Re: [mb-style] CSG for NGS track recording names: research page
On 13. mai 2011 11:52, symphonick wrote: On Fri, 13 May 2011 10:05:52 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2011/5/13 caramel St John Passion, BWV 245: Part One: No. 1 Chorus Herr, unser Herrscher inserting a comma between the work title and the catalog number seems a simple request, just as adding a colon after the art number, but I don't edit the printed title at all. Yeah, maybe it's the best solution anyway. Most titles will look tolerable. Hey guys, I'm still lurching around, but not following things closely. Given that the work title will contain and repeat all the minutiae included in the track title above, it seems a waste to me to repeat it all in the track title. In particular, you will then be giving users that don't want everything in the title, little to choose between. An argument for as-on-the-liner: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Bach-passions-and-CSG-td1059835.html And an argument against standardising track titles: BIS released two recordings of Beethoven's 5th piano concerto last year. Track titles differ for the second movement II. Adagio un poco mosso [1,2], II. Adagio un poco moto – [3,4] The differences are trivial and I guess LvB couldn't care less -- perhaps some editions of the score use mosso, some moto. But they are both correct. And my point is that in general labels are far from crazy; they have a lot more know-how when it comes to making good track titles than MB editors, so let's leave it to them. cheers! Leiv / leivhe [1] http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=albumaID=BIS-SACD-1793 [2] booklet: http://www.eclassical.com/labels/bis/beethoven-piano-concerto-no5-choral-fantasia.html [3] http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=albumaID=BIS-SACD-1758 [4] booklet: http://www.eclassical.com/labels/bis/beethoven-piano-concertos-4-5.html ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Theatre Style Duos, was: Pre-RFC-28: Theatre Style (aka Musical Soundtrack Style)
On 16. sep. 2010 19:35, Paul C. Bryan wrote: My position: MB should structure/present data according to generally accepted norms, and to give deference to this in light of the fact that such data may not be codified in a set of published rules or guidelines. I don't have time to follow this discussion, and I'm not sure I can be of any help, probably not, but I got a couple of comments. IMO Brian is right that the reference to notability or generally accepted norms is problematic. You could have stated your case otherwise though: MB has until NGS been mostly about reliably capturing what can be found on releases. With NGS, other things like Works become more important, but this should not make us forget about truthfully representing what's on the covers: Having Sullivan as artist for stuff credited GS is simply plain wrong. I still don't know the details about NGS, but if the composer of the music arbitrarily is given some kind of preeminence for a few genres and release types, then this will become an eternal source of frustration. A little while ago I bought what was billed as Brahms/arr. Lazic - Piano Concerto no.3. Brahms wrote two piano concertos, and this is Lazic's arrangement of his violin concerto for piano (http://www.channelclassics.com/dejanbrahms.html). (I haven't added it to MB, attributing PC3 to Brahms troubles me... In MB we already have Rachmaninoff's 5th PC! Sacrilege!) Of course, this is just a special case where the arrangement is presented under another name, it is common to present arrangements e.g. with Bach/Stokowski etc. (The Rach 5 is not a simple arrangement though, it is the 2nd symphony reimagined by composer Alexander Warenberg as a piano concerto, and presented as being by Rachmaninoff/Warenberg.) In the end I don't care so much about how these are represented on the works end, I am much more interested in my tags. But if the artist field continues to be important and it is inherited from work to release, and used by default by Picard to populate the artist tag in my files, then the end result should not go counter what can be found on the cover. good luck :) Leiv ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Reviving RFC for cadenza AR
On 29. juni 2010 15:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2010/6/29 Andrew Conkling On Jun 28, 2010, at 17:08, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2010/6/28 Andrew Conkling On Jun 28, 2010, at 4:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: You were looking for more general formulations. I suggest: - X is the author of the cadenza for track # - track # contains a cadenza whose author is X ... a little too verbose, maybe? I'd say. I'd think composed would be good, perhaps wrote, or some other synonym; at least those suggestions there don't seem any better than composed or wrote. Any further thoughts? Procedural advice? :) I was precisely trying to avoid write because as your proposal explained, sometimes cadenza's are not written at first. I am confused because you now seem to be going precisely towards what you suggested you were trying to avoid. But anyhow this is quite minor, the text is quite clear and I would be very surprised if there was a voting war because of this. It was three years ago. :) I would prefer composed, but agree that the word choice is pretty minor. Right. And I answered 3 years ago too :-) You still have my: +1 +1 from me too Wording is a bit difficult. I think, but am not sure, that write is more frequent than composed in track lists/liners. It is more common on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadenza A bigger problem is that tracks may contain more than one cadenza, e.g. when all concerto movements are in the same track. My suggestion now would be - track # has cadenza by X (or ... has cadenza written by X) - X wrote cadenza for track # but I don't think it sounds so good... Leiv ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] no catalog number (was Re: Japanese catalogue numbers standardisation)
On 11. juni 2010 01:09, Brian Schweitzer wrote: Re: that last, I do wish we could find a way to standardize no catalog number - a checkbox, or [none], or some such. It's beginning to become problematic in some labels I try to maintain, as Amazon, iTunes, and other mostly digital releases with no catalog number are indistinguishable (in the label's listing, among others) from unknown/missing catalog number. This sounds like an interesting idea, but I am not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you expand on this a little? If you want digital releases marked as such on the MB label page, then including the release type on the label page would be better than using unknown catno, I'd think? And, I just bought a release which turned out to have a bonus track and be available through iTunes (browse edits for http://musicbrainz.org/release/6ff47b6a-8534-4ede-9ccd-21b1a352f2f6.html ). This makes me think that a lot of iTunes only (or almost only) releases really do have barcodes/catnos -- they're just harder to find. Leiv / leivhe ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal
On 30. april 2010 11:18, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
This would be a simpler discussion if the five releases criteria was
followed, I think :)
The negative there, in my eyes, would be that the resulting tree
wouldn't show in order or appear completely. Let's say we do adopt a 5
release criteria, then apply that to something like fach or choir type.
First, we're likely to more often run into the need on works, rather
than releases - so we'd need to expand it to works as counting for the
5. Then we get the voice types added in any random order - and to the
best of my knowledge, the ordering of same-level children within a node
of the AR tree is based on order added, and is not controllable by the
relationship editor? Third, we now get incompleteness within the tree -
as I said before, the instruments tree needs this type of basis, as the
list of potential instruments is essentially unlimited. The same is not
true for types of voices or choirs. Those are quite limited, and I just
can't justify why we'd want a situation where, say, soprano is complete,
but all subtypes of bass (or choir-type) are omitted simply because
noone, indiividually, requested them yet. That's why I'd suggest we
simply get it right the first time, then do it, rather than building it
up piecemeal one by one.
Lastly, when the tree would finally be complete, the 5 release process
would still remain - the potential would exist for redundancy or 'almost
redundancy' in the tree. I'm saying this badly, but what I'm getting at
is this: what happens when someone requests something, gives 5
releases/works, but the tree is already full, and the thing they're
requesting is either heavily debatable or otherwise problematic?
('rap', the French name for a identical equiv of a German fach, etc.).
Hence I'd suggest keeping the vocal tree to proposals, rather than
expose any of it to a mere 'requested 5 times' type of criteria.
We're digressing. I think the 5 releases is a healthy criterion and a
good starting point for discussion about whether an element should be
included or not. I don't know the AR tree, but would assume that where
it matters, in the UI for users adding/editing ARs, it can be displayed
in a sensible order.
Leiv / leivhe
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal
Time to answer this, sorry for the late reply. I actually got some voting/editing done in my allotted mb-time. On 13. april 2010 03:51, Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM, SwissChris wrote: As for “choir” I’d not subdivide it either: As said before in nearly all cases it’s obvious or simply redundant: “Women’s Choir of Sofia performed female choir” or “Wiener Sängerknaben performed children’s choir” or “Manhattan Barbershop Quartet performed barbershop quartet” At first glance, I'd perhaps agree, until you got to not separating choirs. Sure, there'll be the “Manhattan Barbershop Quartet or the “Women’s Choir of Sofia. But how about, just to name a few offhand, ECCO, American Quartet, Peerless Quartet, or the Edison Quartet? The same would hold true with regards to college a capella groups; I've known several dozen, yet I cannot think of a single This argument seems weak to me. You are right there are cases where it is not obvious from the choir's/group's name what kind of singing is done. But we don't distinguish between various electronica/metal/pop genres or subgenres either, so why should we for the choirs? Because male/female/SATB is not a genre, but a type of choir? I have choir albums where all singers appearing are listed in the booklet as SAT or B (don't think I've seen SI/SII etc.). I can see the use of having Alto added, to enable people to add ARs for the alto soloist to tracks with alto solo (or, yes, for those who are big enough fans to want to add ARs for all the singers). Men's choir/Women's choir can also have its uses, to capture tracks where mixed choirs appear only with men or women. This would be a simpler discussion if the five releases criteria was followed, I think :) Leiv / leivhe ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Public reprimand
I am also annoyed with the answer you gave, Brian, and I don't want to leave the following quote unanswered, so I'd like to express my opinion on this. Brian Schweitzer wrote: My disagreement with Chad regards his arguments that guidelines are just indications of unwritten concepts, rather than whatever the text says. I have never seen or heard Chad say guidelines are just indications of unwritten concepts, and I dislike a lot this way of portraying his viewpoints in such a spiteful way. To be frank: I would rather have Chad as a style leader than you, because after having seen him for a long time on the forums and on this list, I trust his judgments. Sorry, in my experience you never were the best at getting the reasonable intentions lying behind the written docs - what they are trying to express, what problems they were written to solve - and how the use of the docs evolves over time. Now, here we are, Style Leader, Rob has given you your hat, and I guess I know why. Your eagerness to explore and know every nook and cranny of MB combined with your amazing productivity puts you in an excellent position to have the oversight to lead the community to places it wants to be lead. Please keep the tempo slower and trust people over protocol so we can all breathe a little easier. Good luck :) Leiv / leivhe ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal
SwissChris wrote: (and yes @ Leif: You could, when hired as “soubrette”, turn to justice if a director asked you to sing a role outside your fach, which could be damageable to your voice and/or your reputation). Thanks, when you say contracts were made out only for a season, it makes more sense that the theaters could be tempted to exploit the singers. Leiv ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Teacher Position ARs (was Re: pre-RFC: Artist 'held position with' Artist ARs)
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Sure there are composer-pianists who have worked for musical academies teaching composer-pianists-to-be. I do not see why MB should be rich enough to let you say: TeacherA taught StudentA SubjectA and SubjectB, TeacherA taught StudentB only SubjectA. Exactly the type of thing I was thinking of. I've been reading a book by Steve Reich, where he talks about various teachers he had and his musical relationships with classmate John Cage. That's the kind of richness that's quite interesting to me. If I can see that Foo taught both Bar and Pez, at the same time, that's interesting - it's not conclusive, but from that I can also guess that either Bar and Pez knew each other at that time, or at least that they had many of the same influences, which would likely influence their later output. So I guess I would rephrase your question: why should MB *not* be that rich in detail, even if it is not directly tied to a specific recording or work? I said I found the Teacher-Student relationship interesting, so given a bona fide artist teacher of both Cage and Reich, I'd be happy to see them linked like you describe :)(and thereby enabling users to discover completely new music! as About_MusicBrainz says) What I don't get for the teacher-student AR is why is it good to split them up? It seems to me more a task for a prose biography, e.g. page on wikipedia, to have that level of detail, because it will be easier to make the wording come out right and also since you will be putting a further strain on the voting system. Come to think of it, one could perhaps argue that a nicely formatted list of students on the annotation for TeacherA, and similar lists of teachers for StudentA ... StudentZ would do this even better than you propose because you no longer have any AR wording constrains to worry about. For human users, this is just as good. (After all, we track who made travel arrangements for a band to get to the studio to record a track... :D) (A couple of random thoughts about adding these ARs and making the expressivity of MB richer - what happens when we make voting difficult for other than dedicated fans/experts? won't it just be noise putting other voters off? To be honest, the voting situation's gotten even worse since I ran numbers 3 years ago; back then, we had 10-15% at 14,000 edits per 2 weeks, we've recently been at more like 5% on 20-25,000 edits per 2 weeks. Given that so little data at all gets verified, I think the better place to look for verification would come from the person using the data who notices it's wrong, rather than the person who's voting on the data. (I was reading http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 earlier; the bit about fixing an incorrect '40 people die of this' struck me as quite similar to how I see our current situation.) Sounds a little like you're moving towards a position saying edits should no longer need votes (perhaps except for the high quality stuff). - what quality can we expect of this data, what's the low threshold for what we find acceptable?) Autobiographies, biographies, class yearbooks, artist/teacher-attributed statements, liner notes, concert bios, etc. - perhaps anything non-tabloidish? Personally, I'd go with anything that's 'trustworthy', however you define that - if we go too specific, we'll just end up blocking good info. The sources of this info could come from many places, I agree. I was thinking more in terms of broadness/coverage and reliability. With fewer votes given and unverifiable sources, this data will perhaps not be of much value for non-human agents. Leiv / leivhe ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal
Brian Schweitzer wrote: So, before the 'non-debated' part of the tree proposal goes out, would anyone debate any of the tree as it would now be proposed Just a note that I agree with SwissChris that the current classical vocal types are enough. de.wp.org/wiki/Stimmfach shows it's a mess, and I don't think we should get into it. Although I don't have access to my CD collection, I am pretty sure I have never seen lyric coloratura soprano or the others in the main credit section(s) of booklets/sleeves. This I have confirmed by downloading and checking booklets from the British specialist labels Chandos and Hyperion. When it comes to lyric coloratura soprano or others in scores, I don't think you'll find them, because I think they have been assigned after the fact by opera houses (it is a convenience, according to en.wp.org/Fach). Which composer would risk limiting roles as credited on the title page to just a narrow subdivision of soprano? (OTOH, notice how much Lieder for voice is used, or the description of Das Lied von der Erde: Eine Symphonie für eine Tenor- und eine Alt- (oder Bariton-) Stimme und Orchester) To get a feel for how this would be to enter for Joe MBUser, I bought this release (which is very much a work in progress, it's from passionato.com so I don't have the booklet): http://musicbrainz.org/release/9aa8de21-15c4-49e6-b4fd-4f11cc77db3c.html Janet Baker is classified as a coloratura mezzo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzo-soprano#Coloratura_mezzo-soprano and a lyrical mezzo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fach#Lyrischer_Mezzosopran_.2F_Spielalt (I think the second is correct. Note that the description of this voice says: many lyric mezzos with strong extensions to their upper vocal registers make the transition to singing as sopranos) On my release, she is credited for being a mezzo, but she sings stuff mostly sung by altos - notably Brahm's Alto Rhapsody, and she sings some Wagner and Strauss that usually is sung by sopranos. The review at http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2008/Sept08/Janet_Baker_2080872.htm says she was in the beginning [...] classified as a contralto I have different recordings of both the Alto Rhapsody and the Strauss stuff, and, this is not transposed. en.wp.org says The Fach system is a convenience for singers and opera houses. de.wp.org says it is rather more in Germany, as a singer of one Fach may go to some civil court if s/he is made to sing roles from another Fach (this must be a simplified description). To Joe Voter at MB it will remain just a mess if we were to include it. Leiv / leivhe ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Teacher Position ARs (was Re: pre-RFC: Artist 'held position with' Artist ARs)
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
I also think I don't like the splitting into three different Teacher
Positions (TP), Instrument Instructor (IIP) and Vocal Coach (VCP).
