What’s going on with instruments anyway? (part 1)

4 thoughts on “What’s going on with instruments anyway? (part 1)”

1. Hi CatQuest.
   Looks good in general.
   And it’s great to see someone taking on such tasks. Thanks.
   What follows is (I think – it’s totally possible that i have misunderstood the basics) criticism – if I unduly or unnecessarily disturb your feline grace please accept my apologies.
   Getting microscopically focussed very quickly: [INST-407] does not have a clear source.
   The edit that adds it to the recording is fairly opaque.
   https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/40243301
   “Information from my CD”
   It is not yet clear what [INST-407] actually refers to.
   Is it a specific subtype of [INST-216] – Spinet?
   Why is “virginal [spinette]” also given as an instrument type?
   Is it a separate instrument or another name chosen by the editor?
   Or does the CD info not specify what sort of spinet is played?

   Widening focus again:
   Having duplicate or poorly defined instrument types would seem to detract from the usefulness of the encyclopedia. And make work for future editors trying to get things straightened out
   I suggest that the process for creating new instrument types be made more stringent and rigorous. Specifically that the sources for new instrument types are accessible or at least explicitly listed by the adding editor. The alternative of “fuzzy and fluid intrument types” seems messy.

2. Hello.

   «Having duplicate or poorly defined instrument types», if they have a unique/specific Wikipedia/Wikidata item, then it is, to me, unlikely to be “poorly defined” (considering Wikipedia’s fairly stringent notability guidelines). The spinet you refer to as a case here does in fact have its own Wikipedia page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinet – and is linked to far more recordings than just the one you linked to an edit of – https://musicbrainz.org/instrument/42d9a141-2a20-4c6d-bdb9-ab7e7e4bec42/releases and https://musicbrainz.org/instrument/42d9a141-2a20-4c6d-bdb9-ab7e7e4bec42/recordings – so it seems the addition of the spinet is not really controversial at all?

   Also, «The edit that adds it to the recording is fairly opaque.» (ignoring that the linked edit is fairly straightforward and not really opaque at all), this can’t really be the instrument editor(s)’s fault, can it? They add requested instruments to the database (after much research!), but it’s for “regular” editors like you and I to use the instruments properly. If the instrument was added just for that one Recording (and there indeed was anything off about the edit adding it), then sure, maybe the instrument shouldn’t have been added, but as I already showed, the instrument is used for a lot of Recordings and a number of Releases too.

   I’m also not sure why you refer to https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/INST-216 – its resolution is “duplicate”, which means no action has been taken about it (other than closing it in favour of another ticket). There is also only one “spinet” in the database: https://musicbrainz.org/search?query=spinet&type=instrument&method=indexed

   I think maybe you’re a bit confused about some of how instruments (and maybe the tickets system) work? Is there anything in the docs or the interface you think would help alleviate this confusion for you or others?

3. Pingback: Instruments part two: tamburica, hybrids, community links, and growing pains! | MusicBrainz/MetaBrainz Blog
4. Pingback: Instruments part three: The “next” branch and Even Moar Taonga pūoro | MusicBrainz/MetaBrainz Blog

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.