Discussion:
[mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-20 23:17:39 UTC
Permalink
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
Paul C. Bryan
2008-03-20 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Disclaimer: I'm a relative newcomer to classical and opera styles within
MusicBrainz.

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?

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.

I guess my second question is, should MusicBrainz be trying to
compensate for crappy music players, or should it be aiming to provide a
decently normalized data structure that can be adapted to braindead
music players through tagging software? I personally think the latter.

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.

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.

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 opinions.
This newcomer may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. Do not taunt
this newcomer.
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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
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 at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 10:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul C. Bryan
Disclaimer: I'm a relative newcomer to classical and opera styles within
MusicBrainz.
I'm glad to see you here :)
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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.
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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).
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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?
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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.
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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 :)
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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...
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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 opinions.
This newcomer may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. Do not taunt
this newcomer.
I hope I am not :)

Leiv
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 12:36:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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.
BTW, I was on the verge of searching SMP in the MB documentation :-D
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/9d58fc0d/attachment.htm
Aaron Cooper
2008-03-21 00:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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
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?
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). 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 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.

Copying directly from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CSGStandard/JSBach
would make things a lot better, too.

-Aaron
Brian Schweitzer
2008-03-21 04:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Cooper
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). 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 ;)
Matthew Passion, BWV 244: Choral "Herzliebster Jesu, was hast du
verbrochen"
Matthew Passion, BWV 244: "Da das Jesus merkete" (Evangelista, Jesus)
etc.
I'd agree with Aaron here - bare minimum, the first of the two above.
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". 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...

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? (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...)

Brian
Paul C. Bryan
2008-03-21 05:00:10 UTC
Permalink
... 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.

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.

Paul
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 20:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul C. Bryan
... 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...
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 20:48:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Paul C. Bryan
... 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...
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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 :)
Yes and no. I mean: "yes" for "like", but I believe there are other matters
which should be taken into account than liking. 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.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/b656fffa/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 21:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 11:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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.
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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
Brian Schweitzer
2008-03-22 05:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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.)
Not any particular ones I can point to offhand; I've been digging
through the "more obscure composers" section of my collection and
noticing more than a few of these editors that way, via the random
inlines: Zelenka, Steizel, Zazou, Schoenberg, etc - ie, composers not
in the top 100 artists list, where the classical part of the inline
kicks in, but there's no large outstanding queue (like Bach,
Beethoven, Mozart, etc) to hide them.

Anyhow, just was the general observation that we all do need to keep
it in mind; perhaps even an annotation when we do trial balloon
releases, something like "This is not entered according to current
guidelines, please check the style list for details, but please do not
copy this style", or something like that? I get the sense that our
average editors do quickly figure which are the 8 or 10 or so editors
active in classical, and (those not simply dumping from freedb and
running) do try to imitate our edits.

Brian
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 11:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Cooper
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,
Post by Aaron Cooper
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.
Post by Aaron Cooper
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
S?ndor
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 ;)
Post by Aaron Cooper
Copying directly from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CSGStandard/JSBach
would make things a lot better, too.
No. This is "Matthew Passion", not the "Matth?us-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
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 11:53:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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).
Maybe you are right, but I rather thought it was because it was (one of) the
first (or is it the only?) style guide evolution which followed Don's new
procedure and the procedure was never completed.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/9fc89557/attachment.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 06:28:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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
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?
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...

...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!

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 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 ?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/29c2510a/attachment.htm
Andrew Conkling
2008-03-21 11:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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...
I know exactly what you mean. I usually agree with you, Leiv, but not in
this case. But it's interesting reasoning!


...and more importantly of the MB web site! If I was looking for one part of
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Matthew Passion, I'd probably enter "BWV 244" in the track search box,
and I'd completely miss your release!
Wait, you can search MBz with numbers? (Seriously, can you?)

