1 Topic by ym (edited by ym 2012-03-30 10:06:25)

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Topic: Potpourri and others

Background:
I came across of some Potpourri (Turkish: potpuri (potpori)) tracks.
I was using the Medley Relationship Type before NGS.
Now, as I see, Medley becomes a simply compilation of certain tracks, without any modification(!), so it seems it doesn't apply to potpourri.
I tried using "is a performance of" relationship type too. I see that I have "cover", "live", "partial", "instrumental" options there, but none of them seem applicable for Potpourri.
My current example is a track where 4 songs (works) are performed (not compiled) together without any break between. Song lyrics are also given in liner notes. Work details are not given tho, but I think they are all old traditional folk songs. The track itself is also named as "Potpori" by the artist.
I also thought entering a new Work for this, track but then who will be the composer or lyricist of this new track?

some thoughts:
BTW, IMO, there really shouldn't be a "Work-Recording" or "Work-Work" Medley relationship, because works are not physical, thus they cannot be compiled... There should only be "Recording-Recording" Relationship Type for medleys.
As I read from the wikipedia Medley doesn't have to be a compilation, in fact it seems it defines a complete new work.

I really need help for identifying some of these musical terms:
The terms I have trouble are; Potpourri, Medley, Fantasia, Quodlibet, Rhapsody.
As I can understand these are very similar concepts, but really don't know how to enter them in MB.

edit: edited the links...

  • From: here
  • Registered: 2006-12-19

Re: Potpourri and others

In french we also say pot pourri, it is strictly equal to medley and I think you made things all right for the recording you linked already with referred to in medleys relationships, as the « referred to » part of it suggests it is arranged to fit the flow of the pot pourri.

☞ Musicbrainz forums enhancer (LA TÉLÉ FAIT GROSSIR ET NUIT À L’ÉVEIL DU CERVEAU)
☞ other cross-browser OMG MB scripts for editors and voters (♪ jesus2099)

jesus2099's Website

3 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Potpourri and others

My problem starts with the MB's Mebley definition, which is:

wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type wrote:

This indicates that a track is a compilation of several other tracks.​ This applies to one long recording that contains multiple songs, one after the other, in which the audio material of the original tracks has not been altered.

1. I don't understand how Work's can have audio material.
2. I don't understand how we suppose to know if the original work is changed or not on some recordings. (e.g. very old traditional anonymous tunes that might not even has a written score or recorded material)

cheers for the answers

  • From: Tartu, EE
  • Registered: 2010-11-24

Re: Potpourri and others

Huh. That looks wrong indeed. Originally, (before it got changed to a kinda meaningless thing, and also before we had recordings) that read like this: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Medl … ldid=35333 - there's a change to Medley being proposed though so I'll see if they also change this page.

  • Registered: 2010-11-01

Re: Potpourri and others

that particular definition actually describes http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Compilation_ … nship_Type - almost word for word.

6 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Potpourri and others

aha... so Medley definition contradicts compilation definition?
in fact http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Mix_Terminology states that compilation, DJ Mix and Medley are different things, which I also think the same.

So, as I can understand now, potpouries (as jesus2099 said) are medleys or at least are some kind of medley, but currently MB medley categorization has some problems.

thanks for all the answers

BTW, out of the subject question, most of the albums use Turkish words (or characters) wrong, should I correct them at Work and/or Recording level? (eg: its a common mistake that people writes potpori in Turkish but actually it should be written as potpuri)

7 Reply by ym (edited by ym 2012-03-31 00:12:07)

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Potpourri and others

I think we should have another type for poutpori like recordings. Somethings like "Juxtapose".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition wrote:

Juxtaposition is the placement of two things (usually abstract concepts, though it can refer to physical objects) near each other.

This definition tells me that when two or more Works are used to make a Recording (like Medley or Potpourri), you are juxtaposing somethings (concepts, aka, works) to create another thing (audio material aka recordings).

Why we need it? Because, IMO you cannot "compile" concepts, but rather you "arrange" them to form another thing...

8 Reply by jesus2099 (edited by jesus2099 2012-03-31 02:32:29)

  • From: here
  • Registered: 2006-12-19

Re: Potpourri and others

Oh no, isn’t medley just a new recording (usually live) just chaining songs, a new performance, no trace of other recordings in a new performance.
Otherwise it would be remix and/or compilation  and/or mashup, not a medley.

☞ Musicbrainz forums enhancer (LA TÉLÉ FAIT GROSSIR ET NUIT À L’ÉVEIL DU CERVEAU)
☞ other cross-browser OMG MB scripts for editors and voters (♪ jesus2099)

jesus2099's Website

9 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Potpourri and others

yes that is how I also define medleys, but currently it is listed as a "compilation" of works. What I am saying is you don't "compile" works, you "arrange" or "juxtapose" them.

  • From: Oakland
  • Registered: 2009-04-07

Re: Potpourri and others

Agreeing with ym and jesus2099, I've always understood a medley to be two or more otherwise unrelated songs played together (in succession or interpolated) to add meaning/context (more or less the same as "juxtapose"?)

There's a current [style] proposal that would make "medley" an attribute of the "performance of" AR, rather than being a separate AR as it now is. That proposal uses the definition:

RFC:Style-97 wrote:

This indicates that a recording includes multiple works performed as a single continuous piece.

I think that's too vague, because it would seem to include songs that were written to be performed together (like e.g. concept albums / prog). It's not too late to be part of the discussion ;-)

11 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Potpourri and others

ye seen that proposal today. Sorry for not checking before.
It's not bad that it uses "performance of" relation, but as you say its too vague. It needs more specification.
Someting like this:

 
Work-Recording Relationship Type
*performance
**live
**partial
**instrumental
**lyrical (opposite of instrumental. meaning only the lyrics of the work is used not the score. not sure about wording.)
**juxtapose (or whatever word you choose)
***Medley
***Potpouri
***Quodlibet

This should solve work-recording cases, but if you need to have also a work-work relation, "performance of" cannot be the correct wording there.
Oh, and for recording-recording relation "juxtapose" shouldn't be included in the "performance of" relation, because you can't juxtapose a recording, you can either compile it or DJ mix it... That is another issue IMO.

BTW when thinking about it I came across a question "can a work be born out of a recording?". I hear some song writers says "I am thrilled by the performance of x and that inspired me while writing this song"... So, maybe a "inspiration of" relation would work there, but not these ones.

PS: sorry for not writing this to email discussion. I don't know why but it seems easier to post and follow on forums...