I really don't think it has anything to do with flare. Gershwin was an American composer. I mentioned this major/minor thing before in reference to case (ie "F" for major and "f" minor) and most everyone disagreed; notably none of them Americans. I studied music theory and composition and probably the reason I thought this was common is it's probably just something American composers adopted in the last few centuries.
I've seen this many times in jazz charts and there are many variations including with and without major/minor attached and with different cases (ie "F Major"/"f minor" or "F major"/"f minor". It all ends up translating the same to someone who reads music but from a SG perspective I would say we stick to a standard. Artist intent is a misnomer here since the majority of these composers are dead and what's putting on the cover is left to somebody at the label. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nathan Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: MusicBrainz style discussion <musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org> Subject: Re: [mb-style] omitting major? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:46:09 -0700 (PDT) lol. Well I can certainly understand the drive towards a standard, but I have a problem when our style goes against a vast majority of references to the work. I don't claim to understand Gershwin's intent, but I think he may have been aiming for a title with a ring to it: "Concerto in F" sounds quite a bit different than "Piano Concerto in F major", which is what our style would force. Most of the time it's referenced with the "abbreviated" version, which I kind of view as a common name: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%22concerto+in+f%22+gershwin&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Not that I really care too much, but I do think in this case our stylized name would be wrong. Except these esoteric examples, we should always expand imo. -Nate --- Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Screw artist intent, they're dead! (For the most > part) > > I hope you all were able to appreciate my sarcasm, > because I think the > difference between a purposeful "capital F" (F) to > symbolize F major > can easily be rewritten as "F major" because we are > getting the same > point across as the artist - and that is that the > key is F major. > > Umm to summarize my wandering thoughts: > I think the artist intended it be read as "F major" > if they use a > capital F so there's no harm in changing the written > form of the title > to portray the same intent using MB's guidelines. > > On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2006/5/25, Nathan Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >From what I know this usually is only done when > space > > > is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these > > > values, but I have a poster of all classical > music > > > that uses this notation, for example (it has the > names > > > of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt > font). I > > > don't think we're that concerned about space. > > > > > > Of course, I think Gershwin's "Concerto in F" is > an > > > exception, because of artist intent. There are > others > > > like this too, but very few. > > > > Ah, Artist intent... > > > > > > > -Nate > > > > > > --- Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Some people (not only MB users) omit > "major", > > > > and specify only > > > > > > "minor". The CSG recommends writing > major/minor > > > > in lower case, but it > > > > > > doesn't say if major can be omitted. > Personally, > > > > I'd prefer always > > > > > > specifying it (because there is also the > > > > convention where upper case > > > > > > means major and lower case means minor and > those > > > > who don't know this > > > > > > might misinterpret "c" and change it to > "C"). > > > > What are your opinions? > > > > > > > > > > I'd say: let's keep it. > > > > > > > > Oops, once again my question was not precise > enough > > > > :-( So here it is: > > > > > > > > Is "major" mandatory or optionnal? > > > > > > > > For the reasons above, my position is: > Mandatory > > > > > > > > Jan, I understand that your position is: > Mandatory > > > > too. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Frederic Da Vitoria > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Frederic Da Vitoria > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > > -- > -Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > 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
