Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[symphonick]

As Brant said, over time any group can have many different members.
I believe these categories must be manually assigned. (Think about larger
ensembles/orchestras.)


2014/1/25 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 

> Den 25-01-2014 14:52, symphonick skrev:
> > If I understand you correctly; instead of selecting "string quartet"
> > from a list, the user should select type=group, instrument = violin,
> > violin, viola, cello", number of members on stage = 4 (essentially a new
> > attribute that means "quartet", or some other way to catch that members
> > can be replaced)? Please elaborate.
>
> Ehm. That looks like a different schema altogether... ? What I'm saying
> is that we can get the info by querying the relationships we already
> have available:
>
> ArtistEntity->type->ensemble
> ArtistEntity->has_member[violin]->Person1
> ArtistEntity->has_member[violin]->Person2
> ArtistEntity->has_member[viola ]->Person3
> ArtistEntity->has_member[cello ]->Person4
>
> From that, I can tell that ArtistEntity is an ensemble with four
> members, two playing violin, one on viola, and the last is a cellist.
> The program I'm using to run these queries then plops it into the
> category "string quartet" based on this information. The only new thing
> here is the artist entity type.
>
> --
> Namasté,
> Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 
> MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
> Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso
>
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen]

Den 25-01-2014 14:52, symphonick skrev:
> If I understand you correctly; instead of selecting "string quartet"
> from a list, the user should select type=group, instrument = violin,
> violin, viola, cello", number of members on stage = 4 (essentially a new
> attribute that means "quartet", or some other way to catch that members
> can be replaced)? Please elaborate.

Ehm. That looks like a different schema altogether... ? What I'm saying
is that we can get the info by querying the relationships we already
have available:

ArtistEntity->type->ensemble
ArtistEntity->has_member[violin]->Person1
ArtistEntity->has_member[violin]->Person2
ArtistEntity->has_member[viola ]->Person3
ArtistEntity->has_member[cello ]->Person4

From that, I can tell that ArtistEntity is an ensemble with four
members, two playing violin, one on viola, and the last is a cellist.
The program I'm using to run these queries then plops it into the
category "string quartet" based on this information. The only new thing
here is the artist entity type.

-- 
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[symphonick]

2014/1/25 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 

> Den 23-01-2014 23:47, Ulrich Klauer skrev:
> > I am somewhat inclined to agree that a separate subtype of group is
> > justified that comprises the notion of "a larger instrumental/vocal
> > body where the identity of the individual members is considered less
> > important". (Still subject to objection 1, but one or two types
> > without an foreseeable proliferation are better manageable.) But I
> > don't like the big type hierarchy.
>
> This. This is what I've been thinking about this proposal as well. I
> wouldn't mind having e.g., "Choir", "Ensemble", "Orchestra" added as
> (sub)types, but all those sub(sub)types irk me the wrong way. If people
> want to find male choirs, they should be able to look up choirs where
> all member-of's have gender:male. Same for instrument
> duos/trios/quartets/pentets/... - look up ensembles and check for the
> amount of members, and possibly what the members are playing if that's
> requested. (This is not currently easily possible through the web
> service, but that's another, separate issue.)
>

If I understand you correctly; instead of selecting "string quartet" from a
list, the user should select type=group, instrument = violin, violin,
viola, cello", number of members on stage = 4 (essentially a new attribute
that means "quartet", or some other way to catch that members can be
replaced)? Please elaborate.

caller#6 pointed me to a video the other day. One of the points was that
> the answer is not just adding more list items:
> https://youtu.be/_V4q0o-nKp4?t=3m18s - which is kind of what I feel all
> those sub(sub)types are.
>

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen]

Den 23-01-2014 23:47, Ulrich Klauer skrev:
> I am somewhat inclined to agree that a separate subtype of group is  
> justified that comprises the notion of "a larger instrumental/vocal  
> body where the identity of the individual members is considered less  
> important". (Still subject to objection 1, but one or two types  
> without an foreseeable proliferation are better manageable.) But I  
> don't like the big type hierarchy.

