Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music/Archive/2017

Opera

I have implemented an innovation into the ruwiki Opera template: I don't know about other operas, but Russian ones often described as "3 acts, 6 scenes", so I add property P2635 with units: Q421744 and Q1185607 accordingly to operas I deal with. The template reads the units and shows two separate lines in the infobox: "Number of acts: <here it gets either P2635 with no units, or P2635 with Q421744 units>", and "Number of scenes: <here it gets P2635 with Q1185607 units>".

Please review this solution and comment. Is it logical? Is it contradictive in any way for Wikidata structure?

Thank you. --EUvin (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Addition: it appears that opera can have an epilogue Q1771692 as a separate part. I propose to use epilogue as unit, too, as well as prologue and other possible parts. I.e.: Q94737 --EUvin (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question that should be investigated: how to "standardize" types of performance? Concert performance, stage performance, "humble home performance" (as first performances fo "Eugene Onegin"), etc. Currently I add P1191, and then qualifier P276 - e.g. see Q31906294. This opera was first played at the same time by Mariinsky ("Kirov theater" at that time) and Bolshoi, so there are two qualifiers for the same date. Any comment or advise is appreciated. --EUvin (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Charts peak position? Certified platinum?

Is there an agreed upon way to add an album's peak chart position? Or the fact that it was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America? If not, any suggestions? award received (P166) ?

See charted in (P2291) for peak position. But please keep in mind that a music charts database is likely to be a copyviol, most of the data are copyrighted by Nielsen/GfK/whoever (only old Billboard data is free).--XanonymusX (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Music workshop in Hamburg, 22-25 June

While the focus there is on creating/ adding sound recordings and professional photographs of musical instruments, there will be opportunities to do other music-related stuff. Location: Museum of Art and Crafts Hamburg (Q896052). See de:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Music/Hamburg 2017 for details. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Some questions

I have some doubt.
1) In this album Storia di un minuto (Q2254114) there is a song splitted in 2 part: Dove... quando... (parte I) and Dove... quando... (parte II), so I create 2 item for the song: Dove... quando... (parte I) (Q30124570) and Dove... quando... (parte II) (Q30124841). The problem is that the song is one, and infact in album Live in USA (Q3835451) it isn't splitted (tracklist on allmusic). How to manage this? It's necessary to create a new property to use like qualifiers example: part=1, part=2 or it's necessary to create specific items? (one for "part 1", one for "part 2" one for "complete song")
2) Maybe not relevant, but the same song is recorded in SIAE (Q3488440) or in ISWC with the name "Dove Quando" without the dots. It's necessary keep track of this or is useless?
3) follows (P155) and followed by (P156) referring to the same format (album, single, EP etc.) or is it just a chronological order (in this case probably not so useful?
It's all for now :) --ValterVB (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Support for discography

I have imported from Italian wiki some Module to generate discography, useful to check the data, for each album there is the track list with some data. The module use the Italian version of Module:Wikidata. You can found an example here --ValterVB (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

English descriptions for songs/albums

Is there a preferred way for descriptions? Is it:

• album by artist

or

• artist album

Similar for songs. The first seems closer to what's suggested by Help:Description, but when checking descriptions in general, I came across some with the second format.
--- Jura 12:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: There is a bot that adds first variant, so I think this one is preferred. Yarl 💭  19:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Help me

I want to participate in WikiProject Music. −− Gilrn (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gilrn: What are you interested in specifically? There is so much work to do... :) Yarl 💭  19:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

How to mark solo instruments in orchestral pieces?

