[mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick/CSG_Release_Title http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-100 See wikipage for links to previous threads. Note that with this proposal performers are no longer allowed in the release title field. (The guideline for entering credited performers in the release artist field was accepted 2012-03-02) This RFV will expire Wednesday 2012-03-21. /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
+1 Brant Gibbard Toronto, ON http://bgibbard.ca http://bgibbard.ca/ _ From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of symphonick Sent: March-19-12 6:44 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick/CSG_Release_Title http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-100 See wikipage for links to previous threads. Note that with this proposal performers are no longer allowed in the release title field. (The guideline for entering credited performers in the release artist field was accepted 2012-03-02) This RFV will expire Wednesday 2012-03-21. /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
Two capitalization corrections in the examples: The Last Night of the Proms (not last) Saint-Saëns' Sonata and Other French Music (not other) Otherwise, +1. This is NOT a veto! Patrick -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-CSG-Release-RG-Title-tp4484347p4485282.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
Re: [mb-style] Track artist = track artist?
On 03/16/2012 08:57 PM, Per Starbäck wrote: In MBz the track artist was Astrid Lindgren (author of the book and lyricist of the song) which I don't think should be there by any rules so should be changed. When I play that song after ripping that cd I want my music player to say Karlsson just what's on the release, so I changed it into [soundtrack] as Karlsson. This one is probably based on following Classical and/or the proposed soundtrack style: Putting the song’s writer as the artist. Later there is this track: 27. Darwin Från Häng me' till Dinosaurieland This song Darwin is taken from an earlier children's cd called Häng me' till Dinosauriland which isn't entered in MBz and I don't know much about. Instead of a proper artist the artist field in the track listing says Från (= From) that-other-release. It was entered as [unknown] in MBz. When I play that song after ripping that cd I want my music player to say From Häng me' till Dinosauriland just what's on the release, so I kept [unknown] but made it appear as Häng me' till Dinosauriland. I've gotten negative reactions on that edit ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16780877 ). with a suggestion that what's actually given in the artist field in the cd track listing to be put in the *title* field instead (and presumably [unknown] be kept as it is). There is an expectation, I think, that the artist field should actually contain the name of an artist, whether it be the performer or the writer of the song/music in question. That is probably why you got a negative reaction. Changing this would be a pretty big change to how Musicbrainz data is entered. Compare http://musicbrainz.org/release/0e216617-6304-4307-8f25-e8efafcb4790 — similarly to this, that one would have the movie titles in the artist field. This idea seems totally wrong. I think many don't agree with me (and that I risk getting more no votes by bringing this up), but I ask you to take a step back and think about what the track artist field is used for. That having [unknown] pop up in your musicplayer isn't nice at all. (It's not very far from having a MUSICBRAINZ_ARTISTID popping up in that it is technical Musicbrainz stuff.) Hardly. It indicates that the artist is unknown, which is true. The artist field should contain AN ARTIST, not an arbitrary comment about the origin of the track. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
On 03/19/2012 05:43 AM, symphonick wrote: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick/CSG_Release_Title http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-100 See wikipage for links to previous threads. Note that with this proposal performers are no longer allowed in the release title field. (The guideline for entering credited performers in the release artist field was accepted 2012-03-02) I just realized a couple of things I missed in the RFC…so I’ll ask now. What about releases where the cover has a list of works, but the release actually contains a (larger) list? Should the complete list of works be entered, or only those that appear on the cover? Should there be any guidelines for the disambiguation comment? I assume the plan is to put what would have been in the release title (i.e. performer information) in the comment. Of course this applies much more in the case of what the CSG (RFC-348) now calls “Single artist releases” and describes as “rare”. Here is how I have used the comment on one such release: http://musicbrainz.org/release/eeb3e67b-79a3-4105-8e04-e7d4dc156e79 (That release actually provides an example for both questions) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 03/19/2012 05:43 AM, symphonick wrote: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick/CSG_Release_Title http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-100 See wikipage for links to previous threads. Note that with this proposal performers are no longer allowed in the release title field. (The guideline for entering credited performers in the release artist field was accepted 2012-03-02) I just realized a couple of things I missed in the RFC…so I’ll ask now. What about releases where the cover has a list of works, but