Difference between revisions of "Vocal Relationship Attribute"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
m (11 revision(s))
(discussion moved)
Line 30: Line 30:
This might be added to the [[Member Of Band Relationship Type|MemberOfBandRelationshipType]] soon.  
This might be added to the [[Member Of Band Relationship Type|MemberOfBandRelationshipType]] soon.  
==Examples / Discussion==
There is no special attribute for rap. Rappers are considered solo vocalists. [[MusicBrainz]] does not record different singing styles. Imagine you'd have styles for death metal growls, or Mike Patton's shrieks, noises, gulp sounds etc.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">[[User:mo|mo]]'s email type thing: this issue is with the lack of 'vocal' types under that, versus the abhorrent multitude under *instruments*.  surly if we have 'kazoo' we could afford to have 'growl' 'rap' etc?  it is true that operatic vocals are much more strickt. yes.  but there *is* precedence for general vocalism type groups. and we can make subgroups and have them include 'other'.  this is all done by instruments, I see no difference, the vocal is every bit as various an instrument as a string instrument or wind instrument is.  heck I could argue that a kazoo could be said to be a vocal to! :p this discussion also keeps boiling down to "it's different than the whole classical thing"  that is true. it is also true that saying an electric Guitar has so many variations to its sound implementation and build up that its not *worth* having all of the variations listed, is wrong. adding simply 'vocals' in addition (or instead of) 'solo' I think is obvious. I've never seen 'vocal solo performed by - performs vocal solo on' *anywhere* 'vocal performed by - performs vocal on' however... this would 'fix' the 'duet' thing to I think (if that was a ever problem) (I see its been changed to 'lead' now, IMHO that doesn't actually *solve* anything as much as it creates new problems. what if someone sang on something but was not the lead singer?) ~[[User:mo|mo]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">My opinion is that there are too many instruments, not that there are too few vocal types.  Making long lists of things is a terrible way to run a database: if you find yourself, as a programmer, making a list of more than 10 things, then maybe those things should be part of the database and user maintained, instead of being built into the software.  I'd like to see, eventually, an instrument table added to [[MusicBrainz]], so any user could add their own instruments if they're not already included. Instruments are much cleaner to identify than vocal styles.  There are some weird instruments, but by and large they all have names, are all clearly recognisable, and there's no confusion as to what to call it.  Vocal styles are different.  There is no sharp distinction between one vocal style and another.  What's more, new vocal styles are constantly being developed, and music journalists are constantly making up new names to describe them.  Indeed, many musicians take it as a personal affront to be pigeon-holed, and deliberately try to break down the boundaries between different styles.  Classifying vocal styles is far more subjective than classifying instruments, will generate constant maintainance work, and is just going to lead to pointless arguments. Vocal styles are very similar to music genres, and have the same problems.  People regularly ask if we can implement genres in [[MusicBrainz]], and I think this would be a really useful thing to do, despite it being so challenging.  I think we should switch whatever effort we spend on the "vocal style" problem to implementing genres, possibly using some [[Survival Of The Fittest|SurvivalOfTheFittest]] approach.  We could then use what we learn from that, and from maintaining AR, and figure out how best to record vocal styles. --[[User:MatthewExon|MatthewExon]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">All of this discussion about specific vocal styles is overshadowing the simple fact that I cannot tag a person as having arranged "VOCALS" for an album.  Subtypes are irrelevant for some cases, and can be hashed out after the prime type is useful, IMHO. --nilsonj
See [[Performance Restructuring Proposal|PerformanceRestructuringProposal]] ideas on restructuring those attributes
It has been proposed that it should be possible to specify the type of vocal support when recording a person's musical support of a solo artist [http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SupportingMusicianRelationshipType?highlight=%28%28CategoryProposedAdvancedRelationshipType%29%29 SupportingMusicianRelationshipType].
-- edkaye
In release [[Release:be34b895-85f2-4042-becf-8c9b0954c32d|Requiem (English Chamber Orchestra feat. conductor: Lorin Maazel)]] Paul Miles-Kingston sings treble, which is technically in the same vocal range as a soprano. However, the sound is very different. Wouldn't it make sense to create another attribute "treble"?  -- [[User:pradig|pradig]] 20:42, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Relationship Attribute]]
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Relationship Attribute]]

Revision as of 22:12, 26 March 2009

Relationship Attribute "Vocal"


This AdvancedRelationshipAttribute specifies a vocal type for use in AdvancedRelationships.

Possible Values

  • Lead
  • Background
  • Choir

For ClassicalMusic you can specify the soloist's vocal range:

  • Alto
  • Bass-Baritone
  • Contralto
  • Barritone
  • Bass
  • Contra-tenor
  • Mezzo-soprano
  • Soprano
  • Tenor

Used with Types

This attribute can be applied to the following AdvancedRelationshipTypes:

This might be added to the MemberOfBandRelationshipType soon.