subject:"\[mb\-style\] Pre\-RFC\: CSG for track titles"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 16:04, David Hilton quercus.aeter...@gmail.com
 Regardless, I don't consider this the ideal solution.  Putting the
 redundant information into the work hierarchy and then appending the
 unique parts is much more appealing.

Definitely, and I'd be happy to revisit this when we get there.  I
think it's still likely to produce odd results with opera (though
exactly how opera recording/work linking is going to work is still
undecided, I think).

 I feel like you focused on less important parts of my message; perhaps
 I was unclear, or you agree with the rest of what I said?

No, I think you were clear.  It's just that I've been down this road
already in my mind, and concluded it's unlikely to work well. :)

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:

 That I can agree with, some of them do not conform to old CSG (and
 some look too simplified for me too, tbh). But mostly I am asking:
 what would you, personally, see as good enough? Can you choose, from
 the list, those who are unacceptable to you, and say what is the
 minimum amount of normalisation you'd accept for each? (it's hard to
 compromise on vague grounds :) ).

To be honest, it would be more or less the same as I expressed a few
months ago in the work title thread.  I have a feeling the core idea
is getting lost in the discussion, however.  My goal, in the end, is
to have the same titles that I had before NGS.  And in my mind, using
track titles that are closer to whats on the release makes that
impossible, or at least very difficult.  So, yes, all the edits we did
before for track titles, we would continue to do for track titles.  I
apologize if that's vague.  First, I just want to make sure I've
gotten the concept across.  I don't necessarily have time to give a
lot of detail aside from what input I've made in the past.

Let me ask this.  Suppose we implemented a system like that outlined
by David Hilton.  Do you believe that it could: a) produce consistent,
high-quality titles, and b) retain relevant release context?

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 06:16, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:

 The general idea is to use the track title field to store the actual track
 title, normalized as any other title in mb (maybe a little bit more). Caps,
 delimiters etc. but not changing Adagio from Spring to: The four seasons:
 Spring: II. Adagio or something.

This is what concerns me, and this is why I keep bringing up RFC-333.
The important message of RFC-333 is that the Musicbrainz schema has no
good place to store as-on-cover titles.  If you try to use track
titles to store this data, you lose import release context; track
titles are the *only* place to put the recording in the context of the
specific release.

 I suppose we could ask for a CSG language, if there are people who really
 really cannot be without old CSG-style track titles.

What kind of titles would you like to see on your files when you tag a
classical release?  And where will these titles come from?

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012-01-30 Thread Lemire, Sebastien

If the recording titles are normalized and CSGified, why is it not possible
to simply use those when tagging for those that want it (myself included)
while those that want as on-cover could use the track titles.

Sebastien

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 06:16, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:

  The general idea is to use the track title field to store the actual
 track
  title, normalized as any other title in mb (maybe a little bit more).
 Caps,
  delimiters etc. but not changing Adagio from Spring to: The four
 seasons:
  Spring: II. Adagio or something.

 This is what concerns me, and this is why I keep bringing up RFC-333.
 The important message of RFC-333 is that the Musicbrainz schema has no
 good place to store as-on-cover titles.  If you try to use track
 titles to store this data, you lose import release context; track
 titles are the *only* place to put the recording in the context of the
 specific release.

  I suppose we could ask for a CSG language, if there are people who
 really
  really cannot be without old CSG-style track titles.

 What kind of titles would you like to see on your files when you tag a
 classical release?  And where will these titles come from?

 --
 -:-:- David K. Gasaway
 -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 16:07, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote:
 If the recording titles are normalized and CSGified, why is it not possible
 to simply use those when tagging for those that want it (myself included)
 while those that want as on-cover could use the track titles.

Well, as I said in my first post in this thread:
a) They lack release context.
b) Recording titles are not localizable (which I suppose you could
include in (a) if you consider language a part of the release
context).

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012-01-30 Thread David Hilton

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 16:07, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote:
 If the recording titles are normalized and CSGified, why is it not possible
 to simply use those when tagging for those that want it (myself included)
 while those that want as on-cover could use the track titles.

