I see "genres" on the summit agenda. There's your funding. A "get genres done" pledge drive.
2012-10-01 27544, 2012
ruaok_ joined the channel
2012-10-01 27545, 2012
ruaok_ joined the channel
2012-10-01 27512, 2012
hawke_
what are genres? ;-)
2012-10-01 27543, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: speaking of genres: What is it that you’re trying to figure out with the CSG thread?
2012-10-01 27558, 2012
g-ram joined the channel
2012-10-01 27541, 2012
CallerNo6
hawke_: when I started the thread, I didn't really have a destination in mind. But I was hoping people would respond more directly to http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/pre-RFC-… (which you more or less did)
2012-10-01 27529, 2012
hawke_
Sure, but what’s the purpose of finding the grey areas?
2012-10-01 27511, 2012
CallerNo6
That's not my primary purpose.
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
hawke_
?
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
CallerNo6
I'm going to reboot the thread with a more clear goal in mind.
2012-10-01 27508, 2012
hawke_
But what *is* your purpose?
2012-10-01 27500, 2012
CallerNo6
In a nutshell, people keep talking about whether the works are classical. I don't really care about the works (unless the question is "does 'CSG-for-Works' apply?"
2012-10-01 27530, 2012
CallerNo6
For everything else (release artist and title, track artist, recording artist and title) I'd rather ask "is this release /performed/ within a classical context?" or "idiom". or whatever word you want.
2012-10-01 27515, 2012
CallerNo6
So e.g. a Hendrix tune on a classical release should be track_artist:composer, while a Bach tune on a metal release should be track_artist:performer (generally speaking).
2012-10-01 27544, 2012
CallerNo6
We don't need a definition of "classical music".
2012-10-01 27552, 2012
CallerNo6
We just need a feel for when something is being performed/presented in the classical idiom.
2012-10-01 27513, 2012
hawke_
Hmm. I’m much more towards “as on cover” than that. Of course, “as on cover” more or less follows what you said
2012-10-01 27525, 2012
hawke_
and as in the grey areas, is open to interpretation.
2012-10-01 27554, 2012
CallerNo6
Which is fine.
2012-10-01 27541, 2012
CallerNo6
A second step would be maybe identifying some grey areas (like classical/metal cross-over) but that's secondary.
2012-10-01 27543, 2012
hawke_
Kind of, but what do we do in those cases if we can only have it one way or the other?
2012-10-01 27552, 2012
pickles444 joined the channel
2012-10-01 27554, 2012
CallerNo6
That's why I say it's like porn. We might not be able to define it, but we probably know it when we see it.
2012-10-01 27542, 2012
hawke_
But there are basic (unresolvable?) disagreements in the grey areas.
2012-10-01 27500, 2012
CallerNo6
If you're wondering why I asked you specifically to weigh in, it's because you're good at picking my ideas apart :-)
2012-10-01 27547, 2012
hawke_
I’m wondering if you’re trying to compile an objective standard for deciding whether something is classical, or whether you want a list of grey-area releases so you can then ask people to classify them and see what the majority says and maybe build something from that data, or…?
2012-10-01 27511, 2012
CallerNo6
Right. I think what I need to do (like I said) is reboot the thread in a more structured way. Like pbryan's works threads.
2012-10-01 27520, 2012
CallerNo6
I don't think there will be an objective standard. I am interested in testing the basic premise (look at the performance, not the works).
2012-10-01 27549, 2012
CallerNo6
A list of releases with an up/down vote for "classicalness" would be one way.
2012-10-01 27504, 2012
reosarevok
That sounds dangerously like genres :p
2012-10-01 27522, 2012
CallerNo6
If "genre" means "what area of the music store should I look in?"
2012-10-01 27514, 2012
reosarevok
What's a music store? :)
2012-10-01 27538, 2012
reosarevok
(partially joking)
2012-10-01 27536, 2012
CallerNo6
A maze of twisty passages, all alike except for genre?
2012-10-01 27554, 2012
reosarevok
Sounds like some RPG
2012-10-01 27501, 2012
reosarevok
Or a text adventure
2012-10-01 27502, 2012
reosarevok
I know!
2012-10-01 27504, 2012
reosarevok
Go north!
2012-10-01 27521, 2012
CallerNo6
you used "know" in a way that I don't understand
2012-10-01 27556, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: I think looking at the performance is a must, for sure.
2012-10-01 27504, 2012
hawke_
and even the release
2012-10-01 27545, 2012
CallerNo6
that's a start. I'm sure it's what we all do, but it's never been talked about before (that I know of)
2012-10-01 27550, 2012
hawke_
(I’d love to see a case where the same exact performance was presented in a “classical context” (still not sure what that is, exactly) and also in a “non-classical context” on different releases.
