the original PDF, he won't be able to get it except if I has the source file, sorry for the misunderstanding :sweat:

Otherwise, I agree :)

Mandating extra requirements on a volunteer service is not a good decision.

Actually, 99% of all Ichigo's sheet music are midi-equipped. Only recently did pdf-only sheet music start showing up. Alot of sheets also have .gif and .mus files attached.

Besides, if I remember correctly midi used to be a requirement, which never created any problems at all because most (if not all) transcribers already have the midi file which they used to play back and check their transcription. It's the optional requirement that stops them from clicking the "Export" button which they otherwise would have naturally done.

Maybe we can hear what Gand has to say on this.

I never really liked the MIDI option because of the ease it gives for plagiarization. There have been instances in the past where transcribers have their arrangements blatantly plagiarized and corrective actions have to then be taken. I do, however, see the need for playback of the arrangement for performance needs. Therefore, I feel having an optional MP3 field would be better suited for this. MP3 is very common and easy to create from most notation software packages, which in my opinion, makes it a much greater option for everyone that uses Ichigo's.

Mandating extra requirements on a volunteer service is not a good decision.
Hmm, well I suppose that depends on the outcome (Which we do not yet know). So, yeah, it very well could be.

An experimental trial run might be in order, just to see how it affects submission rates. If they go down, then it can be undone. If they're relatively unaffected, then it can be kept in place (with, of course, continued observation of submission rates).


Maybe we can hear what Gand has to say on this.
Yeah, he might have data on the history that could help clarify certain things.


I never really liked the MIDI option because of the ease it gives for plagiarization.
Sheet music in itself allows note-for-note plagiarization, although, admittedly, takes more effort.

An interesting side note, on the other hand, is that merely creating derivative works (such as these transcriptions) without the copyright holders approval is somewhat of a legal gray area. Is a plagiarism of a derivative work so much more wrong than the creation and distribution of the transcription in the first place? I say this rhetorically, because I don't know the answer. Just trying to get people thinking. More thoughts on it would, of course, be good.

Anyway, look at vgmusic (http://www.vgmusic.com/new-files/upload/). They allow only MIDI format, and plagiarism is relatively rare, mostly because the updaters check files before they add them to the archive, to make sure that the files aren't rip-offs of other files, or rom-ripped.


I do, however, see the need for playback of the arrangement for performance needs. Therefore, I feel having an optional MP3 field would be better suited for this. MP3 is very common and easy to create from most notation software packages, which in my opinion, makes it a much greater option for everyone that uses Ichigo's.
Well, there is the extra step of recording it, if it's not included on the software itself, so that could require a tutorial.

MP3 size is also an issue, unless the quality is very low, due to bandwidth issues. Maybe something that has an even smaller size/quality ratio, like OGG (which also has the advantage of being an open format, unlike MP3)? But that's not as common, so some people might not know how to open it, or even make it. Still, it might work as well as MP3 once people get used to it.


Lots of interesting ideas so far. Maybe Gand can give his thoughts when he gets a chance to log-in.

An interesting side note, on the other hand, is that merely creating derivative works (such as these transcriptions) without the copyright holders approval is somewhat of a legal gray area. Is a plagiarism of a derivative work so much more wrong than the creation and distribution of the transcription in the first place? I say this rhetorically, because I don't know the answer. Just trying to get people thinking. More thoughts on it would, of course, be good.

Maybe, you already read things like this, but if I can help to go ahead with my opinion, here it is.

First of all, when I do a transcription (or videos on my youtube channel, or other thing derivated from an original work), I didn't ask to the original author. So, my work might be considered as counterfeiting.
Then, I publish (or share) my transcription (or videos, etc.) and, again, i didn't asked for the authorization of publishing it.
So, again, i violate laws.

I could say that a site like ichigos or josh or others are also in laws violation....


But, but, but.....


