Discussion:
[mb-users] Rare transcriptions
(too old to reply)
Frederic Da Vitoria
2012-10-02 20:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Hello

About http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19056822



I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of Clair
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we shouldn't
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases such as
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with Works
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription" attribute to
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121002/76d150e6/attachment.htm
symphonick
2012-10-02 20:37:17 UTC
Permalink
+1

2012/10/2 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Hello
About http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19056822
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of Clair
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we shouldn't
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases such as
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with Works
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription" attribute to
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
--
/symphonick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121002/81173890/attachment.htm
Alex Mauer
2012-10-02 21:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of Clair
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we shouldn't
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases such as
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with Works
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription" attribute to
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.

I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121002/4c76b569/attachment.pgp
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2012-10-02 21:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Mauer
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of
Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we shouldn't
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases such
as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with
Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription" attribute
to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works (and
making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
Post by Alex Mauer
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121003/e1bc753b/attachment.htm
symphonick
2012-10-03 13:47:43 UTC
Permalink
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so let's see
if we can agree on something here.

Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?

2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of
Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases
such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with
Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works (and
making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by Nicolai
(1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of transcriptions/arrangements
that can be based on Bach's organ version or the orchestral version -
probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also the same arrangement (say
for violin & piano) can of course be performed on many different
instruments.

How should this fit together?

1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ transcription
of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)


and 3 random arrangements:

A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an orchestral
transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG
website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")

Thoughts?

/symphonick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121003/1c45eb69/attachment.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2012-10-03 19:19:59 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so let's
see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of
Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases
such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with
Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works (and
making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by Nicolai
(1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of transcriptions/arrangements
that can be based on Bach's organ version or the orchestral version -
probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also the same arrangement (say
for violin & piano) can of course be performed on many different
instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an orchestral
transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993 ,
although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.

My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each transcription
has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It would probably
mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.

Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many Works
which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121003/b2ed55c8/attachment.htm
symphonick
2012-10-03 21:05:47 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so let's
see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of
Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently
valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases
such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with
Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works (and
making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by Nicolai
(1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of transcriptions/arrangements
that can be based on Bach's organ version or the orchestral version -
probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also the same arrangement (say
for violin & piano) can of course be performed on many different
instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an orchestral
transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993 ,
although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder what
happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists? Would
"normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many Works
which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field. &
what should we do when we dont know what version is being used? example:
Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement. Should there
be a super-work?

Messiah (super-work)
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)

& what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it? Or
when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original score
with different instruments?

/symphonick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121003/a5df09da/attachment-0001.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2012-10-03 22:06:27 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so let's
see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of
Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently
valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases
such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with
Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works
(and making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by Nicolai
(1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of transcriptions/arrangements
that can be based on Bach's organ version or the orchestral version -
probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also the same arrangement (say
for violin & piano) can of course be performed on many different
instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an orchestral
transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993 ,
although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder what
happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists? Would
"normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many Works
which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
Is this is worse than the current situation?
Post by symphonick
Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement. Should there
be a super-work?
Messiah (super-work)
Post by symphonick
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)
Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users will
be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers them
a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users would
probably use it in place of the others.


& what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it? Or
Post by symphonick
when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original score
with different instruments?
I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
indication.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121004/d58c5dfe/attachment.htm
symphonick
2012-10-04 09:15:50 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so let's
see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording
of Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently
valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases
such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database
with Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works
(and making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by Nicolai
(1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of transcriptions/arrangements
that can be based on Bach's organ version or the orchestral version -
probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also the same arrangement (say
for violin & piano) can of course be performed on many different
instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an orchestral
transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993 ,
although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder what
happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists? Would
"normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many Works
which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
Is this is worse than the current situation?
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "the current
situation"?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement. Should there
be a super-work?
Messiah (super-work)
Post by symphonick
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)
Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users will
be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers them
a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users would
probably use it in place of the others.
Yeah, there's always a risk of that works get misidentified. Perhaps it's
better with a super-work that you're encouraged to use if unsure about with
version you have.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
& what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it? Or
Post by symphonick
when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original score
with different instruments?
I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
indication.
I thought I'd prefer to use the super-work w. transcription ARs for
everything unspecified. But how would this work when there are subparts
involved? If we have

Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription)

An unknown piano transcription can't be connected to the cantata
super-work. Maybe every work needs a super-work:

Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Super-work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription,
also connected to super-work?)

