[mb-style] Arrange on works

Post by jesus2099
I?ve noticed there is now artist-work arrange relationship added but I can?t
find discussion in this ML (where I?m quite new I must admit).
I see a risk in that it will probably create many works (potentially one
work per recording) each time someone does a cover version but it shouldn?t
as we are always speaking of the same song.
For me a song/work is lyrics+compose. Any further versions is the same work.
Is there a thread somewhere that I didn?t see, containing some examples
where such an artist-work arrange relation is really needed??

http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Works-and-remixes-covers-td3531609.html

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave at gasaway.org

jesus2099

2011-08-05 08:14:06 UTC

I took the time to read this thread but found no good reason to have arranger
at work level.
Maybe it?s just some classical guideline (and I can?t discuss in this
category), but then *it should be strongly discouraged to add any arrange
credit at work level* for all non-classical music or we?ll end up with one
work per version, which is not the work philosophy.

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3720666.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Frederic Da Vitoria

2011-08-05 08:41:19 UTC

Post by jesus2099
I took the time to read this thread but found no good reason to have arranger
at work level.
Maybe it?s just some classical guideline (and I can?t discuss in this
category), but then *it should be strongly discouraged to add any arrange
credit at work level* for all non-classical music or we?ll end up with one
work per version, which is not the work philosophy.

Then for you ,
- this http://musicbrainz.org/recording/e56825fe-d1d4-492f-818c-84c4f3cb8774
is the same as http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ec8c8256-6a29-4dc2-afe8-8a6efae40b49
?
- this http://musicbrainz.org/recording/291758ed-60eb-4192-92af-367b1c754745
is the same as http://musicbrainz.org/recording/5387bb23-315e-410b-82e2-5c8d8cd9f307
?
- this http://musicbrainz.org/recording/5b20a7d0-adce-461b-852b-1e622bb25b2a
is the same as http://musicbrainz.org/recording/09eca071-1483-4bfe-a6f1-bb44c650217c
or http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ae29b3fd-9025-4748-b85e-d6a490313255
- this http://musicbrainz.org/recording/5466e22a-96e8-4914-8e38-d6fd5e8ca8da
is the same as http://musicbrainz.org/recording/6b03b8da-696c-4846-8e32-aaa73c4608f8

... and so on. If so, we have really different ears and we really
don't hear the same thing. I really feel that at some point an
arrangement is so different from the original that it should be
distinguished from the original. Of course, it is still derived from
it, and as such it should be linked to it by an AR, but the
differences are musically very significant. Performers feel the same
as I do: some of them are doing covers of covers, which implicitly
means that they consider the cover they are covering as a distinct
work. I agree with you that just adding a second violin part to an
existing work is not enough to create a separate MB Work in non
classical music, so that it will be our job, editors as well as voters
to decide for each arrangement whether it should be entered as a
separate MB Work or not.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org

jesus2099

2011-08-05 08:45:54 UTC

In your examples I only know ?With a little help from my friends? by the
Beatles and Joe Cocker?s version.

They sound very different, that?s part of the covers? interest.
They also remain exactly the same song (same melody, same lyrics).

And that?s http://musicbrainz.org/work/8388f958-0fef-30ea-a70a-f1803868ecf9
the right way to see all cover versions out there, hopefully no work split.

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3720721.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Frederic Da Vitoria

2011-08-05 09:26:06 UTC

Post by jesus2099
In your examples I only know ?With a little help from my friends? by the
Beatles and Joe Cocker?s version.
They sound very different, that?s part of the covers? interest.
They also remain exactly the same song (same melody, same lyrics).

If the lyrics were different (and maybe some of my examples are not
really relevant for our discussion), then they would need different
lyricist ARs which would mean they'd have to be separate Works. Do you
see the discrepancy? We separate Works if the lyrics changes, but you
don't want to separate them if the music changes. Which means you
would give more importance to lyrics than to music. Is this
MusicBrainz or LyricsBrainz?

Post by jesus2099
And that?s http://musicbrainz.org/work/8388f958-0fef-30ea-a70a-f1803868ecf9
the right way to see all cover versions out there, hopefully no work split.

"That' the right way" according to you, not to me :-) Aggregating
Works your way loses information I find valuable. While with a little
SQL magic, it should be possible to collate your view from my
hierarchy. Note that I'd probably use your view too at times. But at
other times, I'd use mine.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org

Lemire, Sebastien

2011-08-05 13:15:33 UTC

Post by Frederic Da Vitoria

I agree with Jesus2099 here,
Having the Arranger AR at work level is confusing.
Frederic, I don't see how through the examples and explanations that you've
given how you are answering Jesus2099's concerns relating to the Arranger
AR.
Whether or not a work requires to be split shouldn't have anything to do
with this...

I can see the Arranger AR at work level as useful being useful for Classical
primarily (and maybe a few other genres that I don't have experience with)
but should be strongly discouraged for most popular music through the popup
info on the AR edit page and the guideline. Either that or we move all the
Recording-level arranger credits down to Work-level which I don't think is a
good idea.

