Re: [mb-style] RFC: Use of Colon in Classical Tracks
2007/2/11, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
To me it looks more like the discussion ended without conclusion. I
didn't see and RFC of RFV or this which would have brought a clear
conclusion. Looking at recent votes and editor comments, even less
(there have been suggestions to change to ":" style). To me that means
there's a clear need for clarification.
As I read it, a key objection was that a rule like this would
over-specify and over-complicate CSG. However it was also mentioned that
this argument can be addressed in two ways, by separating "hard" rules
from suggestions, and by providing multiple, genre specific and thus
focused entry points into CSG ("HowToAddASymphony").
Another objection was that this would be two different uses of ":".
However logically speaking, those two uses are special cases of a more
general use: the ">=" relation (part/subpart use is ">" where
heading/tempo use is "=").
If the agreement is that "Menuetto: Allegro" is equally valid as the
other forms, then we should make that clear. Leaving it completely open
as folklore doesn't help anyone, IMNOHO. Whether it's formulated as a
general "this is what colon means" rule or just as two examples is a
different question.
I agree, No position is a kind of position and should be stated as such.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Use of Colon in Classical Tracks
leivhe wrote:
> Robert Kiessling wrote:
>>
>> Requiem in D minor, KV 626: III. Sequenz: No 4. Recordare
>> Streichquartett Es-dur, KV 428: III. Menuetto: Allegro
>>
> The second example was discussed at quite some length recently:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Colon-period-usage-in-track-titles-tf2790003s2885.html#a7784101
>
> The conclusion was to not standardize this, because 1) it proved
> difficult to agree on what would be "the best way", and 2) it was not
> felt as important enough, and/or the usefulness of standardization was
> not clear.
To me it looks more like the discussion ended without conclusion. I
didn't see and RFC of RFV or this which would have brought a clear
conclusion. Looking at recent votes and editor comments, even less
(there have been suggestions to change to ":" style). To me that means
there's a clear need for clarification.
As I read it, a key objection was that a rule like this would
over-specify and over-complicate CSG. However it was also mentioned that
this argument can be addressed in two ways, by separating "hard" rules
from suggestions, and by providing multiple, genre specific and thus
focused entry points into CSG ("HowToAddASymphony").
Another objection was that this would be two different uses of ":".
However logically speaking, those two uses are special cases of a more
general use: the ">=" relation (part/subpart use is ">" where
heading/tempo use is "=").
If the agreement is that "Menuetto: Allegro" is equally valid as the
other forms, then we should make that clear. Leaving it completely open
as folklore doesn't help anyone, IMNOHO. Whether it's formulated as a
general "this is what colon means" rule or just as two examples is a
different question.
Robert
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Use of Colon in Classical Tracks
Robert Kiessling wrote: There seems to be consensus about two occasions where a colon should be used in classical track titles, however there are no examples for this in CSG. Examples for this: Requiem in D minor, KV 626: III. Sequenz: No 4. Recordare Streichquartett Es-dur, KV 428: III. Menuetto: Allegro Other contenders of the part name in the second example seem to be: Menuetto (Allegro) Menuetto. Allegro The second example was discussed at quite some length recently: http://www.nabble.com/Colon-period-usage-in-track-titles-tf2790003s2885.html#a7784101 The conclusion was to not standardize this, because 1) it proved difficult to agree on what would be "the best way", and 2) it was not felt as important enough, and/or the usefulness of standardization was not clear. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Use of Colon in Classical Tracks
On 2/9/07, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There seems to be consensus about two occasions where a colon should be used in classical track titles, however there are no examples for this in CSG. Examples for this: Requiem in D minor, KV 626: III. Sequenz: No 4. Recordare Streichquartett Es-dur, KV 428: III. Menuetto: Allegro Other contenders of the part name in the second example seem to be: Menuetto (Allegro) Menuetto. Allegro Numbering of the first example may be more controversial. Some possibilities: III. Sequenz: 4. Recordare III. Sequenz: No. 4 Recordare III. Sequenz: No. 4. Recordare III. Sequenz: Recordare IIId. Sequenz: Recordare The last variant would follow [1]. However I don't believe this is applicable here since we're not talking about an arbitrary split of one piece across multiple tracks. Comments? References: [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MultiTrackMovementStyle [2] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitleStyle IMO, the colon makes more sense. I don't consider my knowledge extensive so I'm willing to go either way. In regards to the Requiem example, I think IIId. is the way to go. -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC: Use of Colon in Classical Tracks
There seems to be consensus about two occasions where a colon should be used in classical track titles, however there are no examples for this in CSG. Examples for this: Requiem in D minor, KV 626: III. Sequenz: No 4. Recordare Streichquartett Es-dur, KV 428: III. Menuetto: Allegro Other contenders of the part name in the second example seem to be: Menuetto (Allegro) Menuetto. Allegro Numbering of the first example may be more controversial. Some possibilities: III. Sequenz: 4. Recordare III. Sequenz: No. 4 Recordare III. Sequenz: No. 4. Recordare III. Sequenz: Recordare IIId. Sequenz: Recordare The last variant would follow [1]. However I don't believe this is applicable here since we're not talking about an arbitrary split of one piece across multiple tracks. Comments? References: [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MultiTrackMovementStyle [2] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitleStyle ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