2012-10-01 27517, 2012
CallerNo6
In a sense, the performance is part of the presentation.
2012-10-01 27544, 2012
CallerNo6 knows that doesn't help
2012-10-01 27511, 2012
hawke_
SwissChris said “With "Classical context" [I] mean: Does the performer consider himself, "classical" (as opposed to popular, jazz, folk etc.), does he have a "classical" training, does he play "classical" instruments, does he give concerts in concert halls or other places and contexts usually dedicated to "classical", would a CD be stored in a "classical" rack or in a "pop" rack…”
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
hawke_
That makes me think of classical artists performing together with pop/rock artists.
2012-10-01 27503, 2012
hawke_
Metallica, Moody Blues…
2012-10-01 27505, 2012
hawke_
probably many others
2012-10-01 27503, 2012
CallerNo6
yeah, I was thinking the same thing. So a hypothetical:
2012-10-01 27510, 2012
hawke_
In every case I know of, that’s been a case of “classical artist as backing band for pop artist” though
I can imagine a classical release or this concert, where Jon Lord is the track artist (composer).
2012-10-01 27540, 2012
CallerNo6
I can also imagine a Deep Purple compilation that includes one movement, or an exerpt or something, in which case it might make more sense for the track artist to be the perfomers.
2012-10-01 27500, 2012
hawke_
Yep.
2012-10-01 27508, 2012
hawke_
So you can’t just look at the performance
2012-10-01 27516, 2012
hawke_
You need to look at the release.
2012-10-01 27518, 2012
hawke_
right?
2012-10-01 27548, 2012
CallerNo6
Yeah, both.
2012-10-01 27521, 2012
CallerNo6
Part of that is my reluctance to mix CSG and non-CSG track artists on the same release.
2012-10-01 27534, 2012
CallerNo6
It might be unavoidable, but I think it's confusing.
2012-10-01 27553, 2012
hawke_
Agreed.
2012-10-01 27555, 2012
CallerNo6
So in another hypothetical, where a film soundtrack was half score-based classical-ish, and the other half was pop tunes, I don't know what to do.
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
hawke_
Pretty sure that exists.
2012-10-01 27507, 2012
CallerNo6
No doubt.
2012-10-01 27537, 2012
CallerNo6
If I had to define "classical context", hmm. There's an elevated formality. Higher fidelity to a score. A tendency to emphasize composers or traditions.
2012-10-01 27537, 2012
noobie is listening to: "James Brown" - "The Boss" (3:15) from "The Godfather: The Very Best of James Brown" genre: "Funk" style: "Soul" (192kbps)
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
CallerNo6
In a way it's like what Zappa used to say. "The most important thing in art is the frame"
2012-10-01 27551, 2012
portik joined the channel
2012-10-01 27551, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: Right, but you have fundamental disagreement about the degree: how formal must it be, how faithful to the score, how much (and in what way) would the composer be elevated for it to be considered “classical”.
My estimates: formality 4/5; fidelity 3/5, composer elevation 2/5
2012-10-01 27516, 2012
hawke_
or maybe 3/5, 3/5, 2/5
2012-10-01 27535, 2012
reosarevok
That's over 2.5!
2012-10-01 27538, 2012
reosarevok
Classical! :p
2012-10-01 27508, 2012
hawke_
Do each of those elements have equal weight? :-p
2012-10-01 27513, 2012
CallerNo6
Is fidelity really that low? Are these interpretations, or is there a score?
2012-10-01 27545, 2012
CallerNo6
(just for reference, you /do/ know porn when you see it, don't you?)
2012-10-01 27545, 2012
hawke_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_music — "any music for which a historically appropriate style of performance must be reconstructed on the basis of surviving scores, treatises, instruments and other contemporary evidence."
2012-10-01 27549, 2012
hawke_
Yes. :-p
2012-10-01 27513, 2012
hawke_
IMO “historically appropriate style” refers to fidelity
2012-10-01 27520, 2012
hawke_
So within that genre I’m sure it varies considerably.
2012-10-01 27523, 2012
adhawkins joined the channel
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
dankine joined the channel
2012-10-01 27541, 2012
CallerNo6
The tradition of formality is different between a black-tie symphony and a spanish guitarist.
2012-10-01 27558, 2012
hawke_
Indeed.
2012-10-01 27533, 2012
hawke_
So is that ‘adherence to tradition of formality’ or “actual objective(hah!) formality”
2012-10-01 27534, 2012
CallerNo6
So part of the question in my mind is "does this performance/presentation honor the tradition?"
2012-10-01 27534, 2012
hawke_
?
2012-10-01 27523, 2012
reosarevok
heh
2012-10-01 27528, 2012
CallerNo6
I mean, I assume CSG could apply to non-Western music as well.
