Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

2007-03-11 Thread Robert Kiessling
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

2007-03-11 Thread Frederic Da Vitoria

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

2007-03-11 Thread Don Redman

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

2007-03-11 Thread Robert Kiessling
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