This. This is what I've been thinking about this proposal as well. I
wouldn't mind having e.g., "Choir", "Ensemble", "Orchestra" added as
(sub)types, but all those sub(sub)types irk me the wrong way. If people
want to find male choirs, they should be able to look up choirs where
all member-of's have gender:male. Same for instrument
duos/trios/quartets/pentets/... - look up ensembles and check for the
amount of members, and possibly what the members are playing if that's
requested. (This is not currently easily possible through the web
service, but that's another, separate issue.)

caller#6 pointed me to a video the other day. One of the points was that
the answer is not just adding more list items:
https://youtu.be/_V4q0o-nKp4?t=3m18s - which is kind of what I feel all
those sub(sub)types are.

-- 
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Ulrich Klauer  wrote:

> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren:
>
> > Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we
> > should store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would
> > like to add a few new
> > artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.
>
> > As a minimum, I'd like the top level here of orchestra, choir and
> > chamber ensemble (ideally, of course, I'd want them all :) ):
>
> > Orchestra
> > -Chamber orchestra
> > -Symphony orchestra
> > Choir
> > -Male choir
> > -Female choir
> > -Mixed choir
> > -Children choir
> > Chamber ensemble
> > -String quartet
> > -Piano trio
>
> 1. All of those are actually sub-types of "Group", not top-level types
> in their own right (like "Person" and "Character"). However, the
> server software does not support the notion of subtypes at the moment;
> this means that whenever a subtype (or subsubtype) is added, a code
> change is required in order to display the start/end dates as
> "Founded"/"Dissolved". Possibly in more places if, e.g., MBS-2604 were
> to be implemented. Also, external software has no chance to find out
> that new artist type 37 (say) is to be treated as a group.
>

Well, that sounds like something that would be reasonably easy to implement
in the next schema change if we feel this is necessary. I'm fairly sure we
can live with "Begin/End" dates until then, if nobody wants to write the
code for this at the moment - all the places where this distinction is made
inside MB at the moment are basically decorative except for deselecting
Gender, which should hopefully be a trivial change anyway (so should the
others, for that matter).

2. I don't actually think this is where the data belongs, at the very
> least not for the subsubtypes like "String quartet". Instead, we
> already have "is member of group playing "; so, a group
> consisting of two violinists, a violist and a cellist can be
> considered a string quartet.
>

I'd argue it's more useful the other way around though - marking something
as a string quartet automatically offering those four roles as a
predetermined place to add the relationships from. I'm willing not to add
subtypes anyway though, as I already said when originally sending the RFC.


> 3. Introducing those very specific subsubtypes would lead to an
> enormous proliferation. Just have a look at the "common ensembles"
> listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_music#Ensembles - other
> responses already hinted at that, too.


Only if you add every single type of ensemble, which would be pointless
(and which is why I was disagreeing with turning it into a full-level
ontology with all kind of extras). Again though, I'd be OK with just the
main types.


> All of these are fairly acceptably defined
>
> 3. Are they? Are The King's Singers a male choir? Is Rockapella?


Since both seem to be considered vocal ensembles, the answer is no. The
definition can be somewhat circular, but so is the Album/EP divide (and
even the Group one, for one-official-member bands like Nine Inch Nails) .


> Is a choir that sings TTBB, but admits female tenors (typically for lack of
> male candidates), a male choir or a mixed choir? How many people are a
> chamber ensemble, how many do you need for an orchestra?
>

Again, an orchestra becomes one when it considers itself one, mostly -
certainly a string trio / quartet isn't one, even though some people keep
using the orchestra rel for them (which was the main reason to introduce a
separate "ensemble" type really, to try and get people not to pick
"orchestra" for those - it's possible that it could be enforced with a
guideline anyway I imagine though. For the choir, I would still call that a
male choir probably, but for the few doubtful cases, there's nothing wrong
with picking just "choir" :)


> > An example of how this could be useful (apart than from just storing
> > the data and knowing) is for having "Group" offer adding members
> > from the edit artist page, while choir or orchestra artists would
> > offer to add conductors too.
>
> A general type as outline above could achieve that, too.


Agreed, that's why that's the minimum I'd want :)

I'd like the orchestra / choir subtypes because the choir ones are
*generally* (with a few exceptions like the one you mentioned I guess,
which I don't doubt happens but I'm yet to see) clear, and the orchestra
ones we had already on the orchestra relationship so I imagine people were
reasonably able to make the distinction and thought it was interesting to a
point. But I don't think they're basic for this to work, and could
certainly be added later once 1) is dealt with if we want them.

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Ulrich Klauer]

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren:

> Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we  
> should store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would  
> like to add a few new
> artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.

