Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music

Active discussions

Improving the Amen Break itemEdit

Amen break (Q462074) is often cited as the most sampled piece of music of all time so it'd be nice to update the item a bit.

I had a quick go at wrapping my head around Lilypond notation for percussion to add an appropriate statement, but couldn't figure out how to get the ride and the bass at the same time. If someone more familiar wants to give it a go it'd be appreciated.

break (Q903577) is also missing a subclass of (P279) statement which I'm not sure what the value of should be. --SilentSpike (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@SilentSpike: I know a bit of LilyPond, so I decided to try:

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

\version "2.18.2"

\new DrumStaff { \tempo 4 = 136 \omit Score.BarNumber <<
  \new DrumVoice { \voiceOne \drummode {
    \repeat unfold 28 hh8
    hh cymc hh hh |
  } }
  \new DrumVoice { \voiceTwo \drummode {
    \repeat unfold 2 { bd8 bd sn8. sn16 r sn bd bd sn8. sn16 | }
    bd8 bd sn8. sn16 r sn bd8 r sn |
    r16 sn bd bd sn8. sn16 r sn bd8 bd sn | \bar "|."
  } }
>> }
 

(The staff and voice management is based on this documentation section.) I don’t play percussion or know percussion notation, though, so it would be great if someone else looked over it. The biggest difference that I can see is that LilyPond sometimes adds beams between the base drum and snare, but I don’t know an elegant way to prevent that – only to turn off automatic beams and notate them manually, or to split base drum and snare into two voices, with lots of spacer rests. Also, the current version of the file places the hi-hat and crash cymbal differently on the staff, but it also differs in that from the original version of the file, so I’m not sure how significant that is.

I have another question, though… how is this not copyright infringement? The English Wikipedia article implies that this break is eligible for copyright, and it can’t possibly be in the public domain already. This isn’t really specific to the LilyPond notation (P6883) statement we’re planning to add here, since the Commons image also declares itself to be PD, but I’m still wondering. —Galaktos (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Galaktos: Nice work! So the placement of the hi-hat being different is because it's actually the ride cymbal (just replacing hh with cymr fixes that). However, it looks like the placement for that is also different - which I think is fine and just due to percussion notation being inconsistent between sources. The only other thing I notice wrong is that the last base note in bar 4 should be a rest (on beat 4). I don't know that the beams necessarily matter as I've had a look at different sources and some of them seem to add them that way while others don't (some of them add beams between all of the ride cymbal, snare and bass).

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

 

As for your copyright question, it hadn't crossed my mind and is something I'd be curious to know too. Not sure where would be best to raise the question. --SilentSpike (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the score! Who does the honors of adding it to the item? :) (I think we can remove the \version part for that, by the way.) Not sure where to ask about the copyright question either – it’s really more a question for the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons people, I guess. —Galaktos (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you should go ahead since you did the heavy lifting on this one 😁 --SilentSpike (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done :) (did it via the API sandbox so I could add some more info to the summary, because I didn’t feel like it belonged in a reference) —Galaktos (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
As for break (Q903577), for now I’ve made it a subclass of musical work (Q2188189), which seems acceptable to me (though there might be a more specific class). —Galaktos (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

musical composition (Q207628) is a mess (compound page)Edit

Franzsimon
Sweet kate
Galaktos
Sjoerddebruin
AmaryllisGardener
Kosboot
Shingyang-i
Daniele.Brundu
Airon90
Atallcostsky
Cvbncv
LinardsLinardsLinards
Infovarius
Hannolans
Ptolusque
Gilrn
Smallison
Sight Contamination
Moebeus
Pigsonthewing
Mathieudu68
Harshrathod50
Jc86035
Buccalon
Tris T7
Olivettilly
Rhudson
Gesinaedits
Coloradohusky
CptViraj
SilentSpike
Sintakso
Trivialist
Indrajit Das
Monica Berger
Unuaiga
Lanzelotte
Premeditated
Wolverène
Pierre André Leclercq
PyeBeth
Ivanhercaz
CrystallineLeMonde
VisbyStar
  Notified participants of WikiProject Music
This item which is listed as a main item in use by this WikiProject is currently conflating both the process of musical composition and the product ("a musical composition"). Since the linked Wikipedia pages are also covering both topics (English is at least), this should be modelled as a compound page linked to items for both concepts individually modelled. Typically I would say this current item should become the compound page item since it has been used for both topics for some time now, but that's going to break a lot of instances if it has been widely used by this project.

