Levels in the structure of works

IMO there are areas where the documentation needs to be improved to help everybody not invent new solutions. This discussion is centering around the definition of a musical work and its’ structure. As a starter, I find the following structure helpful (I’ve no particular attachment to the terminology, just the structure) all of them are currently MB works:

“Classes of Work”

  1. “Component Works”

  2. “Top-Level Works”

  3. “Collection Works”

“Component Work” definition. A “Component Work” is a work which may be performed on its own, but is often performed and was composed (or otherwise produced) as part of a larger work. “Component works” may themselves be composed of “Component Works” where there is a need for several levels of hierarchy.

“Top-Level Work” definition. A “Top-Level work” is a work which was composed, and is often performed, as an entity. A “Top-Level Work” will normally be an entry in a composers catalogue of works; such an identifier may well be an opus number and a serial number. A “Top-Level Work” is often a collection of “Component Works”

“Collection Works” definition. A “Collection Work” is set of works which are related either by the composer, cataloger, or publisher. They are sometimes performed as an entity, typically related to an event. A “Collection Work” is always a collection of “Top-Level Works” or possibly other “Collection Works”.

A part / part of relation connects “Component Works” and “Top-Level Works”.

A member / member of relation connects "“Top-Level Works” and “Collection Works”.

Examples:
Rigoletto: Atto II. “Povero Rigoletto!” (Marullo, Rigoletto, Coro, Borsa, Ceprano, Paggio) - is a "Component Work"
Rigoletto: Atto II - is a "Component Work"
Rigoletto - is a "Top-Level Work"
Rigoletto: Atto II. “Povero Rigoletto!” (Marullo, Rigoletto, Coro, Borsa, Ceprano, Paggio) is “part of” Rigoletto: Atto II
Rigoletto: Atto II “part of” Rigoletto
Sonata for Piano no. 14 in C-sharp minor, op. 27 no. 2 “Moonlight”: I. Adagio sostenuto - is a "Component Work"
Sonata for Piano no. 14 in C-sharp minor, op. 27 no. 2 “Moonlight” - is a "Top-Level Work"
Two Piano Sonatas, op. 27 - is a "Collection Work"
Sonata for Piano no. 14 in C-sharp minor, op. 27 no. 2 “Moonlight”: I. Adagio sostenuto is “part of” Sonata for Piano no. 14 in C-sharp minor, op. 27 no. 2 "Moonlight"
Sonata for Piano no. 14 in C-sharp minor, op. 27 no. 2 “Moonlight” is a “member of” Two Piano Sonatas, op. 27
Götterdämmerung, WWV 86D - is a "Top-Level Work"
Der Ring des Nibelungen, WWV 86 - is a "Collection Work"
Götterdämmerung, WWV 86D is a “member of” Der Ring des Nibelungen, WWV 86
The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I - is a "Collection Work"
The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I: Prelude and Fugue no. 2 in C minor, BWV 847 - is a "Top Level Work"
The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I: Prelude and Fugue no. 2 in C minor, BWV 847 is a “member of” The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I

Implementation thoughts:
“Class of Work” should be a new attribute of a work
"Part of" and “Member of” should be separately named relations - (in some senses belt and braces, but it reinforces the structure)
The current MB Series might be used for “Collection Works”

1 Like

Personally I like quite a lot of @ProfChris’ proposal:

[quote=“ProfChris, post:62, topic:293047”]
“Classes of Work”

  1. “Component Works”
  2. “Top-Level Works”
  3. “Collection Works”

“Component Work” definition. A “Component Work” is a work which may be performed on its own, but is often performed and was composed (or otherwise produced) as part of a larger work. “Component works” may themselves be composed of “Component Works” where there is a need for several levels of hierarchy.

“Top-Level Work” definition. A “Top-Level work” is a work which was composed, and is often performed, as an entity. A “Top-Level Work” will normally be an entry in a composers catalogue of works; such an identifier may well be an opus number and a serial number. A “Top-Level Work” is often a collection of “Component Works”

“Collection Works” definition. A “Collection Work” is set of works which are related either by the composer, cataloger, or publisher. They are sometimes performed as an entity, typically related to an event. A “Collection Work” is always a collection of “Top-Level Works” or possibly other “Collection Works”.

“Class of Work” should be a new attribute of a work [/quote]

These seem good definitions, except I am unclear whether Component Works includes only substantial sections of the Top-Level work that are often performed as a whole without the rest of the Top-Level work, or whether it includes any sub-division of the top-level work even if these are not often performed by themselves.

