2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com>: >> Except that I explained the reasons why I still want full CSG on track >> titles, and why RFC-333 should apply to classical as well (meaning >> recording titles and track titles should match). You didn't address >> that at all. > > RFC-333 *never* said that recording titles and track titles should > match - Lukas has repeated that several times.
That's why my explanation included *both*. :) RFC-333 said that track titles get the same normalization (same as recording titles), but would include release context. Extrapolating that to classical, both would get CSG normalization. Because recording titles get CSG normalization, no? Even if the end result was to end CSG normalization for recording titles, I'm still right back where I started: I have no way, in the new scheme of things, to the get the same track titles that I know and love from the old system. > It did say that for > now, until changes were made if deemed interesting, we would use the > same *guidelines* for recording titles and track titles (it also > explicitly excluded classical, FWIW). Yes, it explicitly excluded classical so that it could be addressed in another discussion. Which is happening now. And now I'm making the argument that all the reasons for RFC-333 apply here. :) > One of its goals was indeed not to blindly > follow the cover, but I suspect symphonick is not trying to make > anyone blindly follow the cover either: classical titles in this > pre-RFC still retain a much stronger normalisation than any popular > music titles do via the current titling guidelines. That's not my impression looking at the examples in the pre-RFC. > That being said, what's "full CSG" for you? Is it using a standard > track title, in the same form and language, for all appearances of a > work regardless of liner language? No, in my view the "form" will not always be the same, thanks to release context, same as in popular music. > Is > it adding work titles at the beginning of the track, movement numbers, > and colons to separate the full work title and the movement? (I tend > to agree with that, but that's not that different from the pre-RFC). > I've seen as many ideas of "full CSG" as classical editors, so it'd be > useful to know what extent of CSG normalisation you consider basic. CSG as in old CSG. I know there's plenty of disagreement about what that does and does not include. But if you came across a classical release with track titles like those shown in the proposal, I'm fairly confident you would agree that those *do not* conform to old CSG. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