 Well, as I said in my first post in this thread:
 a) They lack release context.
 b) Recording titles are not localizable (which I suppose you could
 include in (a) if you consider language a part of the release
 context).

What are you referring to by release context?  I'm interpreting that
as ARs, but tagging software should be able to attach any or all of
the ARs for release, recording and work.

That bit about recording titles not being localizable could be an
issue, if you want to have a 3rd unique option to title the track
with...

David

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 16:28, David Hilton
quercus.aeter...@gmail.com  What are you referring to by release
context?  I'm interpreting that
 as ARs, but tagging software should be able to attach any or all of
 the ARs for release, recording and work.

Yes, well... I can think of no concrete classical-themed example off
the top of my head.  If I could, I'd have given it already. :)  But in
popular music, this would be referring to ETI, maybe some other things
brought up in the RFC-333 discussion.

http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012-01-28 Thread symphonick

2012/1/28 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:46 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
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.

That I can agree with, some of them do not conform to old CSG (and
some look too simplified for me too, tbh). But mostly I am asking:
what would you, personally, see as good enough? Can you choose, from
the list, those who are unacceptable to you, and say what is the
minimum amount of normalisation you'd accept for each? (it's hard to
compromise on vague grounds :) ).

The general idea is to use the track title field to store the actual track
title, normalized as any other title in mb (maybe a little bit more). Caps,
delimiters etc. but not changing Adagio from Spring to: The four seasons:
Spring: II. Adagio or something. The examples may be missing normalization
now, I just copied them from the 2011 research page. Could (all of) you be
more specific about what looks wrong in the examples?

RFC-333 was not for classical:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-333-Unify-track-recording-guidelines-td3695823.html-
I'm not sure I follow you there.

I suppose we could ask for a CSG language, if there are people who really
really cannot be without old CSG-style track titles. That would mean
entering a pseudo-release with CSG in the language field then just
choose CSG as language in Picard. A little bit more work for those who
want CSG, but we would also be able to save many of the old tracklists by
just changing the language field to CSG. Thoughts?

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:38 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:46, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
 Work titles are independent of track names. Work titles should ideally be
 sourced from the (best possible) score.
 Eventually most works will exist in the db, so it will be just a question of
 linking (the recordings) to the appropriate works.

 (Not replying to symphonick in particular here...)

 I'm at a loss to understand why the same arguments that applied to
 RFV-333 for popular music don't apply here.  I, as a user, want fully
 normalized titles in my language, with release-specific ETI.  So here
 are all the potential problems I see for not applying CSG to track
 titles:

 1) Track titles: If I tag from these I get un-normalized garbage.
 2) Recording titles: I lose release-specific title variations.  In the
 classical world, in particular, I'm thinking of language variations.
 Recording titles are not localizable, so there's no telling what
 language I get.  Surely, we're not thinking of having a different
 recording for language it was released in.
 3) Work titles: While they have can have localized aliases, they are
 not usable for track titles thanks to part-performance and
 multi-work-performance goodness.

 In other words, barring other changes, the only way to get what I have
 now would be to continue normalizing track titles per CSG as before.
 No?

Nobody is asking to stop normalising titles - just to stop overdoing
it. Right now, the idea is to always have, for example, a track title
like Divertimento No. 2 for Flute, Oboe, Bassoon, 4 Horns  Strings
in D major, K. 131: I. Allegro, even if the release says
Divertimento nº 2, K131: Allegro. The latter would seem like it's
enough, though (especially IMO if you added the I. by default, but in
general I see the point). Same for, for example, a release of clarinet
concertos. It seems like overkill to add for clarinet to every track
title if the release lists Concerto No. n, Op. n: I. Allegro molto.

On the other hand, I do wonder what's symphonick's plan for releases
which are like Allegro (from Divertimento nº 2, K131) - should the
order for those be changed or kept?

 --
 -:-:- David K. Gasaway
 -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:

 Nobody is asking to stop normalising titles - just to stop overdoing
 it. Right now, the idea is to always have, for example, a track title
 like Divertimento No. 2 for Flute, Oboe, Bassoon, 4 Horns  Strings
 in D major, K. 131: I. Allegro, even if the release says
 Divertimento nº 2, K131: Allegro.

