Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music/Archive/2021

Parts or sections of musical works

On the Telegram channel we've noticed that there's no way to document the parts of a musical composition. Parts could include movements of a symphony (usually without titles, sometimes indicated by tempo marking or generic titles), or named parts (such as the three movements of Debussy's La mer), or multiple parts, as in the songs titles of a song cycle. Perhaps someone can make an attempt at this. - Kosboot (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Since 23 December, a user has created Wikidata:Property proposal/has part (string value). It seems that a significant number of editors feel that's the wrong direction, and that ideally one should create an item for every movement or part of a work (e.g. each song within a song cycle). I've experimented doing that with Beethoven Symphony no. 9 and Debussy's La mer. - Kosboot (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Improving Montreux Jazz Festival Songs Upload

I did an upload of songs performed during all the years at Montreux Jazz Festival.

As pointed out by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs • logs) the items I created had the wrong instance of (P31). I edited three items with more accurate informations ( Q99750652, Hammertones (Q99771784) and Chicken Shift (chte) (Q99771418)). Is it the appropriate shape of an item describing songs performed during a concert?

I also have to say that the discussion is also going on here --Uallv (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Music has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.: The discussion has now been archived under Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2020/10#User:Uallv_-_Montreux_Jazz_Festival_mass_upload. If possible I would like some feedback on the plan proposed by Uallv in the now archived section. If there is no feedback on that then there's no other option to delete the items not meeting the notability policy. --Wiki13 (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wiki13: Looks like Uallv has just started doing the changes without any consent from the community. --Premeditated (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Premeditated: Thank you for notifying me. From what I can remember the community needed to be consulted before doing these changes. I believe this WikiProject has been pinged twice without anyone replying to it. Likewise no there were no replies after the initial discussion on Administrators' noticeboard. In one way I can understand why he continued as nobody gave feedback to his edits despite multiple people asking. We still have Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request:_Fails_notability where a lot of items by Uallv are still under discussion for deletion. If I'm honest we are at an impasse right now, if no action is taken they will be deleted for sure. Uallv needs community consensus to do something, where nobody replies to his request for help. I'm inclined to say that in some time the items should be looked at in the state they are in and if they don't meet deleted. --Wiki13 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wiki13: It is not only the nonsense items I find critical. The way this user runs his own show without even communicating with the community is something I find extremely annoying. Instead of just starting to run the "fix", he could have mention something about it here where we discuss this exact problem. This is something I have previously complained about on Administrators' noticeboard:

... Uallv has also broken multiple policies, without any restrictions from the Administrators and/or Bureaucrats. This makes it looks like it's not problematic to import 41k items that is Copyrighted (at the time), missing bot request, not notable and not disclosing that it is paid edits (at the time). Allowing this behaviour gives the impression that polices like Terms of Use, Wikidata:Bots, and Wikidata:Notability are not important. I will call it vandalism.

—Administrators' noticeboard

I'm also confused with how the administrators and/or bureaucrats have handled this problem with silence. I guess that also I could save some time by skiping the bot requests. --Premeditated (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your confusion and I see that I am somehow also partly at fault for this. My intention, since no other admins seem to want to get involved, was to let the discussions go their natural way. I was hoping on replies by knowledgeable people out of our community, something that didn't come. I lack the knowledge for this subject to make any useful suggestions to improve the items. I have taken a look at what was added to the items, and they still not meet any of our notability guidelines. This means deletion of 40k items is the only way forward. --Wiki13 (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late response but i had almost no internet connection during the Christmas holidays. Giving that I had no answer in two months I started to apply the reasonable modification I published on my sub-page. @Wiki13: confirm me that your intention is to delete all the songs, this way I will not do useless modification. --Uallv (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Uallv, I already the big bulk of them via a request that was on WD:RFD based on the fact that despite the modification, it doesn't meet the threshold of notability. For the others I need to find a way to gather a list together. As I'm lacking in time to do so now, I will be doing that later. --Wiki13 (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Genre specificity in regard to Western Classical and Art Music composers

I originally sent this question in to the general project list serve and it was suggested that I post it here.

I work as a Music/AV cataloger and primarily work with classical music scores. My main focus in the PCC Wikidata Pilot project has been to embellish and edit records of classical and art music composers, particularly lesser-known composers with minimal or no records in Wikidata. Recently I have noticed some discrepancies in statements of genre in composer items and am curious how they should be properly treated.

For example, Frederic Chopin’s (Q1268) genre statements are a reiteration of his movement statements; both are described with the broader umbrella terms of Western Classical music and Romantic music. However, Franz Joseph Haydn (Q7349) has the genre statements Western classical music, Classical period (which is flagged as not a genre), symphony, and opera. Other composers’ genre statements can be much more specific with items like sonata, chamber music, concerto, string quartet, or oratorio.

