forum

[Proposal] Allow Performer indicator for classical pieces

posted
Total Posts
37
Topic Starter
kadoen
In classical music, the composer and the performer (musician) are two different individuals, and a single piece has many different interpretations and recordings by different people - both the composer and the performer are what builds a unique recording.

In current osu! convention however, the Artist field is just taken by the individual artist (example: beatmapsets/1187093#mania/2474006). This is confusing, as the actual composer is hidden in the tags. A parallel could be drawn to modern songs where a composer writes songs for an artist, and then the artist name (usually singer) is used in the Artist field (or Composer feat. Artist) - however I believe the classical situation is different enough to warrant a specific indicator, as the artist and the composer are completely separated and independent, a performance is not a "cover" as there isn't an "original recording" or "original release".

Proposal:

In recordings of classical pieces, the Artist field should indicate both the Composer and the Performer, using the standardized indicator "Composer (perf. Performer)". If the length of performer names exceeds the field character limit, "Various Performers" should be used.

Example: In the previously linked beatmap, the Artist field would be "Maurice Ravel (perf. Jean-Philippe Collard)".

This is not a common situation in osu! as there aren't many classical pieces being mapped due to their timing difficulty, but some examples do exist and I believe it would be good to include this standardization, as the current situation is not well handled by the existing Ranking Criteria.

EDIT after some discussion: Added "Various Performers" edge case.
Quenlla
Absolutely vouch for this. With music like classical pieces or anything that is meant to be interpreted by numerous different individuals, there's an absolute need to have a mechanism to 1) not mislead players about who composed the song and 2) give proper and equal credit to performer and composer, which is one of the core ideas of interpretation.
Apo11o
Sounds good.
RandomeLoL
While I still have my doubts on what would qualify for this convention as it is meant for classical music alone and a whole grey area might open up, I believe this is a proper standarization to properly credit the people who originally created a composition which, more often than not, will have a myriad of different interpretations.

So I vouch for the idea even if it might need to specify more stuff.
MJH
neat.
Orca-
yeah
-mint-
this applies to stuff like covers as well
GoldenWolf

PuigdemontLoL wrote:

While I still have my doubts on what would qualify for this convention as it is meant for classical music alone and a whole grey area might open up, I believe this is a proper standarization to properly credit the people who originally created a composition which, more often than not, will have a myriad of different interpretations.

So I vouch for the idea even if it might need to specify more stuff.
Speaking of specifying more stuff, what kind of "grey area" would this open up?
RandomeLoL
It was brought up in the mapping hub and even here with mint's words, but where do you draw the line between something being a mere performance and an entirely new work based on previous works? Even Midi performamces were brought up, and now covers as said by mint. What to do with those? Do we treat them under the same umbrella? Those are the questions to be answered to avoid the most confusion.

But do not misunderstand, I do fully back this idea due to how important should be to properly credit both the original composer and the respective performer.
GoldenWolf

PuigdemontLoL wrote:

It was brought up in the mapping hub and even here with mint's words, but where do you draw the line between something being a mere performance and an entirely new work based on previous works? Even Midi performamces were brought up, and now covers as said by mint. What to do with those? Do we treat them under the same umbrella? Those are the questions to be answered to avoid the most confusion.

But do not misunderstand, I do fully back this idea due to how important should be to properly credit both the original composer and the respective performer.
I don't think this is much of a contention point personally;

Covers and arranges typically involve some form of re-writing of a previously commercially released song. Even if they are performed the same as the original song, they are still different from a classical composition being performed. Definitely not a legal expert by any means, but I think they are also considered differently on a copyright standpoint.

Think of it as a playwright & actors in theatre; Is the Macbeth written 4 centuries ago the same as the one played nowadays? As far as I'm aware, yes, though I suppose there is some differences of interpretation from one troupe to another when it is performed on stage. The same goes for composed classical pieces of yore; What Bach or Beethoven wrote hundreds of years ago is still what is being played today, even if there can be some interpretation based on the musicians/conductors performing the piece.


I'm curious as to what you mean exactly by "MIDI performances"? Depending on what you have in mind, this could go either way.
Ryu Sei
I'm thinking about MIDI performances are, something that you play on digital audio workstations (DAWs) by simply putting the MIDI and interpreting how the notes are played, how loud each notes are, and how the tempo would be like.

Regardless, I'm agree with this proposal.
CatzerTM
Definitely agree for the most part given how vast interpretation can be for classical pieces that sometimes don't get as much credit as they should.
Nao Tomori
why only classical and not all utaite type things
Ryu Sei

Nao Tomori wrote:

why only classical and not all utaite type things
That's because utaite songs are covers. If the instrument and the backing sound is literally the same, it's simply just a cover. This is not a case for live-performed songs (or rather, in this case, pieces), because it may be interpreted differently than what it would be by the composer.
See this reply instead for the better explanation: community/forums/posts/8496904
SaltyLucario
what if cover has new instrumental as well? those also happen
Ryu Sei
A case-by-case examination is needed if it's difficult to interpret.
Topic Starter
kadoen
Yes, covers are already covered in the current RC - the tagging is what the cover artist uses. I agree it can be misleading sometimes, but what should be used is what the artist intends to, as other parts of metadata. In case of classical music, it is convention that both the performer and the composer are prominently featured in every release - this makes metadata for it challenging not only in osu!, but in a lot of music platforms. This proposal is a solution for osu! to this common problem in music tagging.
Quenlla
I think covers are on a completely diferent spectrum than what this rule is intended to address. Something being a "cover" implies there was an original release by the original artist, whereas in classical music there simply isn't. This means there's no way the composer could ever get any Artist credit even across thousands of ranked performances of the same song, and what makes having a mechanism like this so important.

In that sense, we could be wording it something something like:

Proposed RC wrote:

If the song's original release isn't the recording by the original artist (such as classical music pieces), both Artist and Performer must be creddited with a `Artist (Perf. Performer)` notation in the Artist field.
Hivie
+1
TheKingHenry
I'm down for some improvements to the handling of classical music
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply