Subdivisions, per the Wikipedia entry:
Dixieland
Bebop
Big Band
Cool Jazz
Hard Bop
Modal Jazz
Free Jazz
Latin Jazz
Post Bop
Soul Jazz
Fusion
Small Combo
Asian American Jzz
Avant-Garde
Chamber Jazz
Continental Jazz
Gypsy Jazz
Mainstream Jazz
Mini-Jazz
M-Base
Neo-Bop
Orchestral Jazz
Stride
Swing
Third Stream
Traditional Jazz
Tratitional Pop
Vocal Jazz
There are also a wide range of Fusion genres that I'll save for later.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Shaking the Tree
So after careful consideration, I have yet to answer the question that I posed in my last entry. It remains unclear to me just what form the finished product will take. But what I decided is that there is one aspect of UMC that I can go ahead and work on, and that’s the “term tree,” the hierarchical structure of style names that shows the relationships among the various genres. I have a feeling that as I develop that, the form of project will take shape; something useful will present itself in the process.
So here’s what I need help with right at the moment: I need genre terms and subdivisions to put into the “term tree.” Pick a style you’re familiar with and tell me what sub-genres go with it. For example, sub-genres of jazz include big band, small combo, free jazz, avant garde, cool jazz, funk jazz, smooth jazz, and so on. Sub-genres of rock include classic rock, alternative, heavy metal, etc. Sub-genres of blues include Memphis, Chicago, Delta, etc. Don’t be afraid to list styles that could be considered subdivisions of more than one larger style. For example, fusion could be a sub-genre of both rock and jazz. Texas blues-rock fits under both blues and rock (not surprisingly).
I’ll stress that this is the part where I’m going to need lots of help. The goal here is to fill in the “tree” with every possible musical style known to humanity (!). I’m an expert on some of those. But I need the help of those who are familiar with the styles I don’t know, whether you’re an expert, enthusiast or casual fan. All I need right now is a list. Your contributions can be posted to Comments.
So here’s what I need help with right at the moment: I need genre terms and subdivisions to put into the “term tree.” Pick a style you’re familiar with and tell me what sub-genres go with it. For example, sub-genres of jazz include big band, small combo, free jazz, avant garde, cool jazz, funk jazz, smooth jazz, and so on. Sub-genres of rock include classic rock, alternative, heavy metal, etc. Sub-genres of blues include Memphis, Chicago, Delta, etc. Don’t be afraid to list styles that could be considered subdivisions of more than one larger style. For example, fusion could be a sub-genre of both rock and jazz. Texas blues-rock fits under both blues and rock (not surprisingly).
I’ll stress that this is the part where I’m going to need lots of help. The goal here is to fill in the “tree” with every possible musical style known to humanity (!). I’m an expert on some of those. But I need the help of those who are familiar with the styles I don’t know, whether you’re an expert, enthusiast or casual fan. All I need right now is a list. Your contributions can be posted to Comments.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Is There a Problem Here?
In looking over what we've got so far, I can't thinking that this system isn't quite doing what it should be. Would the entry on bluegrass be helpful to someone who was unfamiliar with the style? Further, is that the idea of this project to begin with?
At first, I thought that the values in the fields are too concise; there's not enough detail to explain how all of the characteristics that make up bluegrass fit together. So would it be better to have fewer fields but have longer, prose, explanations in each? My fear there is that records will begin to look like Wikipedia entries. There would be no point is duplicating what's already been done by Wikipedia; that certainly is not the purpose here.
So what is? The concerns I'm having seem to bring up fundamental questions about Universal Music Classification. What exactly is the point of the system? How do I best set it up to accomplish its purpose, once I'm clear on what that is?
What I had initially envisioned is a bibliographic tool; a system that would help librarians or music collectors organize music by style. It is intended to do that by telling you what style a given piece of music is by looking at its musical characteristics. Accordingly, a prose explanation of the style is not what is needed; again, Wikipedia has that covered already. Instead, I'm seeing two possible forms that this could take that would make it a useful tools for classification.
The first would be as a sort of flow chart; a series of questions about the given piece that would ultimately lead the user to the proper genre. It might start by asking whether there are any electric instruments; if so, then the system would rule out acoustic-only styles like bluegrass or anything pre-twentieth-century. Questions could be designed that would narrow the possibilities until only one possible styles remains; the piece would then have to be that style.
