David Rogers Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Is it in bad taste to use the Forum to distribute details of one's website? I think it is, so the Web Master will probably remove this posting. On the other hand they say it takes up to two years for Google to 'notice' a new site however sensible and informative it is. The old adage about if you want something done, do it yourself, is very true. The thought of a professional designer putting together a website for me would be awful, so I sampled the various free do-it-yourself companies. www.webs.com proved very good and though it took several months, I built one. My subject is of course Bach, and almost nothing else. I titled it An All-Bach website. There are 91 graphics, some free downloads, a couple of complete trio sonata recordings and probably a thousand words. It was a satisfying experience honing the draft text and tracing errors. Several sites such as www.jsbach.org , www.classicalarchives.com or www.baroquemusic.org and few more are rich with material and ideas, but in my view the organ is poorly served. Finally, the address of my site. It is http://sebastianbach.webs.com . Good luck as you build yours. I shall be pleased to sample them. David Rogers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innate Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 My subject is of course Bach, and nothing else. I titled it An All-Bach website. There are 91 graphics, some free downloadeds, a couple of complete trio sonata recordings and probably a thousand words. It was a most satisfying experience honing the draft text and tracing errors. Naturally I think the finished site is splendid, but I'm prejudiced of course. Finally, the information you as patient readers have all waited for: the address of my site. It is http://sebastianbach.webs.com. David Rogers There's a missing flat before the lh E at the end of bar 6 in the extract from the Chaconne transcription. Found it about 10 seconds after going to the site so can't really comment on the rest of your work! Well done for doing it all though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geoff McMahon Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Is it in bad taste to use the Forum to distribute details of one's website? You are supposed to put it in your profile. I think it is But you've done so anyway? so I shall expect the Web Master to remove this posting. On the other hand they say it takes up to two years for Google to 'notice' a new site however sensible and informative it is. I'll wait to see what John Mander says, if anything. You do know, though, that you can ask Google to index your site? But you should wait until it is finished because, when you ask Google to do this, Google does so immediately - and then not again for perhaps a month or more. Rachel Mawhood Webmaster, Mander Organs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Hackney Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Thank you David for your site. It is a pleasure to explore it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drd Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I think there are probably several of us who are web designers, implementers, and 'hosters' as a professional sideline. The optimal route nowadays to get a site ready quickly from scratch would be a CMS, where one has detailed control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rogers Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 There's a missing flat before the lh E at the end of bar 6 in the extract from the Chaconne transcription. Found it about 10 seconds after going to the site so can't really comment on the rest of your work! Well done for doing it all though. You are right, of course, and I'm very grateful. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Curran Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Dears, I have absolutely no problem with a member promoting his/her website as long as the intention is altruistic rather than commercial. We should welcome the efforts of those who have a desire to communicate their love of the instrument and its music. With the economy as it is, and the inroads that electronic-midi instruments are making, we as pipe organ lovers and the pipe organ builders as an industry should welcome the efforts of individuals who wish to share their passion via the net. I am a member of the OHS ( US Organ Historical Society) and the greatest challenge being faced here in the US is attracting the next generation, a generation who as future church goers will say Yea or Nea to the purchase of a new pipe organ or the restoration of their current instrument. I am the proud father of a 14 year old who thinks organ music is for old farts. If one individual, like David, can ignite a spark of interest when a casual web surfer (think teenagers) stumbles upon his site then the more the merrier. If other members or the hosts of this forum feel differently please say so. Perhaps a separate category could be established - e.g. "General Discussion", "The Organ and its Music", "Member Websites" Regards, Chauncey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innate Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You are right, of course, and I'm very grateful. DR Hi DR, Just had another look, this time at the Largo from the D Major Harpsichord Concerto. Maybe it's there and I missed it, but presumably these are your own transcriptions intended for the organ - is that right? If so, perhaps that should be made clearer on the download page. Bar 10, RH: there should be a # before the second A (5th semiquaver). The ties seem very odd on my pdf viewer (Preview on Mac OS X 10.6). Quite often, eg RH bars 8-9, the tie is vertically aligned with the end of the stem rather than the notehead. In the "Scotch snap" sections, eg RH bars 23-24, the short beams for the second demi-semiquavers in each 4-note group are on the wrong side of the stem. I think this is a bug in Sibelius and can't, sadly, suggest a workround but it does look odd. Keep up with the good work. By the way, I agree with Chauncey's post and suggestion of a "Members' Websites" section on the board for discussion of non-commercial sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rogers Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 You are quite right. The ties and beaming in the many “scotch snaps” of the Largo were untidy and I have corrected them. These copies were done with Noteworthy Composer, an American program which offers a fine help service via e-mail. But there is a price to be paid when a machine takes over such matters as beaming: a quill pen still has its merits! On the detail of accidentals that you raise, I submit we are in a grey area. Once applied, an accidental is surely valid for the remainder of the bar unless cancelled. A repeat of that accidental such as you request is nothing more than a sensible courtesy for forgetful players but not a requirement. Incidentally, what a superb Largo this is. I believe it works well on the organ. The copy of Bach’s own transcription of his E major violin concerto as the D major harpsichord concerto that I worked from (Dover Publications) had not been taken out by a previous library subscriber for fourteen years until I borrowed it. David Rogers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidh Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 My attempts to download the pdf of "Come sweet death" fail, with reports that the file is corrupt or of the wrong type for the Adobe Reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwhodges Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Once applied, an accidental is surely valid for the remainder of the bar unless cancelled. A repeat of that accidental such as you request is nothing more than a sensible courtesy for forgetful players but not a requirement. It is absolutely a requirement in this case; accidentals never affect a note in a different octave! (Except in the key signature, of course; though you can find old manuscripts in which accidentals are repeated within the signature as well.) In music written in distinct parts on one stave, accidentals are also repeated if the note is in different parts (this may vary with engraving style in some circumstances). Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnd5584 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 It is absolutely a requirement in this case; accidentals never affect a note in a different octave! (Except in the key signature, of course; though you can find old manuscripts in which accidentals are repeated within the signature as well.) In music written in distinct parts on one stave, accidentals are also repeated if the note is in different parts (this may vary with engraving style in some circumstances). Paul And, of course, if you are a French publisher, you will add unnecessary accidentals to tied notes (admittedly over bar-lines). As far as I am concerned, this just leads to confusion.... As Paul has said in another context, accidentals are pitch specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innate Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 And, of course, if you are a French publisher, you will add unnecessary accidentals to tied notes (admittedly over bar-lines). As far as I am concerned, this just leads to confusion.... Sibelius now does the correct (non-French) thing of adding an accidental to the second of two notes tied over a barline only at the start of a new page (or is it new system?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwhodges Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 The rules have varied at different times. I use Lilypond for music setting ('cos it's free, and 'cos I'm a nerd), which has presets for a wide range of different rule sets. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rogers Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 Sorry you encountered difficulties. That file was indeed damaged so I have re-installed it. Here is a link to Virgil Fox's interpretation of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m66PBlJX4uA...feature=related There are several other performances by Fox of that piece available. Any further problems do let me know. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now