the real problem here is that we need separate fields for things like Opus number, BWV number, etc.
On 3/22/06, Nathan Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would have no-voted this as well, were I to actually
participate in votes...<sigh>. Here are my
counter-arguments:
I wouldn't call this a convention. I have tagged
(emphasize) many Bach discs and do not ever recall
seeing this format. Do a google search on "bach BWV
544" (no quotes) and see how it's referenced. That is
a relatively obscure organ work. Bach's wiki page is
more reliable info. allmusic/amazon/music match will
show it at the end too (This isn't three pieces of
evidence; I'm sure they share the same data though I
can't prove it).
Even if this were common, I wouldn't like it since you
are then left to evaluate, on a piece-by-piece basis,
whether any work is more commonly known by its
catalogue number or it's "name". There is no hope of
consistency with such a subjective style.
-Nate
--- Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The classical style guide [1] as of writing doesn't
> explicitly cover
> special naming patterns used for some artists, like
> Bach and Mozart.
> The style guide discussion page [2] suggests that
> they are simply
> appended to the track names.
>
> I however refused to adopt this naming pattern for
> adding a series of
> only partly Bach/Walcha discs (his whole organ
> works), and instead used
>
> "BWV: ([0-9]){1,4} This is a Foo Title" (I)
>
> My additions and modifications where modded down
> ([3], [3b]). The
> argument was brought up that conceptually the BWV
> IDs are very similar
> to the suggested "Op." naming, with the following
> proposed naming
> pattern:
>
> "This is a Foo Title BWV ([0-9]){1,4}" (IIa)
>
> or
>
> "This is a Foo Title, BWV ([0-9]){1,4}" (IIb)
>
> I'm not sure on classical albums in general, but for
> Bach works I think
> the primary information blob you're interested in
> when scanning for a
> song title for his organ works is the BWV ID,
> because the title isn't
> really verbose. I propose that at least for artists
> with extremely many
> instrumental works where the title doesn't really
> reflect a particular
> aspect of the work compared to other instrumental
> works of the same
> artists, the order should be reversed, i.e. (IIa,b)
> should be deprecated
> in favor of (I).
>
> [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuide
> [2]
>
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion
> [3]
> http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4465198
> [3b]
>
http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?mod_status=1&orderby=desc&moderator_type=3&moderator_id=207347
>
> --
> Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
>
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