The pre-RFC proposal disagrees with you.

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:

 Nobody is asking to stop normalising titles - just to stop overdoing
 it. Right now, the idea is to always have, for example, a track title
 like Divertimento No. 2 for Flute, Oboe, Bassoon, 4 Horns  Strings
 in D major, K. 131: I. Allegro, even if the release says
 Divertimento nº 2, K131: Allegro.

 The pre-RFC proposal disagrees with you.

I said *right now*, as in before the pre-RFC.

 --
 -:-:- David K. Gasaway
 -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:00, David Hilton quercus.aeter...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sorry, I'm not clear on how part-performance and
 multi-work-performance stuff makes work titles unusable for track
 titles.

 Could you explain?

Sure.  If I have a track that spans multiple parts, then I want a
track title that includes both parts.  However, that recording will
link to two works, one for each part.  So, I have two work titles, how
do I get from there to a single title with both parts?

Similarly, if it's a partial performance, the work title would not
properly reflect such.  Theoretically, you could kludge it by slapping
(partial) or (excerpt) if it's a partial performance AR, but
static phrases like that might not always be appropriate.  I would
expect to instead use release/recording specific ETI.  Again, using
recording titles is problematic, so I'm back to track ETI for this
information.


-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:

 Nobody is asking to stop normalising titles - just to stop overdoing
 it. Right now, the idea is to always have, for example, a track title
 like Divertimento No. 2 for Flute, Oboe, Bassoon, 4 Horns  Strings
 in D major, K. 131: I. Allegro, even if the release says
 Divertimento nº 2, K131: Allegro.

 The pre-RFC proposal disagrees with you.

 I said *right now*, as in before the pre-RFC.

I don't understand.  You said nobody is asking to stop normalising
titles, yet the pre-RFC says exactly that.


-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:21 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:

 Nobody is asking to stop normalising titles - just to stop overdoing
 it. Right now, the idea is to always have, for example, a track title
 like Divertimento No. 2 for Flute, Oboe, Bassoon, 4 Horns  Strings
 in D major, K. 131: I. Allegro, even if the release says
 Divertimento nº 2, K131: Allegro.

 The pre-RFC proposal disagrees with you.

 I said *right now*, as in before the pre-RFC.

 I don't understand.  You said nobody is asking to stop normalising
 titles, yet the pre-RFC says exactly that.

It really depends on what you call normalising. Adding the name of the
work to all track titles is normalising, and it's useful. The pre-RFC
tells to keep doing it. Repeating the same stock title all the time so
all the tracks in the DB for the same work have the same title is
useless now that we can just relate the work to it to show they're all
the same thing, so that's just overkill right now.

 --
 -:-:- David K. Gasaway
 -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012-01-27 Thread David Hilton

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:00, David Hilton quercus.aeter...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

 Sorry, I'm not clear on how part-performance and
 multi-work-performance stuff makes work titles unusable for track
 titles.

 Could you explain?

 Sure.  If I have a track that spans multiple parts, then I want a
 track title that includes both parts.  However, that recording will
 link to two works, one for each part.  So, I have two work titles, how
 do I get from there to a single title with both parts?

Work1: Subwork1
Work1: Subwork2

It wouldn't be difficult to have Picard recognize that a recording
represents multiple works and remove the starting duplicate info:
Work1: Subwork1 / Subwork2

That said, conceptually I prefer something like what follows.

Das klagende Lied
 - I. Waldmärchen
 - II. Der Spielmann
 - III. Hochzeitsstück

Each entry only has its relevant info, and can easily be combined into
the full work name.

 Similarly, if it's a partial performance, the work title would not
 properly reflect such.  Theoretically, you could kludge it by slapping
 (partial) or (excerpt) if it's a partial performance AR, but
 static phrases like that might not always be appropriate.  I would
 expect to instead use release/recording specific ETI.  Again, using
 recording titles is problematic, so I'm back to track ETI for this
 information.