My first instinct when I came across Frederic Chopin’s page was to add “piano music” to his genre statement, since he almost exclusively wrote for solo piano (with a few exceptions). However, the closest item to a general term for piano music is composition for piano (Q1746015), which is also currently not described as an instance of musical genre. So, in the case of composers like Chopin who wrote primarily for a specific solo instrument, I have instead been using chamber music (Q189201) as a genre statement. Would it be more appropriate though to create Western classical piano music or (in Chopin’s case) Romantic piano music items as genre statements? Should “instance of” musical genre be added to some musical forms and items? What should the general approach be in order to properly describe statements of genre for composers of classical and art music?

Interesting question. For the record I'm also a cataloger. You might want to check up on the definition of a genre, and study the list of genre headings in ClassWeb: https://classweb.org/Menu/. "Piano music", although a valid LC subject heading, is not a genre but an expression of a performance medium. Additionally, LC's genre headings generally do not divide into periods of classical music history - there's "art music" and perhaps the specific form (if it is also a genre) and that's it. - Kosboot (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of Series Ordinal for symphonies, concerti, quartets?

I was trying to determine the right way to attach a machine-readable series ordinal to classical compositions, e.g. "16" for String Quartet No. 16 (Q194924). While part of the series (P179) is in the list of Composition Properties, I see that series ordinal (P1545) is also present under Qualifiers.

My guess is that series ordinal (P1545), with a of (P642) qualifier to a list entity if one exists, would be the most expressive approach. So String Quartet No. 16 (Q194924) would get a series ordinal (P1545) of numeral 16, with an of (P642) qualifier to Beethoven string quartets (Q2917128). Does this sound right, and would people support adding series ordinal (P1545) to Composition Properties? Michaelrhanson (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Answering my own question: Series Ordinal has a property constraint that it should not be used for top-level properties, but only as a qualifier. Therefore the right approach is to use part of the series (P179) with a series ordinal (P1545) qualifier. Michaelrhanson (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Mixcloud ID?

Found out that apparently Mixcloud (Q6883832) doesn't have any associated identifier with it, even though it seems at first glance that quite a number of musicians (especially DJs) and radio/podcast shows use it. e.g. deadmau5 (Q49009) = https://www.mixcloud.com/deadmau5/ ; Don Diablo (Q2464558) = https://www.mixcloud.com/dondiablo/ ; Monstercat (Q10398667) = https://www.mixcloud.com/monstercat/ ; Tiësto (Q183508) = https://www.mixcloud.com/Tiesto/ . Anyone willing to see if it's worth proposing an identifier property for this site? --Btcprox (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Go right ahead! Make sure to add {{ping project|Music}}! --Lectrician1 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey just a reminder, I've got the proposal up on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Mixcloud_ID , would be helpful to get feedback on it. --Btcprox (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Music festivals?

Hei! I might just not be finding it, but does this project have any set schemes for modelling music festivals? I was taking a look at the different instances of Wacken Open Air (Q157845) and some of them follow their own, interesting path, while some seem more appropriately modelled. I need to do 4-5 music festivals in the nearish future, so I'd rather follow a set scheme than try to come up with my own. -Yupik (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, as soon as I ask, I run into this. Are there any properties that should be included in that that aren't there?

Beat Estermann (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Antoine2711 (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Mathieu Kappler (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Fjjulien Fjjulien (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Cultural events. -Yupik (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Join the discussion on the filling scheme of "music of country" items

Wikidata:Project_chat#Correcting_properties_for_"music_of_country"_items. Solidest (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer catalogue

Not sure if this falls within the focus of this WP, but it seems that Tom Lehrer (Q369724) and his estate are releasing his songs (the score and lyrics I believe, not sure about recordings) under a PD-dedication type statement: https://tomlehrersongs.com

Seems like a good opportunity to make sure the structured data for them is in good shape. Arlo Barnes (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

items for individual performances

What's the current status on this? Didn't we delete some created in bulk recently?

There is a proposal at Wikidata:Property proposal/setlist that could lead to millions of such items.

Not sure if this project was notified/involved.

WikiProject Music has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --- Jura 18:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment If you are referring to the disastrous Montreux import I think the lack of an established model for concerts played a big part in why it went so wrong. As someone who mostly only edits music, I think the new, proposed "setlist" property will be a big help in getting this area into shape. Personally I would love to see all the concert data we currently have on Wikipedia (quite a bit) finally imported to Wikidata, but in an "orderly fashion" if that makes sense. Moebeus (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• The question is if it's really worth creating an items for every performance. --- Jura 20:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• In our case (Carnegie Hall), since we're already publishing RDF data about more than 50,000 CH events (http://data.carnegiehall.org/ -- yes, the endpoint needs some improvement; working on that) and aligning names (performers, composers) with Wikidata using P4104 (and, to a lesser extent as yet, works using P5229), there's no need to duplicate event records within Wikidata (I acknowledge that our dataset is not the norm for this use case). In my experience, the modelling for musical works on Wikidata varies widely in quality, and before there's any widely scaled effort to import concert data I think this needs to be addressed. E.g., personally I hate the conflation of "single" (Q134556) with "song" (Q7366), which are semantically different (a single being a single, fixed version/recording of song, which could have many versions). That's one big reason I've shied away from attempting to align non-classical works from our dataset with Wikidata (although I do for well-constructed items for songs). I totally agree with Moebeus about "orderly fashion", but I'm not sure how best to bring that about. Rhudson (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 CommentHow would you do it if not by performace? Having to annotate a performance at the song/music work level would be quite a headache.Categerhart (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• You would have to select the work that is being performed anyways, so why not add that directly. --- Jura 20:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New property for "doubling instrument" qualifier needed?

