Schoenberg's Theory
I am reading this book that includes about 350 musical examples. I thought it would be a good idea to transcribe all of the examples and put them into one package, so that people who have the book in PDF or hard copy can listen to the examples as they read. Would anyone here be interested in working on this? I suppose I could cover the first 100 examples.
Comments
In reply to See the Handbook under by Marc Sabatella
Thanks Marc. That was easy enough, but I made a few mistakes. The regular pallete is now apart, whereas before it was lodged in the side.
In reply to Thanks Marc. That was easy by Joe H
Just drag it back to its docking station.
In reply to Thanks Marc. That was easy by Joe H
See: https://musescore.org/en/node/26236
In reply to Thanks Marc. That was easy by Joe H
Wow! This program is getting more and more interesting as I go on. WOOOOOT!
In reply to Wow! This program is getting by Joe H
Hmm, and we just learned that 200 is the maximum numbers of replies in a single thread before the forum decides it needs to be split into pages.
Could we perhaps consider retiring this threa,d and starting new ones as necessary more focused on specific issues that come up? Even though the thread only just went over 200 replies, it had *long* ago become way too big to follow well.
In reply to Hmm, and we just learned that by Marc Sabatella
I'm not sure I know what too long is. Someone once asked Abe Lincoln how long a person's legs should be and he said "Long enough to reach the floor." I am brand new to musescore and took on a major project for a beginner. You seasoned people know the program and don't need much help. This thread and transcription project has become a kind of workshop for me.
Sorry to bother you again, but I have run into figured bass and it is very tedious. I am currently using Text. Any shortcuts?
In reply to Sorry to bother you again, by Joe H
Ctrl+G?
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/figured-bass
Henjor - I am uploading this file to protect it. I have no other way to make a backup now. 1-99 is proofed and ready.
Here are the proofs for #211 -275. I think you have ten of my examples in your folder. Where are you on this? If you want, you can split up the remainder of what you have and I'll pitch in for the final haul.
#234 has four staves. And I found that I could move superfluous rests to the corner of the page. But how will that come out in joining these files? I did not do that yet. But we could go over these files again and do that if it will help clean up the look.
In reply to Here are the proofs for #211 by Joe H
If by "superfluous rests" you mean the one at the end of the example, don't move them. Just use Measure Properties to shorten the measure to 4/4.
In reply to If by "superfluous rests" you by Marc Sabatella
Marc - What if I did move a few? I'm not sure. Is it going to mess up the joining?
In reply to Marc - What if I did move a by Joe H
Well, it will probably look strange, depending on how you did it. It may also look different in some future version of MuseScore if the layout algorithms change in such a way that the way you moved them is no longer apprpriate. More importantly, it's just wrong. If these scores are to be useful, they shouldn't just look right; they should be right musically, so that people doing other things with them (having them read aloud or converted to Braille, for instance) get the right information.
In reply to Well, it will probably look by Marc Sabatella
I agree, and that is what we have tried to do. But you need to realize that Schoenberg's notation is very strange to begin with, in many instances. The extra measures are littering some of the files because we tried to make it look like Schoenberg's written page. The note and rest values frequently do not add up.
In reply to I agree, and that is what we by Joe H
Do not move those rests, they should be visible and untempered with ‘under the hood’. Those already moved can be reset with the bent arrow rightmost in Inspector [F8].
Edit: That is, rests not in the original print should be set to invisible in files-at-work, so as to be invisible in files-to-read.
In reply to Do not move those rests, they by HenJor
I may have done that on one or two files, but I'm not sure which. How much is left to do?
Joe H, I have downloaded your file #001—099 and am checking it through. Have done lots of tweaking, adding some exotic symbols, deleted stray litter, corrected a few errors, redone #18 left out. Do not alter your copy of that file, it is outdated now. I will go through it without proof-reading actual notes (except for some noticed by chance) and post it later on.
My own files are not proof-read yet, but will hopefully post the whole package before Monday.
Your batch #211—75 is downloaded. I will do nothing with them except deleting irritating file name suffixes ‘_0’, before finishing the above. I will then put together a zip (date in name) with all files and rudimentary errata/version history, to prevent confusion over file versions. Neither of us wants to put more effort in this, and parts should not be kept separate while being unified.