It was suggested a while back that where common divisions take place
sub-sub works could be created; take for example the 4th movement of
Beethoven's 9th, where it's not uncommon for each part of the 4th
movement to have its own track.  In these cases, the tagger could grab
all relevant works and combine them as desired:
W1
- S1
-- SS1
-- SS2
-- SS3

W1: SS1 - SS2
W1: SS3

With this approach, consistent naming schemes could be generated for
those who care, and track titles could contain what was listed from
the cover.

If a recording marked as a partial performance, the tagger could use
the recording/track title.  At the same time, there is nothing against
your tagging software saving both the work info and the track title...


What issues are there with this particular approach?

David

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 It really depends on what you call normalising. Adding the name of the
 work to all track titles is normalising, and it's useful. The pre-RFC
 tells to keep doing it. Repeating the same stock title all the time so
 all the tracks in the DB for the same work have the same title is
 useless now that we can just relate the work to it to show they're all
 the same thing, so that's just overkill right now.

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.

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 15:10, David Hilton quercus.aeter...@gmail.com

 It wouldn't be difficult to have Picard recognize that a recording
 represents multiple works and remove the starting duplicate info:
 Work1: Subwork1 / Subwork2

You're making a lot of assumptions about what the subworks would be,
and whether edits like this would be appropriate.  With opera, in
particular, things get really hairy.  Work titles only have structure
in that they will conform to an as-yet-WIP CSG and can and will
change.  Works, themselves, are used to represent a multitude of
entities.  Bottom line, I have no confidence the the output of such a
process would not be total garbage.

 It was suggested a while back that where common divisions take place
 sub-sub works could be created;

They *could*, but maybe not, maybe it will have both, maybe it will be
case-by-case, that change changes from release to release.  That's the
whole point.  By using works instead of tracks for tagging you *lose
all release context*.  It's the same argument made months ago in
RFV-333.

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:13 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 It really depends on what you call normalising. Adding the name of the
 work to all track titles is normalising, and it's useful. The pre-RFC
 tells to keep doing it. Repeating the same stock title all the time so
 all the tracks in the DB for the same work have the same title is
 useless now that we can just relate the work to it to show they're all
 the same thing, so that's just overkill right now.

 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. 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). That's why we have, for example,
a guideline to take (live) out of recording titles and into the
disambiguation comment, while keeping it on track titles when it
applies, or why we can have track titles in several languages linking
to the same recording. 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 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? (I consider that a big overkill) 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.

 --
 -:-:- David K. Gasaway
 -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

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

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles

2012-01-27 Thread David Hilton

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 15:10, David Hilton quercus.aeter...@gmail.com

 It wouldn't be difficult to have Picard recognize that a recording
 represents multiple works and remove the starting duplicate info:
 Work1: Subwork1 / Subwork2

 You're making a lot of assumptions about what the subworks would be,
 and whether edits like this would be appropriate.  With opera, in
 particular, things get really hairy.  Work titles only have structure
 in that they will conform to an as-yet-WIP CSG and can and will
 change.  Works, themselves, are used to represent a multitude of
 entities.  Bottom line, I have no confidence the the output of such a
 process would not be total garbage.

Yes, there are limitations to this approach; without having consistent
delimiters everything has to match to, this could produce garbage.
Stuff that we already use like ':' would be ok.

Regardless, I don't consider this the ideal solution.  Putting the
redundant information into the work hierarchy and then appending the
unique parts is much more appealing.


 It was suggested a while back that where common divisions take place
 sub-sub works could be created;

 They *could*, but maybe not, maybe it will have both, maybe it will be
 case-by-case, that change changes from release to release.  That's the
 whole point.  By using works instead of tracks for tagging you *lose
 all release context*.  It's the same argument made months ago in
 RFV-333.

I'm not suggesting that release track titles should contain work
titles.  I'm trying to propose that track titles should contain what
was literally on the release (as much as possible), and that the work
information should be sufficient to automatically replicate the old
CSG track titles, if desired (ideally using the work hierarchy to
reduce duplicate text).

Users could then specify how they want these things saved;
'save work names (merging work+subwork names) as track titles' instead of
'save work names as work names and track titles as track titles'
or either 'save work names as track titles'
or ' save track titles as track titles'.


I feel like you focused on less important parts of my message; perhaps
I was unclear, or you agree with the rest of what I said?

David

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: CSG for track titles