Sebastien

Post by jesus2099
And that?s

http://musicbrainz.org/work/8388f958-0fef-30ea-a70a-f1803868ecf9

Post by jesus2099
the right way to see all cover versions out there, hopefully no work

split.
"That' the right way" according to you, not to me :-) Aggregating
Works your way loses information I find valuable. While with a little
SQL magic, it should be possible to collate your view from my
hierarchy. Note that I'd probably use your view too at times. But at
other times, I'd use mine.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110805/8113fbd2/attachment.htm

Frederic Da Vitoria

2011-08-05 13:48:48 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I agree with Jesus2099 here,
Having the Arranger AR at work level is confusing.
Frederic, I don't see how through the examples and explanations that you've
given how you are answering Jesus2099's concerns relating to the Arranger
AR.
Whether or not a work requires to be split shouldn't have anything to do
with this...

I believe it has: if a Work is separated from a previous version, then
we must be able to enter all ARs relevant to the new Work. If it was
separated because the arrangement felt completely different, then it
seems fair to credit the arranger with it :-)

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I can see the Arranger AR at work level as useful being useful for Classical
primarily (and maybe a few other genres that I don't have experience with)
but should be strongly discouraged for most popular music through the popup
info on the AR edit page and the guideline. Either that or we move all the
Recording-level arranger credits down to Work-level which I don't think is a
good idea.

It is not the arranger AR which frightens jesus2099, it is the fact it
would trigger Work duplication. So I partially agree with jesus2099
here: we should discourage Work duplication and state that users
should not create a new Work merely to link it to an arranger.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org

jesus2099

2011-08-05 16:14:54 UTC

SL>> I can see the Arranger AR at work level as useful being useful for
Classical
SL>> primarily (and maybe a few other genres that I don't have experience
with)
SL>> but should be strongly discouraged for most popular music through the
popup
SL>> info on the AR edit page and the guideline. Either that or we move all
the
SL>> Recording-level arranger credits down to Work-level which I don't think
is a
SL>> good idea.

FDV> It is not the arranger AR which frightens jesus2099, it is the fact it
FDV> would trigger Work duplication. So I partially agree with jesus2099
FDV> here: we should discourage Work duplication and state that users
FDV> should not create a new Work merely to link it to an arranger.

I was also frightened by the arrange AR for the same reason. :)
Each performance can have a new arrange and thus make a new work if it?s
attached to this level.
This is why a warning should refrain people from attaching arrange at work
level. ? NEW TASK (?)
I see your point though? I hope that?s how people who agreed with adding
work-artist arrange link feel too.

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3721597.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Paul C. Bryan

2011-08-05 17:13:27 UTC

Post by jesus2099
I was also frightened by the arrange AR for the same reason. :)
Each performance can have a new arrange and thus make a new work if it?s
attached to this level.
This is why a warning should refrain people from attaching arrange at work
level. ? NEW TASK (?)
I see your point though? I hope that?s how people who agreed with adding
work-artist arrange link feel too.

+1

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110805/e8e9060c/attachment.htm

Frederic Da Vitoria

2011-08-05 19:12:05 UTC

2011/8/5 jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe at jetable.org>

Post by jesus2099
SL>> I can see the Arranger AR at work level as useful being useful for
Classical
SL>> primarily (and maybe a few other genres that I don't have experience
with)
SL>> but should be strongly discouraged for most popular music through the
popup
SL>> info on the AR edit page and the guideline. Either that or we move all
the
SL>> Recording-level arranger credits down to Work-level which I don't think
is a
SL>> good idea.
FDV> It is not the arranger AR which frightens jesus2099, it is the fact it
FDV> would trigger Work duplication. So I partially agree with jesus2099
FDV> here: we should discourage Work duplication and state that users
FDV> should not create a new Work merely to link it to an arranger.
I was also frightened by the arrange AR for the same reason. :)
Each performance can have a new arrange and thus make a new work if it?s
attached to this level.
This is why a warning should refrain people from attaching arrange at work
level. ? NEW TASK (?)
I see your point though? I hope that?s how people who agreed with adding
work-artist arrange link feel too.

As I said, I wouldn't want too much variations of a work, Works are still
for me a way of grouping Recordings, so if almost each Recording has it's
own Work, this would effectively cancel any grouping. So I agree with you,
this should clearly stated

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110805/e93c5b98/attachment.htm

Frederic Da Vitoria

2011-08-05 19:20:36 UTC

2011/8/5 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>

Post by Frederic Da Vitoria
2011/8/5 jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe at jetable.org>

I added a comment to the other thread.

jesus2099

2011-08-05 13:17:09 UTC

Thanks for your precisions Frederic

Each time you perform a song, the melody changes a bit. Live versions could
then get their works too because on this or that tour, the music director
was the bassist or a guest keyboardist with clever ideas.
Each cover also changes melody a bit to match tonal or mood or style or
version.

The lyrics also change a bit, by inserting jokes, making blanks when forgot
some words or let the audience sing or anything like that. Wether by
original artist each performance or cover versions.

As well as we shouldn?t create new work for arranged versions, we shouldn?t
create new works for slight lyrics change because all this is not making a
new song and all this happens at almost every performance (including
original artist).

I?m wondering what makes arrange credit at rec level or work level now?? We
do have duplicate AR now.
and what makes it so that we won?t end up in chaos with having both people
wanting to create one work per performance and people who don?t want that
but both are being allowed??

