What is the use of a work type that means everything?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is the use of a work type that means everything?

jesus2099
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/23730522

if song means everything indeed, please drop this type as song = work = useless work type (same as type unset).
If it means sung, please block this type on non vocal works.
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

Sheamus Patt
On 13-09-21 07:15 AM, jesus2099 wrote:
> https://musicbrainz.org/edit/23730522
>
> if song means everything indeed, please drop this type as song = work =
> useless work type (same as type unset).
> If it means sung, please block this type on non vocal works.

I think unset should always be reserved for "don't know" or "no
information". If you have some familiarity with the work or its
context,  you should be able to set the work type.

If the concern is in using Song for non-vocal types, then I propose we
add another non-vocal and non-sung work type. For discussion, I propose
"Instrumental". In cases where there are no instruments either, we
already have Poem though we could argue whether that covers hip-hop and
other spoken styles.


--
Sheamus
Ottawa Folkie

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

Rachel Dwight

On Sep 21, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Sheamus Patt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13-09-21 07:15 AM, jesus2099 wrote:
>> https://musicbrainz.org/edit/23730522
>>
>> if song means everything indeed, please drop this type as song = work =
>> useless work type (same as type unset).
>> If it means sung, please block this type on non vocal works.
>
> I think unset should always be reserved for "don't know" or "no
> information". If you have some familiarity with the work or its
> context,  you should be able to set the work type.
>
> If the concern is in using Song for non-vocal types, then I propose we
> add another non-vocal and non-sung work type. For discussion, I propose
> "Instrumental". In cases where there are no instruments either, we
> already have Poem though we could argue whether that covers hip-hop and
> other spoken styles.

Ditto. I've been trying to concoct something like that for upwards of a year.
Would "Background music" or "BGM" work? This might cover beats, too.

I remember seeing an archived RFC from 2007-ish where someone tried to add "rap" to the vocal types and it quickly devolved into an attempt to define what rap was. It eventually got shot down because there's a subtype called "melodic rap" where some rap lyrics are sung to improvised melodies.
I've been wanting to start a new RFC to add both vocal types, but life and console gaming have stood in my way.

>
> --
> Sheamus
> Ottawa Folkie
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

jesus2099
In reply to this post by jesus2099
If song is so ambiguous in english let’s use VOCAL work (instead of song) and INTRUMENTAL work…


just to escape from current mess where some people set SONG for anything and some other set it only for songs and have nothing for instrumentals.

Let’s add specialisations of these only in a second time, will we ?
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

LordSputnik
In reply to this post by Rachel Dwight

I really don't think we should bother trying to fix this until the work list becomes a tree of some kind. A new "instrumental" type would overlap with so many types already in the work list and so would background music, potentially (BGM could also be a Concerto or something).

Probably just use the "song" type when the work is sung but doesn't fit into any of the other categories (eg. most pop music). For all other musical pieces that  don't fit into other categories, leave the type blank.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

tommycrock
Lots of good points. I have to admit I hadn't thought of a song as needing to be sung, but you're dead right. We could add instrumental, but only if we make it clear that instrumental and song are designed for use with popular/folk/traditional (in the broadest senses) and not operatic/classical pieces (I'm sure there's a better/more correct way of saying that). I'd prefer instrumental over BGM (which sounds a bit downplayed and not obviously instrumental), and song over vocal (because vocal could be interpreted as a capella). But, maybe as Ben says none of that can be made obvious until we have a tree


On 23 September 2013 08:33, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I really don't think we should bother trying to fix this until the work list becomes a tree of some kind. A new "instrumental" type would overlap with so many types already in the work list and so would background music, potentially (BGM could also be a Concerto or something).

