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
|

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

symphonick
I believe I put it on hold because it sounded like "headings" or "track groups" (that is, no concatenation of work title & track title) could be implemented pretty soon...


2014-10-30 9:25 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
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



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
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
(How is one supposed to answer to a mail which contains both top-posting and bottom-posting?)

2014-10-30 10:43 GMT+01:00 symphonick <[hidden email]>:
I believe I put it on hold because it sounded like "headings" or "track groups" (that is, no concatenation of work title & track title) could be implemented pretty soon...

2014-10-30 9:25 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
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. 

Your proposal gives details about how to handle things like language, which Reosarevok's draft currently avoids. I agree this should not be left to user's preference.

But I'm still not convinced there is any advantage in normalizing numbering or vocal ranges and roles.

--
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 Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

It's more than a bit more work, especially if we're talking about a
opera, oratorio, or something else similarly massive. :)

Anyway, let me cut to the chase.  I'm not asking for a return of
pre-NGS track titles or fancy features in Picard.  I've long since
accepted that I'm going to have to make my own titles for classical.
Still, I would like to see a minimal amount of editing (punctuation
and numbering, primarily) for the sake of consistency.  This also
makes it a lot easier to write scripts to massage the data into
something closer to the end product.

--
-:-:- 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)

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-10-30 16:45 GMT+01:00 David Gasaway <[hidden email]>:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

It's more than a bit more work, especially if we're talking about a
opera, oratorio, or something else similarly massive. :)

Anyway, let me cut to the chase.  I'm not asking for a return of
pre-NGS track titles or fancy features in Picard.  I've long since
accepted that I'm going to have to make my own titles for classical.
Still, I would like to see a minimal amount of editing (punctuation
and numbering, primarily) for the sake of consistency.  This also
makes it a lot easier to write scripts to massage the data into
something closer to the end product.

Doesn't this mean that we should start thinking about support for translating work and recording titles? I guess this would be a major change, and it would need a long time to implement it, but I believe will have to get there eventually, so why not start thinking about how it should be set up now?

--
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)

Lemire, Sebastien-2

Isn't this technically what aliases are supposed to be for? In truth, I don't use them as it's such a pain in the ass to edit work and recording titles in just one language...

I think what we need more urgently is the ability to concatenate work titles with sub-works or movements.

Sébastien

On Oct 30, 2014 12:07 PM, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-10-30 16:45 GMT+01:00 David Gasaway <[hidden email]>:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

It's more than a bit more work, especially if we're talking about a
opera, oratorio, or something else similarly massive. :)

Anyway, let me cut to the chase.  I'm not asking for a return of
pre-NGS track titles or fancy features in Picard.  I've long since
accepted that I'm going to have to make my own titles for classical.
Still, I would like to see a minimal amount of editing (punctuation
and numbering, primarily) for the sake of consistency.  This also
makes it a lot easier to write scripts to massage the data into
something closer to the end product.

Doesn't this mean that we should start thinking about support for translating work and recording titles? I guess this would be a major change, and it would need a long time to implement it, but I believe will have to get there eventually, so why not start thinking about how it should be set up now?

--
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

_______________________________________________
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)

symphonick
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria


2014-10-30 13:30 GMT+01:00 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>:
(How is one supposed to answer to a mail which contains both top-posting and bottom-posting?)

2014-10-30 10:43 GMT+01:00 symphonick <[hidden email]>:
I believe I put it on hold because it sounded like "headings" or "track groups" (that is, no concatenation of work title & track title) could be implemented pretty soon...

2014-10-30 9:25 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
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. 

Your proposal gives details about how to handle things like language, which Reosarevok's draft currently avoids. I agree this should not be left to user's preference.

But I'm still not convinced there is any advantage in normalizing numbering or vocal ranges and roles.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)


I agree. My idea was that the track titles should store the tracklist with a minimum of standardization, and you could add a pseudo-release for old-style CSG.

I don't know what to recommend when there are more than one tracklist in the same language (e.g. cover/booklet).

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
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
Updated this a bit, with mentions to language and double tracklists.

Added movement numbering (together with keys and the rest) as "info to add if it's there but not if it's not".