> As a minimum, I'd like the top level here of orchestra, choir and  
> chamber ensemble (ideally, of course, I'd want them all :) ):

> Orchestra
> -Chamber orchestra
> -Symphony orchestra
> Choir
> -Male choir
> -Female choir
> -Mixed choir
> -Children choir
> Chamber ensemble
> -String quartet
> -Piano trio

1. All of those are actually sub-types of "Group", not top-level types  
in their own right (like "Person" and "Character"). However, the  
server software does not support the notion of subtypes at the moment;  
this means that whenever a subtype (or subsubtype) is added, a code  
change is required in order to display the start/end dates as  
"Founded"/"Dissolved". Possibly in more places if, e.g., MBS-2604 were  
to be implemented. Also, external software has no chance to find out  
that new artist type 37 (say) is to be treated as a group.

2. I don't actually think this is where the data belongs, at the very  
least not for the subsubtypes like "String quartet". Instead, we  
already have "is member of group playing "; so, a group  
consisting of two violinists, a violist and a cellist can be  
considered a string quartet.

3. Introducing those very specific subsubtypes would lead to an  
enormous proliferation. Just have a look at the "common ensembles"  
listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_music#Ensembles - other  
responses already hinted at that, too.

> All of these are fairly acceptably defined

3. Are they? Are The King's Singers a male choir? Is Rockapella? Is a  
choir that sings TTBB, but admits female tenors (typically for lack of  
male candidates), a male choir or a mixed choir? How many people are a  
chamber ensemble, how many do you need for an orchestra?


I am somewhat inclined to agree that a separate subtype of group is  
justified that comprises the notion of "a larger instrumental/vocal  
body where the identity of the individual members is considered less  
important". (Still subject to objection 1, but one or two types  
without an foreseeable proliferation are better manageable.) But I  
don't like the big type hierarchy.

> An example of how this could be useful (apart than from just storing  
> the data and knowing) is for having "Group" offer adding members  
> from the edit artist page, while choir or orchestra artists would  
> offer to add conductors too.

A general type as outline above could achieve that, too.

Ulrich (chirlu)


___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[symphonick]

Sorry about that, but IMO we have to get the basic structure right from the
beginning. I suspect it will be hard to change later. I'm fine with
starting with a smaller subset.


2014/1/22 Frederic Da Vitoria 

> 2014/1/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 
>
>> Why are you suddenly trying to turn a pretty simple, small scale thing
>> into a full ontology? I mean, that can be pretty cool I guess, but it's far
>> more complicated than what I wanted, which is just a way to mark a few of
>> the most common things...
>>
>
> Right, sorry, we are hijacking this RFC.
>
> --
> Frederic Da Vitoria
> (davitof)
>
> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
> http://www.april.org
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> Why are you suddenly trying to turn a pretty simple, small scale thing
> into a full ontology? I mean, that can be pretty cool I guess, but it's far
> more complicated than what I wanted, which is just a way to mark a few of
> the most common things...
>

Right, sorry, we are hijacking this RFC.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

Why are you suddenly trying to turn a pretty simple, small scale thing into
a full ontology? I mean, that can be pretty cool I guess, but it's far more
complicated than what I wanted, which is just a way to mark a few of the
most common things...
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[symphonick]

2014/1/22 Frederic Da Vitoria 

> 2014/1/21 symphonick 
>
>>
>> 2014/1/21 Frederic Da Vitoria 
>>
>>> 2014/1/21 symphonick 
>>>

 One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
 types.


