Hi Kosmas,

no problem in doing the first round. It is ok for me with the pdf. Just to be sure, the deadline will be Friday or Thursday for me? Best! L

Great, thank you Lula, it will be best to have your revision until Thursday night, so that we can evaluate the changes on Friday.

upload link ----> here

Hi everyone, thank you Lula for your first revision. Here (link) the rest of you can review the proposed changes and declare if you approve them or not. Some changes are actually questions, this will not make any difference in the score. If some change is not clear enough, please make a post here in the form and ask Lula. 

It would be great if we can finish this evaluation until tonight, so that tomorrow the next composer can start with his/her revision. Who would like to be next?

@lula

hi Lula, I don't understand number 2. could you explain that, please? 

thanks 🌺

@a-abbasi

If I understood correctly, she is suggesting that, as the cello has scordatura with the string IV lowered to A, we always write the playing position, and not the resulting note. Thus, in the first note of the first measure we would write "C" instead of "A" (as if the IV string were a transposing instrument).

Hope that helps!

@Kosmas

I sent my evaluation (sorry for the delay). But I have a question: what do we do when we AGREE there is a problem, but DISAGREE with the solution proposed? I get it that I can propose the solution I think is best when my turn to make the revision comes, but not sure what to mark until that happens. 

(FYI: @lula-romero there are two numbers 17 in your revision... As I agreed with both it makes no difference, but thought you should know).

@lula-romero

Do you think you could make available as pdf the score you used, with the extra blank staffs on top? As I don't use Sibelius, I'm planning on doing it handwritten as you did, when my time comes...

Thanks!

@kosmas

As I depend on printing the score in the KUG Library to do it handwritten (see my question to Lula), and it is a weekend, I would rather not be next. But I can be the one right after that, if you wish. 

Best,

@a-abbasi

Hi Annahita, yes, it is how Marcio commented, "as the cello has scordatura with the string IV lowered to A, we always write the playing position, and not the resulting note. Thus, in the first note of the first measure, we would write "C" instead of "A" (as if the IV string were a transposing instrument)." 

Best!

@marcio-steuernagel

Hi Marcio, you can find the pdf file in Kosmas' first post of the revision phase. Also here: https://cccm.iem.at/wp-content/uploads/wpforo/default_attachments/1582728912-CCCM_development_phase-1_revision-1.pdf

Let me know if you could not download it. Best!

@marcio-steuernagel

at your revision period you can address all the problems that are apparent to you. Don't download the revision pdf yet, in every period the approved changes have to be integrated in the score. I will update the revision scores and upload them in the beginning of each period.

In general you can be more radical in your proposed changes, you can insert/delete bars so that the concepts of morphing and divergence become more clear. 

@lula-romero @kosmas

Thank you both for the replies!

Thank you all for your reviews, all proposed changes have been approved. A proposed change requires at least 2 up-votes in order to get approved. Some proposed changes didn't provide concrete solutions. Your proposed changes have to be concrete so they don't leave any room for interpretation - they have to be provide exact material which can be integrated directly in the score. For questions or suggestions you can use the forum.

Who would like to make the second revision? @davorius would you like to be next?