Art Song category

[Operalala]

Actually, when categorizing, you don't need to add the larger categories like "Solo vocal works", because "Art Song" would already be a sub-category of it - adding a parent category would actually be redundant.
You also need to decide how specific you want to get, and there comes a point where if you get too specific, the categories will become trivial, or redundant, or non-inclusive. When we get down to "Lieder", if we are not using the term to cover all Art Songs, we won't have corresponding terms for most of the other languages out there. There is no reason to single out German, and French arts songs in categories of their own, when we can't, and wouldn't want to have categories for all languages; and we already have a language field in the template to cover this area.

[steltz]

Having the larger category with lots of sub-categories is precisely what is needed, because the system Philip is talking about means that lots of different search terms can be used successfully. Far from being redundant, it becomes more usable, and I don't agree that the sub-categories would become trivial or non-inclusive.

One the problems I find with your proposed system is that you would be deleting common (and therefore useful) search terms, and this narrowness makes the system less usable. We don't have to have specific terms for Art Songs of all languages, but we do have to cover words in common usage that people are likely to search for. Lieder is one of them. The argument that we can't cater just for French and German sub-categories is outweighed by the fact that by sheer number, those are in the majority. Their specific terminology must be searchable.

The other problem with your category tree, and I know this caused angst before, is that we don't have a good category for the hybrid works, which is another advantage of Davydov's system. The Stage works category, for instance would include operas, ballet, and opera-ballets. Your proposed system has no place for the French opera-ballets. A Stage works category is a logical solution.

Apart from all the metagenre errors you will generate, that's another reason not to change anything before we can get a majority decision on the whole genre system.

[Lyle Neff]

... "genre" -- ACK! ...


{{{{{shudder}}}}}

[steltz]

I realize you hate that word, but there is apparently a conflict with using the word "category", because it has another meaning in wiki terms. I don't do the programming, so I don't understand that necessarily, but I do accept that if they say there is a conflict, there is.

However, I have checked 2 dictionaries, and the Collins unabridged (weighs a ton) defines genre as "kind, category, or sort", and the Oxford pocket dictionary (albeit about 50 years old) defines genre as "kind, style".

Both dictionaries give a second definition that is a kind of painting depicting domestic scenes from ordinary life.

Although the second definition clearly doesn't pertain to music categorization, I don't see anything in the first definition that causes a problem.

Can you please explain (again, if I missed an earlier post) why you think it doesn't work?

[Operalala]

Steltz, once again, this thread is concerned with categorization. If you want Search Terms, start your own thread and ask the devs if they can add a Search Term field to the template.

And if we're going worry about so-called "hybrid" works, we need to add Orchestas to your Stage Works category, because even though there may be no truely hybrid ballets+operas, they virtually all have orchestras. We have to account for all those orchestrated ballets and operas, don't we? As a matter of fact, why don't we just put everything in one category, period. "Music". So simple and unconfusing.

[Davydov]

To Everyone:

After an unusual flash of inspriation, I think I've come up with a solution that will please everyone (yes, really!) It's outlined here.

I think all of us (including me) have been looking at this the wrong way around — that is, trying to come up with large categories which are sliced ever thinner to make them more specific. But how about turning the whole thing on its head, so that each work is given a description, or "tag", that can be combined to make larger and larger categories, that can overlap and be added together.

So we can keep the terms "Chanson" and "Lieder", and also have a wider category called "Art Song" which covers them both.

And we can have a grouping for "Opera-Ballets", whose constituents also appear under "Operas" and "Ballets".

And people can search for works written for specific instruments or combinations of instruments, or that featuring solos for specific instruments.

And the word "genre" doesn't have to be mentioned anywhere!

I'll start a separate thread on this board for further discussion...

[Operalala]

I have no problem if somebody wants to tag things to their heart's content, but we will still need a stable category system.

[Davydov]

I have no problem if somebody wants to tag things to their heart's content, but we will still need a stable category system.

Well the tags are building blocks for new categories, and unless I'm missing something then the new system should provide all the categories that you (and everyone else so far) has asked for. If you don't think that it does, then perhaps you could be more specific.

[Operalala]

Every single tag thought up would then have to be a category, and then each and every category/tag would itself have to be properly categorized, something that would be easier to deal with on the work page.

[steltz]

On the surface of it, this looks really workable, and extremely usable for lots of search terms. People won't have to be forum-adept in order to find the one-and-only search term that will work.

Definitely worth taking the next few days to mull over and work through . . . .

Thank you, Davydov!

[Davydov]

Every single tag thought up would then have to be a category, and then each and every category/tag would itself have to be properly categorized, something that would be easier to deal with on the work page.

Once a tag has been created for the first time the process becomes extremely simple. Takinge Verdi's Requiem as an example, let's say that this is the first work to be tagged as Requiems for Solo Voices, Chorus and Orchestra. A category of the same name would automatically be created at the same time as the tag, and this would be automatically flagged to a member of the project team, who decides that it fits into larger categories called Requiems and Works for Solo Voices, Chorus and Orchestra. The category Requiems had previously been created, and is itself already part of two more categories called Funeral Music and Religious Music.

So the process of just adding one tag to the work page for Verdi's Requiem places it in five categories:

• Requiems for Solo Voices, Chorus and Orchestra
• Works for Solo Voices, Chorus and Orchestra
• Requiems
• Funeral Music
• Religious Music

The review process by the project team will only be required for the very first time a tag is used, and the technical process of creating the category links would quite literally take just a few seconds. All the other works that are subsequently given the same tag "Requiems for Solo Voices, Chorus and Orchestra" will instantly be listed under all five categories, with no manual intervention required.

Compare this with the laborious process of manually adding five headings (instead of just one) to every requiem work page — with all the scope that brings for typing errors or mistakes in typing the words correctly — and the nested category system has to be a much more efficient and simpler method. It also means that new categories can be created later as desired without having to change the original tags on the work pages.

I really think this is the answer to the whole genre issue, and that it will do everything that people have been asking. But there will be plenty of opportunity for discussion — preferably on this dedicated thread.

[Lyle Neff]

I realize you hate that word, [...]

It does not contribute to a discussion to insert some sort of speculation as to someone else's feelings, especially when they are unknown or irrelevant. I don't "hate" the word "genre"; it is simply a very weak term to use.

Can you please explain (again, if I missed an earlier post) why you think it doesn't work?

"Genre" fails because it is applied to everything from instrumentation to venue-of-performance to type-of-piece. Besides that, in CD stores and in general popular usage it is also commonly employed to refer to styles of music, e.g., reggae, rock, country, grunge, easy-listening, Latin, etc.

[steltz]

I apologize if that upset you , but the

... "genre" -- ACK! ...


{{{{{shudder}}}}}

seemed to be a strong feeling. Nevertheless, since it is upsetting to you, I won't refer to it again.

[Lyle Neff]

I apologize if that upset you , but the

... "genre" -- ACK! ...


{{{{{shudder}}}}}

seemed to be a strong feeling. Nevertheless, since it is upsetting to you, I won't refer to it again.

It could have been fear (think: "vampires" -- need a cross, or garlic...), rather than hatred.