>>> Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / string /
>>> wind / brass) and size/complexity (symphony / chamber).
>>>
>>
>> I suggested that the orchestras could be sub-types of ensembles :-) The
>> question is if it's easier for the user if there's a specific "orchestra"
>> category anyway? You have a specific "Wind" category, although wind
>> ensembles are often mixed woodwind + brass (+ percussion, which is a
>> category I forgot about, also I'm not sure what to do with electronic
>> instruments).
>>
>>
>>> Instruments first, size last
>>>
>>> *String ensemble
>>> **String orchestra
>>> **String quartet
>>> **String quintet
>>> **String trio
>>>
>>> *Wind ensemble
>>> **Wind orchestra
>>>
>>> *Brass ensemble
>>> **Brass quintet
>>>
>>> *Mixed ensemble
>>> **Symphony orchestra
>>> **Chamber orchestra
>>> **trio
>>> ***Piano trio
>>> ** quartet (not strings only)
>>> ** quintet (not strings only)
>>>
>>
>>
>>  ** orchestra (I am not suer this level is useful, or should it actually
>> be named "specified size"?)
>>
>> Not all orchestras fit the description "symphonic" or "chamber".
>>
>
> Right, "orchestra ("others")" missing
>
>
>  I prefer Instruments first, size last, I find it easier to find my way
>>> to a specific ensemble, but size first is probably better for mixed
>>> ensembles
>>>
>>
>> I agree. Let's try some examples:
>>
>> http://www.rsno.org.uk/ - Symphony orchestra
>>
>
> I'd check first whether this is actually a symphony or a chamber
> orchestra. But anyhow, once this is checked, finding the correct category
> should not be an issue
>

How do you suggest the user should check that, when dealing with an
orchestra that hasn't got "chamber" or "symphony"/"philharmonic" in its
name (like The Royal Scottish National Orchestra?)


>
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricercar_Consort - "Mixed ensemble"?
>> http://www.ownvoice.com/palladianensemble/ - "Mixed ensemble"?
>> http://www.drottningholmsbarockensemble.net/ - "Mixed ensemble"?
>>
>
> The user would have to check whether these are single-instrument-type (for
> example string) ensembles or truly mixed. Chamber? Are these so small that
> they should be left into the "ensemble" fall back category?
>

I don't understand the last part; a "chamber ensemble" could be a duo.
Also, is there a point in having an "ensemble" category? What's the
difference between "ensemble" and "group"?
Maybe there's no point in having a "mixed ensemble" either.

http://www.ricercarconsort.com/-
"chamber ensemble"?
http://www.ownvoice.com/palladianensemble/ - "chamber ensemble"
Says The Gramophone apparently, so that on got easier. But can we explain
why "quartet" is not to be used here?

http://www.drottningholmsbarockensemble.net/ - "chamber ensemble" or
"chamber orchestra"?
Tricky because they have "ensemble" in the name, but on the "about us"-page
say they can present an orchestra.


We should give an indication of a limit between the size categories,
> something not really strict (one should not no-vote an edit because the
> numbers don't quite match), but which would help users to pick the correct
> answer.
>

Agreed, but it is tricky. A symphony orchestra with "symphony" in its name
can be a small symphony orchestra, around 60 musicians (or maybe less). Do
you know how big a chamber orchestra can get?


> http://www.pianotrio.com/ - Piano trio
>> Bill Evans Trio
>> http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d0630a08-3b40-4cb4-9f48-7d525262c1f6 -
>> Piano trio
>> Berlin RIAS Sinfonietta - "chamber orchestra"?
>>
>
> I feel that a sinfonietta is closer to a symphony orchestra than to a
> chamber orchestra, but I don't really care. We could as well decide to put
> sinfonietta into the "others" category, simply because there isn't a really
> good reason to put it elsewhere.
>

Yeah, maybe that's better. I suppose I was thinking "not symphony
orchestra". There could also be a Sinfonietta category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis_Quintet - "quintet"?
>>
>
> Well, yes, why not?
>

Yeah, I suppose that's the most fitting. And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boards_of_Canada - Duo

I spoke about introducing genre-based categories before; now it occurs to
me that "symphonic" and "chamber" are genres. Maybe it makes sense to have
other genres as well?
Both genre and instrument type could be attributes:

[genre] [instrument] [size]

genre: Jazz, Symphonic, Electronic...
instrument: brass, strings, piano, guitar...
size: Orchestra, quartet, ensemble etc.

examples:
Electronic Duo
Symphony Orchestra
Piano Trio

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/21 symphonick 

>
> 2014/1/21 Frederic Da Vitoria 
>
>> 2014/1/21 symphonick 
>>
>>>
>>> One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
>>> types.
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / string /
>> wind / brass) and size/complexity (symphony / chamber).
>>
>
> I suggested that the orchestras could be sub-types of ensembles :-) The
> question is if it's easier for the user if there's a specific "orchestra"
> category anyway? You have a specific "Wind" category, although wind
> ensembles are often mixed woodwind + brass (+ percussion, which is a
> category I forgot about, also I'm not sure what to do with electronic
> instruments).
>
>
>> Instruments first, size last
>>
>> *String ensemble
>> **String orchestra
>> **String quartet
>> **String quintet
>> **String trio
>>
>> *Wind ensemble
>> **Wind orchestra
>>
>> *Brass ensemble
>> **Brass quintet
>>
>> *Mixed ensemble
>> **Symphony orchestra
>> **Chamber orchestra
>> **trio
>> ***Piano trio
>> ** quartet (not strings only)
>> ** quintet (not strings only)
>>
>
>
>  ** orchestra (I am not suer this level is useful, or should it actually
> be named "specified size"?)
>
> Not all orchestras fit the description "symphonic" or "chamber".
>

