Proposed new genres

[Davydov]

Any further comments on where in the listing a concert band group would go? It seems like a really good idea, but it doesn't really belong as a section under orchestral works.

The orchestral category will include string orchestras, wind ensembles, and bands, as well as large and small symphony orchestras. But we could allocate one of more "Work Types" to compositions that are specifically for bands. Do you have any preference what the description(s) should be, based on your knowledge of the band repertoire?

[Operalala]

Davydov, the problem is that we are talking in terms of hierarchies, but the proposal is 2 flat lists, one of which is far too general to be useful for users, and the other of which is optional and unsystematic. The proposal is a step backward from the current system, in two different directions at once.

If you were looking for a list of ballets, you could not count on the the obvious category "Ballet" to contain what you were looking for - you'd have to sift through everything in "Stage Works" for all the ballets not included in the optional "Ballet" category.

[steltz]

The orchestral category will include string orchestras, wind ensembles, and bands, as well as large and small symphony orchestras. But we could allocate one of more "Work Types" to compositions that are specifically for bands. Do you have any preference what the description(s) should be, based on your knowledge of the band repertoire?

There is a fairly significant problem of nomenclature here, to which I have a suggested solution. The problem is that many concert bands like to call themselves "symphonic wind ensembles", and at a cursory glance, the confusion will be obvious.

I do think (strongly) that "concert band" or "wind ensemble" are the only choices.

"Concert band" in and of itself is a strong contender, except that many of the marches that are playing in marching bands can also played in concerts, so "concert band" seems very limiting.

"Wind ensemble" seems to be generic enough to fit both (though it needs to be clear that anything under a certain number is chamber music, not band music or a precursor thereof). Nevertheless, a possible objection would be that "wind ensemble" doesn't differentiate between things like Mozart's Gran Partita (too large to fit into the chamber music category) and concert band or marching band material. On the other hand, if you look into the history of the concert band, it is the direct descendant of the Classical "harmonie musik", of which the Gran Partita is a part.

If a sub-category can have further sub-categories, then "Wind ensemble" (sub-category of orchestral) could further split into "Concert band", "Marches", etc.

So my vote is for "wind ensemble". Other people's opinions?

[Davydov]

If you were looking for a list of ballets, you could not count on the the obvious category "Ballet" to contain what you were looking for - you'd have to sift through everything in "Stage Works" for all the ballets not included in the optional "Ballet" category.

While I'd expect most works to be put in a "Work Type" category, the fact remains that there will still be a significant number of works that defy easy description. But if you noticed that, say. "Swan Lake" hadn't been labelled as a ballet, then you (or anyone else) should feel free to add the missing information in the Work Type field. Obviosuly there will transitional period of several months where the new categories and work types are being applied, so not all works will be covered right away.

I think I understand your concerns though, so I'd like to suggest we have a work type called "Undefined", for these works which don't obviously fit into the existing groups. Discussions can then take place in the forums about works labelled as "Undefined" to decide whether a new work type is needed, or if it should be put under one of the existing headings. Then the "Work Type" information would always be given, and there would be no blank fields. Would this go some way to addressing your specific concerns on this issue?

As far as your other point goes, work types don't convenenintly fit into heirarchies in the way that instrumentation does, which is why the proposal is for a 'flat' system. This is a long way from my original suggestion of a heirarchical arrangement by instrumentation which was criticised for being too complicated. Some people stil consider that the proposed eight groups is too many, while others would like to see lots of small multi-layered categories. It won't be possible to please everyone, but that's all part and parcel of working together on a Wiki

[Operalala]

I came into this discussion after it started, but I haven't seen criticism that a hierarchical format was too complicated, or that 8 categories was too many.

We have standard categories that are in widespread use - users will expect to see them. This is how we communicate with each other and can understand what the other is referring to. And these standard terms have not come into widespread use for no reason at all.