TP is for musical education other than instrument or voice training.
(Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_education is a bit weird
btw, it's mostly about teaching kids.)
IIP links an artist to another artist who provided them with
instruction on how to play one or more instruments. (This sounds a
little like the pupil didn't know how to play the instrument and is
getting his/hers first instructions from the teacher.)
Example: Alfred Brendel taught Paul Lewis, they are late and new
champions of Beethoven piano sonatas. It seems to me that both TP and
IIP is too narrowly construed for what I guess Brendel did for Lewis.
Yet I think one AR between them should be enough.
For human beings, I think that TP without the restriction is just fine:
From knowing just a little about the artists that are linked, it will
be apparent what kind of learning that has been going on. Do you have
examples where this is not the case?
Re: the wording problem, it boils down to there being only boolean
attribute support in the AR system - there's no way to do and/or/nor
wording ('if attribute A AND attribute B', 'if attribute A OR attribute
B', or 'if attribute A NOR attribute B'). So if you wanted to say
Artist taught music (and {vocals}) (and {instrument})' you get
wierd/non-grammatical link phrases if everything actually gets used -
Foo taught music and alto and choir and sax, flute, and piano to Bar
is the best case doable.
But I've actually had music instructors who taught general music
education, voice, and an instrument (piano, in 2 cases, sax in the
other); each was separately taught, in different types of 'instructor
roles', not all as the same concept. And esp re: vocal coaches, that
role quite frequently goes beyond a mere 'instructor' or teacher type of
position (see the interplays specific only to that AR and some of the
other 9, which don't exist for the other 2 teacher-type ARs).
I don't doubt that instructors teach several subjects (composition is
another one I think you haven't mentioned) - and perhaps another famous
pianist has taught Paul Lewis to play the recorder. You are right that
the kind of learning is not always apparent. I guess what I was trying
to say is that the most interesting teaching relationships between
artists for MB is where the subject is something that both artists
excels at or are famous for, and that Artist taught Artist suffices.
Sure there are composer-pianists who have worked for musical academies
teaching composer-pianists-to-be. I do not see why MB should be rich
enough to let you say: TeacherA taught StudentA SubjectA and SubjectB,
TeacherA taught StudentB only SubjectA.
(A couple of random thoughts about adding these ARs and making the
expressivity of MB richer
- what happens when we make voting difficult for other than dedicated
fans/experts? won't it just be noise putting other voters off?
- what quality can we expect of this data, what's the low threshold for
what we find acceptable?)
Leiv / leivhe
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: Artist 'held position with' Artist ARs
I've been thinking a bit more about these the last week, so wanted to give you some more positive feedback. Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM, symphonick wrote: 2010-03-27 11:22, Brian Schweitzer skrev: * Bandleader Position Relationship Type * Choirmaster Position Relationship Type * Concertmaster Position Relationship Type * Conductor Position Relationship Type * Instrument Instructor Position Relationship Type * Manager Position Relationship Type * Music Director Position Relationship Type * Road Crew Position Relationship Type * Teacher Position Relationship Type * Vocal Coach Position Relationship Type I like most all of these and think it is interesting data for MB, with a clear exception for the Road Crew Position which sounds to me to be far to much towards the trivia section. Manager I am also not so sure about, but McLaren-Sex Pistols is probably not the only interesting relationship, so if others want it, sure :) I also think I don't like the splitting into three different Teacher Positions (TP), Instrument Instructor (IIP) and Vocal Coach (VCP). TP is for musical education other than instrument or voice training. (Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_education is a bit weird btw, it's mostly about teaching kids.) IIP links an artist to another artist who provided them with instruction on how to play one or more instruments. (This sounds a little like the pupil didn't know how to play the instrument and is getting his/hers first instructions from the teacher.) Example: Alfred Brendel taught Paul Lewis, they are late and new champions of Beethoven piano sonatas. It seems to me that both TP and IIP is too narrowly construed for what I guess Brendel did for Lewis. Yet I think one AR between them should be enough. For human beings, I think that TP without the restriction is just fine: From knowing just a little about the artists that are linked, it will be apparent what kind of learning that has been going on. Do you have examples where this is not the case? Do you have examples of something interesting that can be done with these three by keeping them apart (supposing the narrow-wording-problem above could be fixed)? ... There's 5 positions I know of which I've not tried to handle, as they all seem more like Location-Artist ARs to me, should we ever get Locations... Artist-in-residence Conductor-in-residence Composer-in-residence Concert Producer Music Supervisor Googling conductor-in-residence readily gives plenty of artist-artist relations, so I don't understand why you think Location-Artist is better. (And I am uncertain about the last two.) Leiv ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: Artist 'held position with' Artist ARs
symphonick wrote: Also conductor-in-residence as a sub-type of conductor - or do you mean something else than chief conductor? Yes. Chief conductor is Music Director in Brians terms: The principal conductor of an orchestra or opera company is sometimes referred to as a music director or chief conductor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conducting ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] NGS RFC: spurious works ( the Artist field)
autodave wrote: On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:14:35 -0700, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Now if ACs make collaborations more palatable, perhaps we should start crediting the performers (as credited on the release in question) in stead of the composer for classical? Well, I thought we were talking about a new meta-level above MB as we know it, which wouldn't necessarily affect tagging. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Sorry for mixing works into this, I was talking about NGS releases, and how Artist Credits gives us new opportunities. (A couple of years ago, coopera started this debate, and he and pianissimo84 had several good ideas for how this could be done, without ACs of course. Back then I wasn't quite convinced, but it might be now.) I can see how having the performer in the artist slot appeals to you, composer=artist has served me well and can of course continue to :) My concern was more that the MB way of organizing classical releases with composer-as-artist (current and NGS), runs counter to all other sources for tags I've tried: dgwebshop.com classicsonline.com www.theclassicalshop.net hyperion-records.co.uk linnrecords.com passionato.com hdtracks.com emusic.com Now, these are all targeting the serious collector, and except for the last they offer flac files, good cover images and pdf booklets (at least passionato's UI shows they intend to provide booklets). Hyperion's tags in particular are well thought out, but others are also good. Since *only a trickle* of new classical releases are ending up at MB - a few of these entered by paid staff at BBC!, I fear we are slowly amassing metadata that will become more and more irrelevant to users: If they download music from the abovementioned sources (and I bet amazon could be added), and they don't retag all files they buy with mb-tags, then the occasional tagging of classical files with mb-data will cause headaches when they later need to search for stuff. I am not saying that I want us to switch, but I want it to be considered. But let's wait for NGS first, and see how that goes :) Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Conductor/Chorus Master AR fix, plus the Artist 'held position with' Artist ARs
Brian Schweitzer wrote: NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN RFC! :D :D Ok, this one's just about done. It's taken a ton of work; I know that it's rather large (huge?), but I feel that it had to be, to cover all the various things that have been discussed whenever the conductor/chorusmaster problem, or other 'artist position' suggestions, have come up in the 5 years since that problem was first raised. But before I make the proposal, I'd really appreciate some feedback (and some other eyes looking for nits and typos). I think these are more interesting than the parent/sibling relations which I've never cared for, but cannot see that there is much a need for this. What useful use case(s) requested by actual users will this allow MB to support? It would be good to have a Concertmaster AR between artist and track, though. The CM/Leader/FV is sometimes credited prominently on sleeves (and I guess all orchestras need more than one CM, so you cannot deduce this information based on the CM artist-artist AR). For all I know you've proposed a CM Artist-Track/release AR already, mb-style is flooded and I am unable to keep up. I would like to follow discussions on ReleaseEvent and Work, which seems to be the only important discussions atm?, but I find this hard as there is so much noise. (Somewhere you mentioned that mb-style has much less traffic than misc dev mailing lists. The comparison is IMO meaningless.) Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Label Name: Capitalization?
Andrew Conkling wrote: Label Name http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/LabelName reads: Each Label /Label in MusicBrainz /MusicBrainz has one Label Name, which is the official name of the label, as found on cd sleeves and/or official documents. and A Label Name should be represented as it is spelled on the media sleeves, including use of characters from non latin charsets, stylized characters... This was interpreted in edit 8081403 http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8081403 as meaning that if a label appears in lowercase in a logo/brand, that should be used in MusicBrainz. However, I'd argue (as I started to in edit 12125418 http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=12125418) that both phrases together imply that the media sleeves reference refers to spelling and not to case. I feel like however a record company refers to themselves in print is certainly worth paying attention to; to that end, Hyperion Records http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/ has theirs pretty clearly. One rarely sees hyperion, so Hyperion is fine with me. Edit 9459437 http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9459437 was correct, imo. (In passing it is worth noting that both DHM and HM are referred to even in midsentences with lower case http://web.archive.org/web/20071019092256/http://www.sonybmgclassical.de/company.php?id=56 http://www.harmoniamundi.com/home?branch=fr#/all_about_hm) If this is something that should become an RFC, I'll take that on. At the very least, I'd argue that it should be clarified. If you think this a widespread problem, go ahead and propose some better language for the docs :) Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Part of series relationship
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Perhaps also modify it, to handle the concerns that have been raised, so
it's something like this:
Release Group is part of a series {{with / , the next volume in the
series is}} Release Group
Attribute: [] Next
I don't quite see how valuable the AR-beetwen-Releases-or-RGs approach
is as long as it cannot represent the name of the series. You would have
to use the release annotation to note that some release is part of the
Columbia Jazz Masterpieces as opposed to the Columbia String Swing
Masterpieces. And what if a release was part of two series, both the
Summer Hits series and the DJ ÜberKool Remix series?
And surely one motivating factor for working on a series would be to
have a page that would gradually become more complete and goodlooking as
releases were added and where one could add interesting and geeky
annotations? For releases-in-sets we already have that: ReleaseGroups
(at least I hope they can get annotations when NGS comes). For series,
there is no good way to say that
The series 'Opening Doors', is intended by Dausgaard and the Swedish
Chamber Orchestra to explore the limits of what a chamber orchestra is
traditionally expected to perform
(http://www.bis.se/album_info.php?aID=BIS-SACD-1566).
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship
caller#6 wrote: Chad Wilson wrote: On 25/02/2010 11:04 p.m., Nikki wrote: I'd much rather see all entries in a release group linked to the same entry (typically earliest). Unfortunately doing this defeats one of the original benefits of the relationship as defined, which is to define a proper sequential order between the entries without relying on release events to infer order (and make possibly wrong assumptions about the next entry in a series where REs on the two releases are perhaps from different countries, or where there are missing entries). I can think of a few series off the top of my head with no explicit sequential order other than cat#, namely: Castle Collectors Series (Castle Communications CCSxxx) Columbia Jazz Materpieces (and similar Columbia/CBS reissue series for fusion and classical) Yes, we want both the ordered and non-ordered series represented. This means that release A is part of a series, the next release in the series is release B (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Of_Series_Relationship_Type) is not what we want. I guess this is even admitted on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series: Important: Not all series may be suitable for use with this relationship. I guess in stead we want some light version of the entity label, say series. This would allow us to 1) give the series a name (how would you otherwise catch Columbia Jazz Masterpieces or Opening Doors (see annotation on http://musicbrainz.org/release/29628fe1-2616-481a-ad33-944ae68de31c.html) 2) have ARs between the series and the release groups in it. (Assuming it is the release groups that are in a series: Perhaps it is conceivable to have a SACD series where we would lump together the regular-CD and the SACD release in the same release group, but only the SACD one was in the series?) 3) have series pages under http://musicbrainz.org/series/MBID, showing the entire series in all its glory 4) (possibly, hopefully) a series number or identificator which for sequential series allows you to get FabricLive 35: Marcus Intalex is the 35th release in the FabricLive compilation series. (See more examples on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series), and some smart ordering of the release groups on the series page. 5) get series with only one release in it. Today the wiki.mb.org/Series page says A series can vary between two and hundreds of releases., and that sounds wrong to me: Perhaps only the first volume has been released, perhaps the artist dies before getting to record the second. Personally I think perhaps the track series idea should be dropped: This sounds just weird to me: Metallica's The Unforgiven, The Unforgiven II and The Unforgiven III are a track series. It will sometimes be difficult to say whether something is an imprint (label) or a series. Take Columbia Jazz Masterpieces again, my guess is that if that was on passionato.com it would be a sublabel. See examples for Decca or Deutsche Grammophon sublabels here: http://www.passionato.com/labels/ . Does this make any sense? Perhaps the ideas have already been dismissed? Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship
Nikki wrote: Do you have some examples of series which need a specific order but were released in the wrong order see vol numbers and dates for this label: http://musicbrainz.org/label/c3dd9db0-5dd3-4fd8-b378-9cc60da967f2.html Volume 2 is released these days, some five years after vol 8. I am not sure how this odd case would affect your point of view. Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Classical Release Artist Style
lorenz pressler wrote: subject: Mixed recitals by a performer or group http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Classical_Release_Artist_Style#Mixed_recitals_by_a_performer_or_group here it says: In cases where a release features a single performer or group and contains works from multiple composers, that performer or group may be designated the ReleaseArtist, with each TrackArtist assigned to the appropriate composer. if you take this very literally only one performer (or group) has to perform everything on this release and if it happens that the main performer had support on a few tracks or the release is merely a compilation of several different recordings with mixed performers (but still one main continous performer) it should moved to VA. just a few lines under this at the examples given it says: However, on a release like 3 Masses of the 20th Century (Mikaeli Kammarkör, Anders Eby) there is no clear choice for primary performer. It must remain under various artists. so this implis that its not necessary to have one and one only performer (at least to my understanding) but only one main artist which is indicated also prominently on the release sleave. this would also be consistent to the non-classical guideline: Good point and I agree completely. That would also explain why an older version of the guideline had (notice primarily in the first sentence): In cases where a release contains only work(s) performed primarily by a single group or individual, credited prominently on the release, that artist may be designated the ReleaseArtist (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Classical_Release_Artist_Styleoldid=11606) The word primarily was removed here: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Classical_Release_Artist_Stylediff=11597oldid=11598 . This removal only makes sense if it was not meant to change the meaning of the guideline - or if this change was agreed upon in a previous discussion on mb-style, but I don't think that's the case. http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Artist_Style#Main_guidelines For a VariousArtistsRelease where there is a main artist that delivers a substantial performance, the ReleaseArtist needs to be set to this artist. Generally, this artist is featured prominently on the release sleeve. so however what intent this guideline has, it has to be changed to be more precise. i think it should be handled like the non-classical releases. no good reason why it should be different comes to my mind. Agreed. some examples from my edits: Historic Russian Archives: Daniel Shafran Edition 7 disc box of cello player daniel shafran. performs with different orchestras, conductors,... http://musicbrainz.org/show/release-group/?id=720250 Yes. more subtle: Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1 / Liszt: Piano Concerto No. 1 (The London Symphony Orchestra feat. conductor: Claudio Abbado, piano: Martha Argerich) Marta Argerich is bigger and on the first place on the cover. http://musicbrainz.org/release/594bd1c8-8d0c-493f-9ac4-5383ede2187c.html IMO for releases of Piano Concertos like this, the main rule should be to regard the primary artist as the pianist. Adagio (Berliner Philharmoniker feat. conductor: Herbert von Karajan) here although Berliner Philharmoniker AND Herbert von Karajan are the two main performers only Karajan is printed big on the cover sleeve + portait. Yup. If the picture was of the BP and the cover did not have Karajan, I agree that it might very well be attributed to the BP. Best of Neujahrskonzert, Volume 2 the Neujahrskonzert played every year by the Wiener Philharmoniker with a different guest conductor. performing orchestra is big on the cover and main performer. http://musicbrainz.org/release/4c9a30f1-fead-4ed0-912d-347ff18df0f3.html Perfect :) Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Splitting multi-lingual releases