Probably just use the "song" type when the work is sung but doesn't fit into any of the other categories (eg. most pop music). For all other musical pieces that  don't fit into other categories, leave the type blank.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

Rachel Dwight

On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lots of good points. I have to admit I hadn't thought of a song as needing to be sung, but you're dead right. We could add instrumental, but only if we make it clear that instrumental and song are designed for use with popular/folk/traditional (in the broadest senses) and not operatic/classical pieces (I'm sure there's a better/more correct way of saying that). I'd prefer instrumental over BGM (which sounds a bit downplayed and not obviously instrumental), and song over vocal (because vocal could be interpreted as a capella). But, maybe as Ben says none of that can be made obvious until we have a tree

I second the motion for a tree.
But in the meantime do you think "Intro/Prelude", "Interlude" and "Outro/Postlude" would be passable work types? A lot of the instrumental works I run into (besides soundtracks) are short instrumental tracks found on albums.



On 23 September 2013 08:33, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I really don't think we should bother trying to fix this until the work list becomes a tree of some kind. A new "instrumental" type would overlap with so many types already in the work list and so would background music, potentially (BGM could also be a Concerto or something).

Probably just use the "song" type when the work is sung but doesn't fit into any of the other categories (eg. most pop music). For all other musical pieces that  don't fit into other categories, leave the type blank.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

jesus2099
In reply to this post by tommycrock
Tom Crocker wrote
 I'd prefer instrumental over BGM (which sounds a bit downplayed and not obviously instrumental), and song over vocal (because vocal could be interpreted as a capella).
I also prefer instrumental (or non-vocal).
But I prefer vocal above song because 1. song is ambiguous in english and 2. it’s good that it includes scat, choir, a capela, etc. all sorts of vocals with or without instruments, imoç.
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

tommycrock


On Sep 24, 2013 3:05 PM, "jesus2099" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Tom Crocker wrote
> >  I'd prefer instrumental over BGM (which sounds a bit downplayed and not
> > obviously instrumental), and song over vocal (because vocal could be
> > interpreted as a capella).
>
> I also prefer instrumental (or non-vocal).
> But I prefer vocal above song because 1. song is ambiguous in english and 2.
> it’s good that it includes scat, choir, a capela, etc. all sorts of vocals
> with or without instruments, imoç.
>

I didn't mean song shouldn't mean a Capella, just that vocal might be interpreted as exclusively a capella / choir,  etc.  But yes, there's potential ambiguity either way.
I guess we need some good documentation!


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

LordSputnik

Song isn't ambiguous, it's something that's composed for a vocal performance, just like chanson in French.

On 24 Sep 2013 16:51, "Tom Crocker" <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sep 24, 2013 3:05 PM, "jesus2099" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Tom Crocker wrote
> >  I'd prefer instrumental over BGM (which sounds a bit downplayed and not
> > obviously instrumental), and song over vocal (because vocal could be
> > interpreted as a capella).
>
> I also prefer instrumental (or non-vocal).
> But I prefer vocal above song because 1. song is ambiguous in english and 2.
> it’s good that it includes scat, choir, a capela, etc. all sorts of vocals
> with or without instruments, imoç.
>

I didn't mean song shouldn't mean a Capella, just that vocal might be interpreted as exclusively a capella / choir,  etc.  But yes, there's potential ambiguity either way.
I guess we need some good documentation!


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

tommycrock


On Sep 25, 2013 8:06 AM, "Ben Ockmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Song isn't ambiguous, it's something that's composed for a vocal performance, just like chanson in French.
>

That's right. But I think a lot of people misinterpret it (I know I would have said a lot of pop instrumentals were songs until this debate)

_______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

jesus2099
In reply to this post by jesus2099
So it seems that you agree that the current *song* type which can mean everything is NG.
And it seems there is some ambiguity that should be removed by having two works and that they have to be explicitly documented (even if they are very simples).

