IMO it should be:
Currently we only can set zxx lyrics but scat, humming, etc. are not instrumentals, they are with vocals, they are songs IMO.
I want an instrumental type. 
What tells me that TAKE 5 is an instrumental and not a scat song?
Nothing except my own tags, because the instrumental type is still missing.
If I have understood correctly (please correct me if necessary, I’m no developer and have no connection with them) there’s already some plans to remove option “other”. Problem with “other” is that definition of it changes when more types are being added. Also searches like “what places are missing a type” aren’t possible when type is already selected.
My problem with proposed type is that it’s a vague term which covers more than a half of music written during the last 500 years. While doing that it doesn’t describe the structure, usage or tempo of a work. Hopefully soon we are able to store detailed data about used instruments/vocals but adding a type for “this work was composed for instruments” feels too vague and useless to me. I’m just wondering what is the definition of “MusicBrainz work type?”
As a compromise I could imagine this being used with brackets like with lyric language [No lyrics]. For me instrumental isn’t a valid type but I wouldn’t go totally mad if I would see [Instrumental] listed as an option. And if I could also get a guideline which prevents using it with classical works I could just smile and stop spamming this topic 
.
Thanks but I guess I wasn’t clear enough when I said [quote=“ListMyCDs.com, post:23, topic:164558”]
I believe “instrumental” as a type would be used similarly as “other” is used with many MB entities.
[/quote]
I tried to compare proposed type to how “other” is currently been used with entities having it on their attributes. I know well that it’s not a type of work (I’ve made over 20 000 edits adding new works/parts). For example we got “other” as packaging type for release and as a type for a place.
Ach, OK. 
BTW, Other for packaging is quite useful.
It is blocking it until the new packaging type exist and you are preventing a wrong auto edit in the mean time (leaving it blank allows auto edit).
I have the same problem with leaving the work type blank, as if it was unknown, but the instrumental works I create are not of unknown type.
But as soon as the type is eventually added, the existing entry becomes wrong: It will then say “This release is packaged in a packaging that is not listed above”, when in fact “super mega jewel case” is now listed.
Well, having the ability to add Other with an associated string would help a lot. It would show up as just “Other” in most cases, but on the work page you’d get “Other (foo)” the way you get disambigs. A bit like you can already enter aliases for instruments pending the addition of a specific new instrument.
It would avoid the need for tags to keep track, and would allow automating cleanups when a new work type is added.
I’m certainly in favour of a generic Instrumental type, because leaving the type blank suggests “I don’t know what this is”. Alternatively, if the consensus is that “Work”, especially in conjunction with [no language], already means Instrumental, why not add a special purpose type like [unknown] or [undefined] (to make it clear that “blank” does not mean one of those)?
As for lazy editors, the instrument tree allows both generic and specific cases; even “string instrument” is better than just “instrument”, and a later editor can improve it further. The same would go here, just because “sonata” is more specific, that does not mean that “instrumental” is not already better than “dunno, don’t care”.
I’m working on a long rant about work type and why I’m unhappy with the field as it currently exists.
In the meantime, here’s a partial list of “types” that some of us generated a few years ago, originally in a google doc.
It’s currently broken down into vocal | non-vocal| maybe-vocal, which is probably not a useful taxonomy.
Instrumental is a descriptor, not a work type distinct from “song”. True, the word “song” has its roots in the act of singing, but the definition of the word as used here is more about structure than content – a song is typically a short, independent piece, common in popular music, usually with a distinct melodic line. It makes sense: the word “sing” can be used to describe any pure tone sound, not just voices.
Many named work types or genres move away from their roots. “Canzona” literally means “song”, but is a genre of instrumental works. You can’t really dance to later a Chopin mazurka or most IDM, Preludes no longer always precede another work, and lyrics have very little to do with lyres. In modern songs, a verse can be a guitar solo, and the chorus might just have one singer. So don’t get too caught up on the etymology of the word “song” – it doesn’t require vocals.
If you don’t want to accept that, leave it blank. There are dozens of work types that aren’t covered by that list, and no obligation to fill in a work type that doesn’t fit. However, it’s definitely not wrong to label something like “Jessica” or “Feels So Good” as songs.
I’m not really thrilled with having “Soundtrack” as a work type either – it’s a functional description, not a structural one. A work can be a Soundtrack and just about any other category on that list.
I think “soundtrack” might be a useful descriptor for a “super-work”, in the same way that you might use “suite”. e.g. Star Wars
I agree that it seems out of place alongside forms and genres.
IMHO, the root problem is the (non) definition of the Type property and the associate guideline: It is evasive, whereas most of the current types actually are classical forms (appropriate term?) which should probably be gathered in the same fashion than Ottoman/Turkish forms (see the undocumented Work Attributes field group in work editor) added after STYLE-662.
I agree with @Torc that song has a broader meaning. Unfortunately, it is not documented in MusicBrainz, misleading most of non native English speakers. From the examples in the style guideline, I figure that the initial intent was to cover songs in classical music too.
I agree that soundtrack is not a musical form. From what I have seen so far, soundtrack release groups are linked to the IMDb entry for the corresponding movie(s). Why not do the same for soundtrack works? @CallerNo6’s example would be linked to the movie at IMDb then.