Per Øyvind Øygard wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:03:49 +0100, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote: I think the intent is for a tracklisting formatted like this on the backcover: [tracklisting 1] 1. Go! Rocky Joe (ゴー！ロッキー・ジョー) To be copied verbatim into musicbrainz as a single release, that release reflects the cover and should be Official. For these types of releases, we usually split the tracklisting up, and add two releases like this: [tracklisting 2] 1. Go! Rocky Joe [tracklisting 3] 1. ゴー！ロッキー・ジョー According to the documentation for the Transl(iter)ation AR those two tracklistings should be marked Pseudo-Release. That is the theory however, in practice I think most people never enter the first tracklisting, because it isn't useful to them. And mark both other tracklistings as Official because they both appear on the cover. I'd rather we were a bit pragmatic about this. As you say, to most people this isn't very useful, and I'd say there's very little reason to believe that it's artist intent that both languages are included. I find it plausible that it is artist intent to include both languages: It makes the same cover useful for more people. Perhaps MB track listings with only one language are more useful, though, but I would guess in the general case it is not. This discussion has been raised earlier in the context of classical releases medio January 2009. I had a proposal there for classical, which Chris B suggested should be made for the transl(iter)ation guidelines in stead if it was deemed necessary at all. Perhaps like this: If track titles of the release are presented in multiple languages, use those that are most prominent (these will usually be first or formatted in bold face.). Choice of language should be done consistently, but of course multiple languages are allowed. The most common reason for me to include more than one language in the same track title, is when a label add English translations (it's almost always English) to names in the composers native tongue. This is often done by both big international labels, and small national ones in hope of reaching a wider market. Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Crediting samples of classical
Chad Wilson wrote: http://musicbrainz.org/release/ef945ad9-0cae-41c7-a14b-056ee8ff4eb4.html http://musicbrainz.org/release/581a472e-932d-46df-a75a-2859edb2f4e5.html Awesome stuff. Excuse my ignorance, but would there be a noticeable difference between those two versions of the score, or, assuming it could be confirmed to be correct, would I just link to the original earlier 84 release? Not sure what you mean by two versions of the score. But I bet that these four tracks (if not all tracks on both releases) have (P) 84 +/- one year. This would be more difficult if the remastered edition (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B5Y1SV) contained these tracks, but luckily it doesn't. Even if it did, perhaps it would still be useful to link to the first. leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Crediting samples of classical
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Sample A is long and clear enough that I can get a feeling that it is not the same recording, or the balance has been modified so much that I believe it is not. I hear a difference near the end of the sample, where in the Amadeus soundtrack I hear mostly what I believe to be an organ, covering the choir, while in the sample I hear a much lower organ and maybe strings. I couldn't turn up the volume, so the only organ I heard was from Rex tremendae 1:55, after the sample was cut. My two recordings of the Requiem was easily discernible as wrong, so I think the edits are correct. leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Crediting samples of classical
Chad Wilson wrote: Hi CSG nuts! this must be some ploy to make us agree on something, it will not work! As much as this will possibly disturb many of you, I am trying to credit a sample from the Young Buck track Say It to My Face [1] back to a Mozart composition. (try it some time, dope track [2]) The sample is credited as: Contains samples from Requiem K 626, Rex Tremendae Majestatis Requiem K 626 Confutatis (Motzart). Performed by Wolfgang Amadeus Motzart. Used courtesy of Fantasy Records. UBP. ARR. Apart from the fact that this means nothing to me, I have a few questions/assertions. - I assume performed by WAM is likely to be technically incorrect, and just labels/liner writers being dorks, but I don't really know. - in that case, is it even possible to guess who the performers are, and thus which the correct tracks to link are? - can one infer anything from Fantasy Records? Yes, I think so. From a cursory glance, Fantasy Records don't seem to deal with classical, but http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fantasy+records%22+requiem points in the direction of the soundtrack to the movie Amadeus, and here the tracks are, performers and all: http://musicbrainz.org/release/ef945ad9-0cae-41c7-a14b-056ee8ff4eb4.html http://musicbrainz.org/release/581a472e-932d-46df-a75a-2859edb2f4e5.html (The first disc of The Complete Original Soundtrack has a release event credited the label Fantasy, confirmed by the ASINs.) My gut instinct tells me this is the one, but of course I only spent a minute digging it up... - or is this just a case that would better wait until we can AR to works in the future, ignoring the performer? To represent the audio on your track, it would be more significant to somehow hook this up with the right work, than with the right performer or label. But of course what you want is the correct track, where you get it all: work, composer, performer and sound-copyright-holding-label. I am quite keen to add a track-track AR link though. Build a bridge between classical and thug rap, and all that. ;-) Is that really necessary? Let's wait a century to see if people still take rap seriously :p leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Crediting samples of classical
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2009/10/29 Leiv Hellebo Let's wait a century to see if people still take rap seriously :p Not very kind for rap ;-) Hm. I tried to end with a humorous punchline, but I see that mock-turning-down a bridging initiative is hard to do without appearing nasty. Sorry about that! leivhe (who still considers Fear of a Black Planet to be a sonic revelation!) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bass instruments
Brant Gibbard wrote: I would suggest not re-naming Bass at all, as it seems to sometimes be used in credits as a catch-all term for a number of quite different unidentified instruments that play the bass line. The problem I found when I was entering some of my few popular music CDs was that the credits frequently just say Bass and nothing more. When I asked on the forums what the likely meaning of Bass would be on a popular CD someone replied that it could mean either a bass guitar or a double bass (electric or acoustic), or possibly a combination of any of these on the same CD. He indicated that at concerts it is not uncommon to see the same player switching back and forth between those instruments from one song to the next. I would definitely support adding Bass Viol as a separate specific instrument in addition to the non-specific Bass, but if David is suggesting, as he seems to be, removing Bass as a credited item then I would be strongly against it. I would still want to have the non-specific category present as otherwise I could not add the credits at all. I simply don't KNOW if they are playing bass guitar or double bass, or some other instruments, or as I suspect playing several different instruments on different songs. All we are told is that they are credited as Bass and I do not want to make false assumptions as to which instruments are being played. Moving Bass to a level right under String Instruments would make a lot of sense though. Hm. Everything you say here makes sense. Some entity Bass right under String instruments that is subsuming both bass guitar and upright bass is certainly useful. And I don't positively recall ever seeing a cover where someone/some group is credited for playing Violins. Perhaps it would be better to add string orchestra and wind orchestra to the list of types of orchestra? That way one can specify that a symphony orchestra is playing as a string orchestra when it does Stravinsky's Apollo, and as a wind orchestra when it does Miaskovsky's 19th symphony? What do you say, David? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Stupidly long release names - CSG overkill?
Dave Smey wrote: And yes, I do think that a 253-character title is too long, barring some compelling reason it must be that way. I agree. leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] PartNumberStyle - Foo, Parts 1-3 vs Foo, Parts 1 - 3
Brian Schweitzer wrote: As for your second point, the comments in the example thread seem to disagree with you about whether examples are or are not part of a guideline. ?? My understanding of that thread is that I and Paul would agree with Chad, whereas Kuno perhaps agrees with you. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Clarification request: changes to examples
Paul C. Bryan wrote: It has been suggested in this list that changing examples in MB documentation is not a part of the guidelines, and therefore presumably not subject to the RFC/RFV process. I happen to disagree with this, but the documentation on this seems unclear. I would like to know if this is the general understanding within the MB community. If so, then I may propose an RFC to change this, so that changes to examples are managed through community moderation. The examples are of course often the most important bits in the documentation. They are per definition exemplary. Changing the examples is changing the documentation, no need for an RFC for that. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Clarification request: changes to examples
Paul C. Bryan wrote: Sorry, I can interpret your last sentence in two ways: It is I who should say sorry, I was a bit quick :) 1. No need for *me* to propose an RFC, the system already works. 2. There is no need to propose an RFC for documentation changes. I think you mean 1, but wanted to get explicit confirmation. Right. In my opinion we should not need an RFC for this, the system works, sort-of. Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Clarification request: changes to examples
Kuno Woudt wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:41:27PM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote: Well, personally, I think the guidelines are separate - the guideline is the text, indicating what should be done. In my opinion, the examples are clarifications of that text, as I see it, and are not in of themselves part of the guidelines. I agree with brian on this. The actual guidelines are the things that need to go through the RFC/RFV process. The implementation of the guideline is much more mechanical, and does not need that. Not sure what you're trying to say with The implementation is more mechanical, but... A picture can tell more than a thousand words, and the same goes for examples. If you can avoid writing verbose prose demanding a high level of precision - which is hard to write and won't be read by those who need it the most, you should. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (feat. artists) (disc#) vs. (disc#) (feat. artists)
It looks to me like it is not only for classical editors have gone against Release Title: http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=disc+feattype=releaselimit=25handlearguments=1 (I guess audiobook editors have followed the examples from the Classical Style Guide) Anyway, as much as FeaturingArtistStyle is disliked, it is still more or less a rule to include it for classical, and the vast majority has artists before disc numbers, so when the Classical Style Guide examples says to have it in front of the disc numbers, I think we should continue to say that the CSG overrides what is found in the Release Title guideline. (Which is assumed in the discussion on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:Classical_Style_Guide#Performer_and_disc_order) Leiv Paul C. Bryan wrote: We can word the guideline to suggest that either is acceptable. Until featured artist and disc number can be separated out into separate attributes, there are (perhaps non-trivial) merits to having disc number before featured artists if featured artists varies from disc to disc in a set. Paul On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 02:46 -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: True. I would suggest, though, that even given that both are workarounds, in terms of the number of edits that then would have to happen to swap this order, the status quo is better than swapping the ordering and incurring a whole pile of edits that don't really change anything and serve to, at least as I see it, just increase the size of the open edit queue for a little while. Brian On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Leiv Hellebo wrote: zout's point that FeaturingArtists should go at the end, because it's just a workaround for current database limitation is a good one, IMO. (disc n) is just a workaround for current database limitations too. Nikki ___ 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 ___ 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] (feat. artists) (disc#) vs. (disc#) (feat. artists)
Brant Gibbard wrote: Unfortunately it turns out that this is NOT a typo, but a serious proposal: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:Release_Title The people discussing this all appear to subscribe mostly to non-classical artists, so perhaps they are not aware of what a monstrous amount of re-editing and re-tagging this would require for people with classical collections. That discussion is very old, from 2006 with a couple of entries from 2007, and for classical it can safely be ignored. (For non-classical I guess this is seldom an issue.) zout's point that FeaturingArtists should go at the end, because it's just a workaround for current database limitation is a good one, IMO. It has been a topic for discussion for classical as well: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:Classical_Style_Guide#Performer_and_disc_order Perhaps it has also been discussed on mb-style. As far as I can recall, for sets with multiple performers people agreed that it made sense to leave it to the editor's preference. I have added at least one set with artists last, Brilliant Classics' Brahms Piano Works: Search for Grimaud here http://musicbrainz.org/artist/c70d12a2-24fe-4f83-a6e6-57d84f8efb51.html?short=0compact=1mbt=0 I am not particularly happy about how that got entered, but then again, it is just a workaround for current limitations ;) Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] German key signatures
Nikki wrote: Oh, I noticed as well that our German capitalisation standard page links to http://www.ids-mannheim.de/reform/ for the rules, and the documents on there have b-Moll and a-Moll a few times in some of the examples. :) My Duden agrees with yours, unsurprisingly. A small random selection of online dictionaries (Norwegian-German, English-German and German) all use b-Moll. DG's use of b-moll is consistent, as far as I can see. For the major keys, they use C-dur etc. consistently. Then again, they also often use Symphonie No. X in stead of Symphonie Nr. X. Perhaps the Yellow Label shouldn't be trusted in these matters? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] German key signatures
Leiv Hellebo wrote: My Duden agrees with yours, unsurprisingly. Sorry, I don't have a Duden anymore, I have Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch, and it uses b-Moll as an example. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Revise SortNameStyle for artist names that contain a person's name
Paul C. Bryan wrote: Proposal: Change the last bullet of #6 in SortNameStyle to read as follows: Artist names that contain a person's name (usually eponymous band names) sort as the person primarily, with remaining identifiers as comma-separated suffixes. Examples: The Sensational Alex Harvey Band has sort name Harvey, Alex, Sensational, Band, The. The Jimi Hendrix Experience has sort name Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The. Not that I mind (much), but I'd like to have clarified if you want: Berg, Alban, Quartet Haas, Pavel, Quartet These two quartets were formed long after the composers were dead. (I am not sure how usually eponymous band names should be understood, but perhaps it means exactly that you'd like Berg, Alban, Quartet?) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Revise SortNameStyle for artist names that contain a person's name
No strong opinions here :) Paul C. Bryan wrote: I interpret the word eponymous to mean anything named after a particular person (not just an artist lending their name to something), which would therefore currently include these examples of quartets named after deceased composers. I don't mind these quartets being sorted by their namesakes, but others (you?) may have a strong opinion one way or the other. If this seems too broad, then I suppose we may need to further constrain it. On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 20:15 +0100, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Paul C. Bryan wrote: Proposal: Change the last bullet of #6 in SortNameStyle to read as follows: Artist names that contain a person's name (usually eponymous band names) sort as the person primarily, with remaining identifiers as comma-separated suffixes. Examples: The Sensational Alex Harvey Band has sort name Harvey, Alex, Sensational, Band, The. The Jimi Hendrix Experience has sort name Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The. Not that I mind (much), but I'd like to have clarified if you want: Berg, Alban, Quartet Haas, Pavel, Quartet These two quartets were formed long after the composers were dead. (I am not sure how usually eponymous band names should be understood, but perhaps it means exactly that you'd like Berg, Alban, Quartet?) Leiv ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistSortName w. trios, quartets, quintets, etc.
Paul C. Bryan wrote: A change to SortNameStyle I'd like you to consider is: 'Artist names that contain a person's name (usually bands) should sort in a manner consistent with the person's name as an artist. Examples: The Sensational Alex Harvey Band has the sort name Harvey, Alex, Sensational, Band, The. The Jimi Hendrix Experience has sort name Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The.' I much prefer what we already have, because group names are not conventionally chunked up as person names are. I don't see person sorting as useful here, and libraries etc. that use this kind of sorting probably does it to conveniently have Benny Goodman and Benny Goodman Quartet recordings placed close to one another. This concern does not apply to MusicBrainz, because you can click Benny Goodman - View relationships and easily find Benny Goodman Quartet. If this change is too extreme, would a suitable compromise make sense for trios, quartets, quintents, etc? No reason to treat classical artists different from other artists, IMO. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistSortName w. trios, quartets, quintets, etc.
SwissChris wrote: Or look at this mess: http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=louis%20armstronghandlearguments=1limit=25type=artistadv=0offset=25 http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=louis%20armstronghandlearguments=1limit=25type=artistadv=0offset=25 Is there any entry here that one would like to find under Louis rather than Armstrong? All of them :) Searching for louis armstrong seems to work fine ;) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistSortName w. trios, quartets, quintets, etc.