We are not the first (and not the last, I hope :D ) to publish fan's content. Because all these works are fans made !!
Did you see fans sites which closed because they publish fan's made content ?
What I mean is, as it stay fan made and those fan don't earn money on it, it's tolerated by original autors, considering that fans write copyrights' mention. They must say who is the original author with their work. Also, it can be considering as adds by the original author (when it's well done, of course XD )
I won't epilogue about scantrad and fansub, because this is another subject and another complexity.

Here, we are talking about transcription, implicitly this is about arrangement and not about THE original work, i mean a perfect copy as we know like music, movies, etc. Thus, it can also be tolerated considering we give credits to the original author.


That being said, what about a person that transcribe my transcription or copy my work that I, myself, transcribed from an original work ???

Well, and this is my personal opinion, it won't bother me if someone reuse my work without my permission or don't give me credit. How can I blame him if myself didn't asked to the original author ? Of course, I won't be as happy as Droopy is, but what can I do ? To contact this person (if I success) to ask her to give me credit ? Maybe, yes ! But I won't insist if I see this is not a person which care about intellectual property (I would waste my time in that case).

A contrario, I'll be very pleased if I see that someone ask me to develop my work (and give me credits) :) I'll wait for his work and I would appreciate it by comments, discussion...

To be short, original author should not blame (and so, tolerate) fans which made arrangement of their work as they don't earn money on and as long as they give credit to him. Personally, I like to ear or to see how people can arrange an original work, it give so many loved point of view !

It comes down to one basic point, Which standpoint is more important to Ichigo's:

1) If avoiding plagiarism and ensuring that all transcriptions are the property of Ichigo's is the goal, then the natural course of action would be to systematically remove all midi files (which exist on 99% of all sheet music) and reupload them as mp3.

2) If providing the best service as a free sheet music database is your goal, then requiring transcribers to submit a midi along with a pdf (which, if I recall correctly, was already a requirement during most of Ichigo's lifespan, thus 99% of all sheet music are midi-equipped), would be the natural thing to do.

Depends on how possessive you are of the sheets on Ichigo's, whether claiming possession is more important to you than providing free service. But in the end, Gand owns the site, and he probably doesn't care too much about such small issues, hence changing the midi requirement to optional.

People looking for sheet music are looking for actual scores. People looking for midis are looking for the song in of itself. By not having a midi available not cause a hindrance, so long as another aural format is made available. In fact, if you've ever tried, most MIDI files on Ichigos cannot be used in modern notation software, as they're poorly tracked by Noteworthy or older versions of Finale that single tracked them. A prime example, consider Noir7's Scarlet from Ayashi no Ceres (link (http://ichigos.com/sheets/a), near the bottom). Pull the MIDI down and try and import it to Sibelius or Finale. The results should be enough proof that the MIDI doesn't provide that much worth, unless you want to painfully break the music down note by note, but that's already done for you in the scores.

What does provide worth is the SOUND the midi makes. MP3 also provides that sound. There's no difference between the two. Either format works for the purposes of this site without any real argument for or against one another. Yet another reason why a new mandate shouldn't be enlisted is because of blanket statements such as taking material down and reformating them. That's a lot of work with little benefit. I think that level of focus should be placed at reorganizing the request forum into something that's actually usable instead of the rats nest of a state it's currently in.



Another point is that 100% of what we produce on Ichigos is covered under Fair Use and the composers possess limited rights to what they've generated. It's in the the fine print (http://ichigos.com/legal) :).

Yet another reason why a new mandate shouldn't be enlisted is because of blanket statements such as taking material down and reformating them. That's a lot of work with little benefit. I think that level of focus should be placed at reorganizing the request forum into something that's actually usable instead of the rats nest of a state it's currently in.

The MP3 example was actually an illustration of why it shouldn't be implemented. Obviously nobody would think we should actually do it.

It comes down to the original point - that 99% of all Ichigo's sheet music are already midi-equipped, and exporting the midi file is as natural as exporting the pdf, as has been done for the majority of Ichigo's lifespan.

The discussion was about how Gand felt midi files are obscure and obsolete, whereas others felt they're useful and should remain a requirement.

