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”.
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?