The End of "Genres"

[Davydov]

So what are we going to do about the current intersections? Do we have to remove the template and redo it (I've added a lot, so if we have to do that, then I'll be happy to do so), or what?

Can you give me a list of all the genre categories you've used for the intersections? In most cases there will still be categories with the same names, so we'll probably be OK....

[KGill]

2. On the subject of genres/searching: would it possible to tag/search document types? For instance Autograph Manuscripts, First Edition etc.

That doesn't really have to do with what's being discussed here, but rest assured there are methods of searching for them. The manuscript page is pretty complete, but first editions is eternally in progress (there are way more that haven't been marked as such yet). Here are the alphabetical lists:
Manuscripts
First Editions

[vinteuil]

So what are we going to do about the current intersections? Do we have to remove the template and redo it (I've added a lot, so if we have to do that, then I'll be happy to do so), or what?

Can you give me a list of all the genre categories you've used for the intersections? In most cases there will still be categories with the same names, so we'll probably be OK....

Symphony, Opera, Lieder, Chanson, Octet, Quintet, Quartet, Piano piece, Symphonic Dance Piece, Manuscripts, Piano sonata, Trio, Duet, Concerto, and one or two others.

[steltz]

@steltz — it's going to be "for strings" (!)

Much less clunky than "string section", thanks . . . .

[Davydov]

Symphony, Opera, Lieder, Chanson, Octet, Quintet, Quartet, Piano piece, Symphonic Dance Piece, Manuscripts, Piano sonata, Trio, Duet, Concerto, and one or two others.

Most of them will continue to exist, but will change to the plural form (Symphonies, Operas, Lieder, Chansons, Octets, Quintets, Quartets, Piano sonatas, Trios, Duets, Concertos). The closest couterparts to "Piano piece" and "Symphonic Dance Piece" will be "Compositions for piano" and "Dances" respectively. And you'll also have lots of extra categories to choose from....!

[steltz]

While I've been reminded about it, can we get some guidelines on "Dances"?

The reason I'm asking is that currently, I think some marches are classified as "Symphonic Dance Piece", others as "Other symphonic piece". For example, Tchaikovsky marches are inconsistent as to "Symphonic Dance Piece" or "Other symphonic piece", I'm not sure, but I think some Glazunov is also inconsistent.

I can't remember specific titles right now, I just remember that people aren't too sure what goes under what. With guidelines, we can fix everything as we go.

Also, will "ballet" be a category on its own?

[imslp]

@Davydov:

I think I wasn't clear enough about the intersection stuff. I meant that, instead of having "Sonata for Violin and Piano", we use an intersect "Sonata" + "Violin and Piano" whereever it calls for that category. Listing is no problem because we can just list all the most popular intersections, so people can find them. I really want to avoid having these "detailed" categories like "Sonata for Violin and Piano" because the logical conclusion is a Cartesian product, which I'm not sure we want. For example, even with 100 genres and 20 instrumentation types, we will get 2000 categories. If we use category intersect instead, we only need 120 categories.

I would strongly suggest that category intersections be used instead. However, if what I said above is not what you meant, please do correct me. I am trying to see what the benefit of having detailed categories is versus intersect, and if there is actually a substantial benefit, I don't mind rethinking this.

@PML:

There will be a way of pretty much excluding casual users from messing with the category system. The system is going to have a few twists that are not just Mediawiki stuff. I already have the technical side worked out.

[Davydov]

Hi Feldmahler. While the intersects will help people searching for specific terms, they are be no use at all for people who simply want to browse through the site to see what's available. The system I've outlined will permit both browsing and searching, with far more flexibility in both cases. While the number of categories is likely to be in the hundreds, it will be nowhere near as large as you calculated, because you don't get many operas for string quartet, or choruses for flute, etc. And don't worry about Cartesian nightmares like "Choruses for chorus", because the tagging will take care of all that.

The nesting of categories is the at the core of the system, but it may be that my attempts to explain the reasons why are proving inadequate. So would you consider allowing a pilot projecy where, say, a hundred works are tagged? Then hopefully it will become clearer how the categories are built from the tags, and why this is so important. We can leave the genre and meta-genre data intact for the works inovlved, so if the worst comes to the worst the new categories can all be deleted, and we're no worse off than we are now.

I know that I'm asking for a leap of faith because this approach is radically different from what's gone before. But I genuinely believe it's the best possible solution to a long-standing problem, and I hope you'll at least give it a chance.

[Melodia]

While I've been reminded about it, can we get some guidelines on "Dances"?

The reason I'm asking is that currently, I think some marches are classified as "Symphonic Dance Piece", others as "Other symphonic piece". For example, Tchaikovsky marches are inconsistent as to "Symphonic Dance Piece" or "Other symphonic piece", I'm not sure, but I think some Glazunov is also inconsistent.

I can't remember specific titles right now, I just remember that people aren't too sure what goes under what. With guidelines, we can fix everything as we go.

Also, will "ballet" be a category on its own?

Ballet should certainly get a category of its own, and IMO so should each dance -- so polonaise, march, waltz, etc....be it for piano, orchestra, what have you.

