On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:01 AM, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2013/3/15 symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> > > 2013/3/15 Nikki <aei...@gmail.com> > It seems incomplete to me. Is it ever supposed to be used for pop music? > If not, it should explicitly exclude pop music. If it is, I think it > should clarify when the relationship is supposed to be used. Right now > it only seems to mention classical. > > I *really* don't want to see loads of new works being created for pop > music just because there's a different arranger credited and I'm > concerned adding new relationships like this will only encourage people > to do that, so I'd like it to be clear what it's intended for before > it's added. > > Also "Do not confuse arrangements with cover versions." is not a very > good guideline. All it does for me is make me more confused: How do I > know if I'm confusing arrangements with cover versions? What do I do if > I think I am? Is a cover version ever an arrangement? > > The intention is to link between works when one work is a (musical) > arrangement of the other work. > > The conclusion from the previous version of this proposal, was that a > guideline of what defines a work in MB doesn't really belong at an AR page. I > wish there was such a guideline, but there isn't (outside classical). > > It mentions classical and (big band) jazz. I believe no one has been able to > come up with a way to use this for pop music. But technically, yes, covers > are often performances of a different arrangement of the original version. > > I'll try to clarify: > As I understand this, covers are often performances of an arrangement of an > original recording/mix. But I wonder if the actual differences in wording are > genre-dependant. A classical arrangement are often based on the score of the > original work, but it could be based on a performance. Either way you > wouldn't call it a cover version. In jazz, I believe "arrangement" is the > word you'd use, but it's often based on a performance. Of course it's an > useless distinction; how would you know if the arranger used a recording or a > score or both? > > There. I'm glad we got that all sorted out. :-) Questions? I forgot to point it out earlier, but I have seen instances (not on MB, but in specific royalty collectors' databases) of different arrangements of popular folk songs listed as separate works. Should we apply these guidelines in said circumstances? > > > Inspired by other AR guidelines in MB ;-) "Don't confuse foo with bar" & > then, on bar page: "Don't confuse bar with foo." > I thought I should mention covers, since it's probably what you want for pop > music. > > Since I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean, I can't really propose > any better wording. :) However, a guideline for a relationship is > ideally a guide for *how* or *when* to use the relationship. Rewording > it so that it's an answer to "How or when do I use this relationship?" > is likely to work much better. > > /symphonick > > > > -- > > /symphonick _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
