Re: [mailing] [mb-style] RFC: Opera Track Style

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2007/3/9, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:29:39 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

>> Alternatively you can say: Hey, I'ts a wiki. Just delete stuff as you
>> like, and link to the old revision of the page for historical purpose
>> like
>> this: 
>
> Yes, but this is for experts who know how a wiki works or for those
> who are thorough enough to do so. Keeping visible (and searchable)
> pages seems a better option to me. Maybe these pages could be
> synthesised a little: I don't think we need to keep track of each
> specific answer, what is most useful IMO is:
> - what has been tried,
> - why it was not kept and
> - when.

Right, as you prefer. Just go for it.

BTW What you describe is called TentativeSummary over at The Wiki:



Second time I've seen you use this web site (I remember the logo). I
really must explore it!

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Marco Sola]

Aaron Cooper wrote:
(08) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (a) Allegro assai - 
(09) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (b) Tempo I - (10) 
Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (c) Allegro assai -


Yes, this is my favourite too.


I like this except for the hyphens.  If there is an (a) in the track
title I think that implies that there is more than one part.


I don't see no harm. Please note that "-" is widely used anyway when a 
movement ends into another without gap, often described on liner notes as 
"(attacca)".


Ciao

MArco (ClutchEr2) 



___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Robert Kiessling]

Aaron Cooper wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As a conclusion, you are right that I don't know any other example
>> than the 9th symphony. For file naming, users could put the track
>> number in first position (which is what I do). An alternative solution
>> could be to separate the additional number (for example putting it in
>> brackets) to signify that this is not part of the official numbering:
>>   (08) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (a) Allegro assai -
>>   (09) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (b) Tempo I -
>>   (10) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (c) Allegro assai -
>> You'll note that I inserted the unofficial numbering AFTER the dot.
> I like this except for the hyphens.  If there is an (a) in the track
> title I think that implies that there is more than one part.

Great! I updated http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitlePartnumberStyle
accordingly. I also reformulated the "movements use roman numerals" as a rule.

Any other comments or concerns? Can we move to "test the style" phase?

Robert


___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Aaron Cooper]

On 3/11/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As a conclusion, you are right that I don't know any other example
than the 9th symphony. For file naming, users could put the track
number in first position (which is what I do). An alternative solution
could be to separate the additional number (for example putting it in
brackets) to signify that this is not part of the official numbering:
  (08) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (a) Allegro assai -
  (09) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (b) Tempo I -
  (10) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (c) Allegro assai -
You'll note that I inserted the unofficial numbering AFTER the dot.


I like this except for the hyphens.  If there is an (a) in the track
title I think that implies that there is more than one part.
--
-Aaron

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Don Redman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:33:59 +0100, Robert Kiessling wrote:


Are track titles required to be unique within one release?


No

  DonRedman

--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/
(you might need to transform the term to singular)

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2007/3/11, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2007/2/25, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Following up from my earlier posting, I propose to give a structure
>> to "Part_number" as used in ClassicalTrackTitleStyle.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The proposal is explained in
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitlePartnumberStyle
>
> It took me a long time, but I found the time to examine some
> implications of your proposal. I disagree with your analysis that
> MultiTrackMovementStyle uses a different principle from your proposal.

For me the key difference is: In my proposal, Part_number is derived
from the work (ie. the score) only, in MultiTrackMovementStyle it can
depend on the release. This gives a different semantics to Part_number
(think for example how it could be represented in a database scheme).

As a consequence, in my proposal the same "Presto" will always have the
same Part_number, independent of the release (assuming the same level of
granularity is chosen for Part_number).

In MultiTrackMovementStyle, the same "Presto" can be "IVf." in one
release and "IVb" in another.


Right, I agree this is confusing.



> IMO, MultiTrackMovementStyle should only be applied when the existing
> numbering could lead to ambiguous titles.

Searching the MB releases of the 9th Symphony, I couldn't find any example
where my proposal would actually lead to duplicate titles in one release.
Do you know a specific release where this would be the case?


No. I don't own any release of the 9th myself. This is a purely
theoretical discussion for me ;-)



Are track titles required to be unique within one release?


I don't think they are and IMO they should not. But as a database
programmer, I am always wary of the possibility of non-unique data.



What happens if they are repeated?

If it's confusing to see several tracks with the same movement number
"IV.", we could make the second and following "IV (continued).". To use
your example:

(8) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. Allegro assai -
(9) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued). Tempo I -
(10) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued). Allegro 
assai -


Yes, but the full example would be:
 (8) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. Allegro assai -
 (9) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued). Tempo I -
 (10) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued).
Allegro assai -
 (11) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued). Tempo I -
 (12) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued).
Allegro assai -

As a conclusion, you are right that I don't know any other example
than the 9th symphony. For file naming, users could put the track
number in first position (which is what I do). An alternative solution
could be to separate the additional number (for example putting it in
brackets) to signify that this is not part of the official numbering:
 (08) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (a) Allegro assai -
 (09) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (b) Tempo I -
 (10) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. (c) Allegro assai -
You'll note that I inserted the unofficial numbering AFTER the dot.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Robert Kiessling]

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2007/2/25, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Following up from my earlier posting, I propose to give a structure
>> to "Part_number" as used in ClassicalTrackTitleStyle.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The proposal is explained in
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitlePartnumberStyle
>
> It took me a long time, but I found the time to examine some
> implications of your proposal. I disagree with your analysis that
> MultiTrackMovementStyle uses a different principle from your proposal.

For me the key difference is: In my proposal, Part_number is derived
from the work (ie. the score) only, in MultiTrackMovementStyle it can
depend on the release. This gives a different semantics to Part_number
(think for example how it could be represented in a database scheme).

As a consequence, in my proposal the same "Presto" will always have the
same Part_number, independent of the release (assuming the same level of
granularity is chosen for Part_number).

In MultiTrackMovementStyle, the same "Presto" can be "IVf." in one
release and "IVb" in another.

> IMO, MultiTrackMovementStyle should only be applied when the existing
> numbering could lead to ambiguous titles.

Searching the MB releases of the 9th Symphony, I couldn't find any example
where my proposal would actually lead to duplicate titles in one release.
Do you know a specific release where this would be the case?

Are track titles required to be unique within one release?

What happens if they are repeated?

If it's confusing to see several tracks with the same movement number
"IV.", we could make the second and following "IV (continued).". To use
your example:

(8) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV. Allegro assai -
(9) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued). Tempo I -
(10) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IV (continued). Allegro 
assai -

Robert


___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style