the release actually contains a (larger) list? Should the complete list of works be entered, or only those that appear on the cover? I would say just the ones on the cover. Should there be any guidelines for the disambiguation comment? I assume the plan is to put what would have been in the release title (i.e. performer information) in the comment. Of course this applies much more in the case of what the CSG (RFC-348) now calls “Single artist releases” and describes as “rare”. Here is how I have used the comment on one such release: http://musicbrainz.org/release/eeb3e67b-79a3-4105-8e04-e7d4dc156e79 Well, the performer information will in most cases go in the release artist field, making this unnecessary for those. For the few cases where it is actually needed, I'd argue as little as is needed to identify the release, with everything else just as relationships. (That release actually provides an example for both questions) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
Surely the artists mentioned on the cover should be entered under Release Artist http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:CSG2012/Release/Artist (which I gather has now passed) Brant Gibbard Toronto, ON http://bgibbard.ca -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Alex Mauer Sent: March-19-12 1:14 PM To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title On 03/19/2012 05:43 AM, symphonick wrote: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick/CSG_Release_Title http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-100 See wikipage for links to previous threads. Note that with this proposal performers are no longer allowed in the release title field. (The guideline for entering credited performers in the release artist field was accepted 2012-03-02) I just realized a couple of things I missed in the RFC.so I'll ask now. What about releases where the cover has a list of works, but the release actually contains a (larger) list? Should the complete list of works be entered, or only those that appear on the cover? Should there be any guidelines for the disambiguation comment? I assume the plan is to put what would have been in the release title (i.e. performer information) in the comment. Of course this applies much more in the case of what the CSG (RFC-348) now calls Single artist releases and describes as rare. Here is how I have used the comment on one such release: http://musicbrainz.org/release/eeb3e67b-79a3-4105-8e04-e7d4dc156e79 (That release actually provides an example for both questions) -Alex Mauer hawke ___ 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
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
On 03/19/2012 12:21 PM, Brant Gibbard wrote: Surely the artists mentioned on the cover should be entered under Release Artist Yes, but what about the artists not mentioned on the cover? See the example I linked[1]. This is what the new CSG release artist page describes as a “single artist release”. It has only J.S. Bach on the cover. So my question is: After this RFV passes, should the performers be listed in the disambig. comment, as they would have been in the title before this RFC? If so, how should it be formatted? If not, what should be used for disambiguation, and when? 1. http://musicbrainz.org/release/eeb3e67b-79a3-4105-8e04-e7d4dc156e79 2. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:CSG2012/Release/Artist ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Track artist = track artist?
This one is probably based on following Classical and/or the proposed soundtrack style: Putting the song’s writer as the artist. (Yes, that's why I pointed out that she is the *lyricist* and not the composer.) but I ask you to take a step back and think about what the track artist field is used for. That having [unknown] pop up in your musicplayer isn't nice at all. (It's not very far from having a MUSICBRAINZ_ARTISTID popping up in that it is technical Musicbrainz stuff.) Hardly. It indicates that the artist is unknown, which is true. It's true that the indication [unknown] is not as bad as 125ec42a-7229-4250-afc5-e057484327fe would be, and my not very far was certainly an exaggeration, but it is true that [unknown] is a MBz technicality. I guess I can't prove that it isn't nice to show these internal technicalities for those who just use the data, like those who just listen to a track on their computer, but that's my opinion at least. People who listen to a track on a physical release and a track on a computer have more or less the same wants and needs when looking up the track. Same releases have really bad track listings, but they are made with a purpose and are generally fine. Technicalities are good for internal use of course! It's immensely good that track artists aren't just strings but have real objects with MBIDs. *That's* where that info you mention is. Now with NGS Artist Credits we get not only these objects but also collaborations and name variations that result in text strings (with links). These text strings don't contain the information you talk about. Well, if [unknown] was part of that text string it would be really strange if the artist [unknown] wasn't involved, but strictly speaking that text string doesn't contain that information. So what *is* that text string used for? That's what I'm talking about. It's used for showing humans, together with links to the artists in them. The artist field should contain AN ARTIST, not an arbitrary comment about the origin of the track. The artist is still there. I'm not talking about an arbitrary comment. I'm talking about how the release describes its contents. The thing that releases always have done, and that discographies, databases like MBz etc. store in different ways. Don't put the carriage before the horse. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: CSG Release/RG Title