“I think you have ten of my examples in your folder.”
With the ones you have posted, we are only missing #206 through 210 which I do not have. Please do them if not already done (leave exotic symbols to me) and post here.
In reply to Joe H, I have downloaded your by HenJor
Henjor - I don't know what is the problem with the file 2.0.1 #1-210 but it is on two G clefs. So I am stopping until I know what is going on. Perhaps I can just change the clef to correct it? Or is that one of the old corrupted files?
In reply to Henjor - I don't know what is by Joe H
No problem with that file, neither corruption, and usual G & F clefs here. (Please check before making others do it. It was posted, all 3 versions, after corruption was solved.)
But DO NOT use that file for work! It was just for demonstration, as explained several times before. If you are using it for notating #206—210, better start from any of your recent files, or leave it to me.
I am still going over your #001—099, to have a better picture before going over the rest. You need not do anything more now but wait, but if your fingers itch you can notate #206—210, but then say so now. Everything else is now locked with me, and I will not post anything but a complete package, to prevent confusion over different file versions.
In reply to No problem with that file, by HenJor
OK - I'll do 206-210.
In reply to OK - I'll do 206-210. by Joe H
Great, post them here when you are done and I will look them through after having done so with my #100—205 set. Your #001—099 is proofed now but not split. If you want, I can post it with detailed fix-history to compare to your last version. That history is for keeping my own track, will be generalized in the final package.
A sight for sore eyes, that ‘End’ sign flickering on the horizon. Will probably stop by Fata Morgana once or twice on the way; an old friend from work, who likes making hay while the weather is schön.
In reply to Great, post them here when by HenJor
This is it.
In reply to This is it. by Joe H
I can help with splitting these files up, when you are ready.
In reply to I can help with splitting by Joe H
I would gladly have your help with your files. They are here:
001-099 20150725-1.mscz (Done)
206-210 20150725-1.mscz (Not done)
Please split by example (leave subdivisions for posterity), save each with file name = example number, repost 2 zip files with date in name as above (001-099 2015072x.zip, 206-211 2015072x.zip).
Mine are not done yet, have #140—205 to do, will then look at joining. There are some considerations, for example we should set General \ Create courtesy clefs: Off, Create courtesy time signatures: Off, Courtesy key signature: On [#185 f), #299]. We would like to not show time signatures at all, but because of a single exception [#142 a)], we cannot for the finally joined file. Also, consider #234 with not just 4 staves, but set in voice not piano, and no braces G—G—F—F clefs: I do not know yet what is best (for us and next user): Adding these instruments, ending up with not 2, not 6, but 7 staves throughout the big, even bigger file. (That is why I have kept #340, 343 and 344 for piano. (#347 i.e. the Appendix’ footnote from page 175 is 2 staves idea + elaboration in succession, not 4 staves. I have renotated #18, the single one in not necessarily 3 staves, in that manner.)) Or renotating it for piano, having the work’s main piano be Alto & Tenor, “framed” by Soprano & Bass, hiding brace.
These problems are inherent to wanting everything in a single file. I will not let much effort go into that part, rather keep alternatives; for instance ‘234 [Pf].mscz’ & ‘234 [Choir].mscz’, and joining only un-problematic examples.
In reply to I would gladly have your help by HenJor
Again, I believe it's a bad idea to create each individual file with the goal to join them in a single MSCZ. Just do what is best for each file and we will find a way to put them together even if it's not a single MSCZ file. As I demonstrated for the other project, we can make an HTML file, or we can make a video, or an interactive PDF etc...
Don't bother taking special decisions for joining all the files in one MSCZ, really, it's more trouble than it's worth.
Another advise, (idem, take it or leave it). Using this forum to send files, store them and keep revision is suboptimal. There are tools for online collaboration which can deal with revision, conflict etc... MuseScore source code is hosted at github.com for example. There are easy to use clients that should make it convenient to use git. For example https://windows.github.com/
I did a quick experiment to host the file and generate an HTML version with audio + images.
The result is here http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/book2.html
The "code" and the mscz files (based on the files posted on this comment):
https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH
You can fork it, make pull requests, and so on if you want to use it to collaborate.