Now a recording of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with an unknown
arrangement links to the super-work with (recording) arranger [unknown]. Or
we could have a work for all unknown arrangements. Would it be a work for
every instrument? I suppose that could get messy, performers could be using
the same arrangement for different instruments, but we would split it into
several works based on a performance choice?
--
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
/symphonick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121004/75bcd084/attachment-0001.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2012-10-04 21:16:55 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/4 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so
let's see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording
of Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently
valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in
cases such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database
with Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works
(and making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by
Nicolai (1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of
transcriptions/arrangements that can be based on Bach's organ version or
the orchestral version - probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also
the same arrangement (say for violin & piano) can of course be performed on
many different instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an orchestral
transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993, although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder what
happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists? Would
"normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many Works
which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
Is this is worse than the current situation?
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "the current
situation"?
I only meant what we have now. Currently, how does arranger appear in
search results.?
Post by symphonick
& what should we do when we dont know what version is being used?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
example: Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement.
Should there be a super-work?
Messiah (super-work)
Post by symphonick
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)
Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users
will be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers
them a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users
would probably use it in place of the others.
Yeah, there's always a risk of that works get misidentified. Perhaps it's
better with a super-work that you're encouraged to use if unsure about with
version you have.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
& what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it?
Post by symphonick
Or when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original
score with different instruments?
I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
indication.
I thought I'd prefer to use the super-work w. transcription ARs for
everything unspecified. But how would this work when there are subparts
involved? If we have
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription)
An unknown piano transcription can't be connected to the cantata
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Super-work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription,
also connected to super-work?)
Now a recording of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with an unknown
arrangement links to the super-work with (recording) arranger [unknown]. Or
we could have a work for all unknown arrangements. Would it be a work for
every instrument? I suppose that could get messy, performers could be using
the same arrangement for different instruments, but we would split it into
several works based on a performance choice?
Good question. Maybe we could set a limit around here, this is close to
what I believe is currently being used. But once again, how frequent are
these? Wouldn't we be introducing unnecessary complexity (in the sense that
the user would have to decide first if he needs to create a Work or not)
for a few edits? I really would like numbers. Given the current complexity
of creating a simple Work hierarchy into MB, would requiring a Work for
each transcription be such a big deal?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121004/42eb5207/attachment.htm
symphonick
2012-10-04 22:18:10 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/4 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so
let's see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording
of Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently
valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in
cases such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database
with Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works
(and making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by
Nicolai (1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of
transcriptions/arrangements that can be based on Bach's organ version or
the orchestral version - probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also
the same arrangement (say for violin & piano) can of course be performed on
many different instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an
orchestral transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993, although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder
what happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists?
Would "normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many Works
which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
Is this is worse than the current situation?
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "the current
situation"?
I only meant what we have now. Currently, how does arranger appear in
search results.?
Not at all.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
& what should we do when we dont know what version is being used?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
example: Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement.
Should there be a super-work?
Messiah (super-work)
Post by symphonick
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)
Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users
will be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers
them a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users
would probably use it in place of the others.
Yeah, there's always a risk of that works get misidentified. Perhaps it's
better with a super-work that you're encouraged to use if unsure about with
version you have.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
& what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it?
Post by symphonick
Or when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original
score with different instruments?
I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
indication.
I thought I'd prefer to use the super-work w. transcription ARs for
everything unspecified. But how would this work when there are subparts
involved? If we have
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription)
An unknown piano transcription can't be connected to the cantata
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Super-work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription,
also connected to super-work?)
Now a recording of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with an unknown
arrangement links to the super-work with (recording) arranger [unknown]. Or
we could have a work for all unknown arrangements. Would it be a work for
every instrument? I suppose that could get messy, performers could be using
the same arrangement for different instruments, but we would split it into
several works based on a performance choice?
Good question. Maybe we could set a limit around here, this is close to
what I believe is currently being used. But once again, how frequent are
these? Wouldn't we be introducing unnecessary complexity (in the sense that
the user would have to decide first if he needs to create a Work or not)
for a few edits? I really would like numbers. Given the current complexity
of creating a simple Work hierarchy into MB, would requiring a Work for
each transcription be such a big deal?
I can't give you numbers, sorry. (Numbers on what?) If we introduce
super-works, the basic structure will always be like this:

Super-work
*Work
**Part foo super-work
***Part foo work
**Part bar super-work
***Part bar work