2012/3/19 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 03/19/2012 12:21 PM, Brant Gibbard wrote: Surely the artists mentioned on the cover should be entered under Release Artist Yes, but what about the artists not mentioned on the cover? See the example I linked[1]. This is what the new CSG release artist page describes as a “single artist release”. It has only J.S. Bach on the cover. So my question is: After this RFV passes, should the performers be listed in the disambig. comment, as they would have been in the title before this RFC? If so, how should it be formatted? If not, what should be used for disambiguation, and when? 1. http://musicbrainz.org/release/eeb3e67b-79a3-4105-8e04-e7d4dc156e79 2. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:CSG2012/Release/Artist This RFV only concerns the Release Title, not performers. The intention in the Release Artist guideline is that you only use performers composers that are credited on the cover (you can leave out performers if there are too many). We don't have a specific guideline for what to do with the Release disambiguation comment. Maybe we can add that as a separate RFC later, if needed. /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Track artist = track artist?
On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Per Starbäck wrote: These text strings don't contain the information you talk about. Well, if [unknown] was part of that text string it would be really strange if the artist [unknown] wasn't involved, but strictly speaking that text string doesn't contain that information. Yes, agreed. So what *is* that text string used for? That's what I'm talking about. It's used for showing humans, together with links to the artists in them. OK, so consider this: What if the actual performer were discovered. For the sake of argument, say it’s The Beatles (silly, I know, but…) . Would you say that in that case it should be credited as “‘The Beatles’ as ‘Från Häng me' till Dinosaurieland’”? I would hope that you would say no, it should be credited to the artist. Why is it any different just because the artist is [unknown]? I'm not talking about an arbitrary comment. I'm talking about how the release describes its contents. But that’s not what the artist field is for. The artist field is for listing the artist. If you need to list other things than the artist (like the name of the album where the track was originally released, or the key, or the time signature, or other arbitrary information about the song) you can either consider it “Extra Title Information”[1], or a disambiguation comment[2], or add it as an annotation. Which of those is most appropriate is up to you. 1. http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information 2. http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Disambiguation_Comment 3. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Annotation ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] CSG: caps on no. op.?
I was going to start another thread about CSG track titles when I found a couple of pages where it says that you should not capitalize op. no. in English: https://www.areditions.com/mla/notes/stylesheet.html#musical_compositions http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/capital.htm Anybody knows why we do? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Track artist = track artist?
So what *is* that text string used for? That's what I'm talking about. It's used for showing humans, together with links to the artists in them. OK, so consider this: What if the actual performer were discovered. For the sake of argument, say it’s The Beatles (silly, I know, but…) . Would you say that in that case it should be credited as “‘The Beatles’ as ‘Från Häng me' till Dinosaurieland’”? I would hope that you would say no, it should be credited to the artist. Why is it any different just because the artist is [unknown]? *If* it's different it's because The Beatles is a real artist, not an technicality. If your music player says The Beatles when you play the track you don't see MBz internals. Then it's something that *could* have been on the release. If we find out that The Beatles actually performed this track the most obvious thing to do is to add ARs about this. For the rest I don't know. I would want to understand why the release said something else than The Beatles to begin with. Was it just a printing mistake? Didn't they know? Were they trying to fool us? If this track was recorded anonymously by The Beatles for Häng me' till Dinosauriland and then this later release included this mystery track again before the true facts were discovered it's at least not obvious to me that MBz should show it otherwise than the releases themselves did On the release http://musicbrainz.org/release/f10e4b7a-11d5-465a-890a-d37b2c9b9a51 by Lars Hollmer there is a track called 44 sekunder köpt speldosa (= 44 seconds of a bought music box). It contains what the title says. Nothing more, nothing less. Suppose I tell you that the song on the music box really is It's a small world (after all) composed by the Sherman Brothers, would you change the track artist for that track? Or if we find out who played it for the music box would you change the track artist then? This time I would hope that you would say no. This is clearly released as a track by Lars Hollmer. I'm not talking about an arbitrary comment. I'm talking about how the