Genre categories. Volunteers now wanted!

[Davydov]

Following on from the thread "Genre categories. Your views wanted", we're now looking for volunteers to test the proposed new system for classifying works based on their instrumentation, which is described on the project page below:

http://imslp.org/wiki/User:P.davydov/Genre_Categories

This to test how easy/hard introducing the new classification system will be. If you'd like to help out then all you need to do is:

1. Just go to the above project page, and keep that open
2. Open a new browser window or tab and open the IMSLP home page
3. In this second window/tab click on "Random page" (3rd link down below the IMSLP logo, top left) to bring up a random work page
4. Decide on the new category for that work page from the list on the project page (flipping between the two windows/tabs)
5. Repeat steps 3 to 5 as often as you like
6. Report back on how it went — either here or on through the project discussion page: http://imslp.org/wiki/User_talk:P.davyd ... Categories

This is just a test, so please don't edit the work pages yet. The idea is to see whether the new categories can cope with everything that IMSLP will throw at them, and if some of the descriptions need to be made clearer. Anyone can take part, and I just need to know whether or not you found it easy, hard, baffling, etc.

Thanks in advance!

[Lyle Neff]

Following on from the thread "Genre categories. Your views wanted", we're now looking for volunteers to test the proposed new system for classifying works based on their instrumentation, which is described on the project page below:

http://imslp.org/wiki/User:P.davydov/Genre_Categories [...]

At the risk of repeating myself, I strongly believe that we should

(1) not use the word "genre" -- it is ambiguous and causing all sorts of confusion;
(2) have separate, co-existing index-categorizations available for at least these two major things:

• a. performing forces and venue (as applicable)
  b. type of piece

Thus, in the listing given currently at the above link, the several types of pieces listed (e.g., opera, ballet, musical, overture, symphony, symphonic poem, etc.) should be placed in the type-of-piece categorization, not in the performing-forces categorization.

[Davydov]

While all musical works can be classified according to their instrumentation (yes, even taking account of stage performers in operas, ballets, etc.), I've yet to see a system that will classify every work by performing forces and venue or "type of piece"? I can see how that could apply in certain circumstances, but not for every single work on IMSLP.

However, if Lyle or someone else can devise such a system, then Feldmahler has advised it's possible to classify the same piece in multiple "genres", so it could run in parallel with the new instrumentation headings. The latter aren't yet set in stone, which is why we're asking for volunteers to test them out. For example, if other people agree with Lyle about merging all the orchestral categories, then we can do that.

Incidentally, we are talking about replacing the current system of "genres", which is why the term is being bandied about, but whatever we come up with could be called a "categorization system", or something equally neutral.

[steltz]

I've just tried it, here's what I found:

1) Genre = chant, new classification = Choral Works: Sacred works without accompaniment
2) Genre = piano piece, new classification = Keyboard Works: Works for solo piano
3) Genre = song cycle, new classification = Vocal Works: Works for solo voice with keyboard (art songs)
4) Genre = symphony, new classification = Orchestral Works: Symphonies
5) Genre = trio, new classification = Chamber Works: Trios (with Keyboard)
6) Genre = single instrumental piece (no piano), new classification = Chamber Works: Solo String Instrument
7) Genre = concerto, new classification = Concerto and Concertante Works: Works for solo violin with orchestra
8 Genre = other symphonic pieces, new classification = Stage Works: Ballets
(probably -- this was a Lully piece, Ballet de la Raillerie, and I don't know the work, but there are sometimes ballets inside operas (e.g. Gluck, Dance of the Blessed Spirits), so obviously not all of these classifications are going to be easy and will need some discussion with people who know if they were originally used as dance pieces)
9) Genre = other symphonic pieces, new classification = Orchestra Works: Symphonic Dance Music
10) Genre = opera, new classification = Stage Works: Operas
By the way, I do think there should be subdivisions for operettas, etc.

See what you think about using the both the big and small category separated by a colon, I suggested it before. It helps keeps track of the whole hierarchy, which I like but others might not. For instance, it might be obvious that a sacred work will have text, therefore must be Choral, but it's just clearer with both the upper and lower category stated.

In any case, although wordier, this is so much clearer!

[kalliwoda]

Just looked at the categories and subcategories. looks generally much better then before, comments:

1) Concertante works: I guess is sort of a typo, if you have "3 or more soloists and orchestra",
then the next category should be "2 solists and orchestra", not "2 or more..."

2) It may be a good idea to have a separate category "wind quintet" (i.e. fl ob cl hn bn, or in US-speek "woodwind quintet"), because there are so many works for this group - especially 20th century. I do not see this need so urgent for other windgroups: Trio d'anche, Woodwind quartet, wind octet...)