Right, "orchestra ("others")" missing


 I prefer Instruments first, size last, I find it easier to find my way to
>> a specific ensemble, but size first is probably better for mixed ensembles
>>
>
> I agree. Let's try some examples:
>
> http://www.rsno.org.uk/ - Symphony orchestra
>

I'd check first whether this is actually a symphony or a chamber orchestra.
But anyhow, once this is checked, finding the correct category should not
be an issue



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricercar_Consort - "Mixed ensemble"?
> http://www.ownvoice.com/palladianensemble/ - "Mixed ensemble"?
> http://www.drottningholmsbarockensemble.net/ - "Mixed ensemble"?
>

The user would have to check whether these are single-instrument-type (for
example string) ensembles or truly mixed. Chamber? Are these so small that
they should be left into the "ensemble" fall back category?

We should give an indication of a limit between the size categories,
something not really strict (one should not no-vote an edit because the
numbers don't quite match), but which would help users to pick the correct
answer.


http://www.pianotrio.com/ - Piano trio
> Bill Evans Trio
> http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d0630a08-3b40-4cb4-9f48-7d525262c1f6 -
> Piano trio
> Berlin RIAS Sinfonietta - "chamber orchestra"?
>

I feel that a sinfonietta is closer to a symphony orchestra than to a
chamber orchestra, but I don't really care. We could as well decide to put
sinfonietta into the "others" category, simply because there isn't a really
good reason to put it elsewhere.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis_Quintet - "quintet"?
>

Well, yes, why not?

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[symphonick]

2014/1/21 Frederic Da Vitoria 

> 2014/1/21 symphonick 
>
>>
>> One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
>> types.
>>
>>
> Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / string /
> wind / brass) and size/complexity (symphony / chamber).
>

I suggested that the orchestras could be sub-types of ensembles :-) The
question is if it's easier for the user if there's a specific "orchestra"
category anyway? You have a specific "Wind" category, although wind
ensembles are often mixed woodwind + brass (+ percussion, which is a
category I forgot about, also I'm not sure what to do with electronic
instruments).


> Instruments first, size last
>
> *String ensemble
> **String orchestra
> **String quartet
> **String quintet
> **String trio
>
> *Wind ensemble
> **Wind orchestra
>
> *Brass ensemble
> **Brass quintet
>
> *Mixed ensemble
> **Symphony orchestra
> **Chamber orchestra
> **trio
> ***Piano trio
> ** quartet (not strings only)
> ** quintet (not strings only)
>


** orchestra (I am not suer this level is useful, or should it actually be
named "specified size"?)

Not all orchestras fit the description "symphonic" or "chamber".


>
> I prefer Instruments first, size last, I find it easier to find my way to
> a specific ensemble, but size first is probably better for mixed ensembles
>

I agree. Let's try some examples:

http://www.rsno.org.uk/ - Symphony orchestra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricercar_Consort - "Mixed ensemble"?
http://www.ownvoice.com/palladianensemble/ - "Mixed ensemble"?
http://www.drottningholmsbarockensemble.net/ - "Mixed ensemble"?
http://www.pianotrio.com/ - Piano trio
Bill Evans Trio
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d0630a08-3b40-4cb4-9f48-7d525262c1f6 - Piano
trio
Berlin RIAS Sinfonietta - "chamber orchestra"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis_Quintet - "quintet"?

