> why would we have new works? we'd just have tracks > mapping onto existing > works in different ways.
Terminology difference. I was considering tracks as works which are part of higher-level works. I think you view tracks as tracks that are part of higher-level works. We both are saying the same, but the problem is this: there isn't really a finite list of tracks we can add to a composer's oeuvre. A symphony might have 4 movements and thus four possible track names, while an opera might have 400. In my mind this reduces the usefulness of having works lists, though I think only for operas or comparable works. > i suppose what this tells us is that a given track > might have to map onto a > 'range' of parts of the work: > for isntance, if i had a cd of beethoven's 5th where > they left the 3rd and > 4th movements as one track (they lead into one > another) we'd need to map > that SINGLE track onto TWO movements This is starting to get quite messy, even in the hypothetical phase... It might be better to just add a new track to Beethoven's list of tracks. There could be four tracks called mvmts 1, 2, 3, and 4, and a fifth called mvmts 3/4. All of these should point to the same parent work: Beethoven's 5th. -Nate __________________________________________________ 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