3) The positioning of Basso continuo works is now very odd indeed, with e.g. the "Triosonata" classified under Duos., even if I understand the aim to have a subcategory that clearly differentiates from a Piano Trio. But wouldn't the continuo player(s!!!) feel underappreciated, if they are not counted at all instead of at least once

[Melodia]

2) It may be a good idea to have a separate category "wind quintet" (i.e. fl ob cl hn bn, or in US-speek "woodwind quintet"), because there are so many works for this group - especially 20th century. I do not see this need so urgent for other windgroups: Trio d'anche, Woodwind quartet, wind octet...)

I'd say there's likely far more wind octet pieces that are PD than there are wind quintet -- it was the most popular wind ensemble configuration for arrangements in the late classical and early romantic period. Wind Quintets didn't take off until, as you said, the 20th century which means a lot of non-PD stuff.

[Davydov]

Just looked at the categories and subcategories. looks generally much better then before, comments:

1) Concertante works: I guess is sort of a typo, if you have "3 or more soloists and orchestra",
then the next category should be "2 solists and orchestra", not "2 or more..."

Thanks for pointing that out, and it's fixed now.

2) It may be a good idea to have a separate category "wind quintet" (i.e. fl ob cl hn bn, or in US-speek "woodwind quintet"), because there are so many works for this group - especially 20th century. I do not see this need so urgent for other windgroups: Trio d'anche, Woodwind quartet, wind octet...)

It's quite likely that most of the works in the "Quintets (without keyboard)" and "Octets (without Keyboard)" will be for combinations of wind instruments, and because these categories are relatively small to start with it's probably better to resist the urge to break them down into smaller and smaller combinations — unless there's widespread demand for it

3) The positioning of Basso continuo works is now very odd indeed, with e.g. the "Triosonata" classified under Duos., even if I understand the aim to have a subcategory that clearly differentiates from a Piano Trio. But wouldn't the continuo player(s!!!) feel underappreciated, if they are not counted at all instead of at least once

I understand what you mean, but as the number of continuo players isn't always fixed in the score, then how can you count them?

[Davydov]

See what you think about using the both the big and small category separated by a colon, I suggested it before. It helps keeps track of the whole hierarchy, which I like but others might not. For instance, it might be obvious that a sacred work will have text, therefore must be Choral, but it's just clearer with both the upper and lower category stated.

Thanks for testing that out, Steltz, which was helpful. I think the length of the category names with the colons that could be a problem, but even so it will still be possible for people to bring up lists of works in the 'higher levels' (e.g. lists of all the "Vocal Works", all the "Concertos and Concertante Works", etc.).

You're right to point out that we'll need to be careful with things like Lully's ballets to make sure that the titles of the works aren't misleading.

As far as operettas are concerned, I think the main obstacle is coming up with a watertight definition of these sorts of terms. This is being talked about on the project discussion page, and we'll see what develops...

[kalliwoda]

3) The positioning of Basso continuo works is now very odd indeed, with e.g. the "Triosonata" classified under Duos., even if I understand the aim to have a subcategory that clearly differentiates from a Piano Trio. But wouldn't the continuo player(s!!!) feel underappreciated, if they are not counted at all instead of at least once

I understand what you mean, but as the number of continuo players isn't always fixed in the score, then how can you count them?

I think, they should be moved up one category. For Trio and above, this would also correspond to what is on the titles of the original manuscripts (Trio, Quadro...), with the bass part counted as one. And this is also what I referred to as "very odd indeed", if e.g. a work by Quantz titled Trio a Violino, Hautbois e Basso would have to be classified as "Duo".
Only for the "Solo"-Sonata with continuo do I recall cases were the title of a manuscript does not mention the continuo at all.

My suggestion
You may leave the category Solo (with continuo), just reshuffle the order above, with Duo (with keyboard) just above the Solo-Sonata. That way its positioned between real Solo-Pieces and Duos.
Then rename Duos (with continuo) as Trios (with continuo), and rename Trios (with continuo) as Quartets (with continuo). And position the Trios (with keybord) and Quartets (with keyboard) directly above the corresponding lines...

[Lyle Neff]

A trio sonata has three written parts and (except for Bach's trio sonatas for organ solo, of course) typically needs at least 4 players. Putting it into "duos" makes absolutely no sense.

Then again, a trio sonata is only one subtype of (baroque) sonata -- a type of piece that comes in more than one instrumentation.

[Davydov]

OK, I've modified the continuo headings again in line with the suggestions above.