Might there be some way eliminate some degree of the ambiguity in searching for tunes through their recordings?
Granted, there are lots of tunes called "o'Callaghan's", but it's just irksome to run through a bunch of recordings that I know are all of the polka, and be linked to one of a few reels and then Cronin's Hornpipe out of the blue. Could there be a way of amending the process and allowing passersby on recording pages to correct tune links, or do we reckon the danger of people futzing around with the system is too great?
Yes, this is annoying, but is a relatively small price to pay, I suppose. the only thing I can suggest is that people, when submitting, add the word eg "Jig" or "Reel", as in
Benny Hill's Jig
or
Father Ted's Reel
Not always possible I know, but it would reduce the incidence of this problem a bit.
The processing on site here immediately removes tune forms from titles... As an example, if you were, as I do as a matter of practice, to type in full "Key Maniac Lad's Mazurka", guess what goes missing during the processing ~ "Mazurka"... Anything with those specific words as the title, and there are an infinite number of tunes out there with this title, would become linked, whatever tune form ~ the many reels, jigs, hornpipes, waltzes, airs, etc... What might work is if there were some kind of box you could click to remove a link that say half a dozen of us knew was wrong, because we had the recording and knew the tune?
But if you use the search facility, type in "jig" and also select "jig" from the drop down menu for tune type - you get, guess what, a huge amount of results which have "jig" in the title. At least that's what I based my suggestion above on. I wasn't aware that if "jig" is at the *end* of your submission it gets lopped off. Sorry for the misinformation.
So you'd have to submit yer tune as "Jig of Ceolachan" rather than Ceolachan's J*g.
Similar problem with Paddy Fahey tunes and the Gan Ainm. I did suggest before that a number after the name might be a solution but either way there will be problems.
In the comments to a recording submission what you could do is to repeat the tune list and to add the type of tune. The tune type would then stay with its tune title in the comments section.
A problem can arise if you have, for example, a very old tune (probably English) known as "The Lazy Hound's Jig", except that it is not a "jig" in the modern sense of 6/8 (or 9/8 or 12/8); the tune just happens to be in 4/4, and "jig" in the old sense means that it is a dance tune where there is jumping and leaping. I would suggest that if "jig" is being used in this old sense as part of a tune title, and the tune manifestly is not a jig in the modern sense, then "jig" in the title could be replaced by the old spelling "jigge", which would not be deleted by the system.
I considered "gigue", but rejected it on the grounds that it is too French for applying to an old English (or Irish) "jig" that is not in 6/8, and that there is the real possibility of confusion with the old 6/8 "gigues" such as those in Bach's solo cello and violin suites.
Daft lad Key, if you just select "Jig" from the drop down menu you'll get a slew of, guess what? ~ jigs....
As hounddog suggests, the 'comments' are the only option we have at the moment. If you add too much garbage on to the name, you have to then do the same daft thing repeatedly with 'also known as' (alternate title) entries for every recording. Worse, if you slip up, and I have, you can't correct it yourself, you have to email the original submitter and plead with them to remove your mistake...
Even if we did go with jigge or gigue for jigs, what the hell else are you going to call everything else, ril for reels, cornpiob for hornpipe, mazur for mazurka, vals for waltz, marsh for march, etc., etc., etc... And why not port for jig anyway? That's just scratching the surface... I'm getting a brain ache just beginning to contemplate that hell...
That I think is one of the fundamental faults of the current 'Recordings' section, that it does not allow for us to specify more than just the name of the tune. Ideally it would allow form recognition, someway to separate "The Lazyhound Reel" from "The Lazyhound slip jig" or "The Lazyhound Saunter"... More, I think that it would be more useful if it were an actual act of connection to confirm a link, not just that it happens that everything called 'Ballydesmond' gets linked with everything else that is 'Ballydesmond'. BUT ~ that would mean a hell of a lot more work by the contributor and others, to make the link, to make the connections from their contribution of a recoriding, its tracks and tunes, with the transcription for each tune... Whew!
Pedantic as I have been accused of being, it seems the derivation of "jig" from the French "gigue", though often assumed, is to be doubted. To quote the long OED:
"Origin uncertain. Often assumed to be identical with OF. gigue a kind of stringed instrument, a rude fiddle, It. and Sp. giga, MHG. gîge, Ger. geige; but as to this there are difficulties: the OF. word had none of the senses of jig, it was also obs. long before jig is known to have existed; moreover, mod.F. gigue the dance, and dance tune (exemplified 1680) is not a continuation of OF. gigue, but is said by Darmesteter to have been simply adopted from Eng. jig.