To spark some potential ideas on improving the requests forum (http://forums.ichigos.com/showthread.php?12078-REQUEST-FORMAT-name-of-anime-or-game-song-title-instruments&highlight=request+format)

Edit: Nevermind.

What does provide worth is the SOUND the midi makes. MP3 also provides that sound. There's no difference between the two.
Well... size. But lowering MP3 to a small enough bit-rate solves even that issue. Although "solves" seems relative at some point. I guess with a preview, sound quality doesn't really matter much.


I think that level of focus should be placed at reorganizing the request forum into something that's actually usable instead of the rats nest of a state it's currently in.
Yeah, it would be good to fix that too. Still, I can't see the harm in at least discussing MIDIs, even if it divides the level of focus a bit, and even if no action is ultimately taken in the short term, because if the issue is ever brought up again, we can point to here as a jumping-off point for renewed discussion on the matter. So yeah, discussing it can't hurt.

But I do agree that we should discuss ways to encourage the transition between fulfilled requests and uploaded requests. I'm guessing less than 10% of requests filled are actually uploaded to the main site's archive. At the very least, we need a method to sort & group filled request threads so that they can be found by game or anime title, so that even for the ones that aren't uploaded, they can be found more easily. But I think the ultimate goal should be to encourage uploads.


Another point is that 100% of what we produce on Ichigos is covered under Fair Use and the composers possess limited rights to what they've generated. It's in the the fine print (http://ichigos.com/legal) :).
It's true that the site protects itself to a certain extent by framing itself as an educational provider, as do other MIDI archives and sheet music archives. It's lucky this site isn't hosted in Japan because this tactic doesn't work as well over there (thanks a lot JASRAC).

On that note, there have been similar legal issues with online guitar tablature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablature#Legal_issues) as well.

One of the results was that GTU (one such tab site) had to reframe itself as MuSATO:
"MuSATO's main objective is to use fair use as their rationale to publish tablature free of charge. By claiming to be an educational provider, they do not have to obtain publication rights nor pay royalties to the original composers. MuSATO claims to be educational by classifying users downloading tablatures as "music students" and transcribers as "music teachers"."



To spark some potential ideas on improving the requests forum (http://forums.ichigos.com/showthread.php?12078-REQUEST-FORMAT-name-of-anime-or-game-song-title-instruments&highlight=request+format)
Lolz. I couldn't help but laugh. Even when you're posting guidelines for thread titles, and it's in big bold obvious print, those two repliers still didn't actually read your post.

Actually, I think that right there is one of the best illustrations of what's "wrong" with the request forum. If only we could think up a solution for that. XD



Anyway, focusing back onto MIDI vs MP3: I think the only way to continue this is after Gand's input. He is the only one who knows what kind of bandwidth issues would be faced with any kind of change, or what potential effects there would be upon submission rates, among other things.

We definitely need to have Gand's input, but since it's been a month since the last post I'll say a few words; so stay awhile, and listen...

The first thing I want to say is that my initial proposal of a midi requirement was only proposed because I could not see a middle ground. However, if the midi was encouraged or recommended would allow flexibility for the people who want to - or not - add midi files.
A simple change nonetheless, and may just be enough to get that extra addition of .midi file(s).

Midi is surely an old format, there may be legal issues with it, but it is extremely small. I have never seen a music file as small as .midi, and it does nicely accompanies with the .pdf file(s).


...100% of what we produce on Ichigos is covered under Fair Use and the composers possess limited rights to what they've generated.
Because of this copyright loss, it is irrelevant that Ichigo needs to protect the composers transcriptions, instead Ichigo must focus on preventing others from stealing the transcription.
Gand will have to think of a way to prevent this or we will need to collectively think up a way to prevent this, and recommend it to Gand.

Oh, and it is clearly written in bold that
The .MUS, .PDF and .GIF files themselves are copyright © 2001-2011 by Ichigo's Sheet Music and may not be reused or sold in any way without expressed written consent.