[Davydov]

Ballet should certainly get a category of its own, and IMO so should each dance -- so polonaise, march, waltz, etc....be it for piano, orchestra, what have you.

That is the plan -- see the guidelines currently under construction. The work types (shown in bold in the table) will not necessarily all be used, but they're available if required.

The idea is that similar work types will be grouped together to making broader categories, like "Dances" or "Religious music". Using the tags in the way I've outlined, people browsing through "Dances" will be able to see not only the different work types encompassed by that broad heading (like mazurkas, polonaises, waltzes), but their instrumentation as well.

[kalliwoda]

This looks wonderful, looking forward to be able to browse...
Just a few comments:
While your setup is very logical, there may have to be some exceptions:
- wind quintet (or its american version "woodwind quintet") is for fl ob cl hn bn - try to avoid "quintet for woodwind and brass"
and I personally would prefer if there would be tags for
wind sextet (2ob 2hn 2bn), wind octet (2ob 2cl 2hn 2bn), wind nonet (fl 2ob 2cl 2hn 2bn), wind decet (2fl 2 ob 2 cl 2hn 2bn) instead of sextet ... decet for woodwind and brass.
...just reflecting this double role the horns can play as honorary woodwinds

[steltz]

wind sextet (2ob 2hn 2bn),

If I understand the system correctly, wind or brass or woodwind wouldn't be in the tag here, because these groups would be as follows:

Sextets for 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons
Quintets for flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon

Is this correct?

Re: the ad lib instruments being left out of the tag, in some cases it might look odd. For example, Boisdeffre's Septet for piano and winds has an ad lib. double bass. However, the ad lib. part is part of the seven, so the tag according to the guidelines would be "Septets for flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon, piano". This adds up to only six. Wouldn't it be better to put the ad lib part in and note in the comments field that it is ad lib.?

And sometimes, when I'm looking for chamber works involving double bass, it's nice to be able to find these pieces.

[Melodia]

wind nonet (fl 2ob 2cl 2hn 2bn), wind decet (2fl 2 ob 2 cl 2hn 2bn)

Are these two actually common enough? The only one of the first I know of is Gounod's Petite Symphony, and I dunno any with the second.

[kalliwoda]

If I understand the system correctly, wind or brass or woodwind wouldn't be in the tag here, because these groups would be as follows:
Sextets for 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons
Quintets for flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon
Is this correct?

That would take care of this problem, and the larger ensembles may or may not have specific tags - thats up to the volunteers.
@Melodia: There are just a few PD nonets: Gouvy, Gounod, plus Lange, Nocentini (both not yet on imslp)
and a similar number of decets: Bernard, Bird, Brauer, Raff (only the Brauer is here with a "TB")

Re: Boisdeffre etc
There are even titles that don't match the instrumentation: Ponchielli Quartetto is for Fl, Ob, ClBb, ClEb with Piano acc. The piano part is essential, not ad lib., so this is actually a quintet. This was a somewhat common praxis in 19th cent. Italy with Duos and Trios with Piano acc. as well. (i.e. trios and quartets respectively.
::The Ponchielli is actually a wonderful piece, great to play and a hit with the audience too!

[Davydov]

If I understand the system correctly, wind or brass or woodwind wouldn't be in the tag here, because these groups would be as follows:

Sextets for 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons
Quintets for flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon

Is this correct

Yes, this is a piece for solo performers alll playing different parts, so they would all be listed individually. Sticking to the order of the table (which is important for consistency), the horns would come last:

• Sextets for 2 oboes, 2 bassoons and 2 horns
• Quintets for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and horn

The category links (which aren't discussed on the tagging guidelines page) will ensure that the first example appears in the category "Sextets" (derived from the work type) and in the separate category "Compositions for wind sextet" (derived from the instrumentation), like this:

Sub-categories in the category "Sextets":

• Sextets for 2 oboes, 2 bassoons and 2 horns [click to list all the items in this category]
• Sextets for 2 violins, 2 violas and 2 cellos [click to list all the items in this category]
• Sextets for [etc.]

Sub-categories in the category "Compositions for wind sextet":

• Serenades for 2 flutes, 2 oboes, clarinet and bassoon [click to see all the items in this category]
• Sextets for 2 oboes, 2 bassoons and 2 horns [click to see all the items in this category]
• [etc.]

So you will be able to see at a glance all the available combinations of instruments from both these category pages, without having to go through the work page for every piece, and without overlooking a particular wind sextet because the composer happened to call it a "serenade for wind instruments".

For example, Boisdeffre's Septet for piano and winds has an ad lib. double bass. However, the ad lib. part is part of the seven, so the tag according to the guidelines would be "Septets for flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon, piano". This adds up to only six. Wouldn't it be better to put the ad lib part in and note in the comments field that it is ad lib.?

Remembering that we're dealing specifically with the tags here (and not the instrumentation panel on the work page, which is a whole other can of worms). This would be one of the rare occasions where a work requires two tags, depending on whether or not the double bass player shows up:

• Sextets for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn and piano
• Septets for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, piano and double bass

So yes, steltz, double basses will be listed for chamber works