We need those two types, then :

GOLD MASTER KING wrote
1. a.Vocal or b.Song : « works including voice (including singing, scat-ing, humming, talking, shouting, etc. with or without instruments) »
2. a.Instrumental or b.Non-vocal : « works that don’t include voice (can be accepted those where there are voices but in a very background or secondary way, there is place for interpretation on each work anyway as usual by votes) »
We can add that *it doesn’t apply to classical* music if you want but I don’t know enough, I think it seems to be what people who knows they want this (doesn’t apply to classical).

Let’s say I vote for those descriptions and for 1a and 2a terms.
What do you think ?
You can certainly make the descriptions better (please not too long though) because my english so bad.

 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

CallerNo6
On 09/27/2013 02:08 AM, jesus2099 wrote:
> So it seems that you agree that the current *song* type which can mean
> everything is NG.
> And it seems there is some ambiguity that should be removed by having two
> works and that they have to be explicitly documented (even if they are very
> simples).

I don't understand the need to remove ambiguity from the work types.

At this point, the list is merely an arbitrarily-limited-vocabulary,
choose-only-one tagging system. It's not objective data. Many works can
and should have more than one "type" (e.g. is it mostly an aria or
mostly a soundtrack? is it still a poem if I recite it over music?). Do
we really want to impose order on it?

If the list were limited to a strict list of well-defined "forms" (which
I don't think anybody wants), I'd understand, but it's not.

I mean, I don't mind if you add or remove or nest elements. But I don't
see much value in the work types as currently implemented.

Alex / caller#6
(who has tags on the brain)


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

symphonick



2013/9/27 caller#6 <[hidden email]>
On 09/27/2013 02:08 AM, jesus2099 wrote:
> So it seems that you agree that the current *song* type which can mean
> everything is NG.
> And it seems there is some ambiguity that should be removed by having two
> works and that they have to be explicitly documented (even if they are very
> simples).

I don't understand the need to remove ambiguity from the work types.


+1
Also I'd like to avoid genre-based solutions.
 
At this point, the list is merely an arbitrarily-limited-vocabulary,
choose-only-one tagging system. It's not objective data. Many works can
and should have more than one "type" (e.g. is it mostly an aria or
mostly a soundtrack? is it still a poem if I recite it over music?). Do
we really want to impose order on it?

If the list were limited to a strict list of well-defined "forms" (which
I don't think anybody wants), I'd understand, but it's not.

I mean, I don't mind if you add or remove or nest elements. But I don't
see much value in the work types as currently implemented.

Alex / caller#6
(who has tags on the brain)


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

Per Starbäck
> Also I'd like to avoid genre-based solutions.

I agree with that! The distinction I want to make with work type is between a "single melodic work", something compound like a symphony or a song cycle, and a non-music work like a poem. If "song" is a good name for that "single melodic work" or not I'll leave to the native English speakers, but surely people often talk about songs like the Beatles song "12-Bar Original" without reacting to its not being a "song" because it isn't sung.

It is interesting if it's an instrumental "song" instead of a song with lyrics, but that's better stored as a special value for Lyrics Language, right?

> In cases where there are no instruments either, we
> already have Poem though we could argue whether that covers hip-hop and
> other spoken styles.

Whether instruments are used or not is not part of the work but of the arrangement.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

swisschris
Since many people (unlike Jesus2099) are comfortable using "song" also for unsung (pop) works and we seem unable to agree on a term for a "non-vocal song" (I suggested "tune" in an earlier discussion, but folkies objected, wanting to keep this for more specific use), let's try something new: What about keeping "Song", but splitting it into "song (vocal)" and "song (instrumental)". How does that sound to native speakers (and others)?


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Per Starbäck <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also I'd like to avoid genre-based solutions.

I agree with that! The distinction I want to make with work type is between a "single melodic work", something compound like a symphony or a song cycle, and a non-music work like a poem. If "song" is a good name for that "single melodic work" or not I'll leave to the native English speakers, but surely people often talk about songs like the Beatles song "12-Bar Original" without reacting to its not being a "song" because it isn't sung.

