Difference between revisions of "History talk:Classical Release Title Style"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(Should disc title be before featuring artist?: thanks)
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 17:32, 26 March 2012

  1. http://musicbrainz.org/release/3261a468-953d-4dba-817e-a18e1d1e98b4.html
    • Either this is actually a compilation, in which case the style doesn't apply, or this is just a weird album that brings up a good question: "What do we do when there is a complete work + other incomplete works?" --cooperaa (Jan 31)
  • Let's say this is not a compilation. I would add the omitted works in the release title. But we would need a way to say the work is incomplete --davitof 2007-03-02
  1. http://musicbrainz.org/release/37c3923f-2e6a-4ae8-898e-8201e96fe24e.html
    • Should releases that simply say "The 5 Piano Concertos" or "The 9 Symphonies" etc be changed to "Piano Concertos Nos. 5" or "Symphonies Nos. 1-9"? --cooperaa (Jan 31)
  • I'd answer yes when the titles are so "common". When the title is more original, I don't really know what to choose :-/ --davitof 2007-03-02
  1. http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6379094 "In a case like that, I would say go with what is on the release." I don't understand, isn't ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle's purpose precisely to edit what was printed, which supposes what was printed was incomplete or incorrect? Is this MusicBrainz or LabelBrainz? When there is a discrepancy, are we recording what the label printed or what is actually recorded in the release? What does matter most, what was printed on the sleeve (and which was correct when it was printed) or what the MB users understand? When I browse a list of releases, I want to have enough elements to pick the correct releases. Imagine that tomorrow someone discovers a new LvB symphony between 5th and 6th. suddenly symphonies 6, 7, 8, 9 become 7, 8, 9, 10. Don't tell me it wouldn't happen, you said so yourself, it is out of our control. What would MB do? Say "when you see these numbers, they can be read in two different ways"? Can you imagine the mess? This would seem ridiculous to me. I think ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle should accept catalogue numbers, without making them mandatory. --davitof (2007-02-02)
  • If this happened (and it has happened for other composers), I highly doubt they would renumber LvB's symphonies!! Beethoven's Ninth will forever be known as his Ninth. An earlier composed work will be tacked on to the end, like several of Mozart's (> No. 42) and Haydn's Symphony "A" and "B". --cooperaa (2007-03-05)
    • I agree the numbers would probably be kept as they are, but in Dvorak's case, they were changed. Anyhow, let's forget about this argument, there are very few chances a new LvB symphony will be discovered now. --davitof (2007-02-02)

I was bold and added in a strong reference to ReleaseTitle, and cross-references to MultiDiscRelease and BoxSetNameStyle. I don't think I'm changing the essence of the instructions; what we had here follows those other guidelines pretty well. I think the Work_TYPE and Work_ID explanation could benefit from the more worked-out text in ClassicalTrackTitleStyle. Adding this page totoo. --JimDeLaHunt 2007-12-29

Should disc title be before featuring artist?

The suggested ReleaseTitle structure shows DiscNumber [[[Disc Title|DiscTitle]]]] [[[Featuring Artist|FeaturingArtist]]]

The examples show disc number at the end, after featuring artist. I suggest changing one or the other. If the featuring artists vary from disc to disc, these should be placed after the disc number, maybe inside the parentheses.

Here's a release group where the 3rd disc has a different title than the 1st and 2nd discs. The differences are the artists listed in the title. Reasonable differences, since there are additional choruses in the 3rd disc. On the other hand, the title is a bit large. The artists can just be mentioned in additional relationships, or added to disc subtitles. But I don't like having different titles for the 3rd disc. Any suggestions? Here's the problematic release group:

http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/baab0eea-0a44-3ec1-84bd-e0330f3d5edf.html

Nereocystis 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a suggestion but I wanted to point out that the next database upgrade, NGS, will have a field in the database for disc numbers as well as disc titles so they will not be a part of the release title anymore. Something to keep in mind though, is that in NGS the three discs in your linked release group would be merged together into one release, so effectively they would all have the same name then. For example, Billy Joel's four disc compilation, The Complete Hits Collection: 1973-1997, turns into one release in NGS. --navap 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Until NGS takes over, the following 2 example on the main page do not follow the example, since the featured artists are before the disc number:
  • Die Zauberflöte (Berliner Philharmoniker feat. conductor: Karl Bohm) (disc 1)
  • Piano Concertos Nos. 1-5 (New Philharmonia Orchestra feat. conductor: Otto Klemperer, piano: Daniel Barenboim) (disc 1)
These two example should be changed, but I don't feel confident enough to change them. Nereocystis 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
One thing I should have mentioned in my earlier post is that the guideline does not follow current practice. There was a discussion about this on the mailing list here, and Brian's reply sums up what happened. I've changed the guidelines to reflect the current practice, I don't know why I, or anyone else, didn't change it all those months ago. --navap 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. This is much easier to follow, and what I had otherwise done. I'll ignore the release which gave me problems for now, and revisit it when NGS is in play.Nereocystis 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)