>>37712103>Not every composer wrote a gazillion baryton trios; you cannot generalize an all-encompassing "chamber music" genre label based on the Hoboken catalog.
Chamber isn't a genre-tag, it's an album tag. One of the most basic ways of characterising art music is by ensemble type, orchestral, chamber, solo, vocal, etc. That's the type of thing I am suggesting for the album field since composers didn't have any similar to that. If you simply used the CD release as the album you would have really useless album tags, ones that combine only 2 unrelated pieces simply because that's all that was on that particular CD.>Not all works have identified compositions dates - your nativity is rather disconcerting.
Your lack of common sense is disconcerting; in the rare cases where there is neither a comp. date nor a catalogue then you can leave the tracks blank and just categorise by instrumentation/album field.>You ought to read some Barthes, bro
You ought to re-read him. It wasn't about dimissing the artist entirely, it was about not limiting your interpretations to their intentions. In this case the composers' intentions and ways of working are the most sensible ways to categorise this music.>So do concerts, and many composers were fine with this
Yes, and rid yourself of this early-mid 20th century thinking. We are in the age of digital playlists, effectively we can decide our own setlists of what performances we want to hear "in concert". So therefore it makes no sense to go back to the arbitrary setlists of concerts or CDs. Your idiocy is starting to irritate me.