release describes its contents. But that’s not what the artist field is for. The artist field is for listing the artist. Yes, and that's how the people who make the track listings for releases also think. It would be strange otherwise because this whole concept of an artist field is of course nothing new in MBz. It exists because releases (very often) have them. We are modeling them, not the other way around. In this case this track listing has extra title information as well (with a movie source or an original title of a translated song). There are title parts, extra title info parts and artist parts, all indicated graphically (in this case with text in different sizes and with parentheses). Those who made the track listing wanted to state who the artists were, and this is how they did it. There is no mistake done for us to correct. This doesn't look like an ordinary artist credit (like The Beatles) but that's for a reason. Because the original release with this track doesn't really have a release artist (from what I gather at the Swedish Media Database at http://smdb.kb.se/catalog/id/001504767 ), just like many children's records don't, and probably nothing written for individual tracks as well. So those who wrote this track listing found this the best way to indicate who the artists are, and therefore they wrote that in the artist field. Why second-guess them? Yes, it doesn't look like your typical artist credit, but that is because it *isn't* your typical artist credit. Would you see it differently if they had written artists from HMTD or The HMTD gang instead of From HMTD? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: When does the CSG apply?
On 03/02/2012 10:11 AM, caller#6 wrote: Hi all, I'm working on a CSG start page. It's mostly a directory, with a bit of overview. Feedback and developments will be tracked at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Caller_number_six/CSG_history_and_principles A key point that should be answered on this page (and in the /Style pages) is (as the subject says), When does the CSG apply? My thoughts: - Q: Why do we have a CSG at all? Why is classical music treated differently? A: First, by classical we don't mean a particular style or genre exactly. We're talking about music that's performed and presented as part of a musical tradition with certain broad characteristics (e.g. it tends to be composer-centric rather than performer-centric). [1] The CSG is meant to recognize this difference in musical traditions. [snip] Feedback please, Alex / caller#6 [1] c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music#Characteristics I wanted to follow up on this point, because it's a bit of a departure from previous guidelines. In the past we've asked Who is considered a “classical” composer?[1] or What is classical music?[2] In my opinion, the question should be is this release part of the classical tradition? and the answer would be based on how the music is performed and presented (and, alas, marketed). Wikipedia [3] lists certain common characteristics: literature, instrumentation, form, technical execution, complexity and society. I'd add that what we're calling classical tends to be composer-centric, tends to be performed with a high degree of fidelity to the score, and tends to be presented in a fairly formal setting. Does that make sense as a basis for determining when to apply the CSG? thanks (as always), Alex / caller#6 [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:CSGv2#Who_is_considered_a_.E2.80.9Cclassical.E2.80.9D_composer.3F [2] http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/What-is-classical-music-tp2990811p2990811.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music#Characteristics ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Track artist = track artist?
On 03/19/2012 04:33 PM, Per Starbäck wrote: *If* it's different it's because The Beatles is a real artist, not an technicality. If your music player says The Beatles when you play the track you don't see MBz internals. Then it's something that *could* have been on the release. I don’t see using [unknown] as exposing MBz internals. It’s just a different way of writing “Unknown Artist”. What does your player do when the artist field is blank? Was it just a printing mistake? Didn't they know? I would assume that it’s because they didn’t know the original artist, and so they did their best to include at least some kind of reference about where it came from. I don’t take it to mean that the label is saying that the artist is called “Från Häng me' till Dinosaurieland”, though. Suppose I tell you that the song on the music box really is It's a small world (after all) composed by the Sherman Brothers, would you change the track artist for that track? Or if we find out who played it for the music box would you change the track artist then? This time I would hope that you would say no. This is clearly released as a track by Lars Hollmer. Depends on the release. If it’s a release where we would normally credit the composer, then I would indeed change the artist to the Sherman Brothers. But in most cases I would consider the music box to be an instrument, played by Lars Hollmer. (building the piece into the music box is more of an “arrangement” role, I think) Yes, it doesn't look like your typical artist credit, but that is because it *isn't* your typical artist credit. Would you see it differently if they had written artists from HMTD or The HMTD gang instead of From HMTD? Yes — then it’s really describing the artists, rather than an album. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: When does the CSG apply?