As an example, we can't just decide to lump operas and ballets together because we think there might be the possibility of a combined-ballet-and-opera out there: the long tradition of these two distinct and widely recognizable terms reflects the reality that we don't see such combined works. One problem is that the staging in each has opposite goals - ballet sets are designed to absorb on-stage noise and minimize reflection toward the audience, whereas operatic sets are designed to project out. Even when an opera contains ballet scenes, it remains an opera. And a ballet with singers involved is still a ballet.
The separateness of these two groups is even borne out by the "opera-and-ballet" example given previously: "Mlada" has never been staged. On top of that, the operatic and ballet sections of Mlada were written by different composers.

We cannot let theoretical possibilities override the reality that there is not a significant corpus of such works, or negate the need for standard categories and clear groupings that users will recognize and be able to use.

Operalala

[Lyle Neff]

[...] "Mlada" has never been staged. [...]

Both Minkus' ballet and Rimsky-Korsakov's opera ballet of that title have been staged, the latter as recently as the previous decade.

On top of that, the operatic and ballet sections of Mlada were written by different composers.

That is the early opera-ballet Mlada of 1872, not Minkus' or Rimsky's own settings. Besides that, Cui's Act 1 of the 1872 version was given a concert performance during his lifetime.

We cannot let theoretical possibilities override the reality that there is not a significant corpus of such works, or negate the need for standard categories and clear groupings that users will recognize and be able to use.

I would be loathe to consider the categorization of a given work as unnecessary because (a) there aren't enough examples of that type and/or (b) because the work was (supposedly?) never performed. If a work exists, it's not theoretical.

[Davydov]

We have standard categories that are intuitive, instinctive, and in widespread use - users will expect to see them, and these standard categories are not in widespread use for no reason at all.

I'm not quite sure what that means . But there will be a work-type category showing all the operas, and another showing all the ballets, and another for the (admittedly fewer) opera-ballets, which as Lyle has confirmed really do exist. And if you want to see them all, then there will be one big category covering all the stage works.

Using the intersection template the larger categories can be broken down by composer or time period, which provides added flexibilty. And we must be open-minded to the inclusion of a wide range of work types, without dismissing any as unnecessary just because they're unfamiliar. Through the input of IMSLP users the list of work types will evolve over time (as happens every day on Wikipedia), which is surely better than trying to impose a rigid system that doesn't cater for all circumstances.

[Lyle Neff]

As I indicated earlier, if we could have more than one sub-category field, "opera-ballet" does not have to have its own niche on the same level as opera and ballet. Rimsky-Korsakov's Mlada can be classed as an opera, and as a ballet, and could be therefore be found under either.

If "opera" is going to included operetta, singspiel, etc., then opera-ballets can go in there, too.

Oh, I forgot this before: Davydov, I don't agree that "Theatrical works" is suitable for film, television, and internet music. Performing a work live in a theater is not the same thing as showing an already permanently set motion picture in a theater. Besides that, you can experience a film, television program, or internet video/audio at home or out in the open (provided that it's not raining...).

[supertchan]

To supertchan: the word concertante is well known enough to work for what we need: a genre or category title that can include any work for soloist(s) with orchestra. Not all of these works have the title "concerto", so a concerto category or genre title is too limiting. The word "concertante" will do fine.

Any further comments on where in the listing a concert band group would go? It seems like a really good idea, but it doesn't really belong as a section under orchestral works.

Thanks.
My all English, Italian, and music dictionaries may not be so good or behind the times.

I think concert band can come under orchestral works, because concert band often called as "wind orchestra" and it is an ensemble of at least 10 performers.

[Operalala]

Ah, Rimsky-Korsakov, that's where I've heard this before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the framework an opera - the music written for voice, with ballet interludes. Even the original Mlada describes an Opera with Ballet interludes: "members of The Five – were to write music for the sung portions of the libretto and dramatic action. Ludwig Minkus ... was to write ballet music to be inserted at various points." I took a glance at the introduction to RK's Mlada and according the French translation, RK uses both his own Opera-Ballet as well as simply Opera, and describes a work that sounds very much like a French Grand Opera. From what I can see, it already has a category "Opera".