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/21 symphonick 

> Another issue is that "chamber ensemble" implies chamber music, which
> obviously doesn't suit jazz ensembles. (Note that you have to define the
> difference between a chamber ensemble and a chamber orchestra!)
>
> One possibility:
>
> *Orchestra
> **Chamber orchestra
> **Symphony orchestra
> **String orchestra
> **Wind orchestra
>
> *Brass ensemble
> **Brass quintet
>
> *String ensemble
> **String trio
> **String quartet
> **String quintet
>
> *Mixed ensemble
> **Chamber ensemble
> **Wind ensemble
> **Piano trio
>
> One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
> types.
> Do we want genre-based ensembles eventually, e.g. baroque ensemble?
> Unfortunately, it means more documentation...
>

Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / string / wind
/ brass) and size/complexity (symphony / chamber). I'll try to reorganize
this a little in a way which make more sense to me. I used at least all the
categories above, but this does not mean that we would need all of those.

Instruments first, size last

*String ensemble
**String orchestra
**String quartet
**String quintet
**String trio

*Wind ensemble
**Wind orchestra

*Brass ensemble
**Brass quintet

*Mixed ensemble
**Symphony orchestra
**Chamber orchestra
**trio
***Piano trio
** quartet (not strings only)
** quintet (not strings only)

Size first, instrumentation last

* Ensemble
** orchestra (I am not suer this level is useful, or should it actually be
named "specified size"?)
*** Symphony orchestra
*** Chamber orchestra
 quartet
* String quartet
 quintet
* Brass quintet
* String quintet
 trio
* Piano trio
* String trio
*** String orchestra
*** Wind orchestra
** instrument ensembles of unspecified size
*** Brass ensemble
*** String ensemble
*** Wind ensemble

I prefer Instruments first, size last, I find it easier to find my way to a
specific ensemble, but size first is probably better for mixed ensembles

The best would probably a grid, or even sets, but of course none of these
would lend itself to user input.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, symphonick  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014/1/17 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 
>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
>>> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
>>> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
>>> Perhaps constrict it to the number?
>>
>>
>> My idea was to just separate the most common ones (string quartet seems
>> like the obvious choice, I'd say piano trio is probably the second most
>> common, but that one could be kept as part of the "chamber ensemble" option
>> if people are not too sure).
>>
>> I'd say just by number doesn't help much - if we keep both saxophone and
>> string quartets under the same type, we might as well just keep chamber
>> ensemble.
>>
>> Frederic: I'd argue the string quartets that aren't 2 violin, viola,
>> cello are uncommon enough that we can live with that.
>>
>
> Yeah, I think other combinations are rarely a fixed group.
> And piano trio I assume is usually pi + vl + vlc, but I believe it could
> be piano + any other 2 instruments. Also remember there's a jazz piano trio
> too; I don't think you can expect just one particular group of instruments
> under any one of these artist types.
>

I'd argue grouping all of those together would still say much more about
them than "group", but :)


> Another issue is that "chamber ensemble" implies chamber music, which
> obviously doesn't suit jazz ensembles. (Note that you have to define the
> difference between a chamber ensemble and a chamber orchestra!)
>

Heh. My idea there was "if they call it an orchestra it's an orchestra and
if they don't and it's small is an ensemble" to be honest.

One possibility:
>
> *Orchestra
> **Chamber orchestra
> **Symphony orchestra
> **String orchestra
> **Wind orchestra
>
> *Brass ensemble
> **Brass quintet
>
> *String ensemble
> **String trio
> **String quartet
> **String quintet
>
> *Mixed ensemble
> **Chamber ensemble
> **Wind ensemble
> **Piano trio
>

Heh. Those are at least reasonably simple to define, in general, but it
already starts to feel like too many choices. If people want that many,
that's OK though, but I'd say we could start with less (and maybe even drop
piano trio from my list since it's much less specific than a string quartet)

Do we want genre-based ensembles eventually, e.g. baroque ensemble?
> Unfortunately, it means more documentation...
>

I'd say that's overkill.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[symphonick]

2014/1/17 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits  wrote:
>
>> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
>> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
>> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
>> Perhaps constrict it to the number?
>
>
> My idea was to just separate the most common ones (string quartet seems
> like the obvious choice, I'd say piano trio is probably the second most
> common, but that one could be kept as part of the "chamber ensemble" option
> if people are not too sure).
>
> I'd say just by number doesn't help much - if we keep both saxophone and
> string quartets under the same type, we might as well just keep chamber
> ensemble.
>
> Frederic: I'd argue the string quartets that aren't 2 violin, viola,
> cello are uncommon enough that we can live with that.
>

Yeah, I think other combinations are rarely a fixed group.
And piano trio I assume is usually pi + vl + vlc, but I believe it could be
piano + any other 2 instruments. Also remember there's a jazz piano trio
too; I don't think you can expect just one particular group of instruments
under any one of these artist types.