Either way, there seems to be no means in this proposal of distinguishing whether a Component-Work is an Act, Scene, Movement, Aria etc. unless these are added to the Work Type field.

[quote=“ProfChris, post:62, topic:293047”]
A part / part of relation connects “Component Works” and “Top-Level Works”.
A member / member of relation connects "“Top-Level Works” and “Collection Works”.

“Part of” and “Member of” should be separately named relations - (in some senses belt and braces, but it reinforces the structure)[/quote]

I can’t see much value in having two types of relationship and to have to edit a large number of existing work relationships to change them.

It seems to me that with a combination of the existing"part-of" relationship, the “Class of Work” (or Work Class) and expanded set of values for existing Work Type, we can probably capture the full semantics of the work hierarchy.

I think the question here is whether to expand work type or have a new attribute. It is quite useful to have an attribute for the form of the work (which will normally apply to a “top work” - e.g. Sonata, Opera etc. This seems to me quite distinct from “collection” or “component”.
The other thing I can’t quite get my head around is “collection” vs “series”. Doesn’t the existing Series object fit the bill?
Also, I think that just when you have designed a nice structure for classical music, some oddity will arise, so it pays not to be too prescriptive.
Just a simple example: BWV 846 - Work “The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I: Prelude and Fugue no. 1 in C major, BWV 846” - MusicBrainz - is part of 2 series (BWV and Bach compendium) and also of the Well Tempered Clavier Book 1. WTC1 is not a part of the BWV. WTC1 is definitely a work not a series, but is it a “collection” or a “top work”? Does it matter? Maybe there is some advantage in saying a work can be a collection without being a series, to deal with some of the grey areas (like [quote=“MetaTunes, post:60, topic:293047”]
Saint-Saens’s 2 books of Bach piano transcriptions
[/quote])
Anyway, the bottom line is, I think for the matter to be addressed by using attributes rather than new object types.

Romance in F minor, op. 11, B. 39 https://musicbrainz.org/work/54b5e409-6521-311d-a28c-7bb764e4aa4e is desctribed by Wikipedia as ‘The Romance in F minor, Op. 11, (B. 39) is a work in a single movement for violin and orchestra by Antonín Dvořák, published in 1879.’

It is also based on String Quartet no. 5 in F minor, op. 9, B. 37: II. Andante con moto quasi allegretto https://musicbrainz.org/work/9448c4aa-1e22-324f-a42d-4c51ffd36b54, this itlsef is more typically the second movement of the work String Quartet no. 5 in F minor, op. 9, B. 37 https://musicbrainz.org/work/9942ce7a-6f7a-4aee-8bcc-fe0dc081629b

So we have a single movement work, maybe an interesting usecase to apply the ideas above to. i.e is it a movement or not ?

I am suggesting that we do both - to keep the Work Type field for its current purpose but expand the list to include e.g. Movement, Act, Scene. Aria, etc. AND have a new Work Class field which describes its role in the hierarchy as suggested by @ProfChris.

Personally I see two classes of “collections”; those which are a composer’s grouping (Wagner’s Ring Cycle or Holst’s Planet Suite) which need to be works in their own right, and other groupings (e.g. Publishers grouping of Beethoven Sonatas, or catalogues of composers’ works) which are better handled as a series.

Could it not be argued that “Movement, Act, Scene” is more like work class (level in hierarchy) than work type (nature of the music itself), whereas Aria sounds more like work type. Some thought would need to go into the style guidelines.

Yes - it could be so argued. Especially e.g. if there are examples of a Movement or Scene consisting of a single Aria

I see the attributes “Class of Work” and “Type of Work” as separate, with separate functions. “Class of Work” defines the level in the hierarchy; “Type of Work” defines the nature of the work e.g. Song, Aria… I believe it would be a good idea to add Act, Scene etc to the work type list of values.
I see “Component Works” as covering any of the sub-divisions of a “Top-Level Work” I would hesitate before creating “Component Works” for works which complicate the structure beyond that required to readily link to recordings - there is always the partial indicator to cover shortened works

The two types of relation feel different to me, but I agree that the current "Part of " relation could be used to capture these relations, together with a new “Class of Work” attribute. I am not aware of the use of the “Part of” relation in a non-structural sense. I remain concerned by the current Work - Series relation which is also called “Part of”. Maybe this should be renamed “Catalogued in” or “Collected in” to distinguish it from the Work Hierarchy

I agree entirely that the forms of music are so varied that we should not be too prescriptive, I also am concerned about the relationship between “Series” and “Works” especially as the current relation is “Part of” I have suggested “Catalogued in” or “Collected in” to try and help. I would regard WTC1 as a “Collection Work”. I also see “Saint-Saens’s piano transcriptions of Bach” as a valid “Collection Work”.

