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
2007/3/11, 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
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/SomeTerm (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
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