In reply to Again, I believe it's a bad by [DELETED] 5
lasconic, big thanks for your concern. I agree (thanks to your input now long ago about batch handling general format) that a single file is no goal except in integrated form such as HTML. The one MSCZ incoming is again for demonstration only, and would be made for completion, most probably as said with deviating examples presented on the side; the ‘real’ package is constituted by the split files-per-example. I also know these special decisions’ worth, as hinted before.
Github is great and the way to go, but I have no more time for this Schönberg. Presenting notation was my part. File name with date is a bad revision historian, but an easy cope on this last stretch. Anyone willing and able to start a Github project can take it from here. (Maybe I will, but not this summer.)
I have also seen your HTML version (and the similar snippet posted before), it is great, probably not much harder than it looks from the files backstage – but not for me, at least not this time and now. I have heaps of other stuff waiting, and would make better use splitting the already splitted files down to example subdivision, which would require quite some renotating of passages now done ‘wrong’ to match original layout, and also lots of unifying my Joe H’s parts and mine (from general differences).
In reply to lasconic, big thanks for your by HenJor
Henjor - If you want to split up the remainder of what you have and post it here, I will do some more proofing.
I am OK with putting this on the back burner after we have the compilation ready. And I would not want to come back to it again until we have done the Goetschius, if you are still up for it. That too, we can do after a substantial break. We can make a kind of tentative schedule - maybe six months?
lasonic - What you have done looks good. It is not necessary to have one whole editable file. One whole playable PDF or web page will be fine. PDF is preferred because the user does not need the Internet.
Is there a problem with doing these projects here? Maybe they are too big for the General Discussion forum and we could have a Projects forum? Also, the email notifications include a link to this thread, but I think it makes more sense (on a project at least) that the link take me to the last post in the thread, since on progressive projects, the most recent posts are the more relevant.
In reply to Henjor - If you want to split by Joe H
Discussing about the project here is great but exchanging the files here is far from optimal. A shared dropbox folder or a git repository would make the process a lot easier.
The HTML page is usable offline. PDF with embedded audio is not really standard as far as I know. Most PDF readers will just ignore the audio. An epub3 is probably possible.
Joe H, I have now run into the thing you commented recently with G clef in both staves. No idea why but no problem either:
When splitting an OK file (#100—205), deleting measures preceding a wanted example (say, for #101, deleting #100’s measures), the lower staff F clef is changed into G. I have checked that it does not affect even curious manual alterations as in #205 (enharmonic extra accidentals, individually moved paranthesis halves, adjusted ties) but will not investigate further. Just delete preceding measures, go to measure 1, add F clef, proceed. File opens OK after save.
No time for chatting here, I will be done splitting my part tonight (but not ready for packaging), will begin your part if you have not said otherwise in 10 hours.
In reply to Joe H, I have now run into by HenJor
I gave you what I could do 206-210. If you split up the last bit and post it, I can do some more. Say, 20 examples. But make sure the clefs are correct. I'll do them tomorrow morning.
In reply to I gave you what I could do by Joe H
#206—210 notated OK, split OK, last check OK. Proof-reading as earlier: mostly visual check; have not looked at notes, but 1 wrong corrected [#209 c) measure 5 A Eb—E corrected Eb—Eb].
#211—273 notated OK, split OK; last check in progress.
#274—347 notated OK, split OK; awaiting last check.
Please hold.
In reply to #206—210 notated OK, split by HenJor
#001—099 splitting now.
#100—347 OK.
I will then join all files – for demonstration only, with a few exceptions on the side – and post only that handful here. Some further tinkering later, the zip package (with all split files) will be posted.
In reply to #001—099 splitting by HenJor
All we can do now - is hope - and wait.
Lasconic - If you are inclined to continue this project, the HTML will be fine. And I guess we don't need to have it all on one page after all. Whatever you, marc and henjor see fit to do with this, I'm sure it will be OK.
I will need a break for a while but I want to continue with the Goetschius later. In the interval, I will try tinkering around with the gitbox account that you suggest. We can improve our system next time around.
Thanks to everybody, especially Henjor, Marc and lasconic. This could not have been done without your support.
