Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
While we have guidelines for release titles and track artists, we never got a guideline for classical track titles. So far most people are following the format of the data already there (and thus the existing pre-NGS conventions). That's mostly fine, but it should still be codified, and slightly adapted to take the existence of works into account (which allow tracks to follow the release a bit better).


Right now it does not mention movement numbering at all. That's intentional (I feel 1. vs. I. is fairly minor and can be left to people's preference or used as on the release) but if people think it should be standardised, we can do that too, probably with one of the following:

a) "For movement numbers, use roman numerals followed by a dot ("I. Allegro").
b) "For movement numbers, use whatever the release has, followed by a dot (both "I. Allegro" and "1. Allegro" are equally acceptable)

(or something without the dot requirement, I guess, I just like the dot :) )

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

LordSputnik
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

I think in the case of movement numbers, we can point users to the existing series numbering guideline:

https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Series_numbers

Using this (or adapting it sightly) means that we minimise the difference between classical and general style, and make it more intuitive for non-classical editors to contribute to classical releases.

On 29 Oct 2014 18:32, "Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren" <[hidden email]> wrote:
While we have guidelines for release titles and track artists, we never got a guideline for classical track titles. So far most people are following the format of the data already there (and thus the existing pre-NGS conventions). That's mostly fine, but it should still be codified, and slightly adapted to take the existence of works into account (which allow tracks to follow the release a bit better).


Right now it does not mention movement numbering at all. That's intentional (I feel 1. vs. I. is fairly minor and can be left to people's preference or used as on the release) but if people think it should be standardised, we can do that too, probably with one of the following:

a) "For movement numbers, use roman numerals followed by a dot ("I. Allegro").
b) "For movement numbers, use whatever the release has, followed by a dot (both "I. Allegro" and "1. Allegro" are equally acceptable)

(or something without the dot requirement, I guess, I just like the dot :) )

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Alexander VanValin
On 10/29/2014 12:16 PM, Ben Ockmore wrote:

>
> I think in the case of movement numbers, we can point users to the
> existing series numbering guideline:
>
> https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Series_numbers
>
> Using this (or adapting it sightly) means that we minimise the
> difference between classical and general style, and make it more
> intuitive for non-classical editors to contribute to classical releases.
>
>

Note that style/titles/subtitles is more liberal. That is,
(paraphrasing) "use a colon unless another separator is used on the cover".

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Subtitles


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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Lemire, Sebastien-2
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
As everything in classical, this is a difficult question!

Certain genres or forms normally should use roman numerals to number the movements such as Concerto, Symphony or Sonata forms. But I'm sure there's exceptions especially in modern times where a composer purposely used another numbering scheme or left them out. 

Other forms such as song cycles, collections of works (ie Chopin`s Preludes) or variations should normally not have any numbering scheme at all.

If a numbering scheme is required and undefined by the composer, I'd prefer standardizing on roman numerals to go inline with Work and Recording titles.

Sebastien


On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:
While we have guidelines for release titles and track artists, we never got a guideline for classical track titles. So far most people are following the format of the data already there (and thus the existing pre-NGS conventions). That's mostly fine, but it should still be codified, and slightly adapted to take the existence of works into account (which allow tracks to follow the release a bit better).


Right now it does not mention movement numbering at all. That's intentional (I feel 1. vs. I. is fairly minor and can be left to people's preference or used as on the release) but if people think it should be standardised, we can do that too, probably with one of the following:

a) "For movement numbers, use roman numerals followed by a dot ("I. Allegro").
b) "For movement numbers, use whatever the release has, followed by a dot (both "I. Allegro" and "1. Allegro" are equally acceptable)

(or something without the dot requirement, I guess, I just like the dot :) )

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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


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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Frederic Da Vitoria
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.

I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from prepending the work name as recommended in your draft). As long as all the tracks of a release use a consistent formatting, no problem. In classical, standardizing works and recordings is enough, IMO. If a user wants to use some kind of standardization, let him do it too. BTW, your draft always puts the work first. In some releases (mostly compilations), I believe I saw the work name in the track title, like "Allegro from Symphony ##" or "Allegro (Symphony ##)". I'm not sure we should ask to standardize those.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

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

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On 29 Oct 2014 21:49, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.
>
>
>  BTW, your draft always puts the work first. In some releases (mostly compilations), I believe I saw the work name in the track title, like "Allegro from Symphony ##" or "Allegro (Symphony ##)". I'm not sure we should ask to standardize those.

That's already there :)


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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On 10/29/2014 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.

I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from prepending the work name as recommended in your draft). As long as all the tracks of a release use a consistent formatting, no problem.

Does that mean you disagree with standardizing the separators? (i.e. colon for parts, dot for movements)


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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On 10/29/2014 01:32 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
 > Right now it does not mention movement numbering at all. That's
> intentional (I feel 1. vs. I. is fairly minor and can be left to
> people's preference or used as on the release) but if people think it
> should be standardised, we can do that too, probably with one of the
> following:
> b) "For movement numbers, use whatever the release has, followed by a
> dot (both "I. Allegro" and "1. Allegro" are equally acceptable)

I lean towards option 'b'. I’d rather not leave it to preference,
because it’s better to have a definitive answer rather than edit wars or
silly no-votes.


