Proposed new genres

[steltz]

Using the search function, provided the function itself will search more than one field, you can search 'clarinet concertante', and it will spit out the entire list of works for solo clarinet in a soloistic role, with orchestra or wind band (e.g. Rimsky-Korsakov) accompaniment. So concertante is the category, clarinet is in the instrumentation field, and 'voila'!

Unless I'm not understanding the search function correctly, I don't see a need for a category that lists the instrument and concertante together. As far as I understand, the only reason 'violin concerto' and 'piano concerto' were suggested is that they both have large numbers of examples. But even that's not entirely necessary if the search function will do multiple fields.

[Lyle Neff]

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".

It was an opera=ballet for the 1872 collaboration and for Rimsky-Korsakov's setting. Rimsky-Korsakov's title: ????? -- ????????? ?????-????? ? ??????? ????????? -- Mlada, a magical opera-ballet in 4 acts.

Rimsky's Mlada was based on the libretto of 1872 (written by Krylov, to a scenario by Gedeonov). It is not merely an opera with ballet interludes, although there are divertissements (the Lithuanian and Indian Dances). To quote Richard Taruskin's article on the work in Grove Music online (specifically, The New Grove Dictionary of Opera):

The title role in Mlada is assigned not to a singer but to a ballerina (danced at the première by Mariya Petipa, daughter of the legendary Mariinsky Theatre ballet-master), whose dramatic répliques are cast in terms of the old formal mime conventions, already archaic by the 1890s, as was the whole concept of opera-ballet, essentially a court spectacle of a type that had died out everywhere else but the one remaining European autocracy. The ethereal Fantastic Kolo in Act 3 was designed for the celebrated Mariinsky femal corps de ballet – 80 tutu’d maidens in a row – in emulation of Marius Petipa’s fabled ‘Kingdom of the Shades’ sequences from La bayadère (music by Minkus, who was to have supplied the episode in question for the original Mlada group project).

In addition to the shade of Mlada, another dancer is required in the shade of Cleopatra in Act III. Her purpose is to seduce the lead male role. The wedding-dream sequence in Act I and much of Act III would make little sense without the dancers, pantomime notwithstanding.

The Bolshoi production from the 1990s available on video makes some noticeable changes in Rimsky's stage directions, particularly in dispensing with pantomime, having both Mlada and Cleopatra danced by the same ballerina, and having on stage rag-dolls matched with faux-stone statues representing the main characters. (The last of these features is particularly annoying.) As to how much true ballet technique and choreography is used in that production, one ballet instructor who watched my copy of the video told me, "There's a lot of dancing in it, but not much ballet."

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; [...]

Obviously this was no limitation to late-nineteenth Russian composers. Any composer can write a musical work in the manner of a "genre" of an earlier time. (likewise with reviving an older style or technique.) Whether the result is successful or convincing is another matter.

[Operalala]

Any composer can write a musical work in the manner of a "genre" of an earlier time.

quintessentially Romantic!

In any case, Opera-Ballet is very much a part of operatic history - the dance interludes were provided mainly so members of the court could be part of the show too.

This made be think of something else: if we (presumably) put dance music like waltzes and minuets under "piano" or "small ensemble" categories, why do we separate "ballet" from "orchestral" music? The ballet itself is a visual medium, and not something the IMSLP archives. Newer works can also be hard to define as specifically ballet/dance.
Also, some operas (notably Berlioz's Damnation de Faust) were intended to be sung in a recital format, and are only exceptionally staged.

[Operalala]

I want to expressly state that nowhere in my posts have I brought up or endorsed an "Undefined" category.

[Davydov]

The new genre system will require the broad acceptance of the IMSLP users as well as the co-operation of the site's programmers. I must accept that my ideas so far have failed to meet both requirements, and so I'm formally withdrawing all the proposals. The floor is now clear for anyone else to put forward their own suggestions...

[KGill]

You really think what's currently (or what was) on the table is totally useless? I for one think that the new one you came out with was quite good, with few issues.
For the opera-ballet thing, why couldn't they just be put in both, just like how a composer can now be put into two different nationalities? I imagine that there are several quintillion other cases where that will come in handy...

[Operalala]

For me, having multiple categories for a work is no problem; the problem was lumping all the operas and ballets together in one unhelpful mega-category "stage works".

[steltz]

Davydov, I would like to thank you for all the work you did -- this is a huge project, and I also think your list was very good.

[Davydov]

I won't go into details here, but let's just say it became clear that the new system didn't have the support it needed to be implemented.

Of course I'm disappointed, but if anyone else wants to build on those ideas, or to come up with something completely different, then they're welcome to continue this discussion.

[imslp]

I saw your note on Leonard's page and had wanted to reply.

The reason I asked you to take on this project was because a reworking is needed at some point, and hence it may be beneficial to at least get a system down before someone gets the time to implement it. I don't know if Leonard responded to your questions, but I will respond for him if he hasn't: Any search is possible as long as the information is contained within the template (hence my insistence on having information within the template). It is not even hard to do (a day or two of programming time I would estimate).

* * *

However, as I have learned in the course of working with IMSLP, one of the things collaborative wiki projects are worst at is precise deadlines. Rather, it is a good idea to just leave the follow up to whenever someone else wants to/can take it up. This is going to frustrate people who are accustomed to getting stuff done right away (like I was before I adjusted to the collaborative mindset), but this is the core of how the community functions in a collaborative setting like IMSLP.

