Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering
Aaron Cooper wrote: > On 3/11/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > I like this except for the hyphens. If there is an (a) in the track > title I think that implies that there is more than one part. Great! I updated http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitlePartnumberStyle accordingly. I also reformulated the "movements use roman numerals" as a rule. Any other comments or concerns? Can we move to "test the style" phase? Robert ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering
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. > 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? Are track titles required to be unique within one release? 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 - Robert ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Opera Track Style
Aaron Cooper wrote: > Can we all agree on this format for opera track titles: > > OperaName, Catalog ###: Act XX[, Scene XX]. (PerformanceType: > Character1, Character2, ...) "Name of the song" I'd prefer the variation OperaName, Catalog ###: Act XX[, Scene XX]. PerformanceType "Name of the song" (Character1, Character2, ...) This to me looks more in line with other CSG uses, it has the least important information last and it's not even theoretically ambiguous in case PerformanceType or Character is omitted. We should also add [, No. XX] to allow for linear song/part numbering where applicable. Lastly, I am a believer in "consistency rules". So we should at the same time test and propose this for similarly structured works (cantatas, oratorios, masses, ...). Robert ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering
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 To summarise, it consists of: 1. Describing the semantics of Part_number as refering to the structure of the original work. Thus multiple tracks can have the same Part_number (superceding MultiTrackMovementStyle). 2. Defining Part_number as comma-separated list of the following: III No. 3 Act III Scene III Part III Example: Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244: Teil II, No. 56. Rezitativ "Der Landpfleger sagte" Further examples are provided on the wiki page. I hope this is the first step to progress discussion and agreement on a number of open CSG items like colon use, part title for classical songs and opera style. 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
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
[mb-style] RFB: Classical Part Numbering
[RFB - Request for Brainstorming] In the few classical releases I added in the weeks since I've joined, various part numbering questions came up that are answered either in CSG, through proposed changes, through word of mouth (editing comments) or not answered at all. In this thread I want to collect the various classical part numbering needs so that I can try to come up with a proposal later. Here is a summary of needs and canonical examples that I came across. Movement Numbers Status: Accepted CSG. Very widely applied. Numbering: Roman numerals. Example: Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125: II. Molto vivace Movements split across tracks = Status: Change drafted [1] and already applied on very small scale Numbering: Roman numerals followed by lowercase letter. Example: Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral", Op. 125: IVc. Allegro assai vivace. Alla marcia - Hierarchical Parts == Status: No firm proposal; suggestion that [1] would apply too Example: Requiem in D minor, KV 626: IIIa. Sequenz: Dies irae (Note that that use of colon is proposed in a separate thread) Named Movements === Just a thought - any example? Cantatas with parts === Status: Accepted CSG. Numbering: "Part , " Example: Cantata, BWV 17 "Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich": Part II, V. Aria "Welch Übermaß der Güte" Operas == Status: Change drafted [3] Numbering: "Act , Scene " Example: Don Giovanni: Act I, Scene III. (Duettino: Don Giovanni, Zerlina) "La ci darem la mano" Alternatives discussed or used: "Act , Scene " Open issue: What if there's a part numbering in addition to Act/Scene numbering? Passions Status: No agreement. Very mixed actual use. Current MB releases have a huge variety: Johannes-Passion, BWV 245, Teil I: Choral "Wer hat dich so geschlagen" Johannes-Passion, Zweiter Teil: In meines Herzens Grunde No. 22 Recitativo: Der Heiland fällt vor seinem Vater nieder [Part Two] Alto 1 - Aria: Ach! Nun ist mein Jesus hin! (Chorus: Wo istdenn) Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244: II. Teil, XXXVIII. Nun ist der Herr zu Ruh gebracht No. 67 - Recitativo (+ Chor): Nun Ist Der Herr Zur Ruh Gebracht 77. Rezitativ: Nun ist der Herr zur Ruh gebracht; mit Chor: Mein Jesu, gute Nacht St. Matthew Passion: LXVIII. Chorus: Wir setzen uns mit Tranen nieder St. Matthew Passion BWV 244, Part Two: No. 56 Rezitativ: Der Landpfleger sagte (Note that just like with Cantatas, numbering is is consecutive through the whole work; Part Two starts with No. 36) At this first stage I have two specific questions to the audience: 1. Is this summary correct? 2. Which other canonical examples are there that are not covered above? In the next step I'll collect to responses and come up with suggestions. Robert [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MultiTrackMovementStyle [2] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitleStyle [3] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OperaTrackStyle ___ 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
