Wikipedia talk:Using sheet music sources

No URL

I think that we should include the URL of the sheet music. References should be set out so that they can be found as easily as possible, and the non-inclusion of a URL means that readers must manually search for the music themselves. When the subject of sheet music was brought up at WP:RSN, the reason for this was that an editor was unhappy with the site inviting people to download software. I don't really see an issue with this; we cite iTunes, Amazon and other retailers who offer downloads with URLs. Another point is that often there are several versions of a song listed, such as covers and karaoke versions, and it can be difficult to distinguish between them. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, it isn't difficult to differentiate them. They have unique product IDs which belong in the |at= field.

• Support I think it's perfectly fine to use sheet music and this guideline shows people who don't know what to do (like me) to use sheet music in articles properly. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sheet-music, if from a reliable source, can add a lot of necessary information to the composition part of the article of a song. From note ranges, and vocal arrangements... People tend to depends on sources such as AOL and MTV News, but sheet music is a lot more accurate than a critics bare ear and thought of a song. Theuhohreo (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sheet music is just another kind of document and we link to documents all the time, not least because it's useful to the reader. I don't see any reason why musical scores should be treated differently. Barnabypage (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Yes, we should include URLs. Novice7 | Talk 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I came to this discussion via the note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). It seems to me that a compulsion to include a URL contradicts Wikipedia:Citing sources; a proper reference to the printed score is sufficient. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But how are readers supposed to access the sheet without a link? They would then have to do a web search for the page. It's not like they are books, which can easily be tracked (ISSN etc). Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Many books don't have ISBNs or other catalogue numbers. A properly used {{Cite book}} or similar is sufficient; online availability of sources has never been mandatory on Wikipedia and is impractical. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mention anything about "online availability of sources"; I mentioned easily accessible sources. There are some sheet music books, which I am more than happy to be used on Wikipedia. However, sheet music only published online obviously needs a link. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I'm not familiar with sheet music only published online. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem! :D It's mostly contemporary music that is published online, whereas you seem to be more active in operas and the like. I might include sheet music books into this guideline, to avoid confusion of others. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per above. Especially because I work with music-related articles and believe that this can come in handy when reviewing articles at WP:GA to verify claims. AJona1992 (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. A no brainer really. Though I wonder at what point it goes from being a proposed guideline to an actual one. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any URL link to a pay site. Note that discussion about this has already been conducted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com, and it was not so much about downloading software as it was about pay sites. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with reservations. If we say no to this, then every Amazon and itunes link must also be removed, at least we can get information from musicnotes etc. Can't say I like links to pay/commercial sites. FWIW, Musicnotes is not a publisher of music, it is a retailer. Wording needs to be amended accordingly.

Include guidelines on referencing printed sheet music

It would be good if this article was expanded to include a paragraph or two on referencing printed sheet music. Most printed sheet music does not have an ISBN or ISMN and there is a lack of information, specifically, on referencing it. I notice on the back pages of sheet music a unique 7-character reference, LL NNNN N, which I assume to be a printing identifier. it would be good to know if this can be included in the wiki reference to help with the verification of sources. Genspeak (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bots don't like it

Bots can quite frankly learn to deal with the real world. Musicnotes.com is not the publisher of the item quoted, it is the containing work. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The output format is the same. I don't really see an issue with this, the only actual different between work and publisher is italics/non-italics. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is beyond me why the italics are not working, and the bots can go to hell all I care. They are frankly disruptive. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't include the URL

It was previously concurred that the url should not be included as it does not show the entire published work and the URL is merely a host for the published work. I also have a few other issues with the way that you've laid the reference out. I'll post my interpretation of the reference shortly. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Vocal Range

Online sheet music sources such as MusicNotes are not in fact always reliable for the vocal registers of male singers. They notate the vocal melody as being in the treble clef which is one octave above what is actually sung by male singers in most cases rather than being notated in a modified treble clef with an 8 underneath it indicating the register is an octave below. Even the example given on this page for Usher is incorrect as the vocal range of You Make Me Wanna is Bb2 to C5 rather than Bb3 to C6. C6 is commonly known as Soprano C and does not appear in the song as it is outside of his vocal range.

This is an issue that I have seen often on songs sung by males where the Wikipedia article says that the range is an octave above what it actually is because MusicNotes notation is incorrect and is written as being in a female vocal register. Chukulem (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Online sheet music sources such as MusicNotes are never a reliable source for the vocal range of any singer. They are only reliable for exactly what they represent: some musical notation of a song, not for how the song was composed, or how it is performed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have found a decent number of issues in song articles across Wikipedia of using the Online sheet music as a source to indicate that it is representative of the singer's vocal range. Also is it beneficial to include information about musical notation if it pertains only to the sheet music itself and not to the actual recording of the song? I feel as though when people are looking at a song article they are expecting to find information about that recorded song itself, and so it isn't ideal to include information about the range if it doesn't hold true to the actual recording of the song. Chukulem (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)