User:Symphonick/unofficial csg work recordings
|Status: Notes, questions & comments from the discussions about CSG for works & recordings & mb-style. This is NOT a guideline.|
The docs for works & recordings should probably contain a disclaimer "for experienced editors" or something?
- 1 Applicability
- 2 Work attributes
- 3 Work titles (in general)
- 4 Multi-part works
- 5 Work - work ARs
- 6 Recordings
- 7 The recording-work performance AR
There was a tendency to over-apply the former CSG, so we should start with a list of things where CSG is not used. Holst's "The Planet" suite, songs... Brian wrote something.
The term "generic work" is used many times in this document. What we mean is untitled works which has the same name as the form, mostly 17-18th century concertos, sonatas and similar works.
- I'm open for suggestions for a better definition...
Titles & quotes
A vocal work can never be "generic", since there's a title or a quote from the libretto. Some examples of forms that are not generic:
Songs, organ chorales
Regarding qutoes, follow the score.
An die Freude, K. 53/43b "Wie unglücklich bin ich nit", K. 147/125? Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147
- s/b German quote
- If you read the unofficial (now defunct) CSG Standard pages you will see examples of using the format "worktype key catalogue: title in quotes". ex Song i D minor, Op. X No. Y: "Title". Note that this practice was not in the old CSG, just something some of the editors that wrote those pages started doing.
Forms such as "Cantata" can be expressed with work attributes, we don't need it in the title anymore. See "Herz und Mund" above.
- We must discuss expanding the worktypes. But since we can only have one ATM, "opera" is probably more useful than "recitativo" If we use "recitativo" now the work won't show up under "opera". Maybe we could get some automagic thing going for work parts: set super work to opera & part to recitativo? A little early for this maybe.
Work titles (in general)
Should default to the "original" name, if it's possible to formulate into a guideline.
Seems like there's consensus about using an urtext score as source, if possible. Some composers have all works in one collection, ex. "Neue Mozart Ausgabe".
Wikipedia & most online sources are not good enough. The formatting is random and the sources are most likely not what we want.
- Sometimes libraries have searchable catalogs, could possibly be used, but usually you would have to look inside a printed score.
- The old CSG standard-pages are not a reliable source, and the title formatting used is deprecated.
- Note that it's possible that parts of the title in an urtext edition can be translated
- original meaning I think I expect Stravinsky's "L'oiseau de feu" to have the French title (premiered in Paris by Ballets Russes), and not the composer's language (Жар-птица)
sometimes the same urtext edition used for the default work title exists in more than one language.
should be standardized local versions of the workname (+ if the work really has another name; maybe 2 different common names in one langugage).
If there is no urtext avilable in your language, don't "over-translate".
- we could also have a (heavily) standardized version in the original language?
Original: Grand Concerto Pour le Pianoforte avec Accompagnement de l'Orchestre op 73 French std: Concerto pour piano en mi bémol majeur op 73 English: Concerto for piano and orchestra, Op. 73 original: Grande Sonate pour... English: Sonata for piano... mvt no? original: Sonata quasi una fantasia, English: Sonata quasi una fantasia,
- Currently we can only have one alias for each language
Is often expressed as a subtitle in the score (don't add your own instrumentation). Ideally we should have fields so you could search for instruments. At the moment, we must decide if that subtitle should be used or not. Some examples:
Missa in c, K. 427/417a Sonate pour le pianoforte, Op. 101 Quartett in G für zwei Violinen, Viola und Violoncello K. 80/73f Kontretanz in B für zwei Oboen, zwei Hörner, zwei Violinen, Violoncello und Baß K. 123/73g Divertimento in B für zwei Oboen, zwei Klarinetten, zwei Englischhörner, zwei Hörner und zwei Fagotte K. 186/159b
- the Mozart examples are as printed in the table of contents @ Digital Mozart Edition
Sometimes instrumentation is needed for disambiguation purposes. Use the comment field in that case.
Sinfonie in g, KV 550 (1. Fassung) Sinfonie in g, KV 550 (2. Fassung)
- disambiguation info from Digital Mozart Edition
or should we do our own variant?
Sinfonie in g, KV 550 (2nd version with clarinets)
Also see arrangments etc. under work-work ARs.
need some examples where voice is part of the instrumentation. not the cantata-style vocalists for multipart works here. but it depends on how we want to treat subtitles above?
Other subtitles in the score
Decide from case to case? Or mostly annotation?
Symphonie Fantastique: Épisode de la vie d'un Artiste...en cinq parties Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, Kantate zum Fest Mariae Heimsuchung, BWV 147
Key (only for generic works)
"if there is a well defined and non-ambiguous title given by the author, additional information is extra." well said by caramel31
Although it's not really a part of the title, for generic works, it's part of what you would use to identify the work. Use the correct keys for the language in question.
Prelude and Fugue in F-sharp major, BWV 858 Trio in A minor, Op. 50 Contretanz B-Dur
Not for titled works:
Das alte Jahr vergangen ist, BWV 1091
Strictly speaking, the catalogue is not a part of the title. Pete happened to mention the comment field. Would it work for everything, or would we like to keep the standard catalogue for generic works as a part of the title? In the title:
Daphne, deine Rosenwangen, K. 46c/52 Konzert in Es, K. 495: Allegro maestoso
In the comment field:
Daphne, deine Rosenwangen (K. 46c/52) Konzert in Es: Allegro maestoso (K. 495)
- if the work has more than one catalog, use only the "standard" (often opus) & put the others in the annotation
- note that using the comment field is a workaround, the ultimate goal is that catalogues will have their own field(s).