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3721168.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Frederic Da Vitoria

2011-08-05 13:43:35 UTC

Post by jesus2099
Thanks for your precisions Frederic
Each time you perform a song, the melody changes a bit. Live versions could
then get their works too because on this or that tour, the music director
was the bassist or a guest keyboardist with clever ideas.
Each cover also changes melody a bit to match tonal or mood or style or
version.
The lyrics also change a bit, by inserting jokes, making blanks when forgot
some words or let the audience sing or anything like that. Wether by
original artist each performance or cover versions.
As well as we shouldn?t create new work for arranged versions, we shouldn?t
create new works for slight lyrics change because all this is not making a
new song and all this happens at almost every performance (including
original artist).
I?m wondering what makes arrange credit at rec level or work level now ? We
do have duplicate AR now.
and what makes it so that we won?t end up in chaos with having both people
wanting to create one work per performance and people who don?t want that
but both are being allowed ?

jesus2099, it appears, you did not read the previous thread so
carefully after all: The point which should relieve your worries is
this answer from Lorenz: "i think a derivate work has to earn it's
status of an own work and (as Frederic said) this would have to be
decided for each derivate work."

Which amounts to the same as my answer to you here: "I agree with you
that just adding a second violin part to an existing work is not
enough to create a separate MB Work in non classical music, so that it
will be our job, editors as well as voters to decide for each
arrangement whether it should be entered as a separate MB Work or
not." No, now that I re-read my answer to you, I was not restrictive
enough. I should have stated that we should allow separate works when
their differences are large enough.

So both ARs are useful, we should use the work level AR when we have
decided the works should be different, and the recording level AR when
we felt the new recording was not original enough.

I agree there is no clear limit, but that's life, music is not binary,
it does not lend to a computer database structure. We can choose 2
attitudes: either we say the computers are right and we cram music
information in it (and lose every part of data which does not fit in
the rigid structure), or we accept that music is larger and more
complex than any system we will ever be able to build and we learn to
live with the deficiencies of our machines.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - ? promouvoir et d?fendre le logiciel libre ? -
http://www.april.org

jesus2099

2011-08-19 23:24:25 UTC

I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking

http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15033556 and a ton of other no votes on
artist-recording arrange :

If you put this arrange to work, then you engraved into stone that evey
later perf. relationships to this song will inherit this arrangement which
is obviously wrong (think of acoustic verions, concert renditions with just
piano or guitar, some midi-guy instrumental cover, some cheap band for a
supermarket compilation...) the examples of wrong inheritance are so many.
In fact the only time arrange will be respected is almost when we speak of
the same recording (be it dif. mix, volume, dynamics, cut) but the same
recording.
If the band would self-cover the tune in another record, chances are also
high that the arrangement will vary.
Could be the same arranger but not the same arrangement.
But putting arrange on work level means ALL OF THEM GOT THE SAME ARRAGEMENT,
which is wrong.
And no one will dare, want, be able to check this arrange vary each time one
adds a performance relationship to this work.
But once some clever guy identify an arrange vary, what do we do when there
is already tons of cover links ? delete the work-artist arrange relationship
and try to fix every recording ?

Even the japanese guys who, in concert, are so very strict and rigid to the
arrangements (except for acoustic versions etc.) don't dare to credit
arrangements at work level (cf.jasrac).
In my experience, Ihear new arrangement at almost every new recording.

Setting this AR to work will geopardize any further future recording
information's correctness.

If my english is not correct, sorry.
Illustration of what mess would it be if we had linked a single arrangement
to a song with many later performance relationships
http://musicbrainz.org/work/0c80db24-389e-3620-8e0b-84dc2b7c009a

It's not because one database (sacem here) makes the mistake to link it to
works that we should blindly foolow it ?
Arrange is just the way of playing a tune, that way varies of course
according to who wants to play one's own way, music is not some kind of
rigid stuff like a computer database

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3756316.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Philip Jägenstedt

2011-08-20 00:13:15 UTC

Post by jesus2099
I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking

Without having read the threads that led up to that change, I have to
agree. What is the use case for arrangement ARs on the work level?

--
Philip J?genstedt

Lemire, Sebastien

2011-08-20 00:35:03 UTC

Post by Philip JÃ¤genstedt

Ok for some reason Jesus2099 decided to start a new thread AND respond to
the original with the same msg.
I think it would be best to keep discussing this in the other one...

Post by jesus2099
I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking

Without having read the threads that led up to that change, I have to
agree. What is the use case for arrangement ARs on the work level?
--
Philip J?genstedt
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110819/d54f1f28/attachment.htm

jesus2099

2011-08-19 23:27:07 UTC

I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking

http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15033556 and a ton of other no votes on
artist-recording arrange :

If you put this arrange to work, then you engraved into stone that evey
later perf. relationships to this song will inherit this arrangement which
is obviously wrong (think of acoustic verions, concert renditions with just
piano or guitar, some midi-guy instrumental cover, some cheap band for a
supermarket compilation...) the examples of wrong inheritance are so many.
In fact the only time arrange will be respected is almost when we speak of
the same recording (be it dif. mix, volume, dynamics, cut) but the same
recording.
If the band would self-cover the tune in another record, chances are also
high that the arrangement will vary.
Could be the same arranger but not the same arrangement.
But putting arrange on work level means ALL OF THEM GOT THE SAME ARRAGEMENT,
which is wrong.
And no one will dare, want, be able to check this arrange vary each time one
adds a performance relationship to this work.
But once some clever guy identify an arrange vary, what do we do when there
is already tons of cover links ? delete the work-artist arrange relationship
and try to fix every recording ?