For example, nobody expected that someone is going to come and translate the entire site to Japanese like Supertchan has, even though I knew for a while that the amount of traffic from Japan is quite significant. The beauty of an open collaboration like IMSLP is precisely that people may just show up and do something significant to the entire world. However, this must not be forced; IMSLP members should contribute when they feel like it, instead of on a deadline, or else the fun goes out of it. I've come to the conclusion that this is the only way to maintain the community in an efficient and satisfactory (to everyone) fashion.

Hence, I want to emphasize that what you did was very certainly not in vain. In fact, everything has progressed better than what I would have predicted. You have spent lots of time on this project, and have come up with a system after much thought. The task of implementing this system is correspondingly passed on to the programmers (Leonard, Horndude and me), who unfortunately appear to be all busy at the moment. But this is not to discourage you! You have done very well and in no way is your labor in vain. Remember, it may take months or even years before your categorization system is implemented, but it will be implemented.

* * *

One thing that is commonly forgotten is what time scale it is necessary to think in in terms of improvements to IMSLP. I did not design IMSLP to shut down after a year. I did not design IMSLP to shut down after ten years. I designed IMSLP so that it may last at least 100 years, if not longer, and I am not even joking. IMSLP will be here after both you and I are in the ground (though I pray we both will live as long as possible of course).

This is why I am not terribly concerned about not having structural things done in a timely fashion. The reason I had stressed that new genres should be worked on as soon as possible was because with delay, the amount of potential retagging increases. Even so, however, I do not want to force anyone to do anything, because that fundamentally kills the community. Remember, IMSLP is going to be here for at least a century, and your contributions will neither be in vain nor forgotten.

* * *

What to do now?

I would strongly suggest that you put the last draft of your proposed genres on an IMSLP project page (maybe IMSLP:Proposed genres?), and link to it via both the Sitemap, your user page, and the current genre page. That way, it will not be forgotten, and when someone suddenly decides to program something, they will know exactly where to look. It may also be a good idea to keep the discussion open just for people to wander in and suggest potential changes, and then periodically clear up the discussion queries and merge meritorious changes into the genres themselves. But this is not a task that I would force you to undertake; after all, you have done way more than your fair share. The proposed genres is now in the hands of the entire community, and the community should maintain it.

I want to thank you again for your work on this project.

-- Edward

[Davydov]

I appreciate your comments, Feldmahler. I'd agree that we're further forward than when we started, and the discussion has been useful, but the stage where we can say "Here's how the new system should work ... now over to the programmers" remains some way off. If there were a simple solution to categorising classical music then someone would have come up with it already, and trying to do something without precedent in musical history may take a little time

While I think the previous proposals are effectively dead in the water, I hope that others will feel encouraged to come forward with their own suggestions, as we're more likely to crack the problem working as a group than by ourselves.

[pml]

Perhaps someone might make this thread sticky, so that it doesn't need to be periodically "bumped" to the front page of this sub-forum?

Regards, PML

[imslp]

I'm very sorry to hear that the problem is with the project itself. However, I would still encourage you to post the proposed genres (or several if there are several prototypes) on an IMSLP project page, so future contributors have something to build on, and won't have to start from the beginning all over again. It also helps to keep the issue alive in the minds of contributors who would be interested in it.

Since I'm not on the forums that much, I'll leave the stickying up to the other admins, if they decide to do so.

[jujimufu]

It would indeed help to have the proposed genres somewhere, so we can think things over.

I think it should become a very high priority to improve the genre system. I've been uploading a lot of scores lately, and I have come across quite a few obstacles in trying to choose an appropriate genre.

I think, as a starting point, we should at least have a page for "solo X", for each main orchestral instrument. I think we have enough scores on IMSLP to justify such a move, and I understand there would be a LOT of pages (works for solo flute, solo clarinet, solo oboe, solo bassoon, solo everything!), but if you think about it, this is one of the things that people will be looking for: a solo piece for their instrument, which they could play in their recital (and separately, they would also be looking for pieces featuring their instrument, with accompaniment, in the form of concerti, or with piano, or with another instrument) (they would also be looking for, say, smaller pieces -such as trios or quartets- featuring their instrument).

We could also have a category for piano accompaniment - there are plenty of piano accompaniment students out there looking for repertoire (and pieces in this category could, in turn, be classified according to instrument family, or instrument).

I think we should not ponder about arbitrary things like "what constitutes 'orchestral' and what 'chamber'? is a liturgy a mass, or is the mass the only liturgy? or not? do we always have SATB? about about SSAT?" - but we should really focus on our target population: who is going to be looking for scores, and for what use. Most likely, people are going to be looking for scores to perform or study. For performance, they are thinking very simplistically in terms of instrumentation/orchestration and don't really think about all those things that seem to bother a lot of the members who have started opposing Davydov's ideas (and proposing -in turn- other ideas, only to be problematic to other members, and so on).

What's more, if someone is looking for a piece which they know lies between, say, Orchestral and Chamber, or between Secular and Sacred (say, the lyrics are from the bible, but it is not intended to be performed in a church), they would -wisely- look in both categories, or they would know the particular title of the piece they're looking for. What's more, such a piece could be listed in both categories.

Which is why I proposed the idea of using tags instead of genres. By tags/labels, we could have more than one genre applied to the same piece, so, say, Grieg's piano concerto would be listed as "piano", "concerto" and "difficult". But as I said, I don't know how feasible such a feature is within the wiki structure.

But even with categories, if we only have the opportunity to add more than one category to a certain piece at the time of adding the work, that in itself would help tremendously.

I regret to say, the search function of IMSLP is not good enough to compensate for a bad genre system. (I personally avoid using it at all costs) Which is why I think that we should focus on making pieces more accessible to the people who are going to use them, not more correct for the music theorists who visit IMSLP and will criticise our mis-categorisation of genres and instrumentations.