SwissChris wrote: Searching (and finding) releases isn't the problem here ;-) But where should they appear in a sorted list (e.g. subscriptions, or albums I own): half of them as Louis and half as Armstrong? In my opinion, yes :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] feat. in classical release titles
Dave Smey wrote: Let's look at this title: Symphonies Nos. 1, 2 (Columbia Symphony Orchestra feat. conductor: Bruno Walter) Is this better? Symphonies Nos. 1, 2 (Bruno Walter, Columbia Symphony Orchestra) Yes, it is agnostic as to who is featuring whom: Including feat. is misleading for classical. (But if we kept the ordering we're used to, someone could probably do a few sql commands to replace all feat. with , - or with nothing if the feat. was in front. For artists who are classical composers, of course.) Do we still want to specify roles? Symphonies Nos. 1, 2 (Conductor: Bruno Walter, Columbia Symphony Orchestra) somehow the feat. does seem to make Conductor: a little more graceful. But it might also make sense to just get rid of the roles. Good point: We don't really need roles. Especially since we have ARs doing a much better job for this. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] feat. in classical release titles
Andrew Conkling wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Dave Smey wrote: On Wed, January 28, 2009 2:57 pm, Paul C. Bryan wrote: Sometimes featured conductor and/or performer(s) is the only thing that disambiguates one title from another. Sure, but I don't think he's proposing taking performer info out of ReleaseTitles. He's just saying we could drop the feat. I generally agree with your specific solutions, but I also favor consistency across all MBz style docs. So IMO unless there's an RFC for FeaturingArtistStyle to scratch that type of use in release titles, I don't really think it's worthwhile. Plus, we'd only be saving five characters. :) In http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7915029 Brian checked out whther we could drop the performer information altogether for classical, and got an overwhelming yes. I guess most people don't consider FAS as really applicable for classical - and this makes sense, because we use ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle, not ReleaseArtistStyle to find the artist. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
I thought PartNumberStyle was for tracks which are somehow labeled as parts on the cover/in the booklet? Here I think Fridtjof is saying Let's add '(part X)' for chapters which are split up in several tracks. If so, he is perhaps modifying Bogdan's note x (where he said it is recommended to use [part #]). I guess there is not much harm in using PNS also for these cases, but Bogdan's careful wording is wise: Sometimes you do find Part 1 etc. in books, and Part 1, Part 2 looks weird... Leiv Chris B wrote: There is already a PartNumberStyle - http://musicbrainz.org/doc/PartNumberStyle :) (disc X) is sort of a special case 2009/1/19 Fridtjof Busse fbu...@gmx.de: * Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net: Well, other than the fact that the current style guidelines specify (disc x) with parentheses and not [disc x] with brackets, no. Of course, you're right. Must be some sort of interstellar radiation that got me confused ;) OK, to (correctly) sum this up: Any good arguments against Chapter (part 5)? I know this is not going to cover every single possible case, but I'd say it catches the majority and would be a good start. I can (obviously) live with [] as well, but with disc there's already a usecase with parenthesis. -- Fridtjof Busse ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
Chris B wrote: 2009/1/19 Leiv Hellebo leiv.hell...@gmail.com: I guess there is not much harm in using PNS also for these cases, but Bogdan's careful wording is wise: Sometimes you do find Part 1 etc. in books, and Part 1, Part 2 looks weird... according to PNS, it should be Part 1 2 or Parts 1-3, etc. My track title example should be read 'This track contains part two of Part 1 from the book' (or something), not Parts 1 and 2 from the book. i think if you're going to use the word part you should follow PNS, else it looks inconsistent/screws up guesscase! Because of the wide inconsistency in titling of book sections, probably sometimes exacerbated by track titles, my preference would be to allow for inconsistency when editors see that the main recommendation does not look good. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
Aaron Cooper wrote: It looks like we've decided to drop the book name from the track titles though - I think we should keep this info there for reasons that have been previously discussed. But isn't this only a good idea when the audiobook contains more than one book? If so, my opinion is that we should not let the exception (more than one book on a single disc/cassette/download audiobook) dictate the general rule. Sorry, if I missed something... Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
Aaron Cooper wrote: I think the book title is an important piece of information - much like the work title in classical music. Sure. We always put the work and then the movement in classical track titles even if there is only one work on a release. As I'm sure you remember I started a discussion about this last year here on mb-style[1]. My view: This is redundant, makes for unwieldy titles which even are hard to read for short tracks, and I don't think it looks good. For a post later in that thread I did some checking and found that the include-workname-even-for-opera-and-similar-practice was not common earlier, but became more common during 2007. The reason for it becoming more common was discussions om mb-style starting from the assumption that we did not have Works. I think we should apply the similar rule here. One reason for not doing so: Audiobooks differ from classical recordings by rarely having more than one work included. For those who really want it in, isn't it possible to have Picard add the release title to the track title? Leiv [1] http://www.nabble.com/Bach-passions-and-CSG-td16190945s2885.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
Aaron Cooper wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Aaron Cooper wrote: We always put the work and then the movement in classical track titles even if there is only one work on a release. That's still how we do it in the classical world and how the examples are in the CSG. Because we include work names now, I think it would be appropriate to include book names in audiobook track titles. If we decide elsewhere that including the work name is now extraneous then I could see us making an identical change to audiobooks (dropping the book name). I'm looking forward to Works :) I think we should apply the similar rule here. One reason for not doing so: Audiobooks differ from classical recordings by rarely having more than one work included. For those who really want it in, isn't it possible to have Picard add the release title to the track title? Making Picard do this would be a pain in the butt as you'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis for the rare occasions where the release title is not the book title or there are multiple books in the release title. But not if it's rare enough, no? I couldn't find any in the first 1500 entries from http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=type%3Aaudiobooktype=releaselimit=100adv=onhandlearguments=1 (Admittedly, it was rather superficial browsing. ;) One probably could in stead have Picard strip out the book title from track titles for those who don't want them in. But I guess that would be more error-prone, as release title might not appear exactly in the same way in track titles. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
Excellent :) Leiv (But perhaps #3 should be qualified For tracks lacking names, use UTS, which recommends...?) Bogdan Butnaru wrote: I don't much like adding something directly to a track that isn't in its original title (however lacking it is). Except for disc numbers, pretty much everything we add in title fields actually appears on some cover somewhere, even if it's adjusted for style issues. The only big exception that comes to me is untitled tracks, where it is allowed (maybe even encouraged) to use descriptive text between square brackets. Given this and the generally accepted typographical convention of using square brackets for editor-inserted information, I'm partial to the subdivision-in-brackets someone suggested above. And in the spirit of my previous suggestions, I think instead of pondering for weeks exactly what to put in parentheses we just figure out a few suggestions and leave it to the judgment of the editors. So my edited guidelines recommendation would go like this: * * * * * Rule 0) In general, common MusicBrainz guidelines apply to audiobooks too, unless they don't make sense. In particular: 1) if the audiobook's track names make sense, use them. 2) if the book's system matches the tracks reasonably, use that. 3) otherwise use UntitledTrackStyle, which recommends [description] tags. x) Note: if points (1) or (2) would lead to several tracks with the same name, you may also append a _brief_ distinguisher between square brackets. For consistency it is recommended that this distinguisher be just [part #], unless something in the book's or the tracks' structures makes more sense. y) Note: please observe general MB guidelines with regards to style: use CapitalizationStandard, and capitalize the words denoting parts (e.g. Chapter, Section, Part) in the _official_ part of the title (when applying guideline 1 or 2 above); according to UntitledTrackStyle, everything in the brackets should be lower-cased, unless it actually contains a proper name or title. Punctuation, typos and misspellings should be handled according to the usual StylePrinciples. Examples: ... * * * * * This gives the most common case a consistent look, and also allows editors to enter weird cases. We can add examples of such cases below the rules, as we encounter them. For instance, someone mentioned books broken in very short fixed-length interval: the brackets might contain the number of seconds or minutes from the beginning, which perfectly represents the logic of the track structure. Or if the split is based on some content logic, it could contain something like [prologue] and [main part] and [epilogue]. If it's (say) a lecture of the Bible it might contain verse numbers. (Remember, this applies only if there are some official titles that make sense, but that are not enough to distinguish everything.) Note that the distinguishing part doesn't actually have to be a numerical sequence. Also note that not necessarily _all_ tracks that get the same name have to be distinguished. There are (music) artists that intentionally have several or all songs on a release identically titled (or not at all), and in many cases we just keep that as a sort of artist intent. This might make sense for some audiobooks too. And I'm pretty sure in time we'll get other examples we didn't think of. -- Bogdan Butnaru -Original Message- From: Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com Well, in that edge case, why not then hyphenate? Track 12: Chapter 2. The Russians are Coming, Part 1 - 1 Track 13: Chapter 2. The Russians are Coming, Part 1 - 2 Track 14: Chapter 2: The Russians are Coming, Part 1 - 3 Brian On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote: I suppose then we can live with a chapter name having its own , Part n in MB? A contrived example: Chapter 2. The Russians are Coming, Part 1 Chapter 3. The Russians are Coming, Part 2 ... would appear in MB (if it spans multiple tracks) as... Track 12: Chapter 2. The Russians are Coming, Part 1, Part 1 Track 13: Chapter 2. The Russians are Coming, Part 1, Part 2 Track 14: Chapter 2: The Russians are Coming, Part 1, Part 3 ___ 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] RFC: Revised Comprehensive CSG Proposal
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Revised Proposal: Great. Really great! :) One reservation: The ClassicalTrackTitleStyle at BrianFreud/sandbox4 instructs the editor to enter ornamentation information. I feel this at best should be included in the track/release annotation. (But this section is perhaps a leftover from the advanced CSG days?) All in all I think this is a major step forward, and because it is so much more coherent than what existed, I wouldn't mind start using it already :) symphonick posted comments an hour or so ago that I agree with. Some comments below repeat some of what he said. *** Quibbles: 1) The Release Language section of the CSG (sandbox3) I think perhaps could be dropped. I don't see that it adds to what ReleaseLanguage says. (And ReleaseLanguage could be clearer in stating that the language is the one used primarily in the release and track titles for the MB release.) 2) The section about punctuation (CTTS, sandbox4) coul perhaps also be dropped? I cannot recall seeing editors enter non-ascii punctuation. 3) I don't see why we would want to override language specific rules for No. and Op. (same page) (e.g. Norwegian uses op. and nr. and can commonly be seen on Norwegian Grieg releases. The French of course have their n°) 4) The ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle needs a slight rewording (it should say in the introduction that it is not intended to override titles of named releases). *** And coming to the Track Title section of sandbox4: Your Jeunehomme examples are perhaps done in a hurry? 1) The movement numbers are placed in front of the whole track title. 2) You change E flat into E-flat but leave K 271 alone. 3) You leave out some punctuation marks we're used to from the CSG. *** A statement that could be worded better: If each track's title is presented in multiple languages, only one should be used. The wording implies that e.g. recitals with German and French lieder should have only one language in the MB track listing. Here's what I am thinking (and this is also answering Chris B, who seems to want us to always include all languages in the titles) If track titles of the release are presented in multiple languages, use those that are most prominent (these will usually be first or formatted in bold face.). Choice of language should be used consistently, but of course multiple languages are allowed e.g. for releases with music by both French and German composers. I disagree with the wholly explicit sentiment that the more information you can get into the track titles, the better. When we get works, much of this information can be gotten from them. Information about cadenzas and arrangements should in most cases go into annotations I think. In my opinion, the most important thing is to identify the work, and the second most important thing is to make that look good. The archetypal example of information overload is perhaps the following: Concerto in Mi maggiore per violino, archi e clavicembalo, Op. 8 No. 1, RV 269 Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione: Le quattro stagioni: La primavera: I. Allegro (A multiple language representation of this would be utterly dysfunctional.) For many releases, one of the following would look much better, IMO: The Four Seasons, Concerto No. 1 Spring: Allegro Concerto in E major, RV 269 Spring: I. Allegro Of course there are others that are equally fine. So here's my go at an alternative wording: The basis for classical track titles should be taken from the liners. Liner titles may vary from release to release, even when they contain the same works. As a consequence, track titles for MusicBrainz releases should differ accordingly. For one liner, several track listings may be possible. This will be the case if the cover track listing differs from the booklet track listing, or if the (only) track listing contains many details. The important thing to remember here, is that the release and track titles must identify the work(s) of the release. The identification will in general be based on the work name, but for particular well-known works commonly used names can be used (The Four Seasons, Air on a G-String etc.) Since the track title you enter may be used in many various settings, you should favour clarity, readability and brevity when you enter track titles. Otherwise, we make an addition to other MusicBrainz style guidelines: [I am assuming typos are handled by other guide lines] If the liner misidentifies the work of a track, then you should correct that in the track title. Please also make a note in the track annotation how the liner identified the work. [STATEMENT ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH LANGUAGES LEFT OUT] Cheers, Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Multiple languages on a release
Chris B wrote: personally, most of the releases i've seen with multi-language tracklistings normally have one set of titles that are given clear priority (the transl(iter)ations either being in small print or the liner), so it seems to be rare that you do actually get these massive, unreadable combined tracklistings (because they're massive and unreadable :P). is the example given by symphonick an actual real-world example? True, many track listings with multiple languages will have emphasis on one language. symphonick is right though that many contain them side by side. In my experience, the language listed first can safely be assumed to be the primary (if it is not in the language of the primary market for the release (or English which is often used anyway), it is often the language used by the composer). Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Revised Comprehensive CSG Proposal
Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:16 AM, symphonick wrote: - can we drop performers from releasetitles now, pretty please? Well, our decision in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7915029 - which was intended specifically to test current opinions on this, would seem to support this; passed 9 to 2, with 3 abstaining... Perhaps most of the discussion on this already took place there, but we could open it up for continued debate here... Still too early, I think. The disambiguation page users encounter when they submit new releases will need to show more than e.g. Symphonies Nos. 3, 4 and a track listing for Beethoven releases. If not, lazy editors will add disc ids to the wrong release or refrain from adding them at all. Also, unless Picard title rewrites can easily be set up to fill in the details for 1) Releases with orchestral works (same orchestra/conductor on all tracks) 2) Releases with concertos (same orchestra/conductor/soloist on all tracks) 3) Releases of chamber/instrumental works (same performers on all tracks) I still think we need the performer information in. Music players are not good enough yet, so this is a useful service for users. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Multiple languages on a release
symphonick wrote: Here's an example where I wouldn't like to split: The Brilliant Classics Complete Bach Edition: PRELUDE FUGUE No. 9 in E major/E Dur 17. Praeludium (- Prelude Fugue No. 9 in E major / E Dur: 17. Praeludium) how can we write the guidelines to allow splitting when it's a must? adding an example like this to sandbox4 and ask editors to use their judgement? :-o Gah! Brilliant Classics! I guess this is perhaps some smart way of using both English and German in the title, and still make it rather short. How about encouraging readability and brevity, and let the submitter choose what's best? If we try to cover everything with rules, we'll make a mess out of it. (Not to mention that it would take long discussions to get to a point where we're tired of discussing them, but probably still will not satisfy everyone.) If the other tracks look the same, in the spirit of the track listing, I'd probably go for Prelude Fugue No. 9 in E major, BWV 878: Praeludium (I dropped 17, it is the track number, and added one of two possible BWVs for this, as I assume this is mentioned somewhere on the page where you got the track listing.) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Multiple languages on a release
symphonick wrote: Which leads me to a follow-up question: can we do the same thing for releasetitles allow more than one language? Like the BC Bach Box: The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I (1) / Das Wohltemperierte Clavier, Teil I (1) KISS. Keep it short, smart guy ;) If English is in front, or in the upper left corner with at least as big fonts as the rest of the text, I'd consider English to be the primary language. (Brilliant Classics do try to sell their stuff to English speaking countries, and most of the BC stuff I have is English.) The designers have different space constraints than we have for MB release titles. Are there other good reasons for doing what you propose, except that it adheres to the cover? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Multiple languages on a release
symphonick wrote: How about encouraging readability and brevity, and let the submitter choose what's best? If we try to cover everything with rules, we'll make a mess out of it. [snip] If the other tracks look the same, in the spirit of the track listing, I'd probably go for Prelude Fugue No. 9 in E major, BWV 878: Praeludium (I dropped 17, it is the track number, and added one of two possible BWVs for this, as I assume this is mentioned somewhere on the page where you got the track listing.) No, it isn't, the track listing looks exactly like this: PRELUDE FUGUE No. 9 in E major/E Dur 17. Praeludium (I should have dropped 17 though) OK. I guess you have book one or two of the Well-Tempered Clavier mentioned in the release title then? That would be enough to identify the music on the track, and of course it is more in line with the original, as Bach didn't come up with the BWVs. (For a Complete Bach Edition, I'd think it weird if it was not possible to identify the track.) Are there other good reasons for doing what you propose, except that it adheres to the cover? It would give us a similar guideline for tracktitles releasetitles - follow what's printed. That's my take on KISS :) Maybe we could agree on something like follow what's printed, as long as readability doesn't suffer too much? let editors decide if they want to include all languages in the tracklist? OK :) Speaking of which, IMO editors shouldn't [have to] look anywhere else than in the tracklist for a tracktile. Including missing catalogue nos such, somehow implies there's a hidden CSG - all IMHO. This sounds very sensible. For the alternative text I proposed, it would mean dropping the following The important thing to remember here, is that the release and track titles must identify the work(s) of the release. ... Is the rest of it OK? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Replace ALL CSG* pages in the wiki with the sandbox version (Was: Re: The return of [clean up CSG]???)