....
Apparently the only way in which jig could be connected with OF. gigue, would be its formation from jig v., the derivation of the latter from F. giguer, ginguer ‘to leap, frolic, gambol’, and the formation of this from OF. gigue. But not one of these steps is certain: in particular the senses and chronology of jig v. offer difficulties."
The more you know, the less you turn out to really know, eh?
The links from the track listings of recordings are created automatically. It's a fairly quick'n'dirty way of doing it but it is an 80/20 solution. So 80% of the time, it works just fine. For the 20% of the cases where it doesn't, it's a shame but any technological solution would quickly get fairly unwieldy I think and negatively effect the 80% that works okay.
How about keeping the automatic additions then but adding something that allows the links to be ammended if the contributor chooses to do so? In that way there is still the links being established but if they are incorrect (e.g. Ballydesmond) then they can be redirected.
I agree though that the current system is still a useful one though and am not certain on the ease of introducing new features.
The system (being a mere computer, an edifice of wires and sand, after all!) is being absolutely literal with tune names. If a track name on the recordings database has different capitalization to the tune name on the tunes database then the system will see them as different entities. My posting http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/14074/comments#comment290185 a few minutes ago addresses this problem.
Another example of the quirkiness of the system: I recently posted a recording which includes Phil Cunningham's reel entitled "Cutting A Slide." Once the recording was posted, lo and behold, the tune is listed as "Cutting A."
Solution: I listed "Cutting A" as an alternate title for the reel. Problem solved, except there will probably come a time when some musician of learning will explain, after playing the reel, "by the way, it's also known in some circles as Cutting A, dontchaknow..."
Tune link ambiguity.
Tune link ambiguity.
Might there be some way eliminate some degree of the ambiguity in searching for tunes through their recordings?
Granted, there are lots of tunes called "o'Callaghan's", but it's just irksome to run through a bunch of recordings that I know are all of the polka, and be linked to one of a few reels and then Cronin's Hornpipe out of the blue. Could there be a way of amending the process and allowing passersby on recording pages to correct tune links, or do we reckon the danger of people futzing around with the system is too great?
Thoughts?
--DtM
# Posted on June 9th 2007 by Dan the Man
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Yes, this is annoying, but is a relatively small price to pay, I suppose. the only thing I can suggest is that people, when submitting, add the word eg "Jig" or "Reel", as in
Benny Hill's Jig
or
Father Ted's Reel
Not always possible I know, but it would reduce the incidence of this problem a bit.
# Posted on June 9th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
The processing on site here immediately removes tune forms from titles... As an example, if you were, as I do as a matter of practice, to type in full "Key Maniac Lad's Mazurka", guess what goes missing during the processing ~ "Mazurka"... Anything with those specific words as the title, and there are an infinite number of tunes out there with this title, would become linked, whatever tune form ~ the many reels, jigs, hornpipes, waltzes, airs, etc... What might work is if there were some kind of box you could click to remove a link that say half a dozen of us knew was wrong, because we had the recording and knew the tune?
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
But if you use the search facility, type in "jig" and also select "jig" from the drop down menu for tune type - you get, guess what, a huge amount of results which have "jig" in the title. At least that's what I based my suggestion above on. I wasn't aware that if "jig" is at the *end* of your submission it gets lopped off. Sorry for the misinformation.
So you'd have to submit yer tune as "Jig of Ceolachan" rather than Ceolachan's J*g.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Similar problem with Paddy Fahey tunes and the Gan Ainm. I did suggest before that a number after the name might be a solution but either way there will be problems.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Donough
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
In the comments to a recording submission what you could do is to repeat the tune list and to add the type of tune. The tune type would then stay with its tune title in the comments section.
A problem can arise if you have, for example, a very old tune (probably English) known as "The Lazy Hound's Jig", except that it is not a "jig" in the modern sense of 6/8 (or 9/8 or 12/8); the tune just happens to be in 4/4, and "jig" in the old sense means that it is a dance tune where there is jumping and leaping. I would suggest that if "jig" is being used in this old sense as part of a tune title, and the tune manifestly is not a jig in the modern sense, then "jig" in the title could be replaced by the old spelling "jigge", which would not be deleted by the system.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Rather than "jigge", why not use "gigue", which is where the word "jig" actually comes from?
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by timmy!
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
I considered "gigue", but rejected it on the grounds that it is too French for applying to an old English (or Irish) "jig" that is not in 6/8, and that there is the real possibility of confusion with the old 6/8 "gigues" such as those in Bach's solo cello and violin suites.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Daft lad Key, if you just select "Jig" from the drop down menu you'll get a slew of, guess what? ~ jigs....