- catalogue is crucial for searching, will this work if we use the comment field? otherwise we must keep using the title
If the work has a canonical common name, it goes in double quotes after the catalog in the title. Common names are language-specific, do not translate!
Grand Concerto Pour le Pianoforte avec Accompagnement de l'Orchestre, op. 73 Piano Concerto No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 73 "Emperor Concerto" Mer han en neue Oberkeet. Cantate burlesque, BWV 212 "Bauern-kantate"
- we can't use the comment field, common names are language-specific
We must repeat the title of the main work for all parts. Maybe it can be inherited in the future...
Always use a colon as delimiter, regardless of language (or latin script only?)
The Planets, Op. 32: Jupiter...
Worktype (only for generic works)
Sonata in F minor, Symphony in G major but not for works with titles or quotes:
Carmen, Op. ?? not Opera: Carmen or something Nun komm der Heiden Heiland, BWV 599 not organ chorale, BWV 599 "Nun komm"
same for songs If it's part of a collection with a generic title "3 songs for SATB", don't use the name of the collection. If the collection is a title by the composer "Kinderszenen" it should be used: Kinderszenen: Movement, op. x no y ??
Follow the score. Works with only a few parts are often unnumbered. If the movement is unnumbered in the score and a movement number is needed for work disambiguation, use the comment field. Ex. a concerto could contain 3 movements like this:
Allegro Largo Allegro
Add a disambiguation comment for the allegro movements:
Allegro (1st movement) Largo Allegro (3rd movement)
Opinion can differ between different publishers about the boundary of a movement, for example in Beethoven's sonatas. Some editions have 2 movements, others have 3. We will try to agree on a good urtext source for every composer and follow that edition.
- this is a workaround for an UI issue (you can't tell which of the allegro movements you are dealing with when relating works to recordings). we are hoping for a technical solution to the numbering problem.
Tempo (generic works only)
You are not supposed to add a tempo to every work. Tempo/character should only be used for works which are usually referred to by tempo. That is mostly for movements of generic multi-part works; concertos, symphonies, sonatas and so on. Works which would otherwise be untitled.
Concerto in D major, Op. 1: I. Allegro Adagio & Allegro, Op. XX
but not in
Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 55 No. 2 Prélude No. 2 A-moll, Op. 28 The Planets Suite for Orchestra, Op. 32: I. Mars, the bringer of war
You wouldn't refer to these works by tempo. Put the tempo in the annotation, maybe we will get a tempo field one day?
- the Prélude example was in the old CSG with tempo.
no tempo from composer
can be in italics in the score. we could use brackets?
Concerto in C major, Op. 2: [Allegro]
or not make any difference at all?
Both form and tempo
Finale. Furiant Rondo. Vivace
- of course, finale is not a form... better term?
Related: sometimes the finale is a rondo, and it has a tempo... not good:
Finale. Rondo. Allegro Finale: Rondo. Allegro Rondo-finale. Allegro
Both instructions and standard tempo marking
For example, Beethoven's 28th piano sonata is marked "Etwas lebhaft und mit der innigsten Empfindung". Below there is the tempo; Allegretto, ma non troppo. As I see it, the tempo is superfluous here?
Sonate für das Hammerklavier, Op. 101: Etwas lebhaft und mit der innigsten Empfindung
This is something that really needs limiting. Some editors started to add every tempo change that was inside the movement, there was even discussion about repeats.
Usually, the only thing that is needed for identifying the movement is the initial tempo. However, sometimes the work can change tempo after a short introduction, and then we put in both sections. The other exception is for big form changes like menuetto - trio, when we need to show that the work contains both sections and not just the first (that's not the case with tempo changes otherwise).
Grande Sonate pathétique, Op. 13: Grave - Allegro di molto e con brio Menuet
- avoid using the "form. tempo" construction if you need 2 tempos/sections. It gets confusing quickly.
- instructions like "da capo" & "attacca" does not belong in the title
Are a performance decision & not added to the worktitle. If the cadenza is a separate work, you relate both works to the recording with the performance AR. Otherwise, one assumes the composer's supplied cadenza is used.
- wasn't a part of the old CSG either, the practice comes from the unofficial CSG-standard pages
Work - work ARs
Part of work
will be updated after the ongoing discussions.
Arrangements & transcriptions
as I see it, a classical work is something that exists physically (a score), so a keyboard transcription would be a different work. And we can attribute the work to the arranger/transcriber. If it's considered the same work, we can't attribute the work to the arranger/transcriber. (must repeat for every recording that uses this transcription).
If the arranger/transcriber is unknown, there's nothing to gain by adding another work. Better to use the original work & put the instrumentation in the recording title.
Probably the least discussed. I think we have a consensus about using the default worktitle.
Keys & instrumentation
This will not be a copy from the work name, instead it will actually follow what's recorded. A flute piece played on the violin, a violin solo sonata transposed to viola. Sometimes a work can even be published with variants for more than one instrument by the composer.
- if by the editor...?
Also the specific voice for a song could be different from the original.
- what to to w. high/low voice versions? very common for piano + voice. Have heard berlioz nuits... in different keys.
- don't add your own keys - it must be printed on the release
- A=415Hz and similar belongs in the annotation
It looks like we can finally get rid of the old UI-workaround, which meant that we had to add performers to the title of the release and releasegroup. However, we still need a way to distinguish between different recordings of the same work, so we ask that you add the primary performer(s) to the comment field for the recording. Try to keep it to a minimum, only what's needed to separate the recording from another recording of the same work.
Not available, but there is an open ticket.
The recording-work performance AR