There is, however, an issue with this. One of the problems that catalogers face in terms of recorded music in particular is that the information object (tape, CD, etc) and its packaging often have limited information about the music itself. What if the next question the system presented you with was about the music's time frame of origin, but you didn't know that information about it? A flow chart has the potential for dead ends.
The second possibility would be set up a list of words/concepts associated with each style. So your list of words to go with Rock would include things like: guitar, drums, electric, loud, backbeat, etc. In other words, there would be a list of ideas associated with Rock. This way, the user could enter a keyword based on what was known about the music, and the system would return all of the possible styles that are associated with that keyword. The user could continue entering known characteristics of the music until the system returns only one style that has all of the given characteristics.
What each of the above ideas hinges on is not what makes up a style, as much as what distinguishes one style from another; that's what this system is really all about. I'm going to look at each of these ideas more closely and try to decide which approach would work better (or whether some combination of the two might be possible). This will clearly alter the system in a pretty fundamental way, so it's not a decision to take lightly. As always, I appreciate any feedback you might have.
At first, I thought that the values in the fields are too concise; there's not enough detail to explain how all of the characteristics that make up bluegrass fit together. So would it be better to have fewer fields but have longer, prose, explanations in each? My fear there is that records will begin to look like Wikipedia entries. There would be no point is duplicating what's already been done by Wikipedia; that certainly is not the purpose here.
So what is? The concerns I'm having seem to bring up fundamental questions about Universal Music Classification. What exactly is the point of the system? How do I best set it up to accomplish its purpose, once I'm clear on what that is?
What I had initially envisioned is a bibliographic tool; a system that would help librarians or music collectors organize music by style. It is intended to do that by telling you what style a given piece of music is by looking at its musical characteristics. Accordingly, a prose explanation of the style is not what is needed; again, Wikipedia has that covered already. Instead, I'm seeing two possible forms that this could take that would make it a useful tools for classification.
The first would be as a sort of flow chart; a series of questions about the given piece that would ultimately lead the user to the proper genre. It might start by asking whether there are any electric instruments; if so, then the system would rule out acoustic-only styles like bluegrass or anything pre-twentieth-century. Questions could be designed that would narrow the possibilities until only one possible styles remains; the piece would then have to be that style.
There is, however, an issue with this. One of the problems that catalogers face in terms of recorded music in particular is that the information object (tape, CD, etc) and its packaging often have limited information about the music itself. What if the next question the system presented you with was about the music's time frame of origin, but you didn't know that information about it? A flow chart has the potential for dead ends.
The second possibility would be set up a list of words/concepts associated with each style. So your list of words to go with Rock would include things like: guitar, drums, electric, loud, backbeat, etc. In other words, there would be a list of ideas associated with Rock. This way, the user could enter a keyword based on what was known about the music, and the system would return all of the possible styles that are associated with that keyword. The user could continue entering known characteristics of the music until the system returns only one style that has all of the given characteristics.
What each of the above ideas hinges on is not what makes up a style, as much as what distinguishes one style from another; that's what this system is really all about. I'm going to look at each of these ideas more closely and try to decide which approach would work better (or whether some combination of the two might be possible). This will clearly alter the system in a pretty fundamental way, so it's not a decision to take lightly. As always, I appreciate any feedback you might have.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Record: Traditional Bluegrass
Term: Bluegrass, Traditional
Time Period: 1939-present
Geographic Area:
Origin: Appalachian Mountains
Current: United States
Voice:
Number of voices: 1-5
Vocal Character: Informal, regional accent
Lead/Ensemble Relationship: Ensemble sings harmonies on choruses
Text/Lyrical Content: Everyday experience; love and loss; family; Christian spirituality
Instrumentation:
Lead Instrument: Any of fiddle, acoustic guitar, banjo, mandolin, resophonic guitar
Ensemble Size: Small
Ensemble Makeup: Exclusively acoustic; various combinations of fiddle, acoustic guitar, banjo, mandolin, resophonic guitar, string bass
Musical Characteristics:
Dynamics: Somewhat quiet to somewhat loud
Harmonic Character: Western major and minor chords, embellished with seventh
Melodic Character: Western major and minor scales, focusing on pentatonic notes, accented with “blue” notes
Rhythmic Character: Backbeat. String bass plays on downbeats, with a distinctive mandolin "chop" on the offbeats.