So, the .midi that is uploaded is not protected by the legal information (http://ichigos.com/legal). Making the argument that Ichigo may need to (should) protect .midi files completely irrelevant.

Thus, the only thing that remains is whether or not .midi is just plain too old.
There are a couple of solutions (that I can think of) to this whole debate:

return of the .midi requirement, as the site previously had.
encouragement to upload a .midi file
allow .mp3 file upload (low quality to manage size)
linking the songs to the original (alternative access to the song)



straw man fallacy (argumentum ad logicam):
I propose that historical figures in gaming will always live on. An example of this is Tetris - it is old, but is still a great game.
Hence, despite the reality that .midi is old, it is still a great format to use.

Hope this is of some use - but this thread needs the input from Gand;
as we vistors/members sit here and wait...

.midi is just plain too old.
Hmm. Regardless of age, it is still the most universal format currently in wide use. So until there's a more recently-created, widely-accepted universal alternative (i.e. format that works with most progs), I think age of the format is a non-issue.


allow .mp3 file upload (low quality to manage size)
Yeah, it would probably have to be something like 64-96 kbps if this route were chosen. Even at 64 kbps, a 2-minute file would be nearly a megabyte. Midi would be 5% or less of that amount, so it's still kind of questionable, but if the bandwidth is there, might be doable.


linking the songs to the original (alternative access to the song)
Another possible option except, as mentioned before, it may not accurately reflect the sheet music, which is the purpose of the audio preview. Plus Youtube likes to randomly pull tunes down due to copyright issues, even ones that have been there a long time. So the links would have to be checked frequently, or there'd have to be link below it saying: "Is the YouTube link down? Click here to let us know."

Here's a somewhat random suggestion:

I think it'd be neat if prolific transcribers and request fillers could receive an optional special tag like "VIP transcriber" or similar, in a special color. Something like 10 transcriptions in a 3 month period and another label for like, 25 or more transcriptions per year. The numbers are just chosen randomly and they could be refined further with discussion.

The person in question could choose whether they wish to display it or not. Just a fun little bonus and a tool of recognition so that hard-working transcribers can be better acknowledged for their efforts.

The tags would only have set durations before they expired. I'd suggest roughly double the duration for which it's being awarded. For instance, a three month tag would last 6 months, before the person would lose the tag, unless they added an additional 10 transcriptions during the time. A one year tag would last 2 years, unless the person had at least 50 during those two years, to keep it going.

So for example, to earn the one year tag, a transcriber makes 25 transcriptions between July 2011-July 2012. They are awarded the tag as soon as the hit 25, which they happen to do so on January 2012. But they can display that tag until July 2013. If they make 25 more transcriptions between July 2012 and July 2013, then they can keep it another year.

This idea could probably be refined and modified a whole lot, but I'm mostly jotting my thoughts as I think them. So let's discuss.

That is a great idea Solaphar. I would like to see that applied in the forum. It may create more motivation. Maybe we could add a special icon too, like the Ichigo next to your "Ichigo's supporter".

Yeah, I actually first thought about this in April or May, when I saw marioverehrer answering a lot of transcription requests during that period, but it slipped my mind for a couple months.

The idea is really to help incentivize transcribing and give recognition to those transcribers who are making large contributions. I hope people will think about it, and give better suggestions for exact numbers and such.


Oh, and I want to reiterate that I think this should be an optional thing, so an awarded transcriber can choose not to display the title if they wish, for some reason.

What copyright? We create non profit sheets for fun what copyright would be involved, better not make ichigos like youtube :shifty:? Midi should be recommended but not required.

Everyone always has copyright on something they created. If I create a drawing, I own the copyright. When someone writes a song, they own the copyright. Otherwise people could just steal work from others and claim it's theirs and you couldn't do anything about it.

Everyone always has copyright on something they created. If I create a drawing, I own the copyright. When someone writes a song, they own the copyright. Otherwise people could just steal work from others and claim it's theirs and you couldn't do anything about it.

In the same vein, users have the right to revoke their own copyright with more flexible licensing; ranging from Top Secret down to Public Domain.