Your input on the work info template

[Leonard Vertighel]

I've been thinking about redoing the work info template. A major drawback of the current version is that, unless viewed on a fairly wide screen, the labels tend to wrap in a way that makes it hard to read. You can see this if you resize your browser window for example to a width of 1024 pixels, which is a fairly common screen width for current "netbooks". Since it's hard to predict how long individual fields will be (even the year of publication may be followed by some comment, and thus be much longer than just the four digits), it's almost impossible to come up with a four-column layout that will work nicely on narrow screens.

So maybe it would actually be best to have just two rather than four columns. The only drawback I see is that in this way the template gets longer, and thus pushes the subsequent comments section (if one exists) further down the page. This problem could be mitigated a little by displaying only the non-empty fields. You can see a draft in my sandbox.

Comments, alternative ideas, suggestions,...?

Edit: By suggestion of P.davydov, I have added two fields that are not present in the current verions, "key" and "first performance". Anything else that should be added/removed/renamed/rearranged?

[Davydov]

Thanks for taking up those suggestions, Leonard. I hope the changes to the order of the headings will also be helpful

This is something that's needed looking at for ages, and many thanks for taking this on!

[Carolus]

I would add 'duration' or 'average duration'. Genre (Symphonies, Sonatas, Concertos, Oratorios, etc.) should be ultimately separated from instrumentation as well. Instrumentation itself is going to require a lot of thought about classification, etc. Sheet Music Plus makes it fairly easy to find what you're looking for in terms of instrumentation or vocal-choral configuration, so it might be worth taking a look at what they've done to structure things.

Another issue that is starting to surface here are the inclusion of links to free, non-commercial recordings of works. Lyle Neff in particular has been adding a fair number of these to Cui pages (see Cui's À Argenteau for an example). At present, he has the links for the free recordings (like YouTube) are listed their own section between the various score sections. It might be better to have them in the "recordings" section, either above or below the automatically generated Amazon links. While the |Recordings= feature can be used where there is only a single edition of a given work (as with new compositions), it's attachment to a specific file instead of the work (or version of a work) raises problems when there are multiple editions of a work.

[Leonard Vertighel]

Genre (Symphonies, Sonatas, Concertos, Oratorios, etc.) should be ultimately separated from instrumentation as well.

I'm not sure I follow, there has been a separate "Genre" field all along, and it's still there in my draft. Am I missing something?

Instrumentation itself is going to require a lot of thought about classification, etc. Sheet Music Plus makes it fairly easy to find what you're looking for in terms of instrumentation or vocal-choral configuration, so it might be worth taking a look at what they've done to structure things.

I guess that somebody more expert than me would have to look into that. There is no way however to implement an actual search function for these criteria without reworking the entire indexing system. I assume that would go in the direction of the catalog system that has been talked about, but won't be implemented anytime soon.....

Another issue that is starting to surface here are the inclusion of links to free, non-commercial recordings of works. Lyle Neff in particular has been adding a fair number of these to Cui pages (see Cui's À Argenteau for an example). At present, he has the links for the free recordings (like YouTube) are listed their own section between the various score sections. It might be better to have them in the "recordings" section, either above or below the automatically generated Amazon links. While the |Recordings= feature can be used where there is only a single edition of a given work (as with new compositions), it's attachment to a specific file instead of the work (or version of a work) raises problems when there are multiple editions of a work.

We could have a subsection under Recordings, or we could collect them in an External Links section somewhere on the page, together with links to Wikipedia articles, and possibly other useful resources related to the piece in question. Thoughts?

[Carolus]

I notice that the present genre set-up includes various Sonatas (piano, piano and 1 instrument), along with duos, trios, quartets. This is what I refer to when I'm saying that genre is being mixed with what is actually instrumentation (number of performers required). In other words, while technically separate, the genre field includes a lot of instrumentation factors instead of being strictly confined to genre.

The instrumentation classification is indeed a long-term project, but we all need to start thinking and talking about how we'd like to organize it.

I think that including the non-commerical recording links in the "Recordings" section is most logical, though perhaps someone will make a more compelling case for placing them elsewhere. At any rate, I think they tend to get lost when you stick them above the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" division of the scores.

[steltz]

The other issue with genre is that there are far too many genre classifications that start with "other". This assumes that the person reading knows "other than what", or that there is a standard something that is being deviated from. In some cases, it is logical, i.e. quartets (other) probably means other than string quartet, since that is likely to be the largest group in the quartet category.

However, sometimes it is far from a logical jump. I'm not sure I understand "sonata (other)", because it isn't clear whether the writer considers a solo piano sonata to be the "standard" or piano with one instrument to be the "standard".

Then there's "Other_(no_more_than_8_performers". Again, other "what"? (And I also don't understand why all the underscores are necessary.)
Same with "Other (sacred – SATB choir a cappella)". By the way, this is where genre gets confused with instrumentation. "SATB" and "a cappella" should go in the instrumentation field, not the genre field. The genre should possibly just be "choral (sacred)" as opposed to "choral (secular)", unless it is a mass or a motet, in which case, that's the genre (I don't remember what piece I saw this classification on).

I really think the word "other" needs to be removed wherever possible -- it just lacks clarity.

Some things are logical, but there is no standardized terminology. In instrumentation, we have "piano" (this could mean 2- or 4-hands, it only references how many pianos), "1 piano" (same problem), "piano 2-hands", and "piano solo". Possibly we have others, but personally, I find "piano solo" the most elegant of these.