In reply to All we can do now - is hope - by Joe H
Having just posted previously, I noticed many lines anchored all over the place even to the wrong staves, from being dragged onto the score; therefore did another sweep through the heap, tidying up lines only: done.
Will now split #001—099, but not join tonight. It is middle of night again here, will post again tomorrow.
Joe H, big thanks at your initiative!
Finished yesterday, so I believed.
#001—347 + exception files notated, split, proofed, saved OK, everything opens OK. Joined files #001—347 without exceptions saves OK, but when opening resulting file I get the following message on corruption (occurring from measure 2976 (#229) to 4128 (#338)), 274 lines:
This seems to behave differently from before, but probably stems from the same source. Midnight here again, I intend on trying to fix this with the operation used before – tomorrow, if there are no other suggestions.
Files are otherwise beatutiful with a few sunspots circa #137.
Edit: File atttached.
In reply to Finished yesterday, so I by HenJor
Where can I get the individual MSCZ files?
In reply to Where can I get the by [DELETED] 5
I will post them here today with a fairly detailed proof-reading log, within 2 hours or after ~5 hours.
In reply to I will post them here today by HenJor
If you could put them in a zip file, instead of posting them all as mscz it would be great. I will put them in the github project then at https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH/tree/gh-pages/mscz
Of if you feel like learning about github today, feel free to add them yourself.
* Create a github account https://github.com/join
* Login to github.com and click the Fork button here https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH
* Install https://windows.github.com/
* add the MSCZ files, commit and push.
* create a Pull Request
In reply to If you could put them in a by [DELETED] 5
Will do later today, must hurry off now.
I have my github account. But I will need some time to look it over. If someone is working on a project over there now, maybe you could show me around. I don't know a thing about github or the lingo.
In reply to I have my github account. But by Joe H
Sorry for delay again, 01:45 here. Have looked at corruption, may have good news, will know after some hours’ work at it. Capital post tomorrow.
In reply to Sorry for delay again, 01:45 by HenJor
Sorry, late again. I am going away the day after tomorrow, having had just stray hours for this until leaving.
This post is twofold: 1. SCHÖNBERG has been ready for days, but 2. joining files has had CORRUPTION occurring again, and, since the cause may come from a couple of files (The first error message of 274 lines seems to have its length from a small corruption multiplied by joining the many files.) and not some other logical paradox at join, it must be accounted for. I split these posts.
In reply to Sorry, late again. I am going by HenJor
1. SCHÖNBERG & file joining problems
All files package are here: 001-347 Package 20150727.zip (at Zippyshare, since 4 MB is too big for MuseScore.org)
(Files-per-example, proof-read by Henjor; except for file 029 that had a measure 2 duple tie noted only after join and corrected since.)
//
Note:
• I put some glissando lines in my examples earlier, standardizing voice leading lines (to keep them separate from other things not doable, for instance the vertical bracket in #85) and because you always have to fine-position a regular line even when defining start/end notes but a glissando snaps into place and angle. Lots of work to be saved, I thought. When splitting files, new system/staff stretch affected many lines, so a manual check was done on the whole material; halfway through which I noticed many lines abnormally anchored, so another check restart for that parameter too. Only then did I learn how MuseScore handles piano glissando – and had to manually go through everything again – tedious, but visually easier than autimagically search-replace (if possible) every glissando with regular lines and then checking them against regular lines that also needed checking. 3–4 sweeps for this done manually, but still I may have missed a glissando. And then the final big join resets all altered lines, and other stuff.
• G clef bug? when splitting files: Big file 001-099 of examples #1—99, made 99 copies numbered 001, 002, 003, … For example #33, load file 033, delete measures preceding example #33. Hereby the low staff F clef changes into G clef. Irritating but no problem, just change it back manually. (I noticed no affected objects manually dispositioned, thankfully.) Curiously, a single exception (among ~350 files) is worth mentioning: Split file to example #140 (starts at measure 448, page 29, so delete measures 1—447) and clefs stay OK. Also curiously, this sole exception to a problem is located right where the big problem with corruption occurred earlier.
