but not for, say, catalog numbers - since they might apply equally to all
2013-01-30 03036, 2013
alastairp
am I reading that right? (luks)
2013-01-30 03056, 2013
luks
work types in that images meant something different than they mean now
2013-01-30 03006, 2013
alastairp
ok
2013-01-30 03031, 2013
luks
they were more or less describing layers
2013-01-30 03040, 2013
luks
e.g. symphony vs movement, etc.
2013-01-30 03044, 2013
reosarevok
heh
2013-01-30 03052, 2013
reosarevok
Yeah, what work types *should* mean :)
2013-01-30 03053, 2013
alastairp
hmm, right
2013-01-30 03008, 2013
reosarevok
(with our current concept moving to tags)
2013-01-30 03018, 2013
alastairp
so current 'types' kind of become attributes?
2013-01-30 03020, 2013
reosarevok
(well, a tag-like system, not the current tags)
2013-01-30 03046, 2013
reosarevok
alastairp: the current types are pretty much genre tags
2013-01-30 03017, 2013
reosarevok
Unsure what the best way of dealing with them would be. Probably the same we do with genres, once we do something with them
2013-01-30 03055, 2013
reosarevok
Someone did propose renaming that to "work form" for now and adding "work type" with the meaning luks said
2013-01-30 03003, 2013
reosarevok
(CallerNo6 maybe?)
2013-01-30 03008, 2013
nikki
yes
2013-01-30 03050, 2013
reosarevok
That would seem reasonable to me - only problem I might see is the ws renaming
2013-01-30 03005, 2013
reosarevok
Although I honestly doubt anyone's using work types anyway so I don't think it'd break anything
2013-01-30 03020, 2013
nikki
are any of our existing types actually types?
2013-01-30 03046, 2013
luks
"song" maybe is a type
2013-01-30 03003, 2013
luks
but then people will argue that instrumental songs are not songs, so I'm not sure :)
2013-01-30 03009, 2013
reosarevok
It's certainly a form - you *might* see it as a type too, but...
2013-01-30 03015, 2013
reosarevok
I'd just call songs "full works" or something :p
2013-01-30 03034, 2013
reosarevok
(have 3 levels, "collection", "work" "part" or something)
2013-01-30 03011, 2013
reosarevok
I bet that'd get people arguing whether song cycles are collections of works, or works of works :)
2013-01-30 03017, 2013
luks
I think we should have different hierarchies for different music styles
2013-01-30 03033, 2013
luks
"full work" doesn't mean much in "popular" music
2013-01-30 03037, 2013
reosarevok
Well
2013-01-30 03049, 2013
reosarevok
What hierarchy *does* make sense in popular music?
2013-01-30 03052, 2013
luks
and things like jazz have they own classification
2013-01-30 03056, 2013
reosarevok
Isn't it pretty much flat?
2013-01-30 03008, 2013
luks
it's just one entry :)
2013-01-30 03046, 2013
reosarevok
I mean, the only use of "part" and "collection" as types is to allow people who want to see just full works to hide them really
2013-01-30 03051, 2013
reosarevok
Unless I'm missing a very clear use )
2013-01-30 03051, 2013
djce joined the channel
2013-01-30 03053, 2013
reosarevok
*:)
2013-01-30 03035, 2013
reosarevok
(certainly, parts can have its own key different from the full work one, its own cat# in cases...)
2013-01-30 03043, 2013
reosarevok
(collections certainly get opus numbers)
2013-01-30 03046, 2013
luks
well, I've learned something about dancehall this weekend, so for example I'd like to see it to be able to track "riddims" :)
2013-01-30 03059, 2013
luks
or jazz standards
2013-01-30 03008, 2013
luks
which are not really full works, but they are not parts either
2013-01-30 03022, 2013
reosarevok
heh riddims
2013-01-30 03055, 2013
alastairp
hmm, jazz standards are interesting
2013-01-30 03056, 2013
reosarevok
Isn't that better served by a specific relationship between the riddim and the derivated works than a work type?
2013-01-30 03000, 2013
luks
what I mean is that different music styles structure music differently
2013-01-30 03003, 2013
reosarevok
(I know nothing about jazz)
2013-01-30 03005, 2013
alastairp
especially because the definition is so loose anywa
2013-01-30 03013, 2013
luks
and I'd like to track these semantic components
2013-01-30 03015, 2013
reosarevok
(well, that it bores me)
2013-01-30 03052, 2013
adrianw joined the channel
2013-01-30 03026, 2013
reosarevok
I'd like to be able to mark hip hop beats somehow separated from the full works to for when they get reused
2013-01-30 03011, 2013
reosarevok
But doesn't that affect small enough bits of the DB that it'd be weird having it as "types" anyway? the thing about part and collection is that they're general
2013-01-30 03021, 2013
reosarevok
Dunno :/
2013-01-30 03021, 2013
alastairp
so, when someone reuses part of an existing recording?
2013-01-30 03038, 2013
luks
I don't think it would be that weird
2013-01-30 03054, 2013
luks
they beats can have certain artibutes that have no sense for things like classical movements
2013-01-30 03010, 2013
luks
so I think it makes sense to be a little specific here
2013-01-30 03017, 2013
reosarevok
Hmm
2013-01-30 03035, 2013
reosarevok
I guess I would see that work *if* you selected a type in the same place you then chose the attributes
2013-01-30 03052, 2013
reosarevok
(which I'd expect not to be the general edit work interface - that should stay as simple as possible)
2013-01-30 03054, 2013
luks
well, I assumed it would work that way
2013-01-30 03010, 2013
nikki
I assuming it'd be some sort of dropdown for selecting an attribute that would add a new row
2013-01-30 03028, 2013
nikki
err
2013-01-30 03031, 2013
nikki
I assumed
2013-01-30 03035, 2013
alastairp
so, am I getting from this that we need some further discussion planning to rework this stuff, or can we do attributes on top of current works and add this later?
2013-01-30 03036, 2013
nikki speaks english really
2013-01-30 03048, 2013
reosarevok
alastairp: both probably? :)
2013-01-30 03039, 2013
reosarevok
luks: hmm, what attributes do you see for beats btw?
2013-01-30 03056, 2013
reosarevok
(I can't see any right now - well, BPM but thats per-recording)
2013-01-30 03016, 2013
luks
BPM came to my mind, but it's probably a bigger issue the other way around
