2013/8/9 Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> > On 08/09/2013 10:46 AM, symphonick wrote: > > updated > > Much better! > > General comments: > > I think “secondary alias” is confusing (there is no mention of > “secondary” in the interface. I would use “non-primary alias” instead, > or “search hint alias” if applicable.) > > Ok, noted.
> There are a few places where you say “can only be put in annotations” or > the like. I would make this the less strong “should be put in > annotations”. (actually this is even more general, there is a lot of > “can…only” which should probably be “should” because 1. it is obviously > *possible* to put anything in the title, and 2. There may be exceptions, > e.g. Artist Intent always overrides all. > > I'll have a look at it. > There are a few places that still comment on the lack of a field in MB. > I would still suggest that these be removed completely, though it is > much improved over the previous rev. > > More specific comments: > > Subtitles. Why is it not allowed to put the subtitle in the title? This > is common practice throughout musicbrainz (Releases/release groups and > tracks/recordings both allow it). Why is it different here? > > Because it's easier to leave them out ;-) IME "real" subtitles are seldom used, at least not for identification. I think it would be asking for trouble, a MB-editor would be required to find out if it's a "real" subtitle or just something the editor wrote. The editor (of the score) can place pretty much anything in the subtitle. And we would get into definition problems, e.g. if "orchestral overture" is OK, why not "for big orchestra" etc. > Catalog numbers. Why limit to one? They are all useful for identifying a > work when searching — if my release uses an uncommon catalog, it will be > much harder to find (since search won't know about it) and harder to > identify (since the uncommon catalog won’t show up in search results, > I’ll have to cross-reference the catalog on some other site and hope > that everyone picks the “right” catalog in MB. > > If I recall the earlier discussions somewhat correctly, we agreed the formatting would be messy. E.g. "Title, op. 54 / W. 34 / SIIIb / D.13" > Catalog of parts. The wording of this section is confusing, even though > I know what you’re going for. Might need to be reworded, without > reference to “main work with parts” > > Main brain hurts a little at the moment, but I'm open for suggestions. :-) > Instrumentation. I would still appreciate some guidance on ordering here > (for untitled works) — is “Quartet for Strings” correct, or “String > Quartet”? > Both! :-) Unless we want a standard. It's problematic because those decisions would have to be done per language, e.g. the English CSG could say that you should use "quartet for strings", but maybe it should be "Streichquartett" in German. Or not. Tempo. Still needs guidance for untitled parts that don’t have a named > tempo. > Yup. > Untitled works generally. The guidance for untitled works is scattered > throughout several sections. Given how common untitled works are, I > think they should have their own section. > (BTW, I haven't counted, but I believe most classical works are songs) Wouldn't that break the score-based sturcture? Instead of the "keys" heading describing keys, there would be a link to "keys" under "untitled works"? /symphonick
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