Cheers,
Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/5a98e1bd/attachment.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 12:04:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Conkling <andrew.conkling at gmail.com>
Post by Andrew Conkling
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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...
I know exactly what you mean. I usually agree with you, Leiv, but not in
this case. But it's interesting reasoning!
...and more importantly of the MB web site! If I was looking for one part
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
of the Matthew Passion, I'd probably enter "BWV 244" in the track search
box, and I'd completely miss your release!
Wait, you can search MBz with numbers? (Seriously, can you?)
Of course you can :-) just type "BWV 244" in the Track box. I found more
than 38 pages of them. But I don't think Leiv's last input will be there...
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/21e90e00/attachment.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 12:05:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Conkling <
Post by Andrew Conkling
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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...
I know exactly what you mean. I usually agree with you, Leiv, but not in
this case. But it's interesting reasoning!
...and more importantly of the MB web site! If I was looking for one
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
part of the Matthew Passion, I'd probably enter "BWV 244" in the track
search box, and I'd completely miss your release!
Wait, you can search MBz with numbers? (Seriously, can you?)
Of course you can :-) just type "BWV 244" in the Track box. I found more
than 38 pages of them. But I don't think Leiv's last input will be there...
Sorry, typo, I meant 28 pages.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/1aa58f2f/attachment.htm
Andrew Conkling
2008-03-21 12:55:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Conkling <
Post by Andrew Conkling
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
...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!
Wait, you can search MBz with numbers? (Seriously, can you?)
Of course you can :-) just type "BWV 244" in the Track box. I found more
than 38 pages of them. But I don't think Leiv's last input will be there...
Ooh, fantastic. I realized my mistake: I usually use the Tag Lookup section
because it's more specific (I want to find releases titled X, but only for
artist Y). Apparently it doesn't work there but does in the main search.
(Weird.)

Thanks for the heads-up!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/dd84440f/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 12:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Conkling
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
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...
I know exactly what you mean. I usually agree with you, Leiv, but not in
this case. But it's interesting reasoning!
Well, Andrew, why do *you* need all that in? How does seeing "BWV 244"
in your track titles enhance your experience of the SMP?
Post by Andrew Conkling
...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!
Wait, you can search MBz with numbers? (Seriously, can you?)
http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=bwv+244&type=release&limit=25&handlearguments=1
Brant Gibbard
2008-03-21 12:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Well, Andrew, why do *you* need all that in? How does seeing
"BWV 244"
in your track titles enhance your experience of the SMP?
By enabling me to find it. Catalogue numbers have the advantage of being
language independent. A search for BWV 244 should find the work regardless
of whether it was entered under Matthew, Matth?us, Matthieu, Matteo, or what
have you.
Andrew Conkling
2008-03-21 12:52:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Brant Gibbard <bgibbard at ca.inter.net>
Post by Brant Gibbard
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Well, Andrew, why do *you* need all that in? How does seeing
"BWV 244"
in your track titles enhance your experience of the SMP?
By enabling me to find it. Catalogue numbers have the advantage of being
language independent. A search for BWV 244 should find the work regardless
of whether it was entered under Matthew, Matth?us, Matthieu, Matteo, or what
have you.
Ahem, he was talking to me. :P

Leiv, Brant said exactly what I would; especially when searching for
existing releases when an editor adds one that I suspect already exists, the
language is crucial to determining if it's a duplicate or just a
translation.

Plus, it just makes me feel closer to God. ^_^

Sorry, the way you asked that question begged that response. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/1506e078/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 12:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
...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 :)
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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 H?ndel 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 H?ndel 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
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 12:32:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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?
I could answer that you don't break anything either by repeating the work
name in the track title :-) Anyhow, as I said, I think the mp3 issue is
minor, at least for me.
Post by Leiv Hellebo
...and more importantly of the MB web site! If I was looking for one
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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 :)
Please don't use poor quality data as a proof! CSG asks for the work name,
so clearly omitting it is against CSG. I agree my query would miss those
other tracks. I regret it too. I wish the quality of MB data was good enough
so that I could retrieve almost all the relevant tracks. Currently I can't.
And since I am much too lazy to try to find other ways, I will go on doing
as if the tracks which I can't retrieve (because they were poorly entered)
don't exist in MB :-( But don't ask me to feel happy about it or to approve
removing the work name.
Post by Leiv Hellebo
There is nothing indicating in your current release what work each track
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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.
Maybe, but so what? Each time I see a release in MB which I don't know, I
will have to google it's title to check if it is a fancy commercial name or
if it is the actual name chosen by the composer? Not very user-friendly!
Post by Leiv Hellebo
At MB, we can use the annotations.
But can we search them? What good is an information you can only see once
you have brought up the relevant page? If I want the list of all the tracks
from the SMP, the only way I can get it is to have some common data. In the
future, it will be an AR to the work. Currently, the best way IMO is
something like the work name or it's catalogue number.
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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 H?ndel 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?