Tempo: Somewhat slow to very fast
Structure/Form: Verse/chorus, often with introduction, bridge and improvised instrumental solos
Performance:
Venue: Radio, concert hall, social gathering, festival
Intended Audience: Rural Americans
Purpose: Entertainment
Term Relationships:
Broader Terms: Bluegrass, Americana, Popular Music
Narrower Terms: Bluegrass Gospel
Related Terms: Mountain Music
Scope Notes:
Time Period: 1939-present
Geographic Area:
Origin: Appalachian Mountains
Current: United States
Voice:
Number of voices: 1-5
Vocal Character: Informal, regional accent
Lead/Ensemble Relationship: Ensemble sings harmonies on choruses
Text/Lyrical Content: Everyday experience; love and loss; family; Christian spirituality
Instrumentation:
Lead Instrument: Any of fiddle, acoustic guitar, banjo, mandolin, resophonic guitar
Ensemble Size: Small
Ensemble Makeup: Exclusively acoustic; various combinations of fiddle, acoustic guitar, banjo, mandolin, resophonic guitar, string bass
Musical Characteristics:
Dynamics: Somewhat quiet to somewhat loud
Harmonic Character: Western major and minor chords, embellished with seventh
Melodic Character: Western major and minor scales, focusing on pentatonic notes, accented with “blue” notes
Rhythmic Character: Backbeat. String bass plays on downbeats, with a distinctive mandolin "chop" on the offbeats.
Tempo: Somewhat slow to very fast
Structure/Form: Verse/chorus, often with introduction, bridge and improvised instrumental solos
Performance:
Venue: Radio, concert hall, social gathering, festival
Intended Audience: Rural Americans
Purpose: Entertainment
Term Relationships:
Broader Terms: Bluegrass, Americana, Popular Music
Narrower Terms: Bluegrass Gospel
Related Terms: Mountain Music
Scope Notes:
Record Template
Term:
Time Period:
Geographic Area:
Origin:
Current:
Voice:
Number of voices:
Vocal Character:
Lead/Ensemble Relationship:
Text/Lyrical Content:
Instrumentation:
Lead Instrument:
Ensemble Size:
Ensemble Makeup:
Musical Characteristics:
Dynamics:
Harmonic Character:
Melodic Character:
Rhythmic Character:
Tempo:
Structure/Form:
Performance:
Venue:
Intended Audience:
Purpose:
Term Relationships:
Broader Terms:
Narrower Terms:
Related Terms:
Scope Notes:
Time Period:
Geographic Area:
Origin:
Current:
Voice:
Number of voices:
Vocal Character:
Lead/Ensemble Relationship:
Text/Lyrical Content:
Instrumentation:
Lead Instrument:
Ensemble Size:
Ensemble Makeup:
Musical Characteristics:
Dynamics:
Harmonic Character:
Melodic Character:
Rhythmic Character:
Tempo:
Structure/Form:
Performance:
Venue:
Intended Audience:
Purpose:
Term Relationships:
Broader Terms:
Narrower Terms:
Related Terms:
Scope Notes:
Style Records
I'd like to continue looking at systems like LCC and Dewey to get ideas for elements that we can use to describe musical styles. However, I'd like to go ahead and provide a template so that we can start inputting musical styles into the Universal Music Classification system. My intent is to set up the templates as a wiki, so that anyone can add or modify musical styles. I just haven't gotten that far yet. In the meantime, you can copy the template, fill it in, and post it to the comments section. I'll compile them as we go.
In the next entry, I'll post the template, then I'll post one that I've filled in.
A quick word about terminology: A record is an entry for a musical style. The style or genre associated with each unique record is a term. The different stylistic characteristics are fields. What is entered into a field is a value.
If you have questions, post them in the comments section. I anticipate there will be debate about what the records should contain. I welcome comments, disagreements and suggestions for improvement.
The template will be modified as we determine new fields to include.
In the next entry, I'll post the template, then I'll post one that I've filled in.
A quick word about terminology: A record is an entry for a musical style. The style or genre associated with each unique record is a term. The different stylistic characteristics are fields. What is entered into a field is a value.
If you have questions, post them in the comments section. I anticipate there will be debate about what the records should contain. I welcome comments, disagreements and suggestions for improvement.
The template will be modified as we determine new fields to include.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Look at LCC
In looking for elements to use in this system, I thought it might be helpful to look at ways of organizing music that are already in common use. I had planned to start with the good ol’ Dewey Decimal System, but I found its music section to be quite a bit more detailed than I had anticipated; I’ll need a bit more time with it.
