I propose here an RFC to create a hierarchy in recordings similar as we have in the works tables. It expires in 7 days on Novemer 24th 2011.
Because I haven't thought the consequences through for non-classical music, this RFC only applies with CSG. The proposal can be found here: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Recording_Parts_Relationship NOTE: This is the first time I created a wiki page (I shamelessly copied from the similar http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Parts_Relationship_Type). Please feel 100% to make modifications to it or let me know what I need to modify, change or add. *A few extra notes as to why I'm making this proposal.* In classical music, and Opera, very often, an entire work is performed and recorded (with it's sub-works or movements). This performance is then split into tracks on a CD. Having a recording-leve hierarchy would allow us, as with our works, to concentrate ARs at a higher level than the recordings present on CDs. This should be discussed in further RFCs but we could for example store the conductor and orchestra at a higher level as it applies to all movements/parts. This along, with an inheritance system as proposed in RFC-339 would simplify editing of classical recordings. *Makes adding/editing ARs easier, faster and more streamlined:* For example, at the moment, if a classical performance has 12 parts and 3 performers (say a pianist, conductor and orchestra), the ARs need to be added to every part (36 ARs). Approval and implementation of this RFC would give us the possibility to only have 3 ARs to enter or correct.The sub-parts/movements could get the ARs through inheritance. *Improvements to the UI and data presentation:* Having a hierarchy has the potential (as with works) to make dramatic improvements in how the data is displayed and presented to the user: - Sub recordings could be hidden from the recordings and relationships pages making for a much cleaner and useful .pages for heavily recorded artists such as Herbert von Karajan<http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d2ced2f1-6b58-47cf-ae87-5943e2ab6d99> - Classical releases could show only the parent-recordings making for a much more concise list of works present on a release. This would be more in line with how allmusic.com presents classical releases. *Makes editing recording titles easier:* The same concept as proposed by me in MBS-3374<http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3374> could apply very well to recording titles allowing us to separate the parent-recording title (Say Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67) from the movements and allowing us to edit them separately. *Regarding partial recordings on releases* There are often CDs which have partial recordings (for example most of the tracks on this release which I'm currently editing: Les Grands Classiques d'Edgar : Encore Plus<http://musicbrainz.org/release/f8b78017-9b9a-48fa-8e9b-90310400a84b>). The fact is that most of these "recorded parts" were actually recorded along with the remaining parts and released on other albums. Such recordings will simply be merged with other recordings If they haven't and were indeed recorded alone, then a decision will need to be made in a future RFC. Personally, we should keep the same tree structure with perhaps an attribute at the supra-recording level that indicates that this performance is incomplete. *NOTE*: With RFC-341, I'm only proposing the relationship to link recordings in a hierarchy similar to works. A lot of the advantages I listed above are future benefits but they will and should be passed in separate RFCs after this one has passed. Sebastien
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