and so on.
--
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
--
/symphonick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121005/f69753ac/attachment-0001.htm
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2012-10-04 22:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/4 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so
let's see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a
recording of Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently
valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in
cases such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database
with Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works
(and making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by
Nicolai (1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of
transcriptions/arrangements that can be based on Bach's organ version or
the orchestral version - probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also
the same arrangement (say for violin & piano) can of course be performed on
many different instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an
orchestral transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993, although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder
what happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists?
Would "normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many
Works which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
Is this is worse than the current situation?
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "the current
situation"?
I only meant what we have now. Currently, how does arranger appear in
search results.?
Not at all.
IIRC it appears after composer but before performers in the inline search.
Post by symphonick
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
& what should we do when we dont know what version is being used?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
example: Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement.
Should there be a super-work?
Messiah (super-work)
Post by symphonick
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)
Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users
will be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers
them a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users
would probably use it in place of the others.
Yeah, there's always a risk of that works get misidentified. Perhaps
it's better with a super-work that you're encouraged to use if unsure about
with version you have.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
& what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it?
Post by symphonick
Or when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original
score with different instruments?
I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
indication.
I thought I'd prefer to use the super-work w. transcription ARs for
everything unspecified. But how would this work when there are subparts
involved? If we have
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription)
An unknown piano transcription can't be connected to the cantata
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Super-work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano
transcription, also connected to super-work?)
Now a recording of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with an unknown
arrangement links to the super-work with (recording) arranger [unknown]. Or
we could have a work for all unknown arrangements. Would it be a work for
every instrument? I suppose that could get messy, performers could be using
the same arrangement for different instruments, but we would split it into
several works based on a performance choice?
Good question. Maybe we could set a limit around here, this is close to
what I believe is currently being used. But once again, how frequent are
these? Wouldn't we be introducing unnecessary complexity (in the sense that
the user would have to decide first if he needs to create a Work or not)
for a few edits? I really would like numbers. Given the current complexity
of creating a simple Work hierarchy into MB, would requiring a Work for
each transcription be such a big deal?
I can't give you numbers, sorry. (Numbers on what?) If we introduce
Super-work
*Work
**Part foo super-work
***Part foo work
**Part bar super-work
***Part bar work
and so on.
--
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
--
/symphonick
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121005/27b83bb2/attachment.htm
symphonick
2012-10-05 09:19:21 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/5 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/4 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so
let's see if we can agree on something here.
Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
2012/10/2 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a
recording of Clair
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is
currently valid,
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we
shouldn't
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in
cases such as
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database
with Works
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription"
attribute to
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
display of related works.
I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate
works (and making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets
messy sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd
need some kind of catch-all work for those... :/
"Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by
Nicolai (1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of
transcriptions/arrangements that can be based on Bach's organ version or
the orchestral version - probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also
the same arrangement (say for violin & piano) can of course be performed on
many different instruments.
How should this fit together?
1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest version"?)
2) Zion h?rt die W?chter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV 140)
3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
transcription of 2)
4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
2) & 4) s/b arrangements of 1) BTW
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by symphonick
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an
orchestral transcription of 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
had "Organ prelude")
Thoughts?
And we could add
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993, although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
decide how to handle this type of situation too.
Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder
what happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists?
Would "normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
arranger/artist?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many
Works which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
Is this is worse than the current situation?
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "the current
situation"?
I only meant what we have now. Currently, how does arranger appear in
search results.?
Not at all.
IIRC it appears after composer but before performers in the inline search.
Aha, I didn't know that. But not in normal works search, right?
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by symphonick
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
& what should we do when we dont know what version is being used?
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
example: Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement.
Should there be a super-work?
Messiah (super-work)
Post by symphonick
-Messiah (original)
-Messiah (Mozart arr.)
Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users
will be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers
them a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users
would probably use it in place of the others.
Yeah, there's always a risk of that works get misidentified. Perhaps
it's better with a super-work that you're encouraged to use if unsure about
with version you have.
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
it? Or when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original
score with different instruments?
I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
indication.
I thought I'd prefer to use the super-work w. transcription ARs for
everything unspecified. But how would this work when there are subparts
involved? If we have
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription)
An unknown piano transcription can't be connected to the cantata
Super-work: Bach cantata 147
*Work: Bach cantata 147
**Super-work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
***Work: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano
transcription, also connected to super-work?)
Just read on wikipedia that Myra Hess's version isn't based directly on
Bach's: "the piano transcription by Dame Myra Hess of Hugh P. Allen's
choral version of Bach's arrangement"
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Post by symphonick
Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Post by symphonick
Now a recording of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with an unknown
arrangement links to the super-work with (recording) arranger [unknown]. Or
we could have a work for all unknown arrangements. Would it be a work for
every instrument? I suppose that could get messy, performers could be using
the same arrangement for different instruments, but we would split it into
several works based on a performance choice?
Good question. Maybe we could set a limit around here, this is close to
what I believe is currently being used. But once again, how frequent are
these? Wouldn't we be introducing unnecessary complexity (in the sense that
the user would have to decide first if he needs to create a Work or not)
for a few edits? I really would like numbers. Given the current complexity
of creating a simple Work hierarchy into MB, would requiring a Work for
each transcription be such a big deal?
I can't give you numbers, sorry. (Numbers on what?) If we introduce
Super-work
*Work
**Part foo super-work
***Part foo work
**Part bar super-work
***Part bar work
and so on.
BTW how would arrangement ARs etc. work? I guess we must repeat all the
relevant ARs from the super-work on the specific works?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121005/89040aae/attachment-0001.htm
Frederic Da Vitoria
2012-10-07 19:36:30 UTC
Permalink
2012/10/5 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
Post by symphonick
BTW how would arrangement ARs etc. work? I guess we must repeat all the
relevant ARs from the super-work on the specific works?
Yes, I believe so. Just as we must repeat the ARs for the master work and
the sub-parts. Of course, it would be nice if the UI offered us to copy the
ARs automatically.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20121007/70bee582/attachment.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...