Brian Schweitzer wrote: I know this opens a can of worms, but hey, it's ice-fishing season, and long overdue (and NEEDED!). :) Hi Brian! I hope this initiative will lead to a good overhaul so that we can get rid of the confusions and disagreements on display by these pages. But for the sandbox, it states that the CSG *does* override what is written on the liner. This is a non-starter for me. Many here at MusicBrainz do take care of adding catalogue numbers as formatted on the CD/LP/whatever, so why would we want to forget about the titles written the same place? In my opinion we should take the track listings from the liners as input for the MB track titles. While I think it is acceptable to slightly airbrush them a little, I don't think we're heading the right direction by saying forget what's on the liners, here's what counts. In fact, I think this perhaps is at cross-purposes with the following from AboutMusicBrainz: Music metadata is information such as the artist name, the release title, and the list of tracks that appear on a release For works lists and as input to some other future, the sandbox may be fine, but what we need today in my opinion for classical is some sane agreement that 1) Different recordings of the same work may beget different track titles. 2) Readability of the titles should be favoured. (Longer does not mean better.) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Replace ALL CSG* pages in the wiki with the sandbox version (Was: Re: The return of [clean up CSG]???)
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Track title: Sonate pour piano n° 3 en fa mineur op.5: andante expressivo Work title: Sonata for Piano No. 3 in F minor, Op. 5: II. Andante. Andante espressivo - andante molto Looks good to me :) (Well, the work title looks weird to me, but I agree in principle :) I'd be inclined to uppercase the Andante of the track title, but I wouldn't mind if others wanted to stick to the exact representation. If it was digital only (classical bootlegs, for example), or in some other way the liner isn't available, I wouldn't have any problems with Sonata for Piano No. 3 in F minor, Op. 5: II. Andante. Andante espressivo - andante molto being used for the track title as well, as there isn't perhaps any defined this specific track's title there. If the download was not accompanied with a track listing, I wouldn't like to be forced into using the fully detailed CSG work title. My advice to editors would be to find some reasonable track title to their liking. If they want the CSG work title, that's fine. For the moment, without works, I'd be on the fence as to how to do it - using the CSG title for the track, with the liner in annotation, seems more functional, but either way, when we do add works, we're going to have a huge project to finally start fixing up our classical listings. I assume when/if works show up that the logical place for the liner track title is in the MB track title. That is also what I would expect to get if I tagged a new album, and I guess the same expectation is entertained by 99% of random users more or less unknowingly getting tags from MB. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Replace ALL CSG* pages in the wiki with the sandbox version (Was: Re: The return of [clean up CSG]???)
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Ok, I'm pulling this RFC for the moment. After the posts here, and a long discussion in IRC, I can see why there is some confusion, and that there are a few gaps in scope of the current RFC. I'm putting a revised version of the proposal, plus a few tiny wikipages that were needed to plug those gaps, together now, and will resubmit this RFC in the new form later today. Probably a good idea, good luck :) Just in case someone hasn't mentioned it: We cannot easily get rid of ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Audiobook styleguide
Fridtjof Busse wrote: I also don't like using Chapter 1-2 to designate a sub-part of a chapter. For classical releases, we use Chapter IIIa for standard sub-parts and Chapter III-ii for non-standard divisions (I believe there was some support behind this although it was never made an official part of the CSG). I like this idea. Any more comments on this? If this works for classical releases, why not use this more or less in the same way for audiobooks? Something like this may work for audiobooks, but you should consider whether there is a real need for this. If there is no real need, then why should editors be forced to follow some MB-specific sub-part numbering scheme? For classical, sub-part numbering works only poorly, and I only used it as a rather new editor when I thought this was how things was supposed to be done. A concrete example: There are many recordings of Beethoven's ninth symphony with the fourth and last movement split in two parts (with and without the vocals). There are also some where the movement is laid out on several tracks. None of the covers I have seen myself use IVa or some other scheme, yet IVa is much used here at MB. (The reason is MultiTrackMovementStyle[1], which by the way is not mentioned in the ClassicalStyleGuide[2].) Problems with this approach for classical: 1) It deviates from the covers/booklets. 2) Noone else but MB (and those that get data from MB) use IVa for referring to subparts of movements. And none use IIIa when referring to the Dies Irae from Mozart's Requiem, everyone uses Dies Irae! (The Dies Irae is not a subpart of a movement, by the way.) 3) Joe's IVa from recording A is different than Jim's IVa from recording B. The difference is possibly entirely arbitrary and uninteresting. 4) The subtle difference between IIIa and III-i is... well, too subtle: It makes things harder for random editors, and it doesn't help people that get their tags from MB much either. (Aside: As far as I know, the III-i thing was introduced by those working on the CSGStandard pages and I am not sure it was ever discussed on mb-style at all.) 5) Sub-part numbering schemes look technical and formal. They don't look good. And if the work/book is split on several levels (parts and chapters), this may become even worse. Real titles on the other hand, may be designed to stand out and look good. (If this doesn't apply to symphonies in general, it certainly is true of chapter titles.) I don't think I see anything positive about sub-part numbering. Good luck, Leiv (leivhe) [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MultiTrackMovementStyle [2] http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] 'Piano Sonata / Concerto' vs. 'Sonata / Concerto for Piano'
Rupert Welch wrote: There has been a discussion on my edit here: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9908784 , regarding the preferred form for this type of title - either '[work] for [instrument(s)]' or '[instrument] [work]'. I'm sure I read somewhere that the first is preferred, and it is used consistently here: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CSGStandard/Beethoven . However, mfmeulenbelt has pointed out that this pattern is not followed for Robert Schumann. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuide has examples of 'Concerto for Orchestra', 'Piano Concerto', ''Violin Concerto' and 'Piano Sonata'. So my question is, how should these be handled? At the moment it seems to be up to the preferences of each editor. I think you should use what's on the cover/in the booklet of your release. If that is wrong or ugly or otherwise undesirable, it is best to get this from some authorative source. http://www.griegsociety.org/filer/1251.doc As far as I can recall, the CSG tells you to use the workname. So if workname is Piano Sonata, use that. If it is Sonata for Piano, use that. (Standardising on one of these would be wrong, in my opinion.) Cheers, Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] 'Piano Sonata / Concerto' vs. 'Sonata / Concerto for Piano'
Michelle . wrote: I think there are non-negotiable and negotiable elements of style for each track title. Non-negotiable (i.e. pretty solid consensus): * Factually correct (name of work/movement, numbers, performer name) * Factually complete (no missing numbers etc.) * Punctuation (spaces/periods/commas in the right places, più not piu, Roman numerals for movements) Name of work/movement, numbers (none missing), correct accents can in general be had by any decent cover. Compilations may drop details on movement name/number - or include them in very fine print, but many of these are targeted at a broad audience for entertainment and not for edification. MusicBrainz should not go against label intention for these. You get punctuation in the right places and Roman numerals by following the CSG. This is a rather non-intrusive standardisation and not much harm is done by doing this. (I never liked standardising on Roman numerals - and I don't include mvt nums when cover/booklet do not have them, but for concertos/sonatas it doesn't matter much.) Of course you also get performer information from following the CSG. This is added because of lack of multiple artists/performers in current music players (you want to know both which performers and composer a track has). Negotiable: * Inclusion of non-essentials (popular name etc.) * Order of elements that aren't defined (Piano Sonata vs. Sonata for Piano) * Language (C-Dur vs. C major, Sonate vs. Sonata) This is what a more intrusive standardisation would bring to the table. You get discussions about these when you start thinking that all occurrences of some piece of music should have the same title, and/or when you start disregarding how labels choose to present the music on covers and in track listings. I've generally changed track titles where non-negotiables are incorrect to the CSGStandard name listed. I've tried not to change the language, because ideally the release would exist in the original language, and individual users could elect to tag tracks in their native language (and possibly original/standardised element order). However, the vast majority of classical releases in the database are filled with, well, really crappy track titles that really can't be left as they are. As I've said, I haven't gone through the CSG discussions in detail. If any of my assumptions above are incorrect, please let me know! To answer in a roundabout fashion, as I haven't seen your edits: Before you start modifying Die Zauberflöte at http://musicbrainz.org/release/4a2e3bc3-6577-4704-85d9-5c69d6a23464.html to be more in line with K. 620 at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CSGStandard/Mozart, please have a look at (and resolve :p ) various discussions from mb-style. (I have raised some points I think are important at http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/005696.html http://www.nabble.com/Bach-passions-and-CSG-td16190945s2885.html) Cheers, Leiv (leivhe) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Part of series relationship
Johannes Dewender wrote: Problems: One might be interested to list all the items of a set and likewise all the releases in a series. It might not be cheap to list all 20 releases, because we need 20 queries, unless I am missing a feature that can do this as fast as selecting all rows with a certain property. I just want to note that series can get much larger than that. The Romantic Piano Concerto series from Hyperion Records has now reached volume 45 (http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/collection_page.asp?name=RomanticPC), to take but one example. And if we allow keeping track of CDs accompanying magazines with this relationship - which makes sense to me, then I guess series can have hundreds of members: I just edited some on the latest release from BBC Music Magazine: http://musicbrainz.org/release/1a2e7d0a-a411-4fd5-94f0-03facf221e19.html On the other hand, this problem afflicts the Part of set-relationship as well, so I guess this is not a show-stopper. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Jim DeLaHunt is our new style leader!
Robert Kaye wrote: I just posted this to the blog: http://blog.musicbrainz.org/?p=339 Congratulations Jim! Yes, congrats :) Leiv / leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Re-arranging the bass subtree?
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Having the double/upright bass under violins, one could use has Violins performed by for music which is for String orchestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_orchestra). What's wrong with has strings performed by?. I mean, wouldn't it be better to alter the instrument three (probably only change the name of String instruments to Strings)? I don't quite get your second sentence, so I'm gonna assume it should read something like wouldn't it be better to just change the name, not alter the instrument tree. My reply: Nothing is wrong with has strings performed by. Now the only thing I know to be outright wrong about the instrument tree, is the two entries for the one instrument double bass / acoustic upright. This will be solved easily, at least I guess so from reading the ticket. But I thought it worth the while to throw in an and guys, while you're improving on the bass handling, please consider doing a little more. I get by well with how things are, so if I'm the only one who ever felt the need for this, it can safely be postponed indefinitely :) In short my reasons for wanting the moving of bass: Originally written for viols only: http://musicbrainz.org/release/13d020f4-b6a9-4ecd-9a7d-723186996afd.html And this is arranged for viols http://musicbrainz.org/release/abb5deba-30f3-4947-8cde-c2465f1d0f50.html None contain double bass however, but still has viola da gambas performed by seems proper. Contrast this with this release http://musicbrainz.org/release/76609221-16a2-419d-8d68-3b5710ac62bf.html This is all violins there, but I couldn't choose violins, without adding also has double bass performed by, which would have looked weird... In other words: I think moving the bass subtree would fit better with the way ensembles are put together, and with how composers have written for these instruments. Leiv PS. I am not of the opinion one should always descend as far down in the instrument tree as possible when adding ARs. I do them inconsistently, and occasionally even use XX is performed by YY without specifying instruments further: http://musicbrainz.org/release/2bed95e5-cf84-409e-9d1e-303c8588c687.html It should be clear enough from the context what is going on, and only the description on PerformerRelationshipType (If you know that a certain artist performed on a track/release, but you do not know what they performed, then [only specify PerformedBy]) makes me inclined to think something more specific is needed. Other times, though, it makes very much sense to add them, and I should have done so for track number eight here: http://musicbrainz.org/release/8176ea03-9616-4e40-bc5e-18c96e466f4d.html (And I will add them, when I get the time.) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Re-arranging the bass subtree?