• After all this, another manual sweep of all files for proofing file-end barlines. They occasionelly changed (from End/Double to normal) during splitting; maybe also inside examples (#40, 51). I discerned no regularity but did not investigate either. I have mostly kept to Schönberg’s original, for instance the #162 b) and #283 normal end barline, and #229 end barlines, given as such in both 1984 & 1948 editions.
Fixed files 17, 20, 24, 142.
• There are some files where system is so crammed it breks to new ‘line’, notably #137, 145. While #137 was notated deviating from original for GUI, #145 for listening reason (maintaining even beats of strong—slow—strong—slow), both can be altered to match original line breaks (#137 graphically, 145 by shortening deviating measures to original length) I think it better left as is for now.
WHAT IS LEFT TO DO:
• Stretch. Among others, #281 and #330 will pull together but #282 and #331 keep their stretch. I do not know why.
• Fine-positioning of certain objects (unisons, parantheses, lines). Lots and lots of objects have been manually offset (for visual accord with the printed original), thrown steps aside by some other action in MuseScore, manually corrected, and this repeated. Final splitting of files set lots of offsets off, again, in particular unisons and lines. I do not have time to go over them again.
• Subdivision label accidentals in text. For example subdivision labels, #1—99, 206—73 have thoroughly notated standard ASCII ‘#’, ’b’; #100—205, 274—347 has sporadic labels in higher-numbered examples (#274—347), using Unicode ‘accidentalSharp’, ‘accidentalFlat’.
?• All files are set not to show time signature, however some do not show it in spite of not having been so set. I do not know why.
#336
#337 (measure 1, shows in measure 2)
#338
Courtesy clef: None
Courtesy time signature: None
Courtesy key signature: #185 f) before 2 last systems on next page
#299 between systems 2 & 3
Courtesy key signature missing: #199 between e) & f)
Files setting:
Create courtesy clefs: Off
Create courtesy time signatures: Off
Courtesy key signature: On
//
Note that Joining files is apparently insecure for things other than plain notes. Everything manually altered will need proof-reading, see file 001-347:
• measure 11 (#2): slur reset to form other than if entered per default
• measure 16 (#3): Slurs reset from manually altered vertical position
• measure 23—5 (#4—5): Example ending with F clef in high staff, F clef is carried over to next example and on, not changed until measure 58 (#12) but why then?
• measure 51 (#10): Manually altered lines reset. (Also final example #347.)
… and so on.
Joint file corrupted is here: Test 2-8 (1-347)b.mscz (same as in my post with error message quoted July 28, 2015; made from files of package above)
In reply to 1. SCHÖNBERG & file joining by HenJor
2. CORRUPTION
Corruption has occurred again, but perhaps different from earlier. Since every new file-per-example loads-works-saves-loads OK in 2.0.2 and corruption still occurs after saved joint file, either the bug? encountered earlier is not fully identified in 2.0.2, mutated since, or another species.
Joint file corrupted is again here: Test 2-8 (1-347)b.mscz (same as in my post with error message quoted July 28, 2015; made from files of package above)
I have tried mapping corruption error message measures to example files. Corruption in joint file 001-347 occurs from measure 2976 (#229) to 4128 (#338), in 19 files: 229, 231, 240—1 247, 254—8, 260—1, 263, 267, 270, 273, 336—8. Voice swapping all 19, saving, then joining them in separate handfuls gave corruption left in only 2 files: 267, 338. Renotated both from scratch, saved, joined separate handfuls OK. But then joining the 19 again gave new? corruption. Zip with 19 files, these joined corrupted, and error message here: 19 CORRUPT.
This time errors are indicated in measures 152—169 = #270, 273, 336—7.
Renotated #270 from scratch, saved, joined the 19 again: OK.
Joining now the old 001—347 updated with these new 19 gives: Corruption, 154 lines. Full package here: 001-347 CORRUPT 154 (Zippyshare again)
(Joining 001—347 minus the 19, plus the 3 renotated is OK.)
Will now renotate the remaining 16 examples starting with #229 and the more suspicious-looking ones, test-joining along the way. Hopefully done today, otherwise this will have to wait for part of this soak[all]ed summer.
For reference:
• Older source files corrupted: See this thread.