Even the japanese guys who, in concert, are so very strict and rigid to the
arrangements (except for acoustic versions etc.) don't dare to credit
arrangements at work level (cf.jasrac).
In my experience, Ihear new arrangement at almost every new recording.

Setting this AR to work will geopardize any further future recording
information's correctness.

If my english is not correct, sorry.
Illustration of what mess would it be if we had linked a single arrangement
to a song with many later performance relationships
http://musicbrainz.org/work/0c80db24-389e-3620-8e0b-84dc2b7c009a

It's not because one database (sacem here) makes the mistake to link it to
works that we should blindly foolow it ?
Arrange is just the way of playing a tune, that way varies of course
according to who wants to play one's own way, music is not some kind of
rigid stuff like a computer database

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3756321.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Lemire, Sebastien

2011-08-19 23:53:44 UTC

In my opinion and if I remember correctly this was the original intent,
Arrangements at the work level should be limited to classical arrangements
(ie Lizst`s Beethoven arrangements), maybe we should change the wording to
restrict to classical works until we've figured out how they can work for
other works or at least explain the difference.

Are there any popular genres that would merit a Arrangement AR for works?
Jazz?

Sebastien

Post by jesus2099
I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15033556 and a ton of other no votes on
If you put this arrange to work, then you engraved into stone that evey
later perf. relationships to this song will inherit this arrangement which
is obviously wrong (think of acoustic verions, concert renditions with just
piano or guitar, some midi-guy instrumental cover, some cheap band for a
supermarket compilation...) the examples of wrong inheritance are so many.
In fact the only time arrange will be respected is almost when we speak of
the same recording (be it dif. mix, volume, dynamics, cut) but the same
recording.
If the band would self-cover the tune in another record, chances are also
high that the arrangement will vary.
Could be the same arranger but not the same arrangement.
But putting arrange on work level means ALL OF THEM GOT THE SAME ARRAGEMENT,
which is wrong.
And no one will dare, want, be able to check this arrange vary each time one
adds a performance relationship to this work.
But once some clever guy identify an arrange vary, what do we do when there
is already tons of cover links ? delete the work-artist arrange relationship
and try to fix every recording ?
Even the japanese guys who, in concert, are so very strict and rigid to the
arrangements (except for acoustic versions etc.) don't dare to credit
arrangements at work level (cf.jasrac).
In my experience, Ihear new arrangement at almost every new recording.
Setting this AR to work will geopardize any further future recording
information's correctness.
If my english is not correct, sorry.
Illustration of what mess would it be if we had linked a single arrangement
to a song with many later performance relationships
http://musicbrainz.org/work/0c80db24-389e-3620-8e0b-84dc2b7c009a
It's not because one database (sacem here) makes the mistake to link it to
works that we should blindly foolow it ?
Arrange is just the way of playing a tune, that way varies of course
according to who wants to play one's own way, music is not some kind of
rigid stuff like a computer database
-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3756321.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110819/e7ab6f48/attachment.htm

Paul C. Bryan

2011-08-20 05:34:54 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
In my opinion and if I remember correctly this was the original
intent, Arrangements at the work level should be limited to classical
arrangements (ie Lizst`s Beethoven arrangements), maybe we should
change the wording to restrict to classical works until we've figured
out how they can work for other works or at least explain the
difference.

There are numerous examples of classical works that composers adapt from
other composers. In practice, aren't these in the catalog of the
adapting composer, given composition credit to the adapter (and possibly
the original composer) and/or identified along the lines of "Sonata for
Harpsichord in C major after Reincken, BWV 966", "Fantasie ?ber
Beethovens Ruinen von Athen, S. 122"?

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Are there any popular genres that would merit a Arrangement AR for
works? Jazz?

In my opinion, very rarely if at all at the works level.

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110819/949d62f4/attachment.htm

David Gasaway

2011-08-20 06:41:02 UTC

Post by Paul C. Bryan
There are numerous examples of classical works that composers adapt from
other composers. In practice, aren't these in the catalog of the adapting
composer, given composition credit to the adapter (and possibly the original
composer) and/or identified along the lines of "Sonata for Harpsichord in C
major after Reincken, BWV 966", "Fantasie ?ber Beethovens Ruinen von Athen,
S. 122"?

I'd say yes, for your examples (but it would still be nice to link
back to the original work somehow). But not necessarily for a famous
transcription or orchestration (one that would have many recordings)
of a work by another composer. I'd want another work, composition
credit for the original composer, and arranger credit for whoever did
the transcription/orchestration. Does that sound reasonable?

