Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering
Aaron Cooper wrote: (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 - Yes, this is my favourite too. 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. I don't see no harm. Please note that "-" is widely used anyway when a movement ends into another without gap, often described on liner notes as "(attacca)". Ciao MArco (ClutchEr2) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
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
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. -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:33:59 +0100, Robert Kiessling wrote: Are track titles required to be unique within one release? No DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs, the MusicBrainz documentation system. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ (you might need to transform the term to singular) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering
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
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: Classical Part Numbering
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 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. 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. IMO, MultiTrackMovementStyle should only be applied when the existing numbering could lead to ambiguous titles. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ 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
