2007/1/23, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2007/1/23, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > > I can't find any history about this matter as fast as I would like to. > What was the reasoning behind the use of the colon behind the name of > the work? > > > Just look at the CSG (section Track Title). We systematically put a > colon between the name of the work and the subparts. > > > This differs substantially from the main classical guidelines > and it makes the last part (first words of the scene), imo > unnecessarily, ambiguous. The way I look at it would make one of the > following more appropriate: > > - Don Giovanni, Act I, Scene 3: La ci darem la mano > - Don Giovanni, Act I, Scene 3: "La ci darem la mano" > > > Can you point us to "main classical guidelines" (outside MB)? If these > exist, of course we should take them into account. Now if you are > actually speaking of traditions... > I was talking about the MB CSG. Colons are only used at the end, not e.g. behind 'Symphony No. 9 in D minor' in 'Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125: II. Molto vivace'.
Ah. But "'Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125" is the work title. Op. 125 is for the whole symphony, not for the Molto vivace. Actually, we could write only "Op. 125: II. Molto vivace", it would be enough to identify the work and the movement. The colon separates the whole work title from the subparts. In that sense, Act # and Scene # are closer to "II." in your example, IMO. -- Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