As hounddog suggests, the 'comments' are the only option we have at the moment. If you add too much garbage on to the name, you have to then do the same daft thing repeatedly with 'also known as' (alternate title) entries for every recording. Worse, if you slip up, and I have, you can't correct it yourself, you have to email the original submitter and plead with them to remove your mistake...
Even if we did go with jigge or gigue for jigs, what the hell else are you going to call everything else, ril for reels, cornpiob for hornpipe, mazur for mazurka, vals for waltz, marsh for march, etc., etc., etc... And why not port for jig anyway? That's just scratching the surface... I'm getting a brain ache just beginning to contemplate that hell...
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
That I think is one of the fundamental faults of the current 'Recordings' section, that it does not allow for us to specify more than just the name of the tune. Ideally it would allow form recognition, someway to separate "The Lazyhound Reel" from "The Lazyhound slip jig" or "The Lazyhound Saunter"... More, I think that it would be more useful if it were an actual act of connection to confirm a link, not just that it happens that everything called 'Ballydesmond' gets linked with everything else that is 'Ballydesmond'. BUT ~ that would mean a hell of a lot more work by the contributor and others, to make the link, to make the connections from their contribution of a recoriding, its tracks and tunes, with the transcription for each tune... Whew!
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Pedantic as I have been accused of being, it seems the derivation of "jig" from the French "gigue", though often assumed, is to be doubted. To quote the long OED:
"Origin uncertain. Often assumed to be identical with OF. gigue a kind of stringed instrument, a rude fiddle, It. and Sp. giga, MHG. gîge, Ger. geige; but as to this there are difficulties: the OF. word had none of the senses of jig, it was also obs. long before jig is known to have existed; moreover, mod.F. gigue the dance, and dance tune (exemplified 1680) is not a continuation of OF. gigue, but is said by Darmesteter to have been simply adopted from Eng. jig.
....
Apparently the only way in which jig could be connected with OF. gigue, would be its formation from jig v., the derivation of the latter from F. giguer, ginguer ‘to leap, frolic, gambol’, and the formation of this from OF. gigue. But not one of these steps is certain: in particular the senses and chronology of jig v. offer difficulties."
The more you know, the less you turn out to really know, eh?
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Linsey Doyle
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
I feel that I am about to get jiggy with it, whatever that might mean.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by timmy!
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Ahchoo! ~ Sorry, hay fever season is again upon us...
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by ceolachan
I miss my OED...
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
The links from the track listings of recordings are created automatically. It's a fairly quick'n'dirty way of doing it but it is an 80/20 solution. So 80% of the time, it works just fine. For the 20% of the cases where it doesn't, it's a shame but any technological solution would quickly get fairly unwieldy I think and negatively effect the 80% that works okay.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Jeremy
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
How about keeping the automatic additions then but adding something that allows the links to be ammended if the contributor chooses to do so? In that way there is still the links being established but if they are incorrect (e.g. Ballydesmond) then they can be redirected.
I agree though that the current system is still a useful one though and am not certain on the ease of introducing new features.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Jeremy is certainly right; a technological solution probably would just overly-complicate things as that stand. Guess there's only one solution, then.
COME UP WITH MORE ORIGINAL TUNE NAMES, PEOPLE : P
--DtM
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Dan the Man
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
As it happens, I have used "jigge" in a tune name submitted here. It is "The Coleford Jigge" http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/6439. It is classed as a hornpipe.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
http://www.thesession.org/recordings/display/624
An example above - The track "The King Of the Pipers" links to "Franc A'Phoill" (http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/31)
It should link to "King of the Pipers" (http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/54)
Both are jigs, one in D the other in A Dorian yet the system picks the wrong one but lists the album with both tunes.
# Posted on June 10th 2007 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
The system (being a mere computer, an edifice of wires and sand, after all!) is being absolutely literal with tune names. If a track name on the recordings database has different capitalization to the tune name on the tunes database then the system will see them as different entities. My posting
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/14074/comments#comment290185 a few minutes ago addresses this problem.
# Posted on June 11th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Tune link ambiguity.
Another example of the quirkiness of the system: I recently posted a recording which includes Phil Cunningham's reel entitled "Cutting A Slide." Once the recording was posted, lo and behold, the tune is listed as "Cutting A."
Solution: I listed "Cutting A" as an alternate title for the reel. Problem solved, except there will probably come a time when some musician of learning will explain, after playing the reel, "by the way, it's also known in some circles as Cutting A, dontchaknow..."
# Posted on June 11th 2007 by patrick cavanagh