On 27.6.2012 3:46, SwissChris wrote: > I still dislike the idea of multiplying the types in the work type list > unnecessarily. Using just "score" is in no way "unaccurate", it's just > "generic".
With a generic type I would need to use the same type for "Jurassic Park" musical, film and video game. There's many cases where we got TV shows, movies, Broadway shows and video games sharing the same name. Same composer might have composed different type of scores sharing the same name. More detailed and accurate naming of types helps identifying and finding the right work. > I would object to adding these (sub-)types of sonata and I can't see > good enough reasons so far why we would need "film score" separate from > other scores and why the generic "score" would not be sufficient. Classical works usually have well describing names, often with opus numbers. Type sonata combined with a name like "Sonata for Viola and Piano" describes it pretty well. It's a different case with different type of scores. "Spider-Man" could be music composed for film, tv-series, Broadway show, play or video game. I see no reason why these should all use the same work type. More accurate information about types shouldn't need to be stored to disambiguations or annotiations, if there's something called a work type. Most of the score types don't have anything to do with each other. Creating process is totally different and music is being used on them differently. I don't think all these types should be covered with only one generic term. We aren't having symphonies and operas under a generic type "classical". _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
