Mike Morrison wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Aaron Cooper wrote: >> On 27-Feb-08, at 8:10 PM, Mike Morrison wrote: >> >>> >>> OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right? >>> We'll have work titles and track titles. The work title can be full >>> CSG(S), while the track title can be what's on the cover. So each >>> track will have these two titles associated with it. >>> >>> For now, how about if we use the track title field for one of the two >>> titles, and annotations for the other? We need somewhere to store the >>> "other" title for now anyway, right? I don't care which title goes in >>> which spot. If the one I like better ends up in the annotations, I'll >>> copy and paste it into my local files if need be. >>> >>> Then when NGS is implemented, we can migrate the information from the >>> annotations into the appropriate field. >> >> I don't understand what we're discussing because classical works don't >> have "tracks" or "track titles"-they have "work titles. > > I agree. > >> A classical recording has tracks, but what do you use as the track >> titles? > > Personally, I like to use full-length CSGS-style work titles on the > tracks. However, it appears that some editors want track titles which are > shorter, or which more closely match the physical release cover.
Hi Mike, I think this might be a good place for me to explain my position a little better: The last month my focus has not been on fixing the CSG, but rather to say that I do not want us to standardise on one way of formatting one piece of classical (movement, lied etc.) in the CSGS pages and make this mandatory for how we should deal with that piece. I don't think anyone here actually disagree much on how this or that symphony from the core classical period should be formatted. It is well entrenched already, and it works fine: Symphony No. 39 in E-flat major, KV 543: II. Andante con moto (OK: Brian has standardised on "K.", where we used "KV" throughout earlier at MB, and he also includes that it is a symphony for orchestra, thereby getting "Symphony No. 39 for Orchestra in E-flat major, K. 543: II. Andante con moto", but these are details so insignificant that it feels almost pointless to discuss them.) Further, the vaast majority of classical CDs I've encountered do include all these details. So since I dislike the idea that we should keep our own standards here at MB, I've been pushing the idea that the track listing from the liners is a better common ground for solving edit wars than the CSGS pages. (And it nicely fits in with MB practices from (My reasons for not wanting the CSGS pages I first tried to lay out in http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Clean-up-CSG--Capitalization-%28and-placement%29-of-types-and-tempos-p15259763s2885.html I am sorry for the length of it, it's a byproduct of how my brain works. But there are points in there which still are unanswered: How do we resolve disagreements on what to put in the CSGS pages? A ClassicalTrackTitleStyle is not enough, because you probably will need to answer "how different does works have to be in order to be regarded as separate works?" (there might be small changes in the scoring), and you will maybe need a notion on utterly boring questions such as "How common does a common name have to be to be included", "when do we translate them?") > >> As I gather from your email (and those of some other similar-minded >> editors) we want to put the "track title" in the "track title" field... >> so we look to the track listing on the CD... and we find "work titles" >> don't we? (serious question) > > On most of the releases I own, yes. But maybe not on some releases with > less-complete cover information ("Mozart: Allegro")? There's been some claims that quite a few CDs are lacking details. Further, some say labels produce "wacky" listings, others that rereleases very often have differing track lists. None of these claims have been substantiated AFAICS, nor has anyone tried to fill in the details on the significance of these differences. Now for all I know, you may on a "Classical Chillout" release find "Bach: Sarabande", "Bach: Sarabande from Partita", "Bach: Sarabande from Partita No. 1", "Bach: Sarabande from Partita, BWV 1002" or something else. The three first does lack information necessary to determine which piece of music is included. You and I might prefer to have this information included, thereby finding the BWV 1002 quite important, but this does not mean that the person buying this release finds it at all helpful. MusicBrainz is not a pedagogical site, and the track listings are not places where MB should educate the masses. What should we standardise on then? "Partita for Solo Violin, BWV 1002: Sarabande", perhaps. No movement numbers? Bach didn't number them, and because different recordings often include the "Double" following the "Sarabande", so you also get "...BWV 1002: Sarabande - Double" Further, some of Bach's music seem nearly infinitely malleable, and has been transcribed for many different instruments (the Goldberg variations have been recorded for the accordion, and this was a good recording of it AFAIK). I best shut up before people stop reading, so let me sum up by saying: If I buy "Classical Chillout", I don't want one track title to read "Partita for Solo Violin in B minor, BWV 1002, Transposed to A minor for Lute: Sarabande" (But of course, YMMV, and that's why I think the liner notes should be the ground for settling disputes on this.) Regards, Leiv _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