Olivier wrote: Doublebass / Contrabass will eventually be merged with Upright Acoustic Bass http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2008-March/017444.html http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3732 Now, Freso suggested we may tweak that bass subtree a little. How about moving bass from Viola da Gambas [1] to Violins [2]? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bass says it is traditionally considered to be a member of the violin family - but later adds that it is generally regarded as the modern descendant of the viola da gamba family. Having the double/upright bass under violins, one could use has Violins performed by for music which is for String orchestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_orchestra). This is perhaps not a small tweaking? Leiv [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viol [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_family ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CSG: Box set compilations / disc names / title length
knakker wrote: It's more of a standards question that came up seeing the current lack of disc titles for many (classical) releases: are all disc texts other than just disc x considered a disc title and should therefor be added, or is a title something more specific? In some cases a disc title is something specific. A good example may be where you have discs in paper sleeves, and the paper sleeve has both disc 3 and Symphony No. 2 Symphony No. 4 (possibly with Op. 100 and in G minor This is stuff for DiscNumberStyle, and you could e.g. get The Symphonies (Orchestra feat. conductor: John Doe) (disc 3: Nos. 2, 4). (The contraction to Nos. 2, 4, is IMO a useful overriding of what the label puts on the sleeve.) Now, in cases where the individual disc wrappers have only CD 3 (or whatever), or where there is no wrappers, you can look on the discs themselves and/or on the back of the packaging for telltale signs of LabelIntent for disc titles. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing CD 2: Symphonies Nos. 2, 4 be used more as input for disc titles, as this is useful info - especially when the symphonies of a set is not in sequence. But if it is not there, I don't think it should be invented. I suspect this to be a vague area as all of my classical box set additions (without disc titles) were accepted, so i wonder what are the thought on this. In the general case without cover scans, it is impossible for voters to know when a disc should have a disc title. Hope that helps, Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalStyleGuide FeaturingArtist example
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Andrew Conkling wrote: Yes, we definitely agree; this is what I was intending to clarify here. So how would you suggest that be worded in the ClassicalStyleGuide? Do you think my emendation is sufficient or do we need something else? Maybe something like If a track indicates that an artist is featured, and that artist is '''not''' featured on all tracks of the release, add that information to the track title using FeaturingArtistStyle http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle: /(feat. violin: Tamsin Little)/. This is to be used '''only''' where featuring (or wording to that effect) appears on the liner, and not for soloists, conductors, or other performers performing on a track without such indication. I don't quite see what extra value this gives us above removing the Tasmin Little example and thereby simply letting FeaturingArtistStyle deal with these issues. Isn't the wording also quite vague? wording to that effect would perhaps include track lists where above tracks 4-6 you have: Piano Concerto No. 20 Arandom Pianist 4. I. Allegro or for a one-track Piano Concerto: 4. Piano Concerto, Op. 22: Allegro - Andante Arandom Pianist (Name of pianist in different font or something) Or perhaps I misunderstand, and you want these to be added according to FeaturingArtistStyle? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Instead, what's being done is, one by one as the discs are being entered by a different editor, other editors are trying to ID what the original release of that single disc was, and the adding editor then is being encouraged to rename that single disc to the original release. I see you are still misrepresenting what I said in those edit notes... How is it misrepresenting, when you leave notes such as this? ;) Also exists separately: http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_cod… We have point (1) of the guideline BoxSetNameStyle advising us to choose release titles as if it was not boxed in such cases. http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8513750 I never saw those Mozart symphonies in the Beethoven box... Your shiftyness aside (with nary an invective uttered), that box there may have been an older Naxos cheap-cheap-cardboard-only wrapper around jewel cases. It is not from their newer White Box series, as the disc numbers don't match what's here: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8513750 . So I'm guesssing the disc 1 comes from an old cheapish edition. The editor wanted to change the naming for disc 1 to something better: http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=albumorderby=descobject_id=356652 (You'll see that I did not vote no his renaming edit.) At the same time he tried to follow this naming pattern when adding disc two. As he didn't enter a discid for it, perhaps he got it from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013ZP Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
I don't care to answer your rather uninteresting remarks regards myself and my practice, and please do trawl my edits and edit notes, I believe you won't find many of those suggestions. As for your shiftyness, I hope this is clearer: Fuck you Brian Schweitzer wrote: Now I also would take issue with your description of why this is a good thing. old cheapish edition and change the naming for disc 1 to something better. In my opinion, though there are of course lousy CDs released, that's only something inherent to the physical media. The data about the release in the database, however, is just as worthwhile no matter what it describes. I didn't say these performances were bad. I said the packaging of the older edition (which might not exist, I got tricked by the disc numbers from naxos.com, see below) was the opposite of lush and luxururious. In this case, digging a bit further, it turns out that, in fact, that disc 1 is disc 1 of an 11 CD set Naxos first issued in 2002. It is indeed in their White Box series; cat # 8.501107 ( http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=8.501107 ), and far from being a old cheapish edition, is intended by Naxos, in their own description, to be Naxos' flagship boxed set series. I thought I gave that link myself, it is the link to the White Box series release, but as 1-10 is not listed as entries 1 and 2 there, I assumed it was from an older one. A lot of resources indicate you're right here. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: You're WAY out of line. yes ;) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: What you're describing is what most depictions here have still described as a box set. Question: Would the Mozart White Box set be what you're describing? It's quite clearly defined and sold as a box, though Naxos does still have the individual CD cat #'s on the CDs (though apparently with (disc 1) and so on appended to the titles)? The White Boxes are rather nicely packaged - though there might be fewer essays in the accompanying booklet. The cardboard wrappers most likely will have new cat.nos., and no references to the nos. of the independently released ones. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: It's that intent that something be a release that I think matters. You quoted dmppanda earlier saying: Such discs (when considered independently from the nice paper around) *are exactly the same as the standalone* (same packaging, same discids, obviously same pweeds, same cat # and barcodes, etc) and are therefore *absolutely* impossible to differentiate. (end quote) I have quite a few like that, the Zinman Beethoven symphs being an example: These were first released individually with some time between them. (According to my primary classical pusher, often cycles of Beethoven symphs. has the disc with No. 3 released first, because people test it on their equipment, but this cycle I believe had Nos. 5 and 6 released first.) Later, they were released together. The issuing label, Arte Nova - which is a budget label with good theft (at least they had at the time) and was later bought by Sony BMG or whatever, put some paper around the original and still shrink-wrapped CDs, and shrinkwrapped this as well. (The paper was somewhat thicker than the paper you probably will find in the printer closest to you, but it was not hard cardboard with glossy images on it.) This thick paper had barcode and cat number, and a new title on the packaging The Beethoven Symphonies or something, some press quotes etc., but the individual discs were not given new cat.nos. Of course there is intent that something be a release here, but I think also you would perhaps agree that this does not provide much of real value to MB, except for the box barcode. This is probably the clearest example for when something is not worth adding extra track listings and ARs to MB, because the individual discs do not even lose their cover/booklet. From there on, everything becomes rather subjective. dmppanda mentioned twofers, and in some cases it is dubious whether there is any need for a new release, e.g. a two disc rerelease of a two-disc opera where they drop the fancy packaging for and the full libretto. (This often results in new artwork, and booklet essays will likely be removed, so even here I guess some people would feel a new release might be somehow warranted.) In other cases, twofers collecting Bach's four orchestral suites together to take a recent example with open edits, you often will get a new release title with OC (disc 1) in stead of OC Nos. 1, 2. etc. Things are subjective in this domain, as some have said. For a couple of box sets I own, I have gone to the extreme end. I have not, however, forced this onto others, and I'll even stop suggesting it. Leiv PS: Please, please be my friend again :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Chris B wrote: i mean, if one CD is mastered by X and one by Y then you can't merge them. the ARs are different, the PUIDs are different, the CD-IDs* will be different, etc. vote No to such merges with confidence! Here's a recent edit merging two releases. (I added the rerelease with a RemasteredAR, as it was remastered, see annotation.) http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8450199 Now, there're no PUIDs and ARs specific to only one here, yet, but someone might change that. Are you saying you would vote no to this merge? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: I actually find it rather easy to believe that all 160, 170, 180 CDs would be prior releases. Philips drew upon theit back-catalogue to assemble their boxes, DG did the same, and BC licensed all their discs from others. I think there is BC material in there (Belder on harpsichord in the divertimentos e.g. (or whatever you mentioned the other day); BC has recorded quite much with Belder). Some of the Belder-BC stuff is also of the less-interesting-Mozart category (if you'll allow me to suggest that not every Mozart piece is brilliant ;), so it's possible it hasn't been available separately. The Philips is perhaps different in this respect, but I'd be a little surprised if all discs were previously released with the same grouping of material and same track splitting. For the set sparking this discussion, I think it possible that even the grouping and splitting has all been done before (Sony BMG Masterworks does little but spew out fantastically cheap older stuff these days), but it contains an additional CDRom... The tracklists, when we have identified earlier releases, do match entirely. But this is all irrelevant hand waving. The point is, the set discs are identified as Box set disc #73, not as This disc is a reissue of the CD label XYZ released as cat # foo in 1975. They don't identify themselves separately, they only have an identity, there, as a part of that box. Yet, what's being done in the referenced edits isn't this. Noone is actually taking the entire box and looking to identify each and every disc before making such a decision. If that were done, I'd still disagree, but I'd at least respect the logic behind it. Instead, what's being done is, one by one as the discs are being entered by a different editor, other editors are trying to ID what the original release of that single disc was, and the adding editor then is being encouraged to rename that single disc to the original release. I see you are still misrepresenting what I said in those edit notes... ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: You and leivhe followed up by saying telling him which discs the release was released as earlier/separately, and if I can quote you, 'I think you know this by now, but it looks like this title should be unboxed.' ( http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8513322 ) So, what was it you found so unverifiable about bingham's link to http://www.sonybmgstore.com/Beethoven-Complete-Masterpieces-Germany-60-CD/A/B000NDEMAI.htm that you felt it proper to tell him the releases ought to be unboxed? ;) If you took the time to look at that link yourself, you'd find the Zinman Beethoven symphs to be listed first. Probably discs 1-5 These are all at MB already, e.g. http://musicbrainz.org/release/76734569-b95e-4e61-9b9b-e487eb160586.html My guess is that bingham was quite pleased to find this at MB, and thought it useful to follow up with the overtures discs 6, 7 (where he said: I don't think these have been released earlier, to which I replied Yes, they have. Please excuse me for informing him of this, it was really bad of me. L ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] FeaturingArtistStyle clarification (was: Re: RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle)
Olivier wrote: Now, for extra performers, sessions musicians etc who are listed in the leaflett but *are not* prominently credited as release or track artist: Do not add any [these] artists to the track title. [These] artists can be additional voice performers or instrumentalists. I agree with everything you say here, but I'd just like to mention that it has for a long time been seen as acceptable for classical to have FeaturingArtistStyle used on a track level for if the submitting editor feels s/he needs it: 1) When e.g. a concerto is coupled with a symphony, the violinist/pianist may be added on a track level. 2) In case of compilations, e.g. two concertos on one release, no (or few) performers playing on all tracks, it is allowed to add them to tracks. Personally I never do this, but I do understand that people want to be able to search for Mutter or Pollini in their music players to retrieve tracks from e.g.: http://musicbrainz.org/release/a29a7a05-718f-4c0e-99e4-127bc0fd8337.html Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Are you saying you would vote no to this merge? I would. I guess these would sound different, so I'd want them separated in MB. Just as I'd want the CBS versions of Gould's recordings separated from the Sony remasters. They sound quite different! I know little of this, but from what I read in reviews, then some remasterings result in clearly audible differences - most of the time improvements, but not always - while others do not. If this is the prevailing sentiment, then I guess we for classical should merge less than we do. Further, since classical is in such a mess, editors should stop adding ReleaseEvents for older releases of stuff. (Perhaps that last comment concerns first and foremost for me...) The 8.5 pages of uncategorized Bach will be nigh-impossible to pin down the barcodes for,,, Hm. MB is starting to sound less interesting these days :( ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
A little soul-searching going on here folks, not much interesting for the discussion, so move along unless you're particularly interested :) Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: Further, since classical is in such a mess, editors should stop adding ReleaseEvents for older releases of stuff. (Perhaps that last comment concerns first and foremost for me...) The 8.5 pages of uncategorized Bach will be nigh-impossible to pin down the barcodes for,,, Hm. MB is starting to sound less interesting these days :( Could you explain these last 2 paragraphs. I am not sure of your meaning. Sorry, I guess that was not pretty clear. And I am perhaps not in the best of moods... The last month I've started cleaning up Haydn releases: When I have a spare moment and feel like it, I pick a release or two - mostly under Uncategorized, so you'll have to click Show all releases on the artist page to find them - then I try to identify performers and barcodes for it. (There's less than a page left of Uncategorized Haydn now, but there were *far* from as many as there are for Bach.) Now as the ReleaseAttributes and ReleaseEvents for most of these releases mostly range in quality from bad to very bad. I don't think style issues are as important, but if track titles are really bad, I do fix them as well. I tend to be pleased (call me nuts ;) ) if I successfully manage to add good ReleaseEvents for recordings that I know or discover to be very good. If I find more than one release for something, I add that - especially for something I'd like to hear myself. Now: AFAIK quite a bit of the stuff that first appeared on CD in the 80s has been remastered later, so a couple of barcodes I've been adding are bound to be wrong by the way of thinking some have. Add to this that people are getting more touchy when it comes to ReleaseTitles these days, and it's clear that I've been adding ReleaseEvents that will make little sense to some. I also do add my stuff unboxed if possible (but see http://musicbrainz.org/release/03bb58f0-8905-4760-a7b7-c3e8bca44f4b.html etc. for an example of a 8CD box-set which was previously released as four Philips Duo twofers) and I add older releaseevents for stuff if possible, e.g. for vinyl if I can. This discussion has brought forth that many do disagree with me whether this is proper or not. In your hierarchy, it is pretty clear that most of the curiosity and interest that makes this interesting to me is related to the Recording level. Different masters? I don't really care... (perhaps out of some ignorance) Finally: Since I have to enter 99.9% of the titles that end up in tags for my music anyway, I sort of am asking myself what am I doing? how should I best apply my time?, because surely I am doing something wrong. I'll figure it out somehow, I guess... Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Lauri Watts wrote: Clutter really failed to be an issue when the decision was made to overload 'artist' to mean composer or performer, instead of having both a possiblity. But hindsight is 20/20 and this is yet another thing that will go away when NGS gets here, even if the media players still haven't caught up with that. But you will never convince me that adding an extra 10 releases, or even 140 more, to Bach's page is going to be a material difference either way in the clutter stakes. But that's a UI issue anyway, and should be solved in the UI, not by outlawing perfectly good releases. You've made some good points in this thread, Lauri, and this point about UI, I very much agree with. So, this is just to answer you on the even 140 more Bachs: I believe there will be a lot more than 140 extra on Bach's artist page. The Brilliant Classics Bach Edition alone has come at least to it's third incarnation. I don't know the full story of it, but I think it was 23 volumes of bundled jewel cases first, totalling possibly 160 CDs. This was then rereleased (AFAICS) in 2001 in cardboards with a fat booklet, 160 CDs according to a review on musicweb-international.com. Currently amazon.com page has the 2006 makeover with 155 CDs, where some recordings has been exchanged for superior ones, possibly there are more stuff squeezed in into some CDs etc Then you have SonyBMGs recent rerelease of Harnoncourt's and Leonhardt's cantatas in a full set of 60 Cds... These two examples are from the top of my head, but I am convinced I can easily find more big boxes of examples if I poke around. Now, most of the recordings in these sets I believe *we don't even have yet* in MB, so if MB wasn't as lousy as it is when it comes to attracting classical-oriented music listeners (we barely get a fraction of the interesting stuff out there, AFAICS), we'd potentially have a Bach page which would be *much* longer (Not that my whining brings any constructive to the table :( ) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Chris B wrote: hey, please don't include me with this way of thinking! [SNIP] Sorry for conflating a couple of issues there, no harm intended :) And thanks for your response, I appreciate it! (I sort of miss the Pixies... If only they had followed up SR/COP and Doolittle with something good) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: I would like to fast-track this RFC, as I think the point I'm suggesting be changed is currently being abused in a destructive manner. Therefore, unless there's some dissention on this, I'd like to set next Sunday as the expiration for this RFC, rather than leaving it open-ended. In both the wikidoc and wiki versions of this style, http://musicbrainz.org/doc/BoxSetNameStyle , it reads as follows: - There are two cases of BoxSets: 1. A set of albums or singles which are also available seperately; 2. A multi-album compilation. (1) In the first case, we currently don't cater for retaining box set information and simply treat the albums as seperate albums. The rationale is that we can't cater for everything with the current system, and adding box set details will clutter up the titles for non-box-set owners. This will probably change when AdvancedRelationships becomes available. - This is completely counter to everything we discussed even as recently as with regards to box sets and classical. In classical, at the moment, there's many huge box sets being released. This RFC is a response to edits experienced editors are suggesting to an editor who is adding just one such 60 CD box set, example: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8513322 (among others) Like I say there: I would have done the same, and I thought it was bingham's proposal, so of course I support him. (And no, as you know, neither I nor Andrew - nor others to my knowledge - do merges which makes the box sets gappy. I tried *once* some months ago for a radically incomplete set, and was voted down, even though the I had the good arguments...) I still don't see why you abstain on the AddRelease with boxed title Whereas just weeks ago agreed to let both box set and non-box set versions of otherwise identical classical releases exist, this editor is being told here and elsewhere, citing section #1 of BSNS, that he ought to rename the releases to the titles of the individual releases, even though that editor has properly titled the release and provided a verifiable link for the box set version in his edit notes, and there is no debate that the box set does indeed exist. ( http://www.sonybmgstore.com/Beethoven-Complete-Masterpieces-Germany-60-CD/A/B000NDEMAI.htm ) So what andrewski hadn't followed discussions on mb-style about this? A polite reminder/pointer would be more effective than this. [SNIP] So I suggest that part #1 of BSNS be completely stricken. It's counter to normal practice, counter to every discussion I've ever seen, until now, about allowing otherwise duplicate entries for box set discs, and can be (and is) being used *now* in a manner that destructively affects massively sized classical box sets. http://harmoniamundi.com/uk/album_fiche.php?album_id=446 is discs 18-20 here http://harmoniamundi.com/uk/album_fiche.php?album_id=1211 It's here http://musicbrainz.org/release/ed87fbe7-345d-4241-930f-01779ae1b69c.html If someone comes along and tries to merge the single into the bigger, then I'd like to have a style to lean on... As you know, the Mozart page is long enough as it is... ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Actually, if I can amend this RFC, I just noticed while double checking for any guideline that could be mis-used for either purpose that there's an additional guideline which also provides justification for unboxing, and also ought to be removed: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease under section 11: A BoxSet consisting exactly of a set of discs previously released in a standalone form should not be added (see BoxSetNameStyle), but the standalone discs instead. That obviously means that such a BoxSet discs may be merged into the standalone versions. I'm not quite sure how obvious this is, considering it's counter to current practice, and I think more than a few editors would be quite upset if all the work they'd put into adding box sets were to be undone by someone merging / retitling the box sets into non-box set releases. And, prey tell, if noone is unboxing their box sets when they submit the data to MB in order to make said data useful to the most, how did we end up with two wiki pages saying that? In my opinion, there is *no* justification for telling an editor who has a box set and is entering a box set that he ought to be instead entering his box set as the non-box set versions of his release. So why dont't you give Andrew a polite pointer like I did in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8523261 in stead of creating all this fuss? I do inform editors of the possibility to add something unboxed in stead of boxed, and yes, I inform them of the benefits that follow this practice. (I do not say that they shouldn't add boxed sets.) I don't see that as wrong. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Adding it unboxed in the first place I have no issues with. It's the several edits open even just at this particular time which are actively converting box set releases into unboxed set releases, most citing either you or andrewski as having told them to do it, and/or in edit notes to other edits to those releases, you or he telling the editor to make just that edit. Like I said: I do not tell people to unbox stuff, I suggest it, sometimes saying BoxSetNameStyle advises us to do so or something. Quite a few editors see the sense in it - which you continue to sweep under the carpet, BTW. I have said what I have to say here. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle
Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: Adding it unboxed in the first place I have no issues with. It's the several edits open even just at this particular time which are actively converting box set releases into unboxed set releases, most citing either you or andrewski as having told them to do it, and/or in edit notes to other edits to those releases, you or he telling the editor to make just that edit. Like I said: I do not tell people to unbox stuff, I suggest it, sometimes saying BoxSetNameStyle advises us to do so or something. Quite a few editors see the sense in it - which you continue to sweep under the carpet, BTW. I have said what I have to say here. Well, considering I have yet to see any sense provided, and everyone but yourself who's so far responded has agreed with this RFC, please enlighten us. :) Thanks for *completely* ruining my day, a national holiday here in Norway, by falsely telling people I instruct people to unbox stuff. Here's my unboxing edit: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8123001 As you see from that, just three months ago you yourself found it perfectly acceptable to merge into bigger boxes. I'm glad that you have somewhat altered your position, but IMO you could do this without waving your hands this much. Now, in the case of Queen, I think perhaps I'd agree as well, if I was a subscriber, that duplicating tracklistings and ARs for boxed sets is all well and good. For many classical composers I would believe it is less clear-cut. Here's a list of releases featuring Sviatoslav Richter in Bach's BWV 1052: * o Melodiya D 2687/8 (10) or D 07749/50 (LP) or 29461 (CD) o Melodiya [Russia] MEL CD10 00731 (CD) o Ariola 85728 XAK (LP) o Bruno BR 14033 (LP) [ labelled as National Philharmonic ] o Colosseum 250 (LP) [ labelled as National Philharmonic ] o Everest 3415 (LP 1977) o Fontana / Philips [ Japan ] FG 102 (LP 1973) o Melodiya/Eurodisc GD 69081 (CD) o Melodiya / JVC VICC 2136 (CD) o BMG/Melodiya [ Japan ] BVCX 4051 (CD) o MK [ US ] 1569 (LP) [ Note: the cover does not list this piece, but in some cases the disc inside this cover is Melodiya D 07749/50, which includes this work. ] o Monitor 2002 (LP) or 2050 (LP) or 72050 (CD) o Murray Hill S 2959 (LP) o Musidisc 30-RC860 (LP) [ labelled as Barshai, Moscow Chamber Orchestra ] o Parliament WGM 3 (LP) o Parlophone PMA 1037 [ labelled as USSR Radio Symphony ] o Period TE 1163 (3 lps) o Shinsekai PLS 13 (LP 1957) or PH-23 (10 1959) or PX-5518 (LP 1962) or SH 7630 (LP 1967) or MK 1005 (LP 1973) or SMKX-1-15 (LP 1969) o Vox STLP 513410E (LP) or VSPS 2 (LP) o Vox [ Italy ] RGP ST 03001 (LP) o Carrère / Arpeggio ARG 021 (CD) [ labelled as Barshai, Moscow Chamber Orchestra ] o Andromeda ANDRCD 5038 (CD) o Urania [Italy] SP 4235 (CD) o Venezia [Russia] CDVE 43217 (CD) * with Nikolaevsky, Moscow Conservatory Orchestra o (Moscow, 28 March 1978) on Suncrown CRLB-55004 (LaserDisc) (more or less randomly picked from: http://www.trovar.com/str/discs/bach.html, there may very well be others which have even more difficult release histories) This was recorded in 1955, so perhaps this has just recently become public domain? If so, this is likely to further complicate stuff. The Bach subscribers (me included) do not quite seem up to the task just yet to handle all these: For Bach, there's currently *8.5 full pages* worth of uncategorized releases in my browser - who knows how many dupes, so it would be good to keep the duplicating at a minimum. By following BoxSetNameStyle(1) we would get: 1) less duplication 2) more albums and less compilations 3) earlier release dates (box set release dates are, given the lack of a PerformedAtLocationAR, less interesting than earlier release dates) 4) more descriptive releasetitles Complete String Qurtets (PerformerInfo) (disc 3)- versus String Quartets Nos. 8-10 (PerformerInfo) 5) data for releases probably more interesting to more people: Many buy a few individual discs, not everybody need 180CD sets with Bach. As for BoxSetNameStyle(1) not really hindering people from merging away individual releases: IME it works quite fine, as most people are able to read between the lines. Please make a sensible RFC which does not equate bigger with better, and let me have the rest of the day to myself. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Chris has replied to you on the history and the officialness of the CSG, I'll answer more directly. Brian Schweitzer wrote: Not to be totally sidetracked, though, the point here you may think is unimportant, but I would disagree. If we go around saying that this or that guideline is unofficial just because it never went through this or that proposal process, we'll never get anything done. Partially, esp with regards to CSG, the reason I reacted is because I have myself run into situations where even autoeditors have made the claim that that guideline isn't technically official, so we're free to disregard it. Open that door for classical, and we'll have chaos, where what I think we all would love is to find a way to make both sets of classical guidelines, for tracks and works, happen. With regards to the SMP, this thread has brought up two (perhaps three) arguments to follow the CSG for it: 1) More information is better information 2) The CSG should be followed because it is the CSG (There's also Andrew's argument, but I think it'll be hard to make an official guide out of it ;) It seems we can agree that 1) does not carry as much weight as it perhaps has done, given that we will have Works soon. Ad 2): It would not take me much effort to redo the SMP (and the Messiah the only ones I've done this for). Still, I am reluctant to do so, because I do think the adding of workname more or less breaks the primary function of the track title: To be useful in a normal listening context (some tracks on this release lasts only seven seconds, so there's little time to decipher the full title and extract the part title). To generalise that lesson: It is better to regard the CSG as a guide, not a set of hard rules. In other words: Using the CSG form for each and every piece of classical is plain baseless formalism if it doesn't provide the best possible form for each and every piece of classical music. In practice, I occasionally do run into some editor that has good reasons for doing one thing in some non-CSG way. More often than not, I tend to agree with these persons (also because I don't think I should be running this show: the more people helping out here, the more and better data we'll have). I do also suggest editors read the OperaTrackStyle and other unofficial guides, some of which are/have been more or less agreed upon, but I think I usually say they can check these for hints, not rules. (I remember abstaining on some Schubert Winterreise edits pradig did, and suggesting doing something which I had tricked myself into believing was agreed upon, to which pradig could inform that the score did not do do it like that, and that he found it improper. I felt stupid for at least two weeks afterwards.) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Short form CSG (was Re: Bach passions and CSG)
symphonick wrote: Another thing I think we need to decide: what tracklist should be used when there are more than one? Quite often there's a more detailed tracklist in the booklet [than on the backside of the cover]. Should the editor be able to decide freely which to use, or do we have a preference for one or the other? Here's a couple of scans: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=Robid=1282710 In this case most of the titles on the cover are unusable, so something has to be done... But other times the difference between cover booklet can be just opus nos., and/or different languages. Or the level of detail increases: Cover: 2. Gerne will ich mich bequemen (Matthäuspassion) Booklet (tracklist): Matthäuspassion BWV 244 St. Matthew Passion - Passion selon Saint-Matthieu 2. 23. Arie Gerne will ich mich bequemen Text: Picander (= Christian Friedrich Henrici) It seems like the booklet is needed sometimes (tracks 2-7 labeled PMS: Gloria is suboptimal), but that other places the booklet (which has few or no constraints on space/formatting/use of fonts etc.) has more details than what is needed and practical. Do we need to decide? (Also: arkivmusic.com has been issuing copies of out-of-print CDs (from at least the Universal labels), and I think they got some criticism at first for not including the booklet. I think few would object to a dose of pragmatism and some common sense here...) ( what to do when the booklet cover is lost? Worklist-titles?) I have been cleaning up quite a few Haydn releases lately. First by properly identifying the release, and then cleaning up the track listing if it was too messed up. A couple of these have only had the movement number indicated, so I've used what sources I could find from the issuing label, wikipedia, amazon and my own collection. Worklist titles is another possible source, sure :) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would not take me much effort to redo the SMP (and the Messiah the only ones I've done this for). Still, I am reluctant to do so, because I do think the adding of workname more or less breaks the primary function of the track title: To be useful in a normal listening context (some tracks on this release lasts only seven seconds, so there's little time to decipher the full title and extract the part title). Ah, here is the deepest issue, I think: You see MB as a something which should be useful in a normal listening context. I consider it as a database about music (although I agree it is still embryonic). Not much about listening in my position. You see MB as a way to feed Picard which will in it's turn tag your files. I seldom listen to music when I am using MB, and I almost never watch the track titles when I listen to music. I even deliberately avoid tagging many of my mp3 because I don't want to be biased by knowledge. So if looked at the track title, all I would read would be the track number. I would still be a MB user, even if Picard did not exist, although I am glad Picard exists. In order to not turn our living room into a library, I have all my music on hard disk (accessible e.g. from work). Therefore, the MB titles are important to me, and it would be cumbersome to locally redo them after tagging. (This SMP download already had good titles, but the artist was wrong: Dunedin Consort, not Bach.) Like you, I also hope that MB can be useful as a good source of information about 1) recordings and 2) music. I still don't think adding adding the workname to the track titles for the SMP is very helpful for this ;) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Short form CSG (was Re: Bach passions and CSG)
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Side question: When you say correcting typos, are you referring to ArtistIntent of the composer or of the performers? (I'd hope you mean the former; determining AI can be hard enough without also potentially assuming some group of classical performers decided to rename a work with a misspelling for *any* reason). I guess I was thinking of the former (but read on): I recently pointed out a typo for a Shostakovich track (originally in Russian, the Naxos cover had English), to which the editor at first replied that the cover did use the typo. (Indeed, classical.com and other places getting data from the same source had the same typo.) But typos are hard: F. Couperin did not write modern French, so for really old titles it might be impossible to know both what the artist wanted, and what was considered correct at that time. It is quite probable that no performers mean to introduce typos in titles, but perhaps some performers consider it acceptable to e.g. leave out the cantabile in a title where the original score had it in, because it was not played very cantabile? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Short form CSG (was Re: Bach passions and CSG)
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Perhaps; I guess that's going to come at us when we stop using full CSG and switch to much more what's on the liner anyhow. I was thinking less about omitted parts of titles, and more along the lines of Allgro, cantble, Symfany, or Conserto - each of which I've seen on a liner at least once. If someone can provide evidence that Furtwängler really wanted the cover of one Beethoven's fifth to have Allgro, then it is such a curiosity that I wouldn't mind having it in. YMMV. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Paul C. Bryan wrote: Disclaimer: I'm a relative newcomer to classical and opera styles within MusicBrainz. I'm glad to see you here :) I guess my first question is, if I were to happen to purchase this release, and put it on my MP3 player, would I have enough context when I see 93. Chori: Wahrlich, dieser ist Gottes Sohn gewesen to know this is from Bach's St. Matthew Passion? Would I know especially if I was new to the work? I wouldn't be sure about this either, but I could make a fair guess as I know the SMP some, or I could check the album title. But why do you need to get this from the track titles? Don't MP3 players show information about the album? When I started with MusicBrainz I thought I needed this from track titles as well, but experience has shown me I don't. More important: track titles are not and will not be a substitute for other resources, possibly online. As a relative newcomer, one of the reasons I have embraced ClassicalStyleGuideline and OperaTrackStyle is the fact that most music players are braindead when it comes to displaying useful information about the track they're playing, and MusicBrainz has (intentionally or inadvertently) addressed this with its current style guidelines. The useful part I left out would be Matthew Passion, BWV 244: Part II, LXIIIb. (Note 1: The booklet does not include LXIIIb etc. - though the recording splits the tracks at the right borders according the text for LXIII and others. Note 2: AFAICS from googling, it's only we at MB who use LXIIIb, others use 63b. This should be taken as a strong hint that we're doing something wrong. Note 3: The director, who is a Bach scholar, calls it Matthew Passion, not St. Matthew Passion, so I won't go against his wishes. If I am not voted down, you will not see St. Matt... in ReleaseTitles or TrackTitles for this one.) In a normal listening context the LXIIIb is not much interesting, IMO: In the 161 minutes this release lasts, titles fly by, and you're better off concentrating on the music and the text, and the LXIIIb is only distracting. (And if you have the text, you don't need this information.) I'd say my shorter title provides a reasonable default suited for listening. It is dead easy to find the dissecting numbers 244 and 63b if you need them (and most people don't). I guess my second question is, should MusicBrainz be trying to compensate for crappy music players, No. That being said, it surely would be a positive benefit if MB tags showed up well even on crappy players. If you have little screen real estate, perhaps the title is scrolling or something, then for a 9 seconds long track like Matthew Passion, BWV 244: Part II, LVIIIc. Desgleichen auch die Hohenpriester (Evangelista) you might not even get to see all of the title. Surely this is not helping anyone, or? decently normalized data structure that can be adapted to braindead music players through tagging software? I personally think the latter. I don't believe the dumb-my-classical picard plugin will ever be made. The space of existing classical titles is so diverse that you'll have a hard job making it useful for anything else but the most common structures. Maybe works could help get us out of such a debate to some extent if we could begin to attach information to the work, and leave the redundant information out of the individual movements or arias. If that's not currently in the works, then it's something I'd certainly support seeing in the future. As I understand it, we're getting there, and this would then allow for the tagger to pick titles from the WorksLists in stead of the Release TrackTitles. (In parentheses: I would be surprised if we do not find it rather cumbersome, as e.g. opera tracks are split up in different ways and this would possibly result in the need for multiple representations of one work. How should these be connected? What about different versions of the same work? I'm also guessing that in reality it will be less useful for end users than the premises for recent discussions seems have it. But let's hope I'm wrong :) However, until we have a more robust data structure to store such information, my vote would be on supporting the ClassicalStyleGuideline and OperaTrackStyle, even if it results in increasing the size of track titles. BTW, personally when I am tagging a release that exclusively encapsulates an artist's classical/opera work, I tend to remove the redundant information from my own track title tags, because my music player is not braindead and I don't want to see the redundant information during playback. This makes me more curious as to why you think it is necessary to have all the extra bits in the track titles... Disclaimer: The words of the writer above is from a relative newcomer to classical and opera tagging in MusicBrainz. Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to his