2012/3/19 caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com On 03/02/2012 10:11 AM, caller#6 wrote: Hi all, I'm working on a CSG start page. It's mostly a directory, with a bit of overview. Feedback and developments will be tracked at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Caller_number_six/CSG_history_and_principles A key point that should be answered on this page (and in the /Style pages) is (as the subject says), When does the CSG apply? My thoughts: - Q: Why do we have a CSG at all? Why is classical music treated differently? A: First, by classical we don't mean a particular style or genre exactly. We're talking about music that's performed and presented as part of a musical tradition with certain broad characteristics (e.g. it tends to be composer-centric rather than performer-centric). [1] The CSG is meant to recognize this difference in musical traditions. [snip] Feedback please, Alex / caller#6 [1] c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music#Characteristics I wanted to follow up on this point, because it's a bit of a departure from previous guidelines. In the past we've asked Who is considered a “classical” composer?[1] or What is classical music?[2] In my opinion, the question should be is this release part of the classical tradition? and the answer would be based on how the music is performed and presented (and, alas, marketed). Wikipedia [3] lists certain common characteristics: literature, instrumentation, form, technical execution, complexity and society. Would CSG apply to Classical Chillout and similar? The music is performed in tradition, but presented/marketed more like any compilation. I'd add that what we're calling classical tends to be composer-centric, tends to be performed with a high degree of fidelity to the score, and tends to be presented in a fairly formal setting. Does that make sense as a basis for determining when to apply the CSG? thanks (as always), Alex / caller#6 [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:CSGv2#Who_is_considered_a_.E2.80.9Cclassical.E2.80.9D_composer.3F [2] http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/What-is-classical-music-tp2990811p2990811.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music#Characteristics Where do we draw the line with songs? Silent Night is technically a classical song, I suppose, but I'd say the performer is more important. And pop covers. Apocalyptica plays Metallica would be credited to Apocalyptica, but what happens when another (let's say unnamed) ensemble plays the exact same arrangement? The same arrangement transcribed for other instruments? Just a similar arrangement of the same song? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Track artist = track artist?
I don’t see using [unknown] as exposing MBz internals. It’s just a different way of writing “Unknown Artist”. It's not a way used by humans. It's not a way used by anyone except MBz as far as I know. (I think it's good that special purpose artists have strange names like that btw so you can see at once there here is something strange.) What does your player do when the artist field is blank? I don't know. Shows that blank field I would expect, that is nothing. I would assume that it’s because they didn’t know the original artist, and so they did their best to include at least some kind of reference about where it came from. I don’t take it to mean that the label is saying that the artist is called “Från Häng me' till Dinosaurieland”, though. Of course no one is saying that it's a name. Later on you said you would look differently at Artists from HMTD. That is also not a name. No name variations for [unknown] would be actual names, because if we had a name we would use that instead of [unknown]. If you are against any name variations for [unknown] you have to chance to destroy some of my recent MBz work at edit #16929733 where an old jazz recording with an unknown orchestra is credited by the release with the description used by the original 1939 release they got it from. Not a name, just a description. It takes some time to enter all that data and double-check all the name variations, but it's really easy to quickly destroy it. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CSG: caps on no. op.?
Not I, but I can tell you what the Chicago Manual of Style says: The abbreviation op. (opus; plural opp. or opera) is set in roman and usually lowercased. An abbreviation designating a catalog of a particular composer’s works is always capitalized (e.g., BWV [Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis]; D. [Deutsch] for Schubert; K. [Köchel] for Mozart; WoO [Werke ohne Opuszahl], assigned by scholars to certain unnumbered works). Sonata in E-flat, op. 31, no. 3; Sonata op. 31 Fantasy in C Minor, K. 475; Fantasy K. 475 I'm fine with it either way, uppercase or lowercase. Patrick -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/CSG-caps-on-no-op-tp4486191p4487651.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