• Older source files corrupted, then fixed and stepped OK through different MuseScore versions:
001-205 1.3.zip
001-205 2.0.1.zip
001-205 2.0.2_0.zip
I have more, but these will suffice for now.
In reply to 2. CORRUPTION Corruption has by HenJor
I guess 001-205 2.0.2_0.zip is your last version with separated files? Unfortunately the link is broken.
In reply to I guess 001-205 2.0.2_0.zip by [DELETED] 5
Aha, new links:
001-205 1.3.zip
001-205 2.0.1.zip
001-205 2.0.2.zip
No, there are later ones. Latest full set 001—347 is the one topmost in post 1. SCHÖNBERG. Files there within the same interval 001—205 have been separated (also 206—210). 211—347 has corruption somewhere, probably only a few of the 19 files mentioned above of which 3 have since been renotated from scratch and tested OK. (Renotating the 4th now.)
Or download from post 2. CORRUPTION the zip ‘001-347 CORRUPT 154’: Latest full package of all files, problematic ones so marked = easy to exclude.
In reply to Aha, new links: 001-205 by HenJor
I took 001-347 CORRUPT 154
When files where duplicated, I choose the more recent. I commited on github. https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH
Here is the HTML page with PNGs and MP3 audio
http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/book2.html
I added anchors, so example 100 is http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/book2.html#ex100
If you have more ideas to make this convenient to use. Just shoot and let's try to push the boundaries.
In reply to I took 001-347 CORRUPT by [DELETED] 5
All files OK now, posted in a minute. I will have a look at your things, but no time now. Going away tomorrow, for a week maybe. Should then do some translation.
Big thanks, and bye for now!
You're really chugging along! Go Henjor!!!
Lasconic - I take it that you are going to put this all together in HTML?
Henjor - If you are having trouble, I don't know if we need this in one musescore file. I started this thinking of that but now that I see what Lasconic was able to do with HTML, I don't think we need to join them. One file will not be practical. I did not understand this until now.
In reply to Henjor - If you are having by Joe H
I know, it is 2 different topics, that is why I splitted above.
The Join scores feature has been readily demonstrated now, but corruption is on a need-to-do basis, and I think valuable hints has come up. The corruption problem has had many threads during our struggle here, and the fix has relied on detection at 2.0.x load. Now we have ‘clean’ 2.0.2-saved files not given the red light at load but corruption still occurs when loading such a joint file. I know no dedicated thread, have neither time nor knowledge to take it on, and we already have abler hands here. Joining our files is now done for diagnostics. Our work is essentially done, but we want to know that corruption stems from software, not files. I am almost convinced, but there is a difference to know.
And on top of that, a load of baby illnesses with the Join, presumably unrelated to corruption, but a valuable addition to the next MuseScore revision.
I am confused by all these files. I like the HTML you are doing, but I don't understand what I can do with all of the files you uploaded to github? And what do I do to save the HTML? I don't understand how you can have a link to an HTML page yet it is not via a web connection. Where is it? How can I access it without downloading it to my computer? I thought I access HTML pages via a web connection?
Aside from all of that, the HTML is what I meant by having it all together. It can even be on separate pages if the links are all on one page. For easier loading. I think I am missing a lot of technical savy to be working with you people. You will have to understand this. I can transcribe, but then I am lost. I was even lost most of the time during this transcription.
In reply to I am confused by all these by Joe H
It works just as with any other file, container-wise just as with MuseScore files. I suggested earlier to take an .mscz of your own, rename it with suffix .zip and have a look.
Or try with the ones just about to be posted.
In reply to It works just as with any by HenJor
Yeah, but I'm getting a big package of parts and I don't know what to do with all of the parts. I've got a load of PNG files and then a buncha other stuff like script, "edenPersistencyHttpCookiesScript" - what the hooch is that?
In reply to Yeah, but I'm getting a big by Joe H
Try looking at files (not pictures) in a text editor, and try not to understand in depth. Very few people are actually capable of reconstructing any detail between throttle and wheels.
OK and thanks again everybody. This HTML is great. It looks good and works well. I take it that the nuts and bolts have been posted for the techies and what matters is that I have the HTML.
All OK.
Renotated 20 files from scratch (the 19 mapped earlier, plus 239 for looking suspicious), that did the trick.
