You are joking!!! So you find it useless because half of the existing work types can be instrumental? YES, what about the other half⌠Music is inherently according to Wikipedia music with or without lyrics (see definition of song). You might be right about half the existing work types and still find this useless??? I can only conclude you do not understand anything about statistics. And as far as I understand the whole exercise according to you has no meaning because of global warming ect⌠Why bother to write anything on this forum then⌠Just stick to your alcohol addiction then and leave us serious people alone!!!
Thatâs completely fine with me, if we reopen the old ticket to apply the âinstrumentalâ type, just as it was done for applying the âsongâ type in ticket related to that ticket.
I disagree with you, that Instrumental isnât a work type.
I am sorry but there exists a contradiction in your own statement: how can there opposition if everybody agrees? Perhaps you meant to say something else? Then please explain!
@Torc I can understand you go not along with the Wikipedia articles, but then how would You name the two kind of original works, the ones with and the ones without lyrics?
Torc why are you making jokes about this topic? We are seriously discussing here, how to name the two kinds of original works (compositions):
- original works/compositions with lyrics: those we already named âsongsâ
- original works/compositions without lyrics: those we are discussing, how to name them.
As a modern music composer myself, I absolutely disagree with you on this. My original compositions are not just melodies that performers can choose the style (type) of performance (jazz performance or rock performance). On the contrary, I wrote my original compositions in a certain music type. This everybody will see when reading the full scores of my compositions or hearing the first soundfile. For example: one of my compositions is a blues, another composition is a jazz swing, another composition is a ballad, another is a rock composition.
Please refrain from implying substance abuse in other community members. It is disgraceful to people actually suffering from substance abuse (directly or indirectly), unfair to the other community member in question (whom Iâd say you owe an apology now), and a terrible thing to do in general.
If you canât argue your point without falling back to name calling, please take a step back and donât argue at all.
You are right I do apologise
After this interruption, shall we please go on now with our discussion?
I have the impression that we have no consensus among us about the meaning of the term âworksâ and that is why we have difficulties agreeing on the different âtypesâ of works. I have no authority to split forum topics, so I will make a separate topic about âwhat do we mean with the term workâ. When that topic is solved, I am sure we all here in this topic can find a solution for adding appropriate types for works
So, letâs first get consensus on what is a "work " okay? And then we all go back to this forum topic to solve it okay?
I donât think thatâs quite correct. Works
themselves are reasonably well defined. The work type
field, on the other hand, is not.
So far itâs been used mainly for musical forms, but no definition was formalized (that Iâm aware of).
As I understand it, nobody is saying that âinstrumentalâ isnât a valid descriptor for a work
, but some people are saying that it doesnât belong in a list of musical forms (which is the current de facto use of work type
).
addendum:
There are two things you can do to mark a work as âinstrumentalâ in the meantime.
- (as @Torc, @outsidecontext and others have suggested) use tags, which are meant for all kinds of description.
- (as @jesus2099 suggested) use annotations, which are meant to hold data that doesnât fit anywhere else
Well said @CallerNo6 because I think that you mean the same with âworkâ as I do though others might have a different opinion so thatâs why I said that I think there is no consensus, and I am working on a new thread about âworkâ and âwork type fieldâ right now because there seems to be confusion among us about the meaning of âwork typeâ related to the meaning of âworkâ!!
Isnât that confusing
And also so difficult to explain, when English is not my native languageâŚ
here is the new thread:
How to define work
I completely agree. I was basing my comment on the Work type field as it currently exists, which is mostly a list of Classical forms. âInstrumentalâ is valid as a work attribute, but it absolutely should not be added to the Work Type list as long as itâs a single-selection field. I donât think the solution is to make it multi-select either; I think we should make it clear âWork Typeâ refers to form (and make it hierarchical) and add Instrumental to attributes.