If we need to re-word the work-work AR or some SGs to specifically
exclude whatever other garbage people are using the AR for, let's do
that. I would say that removing the AR, destroying data in the
process, then adding back a new one is the worse solution.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave at gasaway.org

Paul C. Bryan

2011-08-20 18:23:30 UTC

Post by David Gasaway

Yes, though some examples to test idea this would be helpful.

Post by David Gasaway
If we need to re-word the work-work AR or some SGs to specifically
exclude whatever other garbage people are using the AR for, let's do
that. I would say that removing the AR, destroying data in the
process, then adding back a new one is the worse solution.

Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres
support this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110820/96abc138/attachment.htm

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

2011-08-20 18:40:22 UTC

Post by David Gasaway

I'd say yes, for your examples (but it would still be nice to link
back to the original work somehow). But not necessarily for a famous
transcription or orchestration (one that would have many recordings)
of a work by another composer. I'd want another work, composition
credit for the original composer, and arranger credit for whoever did
the transcription/orchestration. Does that sound reasonable?
Yes, though some examples to test idea this would be helpful.
If we need to re-word the work-work AR or some SGs to specifically
exclude whatever other garbage people are using the AR for, let's do
that. I would say that removing the AR, destroying data in the
process, then adding back a new one is the worse solution.
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

I don't really see why something should be not used because other
genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually support chorus
master either and we don't remove those...

Post by David Gasaway
Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

Paul C. Bryan

2011-08-21 17:04:17 UTC

Post by David Gasaway
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

I don't really see why something should be not used because other
genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually support chorus
master either and we don't remove those...

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm suggesting that we attempt cleanup of
arranger-on-work instances where they currently does not make sense,
namely pop and jazz titles.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110821/2fa9d584/attachment.htm

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

2011-08-21 17:10:10 UTC

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by David Gasaway
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

I don't really see why something should be not used because other
genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually support chorus
master either and we don't remove those...
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm suggesting that we attempt cleanup of
arranger-on-work instances where they currently does not make sense, namely
pop and jazz titles.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

Lemire, Sebastien

2011-08-21 17:24:22 UTC

I would also like a warning added to the use of the Orchestrator AR at work
which similarly doesn't apply to most non-classsical works.

Examples:
http://musicbrainz.org/work/8627f9e0-6743-304f-aecf-5fd687650cb8
http://musicbrainz.org/work/d6e72540-d65c-3cb6-b02f-e6989e09790a
http://musicbrainz.org/work/836ad30c-e0fb-3198-8970-1d840b66d62b

Sebastien

2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Paul C. Bryan

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by Paul C. Bryan
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres

support

Post by Paul C. Bryan
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

namely

pop and jazz titles.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110821/70edffad/attachment.htm

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

2011-08-22 15:12:41 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I would also like a warning added to the use of the Orchestrator AR at work
which similarly doesn't apply to most non-classsical works.
http://musicbrainz.org/work/8627f9e0-6743-304f-aecf-5fd687650cb8
http://musicbrainz.org/work/d6e72540-d65c-3cb6-b02f-e6989e09790a
http://musicbrainz.org/work/836ad30c-e0fb-3198-8970-1d840b66d62b

The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present at
recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we
should also add it to the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by David Gasaway
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

Lemire, Sebastien

2011-08-22 15:41:44 UTC

Well this is more of a case of incorrect wording on discogs (checked the
edits).
This credit should be arranger and not orchestrator (as per the booklet),
I'll go and remove all the orchestrator credits and addin him as an arranger
at the recording level.

Sebastien

2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I would also like a warning added to the use of the Orchestrator AR at

work

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
which similarly doesn't apply to most non-classsical works.
http://musicbrainz.org/work/8627f9e0-6743-304f-aecf-5fd687650cb8
http://musicbrainz.org/work/d6e72540-d65c-3cb6-b02f-e6989e09790a
http://musicbrainz.org/work/836ad30c-e0fb-3198-8970-1d840b66d62b

The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present at
recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we
should also add it to the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by David Gasaway
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110822/b538a86c/attachment.htm

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

2011-08-22 15:46:57 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Well this is more of a case of incorrect wording on discogs (checked the
edits).
This credit should be arranger and not orchestrator (as per the booklet),
I'll go and remove all the orchestrator credits and addin him as an arranger
at the recording level.

Hmm, I still have several orchestrator relationships that apply to
recordings more than to works (will be recorded just once, in most
cases, including, now that I think about it, stuff like Metallica
playing with an orchestra and the like)

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present at
recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we
should also add it to the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by David Gasaway
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

Pete Marsh

2011-08-22 15:49:33 UTC

i would have thought that most Orchestrator relationships are at recording level....

-----Original Message-----
From: musicbrainz-style-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren
Sent: 22 August 2011 16:47
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Arrange on works

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Well this is more of a case of incorrect wording on discogs (checked
the edits).
This credit should be arranger and not orchestrator (as per the
booklet), I'll go and remove all the orchestrator credits and addin
him as an arranger at the recording level.

