My point is that "first release" is a falsifiable tag. If a wax cylinder with Katie Lawrence singing "Despacito" in 1905 shows up, it's incontrovertible evidence that our "first release" for that song needs to change.
What would establish proof that a particular performance is "definitive" or not?
Certified Contributor
Posts: 1448
if u put it that way, any fact is falsifiable- that's a scientific concept vis-à-vis theories--it is accepted if and until there is a new discovery that makes that current one false--e.g. like the center of the solar system is the earth--no it's the sun; and there is much that is unknown and might never be known, so we accept that which we do know.
an error in first release is and may always be possible, but most of the time it can be found-- like history-- (the despacito eg. being a little well out-- there very not likely -even if to make a point) but so what-- when new information shows it is wrong and there is an earlier release- the correction is made-- just like science
Mary pretty much gave my response re: falsifiable.
A "first release" flag should only be added when reasonable efforts have been exerted to confirm and the flag has withstood the "test of time". This is still an opinion since an earlier release could always be found
"Definitive" is similar in that a definitive performance is the one most associated with a work and has held that position for years if not decades. A 2019 cover that becomes the first hit version wouldn't be enough to be considered definitive until it maintains that status for a long time.
Just very briefly for 'defintive':
a) not able to be changed or improved
b) considered to be the best of its type
c) firm, final, and complete; not to be questioned or changed
(from the Cambridge Dictionairy.
Just very briefly for 'defintive':
a) not able to be changed or improved
b) considered to be the best of its type
c) firm, final, and complete; not to be questioned or changed
(from the Cambridge Dictionairy.
I think this is a place to start, but Cambridge likely needs to think this one out a bit more. Anything can be changed but perhaps not improved. Our adaptions are obviously changes, as are any parody and heavy references to works of art. I suppose the definition could mean no changes that would result in improvement as measured by popularity, familiarity, etc.
Also, I think I have been confusing the subjective "best" vs. more objective "best" as the term has been used throughout the thread. I may personally think a performance is the best but that doesn't make it the objective best. "Definitive" doesn't mean a subjective best but the more objective best as again established by popularity, familiarity, etc.
I suspect that the editors, CCs and heavy users of SHS will often personally prefer a performance other than the definitive recording, but they should also be objective enough to recognize that personal preference doesn't equate to definitive.
otherwise we will be facing a flood of pointless discussions.
In some sense we want to spark discussion... And I think that can work if users have a voice.
If Marylin Manson's version of Sweet Dreams tops the best rated, and you totally disagree, the best way to weigh in is to rate, isn't it?
How one can complain about a subjective tag while this database suffers much bigger issues (like the fact not being able to even document the EXISTANCE of a cover just because the release year or a cat# is missing) goes beyond common sense.
Hi Jens, that takes us a little/completely off-topic 
Feel free to start a separate thread about this subject though, you can simply copy/paste your arguments to save time.
Bastien
What worries me about this particular example is that there is a risk that in certain genres (rock 'n' roll, folk), this may lead us to privilege the recordings of white popularizers over the originals by black musicians. Like many people, I heard Elvis a long time before I heard Big Mama Thornton, but once I heard the latter version, my assessment of the former as "definitive" crumbled.
Hello Matthias,
I think you're confusing the definitive and the best version.
Definitive: A version widely regarded as the reference version. Not necessarily the best version, but often the most well-known.
And yes, Elvis's version is thé definitive version, and yes that must feel unfair to you
My point is that "first release" is a falsifiable tag. If a wax cylinder with Katie Lawrence singing "Despacito" in 1905 shows up, it's incontrovertible evidence that our "first release" for that song needs to change.
What would establish proof that a particular performance is "definitive" or not?
Well said and asked.
otherwise we will be facing a flood of pointless discussions.In some sense we want to spark discussion... And I think that can work if users have a voice.
If Marylin Manson's version of Sweet Dreams tops the best rated, and you totally disagree, the best way to weigh in is to rate, isn't it?
Discussing & rating music is definitely not what I'm here for. If others feel like it, fine by me.
What if we would use sub-categories? First, have "user's/editor's pick" and then further differentiate to "definitive", "unusual", "more famous than original", etc.
Since we all have different definitions (see the long discussions since day one of tagging), then it would be clear to all users, it's nothing objective at all.
How one can complain about a subjective tag while this database suffers much bigger issues (like the fact not being able to even document the EXISTANCE of a cover just because the release year or a cat# is missing) goes beyond common sense.
Hi Jens, that takes us a little/completely off-topic
Feel free to start a separate thread about this subject though, you can simply copy/paste your arguments to save time.
Bastien
I moved the discussion here at the time. That also quickly got off-topic, though, with you concluding that the answer was tackling the 100 or so error reports belonging to retired editors
- "Revival": A version that became a hit a long time after an earlier version did so, e.g. Puttin' on the Ritz or Crimson and Clover
- "Offbeat": A version that offers a very unusual take on the original, e.g. Heartbreak Hotel or The Number of the Beast
Both have been implemented since, the latter as "unusual".
"Definitive" doesn't mean better, best or personal favorite.
Ok. Refined description to:
Definitive: A version widely regarded as the reference version. Not necessarily the best version nor a personal favourite, but often the most well-known.
https://secondhandsongs.com/page/Guidelines/Entities/Performance/Tags
There were quite a few hits in the 80s that were covers of 60s songs, which was apparently discussed here several years back (thanks Google!): Covers of ‘60s Songs Successful in the ‘80s. A "revival" type tag would work great for that sort of thing.
Thanks! These are now tagged "revival"
It seems very odd to me that Sophie Tucker's performance/release of "Some of These Days" is not "highlighted" -- some how, some way.
Why is it worth highlighting?
Bastien & Mathieu should revisit their original mission statement for the site and decide where they want to go with it before anything gets too out of hand for us to handle.
We're adapting to a new reality. In the first 10 years, the challenge was to have "a lot of" data, to make SHS relevant or even the reference in its field.
Today, we have such a ton of data that this data is creating a new challenge: Which is relevant and which isn't? Our visitors are confronted with some many versions of the same song they don't know where to start, and that's how we lose them. That's why I started this topic with:
To help you navigate the long list of cover versions,
but do we have the resources to help get us there without compromising the site.
I agree we have little resources, but how would Tags be a threat to them?
It's just adding new features. Whoever wants to use them, let him enjoy them. And the one who wants to concentrate on the facts, doesn't have to pay attention to these features.
Exactly. Every word here corresponds with my line of thought. I hope this helps to reassure to some extent?
Well, whenever someone tags anything I added, I have to pay attention.
It's great to read that you care thát much about the website, but you set the bar very high. You won't be able to have control over other people's subjective perceptions
quite some of them were tailor-made according to some editors' personal preferences rather than being of any real use
Sure. And that's ok. What we've learned from 15 years of running a website, it's often hard to predict what will work and what will not, the only real way to find out is implement and see what happens. So yes, we've creating tags rather "generously", but over time we will see which ones are relevant and popular and which ones useless.
Why tagging releases as 'cover versions albums' or 'Talent show'?
Because it allows you to filter them on these tags. But even if you think that's useless, what is the cost of allowing these tags? Close to zero.
However, I do, f. ex., mind if somebody tags versions I added as 'definitive', 'more famous than the original' etc.
This is a very interesting comment. The next step of the Tags-feature is to determine what the right level of access is. It will boil down to something like this:
The objective is just a draft, nothing decided.
Last edit: 2019-05-21 07:51:19 UTC by Bastien
All I see is a lot of work for all of us.
Maybe this is were the misunderstanding lays?
