On 2/1/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:22:38 +0100, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> Well, this discussion died off 4 days ago and I did manage to scrounge
> up some time over last weekend to throw together the beginnings of a
> Wiki page @ http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Class
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:22:38 +0100, Aaron Cooper wrote:
Well, this discussion died off 4 days ago and I did manage to scrounge
up some time over last weekend to throw together the beginnings of a
Wiki page @ http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle -
Please check it out and post co
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 1/31/07, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/31/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I found another special case: multiple disc releases. See
> > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6
I've been punching in some edits that follow
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle and I would
appreciate it if you would check them out @ http://tinyurl.com/2l634c
While making these edits I've been on the look-out for weird cases
that may need discussion. Please check out the
On 1/31/07, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/31/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I found another special case: multiple disc releases. See
> > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6359121. How do we nor
On 1/31/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/31/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found another special case: multiple disc releases. See
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6359121. How do we normalize
> these? Should catalogue numbers be included? If so,
On 1/31/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/1/31, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1/27/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > > Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
> >
2007/1/31, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/27/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
> > Titles, not Track Titles.
>
> How embarrasing. :-) Funny that I did
2007/1/31, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/30/07, Rob Keeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The weird thing I've noticed over the years is that the CD release
> titles often list the works out of order of the way they are actually
> laid out on the recording. Never understood why.
I have
2007/1/31, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/30/07, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yay!
>
> Only one question arising from a recent edit: what to do when multiple
> works are contained in a release, but unsequentially. Do we do "Piano
> Sonatas Nos. 24, 27, 25, 23" or the seque
On 1/30/07, Rob Keeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The weird thing I've noticed over the years is that the CD release
titles often list the works out of order of the way they are actually
laid out on the recording. Never understood why.
I have noticed that too. But, just to be clear, I am talkin
The weird thing I've noticed over the years is that the CD release
titles often list the works out of order of the way they are actually
laid out on the recording. Never understood why.
Rob.
Pianissimo84
On 1/30/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/30/07, Andrew Con
On 1/30/07, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yay!
Only one question arising from a recent edit: what to do when multiple
works are contained in a release, but unsequentially. Do we do "Piano
Sonatas Nos. 24, 27, 25, 23" or the sequential "Piano Sonatas Nos.
23-25, 27"?
Silly people w
On 1/30/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/27/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
> > Titles, not Track Titles.
>
> How embarrasing. :-) Funny tha
On 1/27/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
> Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
> Titles, not Track Titles.
How embarrasing. :-) Funny that I did not realise this while reading
through the 50+ mails.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
Titles, not Track Titles.
How embarrasing. :-) Funny that I did not realise this while reading
through the 50+ mails. I really have been reading too fast. Sorry.
Still
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:32:51AM +0100, Don Redman wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:29:45 +0100, Aaron Cooper wrote:
>
> >I started this thread to get rid of this:
> >
> >Symphon[y|ies] No[s|]. 5[, | / | & ] [No[s|].|] 7
> >// square brackets imply a choice between the items separated by bars
> >
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:29:45 +0100, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I started this thread to get rid of this:
Symphon[y|ies] No[s|]. 5[, | / | & ] [No[s|].|] 7
// square brackets imply a choice between the items separated by bars
// so, for example we currently have:
// Symphony No. 5 / No. 7
// Symphonies
2007/1/26, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:59:35PM +0100, leivhe wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> >
> >Yes, I will do that :) Thanks - examples are always good things.
> >
> >Typical releases where this would apply:
> >http://musicbrainz.org/release/27b2dee9-5a06-49bf-
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:59:35PM +0100, leivhe wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> >
> >Yes, I will do that :) Thanks - examples are always good things.
> >
> >Typical releases where this would apply:
> >http://musicbrainz.org/release/27b2dee9-5a06-49bf-9e44-fb7bc00b95a2.html
> >http://musicbrainz.or
On 1/25/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, where is the limit? I feel that saying "favorites" shouldn't be
normalized because this would generate ridiculously long titles is
precise enough. But your two examples are clearly completely
different. Aaron, why did you start this t
2007/1/25, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/25/07, leivhe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I will do that :) Thanks - examples are always good things.
> >
> > Typical releases where this would apply:
> > http://musicbrainz.org/release/27b2dee9-5a06-49bf-9e44-fb
On 1/25/07, leivhe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
>
> Yes, I will do that :) Thanks - examples are always good things.
>
> Typical releases where this would apply:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/27b2dee9-5a06-49bf-9e44-fb7bc00b95a2.html
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/73221c97
Aaron Cooper wrote:
Yes, I will do that :) Thanks - examples are always good things.
Typical releases where this would apply:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/27b2dee9-5a06-49bf-9e44-fb7bc00b95a2.html
http://musicbrainz.org/release/73221c97-8a19-42a0-87d2-ebf052ed7b70.html
http://musicbrainz.org
2007/1/23, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/1/23, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2007/1/23, David Gibson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007
On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/1/23, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2007/1/23, David Gibson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > > >
2007/1/23, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/1/23, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > > Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in th
On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/1/23, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in the
> > Annotation?