Instead, I’d like to use this entry to look at the Library of Congress Classification System (LCC). The area of LCC that we’re interested in is Subclass M. Since we’re interested in musical style or genre (not books about music), it makes sense to look at the system from M5 on.
The primary subdivision used in LCC Subclass M is “instrumental” versus “vocal” music. Vocal music includes any music with voice at all; instrumentals are purely instrumental. What is this distinction based on? It hinges solely on whether there is at least one voice in the given piece. When we look more closely at the vocal music sections (which we will later), we will see that there are subdivisions for music that is a capella; that is, music that has no instruments at all. So it appears that it would be helpful to have an element in our system that specifies whether or not there are vocals, as well as one that tells whether or not there are instruments. I would thus add two new elements, “vocals” and “instruments” that simply express – with a yes or no – whether or not each is present in the given piece.
A quick aside: It would seem obvious that one or the other or those elements would have to carry a “yes” value. That is, music requires at least one voice, at least one instrument, or both, right? Or does it? I’m quite sure that this question will come up again when we look at electronic music. In the meantime, we move on…
For the moment, let’s set aside instrumental music and look at M1495-2199 – the vocal music section. The primary subdivision in this section is “sacred” music versus “secular.” From the twenty-first century perspective, this is a curious distinction; probably 99% of music written since the year 2000 is “secular.” But it’s important to remember that LCC was written in the late nineteenth century; it thus reflects the perspectives and biases of its time.
But what does this distinction mean for our system of Universal Music Classification? What element can we use to capture this? Whether music is sacred or secular speaks to the purpose for which the music was written. Can (or should) one of our system’s elements be “purpose”? Is it always possible to determine that? Does our “lyrical content” element capture this? For vocal music, perhaps. But what about Larry Sparks’s solo guitar rendition of “The Old Rugged Cross”? It is sacred in theme, but without lyrics. So “lyrical content” misses some sacred music. It appears that “purpose” is necessary to capture this distinction.
We’ll look more closely at the subdivisions within LCC’s sacred and secular vocal sections in the next entry. In the meantime, I’m adding three more elements to Universal Music Classification: Purpose is the first. Vocals and instruments (with simply a yes or no indicating whether they are present) are the others.
Instead, I’d like to use this entry to look at the Library of Congress Classification System (LCC). The area of LCC that we’re interested in is Subclass M. Since we’re interested in musical style or genre (not books about music), it makes sense to look at the system from M5 on.
The primary subdivision used in LCC Subclass M is “instrumental” versus “vocal” music. Vocal music includes any music with voice at all; instrumentals are purely instrumental. What is this distinction based on? It hinges solely on whether there is at least one voice in the given piece. When we look more closely at the vocal music sections (which we will later), we will see that there are subdivisions for music that is a capella; that is, music that has no instruments at all. So it appears that it would be helpful to have an element in our system that specifies whether or not there are vocals, as well as one that tells whether or not there are instruments. I would thus add two new elements, “vocals” and “instruments” that simply express – with a yes or no – whether or not each is present in the given piece.
A quick aside: It would seem obvious that one or the other or those elements would have to carry a “yes” value. That is, music requires at least one voice, at least one instrument, or both, right? Or does it? I’m quite sure that this question will come up again when we look at electronic music. In the meantime, we move on…
For the moment, let’s set aside instrumental music and look at M1495-2199 – the vocal music section. The primary subdivision in this section is “sacred” music versus “secular.” From the twenty-first century perspective, this is a curious distinction; probably 99% of music written since the year 2000 is “secular.” But it’s important to remember that LCC was written in the late nineteenth century; it thus reflects the perspectives and biases of its time.
But what does this distinction mean for our system of Universal Music Classification? What element can we use to capture this? Whether music is sacred or secular speaks to the purpose for which the music was written. Can (or should) one of our system’s elements be “purpose”? Is it always possible to determine that? Does our “lyrical content” element capture this? For vocal music, perhaps. But what about Larry Sparks’s solo guitar rendition of “The Old Rugged Cross”? It is sacred in theme, but without lyrics. So “lyrical content” misses some sacred music. It appears that “purpose” is necessary to capture this distinction.
We’ll look more closely at the subdivisions within LCC’s sacred and secular vocal sections in the next entry. In the meantime, I’m adding three more elements to Universal Music Classification: Purpose is the first. Vocals and instruments (with simply a yes or no indicating whether they are present) are the others.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
What is this?