It is interesting if it's an instrumental "song" instead of a song with lyrics, but that's better stored as a special value for Lyrics Language, right?

> In cases where there are no instruments either, we
> already have Poem though we could argue whether that covers hip-hop and
> other spoken styles.

Whether instruments are used or not is not part of the work but of the arrangement.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

tommycrock
I really know nothing about this topic - so those who do feel free to correct me - but in my geeking around since this subject came up I've found a few things.
While 'song' gets an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Music, 'instrumental' does not (or anything else that means this that I can find). Song when strictly defined is composed for voice, but it is often used in other ways (i.e. including instrumental forms). However, one of the Oxford reference books talks about rag-time songs and rag-time instrumentals, so "instrumental" is the phrasing they use. Tune does seem usually appropriate, but explicitly can include vocal forms so isn't. I'd been wondering about instrumental tune but it sounds like others would object to this too.
Another thing was an oft-repeated quote that form and content are interlinked, so a strict delineation by form alone (strophic, through-composed, etc, or so I'm told) is bad (caller#6 will be pleased).

I think instrumental is a bit problematic in that it's more of an attribute (so doesn't obviously apply to a limited set). On the other hand, song (instrumental) feels like a bit of a contradiction (but only a bit). On the plus side, the latter would always be found by people looking for song and (presumably) chosen! I'd be happy with either, or neither if the people who understand this think it's bad...


On 30 September 2013 22:45, SwissChris <[hidden email]> wrote:
Since many people (unlike Jesus2099) are comfortable using "song" also for unsung (pop) works and we seem unable to agree on a term for a "non-vocal song" (I suggested "tune" in an earlier discussion, but folkies objected, wanting to keep this for more specific use), let's try something new: What about keeping "Song", but splitting it into "song (vocal)" and "song (instrumental)". How does that sound to native speakers (and others)?


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Per Starbäck <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also I'd like to avoid genre-based solutions.

I agree with that! The distinction I want to make with work type is between a "single melodic work", something compound like a symphony or a song cycle, and a non-music work like a poem. If "song" is a good name for that "single melodic work" or not I'll leave to the native English speakers, but surely people often talk about songs like the Beatles song "12-Bar Original" without reacting to its not being a "song" because it isn't sung.

It is interesting if it's an instrumental "song" instead of a song with lyrics, but that's better stored as a special value for Lyrics Language, right?

> In cases where there are no instruments either, we
> already have Poem though we could argue whether that covers hip-hop and
> other spoken styles.

Whether instruments are used or not is not part of the work but of the arrangement.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

jesus2099
You mean you want song with an instrumental attribute?
That would be totally unstranslatable as song is only ambiguous in english as far as i know (4 languages).
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

swisschris
Not an attribute: Two work types called "song (vocal)" and "song (instrumental)". With the advantage that people looking for a "song" type (in whatever language) would, as Tom pointed out, probably check the right one without further explanations


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:33 AM, jesus2099 <[hidden email]> wrote:
You mean you want song with an instrumental attribute?
That would be totally unstranslatable as song is only ambiguous in english
as far as i know (4 languages).



-----
PATATE12, jesus2099, GOLD MASTER KING
sorry you can’t write to [hidden email] ← this is FAKE EMAIL ADDRESS !
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/What-is-the-use-of-a-work-type-that-means-everything-tp4657735p4658096.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is the use of a work type that means everything?

jesus2099
swisschris wrote
Two work types called "song (vocal)" and "song
(instrumental)".
OK if it’s OK for english !
In other languages we will hopefully avoid this bracket system :
suggestions for translate
ja
song (vocal) → “歌”
song (instrumental) → “器楽曲” (or “インスト”)
vi
song (vocal) → “bài ca” (or “bài hát”)
song (instrumental) → “nhạc đàn” (not sure this one myself)
fr
song (vocal) → “chanson”
song (instrumental) → “musique” or “instrumental” (more pedantic)
(work in progress for the translation anyway…)
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
12