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Aaron Cooper wrote: On 20-Mar-08, at 7:17 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: I think it's missing a lot of important information like the stuff from OperaTrackStyle. Because classical stuff is released on CDs and not as works I think work info is necessary in track titles (as does the CSG). This release lasts for 161 minutes and is of course not released on a CD. OTS concerns opera and *is unofficial*. I am guessing one reason it never quite made it to be official is that it really is too inflexible and difficult (and sometimes makes for ugly titles to boot). I guess the passions should be treated somewhere in between cantata style and opera style (which are in conflict). If we just had a Symphony No. 5 in C minor work-release, then we wouldn't really need to put Symphony No. 5 in C minor in each track title–but we don't so we have to ;) I don't get what you mean here. The release I am talking about contains only the SMP. I think these titles should be at least: Matthew Passion, BWV 244: Choral Herzliebster Jesu, was hast du verbrochen Matthew Passion, BWV 244: Da das Jesus merkete (Evangelista, Jesus) etc. I checked the existing SMPs: NOT 244 Schreier Oberfrank Sándor Suzuki Jochum Leonhardt (identified by following link to freedb) With 244 Klemperer (added for tracks in 2007) Gardiner (added for tracks in 2007) Koopman (added for tracks in 2007) Herreweghe (added for tracks December 2006) Harnoncourt (added for tracks in 2008) McCreesh (release added 2007) Rilling (release added 2007) Unknown (release added 2008) Vermunt (added for tracks right after release add in 2007) I'm guessing that the ClassicalTrackTitleStyle has something to do for the 2007 ones, and that CSGS/JSBach has something to do with the 2008 ones... From experience with one of my BWV 245 SJPs (which I added to MB myself), I can assure you that BWV 245 is not needed in any way: In fact it only distracts me from the more interesting issue of the music itself. Going more on details: Choral: Herzliebster Jesu, was hast du verbrochen Evangelista: Da versammleten sich die Hohenpriester This is done as the tags were from Linn Records, and I think it fits the SMP perfectly: 1) No quotes make it more readable. 2) Dropping Recitativo and using simply Evangelista makes perfect sense for the Bach passions. 3) It is even consistently having the non-text stuff in front of the colon ;) Copying directly from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CSGStandard/JSBach would make things a lot better, too. No. This is Matthew Passion, not the Matthäus-Passion. And I don't like the separating of movement type and movement character that is done on CSGS/JSBach. --- In short, Aaron: I see you would like me to follow the existing guidelines, and I would if they were official and made sense to me, but this is the fourth or fifth time I've added a Bach passion ... and it is the first time I have been satisfied with it afterwards! I wish you would try to address my concerns regarding the short tracks and the amount of information that we inject into the titles... Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Brian Schweitzer wrote: A side note to this, by the way, I've noticed a few new classical editors just in the past few days who have been going through and either adding new releases or editing existing releases into the no work in the title format you're suggesting; when I've asked why, they've said they're using some of the trial-balloon edits like this one as examples from classical editors who know how to do it. Any examples of this? I've been very good at keeping my vote-on-edits-for-your-subscriptions-queue empty the last weeks, and I have not seen it. (Feel free to mail me in private, this is probably not interesting for the general public.) Just wanted to add the note of caution when we do do trial balloon edits like this; some of the editors who don't participate in the lists and who don't really know CSG well yet are paying attention to everything we do, but not the reasons we do it... Yes, I understand what you mean and I'll keep that in mind :) I guess my only defense here is that this is for stuff for which there exists no hard rules for: Even the CSG is just a guide, and before my time it was not so common to add work titles to operas e.g. While I'm writing here anyhow, I would really like to get things moving towards resolution / approval on the work list stuff so we can get back to CSG. The RFC and such have been out for several weeks now - is there anyone who would veto at this point; or if we held the work list RFCs until luks actually has work lists implemented, would there be anyone now opposed to the part of that RFC that moved the full details CSG to be only for work lists? Sorry, I am of no help as I didn't understand half of that thread, and I actually thought that there were some unresolved issues there. (We also still need to discuss, as like with this trial series of edits, what would then be simple classical style for use on the releases themselves, if the full CSG is moved away from that purpose...) This is for another thread :) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: I agree with Paul; and, for once, I disagree with Leiv. Although I understand the redundancy is annoying, I feel that we must accept some limitations of mp3 players... Sorry for not having an mp3 player ;) I have one player which also plays ogg, and when I last used it two years ago I think it allowed me to show the album name (possibly by keeping albums in separate and named folders). What limitations do I break? ...and more importantly of the MB web site! If I was looking for one part of the Matthew Passion, I'd probably enter BWV 244 in the track search box, and I'd completely miss your release! You'd miss a lot more than mine: Half of the SMPs do not have BWV 244 in the track titles. And: My two SMPs have together 103 + 101 = 204 tracks, so you probably want to start with searching for releases, not tracks :) There is nothing indicating in your current release what work each track belongs to. Of course, any classical editor with a little knowledge would guess all the tracks actually belong to BWV 244, but imagine the same procedure applied to some completely unknown work from some obscure composer. Impossible to guess if the release title is the name of the work or the commercial name of a compilation, or if each track actually belongs to a single work or is an entirely separate work. If some label spent a fortune to have professional scholars and performers dig out and record unknown stuff from obscure composers, then most likely it would also result in online references that would be helpful. At MB, we can use the annotations. If you generalized this procedure, how would you enter (in the current state of the MB database) http://musicbrainz.org/release/86a78b3d-08d6-4b42-990b-30463b66fc98.html ? My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs for them (and I know I have Händel oratorios which do not mention the HWVs - I recently checked some - yet this is *never* a problem). I can very well see myself adding those Händel cantatas exactly as they are on that release. For Bach cantatas it is perhaps possible to shorten it more, as the religious ones are titled after the first text line: BWV 172, I. Coro: Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! II. Recitativo: Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten III. Aria: Heiligste Dreieinigkeit or something... But there is an official cantata style guide (*guide*, not rule) which I used to be satisfied with, so I am not suggesting anything else here now. Personally I have until recently added voice indications to recitatives and arias, but this is better done with ARs IMO. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Just trying to clean up some issues: Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: And: My two SMPs have together 103 + 101 = 204 tracks, so you probably want to start with searching for releases, not tracks :) Please don't use poor quality data as a proof! I don't, really: Even if they were all done to your content, I'd still advise you to search for releases, to relieve you of wading through dozens of pages to find all releases... Like Brant pointed out elsewhere, the cat.no. is useful to help get all translations. (For the SMP it is quite easy to search for Matt on Bach's ArtistPage, but this is not so for Zauberflöte and others. We'll have to wait for works here...) It is ironic to recall that adding the cat.no. to opera tracks was my suggestion (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OperaTrackStyle?action=recallrev=1). When I see it used, I really regret it :( I said that at a time I believed in tagger scripts that could fix this according to user preferences. If some label spent a fortune to have professional scholars and performers dig out and record unknown stuff from obscure composers, then most likely it would also result in online references that would be helpful. My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs for them (and I know I have Händel oratorios which do not mention the HWVs - I recently checked some - yet this is *never* a problem). Well, you know that this is contrary to the CSG? Leaving out the cat.no. for oratorios is not contrary to the CSG, as they're not part of work names. Isn't it also so that in older days, leaving out the workname was quite acceptable for large choral works and operas? Were this considered a capital offense back in 2004? I can very well see myself adding those Händel cantatas exactly as they are on that release. For Bach cantatas it is perhaps possible to shorten it more, as the religious ones are titled after the first text line: BWV 172, I. Coro: Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! II. Recitativo: Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten III. Aria: Heiligste Dreieinigkeit or something... Ah, so it would apply only to the SMP? I hate exceptions. No, not only for the SMP. The problems with the information overload is especially salient for the SMP, so what I wanted to discuss for now was the passions. I do feel guilty for going against the official style guide. Please consider it a crime of conscience... Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: But isn't Chris right here, all this will soon become meaningless? I hope so :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
symphonick wrote: Like worktitles in CSG but as it is written on the cover (my interpretation). I'm guessing a Post-NGS CSG will be as hard to do right - i.e. useful and easy to follow - as the one we currently have. If this is right, then IMO it's reasonable to have the cover be the last appeal ground for how votes should fall in edit wars. This is not the same as saying that we should not maintain a CSG of common favored practices: No.1 - No. 1, E flat E-flat, Recit - Recitativo, Correct obvious typos when there is no ArtistIntent etc. This would of course mean that some releases won't have BWV 244...? You shouldn't need it if you can go to the work for SMP and see which tracks/releases are linked to it. The booklet for Dunedin Consort's Messiah does not include HWV 56. (And, e, I did it like I did their (S)MP: http://musicbrainz.org/release/94acb853-cf87-4def-817f-8d1e75eca14c.html) (BTW, two thirds of the other MB Messiahs do not have HWV 56 included either, and of the six that do, only one had it added to tracks before the summer of 2007.) The only real showstopper for me so far for this system is if we have to create a new work every time a work is split in more than one track (4th mvt of Beethoven's 9 and similar) . Sounds like a big mess to me. ( then there's this problem with identical releases in different languages and/or different packaging how to deal with that without turning into discogs...) There's also the problem of variant versions: As more and more works get multiple interpretations, the market gets packed, and performers/labels seek to differentiate their offerings from the others. You can see this by the way they're increasingly looking to recreate special performances of some work. (Like the Dunedin's Messiah.) For Bach cantatas it is perhaps possible to shorten it more, as the religious ones are titled after the first text line: BWV 172, I. Coro: Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! I've actually been thinking about something like this for CSGStandard/JSBach, since apparently Bach didn't name these works cantatas (AFAIK) And I thought Cantata from CantataStyle should be used first in case there were no proper name for the cantata... (If we're gonna loosen up the CantataStyle after NGS, then if you have a Bach CD with one cantata and some instrumental work, it might be a good idea to use Cantata at least in the first track of it.) Personally I have until recently added voice indications to recitatives and arias, but this is better done with ARs IMO. I like ARs too, but currently there's no way of preserving the original voice, if say a bass aria is sung by a baryton. Do you need that in the track title too? I guess this won't be a problem when NGS is in function? It sounds as this won't be a problem ;) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Paul C. Bryan wrote: On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 00:26 -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: ... some of the editors who don't participate in the lists and who don't really know CSG well yet are paying attention to everything we do, but not the reasons we do it... Like me, for example. And I probably won't be able to fathom some of the reasons at this point, as it seems require in-depth knowledge of the artists, their works, the history of the handling and cataloging of their works in order to grasp. Hi again, I can only speak for myself, but I'm a dabbler who happens to like music and am fairly good at googling :) You learn to find some valuable sources of information as you move along - I believe it was you who showed me http://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk/ , an essential reference for the MB opera voter and editor :) While it is great to have people that knows every minute detail of this-or-that composer, it should not be needed to be at MB. When we do disagree on something for classical, it is perhaps unavoidable that a certain amount of score fetishism and numerological beliefs are developed... However, I am good at following established patterns and standards, and tend to be good at not questioning them unless I cannot sense a method to their madness. Suffice to say, probably a large percentage of your editors are in the same boat as me. Other places in this thread (for SMP and Messiah) I've dug up some data indicating that the fill-in-all-conceivable-and-even-redundant-details-sentiment is quite new. And there seems to be no consensus on this now, either. Now it's up to you to find out how *you* want track titles to look for the artsts you subscribe to :) Regards, Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Completeness is useful because one never knows what will be useful and when. A little like a dictionary: we want as many things as possible in there, but when we are looking for something, we don't want to see more than what we are looking for. Also when we are looking for something, we need to know how and where it is likely to be found. I disagree that where here should be the track titles. Didn't we agree already? Of course I'll try to vote Paul's edits down if he only does what he likes and ends up disagreeing with you and me and the CSG without a very good reason for it ;) Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Hi list, Easter time is Bach passion time for me - especially since the flu prevents my family from going skiing :( So, I just spent the last hours adding a new recording of the St. Matthew Passion. This has 101 tracks played in about 161 minutes, and 25 tracks are less than half a minute, 13 last for less than 15 seconds. Because of this, it's imperative that the most important parts of the movement title sticks out properly from the track titles. So, I thought, how can this best be done? I ended following the booklet, and the tags provided by the label (it's a download). In the process I radically downplayed the common stuff that we pad the titles with (work names and part indication), and ended up with: http://musicbrainz.org/release/92fa1794-7a7e-48cd-a322-10a5def12cf1.html (reference: http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-matthew-passion.aspx) Now I don't want to start another quarrel, and I didn't really want to start another discussion on keeping out the WorkName from titles just yet, but I had time to add this now, so thoughts? leivhe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)
Aaron Cooper wrote: On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists) One language per work in Works lists sounds good. If the composer e.g. lived abroad and used another language during that period, it's to be expected that different languages might be best. do reduce the duplication. If you're talking about removing/merging releases with track listings in different languages, then I see no need to reduce duplication: They're not dupes. Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron Cooper wrote: On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists) One language per work in Works lists sounds good. If the composer e.g. lived abroad and used another language during that period, it's to be expected that different languages might be best. So Tchaikovsky in Cyrillic only? This is quite annoying. I love this composer, hehe, I was listening to Viktoria Mullova playing his violin concerto as this mail entered my inbox :) but I don't intend to learn Cyrillic soon... Sorry for the hasty formulation one language per work sounds good, I don't have the solution to this problem. But my first thought is that Works ideally should be entered also in cyrillic. It might not be very practical, though. For tagging you should get most of what you need from the track listing of your release. But we have a problem if strange characters in the Works make them difficult for editors to reliably find and use. Perhaps the opus numbers and other catalogue information can help? Leiv ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