We have instrumentation (P870) to list the instruments for a certain piece. Is there a way to mark solo instruments as solo instruments? I have the following case in mind: The Swan of Tuonela (Q2237270) (but also other cases are popping up). How can I say that the cor anglais is the solo instrument of The Swan of Tuonela? I thought about using object has role (P3831) as a qualifier with soloist (Q1371914) or a newly created item (which I would call "solo instrument" or similar). But I'm not sure about it. Do you have a better idea - or is there already some approach? Thank you for suggestions - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

has use (P366) wikt:solo#Adjective: of, or relating to, a musical solo? --Fractaler (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to use solo (Q270827). --Infovarius (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

has use (P366): solo (Q270827)? This might do the trick. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

solo (Q270827): "musical piece or part of musical piece performed by a single musician". Is a solo instrument a musical piece or part of musical piece? --Fractaler (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider this a very elegant solution, but it will serve its purpose. Semantically it seems to be ok:

solo (Q270827) is currently a subclass of musical performance (Q6942562) (the qualification "of human voice" should be probably removed) and instrumentation (Q617028) (which I think is weird, but I will just ignore this). has use (P366) should be used to indicate the (main) use of the subject. This can be the activity the subject is used for (see the examples at the item page). To say that an instrument is used for a certain kind of musical performance seems to me a good way to indicate the solo instrument of a musical piece.

But let me know if you see a more elegant solution - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an expert in music, just an amateur. I mean, that "musical piece", "part of musical piece" is a notes (source code) or the performance/execution of these notes/source code by a computer live/non-living musical instrument? "Solo" (homonym?) is "solo-notes" or "solo-performance/execution"? Can "musical piece" be only as solo? Or solo always is "part of musical piece"? --Fractaler (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The term "solo" is definitely ambigue. But the subclass-relationships (and many instances) define solo (Q270827) as representing a solo-performance. I actually found an item representing the class of solo pieces (at least for musical instruments): instrumental solo piece (Q21998559). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks! It's good that there are wikilinks (formalities are observed). And then such an obvious item would be deleted without discussion. Logically (I do not know how the Wikidata rules), that such an item should be determined from its definition/description. --Fractaler (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

May be then for solo-instrument (from the instrument list): uses (P2283) instrumental solo piece (Q21998559)? --Fractaler (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm... I fail to see the advantage over has use (P366): solo (Q270827). -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

instrumental solo piece (Q21998559) is not a part of musical piece, but a musical piece? --Fractaler (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

musical form

I'm quite unhappy with the current situation involving the item musical form (Q862597). I know that this term is difficult, especially when dealing with different languages, but it would be nice to be a bit more consistent in use (and to remove some of the uses which seem plainly wrong to me).

The first problem I see concerns the definition of the item itself: according to its description (and the subclass-relationships) it refers to ways of organising a musical work/musical structures and characteristica (which would match the "canonical" definition as I know it). So according to the description instances should be sonata form (Q212044) and song form (Q1824109). But in its actual use many of its instances are classes of musical work (e.g. song (Q7366) and sonata (Q131269)). This conforms with a more loose use of the term. If this item should be used in the second way I think we should change the description (but then: what should we do with sonata form (Q212044) and song form (Q1824109)?)

Then I noticed that sonata form (Q212044) is currently a subclass of musical form (Q862597), not an instance. I can think of a model where this might be true: when musical form (Q862597) refers to the concrete structure of a certain musical piece (e.g. <musical form of the first movement of Symphony No. 38 (Q228057)>). But I find this approach rather unfavourable when I think about actually using sonata form (Q212044) to characterize certain musical pieces (e.g. via has characteristic (P1552)) - I don't think that we will have items <musical form of the first movement of x> which could be instances of sonata form (Q212044). If nobody opposes I would change the statement from P279 to P31 musical form (Q862597) (and add a P31-statement to song form (Q1824109)).

In the end there seems to be the idea that certain musical pieces are instances of musical form (Q862597). At least concerto (Q9748) is a subclass of musical form (Q862597) (which would make Horn Concerto No. 3 (Q1063431) a musical form). I think this is obviously false and I would replace those occurences of classes of musical works being a subclass of musical form (Q862597) quite soon if there are no objections. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

musical form (Q862597) is a format, result of arranging (Q36993249)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that this description would be helpful: "musical form" rather refers to concepts and conventions used to write, analyze and/or compare musical pieces. The current subclass-statements express those ideas quite fine. To look at it as a real object which is the result of some process is rather extravagant in my opinion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"concepts and conventions used to write, analyze and/or compare" - it is one of the definitions of the term "format" --Fractaler (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I would use instance of (P31) musical form (Q862597). --Infovarius (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. I removed P279 musical form (Q862597) on all occurences of classes of musical works (or replaced it with P279 musical work (Q2188189)). I didn't add instance of (P31) musical form (Q862597) because I was not sure in every instance if it should be considered a musical form (unless one uses "musical form" as a synonym for "musical genre") and I'm still a bit stuck at the issue if musical form (Q862597) should be a metaclass of classes of musical work (symphony (Q9734)) or a class of common structures (sonata form (Q212044)). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

