On 29. juni 2010 15:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/6/29 Andrew Conkling > > On Jun 28, 2010, at 17:08, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: >> 2010/6/28 Andrew Conkling >> >> On Jun 28, 2010, at 4:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: >> > You were looking for more general formulations. I suggest: >> > - X is the author of the cadenza for track # >> > - track # contains a cadenza whose author is X >> > >> > ... a little too "verbose", maybe? >> >> I'd say. I'd think "composed" would be good, perhaps "wrote", >> or some other synonym; at least those suggestions there don't >> seem any better than "composed" or "wrote". >> >> Any further thoughts? Procedural advice? :) >> >> >> I was precisely trying to avoid "write" because as your proposal >> explained, sometimes cadenza's are not written at first. I am >> confused because you now seem to be going precisely towards what >> you suggested you were trying to avoid. But anyhow this is quite >> minor, the text is quite clear and I would be very surprised if >> there was a voting war because of this. > > It was three years ago. :) I would prefer "composed", but agree that > the word choice is pretty minor. > > > Right. And I answered 3 years ago too :-) > > You still have my: > > +1
+1 from me too Wording is a bit difficult. I think, but am not sure, that "write" is more frequent than "composed" in track lists/liners. It is more common on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadenza A bigger problem is that tracks may contain more than one cadenza, e.g. when all concerto movements are in the same track. My suggestion now would be - track # has cadenza by X (or ... has cadenza written by X) - X wrote cadenza for track # but I don't think it sounds so good... Leiv _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