Yes they are clearly indicating a hierarchy, however they apply to a fairly narrow range of works, so IMO they are better applied as type attribute values rather than part of a class structure

Do we have a consensus and plan yet as a result of this discussion since there seems to be broad agreement on this.

I agree.

It does seem to me that we have consensus on the overall approach. I would suggest the following:

  1. If anyone strongly disagrees with the current proposal, then they should speak up now.

  2. We need to agree a definitive extended list of work types. Can interested people please review the current list and propose additions to be made (and if appropriate mark existing entries as deprecated).

The current list of Work Types is as follows:

Song, Aria, Audio drama, Ballet, Beijing opera, Cantata, Concerto, Étude, Incidental music, Madrigal, Mass, Motet, Musical, Opera, Operetta, Oratorio, Overture, Partita, Play, Poem, Prose, Quartet, Sonata, Song-cycle, Soundtrack, Suite, Symphonic poem, Symphony, Zarzuela.

I am unclear why Quartet is in the list whilst Quintet, Sextet are not - but that may just be my ignorance. (Perhaps we need a Work For field to hold Full Orchestra, Piano, String Quartet, Orchestra & Choir, Rock band etc.?)

My suggestions to add to the list: Act, Scene, Movement, Collection, March, Waltz.

We could also use this for non-classical tracks - Rock song, Country song, Country and Western song, Duet, Folk song etc. though this is getting close to “genre”.

But as @ijabz suggests, it is time to move this onwards.

Sorry but I thought the consensus was to add a Work Class rather than add more items to Work Type ?
And also to add an attribute to the Part relationship

I would suggest someone apply a solution to a range of different works to se if it makes sense.

The non-classical idea is out of scope, but does not seem a good idea. We shoud only be adding clearly defined Work Type/Classes.

Expanding the list of work types is fine, but I’m not currently sure what the type field is supposed to represent, defining this would be the first step.

To differentiate between so-called “main works” and collective or aggregated works, I still think the best solution is to:

I thought the consensus was to add a work class to differentiate between full works, part works and collective works and to expand the work type to hold additional and more consistent semantic information.

Since the work class only clarifies the hierarchical position, I thought there was consensus that the Work Type would continue to be used to hold classification information, but the existing list needed expanding to be a more comprehensive list of types of work.

See my previous comment re the effort required to change existing relationships - surely it is easier to provide an additional work attribute clarifying the hierarchical position. The only reason to use a relationship to do this would be if an MB work can have multiple hierarchical positions (bearing in mind that in many cases these could be considered arrangements i.e. separate MB works).

Based on recent posts, we probably do not have consensus. However we are not getting a new ideas, so perhaps the proponents of each option should summarise the option and its pros and cons, and then we put it to some sort of a vote.

Does this sound sensible?

1 Like

I would like to see @reosarevok summarise his position as he certainly more classical knowledge then me

I’m on holiday at the moment, but I’ll probably get to it at some point during this week :slight_smile:

1 Like

I promised to stop repeating myself long ago but because people seem to think there’s some kind of concensus here we go again…

Nothing has convinced me that relationship attributes (for part-of) wouldn’t solve most of the problems. @Kid_Devine got 7 likes to this post (quoted partially):

For example if I got 2 works I could make one edit (part-of having movement-attribute set) which perfectly defines multiple things: we know there’s relationship between these 2 works (part), we know that one is a movement and another must be so called master work. 3 things with one edit! With work attributes we need to set work attribute “master work” for one of the works, then add another edit for relationship (part of) and then one more edit for work attribute “movement”. 1 edit vs 3 edits. Also on UI users would need to know where all of these fields are located. Or with webservice I would need to read multiple fields instead of one.

I guess we don’t fully understand each other. I believe I have demonstrated that there’s more work for editors, developers and basically to everyone with work attributes (see some earlier posts). Could someone explain why work attributes would be a better solution? I’m especially interested about real life use-cases.

7 Likes