Is it worth starting now to create a list of genres and instrumentations for discussion?

[Lyle Neff]

Given that the existing standard section for "Recordings" is often useless (with false matches or no matches) and, of course, sends one to commercial recordings, it wouldn't make sense to list the non-commercial recordings available in that spot on the work page.

For a complicated inclusion of links to non-commercial recordings, see this page:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_the_C ... onovich%29

It includes recordings for the entire piano-solo score, for the 2nd dance (from the full score, recorded from MIDI), and for the overture (arranged from the instrumental indications in the piano/4-hand arrangement, recorded from MIDI), all from different editions.

As for genres and instrumentation, this has long been a weakness of ISMLP classification. As I've written before, "piano piece" and "piece for string section" are not genres of any type. And it is a genuine pity that "opera" is all that is allowed for any operatic theatrical work, considering that "operetta" and "children's opera" (to name two) are distinct enough genres to deserve their own category.

[steltz]

I have operetta on my discussion list, I will also add "children's opera".

[vinteuil]

Massive pet peeve (<rant>): Librettist and Language show up for instrumental works! Definitely try to omit the unused fields.</rant>

[vinteuil]

How about "original instrumentation" instead of "instrumentation." Just a thought.

[steltz]

Here's a good question that should generate some fascinating and useful discussion -- let's kick around the word 'sonata'. It is a genre, to be sure, but in the history of Western Classical music, it has had an incredibly wide set of definitions that can render it unclear as a label for a genre.

For the purposes of this discussion, could we assume that we aren't listing the instrumentation with the genre (e.g. sonata '(piano with 1 instrument)')? Also, part of the reason I would like to open this up for discussion is that I really dislike the 'sonata (other)' classification -- everyone probably has different idea of what the 'normal' sonata is, and what the 'other' should be.

Originally, 'sonata' meant anything that wasn't sung. In this context, it is too wide to be useful. Then over the next 300 years it mutated. It can be a single-movement work (Scarlatti), then it later developed into a more substantial piece with several movements, though usually not more than 4 (then it becomes more of a suite).

It has a connotation of solo work (solo keyboard or solo with keyboard accompaniment) from the Classical period onward, but in the Baroque there are many chamber music pieces called "Sonata" in addition to some solo works (e.g. Scarlatti).

If we use it for anything that has the title sonata (with no instrumentation attached), is it still meaningful?

As a related topic, does 'sonatina' get its own category, or does it go under 'sonata' because of it's 'mini-me' status?

[Davydov]

Here's a good question that should generate some fascinating and useful discussion -- let's kick around the word 'sonata'. It is a genre, to be sure, but in the history of Western Classical music, it has had an incredibly wide set of definitions that can render it unclear as a label for a genre.

You make a good point, Stelz, and there's an argument for getting rid of descrptions like "Sonata" from the genre categories. I've started a separate thread here:

http://www.imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2416

... to discuss how the genre categories might be improved upon.

[Lyle Neff]

[...] Originally, 'sonata' meant anything that wasn't sung. [...]
Rather than "anything," I'd just say "a piece to be played" (or "sounded," on instruments), as opposed to a cantata, "a piece to be sung."
[...] In this context, it is too wide to be useful. Then over the next 300 years it mutated. It can be a single-movement work (Scarlatti),

There were one-movement pieces called "sonata" (or "suonata") long before Scarlatti (e.g., A. Gabrieli), especially if one includes the early baroque sonatas in several short contrasting sections. A further complication with Scarlatti, though, is that many of his supposedly individual sonatas seem to have been arranged in pairs.

then it later developed into a more substantial piece with several movements, though usually not more than 4 (then it becomes more of a suite). [...]

I assume you're speaking of baroque sonatas. The "suite" factor is not a matter so much of number of movements as of the presence of dances in the baroque sonata da camera, as opposed to the more or less "abstractly" composed movements of the sonata da chiesa (which sometimes nevertheless could include a "dance" movement). While I'm no baroque music expert, it would be interesting to find out whether statistically it could be the case that the camera sonatas tended to have more than 4 movements.

It has a connotation of solo work (solo keyboard or solo with keyboard accompaniment) from the Classical period onward, but in the Baroque there are many chamber music pieces called "Sonata" in addition to some solo works (e.g. Scarlatti).

If I'm not mistaken, there are also some baroque orchestral pieces that are called "sonata." Again, that situation simply reflects the looser notion then of a piece to be played on instruments.

This all reminds me of when I was teaching a course on the symphony, and began it with the notion of "symphonia/sinfonia/symphony" itself -- from the treatises on organum in the Middle Ages, to Gabrieli's and Schuetz's "Symphoniae sacrae," to baroque opera overtures, to Bach's 3-part inventions, and onward. But I digress.

[Leonard Vertighel]

I have updated the template according to the draft. If you want the new fields (Key, First Performance, Average Duration) added to the form, we'll have to ask Feldmahler, for I don't have access to the code.

Most fields are optional now and will only show if they are not empty.

[Leonard Vertighel]

As for the links to free recordings, how should we handle them?
1) Split the "Recordings" section into subsections "Commercial Recordings" and "Free Recordings".
2) Add an "External Links" section, like Wikipedia, and use it for recordings and other links related to the work.
Other ideas?