Another issue is that "chamber ensemble" implies chamber music, which
obviously doesn't suit jazz ensembles. (Note that you have to define the
difference between a chamber ensemble and a chamber orchestra!)

One possibility:

*Orchestra
**Chamber orchestra
**Symphony orchestra
**String orchestra
**Wind orchestra

*Brass ensemble
**Brass quintet

*String ensemble
**String trio
**String quartet
**String quintet

*Mixed ensemble
**Chamber ensemble
**Wind ensemble
**Piano trio

One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
types.
Do we want genre-based ensembles eventually, e.g. baroque ensemble?
Unfortunately, it means more documentation...

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/17 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits  wrote:
>
>> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
>> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
>> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
>> Perhaps constrict it to the number?
>
>
> My idea was to just separate the most common ones (string quartet seems
> like the obvious choice, I'd say piano trio is probably the second most
> common, but that one could be kept as part of the "chamber ensemble" option
> if people are not too sure).
>
> I'd say just by number doesn't help much - if we keep both saxophone and
> string quartets under the same type, we might as well just keep chamber
> ensemble.
>
> Frederic: I'd argue the string quartets that aren't 2 violin, viola,
> cello are uncommon enough that we can live with that.
>

Anyway, +1 from me too. If we are unsure about more or less detailed list,
I'd prefer more detailed. It will be simple to batch the data if we later
decide to make it more terse, while the other way around of course...

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits  wrote:

> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
> Perhaps constrict it to the number?


My idea was to just separate the most common ones (string quartet seems
like the obvious choice, I'd say piano trio is probably the second most
common, but that one could be kept as part of the "chamber ensemble" option
if people are not too sure).

I'd say just by number doesn't help much - if we keep both saxophone and
string quartets under the same type, we might as well just keep chamber
ensemble.

Frederic: I'd argue the string quartets that aren't 2 violin, viola, cello
are uncommon enough that we can live with that.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/17 Maurits 

> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
> Perhaps constrict it to the number?
>
> Op vrijdag 17 januari 2014 13:24:20, ListMyCDs schreef:
> > On 17.1.2014 13:58, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> >> Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we should
> >> store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would like to add a
> >> few new artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.
> >
> > +1 for this RFC.


...Or simply separate the most frequent types (keep a distinct "string
quartet" but maybe not a distinct "harmonica quartet") and decide by vote
when to add a new distinct ensemble.

I believe that for example a string quartet is so frequent that some users
will want to separate string quartets from the others one day. A query to
recover all the string quartets may be difficult to devise if we don't
create a separate "string quartet" artist type.

OTOH, "string quartet" does not necessarily mean 2 violins 1 viola and 1
cello, so that I am less sure how significant this distinction would be.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Maurits]

I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra 
sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's, 
quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments. 
Perhaps constrict it to the number?

Maurits Meulenbelt

Op vrijdag 17 januari 2014 13:24:20, ListMyCDs schreef:
> On 17.1.2014 13:58, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>> Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we should
>> store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would like to add a
>> few new artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.
>
> +1 for this RFC.
>

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[ListMyCDs]

On 17.1.2014 13:58, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we should
> store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would like to add a
> few new artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.

+1 for this RFC.

-- 
ListMyCDs / Timo Martikainen

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[mb-style] RFC STYLE-285: more specific artist types for classical groups

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we should store
this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would like to add a few new
artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.

As a minimum, I'd like the top level here of orchestra, choir and chamber
ensemble (ideally, of course, I'd want them all :) ):

Orchestra
-Chamber orchestra
-Symphony orchestra
Choir
-Male choir
-Female choir
-Mixed choir
-Children choir
Chamber ensemble
-String quartet
-Piano trio

All of these are fairly acceptably defined (the limit of a symphony
orchestra isn't that clear but if it was good enough for the attribute
surely is good enough for a type?) and provide some useful extra info about
the artist "Group" doesn't convey.

An example of how this could be useful (apart than from just storing the
data and knowing) is for having "Group" offer adding members from the edit
artist page, while choir or orchestra artists would offer to add conductors
too.

Ticket is http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-285
Expected RFV date is Jan 24.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style