And I do want to remind everyone that an Opera-Ballet is specifically a French Baroque genre of Opera. When we use this term, the reader will expect Lully or Rameau; and it also falls under the category "Opera".

[Operalala]

One more reason to use a hierarchical framework, is that if an uploader isn't sure how to categorize a work, (i.e. Operetta vs. Opera), they can put it in a higher level category, (i.e. Vocal Stage Works), from where it can be discussed and sorted out.

[Davydov]

One more reason to use a hierarchical framework, is that if an uploader isn't sure how to categorize a work, (i.e. Operetta vs. Opera), they can put it in a higher level category, (i.e. Vocal Stage Works), from where it can be discussed and sorted out.

Operalala, that issue has already been addressed in response to your earlier request (the "Undefined" category). I think your views are pretty clear, and your objections are noted.

Would anyone else like to comment on the proposals? — just a reminder that the latest version can be seens here

[Carolus]

I assume that Band and Wind Ensemble works would fall under the "Orchestral" category and will be listed in the second-level list. I can see where the second-level list could quickly grow to enormous size, since you would need to include Flute, Oboe, Clarinet, Bassoon, and Cello Concerti along with the Piano and Violin and Horn Concerti already listed (not to mention every other instrument for which a concerto has been written). I'm a little concerned that using "Orchestral" as the label for the primary-level category will cause confusion for users, though I can see the logic to it. Perhaps an explanation of what it means will suffice. "Large Ensembles" is admittedly cumbersome. I think the 8 primary-level categories are very well thought out and quite usable as they stand. Were you thinking that the list for the second-level categories would be a menu listing the options, or some other scheme?

[Davydov]

Thanks for those comments, Carolus. It's best not to think of the work types them as second-level categories, as they're independent from the 8 main categories, and not subsets of them. And yes, there will be lots of them! With almost 18,000 works on IMSLP, we can sort them into as many work types as the users think is required. The option to give works more than one "type" will exist, but should be used sparingly, at least to start with.

We should start start off with a "menu" page listing a small number of basic work types (like the examples on the project page). Volunteers will start reclassifying the works of a composer of their choice, and if they come across a work type which isn't on the list, then they can either add it to the menu page as a new option, or mark the work type as "Undefined" for further discussion.

For this purpose a specific sub-forum devoted to this project will need to be set up, where decisions about categories and work types can be made. Inevitably there will be differences of opinion about whether a particular work should be classified as type "A" or type "B" (or both), but admins will watch over the system and enact any decisions that emerge from the forums, and keep the work-type listings up-to-date. There should be few problems in apportioning works to among the eight main categories, and a random sample suggests that up to 80% of work types should also be classifiable without much difficulty.

So rather than try to impose from on high a universal list of work types (which doesn't actually exist anyway), we'll be using the strengths of the Wiki, combined with the experience of IMSLP users. This is radically different from the way some of us are used to working (myself included), and it will take a lot of effort, but I think it's an exciting opportunity for a major IMSLP community project.

[KGill]

I can see where the second-level list could quickly grow to enormous size, since you would need to include Flute, Oboe, Clarinet, Bassoon, and Cello Concerti along with the Piano and Violin and Horn Concerti already listed (not to mention every other instrument for which a concerto has been written).

In that case, why wouldn't they be labeled just as 'Concertante', and another instrumentation field (as first discussed at least a couple months ago) could sort out the actual instrument? I mean, it says on the page that apart from 'String Quartet' and the very few other such examples (where the exact instrumentation is pretty much tied to the genre), detailed instrumentation should not enter into this. The way it stands now, it seems that if I wrote and uploaded a concerto for (for instance) ondes martenot and orchestra, it would very likely have an entire category to itself. Is that really what we want?