Yes and no. âTypeâ is definitely ambiguous, but the current usage tends more towards forms and structural descriptions. Adding additional descriptive terms to that list would make its purpose more ambiguous; creating a separate list for musical descriptions would actually help clarify the purpose of the Type field, and allow more flexible searches. Anything that makes it easier for users to understand how the system works is an improvement.
Iâd recommend checking out RYMâs music descriptors, which arenât perfect, but are much better than what we have here.
The term âsongâ in the Work Type list refers to form, not content. Whether or not something has vocals or lyrics is something that something that should be documented somewhere other than the Work Type field. I pointed this out, and you accused me of wanting to deprive future generations of the ability to find instrumental compositions. If you want a serious reply, please stick to serious arguments.
[quote=âSamsom_Productions, post:55, topic:164558â]
@Torc I can understand you go not along with the Wikipedia articles, but then how would You name the two kind of original works, the ones with and the ones without lyrics?[/quote]
A few methods have already been discussed. Iâd prefer to add it as an attribute, but currently you have tags and can set the lyrics to [no lyrics].
There isnât even consensus over what constitutes an Instrumental. Is it based on vocals or the presence of lyrics? Is âFitter, Happierâ an instrumental? It has words, but no vocalist. Is âGreat Gig in the Skyâ an instrumental? It has vocals, but no lyrics.
They didnât classify it as an established form because it wasnât an established form. âSolo pianoâ is descriptive information, not a statement of form or even genre. (FWIW, âImagesâ was a series of works, not just the solo piano pieces in sets 1 and 2. Set 3 was orchestral.]
Youâre interpreting the word âsongâ as meaning âwith vocalsâ and trying to create something that covers everything outside of that category. But the presence of singing alone does not make something a song. A mass is not a song. Beethovenâs 9th is not a song. Einstein on the Beach is not a song, either in whole or the individual movements. âSongâ is used ubiquitously with rock music because thatâs overwhelmingly the most common form in in the genre, though itâs not always correctly used.
âŚandâŚ
Youâre both talking about genres, styles, and performance techniques, not forms. âBluesâ is not a form; a âblues progressionâ is a form that can be used in any genre. âBaroqueâ is not a form; if you wanted to write a Baroque piece, youâd probably choose one of the common forms they used. You may have written âjazzâ on one of your compositions, but if somebody played the notes on the page in a rock style, itâs still the same work; you may not want the performers to choose the style of performance, but ultimately they can. And before you say âthen itâs not the same workâ, would you refuse a royalty check?
Oh, and if weâre brandishing our credentials here, I have a PhD in composition, so Iâve done my fair share of musical analysis.
I agree, by hierarchical do you mean something like this? (from the MusiCHI tagging software)
[quote=âTorc, post:63, topic:164558â]
Iâd recommend checking out RYMâs music descriptors, which arenât perfect, but are much better than what we have here.[/quote]
This is pretty awesome, though maybe a bit much.
That said Iâm sure our data nerds/ AcoustID people are salivating over the datasets you could get with these kind of emotive descriptors
Anyway, I donât really see a problem with Torcâs suggestion that we should add âinstrumentalâ but maybe keep âformâ to its own category. Does that sound okay to you @Samsom_Productions?
Also if we really want to nail down that âtypesâ = classical forms, can we make that clear?
Myself (and the biggest portion of layman users Iâm sure) have no use for anything in there. Unless you count setting everything to âsongâ. If we decide itâs something basically reserved for classical, then can we make it look like it?
Because âtypeâ is not the same word as âformâ, so whenever Torc says âbut thatâs not a formâ I really canât help but think - âwhatâs that got to do with it?â. Which I donât think is an unreasonable thought with how it currently looks.
Itâs even worse with song, to be honest, where we say it refers to sung works while others say it includes instrumentals as well.
If it is so much without consensus, we still have it but not instrumental yet.
Maybe song was added too quick and without same discussion and maybe we should not have it.
We should definitely have it, since âSongâ is an established musical form. What it should definitely have is an actual definition added to it (but that applies to most of our work types really).
