symphonick wrote > Update: I've moved the untitled stuff to a separate section. > > > 2013/8/10 symphonick <
> symphonick@ > > > >> >> >> >> 2013/8/9 symphonick < > symphonick@ > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/8/9 Alex Mauer < > hawke@ > > >>> >>>> On 08/09/2013 02:12 PM, symphonick wrote: >>>> >>>> > Now that you mention artist intent, my advice about original titles >>>> > looks problematic too. If artist intent overrides, we can't change >>>> the >>>> > title given by the composer? >>>> >>>> Good question. We do need the title to be recognizable in the search >>>> results. >>>> >>>> This also affects “nicknames”: Why are “modern titles” OK for the >>>> title, >>>> but “nicknames” not, given that both are unofficial names? >>>> >>>> That line seems rather fuzzy to me. >>>> >>> >>> It only works if you upgrade the modern title to a "real" title first... >>> Logically, unofficial names shouldn't go into titles. >>> Nicknames are local (except maybe "moonlight sonata"); that is, it's >>> possible that a nickname exists in only one specific country. >>> >>> >> I have a better explanation today :-) I've (once again) mistaken the >> development terminology page http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Works for a >> guideline :-( >> That's where the "canonical title" comes from. I'd like the classical >> works guideline to follow a standard mb works title guideline, so >> sometimes >> I dream that we have one... >> >> Unless we can make a guideline that overruns artist intent, we'll have to >> stick with the composer's title. >> >> >> >>> Maybe we could have a list with exceptions (like St. Matthew Passion), >>> but we could also see it as a search results UI issue; if one primary >>> alias >>> was shown in the search results, it wouldn't matter if the original >>> title >>> is archaic. >>> >>> >>> At the very least, all of “artist-given names”, “modern titles”, and >>>> “nicknames” should all go into the aliases in some form, for >>>> findability >>>> if nothing else. >>>> >>>> Maybe have “modern name” as the main work title, “artist-given name” as >>>> the primary alias, and “nicknames” as search hint? It feels weird to >>>> recommend that the main title not be a primary alias, but I think it >>>> might go with what we want/need. >>>> >>> >>> /symphonick >>> >> >> >> /symphonick >> > > > > -- > > /symphonick > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style Archaic titles/Nicknames: Why use the disambiguation field? Surly the modern title/nicknames should be in brackets after the main title, in the title field. I consider the disambiguation field should be used only when two different entities would be easily confused as the same thing. Subtitles: Similarly, why put these in the annotation rather than in brackets in the title field, after the main title? What is the rationale behind this approach? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Classical-works-part-II-Titles-tp4656529p4656696.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
