Discover

News

Highlights

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3818

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-11 17:57:15 UTC

Some editors have decided that reducing the number of open submissions by clearing these via rejections is more important than documenting their existence on site.

...which I definitively consider damaging and not beneficial. What does it cost to have it sitting there as a submission? It still adds value.


We shouldn't be one sided about this, as there is more than one way to see things. A page with 25 processed and 2 open submissions suggests a dynamic, active database while 25 processed and 20 opens could suggest an abandoned website to a new user. I acknowledge and respect those concerns, but agree that they don't outweigh the value added you have noted.

Guesswho

Certified Contributor
Posts: 908

Guesswho @ 2019-03-11 19:24:28 UTC

We shouldn't be one sided about this, as there is more than one way to see things. A page with 25 processed and 2 open submissions suggests a dynamic, active database while 25 processed and 20 opens could suggest an abandoned website to a new user. I acknowledge and respect those concerns, but agree that they don't outweigh the value added you have noted.


Competely disagree.

If I know as a visitor that in addition to the 25 plus 2 open submissions there is just ONE additional cover that is not listed at all I rather consider the site incomplete and not valuable. If I instead see 25 plus 20 open submissions, I think 'Wow, they list so many more covers that I did not know about, that's cool'. Each and every cover not listed here is damaging, no matter how much data might be missing for it, if it has a release year or if it has the correct first release listed. The most severe issue for an existing cover is not being listed at all. Incomplete or wrong data is certainly an issue but pretending a cover does not exist does not help improving the situation at all.

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 4640

It must schwing...

camembert electrique @ 2019-03-11 21:07:38 UTC

I believe the capability to add a release missing a Cat# was just added recently. There is a checkbox on the release creation page that states "I certify that this release doesn't feature a catalog number nor a EAN/UPC code.". And we can enter an estimated release year (I think that is just for 78s, though, IIRC).

Exactly.

PS: In the first place, estimating year of release was meant to go for ancient releases, but may as well in exceptional cases be used for more recent ones.

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3818

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-11 21:42:59 UTC

We shouldn't be one sided about this, as there is more than one way to see things. A page with 25 processed and 2 open submissions suggests a dynamic, active database while 25 processed and 20 opens could suggest an abandoned website to a new user. I acknowledge and respect those concerns, but agree that they don't outweigh the value added you have noted.


Competely disagree.

If I know as a visitor that in addition to the 25 plus 2 open submissions there is just ONE additional cover that is not listed at all I rather consider the site incomplete and not valuable. If I instead see 25 plus 20 open submissions, I think 'Wow, they list so many more covers that I did not know about, that's cool'. Each and every cover not listed here is damaging, no matter how much data might be missing for it, if it has a release year or if it has the correct first release listed. The most severe issue for an existing cover is not being listed at all. Incomplete or wrong data is certainly an issue but pretending a cover does not exist does not help improving the situation at all.


Not acknowledging reasonable yet opposing concerns and viewpoints is no way to persuade the editors to change the current SHS position on the submission backlog.

sebcat

Editor
Posts: 4552

sebcat @ 2019-03-11 22:01:11 UTC

As the discussion as moved on somewhat from the original topic of the highlights tab, I've started a new thread to continue the debate on how best to manage unverified submissions.

microtherion

Editor
Posts: 199

Close enough for Jazz!

microtherion @ 2019-03-14 18:48:15 UTC

I think you raise some interesting points here:

Take, for example, Hound Dog. I suppose the Elvis Presley version "put the song on the map," influenced the most later performances, and is the best-known recording. Is that sufficient to characterize it as the "definitive" performance?

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.

More historically, the 1945 Frank Sinatra version of Try a Little Tenderness really set the tone of performances of that song for ~20 years, after which Otis Redding's version became the standard for almost all later performances.

Another good point. In Jazz, there are songs where the instrumental and vocal traditions have completely diverged. Not only do people vehemently disagree about the merits of I Hear a Rhapsody vs I Hear a Rhapsody or My Favorite Things vs My Favorite Things they sometimes are not even aware of the other version and the tradition it built.


That does not mean I disagree with the idea of Highlights. They can potentially be a lot of fun, and the announcement got a ton of Facebook engagement, so our users seem to agree.


Two more highlight ideas:

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3818

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-14 19:29:45 UTC

What worries me about this particular example ["Hound Dog"] 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.


"Definitive" doesn't mean better, best or personal favorite. While these tags would likely favor white artists over black original performers for earlier eras, this is likely not to occur for more contemporary works. In fact, the races can be reversed.


I'm not that familiar with the Try a Little Tenderness situation, but I had also suggested definitive arrangement (which would allow for more than one).


Two more highlight ideas:


How long is "long time"? 20 years? 2 generations? To me a one off hit much later wouldn't count as a revival, but one that spawned a number of additional performances would. My guess is that such a revival would also tend to be a more then contemporary arrangement so the concepts start to merge. I do like the revival concept in general if there's not too much overlap with other tags and it can be objectively defined.

sebcat

Editor
Posts: 4552

sebcat @ 2019-03-14 19:45:14 UTC

Two more highlight ideas:

I like both these ideas. For the latter I’d suggest making it a subset of an editor’s pick, as clearly “offbeat” could be somewhat subjective. So something like “editor’s pick - high-quality” and “editor’s pick - offbeat (or unusual?)”

dudek

Editor
Posts: 324

I love SHS!

dudek @ 2019-03-14 23:07:46 UTC

a one off hit much later wouldn't count as a revival, but one that spawned a number of additional performances would


I think it would be possible to get these "performances that caused a new wave of covers" automatically from the database. If we define a good algorithm, the database could tag these itself.


