On 8.6.2012 17:05, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 06/07/2012 05:48 PM, Ryan Torchia wrote: >> Ah, OK, but would "Film Cue" or "Film Score Cue" be more appropriate? >> Score vs. cue is analogous to album vs. song. > > Other discussion answered this question, but I would support a “score > cue” work type (I’d prefer that it be generic enough to cover TV, film, > and video games but if that’s not possible, “film cue” would work as well.
I don't see a reason to use generic types when more accurate types could be used. It takes one more proposal to add them, if someone is really interested. This proposal is about film scores. Need to remind that it's the same practice with classical works in MB. There's no special work types for parts of the works. It's not really needed because "part of" relationship is enough to cover it. With special name for a part of a film score, the same information would be stored twice. We currently use album titles for the work titles, because it's more practical, but these often have nothing to do with actual work titles. I don't feel it's right to have a "score cue" type, because composer didn't compose this type of works. You could say that these current "score cues" in MB database are not actually works by composer, but are the works by album producer who made a decision to cut music into these pieces. Many album recording have actually artificial name and the name isn't original name selected by the composer. 20 minutes of continuos music in a film (=one cue), have often been cutted to multiple tracks on a release, and could still have some minutes missing from it. One recording can contain music cutted from multiple chapters of the movie, in a wrong cronological order. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