Hmm, I still have several orchestrator relationships that apply to recordings more than to works (will be recorded just once, in most cases, including, now that I think about it, stuff like Metallica playing with an orchestra and the like)

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I would also like a warning added to the use of the Orchestrator AR
at work which similarly doesn't apply to most non-classsical works.
http://musicbrainz.org/work/8627f9e0-6743-304f-aecf-5fd687650cb8
http://musicbrainz.org/work/d6e72540-d65c-3cb6-b02f-e6989e09790a
http://musicbrainz.org/work/836ad30c-e0fb-3198-8970-1d840b66d62b

The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present
at recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we
should also add it to the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by Paul C. Bryan
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other
genres support this, I think we should still consider cleaning
house somehow.

I don't really see why something should be not used because
other genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually
support chorus master either and we don't remove those...
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm suggesting that we attempt
cleanup of arranger-on-work instances where they currently does
not make sense, namely pop and jazz titles.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

Lemire, Sebastien

2011-08-22 15:53:13 UTC

I think I remember a discussion here a while back where we came up with the
conclusion that orchestration is just a more specific type of arrangement,
but is still an arrangement. Wouldn't you agree?

2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by jesus2099

arranger

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
at the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present at
recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we
should also add it to the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca>

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by Paul C. Bryan
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres
support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

I don't really see why something should be not used because other
genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually support

chorus

master either and we don't remove those...
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm suggesting that we attempt cleanup of
arranger-on-work instances where they currently does not make

sense,

namely
pop and jazz titles.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110822/e497daae/attachment.htm

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

2011-08-22 15:54:51 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I think I remember a discussion here a while back where we came up with the
conclusion that orchestration is just a more specific type of arrangement,
but is still an arrangement. Wouldn't you agree?

I certainly would, which means it is weird that we don't allow it at
recording level at the moment. (Or am I blind? Wouldn't be the first
time...)

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I would also like a warning added to the use of the Orchestrator AR at
work
which similarly doesn't apply to most non-classsical works.
http://musicbrainz.org/work/8627f9e0-6743-304f-aecf-5fd687650cb8
http://musicbrainz.org/work/d6e72540-d65c-3cb6-b02f-e6989e09790a
http://musicbrainz.org/work/836ad30c-e0fb-3198-8970-1d840b66d62b

The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present at
recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we
should also add it to the recording level.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Sebastien
2011/8/21 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan at anode.ca

Post by Paul C. Bryan
Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres
support
this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow.

I don't really see why something should be not used because other
genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually support chorus
master either and we don't remove those...
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm suggesting that we attempt
cleanup
of
arranger-on-work instances where they currently does not make sense,
namely
pop and jazz titles.

Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the
widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe?

Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

caller#6

2011-08-22 18:55:31 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I think I remember a discussion here a while back where we came up
with the conclusion that orchestration is just a more specific type of
arrangement, but is still an arrangement. Wouldn't you agree?

Sometimes "orchestration" is used to mean "transcribed for [some type of
ensemble]" (more or less). Sometimes, though, it means something more
like "expanded for [a larger ensemble]". [1]

An example of the latter (which we've used before iirc) is Satie's
Gymnop?dies vs. Debussy's [2]. The music itself is significantly altered.

Alex / caller#6

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestration#Orchestration_as_Adaptation
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnop%C3%A9die#Orchestrations_by_Claude_Debussy

caller#6

2011-08-22 20:19:31 UTC

Post by caller#6

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I think I remember a discussion here a while back where we came up
with the conclusion that orchestration is just a more specific type of
arrangement, but is still an arrangement. Wouldn't you agree?

Sometimes "orchestration" is used to mean "transcribed for [some type of
ensemble]" (more or less). Sometimes, though, it means something more
like "expanded for [a larger ensemble]". [1]
An example of the latter (which we've used before iirc) is Satie's
Gymnop?dies vs. Debussy's [2]. The music itself is significantly altered.
Alex / caller#6
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestration#Orchestration_as_Adaptation
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnop%C3%A9die#Orchestrations_by_Claude_Debussy

Following up on the notion that "orchestration" is used to mean
different things at different times...

The same is true for "arrangement". I've seen credits for "xxx worked
out the horn arrangement" or "string arrangement by xxx" that seem to
indicate a "co-composer" role.

example (weird the things that come to mind when I'm looking for
examples):
http://www.discogs.com/David-Lee-Roth-Eat-Em-And-Smile/release/2952871

Alex / caller#6

Ryan Torchia

2011-08-22 21:51:14 UTC

2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by jesus2099

arranger

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
at the recording level.

Orchestrations, arrangements, and transcriptions are typically written
activities, so I don't think they belong at the recording level at all. Even
if the original performers aren't involved, the arrangement itself could be
performed and recorded again in the future.

Realistically, this requires multiple levels of Work heirarchy if we want to
link recordings to specific orchestrations, arrrangements, transcriptions,
covers, versions, mixes, etc. and have those all linked to the same general
Meta-work.
--Torc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110822/90ad2cd6/attachment.htm

SwissChris

2011-08-22 23:06:18 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Well this is more of a case of incorrect wording on discogs (checked the
edits).
This credit should be arranger and not orchestrator (as per the

booklet),

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I'll go and remove all the orchestrator credits and addin him as an

arranger

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
at the recording level.