What distinguishes one style of music from another? What do we mean when we say something is a rock song? What are the elements that differentiate jazz from blues?
While each of us have our own ideas about how to answer these questions, there exists no universal system of classifying music into genres by its stylistic elements. The purpose of this blog is to chronicle my efforts to develop such a system.
My intention is for this system to be used by librarians to aid in organizing pieces of music. The format in which the music is recorded does not matter; the system is designed to describe individual pieces whether they are written on paper or recorded on CD, LP, cassette, or what have you. It can be thought of as a taxonomy or thesaurus, a set of controlled terms to be used when a piece of music fits a given set of criteria. It will be arranged as a hierarchical “term tree,” showing relationships among the genres. For example, “jazz” is a term with a variety of narrower terms: free jazz, big band, small combo, funk jazz, cool jazz, etc. The system will be set up to elucidate the broader and narrower relationships among the musical styles.
My hope is for this system to be universal; I intend to spell out the characteristics of every style of music known to humanity, so that a piece can be categorized into genres based on these characteristics. However, I am aware that I will be unable to do this on my own; while my expertise in certain styles is extensive, I cannot hope to know all there is to know about every musical movement and tradition. So I am asking for your help. I intend to use this blog to begin a dialog, to allow those of you who know more than I do to contribute to system’s development.
I’d like to start by asking all of you to help me come up with musical elements that we can use to distinguish one style from another. How does rock differ from jazz? What are the things that are different about them? How do we know bluegrass from country music? What specific things can we use to describe different styles?
Here are a few musical elements that I’ve come up with:
• Instrumentation
• Size of the ensemble
• Time period in which the music was written
• Geographic region of origin
• Intended audience
• Performance venue (i.e. where do we go to experience the music live?)
• Volume
• Rhythmic character
• Lyrical content
• Tempo
• Vocal style (Formal or informal? Sung, shouted, screamed?)
These are just a few elements that we can use to describe a style of music. What are some others? I’m interested in the feedback of anyone reading this blog. Use the Comments to contribute ideas, ask questions or simply express what you think about the system and how it might be improved. In the next few entries, I’ll provide a sample of what a record for a particular genre/style will look like, as well as a template for you to contribute styles to the “term tree.”
Whether you’re a musician or a music lover, I need your input and I appreciate your participation.
While each of us have our own ideas about how to answer these questions, there exists no universal system of classifying music into genres by its stylistic elements. The purpose of this blog is to chronicle my efforts to develop such a system.
My intention is for this system to be used by librarians to aid in organizing pieces of music. The format in which the music is recorded does not matter; the system is designed to describe individual pieces whether they are written on paper or recorded on CD, LP, cassette, or what have you. It can be thought of as a taxonomy or thesaurus, a set of controlled terms to be used when a piece of music fits a given set of criteria. It will be arranged as a hierarchical “term tree,” showing relationships among the genres. For example, “jazz” is a term with a variety of narrower terms: free jazz, big band, small combo, funk jazz, cool jazz, etc. The system will be set up to elucidate the broader and narrower relationships among the musical styles.
My hope is for this system to be universal; I intend to spell out the characteristics of every style of music known to humanity, so that a piece can be categorized into genres based on these characteristics. However, I am aware that I will be unable to do this on my own; while my expertise in certain styles is extensive, I cannot hope to know all there is to know about every musical movement and tradition. So I am asking for your help. I intend to use this blog to begin a dialog, to allow those of you who know more than I do to contribute to system’s development.
I’d like to start by asking all of you to help me come up with musical elements that we can use to distinguish one style from another. How does rock differ from jazz? What are the things that are different about them? How do we know bluegrass from country music? What specific things can we use to describe different styles?
Here are a few musical elements that I’ve come up with:
• Instrumentation
• Size of the ensemble
• Time period in which the music was written
• Geographic region of origin
• Intended audience
• Performance venue (i.e. where do we go to experience the music live?)
• Volume
• Rhythmic character
• Lyrical content
• Tempo
• Vocal style (Formal or informal? Sung, shouted, screamed?)
These are just a few elements that we can use to describe a style of music. What are some others? I’m interested in the feedback of anyone reading this blog. Use the Comments to contribute ideas, ask questions or simply express what you think about the system and how it might be improved. In the next few entries, I’ll provide a sample of what a record for a particular genre/style will look like, as well as a template for you to contribute styles to the “term tree.”
Whether you’re a musician or a music lover, I need your input and I appreciate your participation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)