_______________________________________________
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
2014-11-05 18:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Updated this a bit, with mentions to language and double tracklists.

Added movement numbering (together with keys and the rest) as "info to add if it's there but not if it's not".

I am not quite sure if numbering should be standardized or not. I believe your draft means yes, but some users could understand it otherwise. For example, according to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical#Language-specific, "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." Does this mean that "Sonata in E (opus 5)" should be standardized into "Sonata in E, op. 5"? I suggest including an example to make this clear.

And this makes me see that "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." may not always be appropriate: should we really replace "Symphony Op. 5" with "Symphony, Op. 5"?

--
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 Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-11-05 18:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Updated this a bit, with mentions to language and double tracklists.

Added movement numbering (together with keys and the rest) as "info to add if it's there but not if it's not".

I am not quite sure if numbering should be standardized or not. I believe your draft means yes, but some users could understand it otherwise. For example, according to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical#Language-specific, "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." Does this mean that "Sonata in E (opus 5)" should be standardized into "Sonata in E, op. 5"? I suggest including an example to make this clear.

I thought http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical/Language/English was clear enough with its examples. Is that not the case? (but basically, yes, that's what it means)
 
And this makes me see that "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." may not always be appropriate: should we really replace "Symphony Op. 5" with "Symphony, Op. 5"? 

I'd say yes. That's the basic, manual-of-style kind of correction that is (to me at least) equivalent to adding missing accents to a pop song's title.

_______________________________________________
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)

Brant Gibbard
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Under the “Full work title” section the first of the entries marked as “and not” i.e. don’t do this, is exactly the same as the first line of the approved forms. I’m assuming this is a typo?

 

Full work title

For groups of tracks that are marked as part of a full work, add the full work title (as listed on the release) to all tracks from the work, separated with a colon:

  • Piano Sonata no. 32 in C minor, op. 111: Maestoso
  • Piano Sonata no. 32 in C minor, op. 111: Arietta

And not:

  • Piano Sonata no. 32 in C minor, op. 111: Maestoso
  • Arietta

Nor just:

  • Maestoso
  • Arietta

 

 

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
[hidden email]

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Sent: 5-Nov-14 12:59 PM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

 

Updated this a bit, with mentions to language and double tracklists.

 

Added movement numbering (together with keys and the rest) as "info to add if it's there but not if it's not".


_______________________________________________
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 Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Under the “Full work title” section the first of the entries marked as “and not” i.e. don’t do this, is exactly the same as the first line of the approved forms. I’m assuming this is a typo?


No, it's not, it's just saying "don't only list the title for the first movement". I'll specify. 

_______________________________________________
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 11/05/2014 10:40 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Under the “Full work title” section the first of the entries marked as “and not” i.e. don’t do this, is exactly the same as the first line of the approved forms. I’m assuming this is a typo?


No, it's not, it's just saying "don't only list the title for the first movement". I'll specify. 


Maybe use some kind of block formatting, to indicate that they're to be taken as a group, not as individual list items?

_______________________________________________
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
2014-11-05 19:36 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-11-05 18:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Updated this a bit, with mentions to language and double tracklists.

Added movement numbering (together with keys and the rest) as "info to add if it's there but not if it's not".

I am not quite sure if numbering should be standardized or not. I believe your draft means yes, but some users could understand it otherwise. For example, according to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical#Language-specific, "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." Does this mean that "Sonata in E (opus 5)" should be standardized into "Sonata in E, op. 5"? I suggest including an example to make this clear.

I thought http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical/Language/English was clear enough with its examples. Is that not the case? (but basically, yes, that's what it means)
 
And this makes me see that "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." may not always be appropriate: should we really replace "Symphony Op. 5" with "Symphony, Op. 5"? 

I'd say yes. That's the basic, manual-of-style kind of correction that is (to me at least) equivalent to adding missing accents to a pop song's title.

OK, you can still make it more clear later if you see that many users understand it differently.

One question: this means that no standardization should be performed for languages which don't have a specific classical guideline, right?

--
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 Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-11-05 19:36 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-11-05 18:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>:
Updated this a bit, with mentions to language and double tracklists.