The algorithm could be e.g. "the song must have suddenly at least 5 covers in one year after several years of not being recorded/released". IMO if we list the songs that meet these criteria, they could all be tagged "revival". Maybe it would often be the same performance as the "definitive" (like Soft Cell's Tainted Love or Simon & Garfunkel's El cóndor pasa ), but I wouldn't mind.

microtherion

Editor
Posts: 199

Close enough for Jazz!

microtherion @ 2019-03-16 02:03:42 UTC

Two more highlight ideas:

How long is "long time"? 20 years? 2 generations?

Good question. The "Crimson and Clover" case might be on the shorter side of this concept, but it literally happened to me that I listened to this as a teenager, and somebody a generation older walked by and mentioned this was a hit when HE was a teen.

Jeff Chamberlain

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1114

Jeff Chamberlain @ 2019-03-16 02:29:30 UTC

"Revival" suggests that a song was "dead" (or something like that), not just that there was a newer version that became popular.


Take "Puttin' on the Ritz:" We show 9 performances from the 1930s, 2 from the 1940s, 2 from the 1950s, 4 from the 1960s, 1 from the 1970s, 6 from the 1980s, 10 from the 1990s, 15 from the 2000s, and 17 from the 2010s. And, of course, our statistics include only performances that (a) someone has happened to submit, (b) that were recorded and released, and (c) meet the SHS guidelines for inclusion. Our numbers hardly inform whether the song fell out of favor for a long enough period to support a "revival" if/when it became more popularly performed later (on a release....).


So just what is it about "Ritz" that would warrant treating it as "revived" (and just when and how did that occur)?


There seem also to be some other "counting" questions. For example, a song could frequently be played live by bands at dances and we'd have no way to quantify that. I don't know if this applies to "Ritz," but it surely could apply to, say, "Johnny B. Goode" or "in the Mood." Or what about a song that is routinely included in the sets played by DJs at weddings or other parties?

______
JC

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3818

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-16 03:09:09 UTC

"Revival" suggests that a song was "dead" (or something like that), not just that there was a newer version that became popular.


Take "Puttin' on the Ritz:" We show 9 performances from the 1930s, 2 from the 1940s, 2 from the 1950s, 4 from the 1960s, 1 from the 1970s, 6 from the 1980s, 10 from the 1990s, 15 from the 2000s, and 17 from the 2010s. And, of course, our statistics include only performances that (a) someone has happened to submit, (b) that were recorded and released, and (c) meet the SHS guidelines for inclusion. Our numbers hardly inform whether the song fell out of favor for a long enough period to support a "revival" if/when it became more popularly performed later (on a release....).


So just what is it about "Ritz" that would warrant treating it as "revived" (and just when and how did that occur)?


There seem also to be some other "counting" questions. For example, a song could frequently be played live by bands at dances and we'd have no way to quantify that. I don't know if this applies to "Ritz," but it surely could apply to, say, "Johnny B. Goode" or "in the Mood." Or what about a song that is routinely included in the sets played by DJs at weddings or other parties?


Agreed, "revival" would require proper editorial restraint like "definitive" and not something automated (tho some internal report may be helpful to find candidates).


Not only the factors that constrain SHS entry, but different eras had different conditions that would affect the number of released covers. In earlier recorded music eras, the market was far more segregated resulting in numerous covers that only those in a portion of a fragmented public heard. Some artists released several albums in the same year, something far rarer in more contemporary times.

hounddogman

Editor
Posts: 2229

hounddogman @ 2019-03-19 18:05:04 UTC

Read

______
''I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive...''
(Hank Williams, 1952)

Limbabwe

Editor
Posts: 15516

Limbabwe

Limbabwe @ 2019-03-26 19:02:36 UTC

Read.

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1391

maryhelen @ 2019-04-25 23:11:35 UTC

might i suggest live concerts on yuoutube?-- the famous great ones, e.g. beatles unannounced rooftop just before they broke up--my fav Don't let me down"; Janis Joplin j at monterrey pop ; from Woodstock?

Jeff Chamberlain

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1114

Jeff Chamberlain @ 2019-05-15 13:57:33 UTC

It seems very odd to me that Sophie Tucker's performance/release of "Some of These Days" is not "highlighted" -- some how, some way.

Some of These Days

______
JC

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1391

maryhelen @ 2019-05-15 15:51:54 UTC

"Shall we learn from this that SHS is saying goodbye to being an objective database built on facts only?"


i agree with those saying it is arbitrary/subjective-- begging the question what is SHS? a database NOT, but a music discussion site.

all the opinion/arbitrary/subjective, as all the comments show- is making it way more complicated than a database. THAT IS FINE-- if SHS decides that is it wants to be-- users, such as myself, who are interested only in facts, will continue using it as such. Why not do all that --whatever is arbitrary/opinion, but keep it separate/new page/apart for the "database" page that (would) the covers data? users can easily get to it if they want.

Know that all that (under discussions) will lose the originality and uniqueness of SHS, adding a blog sense to it. There are many many sites with arbitrary/subjective opinions about covers, music etc. At the same time, there are others with just facts.

for me it is sad, since SHS was the first database i discovered and it is interactive--allowing me to participate/contribute. Like many ventures, the "inventors" (even business owners, especially restaurants) get carried away with their project, lose sight of its purpose way beyond relevance and give in to the impulses of having too much fun, each one wanting their input/idea to be implemented as "mine" (oh the ego!)