2007/3/11, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2007/2/25, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Following up from my earlier posting, I propose to give a structure
>> to "Part_number" as used in ClassicalTrackTitleStyle.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The proposal is explained in
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitlePartnumberStyle
>
> It took me a long time, but I found the time to examine some
> implications of your proposal. I disagree with your analysis that
> MultiTrackMovementStyle uses a different principle from your proposal.

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

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

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

Right, I agree this is confusing.


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

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

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


Are track titles required to be unique within one release?

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


What happens if they are repeated?

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

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

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

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

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

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

Reply via email to