Paul C. Bryan wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 00:26 -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > >> ... some of the editors who don't participate in the lists and who >> don't really know CSG well yet are paying attention to everything we >> do, but not the reasons we do it... > > Like me, for example. And I probably won't be able to fathom some of the > reasons at this point, as it seems require in-depth knowledge of the > artists, their works, the history of the handling and cataloging of > their works in order to grasp. >
Hi again, I can only speak for myself, but I'm a dabbler who happens to like music and am fairly good at googling :) You learn to find some valuable sources of information as you move along - I believe it was you who showed me http://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk/ , an essential reference for the MB opera voter and editor :) While it is great to have people that knows every minute detail of this-or-that composer, it should not be needed to be at MB. When we do disagree on something for classical, it is perhaps unavoidable that a certain amount of score fetishism and numerological beliefs are developed... > However, I am good at following established patterns and standards, and > tend to be good at not questioning them unless I cannot sense a method > to their madness. Suffice to say, probably a large percentage of your > editors are in the same boat as me. > Other places in this thread (for SMP and Messiah) I've dug up some data indicating that the fill-in-all-conceivable-and-even-redundant-details-sentiment is quite new. And there seems to be no consensus on this now, either. Now it's up to you to find out how *you* want track titles to look for the artsts you subscribe to :) Regards, Leiv _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