Last but not least, I feel like instrumental type would be totally redundant with [No lyrics] language. Edit: not anymore, now I just feel comfortable. 
But this will not happen for at least another half a year. I don’t think I’ve even seen this suggested before(?). Is there a ticket for this feature?
Regardless, while this may be a solution in the future, it isn’t something that’s possible within the current schema as far as I am aware, which means that until a schema change release which includes this comes around, we’ll have to deal with it another way. And until then, what @chirlu said holds true:
As soon as another type is added, any entries which is of that type but currently set to “Other” become wrong. So it is better to not set a type at all. (“If in doubt, leave it out.”)
No @Yvanz, you forgot about works with vocals but without lyrics (scat, humming, screaming, whatever). I know quite several of those in bold, in particular.
Is it that important now that we have this?
Maybe it’s less important that when we didn’t have that zxx‐[no lyrics], but still. 
It was just an idea I had while typing up my response. If you feel it has legs, I’ll create a style ticket for it.
Hi folks! I am so very happy that so many of you are giving such valuable input on the topic “how to set the type for a modern instrumental piece of music” ! Because, in my opinion, it is an important topic, regarding humans living not only now but also in the (far) future and looking for certain types of music( created by their ancestors). And isn’t that what Music Brainz is all about? Becoming an informative all time and complete online Encyclopedia?
My original request and subject of discussion was, if we should and could have a new “type” for works, classifying them as “instrumental”, because many modern instrumental works are hard or impossible to classify as one of the types given in the drop down box, now that those types mostly refer to classical pieces of instrumental music.
My motivation to add such a new type is, that Music Brainz pretends to become a complete Music Encyclopedia, (and now I am going to repeat my earlier words to make it extra clear) that people living not only today but also in the far future can use to look up certain types of music compositions (of their ancestors). When leaving the “type” field blank, a lot of compositions won’t come out of future search results, because people won’t look for an "unknown type" of music. The same for using “other” as a type, in my opinion.
That is what I wanted to share today with you, to keep in mind, in this discussion that in my opinion is progressing very well
P.S.: I do not care if we are going to name the new type “instrumental” or another term, because “what’s in a name” ? as long as everybody can understand the meaning of the new type, not only today, but also in the future
Hi folks
As nobody reacted in past two days to my previous post, and some of you gave likes to my post, can I assume that you all agree or at least are okay with the opinion that "instrumental" should be added to the types list?
Oh here are a few remarks on your discussions:
With “pop” is meant a song that pretends to become a hit. It needs another attribute to define what music type it is, see:
this page and hover with mouse over the “view all here” above the “please select the genre”
Visitors of the Music Brainz website won’t look for “other” types, they will look for “certain” types of music. Any “other” or “unknown” types will not show up in the search results!
“Vocals” is just an instrument, like any other instrument e.g. a saxophone. Vocals do not need to sing a text (lyrics), they can also do “la la la la” or “oh oh oh oh” or scat singing. Because vocals are an instrument, they are divided (just like a sax) into bass, baritone, alto, mezzo-soprano and soprano. The only interesting about vocals compared to other instruments is, that until now, vocals are the only that can perform the lyrics of a song: sung (what we call a song) or spoken (what we in modern music call a rap).
So, I stick to my earlier statement: works can be divided in two kinds: instrumentals (works without lyrics) and songs (works with lyrics).
@ListMyCDs.com we can add attributes to a work, like: key, beat etc. You think “instrumental” a vague term. I have no problems with a more specific term for the same category, so please what do you suggest we call the “works without lyrics”?
Not only that is so true what you state, but even more important is, that visitors of the site, looking for “instrumentals” of a certain music genre from a certain period in time, cannot find them now, because the type field has been left blank![quote=“Zastai, post:32, topic:164558”]
The same would go here, just because “sonata” is more specific, that does not mean that “instrumental” is not already better than “dunno, don’t care”.
[/quote]
Indeed
See my note to @jesus2099
I wonder where you got that from? As Wikipedia says otherwise.
So in other words, you do not want that future human beings are able to find instrumental pieces of music composed by their ancestors, or do I not understand you?
You indeed got the root problem
Indeed @Yvanz 
so I wonder, why should only native English people be able to look for music works here in this World Wide Encyclopedia? I thought it is an Encyclopedia for all people from our World?!
Nice saying, "if in doubt, leave it out" But on the other hand, when from now on we can set the proper type “instrumental” or whatever you want to call it (as long as it is also understandable for non English speakers), at least the future majority of instrumental works can be found when visitors look for those, while if we continue to leave the field blank or fill in “other”, then in future no instrumental work at all will show up in the search results when people look for those types of original works! Is that what you really want? I do not think so!
Yes please go ahead @Zastai and create a ticket for it, to enter "instrumental" as a “new” type of work!
Can you all agree with @Zastai so he can send in a ticket?
Yes?
There’s already one: http://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-2766
I don’t know the process rules for the database here, but generally we’d reopen a bug if it pops up again. It might be better to clone it as a feature request instead though. I would rather see descriptors or attributes added then. Instrumental really isn’t a distinct work type.
There is very clearly opposition to having “instrumental” as a work type. You can’t get rid of that by just claiming that everyone agrees with you.
That was closed because it is a style matter, and its usefulness or even correctness is disputed.