Added movement numbering (together with keys and the rest) as "info to add if it's there but not if it's not".

I am not quite sure if numbering should be standardized or not. I believe your draft means yes, but some users could understand it otherwise. For example, according to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical#Language-specific, "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." Does this mean that "Sonata in E (opus 5)" should be standardized into "Sonata in E, op. 5"? I suggest including an example to make this clear.

I thought http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Classical/Language/English was clear enough with its examples. Is that not the case? (but basically, yes, that's what it means)
 
And this makes me see that "Catalogues should always be preceded by comma and space." may not always be appropriate: should we really replace "Symphony Op. 5" with "Symphony, Op. 5"? 

I'd say yes. That's the basic, manual-of-style kind of correction that is (to me at least) equivalent to adding missing accents to a pop song's title.

OK, you can still make it more clear later if you see that many users understand it differently.

One question: this means that no standardization should be performed for languages which don't have a specific classical guideline, right?

Well, it mostly means "We should probably write those guidelines". But I can't really do that for languages I do not speak, so volunteers appreciated :) 

_______________________________________________
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)

Rachel Dwight

On Nov 5, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:

[block of text removed to save space]

Well, it mostly means "We should probably write those guidelines". But I can't really do that for languages I do not speak, so volunteers appreciated :) 

Ditto. I’ve brushed up against classical works on Japanese releases and this has crossed my mind. I’m nowhere near fluent in the language but might be able to get the formatting in place. (I just sent xps2 a message in IRC to see if he can help us out.)

_______________________________________________
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)

jesus2099
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hello,
I was hinted here from the IRC chatlogs.
I understand some people like to have the same titles used all over and they can do that with works and if they really want, with recordings.

BUT

There is no reason to change track names from what they are printed on the release.
Please keep all rules on non‐tracklist entity level, the only levels that could be justified to be normalised by normalisation fans.

If one wants to alter a tracklist, I suggest pseudo‐release now and alternate tracklist in the future (MBS-4501). :)

jesus2099.
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344) - untitled works only?

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On 10/29/2014 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 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).
>
> Evolving draft at
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Classical_Track_Titles
>

Does/should the guideline about adding full work super-titles apply to
all "classical"? Or only to 'untitled' works?

_______________________________________________
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) - untitled works only?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 AM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/29/2014 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 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).
>
> Evolving draft at
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Classical_Track_Titles
>

Does/should the guideline about adding full work super-titles apply to
all "classical"? Or only to 'untitled' works?

Huh. Why wouldn't it apply to everything? Is there something that suggests that? :/ 

_______________________________________________
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) - untitled works only?

Alexander VanValin
On 11/06/2014 03:05 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 AM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/29/2014 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:

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

Does/should the guideline about adding full work super-titles apply to
all "classical"? Or only to 'untitled' works?

Huh. Why wouldn't it apply to everything? Is there something that suggests that? :/ 


I dunno.  It seems to me like if this applies to titled works, then it also applies to non-classical, and should be a general guideline for all tracks (classical and non-) that are grouped by a super-title/header.


CSG special cases, in my mind, are mainly about two things.

1. tradition (composer-centric artist credits) and
2. untitled works (make them easily identifiable by standardizing the formatting and notation).


_______________________________________________
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) - untitled works only?

swisschris


On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:02 PM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/06/2014 03:05 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 AM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/29/2014 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:

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

Does/should the guideline about adding full work super-titles apply to
all "classical"? Or only to 'untitled' works?

Huh. Why wouldn't it apply to everything? Is there something that suggests that? :/ 


I dunno.  It seems to me like if this applies to titled works, then it also applies to non-classical, and should be a general guideline for all tracks (classical and non-) that are grouped by a super-title/header.


CSG special cases, in my mind, are mainly about two things.

1. tradition (composer-centric artist credits) and
2. untitled works (make them easily identifiable by standardizing the formatting and notation).

And there's 
3. all works, titled or not, that are split into (numbered) parts and meant to be played and heard (and seen) in sequence: symphonies, but also opera, operette, cantata (and IMHO musicals, ballets, audiobooks and the like).


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