Technically you're right. But let's keep things simple. As said before, as
long as a specific arrangement (or orchestration) is NOT actually performed
and recorded again by a second, different performer, these relationships
should stay at recording level. If we consider every arrangement of a given
Lennon/McCartney song (for [his] clarinet by Mr. Acker Bilk, for [his]
trumpet by Georges Jouvin or for baroque orchestra [Cathy Berberian]) a new
work we're killing the concept and the functionality of Works altogether.

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Realistically, this requires multiple levels of Work heirarchy if we want
to link recordings to specific orchestrations, arrrangements,
transcriptions, covers, versions, mixes, etc. and have those all linked to
the same general Meta-work.

Is such a complicated, complex structure really what we want and need?

--Torc.
Chris/chabreyflint

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110823/438d8b9c/attachment.htm

Ryan Torchia

2011-08-25 01:10:36 UTC

Post by SwissChris

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
2011/8/22 Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Well this is more of a case of incorrect wording on discogs (checked

the

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
edits).
This credit should be arranger and not orchestrator (as per the

booklet),

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
I'll go and remove all the orchestrator credits and addin him as an

arranger

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
at the recording level.

That doesn't seem like a workable solution: establishing two different
guidelines for how to handle arrangements of Works based solely on how many
times they've been recorded. For one thing, we can't predict whether that
specific arrangement is going to be recorded again. The examples above are
all arrangements of a recorded work for a live ensemble; if anything, it
seems more likely that those would be performed multiple times, and thus
potentitally recorded multiple times. We have to find a solution for Works
with many different well-known arrangements anyway; I can't imagine a
solution that would be acceptable for that situation that wouldn't work
across the board.

Post by SwissChris

Is such a complicated, complex structure really what we want and need?

It's really not that complicated a solution; simply insert one more level of
heirarchy between Work and Recording to cover something that...well,
realistically belongs in a level between work and recording. It'd be much
more complicated to try to force these relationships into a system that
simply doesn't support them. A quick sketch of that would look something
like

Work
|
------> Recordings #1-50 (includes edits)
|
------> [Arrangement A] --> Recordings #50-54
|
------> [Arrangement B] --> Recording #55
|
------> [Transcription C] --> Recording #56
|
------> [Remix D] --> Recordings #57-60 (includes edits of the remix).

--Torc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110824/7037c1f3/attachment.htm

jesus2099

2011-08-26 10:19:39 UTC

Arrangements are not always credited.
In these cases we couldn't link recordings to anything, that's not good.
And you'll probably end up with almost as many Arrangement A/B/C works as
recordings.
That means that arrangements, remix etc AR are to be put on recordings, as
there is one useless level (which hopefully doesn't exist now).

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3770461.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Ryan Torchia

2011-08-31 05:19:35 UTC

Post by jesus2099
Arrangements are not always credited.
In these cases we couldn't link recordings to anything, that's not good.
And you'll probably end up with almost as many Arrangement A/B/C works as
recordings.
That means that arrangements, remix etc AR are to be put on recordings, as
there is one useless level (which hopefully doesn't exist now).

Sorry I missed this reply earlier. What I was thinking wasn't an entire new
layer, but more like a optional sub-Work -- something kind of like
multi-linkable AR, like the current Work-Arranger AR, but the Recording(s)
of that specific arrangement could link to that AR/sub-Work rather than just
to the Work. For all intents and purposes, it would still be a link between
Recording and Work (function the same, appear on the same lists as
currently), just with an added modifier that lets people know if a recording
is a specific *version* of the work (and likewise, would allow users to see
lists of recordings of specific arrangements (without having to create
multiple Works for each variation of what is fundamentally the same piece of
music).

An AR like that could be completely optional, so recordings or arrangements
for which we lack information wouldn't be a problem. We could require that
either a specific arrangement has more than one recording, or that there is
a specific Arranger credit given on a recording. The first requirement
would cover arrangements that weren't credited, or different versions of the
piece by the composer. The second would allow users to document the
Arranger credit on a release, and have that AR appear on both the
Recording(s) and Work with basically no more clutter than we have
currently. I could see a Work that looks like:

Work
Has Recordings...
- Recording 1 <-- (No AR needed for the "standard" version)
- Recording 2
- Recording 3
-- [of *version name or identifier*] [version for *instrumentation*]
[{verbed} by *MB artist*] <-- (Optional, at least one required.)
-- *1917 revision*
- Recording 4
- Recording 5
-- *version for string quartet* <-- (We can discuss whether or not to
credit the composer here if they arranged it themselves.)
- Recording 6
- Recording 7
-- *version for marching band, arranged by Hugh Tromboner
* - Recording 8
- Recording 9
- Recording 10 *(version for Electric Guitar, transcribed by Thee
Progtologist)* <-- (One-off arrangement credits can be included inline with
the recording if space is a concern.)

Something like that seems... well, not easy for you guys to create, but easy
to understand and use. It could probably even be used for remixes.

--Torc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110830/6f6d9ac2/attachment.htm

SwissChris

2011-08-20 09:11:29 UTC

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
**
In my opinion and if I remember correctly this was the original intent,
Arrangements at the work level should be limited to classical arrangements
(ie Lizst`s Beethoven arrangements), maybe we should change the wording to
restrict to classical works until we've figured out how they can work for
other works or at least explain the difference.
There are numerous examples of classical works that composers adapt from
other composers. In practice, aren't these in the catalog of the adapting
composer, given composition credit to the adapter (and possibly the original
composer) and/or identified along the lines of "Sonata for Harpsichord in C
major after Reincken, BWV 966", "Fantasie ?ber Beethovens Ruinen von Athen,
S. 122"?