2012-10-01 27535, 2012
reosarevok
Is it black metal if they don't wear corpsepaint?
2012-10-01 27539, 2012
CallerNo6
So black tie not required.
2012-10-01 27557, 2012
CallerNo6
On that I defer to Manowar.
2012-10-01 27518, 2012
CallerNo6
"true metal people like to rock, not pose, wearing jeans and leather, not cracker-jack clothes"
2012-10-01 27559, 2012
CallerNo6 goes to look that up. memory might be off a bit.
2012-10-01 27515, 2012
reosarevok
Say the ones that pose covered in oil :)
2012-10-01 27551, 2012
omgyja
♫♪.ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı.♫♪ - William Basinski - The River, Part 1
2012-10-01 27500, 2012
_5moufl
:o
2012-10-01 27523, 2012
reosarevok
:)
2012-10-01 27526, 2012
reosarevok
Basinski
2012-10-01 27518, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: Obviously ‘black tie’ is a specific type of very-formal clothing, and would have to be adjusted for context somewhat (mostly for various cultures) — but if you can say that “spanish guitar” is objectively less formal than “symphony orchestra” but more so than “60s rock band” which is more so than “90s grunge band”…
2012-10-01 27559, 2012
hawke_
I’m not entirely sure that it makes sense to measure the performance based on what clothes the performer wears anyway, though.
2012-10-01 27504, 2012
hawke_
even if we knew what they were wearing at the time.
2012-10-01 27510, 2012
CallerNo6
Or you could say that "formal" means an adherence to tradition.
fidelity could be a problem too. What do you get when you play very faithfully an arrangement written on the basis of “what some early/ancient music might have sounded like
2012-10-01 27525, 2012
hawke_
>"
2012-10-01 27527, 2012
hawke_
”
2012-10-01 27553, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: hahah, so that lara st. john release would count as “very informal”. :-D
2012-10-01 27507, 2012
CallerNo6
I wonder if everybody would concede that there /is/ a classical idiom, even if we can't come up with an objective test. We'd be no worse off than we are now.
2012-10-01 27504, 2012
dankine joined the channel
2012-10-01 27546, 2012
ruaok joined the channel
2012-10-01 27547, 2012
ruaok joined the channel
2012-10-01 27508, 2012
hawke_
I think that’s agreed — it’s the whole basis of having a CSG at all, right?
2012-10-01 27520, 2012
hawke_
people agree that there *is* classical music.
2012-10-01 27528, 2012
CallerNo6
but the only conversations I've seen have been about the work or the composer being "classical". that's what I'm tryng to change.
2012-10-01 27545, 2012
warp
CallerNo6: can a release be classical and an equivalent release (audio is exactly the same) not be classical? i.e. the only change between the two is how the cover/backcover/booklet/etc.. present the release?
2012-10-01 27550, 2012
warp
:)
2012-10-01 27541, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: I think that’s because there are so few cases where the performer matters for this purpose.
2012-10-01 27517, 2012
Krystof
I can certainly imagine some grey areas between "classical" and "not classical"
2012-10-01 27531, 2012
Krystof
e.g. some Philip Glass soundtracks, or Frank Zappa
2012-10-01 27542, 2012
hawke_
You rarely see it even coming down to the performer, because performers are almost always so clearly one or the other
2012-10-01 27553, 2012
Krystof
and that grey area can be viewed as black or white by different people
2012-10-01 27508, 2012
hawke_
it’s “rock band performing classical music” or “classical orchestra performing rock music”
2012-10-01 27547, 2012
Krystof
oh, hey, you've already given those examples. OK, how about "Hooked on Classics"
2012-10-01 27530, 2012
Krystof
they call it crossover for a reason. "Adiemus". "Officium".
2012-10-01 27547, 2012
Krystof
Sting's lute songs disc
2012-10-01 27504, 2012
Krystof
I have a recording of Airs de Cour, one of which is by Georges Brassens
2012-10-01 27528, 2012
Krystof
which side am I arguing on? Tell me later, won't you?
2012-10-01 27551, 2012
dankine joined the channel
2012-10-01 27533, 2012
CallerNo6
"hooked on classics" seems low on the fidelity scale.
2012-10-01 27506, 2012
hawke_
low-formality, low-fidelity, high composer elevation?
2012-10-01 27508, 2012
CallerNo6
I'll have to think about that one
2012-10-01 27526, 2012
CallerNo6
hawke_: yeah, true
2012-10-01 27546, 2012
CallerNo6 goes to work for a while
2012-10-01 27547, 2012
hawke_
Not sure about the formality actually
2012-10-01 27548, 2012
Krystof
fwiw, I think "classical music" is a hangover from the 19th century germanic retelling of the history of Art Music