I can very well see myself adding those H?ndel cantatas exactly as they
Post by Leiv Hellebo
are on that release.
For Bach cantatas it is perhaps possible to shorten it more, as the
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.
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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.
I prefer ARs to title indications too.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/e30127c5/attachment-0001.htm
Chris B
2008-03-21 13:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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 ?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!

i totally don't get why we're still having the conversations about
adding these cat#s and duplicating work titles in track titles when
both worklists and track merges are just around the corner. i feel
blessed that my collection of classical music is meagre enough that i
can tag it all myself and not have to use MBz!

i agree with the scenario Brian said about using these mega-rules for
the worklist, and trying to think what is acceptable for the 'release'
CSG. whatever the latter ends up being, it surely won't include either
cat#s or duplicate work titles!
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 13:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul C. Bryan
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
If you generalized this procedure, how would you enter (in the
current
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
state of the MB database)
http://musicbrainz.org/release/86a78b3d-08d6-4b42-990b-30463b66fc98.html ?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the
BWVs
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
i totally don't get why we're still having the conversations about
adding these cat#s and duplicating work titles in track titles when
both worklists and track merges are just around the corner. i feel
blessed that my collection of classical music is meagre enough that i
can tag it all myself and not have to use MBz!
i agree with the scenario Brian said about using these mega-rules for
the worklist, and trying to think what is acceptable for the 'release'
CSG. whatever the latter ends up being, it surely won't include either
cat#s or duplicate work titles!
Right. Forget everything I just said :-D
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/ff4919c3/attachment.htm
Brian Schweitzer
2008-03-22 05:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris B
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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 ?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
outdated as that guideline is.

Brian
Chris B
2008-03-22 21:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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 ?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
outdated as that guideline is.
The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
Brian Schweitzer
2008-03-22 22:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris B
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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
?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
outdated as that guideline is.
The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more
than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle...

http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide

"Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style Guide."

CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006.

Brian
Chris B
2008-03-22 23:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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
?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
outdated as that guideline is.
The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more
than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle...
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide
"Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style Guide."
CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006.
well it's not been made official...properly. it never went through the
process (we've always had a process). anyone saying it's 'official'
back in december did it in good faith, i'm sure, but i don't recall it
ever going through the process.

i'm not saying it has no weight, as a lot of guidelines that are worth
following never made it through the process, but there you go. anyway,
does this really matter?
Brian Schweitzer
2008-03-23 00:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris B
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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
?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
outdated as that guideline is.
The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more
than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle...
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide
"Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style Guide."
CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006.
well it's not been made official...properly. it never went through the
process (we've always had a process). anyone saying it's 'official'
back in december did it in good faith, i'm sure, but i don't recall it
ever going through the process.
i'm not saying it has no weight, as a lot of guidelines that are worth
following never made it through the process, but there you go. anyway,
does this really matter?
I'll not quibble much over "process" - you're using that as if it
means one single method, whereas we all know the means for anything to
become official has been continually changing... (Actually, that's
just the reason for the confusion about SountrackStyle I referenced;
it was changed from official back to a proposal under a process so old
that noone now even has a copy of the original, official, guideline
(I've asked and searched for 6 months+ now - if anyone can disprove
this, please forward me a copy! :) ).

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.

So let's not nitpick on the degree of "officialness" in guidelines -
imho, it's either official, or it's not, whatever process was used to
get it there. If it says in a doc that's now 16 months old "This is
official", then take that at its word, let's not go searching for
excuses why it's maybe only 93.746% official. :P

Brian
Chris B
2008-03-23 10:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Brian Schweitzer
Post by Chris B
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Leiv Hellebo
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
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
?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
for them (and I know I have H?ndel 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?
the un-agreed on CSG!
No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
outdated as that guideline is.
The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more
than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle...
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide
"Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style Guide."
CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006.
well it's not been made official...properly. it never went through the
process (we've always had a process). anyone saying it's 'official'
back in december did it in good faith, i'm sure, but i don't recall it
ever going through the process.
i'm not saying it has no weight, as a lot of guidelines that are worth
following never made it through the process, but there you go. anyway,
does this really matter?
I'll not quibble much over "process" - you're using that as if it
means one single method, whereas we all know the means for anything to
become official has been continually changing...
i know it means various processes, but there always was one. i've been
here since it was the styledude, and then the council, and now the
current system.
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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.
So let's not nitpick on the degree of "officialness" in guidelines -
imho, it's either official, or it's not, whatever process was used to
get it there. If it says in a doc that's now 16 months old "This is
official", then take that at its word, let's not go searching for
excuses why it's maybe only 93.746% official. :P
well then it's *not* official! it's not any % official! as far as i
can tell, someone said it was official when a re-write was happening,
so we can highlight what the 'old' CSG was, but the old CSG was never
official to start with.

