Talk:MusicXML

Initial expansion

I expanded the article so it's longer than a single sentence, but I still think it looks ugly. Improvements will be welcomed. --Ardonik 00:49, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought it was called MusicML? ...or is that something else? --yoshi 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

MusicXML and MusicML are different XML-based markup languages. The latter was developed in South Africa, and is not (to my mind) as good a solution, nor as widely supported. Elphion (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I truly hate stupidly verbose XML. human-readable my ass! Why should all parsers be XML parsers? Why not more sensible and appropriate domain-specific languages? Should we rewrite C++ so that it is now a XML-application and ready to receive the full XSLT treatment? sheesh... GUIDO music notation is much more well-suited for the purposes of computer presentable musical notation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.174.130 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Full ack, I see it the same way. Thus I added a reference to GUIDO under "see also". Faerwynn 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many music notation file formats, and a reference to GUIDO would be an appropriate addition to that Wikipedia page. But unlike NIFF, GUIDO is not a music notation interchange format. Thus the reference seems inappropriate here, regardless of the relative merits of XML and other language approaches. Mdgood 06:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Freedom and alternatives

1) How free ist this format really? Is it allowed to develop enhanced versions/schemes based upon MusicXML? Is it "safe" to use this format within free software? 2) Are there better alternatives as it comes to sound generation rather to score notation? Imagine a music tracker (like LMMS using its own XML) that focusses on easy generation of effectful sound & music (including morphing, phasing, fading etc.) in a simple XML notation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.33.71 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the license link, you will see that the license allows enhanced versions and is compatible with free software. If you follow the software list link, you will see that there are many free and open source software projects using the MusicXML format. MusicXML is not an audio format; I do not know if there are alternatives that work the same for audio programs as MusicXML does for score programs. Note that Cubase (a similar type of program to LMMS) supports MusicXML as part of its score editor feature. Mdgood (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Commercial support for MusicXML

It should be mentioned along with the opening statements that although Sibelius and Finale support MusicXML export there is as yet (February 2008) no commercial notation product that will IMPORT MusicXML files.--207.165.188.21 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. In fact import is better supported than export. The latest versions of Sibelius and Finale both import MusicXML 2.0 or earlier (but only export to MusicXML 1.0 or 1.1). (See [1]).--Dbolton (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither Sibelius 5 or 6 export MusicXML. [2] 2009 09 02

Conversion from Sibelius file format to MusicXML requires the Dolet plug-in (currently $US199) [3] 2009 09 02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.131.141 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability/Sources Tags

I am tempted to remove these tags immediately (at least the notability one). The tags were added by an individual who admittedly has no understanding of the topic and seems to be trying to delete references all over about MusicXML. That being said, most of the references do come from MakeMusic who develops MusicXML and I will try to find some alternate sources in addition to those already added. I would request that the user not make any more edits to a page where the subject is not understood. I wouldn't dare try to question and make edits to a page with a topic I have no education on. I think it's reasonable to expect that from others. Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a number of reliable 3rd party sources. I will return later to clean up a bit. If there are no further comments after a few days, I'll remove the tags.Ngreen2001 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact someone has 'no education on' is exactly perhaps the point. If someone who is trying to learn can't figure out why something is notable, then there's a MAJOR, HUGE issue with the article. Either it is, in fact, not actually notable or the article needs some actual sources to show it. It looks like you added two, which is a good start, though there are still major issues with the article as it's written. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Melodia. I thought the overall article was pretty clear on why MusicXML is notable. I did add 6 or so additional citations to help boost 3rd party references. Can you be more specific what you mean by "major issues with the article as it's written"? Do you mean just needing the additional references or something more? MusicXML is a big deal when it comes to music engraving. If the article doesn't quite demonstrate that, then I'll continue to work on it. I'm not a technical expert by any means, but I can certainly help clean this up as I have a bit of experience with the topic. Ngreen2001 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that I don't necessarily see someone uneducated in music or familiar with XML not fully understanding the article as a problem. I would never understand some articles either!!Ngreen2001 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the references are just links to the existence of the programs cites, they aren't really actual refs. Since they are notable programs in their own right, Wikilinking is probably all that's nessesary -- linking to, say, the Sibelius home page doesn't tell you anything about the notability of MusicXML and is almost counter-useful as it stands. As for major problems? Well it's written in a very promotional style, the lead doesn't summarize the rest of the article, and with the (I believe) two actual references that are actually true sources for the article, it's still a bit on the fringe. But someone a bit more familiar with the whole source issue could probably explain better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite seeing the promotional style, but I'll see what I can do. I'll modify what I've done with your suggestions, though. I appreciate the feedback.Ngreen2001 (talk)

As regards notability, MusicXML is being considered by the Library of Congress as part of its planning for preservation of digital resources. I have replaced the opening of the article with wording derived from their (neutral, authoritative) description of the format. I also propose that this is sufficient evidence of the format's notability for us to remove the notability template from this article — thoughts? Alexbrn 08:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that we have enough to remove the notability tag. We probably do still need to work on some additional sources, though.Ngreen2001 (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Nrgreen2001's first post, I made no such admission and your assumption about what i'm doing is wrong. In reply to your request, no. You are dead wrong about who should edit pages. People of all different understandings should be encouraged to edit pages. They are meant to be accessible to all levels and should be based on what is written in independent reliable sources, not based on the personal knowledge and understanding of experts. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not rehash a previous discussion, but from our conversation I strongly questioned your understanding of the topic to which you replied it was irrelevant. It's not. In no way did I suggest that articles be written from personal knowledge, but a basic understanding of the topic is reasonable to expect. I wouldn't start questioning the notability of a small article related to astrophysics because I probably wouldn't grasp the topic. I apologize if you were offended--that wasn't my intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngreen2001 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

List of MusicXML Sources/Repositories

I noticed the list of MusicXML Repositories was also deleted. Is there consensus that the section shouldn't be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngreen2001 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

this edit? The reason given was "EL cleanup", and Wikipedia:External links does state "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" — so maybe just a link to Official MusicXML Sites List is enough? Alexbrn 14:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I think that one you mentioned is sufficient.Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we generally only have one link to the official site. If a reader wants to goto said list they can visit the site and get to it from there. See WP:EL for more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngreen2001 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

References to Primary Sources

What exactly is the policy here? The primary source (MakeMusic) has a lot of information. Should it not be used at all according to Wikipedia guidelines? If so, should they be removed? Or do we just need to ensure a sufficient amount of other sources, as well? If that's the case, can the tag be removed with the number of 3rd party sources we currently have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngreen2001 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, one of these days I'll remember to sign my name...Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY covers it, and note "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" — so using MakeMusic as a source for purely factual statements (e.g. "Version 1.0 was released in January 2004") is fine (even though a secondary source would be even better). However anything descriptive/evaluative should be sourced from a secondary source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay that makes perfect sense. Thanks.Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)