I wonder if we could have some sort of "catch all" works for non classical arrangements of classical works.
For example En etsi valtaa, loistoa, op. 1 no. 4 by Jean Sibelius is pretty common Christmas song. Sibelius composed it for voice and piano and later arranged it for women choir and also for men choir. In Finland the song is commonly used as part of the church services during the christmas time. It has been recorded hundreds of times. Most of these are arrangements for one time performance (classical, religious, pop, rock, heavy metal) and would be strange to link these to original work (for voice and piano). Based on the proposed guideline I should still link most of these versions to original work and credit arranger [unknown] on recordings. Arranger isn't usually mentioned. This isn't a special case. There's countless of classical works which suddenly turn to something "non classical" thanks to different arrangements. For example Jazz arrangements based on material by Bach. Many of those arrangements are for one time performance. There could be more "non classical" recordings linked to classical work than recordings of original work. One option would be having a rule not linking non classical recordings with classical works with these relationships. Some might think that we just shouldn't care about non classical works and classical guideline just doesn't apply on those cases. We still don't get rid of them. Those versions will be showen on composer work pages or recordings will be linked to original works with relationships introduced on this proposal. Some possible solutions: - Special work-work relationship: "non classical work" based on "classical-work". - Catch-all work for arrangements - Rule about not linking "non classical works" with "classical works". - Using "recording of" with cover attribute for non classical works. - New recording-work relationship "recording of an arrangement of" which could replace some "recording of" relationships. - Any other ideas? This all isn't related to this RFC and might even have enough material for another RFC. Still I feel that the proposal wiki text about relationships could already have something related to this matter if we agree about the solution. These relationships aren't only used with classical material and this might be the best place to mention something about it. People editing other styles won't know about the rule if we only mention about it on the classical guideline. Thanks to symphonick for creating this RFC! - ListMyCDs.com On 12.2.2013 16:58, symphonick wrote: > Expands the earliest version AR into subtypes like "arrangement", "based > on" and more. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
