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 thingâŠ
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.
[quote=âTorc, post:72, topic:164558â]
Iâm trying to think of any popular forms that could make it more useful and kinda drawing a blank.[/quote]
That drop down list is not called âformsâ, and hasnât been established as a container for such. A few people have said this now.
An example of a general âtypeâ that would be useful to some users without music related PhDâs is âinstrumentalâ.
And, @Torc, I am now completing @aerozolâs statement, not only for some users without such a PhD but even and more likely also for some users with such a kind of PhD âitâ would be appreciated I am so sure! So without any doubt, I totally agree with you @aerozol
Thatâs fine, but it doesnât invalidate the historical meaning of the term (which should probably be added to this list).
If it hasnât been established, why do you keep yelling that my interpretation of it is wrong? Yes, the documentation on it is woefully lacking and it needs to be cleaned up, but look at what it is now: a single-value menu with 13 metastructures, 12 forms or part structures, and four non-music classes. You canât just ignore that context and add whatever you want, because it does nothing but further distort what the field is supposed to be Every item currently on the list communicates some kind of idea as structure or function, can be understood in a way that is mutually exclusive of other types, and implies certain cultural and aesthetic expectations; âinstrumentalâ does not. There are ZERO entries for anything based on a binary option like the presence or lack of a specific instrument, or any kind of generic catch-all (regardless of how you think âsongâ is being used). If youâre going to add binary categories, why not acoustic and electric? Or polyphonic and monophonic? Why not add â3/4â as a type?
It also wouldnât be useful in searches. It would either be incomplete, because many instrumental works would be correctly assigned to their specific type, or it would be misused as a catch-all for people who donât know the correct type. It provide no functionality that isnât available from a language search (and maybe that menu should have a dedicated option). Itâs not a âtypeâ of music; itâs a property that can exist in many dissimilar types of music.
Keep discussing this if you want. My vote, for whatever itâs worth, is a hard no. Add it as an attribute.
Youâve been applying your âinterpretationâ as fact ad nauseam, which doesnât get more helpful every time.
You donât happen to have some of the worlds biggest idiots in this forum thread, and when you explain to us that types actually = forms the problem doesnât go away. There are 7 billion other laypeople in the world who I guarantee are going to have the same misunderstanding and unclear expectations. Thatâs not helpful.
Sometimes even when you are right and others are all wrong, we still need to use the UI to make it clear.
âTypeâ means a characteristic that can be used to group things, which by definition (afaik) includes properties that are not exclusive to a single group.
And my vote has also always been to add it as an attributeâŠ
But was more fun to imagine someone âyellingâ to argue against I guess
This would be for recordings.
And unless something somewhere tells that song includes instead, for me it is such a binary type that means a work with vocals.
I am trying to understand Torcâs music analysis. Letâs take as a sample an instrumental work by Joe Sample you can click him to hear the music. So then when analyzing this music, which type from the list that we can choose from, would you @Torc choose? Would choose âsongâ because it has a melody line, or would you assign it to another appropriate type from our list, and which type would that be?
[quote=âKid_Devine, post:52, topic:164558â]
jesus2099:
Currently we only can set zxx lyrics but scat, humming, etc. are not instrumentals, they are with vocals, they are songs IMO.
Scatting is improvisation, I donât see how itâs got much to with works[/quote]
Jazz works usually have a stable basis and some room for improvisation.
We do have works, hopefully, for all Jazz numbers.
But now itâs true that a scat part may be decided at recording level, replacing sax, trumpet or any other lead instrument.
I am not at home with my computer and all my search engines but I know a bunch of vocal works, for humming â among others, one or several of 怹ăźäžă«, äžă€ăźăąăȘăą and/or ă»ăăłă»ă»ăłă·ăș in the Saint Seiya series (my phone does not allow me to copy/paste any more!? so I cannot link at the moment)âŠ
To me they fall in the same category as songs with vocals. Like songs in scat or in invented languages.
The feeling of an instrumental is different than the feeling of a song for human voice, which is so very distinctive, emotionally.
But more and more, after reading these discussions here, maybe instrumental type works should be those with no lyrics, simply.
Then the choice of having vocal lead is something at the recording level, even if the works have been written with vocals (humming) in mind like my examples⊠?
Iâve been discussing the issue, same as everybody else here. Thatâs all I can do. I have no authority to make any changes or âapplyâ anything. I understand the opposing viewpoints, and I respond directly to other peopleâs arguments and evidence, but I donât get anything like that back. If âtypeâ isnât meant to imply structure and form, why is it only a list of structures and forms? How will this be useful in searches if a lot of instrumental music is filed under a different type? I asked those questions for the first time in my last post, and youâre saying Iâm just repeating myself. Jesus and Samsom have posted four times as often as me, and theyâre saying the same thing over and over too, why donât you go lash out at them?
Then somebody FIX it. Somebody fix the documentation. Fix the UI. Change the label. Write a page where every type is defined and explained. I have no power here, I canât do it. If I could, I would. But opening it up to whatever term anybody wants to throw in there is only going to make that problem worse.
No, if you can argue somebody composed a work to be instrumental, you can argue they composed it to be electric. Theyâre both just simple descriptions of instrumentation. This piece is an electronic work, this is electric, and this is electroacoustic (and a âsongâ by your definition). In each case, the instrumentation is inseparable from the composition, but not from the structure. Any argument you can muster for âinstrumentationâ can be applied to these terms or pretty much any other descriptive terms. Unless we set logical boundaries, we have no reason to exclude any of them and the menu would include dozen of applicable descriptions for each work.
The most common jazz form is just the head, a series of runs through the chart for solos (chorus), and a repetition of the head, then maybe a coda, though I donât know if thereâs an actual common name for that form. Thatâs what I hear in this: they run through the chart twice (the uptempo horns are near the end of the chart), then near the end they take a coda. Structurally, itâs fairly similar to this piece, though the chart is longer. We donât have an entry for standard jazz form, so Iâd follow the guideline and leave it blank: âWork types should only be used on works that specifically match the chosen type (not every work needs to have a work type!).â
Your turn: would you call this an instrumental? Would you call this a song (based on the last 5:45)?
@Torc I think I finally am going to understand what you mean with the âtypeâ but just a quick question before I give an analysis: as the videos you linked to were taken away, I found still existing links for Tubular Bells (listen last 5:45) and Jeu is that the right âJeuâ?
So, then we can all now going to analyze the music pieces given in the above posts and perhaps we finally can understand each other and get consensus about what is a âtypeâ of music
[quote=âTorc, post:82, topic:164558â]
If âtypeâ isnât meant to imply structure and form, why is it only a list of structures and forms?
[/quote]My point is and was that 7 billion people donât know the technical description of structures and forms like you do, so it really doesnât imply that much for them. If you want to nail down the meaning/ donât like people wanting other things in there, it really is also your problem to fix⊠I donât really care what people advocate to put in. Itâs of no use to me currently.
Even after Iâve said that Iâm not against what you want to do with this suggestion, and agree with you, you clearly still want to have an argument with someone. Guess Iâm that someone? Itâs not really fun for me though so letâs take it easy
If you have a problem with the tone of any of my posts please let me know and we can do better next time.