history fans: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2004-January/004406.html
- but i don't think tarragon was styledude at this point, it was still
neil. moreover, it never made it into the old guidelines until long
after, as far as i can tell. at that stage the wiki was 'unofficial'

like i said, it's not important. either way, the whole thing is being
re-written. if it stemmed from a consensus (which it did) then it
is/was worth following. but it never mentioned anything about HWVs or
whatever!
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-23 12:17:20 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-23 12:45:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080323/03cc0ac9/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-23 14:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com
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
Andrew Conkling
2008-03-23 15:06:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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
Post by Brian Schweitzer
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)
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 ;)
Wait, what? :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080323/f67f9c91/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 15:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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 Zauberfl?te 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=recall&rev=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.
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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 H?ndel 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?
Post by Leiv Hellebo
I can very well see myself adding those H?ndel cantatas exactly as they
are on that release.
For Bach cantatas it is perhaps possible to shorten it more, as the
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
symphonick
2008-03-21 15:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, if I understood correctly when asking in another tread about
post-CSG tracknames, we should still put in the "heading" (context) in
tracknames.
Andrew Conkling
2008-03-21 15:38:00 UTC
Permalink
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...)
I don't think so; I thought what we'd be doing was to link (via a pending AR
type) each track on the CD to the single 4th movement of Symphony No. 9, so
both would be "This track is an
instance/recording/whatever-word-we-decide-on of 'Symphony No. 9 in D minor:
IV. Presto assai' (or whatever the full title is, I don't know offhand).

The *tracknames* would still be a little kludgy--if the process is still
copying names from the CSGS or similar--but they should get the
work/movement's name correct.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/3e29c9b8/attachment.htm
symphonick
2008-03-21 16:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Conkling
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...)
I don't think so; I thought what we'd be doing was to link (via a pending AR
type) each track on the CD to the single 4th movement of Symphony No. 9, so
both would be "This track is an
IV. Presto assai' (or whatever the full title is, I don't know offhand).
I think this is the best solution too.

--
/symphonick
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 15:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by symphonick
Hmm, if I understood correctly when asking in another tread about
post-CSG tracknames, we should still put in the "heading" (context) in
tracknames.
Czech Suite, Op. 39
2 Preludium (Pastorale)
3 Polka
2. Czech Suite, Op. 39: Preludium (Pastorale)
3. Czech Suite, Op. 39: Polka
Like worktitles in CSG but as it is written on the cover (my
interpretation). This would of course mean that some releases won't
Kommt, ihr Tochter, helft mir klagen; Choral: O Lamm Gottes,
unschuldig" (we have to decide what to fix in tracknames, missing
umlauts, should we standardize colons etc)
I thought that we would be able to search for "BWV 244" in the
worklist and from there locate the "connected" releases/tracks?
Quite, all this discussion will become almost meaningless then. I agree
using what is printed will be the simplest solution, although we will have
to address the problem of re-issues print differences.


The only real showstopper for me so far for this system is if we have
Post by symphonick
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...)
Fortunately, this situation is not so frequent :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/aa6a07a9/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 19:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by symphonick
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
Post by symphonick
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, ehhhh, 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.)
Post by symphonick
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.)
Post by symphonick
Post by Leiv Hellebo
For Bach cantatas it is perhaps possible to shorten it more, as the
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.)
Post by symphonick
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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
Post by symphonick
won't be a problem when NGS is in function?
It sounds as this won't be a problem ;)


Leiv
Frederic Da Vitoria
2008-03-21 15:39:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com>
Post by Paul C. Bryan
Post by Leiv Hellebo
And: My two SMPs have together 103 + 101 = 204 tracks, so you
probably
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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 Zauberfl?te 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=recall&rev=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.
Quite :-) Ugly, but efficient. But at that time, works were still in the far
future.
Post by Paul C. Bryan
Post by Leiv Hellebo
If some label spent a fortune to have professional scholars and
performers dig out and record unknown stuff from obscure composers,
then
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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
Post by Leiv Hellebo
for them (and I know I have H?ndel oratorios which do not mention
the
Post by Leiv Hellebo
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 did not mean that the catalogue was perfect (but I may not have been
perfectly clear on this). What I meant is that I consider the "work prefix"
which is required by CSG as a way to retrieve all the tracks from a specific
work. This functionality could also be used to make migrating to NGS easier.
MB is a database and as such should offer a means to do this. In the (near)
future, the works will be the perfect, rational, user-friendly way of doing
it. But back at that time, I considered partly CSG as a bad way to do this.
The catalogue being of course the shortest implementation, but Brian showed
that the catalogue was not always reliable.
Post by Paul C. Bryan
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...
But isn't Chris right here, all this will soon become meaningless?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080321/52f01e4e/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-03-21 17:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
But isn't Chris right here, all this will soon become meaningless?
I hope so :)
Loading...