I'm also a little unclear on where musical work (Q2188189) fits in to the modelling described here or whether it essentially describes the concept of "a musical composition" and could fill that role since the above item may need changing. --SilentSpike (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@SilentSpike: I agree. musical work (Q2188189) appears much more strongly modeled to me, and to my thinking it describes the same concept (and more clearly) thatn the current "musical composition". Is it possible to merge musical composition (Q207628) into musical work (Q2188189)? I haven't done much of this so I'm not sure how tricky that is. --Rhudson (talk)
@Rhudson: I'm not convinced that merging is the right move. Because musical composition (Q207628) has existed for some time and has interwiki links to pages which describe both the act of composition and the actual produced composition, I think it should become an instance of Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) with main subject (P921) musical work (Q2188189) (the product) and composing (Q92186587) (the act). This WikiProject could then use the former in place of the currently used compound item. Would like to get some more opinions on this though and perhaps hear from anyone who knows more about the current modelling (the two items are linked via different from (P1889) and one is a subclass of the other - so perhaps someone can explain). --SilentSpike (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
To my mind, the difference between musical composition (Q207628) and musical work (Q2188189) that latter can be not composed (e.g. some sounds of nature/birds/animals which used as a musical track). This is probably rare case but nevertheless possible. --Infovarius (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: If I understand, your distinction is that a composition was created with intent, whereas a musical work could be a naturally occurring sequence of sounds. This is a good point and not something I had considered, however the musical work item is a subclass of work of art (Q838948) which (to my interpretation) would rule out things like the sound of animals. --SilentSpike (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@SilentSpike: Your reasoning makes very good sense to me. I'm not as familiar with the interrelationships (and would not consider myself an ontologist), so I would defer to you, @Beat_Estermann: and others on that account. Rhudson (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @朝彦: who seems to have stumbled across the issue with this item too (found on talk page). Also @Beat_Estermann: who added the different from (P1889) statement. --SilentSpike (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

strike tone (Q2238224)Edit

Franzsimon
Sweet kate
Galaktos
Sjoerddebruin
AmaryllisGardener
Kosboot
Shingyang-i
Daniele.Brundu
Airon90
Atallcostsky
Cvbncv
LinardsLinardsLinards
Infovarius
Hannolans
Ptolusque
Gilrn
Smallison
Sight Contamination
Moebeus
Pigsonthewing
Mathieudu68
Harshrathod50
Jc86035
Buccalon
Tris T7
Olivettilly
Rhudson
Gesinaedits
Coloradohusky
CptViraj
SilentSpike
Sintakso
Trivialist
Indrajit Das
Monica Berger
Unuaiga
Lanzelotte
Premeditated
Wolverène
Pierre André Leclercq
PyeBeth
Ivanhercaz
CrystallineLeMonde
VisbyStar
  Notified participants of WikiProject Music

How do I record that for the bells of Leaning Tower of Pisa (Q39054) on their items: [1].

Several Wikipedias included details on them: ro, nl, de, it. --- Jura 10:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Songs vs SinglesEdit

What should be done with items that conflate a song with its recording?

For example, In the Pines (Q921000) is a traditional song but the item describes the MTV Unplugged recording by Nirvana.

Wild Is the Wind (Q2577703) is a total mess of confusion of the David Bowie single with somehow Dan Fogelberg (Q201047) appearing as performer (P175). However, the Wikipedia articles are about the song.

I read Wikidata:WikiProject_Music#Composition_properties but still not sure - should I create a new item for the song and link to the articles?

Keren - WMIL (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that generally, in most cases the music is separate from its recording. But in some cases the music and the recording are conflated - or at least that's how some people look at it. It's going to be a task to go through Wikidata making sure that items make a distinction. - Kosboot (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Looking at where MusicBrainz ended up, it seems like there's a useful distinction between a work (a composition, a collaboration between a lyricist and a composer, etc.), a recorded performance (a particular performance by some musicians recorded at some time and place), and a release (a particular packaging of a recorded performance for sale or distribution). Releases can be meaningfully collected into release groups, of which "album" is the most familiar. The current Wikidata concepts of "song", "audio track", and the subclasses of "release" ("single"/"album"/"box set","bootleg recording") track these ideas. The Musicbrainz ontology went ahead and modeled all of these as separate entities, so that we can have the song "Billie Jean", which has a recording by Michael Jackson, ("Billie Jean") and was released (first) as a single, "Billie Jean" extracted from the album "Thriller". But of course MJ went on to record it many more times, and there were many performances by other artists. It makes for a very dense and complex object graph but it never has to deal with the case where a song and a recording were combined into a single entity, which makes for trouble when there's a cover of that song five years later. There's a tension here between the most accurate graph and usability. Michaelrhanson (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Try this Angels Ain't Listening (Q91933505). Eurohunter (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Music genre white contemporaryEdit

Item white contemporary (Q90865542) is described as likely a synonym of contemporary R&B (Q850412). The item is not linked from any other. Do you know this genre, does it exist? --Pyfisch (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Music".