WikiProject Music has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

I recently created an item for Elena Kats-Chernin's Wild Swans (Q106877213). The Australian Music Centre's web page for this work lists the instrumentation as: Piccolo, 2 flutes, 2 oboes (2nd doubling cor anglais), 2 clarinets (2nd doubling bass clarinet), alto saxophone, 2 bassoons (2nd doubling contra-bassoon), 2 horns, 2 trumpets, trombone, bass trombone, tuba, percussion (3 players), harp, piano (doubling celesta), soprano voice, strings.

When I was adding the instrumentation to the Wikidata item, I didn't know whether there is a way to indicate a doubling instrument. Also, when there are multiple instruments and one of them doubles another instrument, is there a way to show that? Currently in the item, I left out the doubling instruments.

Perhaps we need a new property that could be used as a qualifier? For example:

Instrumentation: piano, qualified by: quantity: 1, and also qualified by new property "doubles on" or "doubling instrument" or ?: celesta

Then there is the case that the 2nd oboe doubles on cor anglais and the 2nd clarinet doubles on bass clarinet and the 2nd bassoon doubles on contra-bassoon. The only way that I've thought to indicate this could be:

Instrumentation: oboe, qualified by series ordinal: 1, and qualified by quantity: 1
Instrumentation: oboe, qualified by series ordinal: 2, and qualified by quantity: 1 and new property "doubles on": cor anglais

What do folks think of a new property for "doubles on" (or some other phrasing)?

And is my method of indicating which of the instruments is doubling acceptable or is there a better way? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @UWashPrincipalCataloger: In my opinion the instrumentation property should only indicate the instruments used in a piece of music, not how these instruments are divided between the players. "3 clarinets in B flat (3rd doubling bass clarinet)" just suggests that the first two clarinet players play the clarinet and the 3rd clarinet player plays both the (3rd) clarinet and the bass clarinet (alternatingly, of course). If there is an orchestra (e.g. a school orchestra) with 4 clarinet players and all of them want to participate it would not change the music if 3 players played the clarinet and one additional player played the bass clarinet. There would be only less to do for the last two players.

For this reason I rather think we do not need a "doubles on" qualifier. We can express the instrumentation just listing all these instruments:

instrumentation	clarinet edit quantity 3 0 references add reference bass clarinet edit quantity 1 0 references add reference
		add value

That the third clarinet does also play the bass clarinet may be interesting for individual performances. But this may be expressed using the performer (P175) property. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment But this makes it really confusing and misleading. If the piece is a quartet and five instruments are listed it will look like a quintet. It is imperative that a player know if they are going to need to double on an instrument when performing a work and that will not be obvious if there is no way to indicate that the instrument is doubled. It is true that a group might decide to play a work in a manner other than that which was intended by the composer, but the WD item should indicate the instrumentation in the score, not the instrumentation some group might use that is different from the composers intent.Categerhart (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a bit confusing the other way round. The cor anglais is an instrument on its own, even if it is played by the 2nd oboe player and it should be indicated as full part of the instrumentation list, in my opinion. E.g. in the second movement of Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 it is a mayor instrument, even though the 2nd oboe plays it and it should appear in the instrumentation list as a full statement (not only as a qualifier). There are only the 2 parts of oboe 1 and oboe2/cor anglais but three instruments oboe (x2) and cor anglais. Maybe one could indicate the doubling the other way round on the cor anglais statement

Instrumentation: oboe qualified by quantity: 2

Instrumentation: cor anglais, qualified by quantity: 1 and new property "doubles": oboe

This way one could indicate that the cor anglais is not a part on its own. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a possible way to go, Valentina. I wonder what Cate thinks of this. Would love to hear others' ideas too. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Entities combining both the support and the type of publication

Hello,

Let's suppose that an album is released both on CD and digital form : should we create two different entities ? If no, are entities combining both the support and the type of publication justified ? For example : digital EP (Q107124972) or CD single (Q719645) ?

Thank you

CaLéValab (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Generic queries for musicians

I'm developing a new template with generic queries for musicians : {{Generic queries for musicians}}. The goal is to have useful queries for musicians which could help explore the work of a musician. If you have any idea or examples of useful queries, tell me. The goal is to embed this new team in {{Item documentation}} . PAC2 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)