History:CSGv2Proposal
Pages to make History:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#search/%22current+state+of+the%22/118ce7c23ce1b134
2008-03-20 [mb-style] Bach passions and CSG
>>> >>> > Can anyone come up with an example of music that's so-called >>> >>> classical >>> >>> > music, but would need to use this exception? >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> First two that spring to mind would be ELP's Pictures at an >>> Exhibition, >>> >> or >>> >> the several times Nirvana played whatever song it was from Carmen. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > Sorry, I was unclear again. I meant with "classical" performers. >>> Otherwise >>> > we could perhaps just say that this exception should be used only >>> when >>> > dealing with classical music arranged/transformed into other genres >>> > (jazz/pop/whatever)? >>> > >>> Yes, I think that would make it clearer. In rereading the section I >>> can >>> see why you thought it was confusing, since the literal words in the >>> definition don't really say what we mean. >>> >>> (If we really thought hard we could come up with classical->classical >>> "covers." But, we don't think of them that way. We'd call them >>> "recompositions," or something. An example would be Pseudo-Pergolesi >>> -> >>> Stravinsky's Pulcinella. Or Bach -> Stravinsky's Von Himmel Hoch >>> Variations. I don't think it's likely that anybody is going to be >>> tempted >>> to put those under Pergolesi or Bach.) >>> >> >> Speaking of covers... and speaking of Pictures at an Exhibition, there >> is >> also Moussorgsky and Ravel. This work is a nice illustration of how >> things >> are to be handled. >> >> But what about Bach / Gounod. Do we still consider the Ave Maria as >> Bach's >> work or do we put it under Gounod? > > > ... or do we credit it to both? > I think the conventional answer has been to treat it as a "collaboration" between Bach & Gounod (in which the former just happened to be dead.)
But perhaps a smarter answer would be to credit it to Gounod (as a recomposition). This source makes no bones about it:
http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/2/20/IMSLP05775-Ave_Maria.pdf
I guess the sad thing is that Bach then gets "no credit." It would be funny if we used the popular music ARs to say that it's a "cover." Maybe we can invent a "recomposition" or a "draws on" AR with CSGWorks.
> > But perhaps a smarter answer would be to credit it to Gounod (as a > recomposition). This source makes no bones about it: > > http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/2/20/IMSLP05775-Ave_Maria.pdf > > I guess the sad thing is that Bach then gets "no credit." It would be > funny if we used the popular music ARs to say that it's a > "cover." Maybe > we can invent a "recomposition" or a "draws on" AR with CSGWorks. > > -Dave Smey (bklynd) >
In this case the piece was so heavily re-worked I would be inclined to put Gounod as the track artist, but have two composition ARs, one each for Bach and Gounod. In even more heavily re-worked cases we give Bach both composition and track artist credits for his chorales even though many of them are based on hymns by Martin Luther, and we would never mark one of the movements of Appalachian Spring as [traditional] even though Copland based part of it on a Shaker hymn. The harder ones to decide are things like the Liszt piano transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies. Liszt does it as a fairly straight transcription, so I put one of them with track and release artist as Beethoven, Beethoven composition ARs and Liszt arrangement ARs, but I'm still not sure if that was the best solution, as record stores, and the covers of the recordings generally file these things as Liszt compositions.
Well, when we have works, I'd guess we'll be relating them togther too, like everything else. Why not a 'recomposition" (or some such wording) AR, and a arranged AR, linking two works? (Just a thought, this is all kind of separate from the CSG proposal...)