Last file to be renotated was ‘273 VSwap’, and immediately before that I tested joining the full 001—347 set with it, getting corruption message:
which maps exclusively to #273 (again which is sneaky; because 273 was one of the files earlier joined OK in several other constellations – which is why it and others were left with just voices swapped). Renotated that one, then joined full set: OK.
File is here: 001-347, ugly with the resets mentioned earlier, but loads fine – which we now know to trust only so far.
For anyone interested in digging into questions remaining, 20 CORRUPT to OK.zip has the problematic 20 files in 4 versions: Original, proofread, voice-swapped and renotated. My folder for this project now holds 3527 objects, and will soon be cleansed of anything not OK.
Long awaited package here: 001-347 all files.zip (Zippyshare)
= All .mscz files, separate, proof-read, join tested OK free from corruption; plus #105—6 pictures, and some information in text.
Thanks to all: Joe H, lasconic, Jojo, Marc, quark, Xavier, Chorganist and others. I am going offline for a while now.
In reply to All OK. Renotated 20 files by HenJor
And the files are online on github.com
Here is the HTML http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/book2.html
And the individual MSCZ files: https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH/tree/gh-pages/mscz
Any further edits is probably better if done on these files from Github.
In reply to And the files are online on by [DELETED] 5
I agree. Will step by there later. Good of you to have the project set up there.
In reply to I agree. Will step by there by HenJor
Yes. Thanks Lasconic. I suppose the only thing to do now is lay it to rest until I am ready to use it. At that time, maybe in a year, I will "proofhear" everything to make sure it sounds as it is notated. If there are problems, I will bump this thread.
My next project will be the Goetschius transcription. Are you all in for that? I expect to go to work on that before the end of this year, as soon as October.
In reply to Yes. Thanks Lasconic. I by Joe H
I must decline, have heaps of other stuff to do. If anything, I should return to have some blank spots of the Swedish translation of MuseScore filled.
In reply to And the files are online on by [DELETED] 5
Is there some way to view the html for this project? The above link is 404.
Lasconic - You know what we could use? A separate HTML page as an Index to the examples. That way the users could click an example number and go to the example, and when they got there they could scroll either up or down on the page you have already made, and find a previous or a subsequent example. To make a jump the user could click back to the Index and find the exact example they were looking for.
In reply to Lasconic - You know what we by Joe H
Something like this?
http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/index.html
http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/book.html
Honestly I don't really see the need since a simple Ctrl+F, enter the number of the example in the main page will let you jump from one example to another more easily. If you don't know how to search on a webpage, it's a skill that can be learn easily and can save hours... See for example http://www.wikihow.com/Search-for-a-Word-on-a-Webpage
In reply to Something like by [DELETED] 5
Lasconic & Nicolas - Is there any way to incorporate the text of this book into these example pages?
In reply to Something like by [DELETED] 5
Nicolas - Is there any way to incorporate the text of this book into these example pages?
Sure, I know that, but linking on an index would be even easier because you can just navigate with a single clickl back and forth. The Index you made looks fine, but the links are not connected. I'm just glad that you've done what you have done. If you are inclined to go further, I'm interested in seeing what else you can do. Remember that we went out of our way to make single files on the suggestion by Marc that we could do so much more with this project.
But where is Marc anyway?
Henjor - Could you please post your individual files? I am going to come back to this project later and will need them.
In reply to Henjor - Could you please by Joe H
@JoeH Please use the files from here https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH/tree/gh-pages/mscz (Click one, right click Raw, save as // Or better install github for windows https://windows.github.com/ and click "Clone on Desktop" here https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH )
Hi everybody.
Long time - no see.
I am thinking of doing something with the raw individual files. I posted #211-275 for Henjor to access when assembling the whole. But those are the only individual files posted. Does anyone else have this material?
In reply to Hi everybody. Long time - no by Joe H
All the files are here https://github.com/lasconic/Schoenberg_ToH/tree/gh-pages/mscz
Does anyone know how I can incorporate the text of this book into these examples? I have the book and can transcribe the text. But how can I get it into these pages? Or can I get the HTML and have another group finish this project?
http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/index.html
http://lasconic.github.io/Schoenberg_ToH/book.html