>
> Erm... assuming the release ac
On 23/01/07, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ARs are important and should be used. But the performer information is
important for a classical work, second to the composer. Since MBz
doesn't (yet?) allow any mapping from ARs to ripped music tags*, the
track title seems to be the best pl
2007/1/23, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/1/23, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > 2007/1/23, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Aaron Cooper wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >> and so on. In t
2007/1/23, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2007/1/23, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Aaron Cooper wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >> and so on. In the interests of brevity I'd be happy to stop
>> including
>> > >>
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2007/1/23, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> >> and so on. In the interests of brevity I'd be happy to stop
including
> >> the key in the ReleaseTitle, but maintain it in the TrackTitle
2007/1/23, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in the
> Annotation?
Erm... assuming the release actually has a discernable name, other
than the titles of the included
2007/1/23, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/22/07, Christopher Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we are trying to get a consistent release title style guideline,
> > can't we use this as an opportunity to get some cleaner track title
2007/1/23, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> >> and so on. In the interests of brevity I'd be happy to stop including
> >> the key in the ReleaseTitle, but maintain it in the TrackTitle, with
> >> the Op. / catalogu
I've been fairly vocal on this point in the past (as many of the
classical editors may remember). I strongly *dislike* including the
performer information in the track/release titles as it makes for
tortuously long names! However, I also recognize the current
shortcomings of the data model as it s
On 1/22/07, Christopher Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While we're at it, why don't we get rid of performer information in
the titles and put it where it belongs? Tchaikovsky is not the
performer of his work; he is the composer. If the current classical
guideline is really how things are going
On 1/22/07, Christopher Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we are trying to get a consistent release title style guideline,
> can't we use this as an opportunity to get some cleaner track titles?
> Take e.g. Tchaikovsky's 'The Sleeping Beauty'
On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we are trying to get a consistent release title style guideline,
can't we use this as an opportunity to get some cleaner track titles?
Take e.g. Tchaikovsky's 'The Sleeping Beauty' [1], I still have to clean
up the track titles but I'm reluctant
On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
>
>> and so on. In the interests of brevity I'd be happy to stop including
>> the key in the ReleaseTitle, but maintain it in the TrackTitle, with
>> the Op. / catalogue number too.
>
> Agreed, track titles should always includ
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in the
> Annotation?
Erm... assuming the release actually has a discernable name, other
than the titles of the included works. I would have assumed that the
relativ
Aaron Cooper wrote:
and so on. In the interests of brevity I'd be happy to stop including
the key in the ReleaseTitle, but maintain it in the TrackTitle, with
the Op. / catalogue number too.
Agreed, track titles should always include work name/number, key, and
catalog number
If we are try
2007/1/22, Cadalach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Finally, there's the minor question of whether we should persist with
> > the currect practice of including the key signature in titles. I guess
> "correct"/"current"? :-)
Haha, that was quite a good typo! I meant "current", but I think it's
correct t
> Finally, there's the minor question of whether we should persist with
> the currect practice of including the key signature in titles. I guess
"correct"/"current"? :-)
Haha, that was quite a good typo! I meant "current", but I think it's
correct too.
@Andrew C: Glad to see bad jokes are still
On 1/22/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in the Annotation?
Not a bad idea!
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
--
-Aaron
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@li
Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in the Annotation?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
2007/1/22, Cadalach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi folks,
On 22/01/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why "Nos." and not "Ops."? Someone known where "No." comes from and if it's
> > proper to use it at plural. (I know they do it)
>
> I believe there already was a discussion about pl
On 1/22/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/22/07, Cadalach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, there's the minor question of whether we should persist with
> the currect practice of including the key signature in titles. I guess
> Aaron would suggest perhaps
Haha... the "minor"
On 1/22/07, Cadalach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
On 22/01/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why "Nos." and not "Ops."? Someone known where "No." comes from and if it's
> > proper to use it at plural. (I know they do it)
>
> I believe there already was a discussion a
Hi folks,
On 22/01/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why "Nos." and not "Ops."? Someone known where "No." comes from and if it's
> proper to use it at plural. (I know they do it)
I believe there already was a discussion about plurals but I can't
find it. I am not quite sure,
2007/1/22, Marco Sola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Il Monday, January 22, 2007 6:54 AM
Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> Multiple works, same type:
All ok for me, theory and pratice.
> Symphonies Nos. 1, 2 (...)
> String Quartets, Op. 127, 130-133, 135 (...) (disc 2)
Why "Nos." and not "
Il Monday, January 22, 2007 6:54 AM
Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
Multiple works, same type:
All ok for me, theory and pratice.
Symphonies Nos. 1, 2 (...)
String Quartets, Op. 127, 130-133, 135 (...) (disc 2)
Why "Nos." and not "Ops."? Someone known where "No." comes from an
52 matches
Mail list logo
