On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 22/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 21/03/2008, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If you generalized this procedure, how would you enter (in the > current > > > > > > state of the MB database) > > > > > > > > > > > http://musicbrainz.org/release/86a78b3d-08d6-4b42-990b-30463b66fc98.html > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention > the BWVs > > > > > for them (and I know I have Händel oratorios which do not mention > the > > > > > HWVs - I recently checked some - yet this is *never* a problem). > > > > > > > > Well, you know that this is contrary to the CSG? > > > > > > the un-agreed on CSG! > > > > > > No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively > > outdated as that guideline is. > > The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle... http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide "Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style Guide." CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