To deal with the first issue (which kind of entities should musical form (Q862597) contain) I have following idea:

1) As musical form (Q862597) is currently used mostly for classes of musical works I would make this clear on the item itself:

• change the description to "class of musical works distinguished by formal characteristics"
• make it a subclass of music genre (Q188451)
• it would have instances like sonata (Q131269), oratorio (Q85477), symphony (Q9734)

2) For common structures (like sonata form (Q212044)) I would create a new item <musical form (2)> which would have the descriptions currently at musical form (Q862597)

• it should probably be a subclass of musical form (Q3500606)
• it would have instances like sonata form (Q212044), song form (Q1824109), strophic form (Q2707253), binary form (Q1193859) etc. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

binary form (Q1193859)

Is there any other musical form (previous: unary musical form, next: ternary musical form, next, etc.)? --Fractaler (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pitch segments (Q20332857)

Sets: Monad, Dyad, Trichord (Viennese), Tetrachord (All-interval), Pentachord Hexachord, All-trichord, Chromatic, Diatonic Mystic, "Ode-to-Napoleon", Petrushka, Sacher, Schoenberg), Aggregate. A superset is set (Q2508727)? Also we have: pitch class (Q1760309), tone row (Q245258); list of set classes (Q17079736), list of tone rows and series (Q17099275) without is a list of (P360). --Fractaler (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New navbox for properties

Hi there, just to notice you that I created a new navbox for music properties, that you can find at Template:Music properties. It is just a summary of properties I found on the main page of the project, so if needed please integrate it or modify it. :) Sannita (ICBSA) (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Alternative and optional instruments

There are a couple of musical compositions where an instrument can be replaced by another instrument. One example is Three Romances for Oboe and Piano (Q1257134), where the oboe can be replaced by a violin. How to express that?

I came up with the following idea (which I already implemented at Three Romances for Oboe and Piano (Q1257134), to have an example):

• Change the rank of the "principal" instruments to preferred
• Add the alternative instruments with a normal rank and a qualifier replaces (P1365) <instrument>.

It would be nice to be able to add also the information that the alternative instrumentation is "ad libitum". There is an item for that (ad libitum (Q310735)), but I don't know which qualifier to use.

To be able to add ad libitum (Q310735) could answer another question, too: how to mark an instrument as optional? One example would be Violin Sonatas, KV 10-15 (Q3070598), which includes an optional cello. Any thoughts? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here it is a choice from the ""list by time"+"preference"": not 1) replaces (P1365) (for non-simultaneous items from the list; item from the list can not be used in time of another), but 2) followed by (P156) (for simultaneous items from the list; instead of one element you can use another, any item from the list can be used in time of another) +criterion used (P1013) (for example, preference (Q908656)). If preference (Q908656)=0 ("any of the list"), then we need items like "flute (Q11405) or violin (Q8355)" (for Violin Sonatas, KV 10-15 (Q3070598)). --Fractaler (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't get the second part (and I'm not sure about the first) :). What should the instrument list for Violin Sonatas, KV 10-15 (Q3070598) look like in your opinion? You seem to prefer followed by (P156) over replaces (P1365) with the reason that the instruments can be used simulaneously - I don't think that this is the case. If you use the violin, there will be no flute. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Valentina.Anitnelav, did you find any proper solution for your ad libitum (Q310735) question?

BTW, I agree about using replaces (P1365) for different alternatives in instrumentation. I found myself in this situation in a piece with different versions for instrumentation (Sardana dels Rajolers (Q97335157)), and I think this is much better than having a complete new edition item linked through has edition or translation (P747) unless the two versions/editions would need to have a different interwiki link. Robertgarrigos (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)