2013/3/16 Rachel Dwight <hibiscuskazen...@gmail.com> > > 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? >
Sorry; which guidelines? > > > >> >> 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 > -- /symphonick
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