Is our work type the same as Wikipedia (cf. above) â when you type Song in their search bar they suggest Song: composition for voice(s)?
In which case we lack the instrumental type, which could easily be defined in mirror: composition for instruments (if it includes voices, please use Song, instead.
Or is our work not following the primary Wilipedia approach?
In which case it is urgent to have a definition because most non English people like me will look for English definitions in English Wikipedia or will translate to what they have always been told: song means chanson means sung composition.
Good morning to you all
I am really happy that the confusion about âwhat is a workâ has been solved because it makes it a lot easier for people like me to list music here on Music Brainz.
I am also happy that we came so far in our discussion about the types of a work here in this thread, though the discussion has not always been pleasant, and I am really sorry for that.
I think that a good solution @Torc because when you make clear in the documentation that âwork typeâ refers to âmusical intrinsic formâ and has nothing to do with instruments, vocals, and lyrics, then the Music Brainz website will be a lot more comprehensible for people like me, who only are here to list some music. And @Torc, that is good that you mention that you have a PhD in music composition, because now we all know that we have a real expert among us, and that you are the perfect person to implement the outcome of our discussions in the website.
Yep I agree with that
And I also agree with you @jesus2099
I just come home from work and had a discussion with Anita about this all.
First of all; To dismiss Wikipedia is foolish to say the least. I do not know if anybody has ever tried to publish something on Wikipedia, but if your statements can not be backed up by serious reviewers; your claims or writing will be dismissed and taken of the site immediately. And yes ââto quote torcââ they without exception have a degree too in the field of interest. For Torc it might be an idea to try to join this elite kind of people.
To me I feel the discussion is awkward because
-
Torc addresses musical forms to be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_forms_by_era#20th_and_21st_Century
where instrumental nor song is represented -
Jesus2099 samsom_productions and others address problems of categorisation; one of the big problems in informatics. To be more precise; how to define a database without redundancy to allocate everything properly. This goes beyond musical forms; its an informatics thingâŚ
At the moment the musicbrainz musical forms is a mix up of the above two; some are musical forms( Sonata and what have you⌠), some are ways of categorisation (e.g. Songs, Instrumental).
Therefore in my view (and apparently so) ,the two viewpoints are unlikely to find common ground.
I hope this might help to clear up this mess.
Credentials Iâam not the person to boast about my abilities. For those who are curious Iâm sure you can dig your way through google.
Yeah. I was thinking more in terms of Aggregate > Part (like Symphony > Movement), but now that I think about it, it really wouldnât work. The list you shared is worth consideration though.
Iâm trying to think of any popular forms that could make it more useful and kinda drawing a blank. Maybe something along the lines of âconcept albumâ or âpower balladâ, but even those are more about content than structure. I also mentioned the idea of adding âfilm cueâ (or just âcueâ) as a form for individual parts under âsoundtrackâ.
âChansonâ in medieval and Renaissance times was a specific song form: secular, polyphonic, and based on a one of the standard poetic forms (a couple of which actually were fairly similar to modern song structures), Chanson didnât just refer to any sung composition â motets and madrigals were also sung forms, but werenât called chansons. The German âliedâ falls into a similar category: it literally translates as âsongâ, but also refers to a specific poetic setting.
Actually, the list does include âPopular songâ, though it just redirects to the Popular music article. Wikipedia also this article on song structure.
Strict formal structures simply arenât a part of modern pop music, and we donât ascribe cultural meaning to musical forms like they did a few hundred years ago. Pop music has some structural components like verses, bridges, choruses, intros and outros, but their use and arrangement is very flexible. Audiences are content to call any rock record a âsongâ as long as itâs constructed out of these parts. If it seems like weâre just dumping all pop music under âsongâ, itâs because thatâs almost always what it really is.
Perhaps but when I say chanson or song, Iâm thinking about the vocal works that are released everyday.