Messages

What about the barrings?

I'm sorry, I didn't see the screenshot you send me!
I think it is better the actual barring.
Music moving in 4 impulse per phrase

I mean like this:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Did you consider changing the dynamic to mp or p rather than mf?  You didn't respond.  I think it would fit a lot better.

Ok we did it

Sorry for the wait! Looks good, just one thing. Measure 5 beat 2.5 should be a G instead of an E.

Did it

^Friendly reminder for the above, please read the reply and feel free to ask any questions if you don't understand. But if the submissions continue to stay in this state where "Jacopo Tore" is listed on the sheet but uncredited in submissions, we'll need to start archiving some of the extra submissions soon.

Yes you can archive, I Will upload when i Ve not other submission thx

Sorry for the delay.

Hmm, I'm not really sure what my thought process was about the time signature, it looks fine to me now.

I would say about the left hand in bar 4, have you considered something like this?

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

I think I was making the triplet comment in light of changing the time signature, so it doesn't really make much sense anymore.  Something like this sounds much more like what is going on.

Additional things:

-The composer should be Keiji Yamagishi.
-I do still think it would look better with twice as many bars, which would also avoid the awkward empty final half of the final bar.  I guess it isn't so important though.
-I think a lighter dynamic, like mp or p, would better reflect the tone of the piece.

OK except for the bars question (I didn't understand if I have to change the meter or change the note values) I changed everything.
I hope it's ok

Replacement is not only for the "old scores", and here Levi added several new tracks. He did not intentionally replace your sheet, he simply wanted to have the complete soundtrack on site which made a replacement necessary.

Not necessary, you can leave my score. Not delete It. Thanks for the respect you were talking about

That sheet was replaced, yes, but not everyone here was happy about that. I'm not an administrator but I know first hand how much time it takes to get a sheet through this process, and I know first hand how much time it takes to check the sheets as well. I don't doubt that you invest a lot of time in your sheets, we all do here, but there is nothing inherently disrespectful about replacing somebody else's sheet.

It Is ridicoulus to add some articulation and replace identically the sale score, there Is an admin Who told me some months ago that replacement was only for the old scores (because the quality you are talking), unfortunately appened so If everyone has their say, I have mine.

I think it's very unfair of you to criticise this aspect of the site Jacopo, the admins here devote much of their spare time to ensure that all the sheets are of high quality. You are right that this limits the website's growth rate, but this is the approach that the staff here have decided to take (and where NSM stands out from every other sheet music website).
Also, you will find that the sheets you and your students submit don't require less time than other submissions. Part of the reason for this is the language barrier, which is not anyone's fault, but it is something we all have to work around.
The other part of it is what you called bureaucracy. While I agree that the submissions process can be a bit tedious at times, it is like that for a reason (see Point 1 about website quality). Having everyone complete the same bureaucratic work and follow the same means that all the sheets that make it onto the website will be of consistent quality. It has repeatedly come up that you disregard the research into the source material for your sheets, and now you are disregarding the rules. If you had simply followed the rules, we wouldn't be having this long discussion right now. You can either follow the rules and contribute to the site, or not contribute at all.

Recently a score that has passed your "quality control" has been replaced (without being consulted because I found casually) by another user and you administrators have allowed it, you must know that I also dedicate a lot of my time as you say, to teach and write even just two stupid notes which, however, have a great value for the growth of my students and also for me this was very disrespectful towards me and above all my student, I accepted it because it is you who make the rules and we must shut up and respect them.

Also wanted to re-emphasize that we do this work voluntarily: we don't earn any money with this, so all of us have a job and/or college, friends, hobbies and free time besides NSM. We can't just increase our work load for the site's sake, because we don't have the time and energy for that. We're still humans.

you are decreasing the workload of others, because I understand that 50 is too much as Static says but 2 are still few, if then considering that I work with various students you are limiting their work, I understand that to you (not at all ) I don't like that my name is in more scores than yours and I can also understand it but I even taught my students to create an account and upload scores, this because one day they will decide what to do.
By doing this, I don't have time to send him anything because by publishing one score a month I can't get one piece done per student. The songs I insert are finished and formatted according to your rules. I respect the limit of two and the students respect it too, the fact that it has many students should only be an advantage for you and not just for now but also for the future.

The reason we have to set these limits, is because we are with a small team of 4 updaters, who do this work voluntarily in our free time. Opening up a third submission slot for example would increase our work load to 150% of what we're doing now too, which is just not feasible.

Ok as long as you keep the limit of 2 of the site the site will not grow, the more the site will publish scores the more users will be able to visit the site to know it and to collaborate.
It is a limit that limits.
The more types of scores there are (for example mine for NES are always easy because they are mainly made by 11-13 year olds) the easier it is for someone to start contributing and actively participating even with a few simple indications.
Honestly, I feel an active part of the project and it seems absurd that we are here talking about bureaucracy instead of music and scores.

If there are no other admins it is also for this reason,

That's what we're asking of you instead. If you prefer having your name on all sheets, we're only asking to delete one sheet from your submissions, and submit it again after an update.

Ok this is clear thanks, I Just asked why?
What s the problem to write a few score per months instead of 1

There's not a problem with adding your name on the site after the update. The arranger or admins can still do that after approving. The reason we have a rule of maximum 4 sheets (of which 2 collaborations), is because it is unfair to other people to have your name on a lot of sheets in an update. That's why Latios suggested removing your name from the sheets, so we didn't have to delete any sheets. If you want your name on all sheets, your name has to be added again in the collaboration box of Federico's and Matteo's sheets, but one sheet has to be deleted so you don't have more than 4 sheets up with your name.

A score Need the names of the composers and arrangers, do you prefer to remove the arranger name from a score to respect a rule of this site?

Well, because we want the arranger names on-site to reflect the arranger names in the sheet, that's just a settled rule we have. It also makes sure the sheet shows up when you search by arranger.

I think that the simplest solution is to publish the score, some other time we publish the score without the field collaboration compiled (there some pupils who have not a NSM account) so an admin published the score adding the collaboration manually After the approvation. Like in this case

Yes I am, that's why I mentioned that your name should be re-entered in the collaboration box, if you wanna keep the name in the arranger text box on the sheet.

There are currently 5 sheets submitted that are by you and/or your students, but we have mentioned before that you can have 2 sheets of your own and 2 extra collaborations. So you'll have to do one of these:
-Your name is not included in the collaboration box and in the arranger text box in the sheet: all 5 of the sheets can stay, and your students can update the sheets on their own merit.
-Your name is included in the collaboration box and in the arranger text box in the sheet: one of the 5 sheets will have to be deleted and resubmitted when at least one of the other 4 sheets is accepted and updated onto the site.

What I was trying to make clear, is that it's not allowed to have more arrangers in the text box in the sheet than in the collaboration box, those should be the same

ok, why?

The arranger names listed on the site next to the sheet title, should be the same as the arranger names within the sheet itself. You could add a text box with a "Special thanks to Jacopo Tore" instead, though. However, if you really wanna keep your name in the arranger box, then you should have your name in the collaboration box as well. But note that you can only have 4 sheets submitted at once with your name on it (2 of your own and 2 collaborations), which has been brought up before by Latios.
The same goes for the other sheet by Federico and the sheet by Matteo, by the way.

Excuse the question, but are you aware that the score was written by me too?