Rare transcriptions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rare transcriptions

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 défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

symphonick
+1

2012/10/2 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
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 défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

signature.asc (563 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.


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... :/
 
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users



--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>


On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.


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 hört die Wächter 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

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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 défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

symphonick
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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?
 
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 défendre 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

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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?
 
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?

 
& 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.)

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 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 défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

symphonick


2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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?
 
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"?
 
& 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.)

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.
 

& 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?

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?

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org



/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/4 symphonick <[hidden email]>

2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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?
 
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.?

 
& 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.)

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.
 

& 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?

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?

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 défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

symphonick
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/4 symphonick <[hidden email]>

2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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?
 
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.
 

 
& 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.)

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.
 

& 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?

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?

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.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:18 AM, symphonick <[hidden email]> wrote:
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/4 symphonick <[hidden email]>

2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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?

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?
 
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.
 
 

 
& 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.)

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.
 

& 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?

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?

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.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users



--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

symphonick
2012/10/5 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:18 AM, symphonick <[hidden email]> wrote:
2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/4 symphonick <[hidden email]>

2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/10/3 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 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.

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 hört die Wächter 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
 
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?

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?
 
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?
 
 

 
& 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.)

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.
 

& 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?

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?)

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"
 

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.


BTW how would arrangement ARs etc. work? I guess we must repeat all the relevant ARs from the super-work on the specific works?
 

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rare transcriptions

Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/10/5 symphonick <[hidden email]>
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 défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users