Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music/Archive/2019

Album with 2 CDs

How to map such kind of album? Should I create an item for both CD and for the album itself and then link them as part of the album, and the album consisting of items of CDs? Am I right? --★ → Airon 90 18:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Airon90: Hi there! Have a look at The Beatles' White Album - this ia double vinyl LP, but the principle should be the same. Let me know if that model works for you. Moebeus (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moebeus: Thank you for this example but my question is not solved because in the example you divide tracks by adding a letter (A, B, C, D) before the number. I looked for all instances of double album (Q1242743) and I found out that some items have CDx-y (Little Earthquakes – Deluxe Edition (Q61629603)) and others just x-y (Wicked – Original Broadway Cast Recording – 10th Anniversary Deluxe Edition (Q57943732), 19 – deluxe edition (Q57781101)) as x is the number of the CD-Rom and y the number of the track. I'm unsure on what to do, I thought that creating items for each CD Rom was the right way to map albums. --★ → Airon 90 08:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Airon90: Splitting up each individual disc is not wrong, it's just different and would require a bit of work converting existing double, triple albums to that model. Maybe you could try to complete a 2xCD edit using this style (pick an album that hasn't already been edited by another user) and present it to WikiProject Music so we'd have a concrete example to look at? That could be a useful exercise. Moebeus (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Solo music projects

I am looking for some guidance on how to represent solo music projects (e.g. Casiotone for the Painfully Alone (Q5048948)). Are they just an alias for a human, or are they a separately reifiable entity? If the latter, what is the type? Are they a musical group (Q215380), or does that apply only to groups of two or more? If the former, then what do we do about bands that became reduced to a single person who then adopted the band name as an alias (e.g. Chiddy Bang (Q1072288), Class Actress (Q5127971))? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Property proposal Swiss National Sound Archives ID

I've recently proposed the creation for a new property regarding Swiss National Sound Archives (Q2256277). In fact they've published biographical cards about notable people with audio documents, both in music and in spoken word, that have a relationship with the Swiss history and culture. I saw the collection with my eyes and I was impressed! I write to you in order to have some feedback at the request page and to let you know this wonderful archive in which musicians and bands are the major protagonists. --AlessioMela (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Difference between Compositions and Tracks

I just read in Overview that there is a difference between Compositions and Tracks, which I don't get. Could somebody help me explaining the difference? I fear I am doing a wrong job in creating items (see as example: Q63388627). --★ → Airon 90 08:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Airon90 : Hi there! The difference might seem subtle at first, but the it's substantial. A composition/song is the standalone creative musical work, and might be recorded (become a "track") once, twice, two hundred times, or not at all. A composition might be recorded by many different artists, creating cover versions. A track is linked to a composition using recording or performance of. Hope that help a little, feel free to hit up my talk page with any further questions if you have any. Moebeus (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Moebeus: I am not sure if I got it. For every song (for which there is any cover) I should create two item, one for the music and lyrics (composition), one for the creation of the song by an artist (track). I try to fix what I already created but I will ask somebody to check my work :) Thank you --★ → Airon 90 08:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Airon90 : You need to think of the song as a work, independent of any recording. The work is the song in notated or unnotated music. Any recording is an additional aspect of that song, but the work itself, even its first recording, is a separate concept. There are many (I would say the majority) of songs never get recordings but they still exist. - Kosboot (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

When does an edit or remaster become a new track?

This project sounds great, exciting!

@Airon90 : Your explanation of composition vs. track in #Difference between Compositions and Tracks is helpful, but there are a lot of details. The "same" recording of a composition can appear on multiple albums ("Editions"?) but slightly altered on each one.