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

signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
In reply to this post by Lemire, Sebastien-2
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Lemire, Sebastien <[hidden email]> wrote:

If a numbering scheme is required and undefined by the composer, I'd prefer standardizing on roman numerals to go inline with Work and Recording titles.

Remember we're looking at track titles. A numbering scheme is never really required - if it's not there, it's not there, that's not a big issue. The main question is whether we should use whatever is on the release (I, 1, some Indian numeral, whatever) or standardise on I. Since the rest of the guideline tries to avoid enforcing excessive rules unless needed, I suspect "follow the release" is the best course of action.

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Frederic Da Vitoria
In reply to this post by Alexander VanValin
2014-10-29 20:53 GMT+01:00 caller#6 <[hidden email]>:
On 10/29/2014 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.

I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from prepending the work name as recommended in your draft). As long as all the tracks of a release use a consistent formatting, no problem.

Does that mean you disagree with standardizing the separators? (i.e. colon for parts, dot for movements

I wouldn't put it as strongly as "disagree", but yes, if I was asked to vote yes or no to track title standardization, I'd vote no.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

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

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Frederic Da Vitoria
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
2014-10-29 21:17 GMT+01:00 Alex Mauer <[hidden email]>:
On 10/29/2014 01:32 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
 > Right now it does not mention movement numbering at all. That's
> intentional (I feel 1. vs. I. is fairly minor and can be left to
> people's preference or used as on the release) but if people think it
> should be standardised, we can do that too, probably with one of the
> following:
> b) "For movement numbers, use whatever the release has, followed by a
> dot (both "I. Allegro" and "1. Allegro" are equally acceptable)

I lean towards option 'b'. I’d rather not leave it to preference,
because it’s better to have a definitive answer rather than edit wars or
silly no-votes.

Good point.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

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

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  That's mostly fine, but it should still be codified, and
> slightly adapted to take the existence of works into account (which allow
> tracks to follow the release a bit better).

Not really, as it's still very difficult to get standardized titles in
the appropriate language from work titles.

> Evolving draft at
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Classical_Track_Titles

This document is vague about where on the release to source this
information.  Was that intentional?  There could be arguments about an
editor using what is printed in the liner notes versus the track
listing on the back.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the
> same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on
> opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go
> against what we're moving towards with NGS.

I've never liked that guide much.  If anything, it should be applied
to work titles, but not track titles.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from
> prepending the work name as recommended in your draft).

Not I.  I would like *some* consistency from release to release.

> If a user wants to use
> some kind of standardization, let him do it too.

If that's what users want, so be it, but there was a time when
MusicBrainz actually made it easier to tag my classical files.  In a
way, it differentiated MusicBrainz from other databases like Discogs
or CDDB.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Lemire, Sebastien-2

I agree with this. allmusic.com for example doesn't even bother with how the tracks are written on the release itself.

Sébastien

On Oct 29, 2014 6:12 PM, "David Gasaway" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from
> prepending the work name as recommended in your draft).

Not I.  I would like *some* consistency from release to release.

> If a user wants to use
> some kind of standardization, let him do it too.

If that's what users want, so be it, but there was a time when
MusicBrainz actually made it easier to tag my classical files.  In a
way, it differentiated MusicBrainz from other databases like Discogs
or CDDB.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

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

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by David Gasaway
On 10/29/2014 05:11 PM, David Gasaway wrote:
>> I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from
>> prepending the work name as recommended in your draft).
>
> Not I.  I would like *some* consistency from release to release.
>
>> If a user wants to use
>> some kind of standardization, let him do it too.

I think you could do this by just using the %work% or %_recordingtitle%
tags in Picard, no?

i.e $set(title, %work%).


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

signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by Alexander VanValin
On 10/29/2014 12:53 PM, caller#6 wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.

I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from prepending the work name as recommended in your draft). As long as all the tracks of a release use a consistent formatting, no problem.

Does that mean you disagree with standardizing the separators? (i.e. colon for parts, dot for movements)

Oh. As usual, I was misreading things.

The current draft, as I now understand it, only calls specifically for colons when the existing separator is a newline (or some other "block level" indication?). So it's in line with subtitle style.

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think you could do this by just using the %work% or %_recordingtitle%
> tags in Picard, no?

%work% might, if:
1) The work has a title alias for the locale matching my release. (not likely!)
2) Picard places that alias into %work% instead of the work title.

%_recordingtitle% might, if:
1) The recording title was stardardized.  Is there something in Style
that says to do that?  I haven't seen it.  Even if there is, it's
unlikely that someone as bothered, given how difficult it is to work
with recording titles.
2) The recordings weren't created from a release in a different
language (all releases in all territories should use the same
recordings, as far as I know).  Recordings don't even have an option
for locale-specific aliases.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

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

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think you could do this by just using the %work% or %_recordingtitle%
> tags in Picard, no?

%work% might, if:
1) The work has a title alias for the locale matching my release. (not likely!)

That's solved easily enough by, well, adding an alias :) It might be a bit more work short-term maybe, but it should eventually need less effort anyway since they'll already be there for any other releases of the same work.
 
2) Picard places that alias into %work% instead of the work title.

If this is not possible now, we should add a Picard ticket. 

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
123