1. Compilation albums often fade the track out early to cram in more songs. I notice the proposal doesn't have a duration (Property:P2047?) property, so would this be considered the same track?
2. Reissues, particularly vinyl reissued on CD, usually remaster the track (Cf. the bloody en:loudness war), resulting in a different sound. Sometimes it's a big change, other times very minor. E.g. for the Beatles there's the original mono mix and original "hard left-right panning" stereo; then there are minor (well, not to Beatles fans!) differences in the mastering of the mono or stereo track between vinyl pressings in different regions. Then the stereo remaster (e.g. on "Yellow Submarine" or "Ones") reissue, and then tweaks to this; e.g. see "1" Beatles album article which calls some of the adjustments remixes and others remasters.

Does Wikidata have the notion of a "derived work with minor changes"? In the case of reissues with slight changes it's the same track with all the same recording info but with an additional "remastered by" property. Property:P5202 "Adapted by" is also known as "remixed by", but this sounds more extreme than remastering. FWIW Google Play Music will often present a track with a hint of the particular version in its title, e.g. "Inside and Out (2007 Remaster)", "Inside & Out [45 Version]", etc.

It's fine for Wikidatians to conclude this rabbit hole isn't worth excavating. Cheers, and thanks. -- Skierpage (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Property for mode/scale?

Is there a property to indicate that a piece uses a particular mode? I'd like to indicate that What Wondrous Love Is This (Q17041671) uses dorian mode (Q960729) but am not finding a property that's a good fit. tonality (P826) doesn't work. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Maybe a property could be proposed for this, but at the same time I'm not sure if it would be necessary.

Would a mode (without a key, that is) be considered a tonality in and of itself? If not, then I think has characteristic (P1552) might be a better fit. Jc86035 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jc86035: has characteristic (P1552) might be a good fit. I think this issue may exist elsewhere though for traditional songs that are in a particular scale but not necessarily a particular key. E.g. Go Tell It on the Mountain (Q1533390) is listed as D major (unreferenced) but sheet music I see in a Google Images search is split between G major and F major, with some Eb major thrown in. Many traditional songs may have this issue (?). How can we indicate that songs like Go Tell It on the Mountain (Q1533390) and What Wondrous Love Is This (Q17041671) are composed using a particular scale even if they may be sung/played in different keys? I'm not a music expert so maybe those who are can weigh in... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Splitting items with respect to composition and recording distinction

Hello, I recently realised that more than 800 items for compositions by Kevin MacLeod (Q16731782) that I have created do not follow the composition / recording ontology described here. I would like to fix these items using QuickStatements, but I am not entirely sure whether my understanding of the suggested data model is fully correct. I would be grateful if someone could check whether the structure of the modified items (diff 1, diff 2) correctly follows the ontology so that I do not introduce any additional mistakes by running the full batch. --Sintakso (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sintakso: What you've done looks fine. I'm not totally sure whether some of the properties on 8bit Dungeon Boss (Q54867788) are applicable (in particular, genre, date of publication and audio, since it's possible that they might instead be solely considered facets of the recording and not of the composition), but I would err on the side of keeping those properties for now. Jc86035 (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

How to add cover songs?

Was just adding Viva la Vida from Weezer's album, Hurley (Deluxe Edition), and realized that it was a cover of Coldplay's song, Viva la Vida. How would I go about noting Weezer's song as a cover of Coldplay's song? --Coloradohusky (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coloradohusky: Realy late reply, but I wanna say that modified version of (P5059) (aka "remix of") is probably the most relevant property I can think of. So something like "Viva la Vida (Q66852562) → modified version of (P5059) → Viva la Vida (Q626490)". Anyone else concur? --Btcprox (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Coloradohusky: @Btcprox: recording or performance of (P2550) with has characteristic (P1552): cover version (Q155171)? Eurohunter (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Featured in/features" relationship

Hi there - does anyone know if there is a property that could express another creative work (painting, song, sculpture) being featured in a movie? There are a lot of movies that feature other works in a significant way and this seems like something Wikidata could capture beautifully. I'm cross-posting this to WikiProject:Movies, btw. Thanks! Wskent (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Improving the Amen Break item

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)