Actually there are lots of "canonical" arrangements or orchestrations in
classical that are not credited to the arranger. See Mussorgsky [1] where
there are arrangements/orchestrations by Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakow, Stokowski
and others ? most of which have several recordings. These are obviously work
level arrangements. So simply removing arrangement at work level is a bad
idea.

What we would need is a guideline saying: arrangement & orchestration should
be at recording level. If there are at least two distinct recordings (by
different performers) of a specific arrangement, move the credit to work
level (That should rule out nearly all pop cases, and probably also some
classical arrangers: In the case of Mussorgsky again, the orchestrations by
Stokovski, Ashkenazy or Kalevi Aho (if there is just one performance: their
own ?) would then be moved to recording level.

[1]
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/c1380b12-3909-47d8-a5fd-d20e76123310/works?page=2

Post by Lemire, Sebastien
Are there any popular genres that would merit a Arrangement AR for works?
Jazz?
In my opinion, very rarely if at all at the works level.
Paul
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110820/ae5b31f2/attachment.htm

Rupert Swarbrick

2011-08-21 15:57:18 UTC

Post by SwissChris
What we would need is a guideline saying: arrangement & orchestration
should be at recording level. If there are at least two distinct
recordings (by different performers) of a specific arrangement, move
the credit to work level (That should rule out nearly all pop cases,
and probably also some classical arrangers: In the case of Mussorgsky
again, the orchestrations by Stokovski, Ashkenazy or Kalevi Aho (if
there is just one performance: their own ?) would then be moved to
recording level.

This seems like a very sensible solution! Although, maybe there should
also be a note allowing a work for an arrangement if the editor knows
that many performances exist, just not in MusicBrainz yet?

Rupert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110821/d4e59f0c/attachment.pgp

Paul C. Bryan

2011-08-20 05:24:30 UTC

I agree. I would support an RFC removing arranger from works.

Paul

Post by jesus2099
I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15033556 and a ton of other no votes on
If you put this arrange to work, then you engraved into stone that evey
later perf. relationships to this song will inherit this arrangement which
is obviously wrong (think of acoustic verions, concert renditions with just
piano or guitar, some midi-guy instrumental cover, some cheap band for a
supermarket compilation...) the examples of wrong inheritance are so many.
In fact the only time arrange will be respected is almost when we speak of
the same recording (be it dif. mix, volume, dynamics, cut) but the same
recording.
If the band would self-cover the tune in another record, chances are also
high that the arrangement will vary.
Could be the same arranger but not the same arrangement.
But putting arrange on work level means ALL OF THEM GOT THE SAME ARRAGEMENT,
which is wrong.
And no one will dare, want, be able to check this arrange vary each time one
adds a performance relationship to this work.
But once some clever guy identify an arrange vary, what do we do when there
is already tons of cover links ? delete the work-artist arrange relationship
and try to fix every recording ?
Even the japanese guys who, in concert, are so very strict and rigid to the
arrangements (except for acoustic versions etc.) don't dare to credit
arrangements at work level (cf.jasrac).
In my experience, Ihear new arrangement at almost every new recording.
Setting this AR to work will geopardize any further future recording
information's correctness.
If my english is not correct, sorry.
Illustration of what mess would it be if we had linked a single arrangement
to a song with many later performance relationships
http://musicbrainz.org/work/0c80db24-389e-3620-8e0b-84dc2b7c009a
It's not because one database (sacem here) makes the mistake to link it to
works that we should blindly foolow it ?
Arrange is just the way of playing a tune, that way varies of course
according to who wants to play one's own way, music is not some kind of
rigid stuff like a computer database
-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3756321.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110819/d8f6c8d0/attachment-0001.htm

Aurélien Mino

2011-08-21 13:26:57 UTC

Post by jesus2099
I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking

Could you explain me why SACEM, the French copyright collecting agency,
shows in its database two different works for song "Pour faire une jam",
the only difference being that one has an arrangement credit:

http://www.sacem.fr/oeuvres/oeuvre/rechercheOeuvre.do?q=POUR%20FAIRE%20UNE%20JAM+CHARLES%20AZNAVOUR

A related discussion happened on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14763916
some time ago,
regarding different arrangements of a traditional song.

- Aur?lien

jesus2099

2011-08-30 16:22:06 UTC

So, in decreasing order?:

1. It seems several people agree on dangers of putting arrange links on
works*.
2. It seems some people would like something more complex than either
work or recording links.
3. It seems a few remaining people agree on linking arrange to works.

What do you think of a RFC for 1. that could be quickly applied to prevent
any more damage then letting 2.?s people discuss of a better (?) or more
detailed (complex?) solution.

We could also make a RFC asking for orchestration on recordings, for the
same reasons.

* To sum up the ?dangers??: A referenced artist-recording arrange link will
always be correct while a, once referenced, artist-work arrange link will
become incorrect on later added recordings (other versions, covers, lives,
etc.).

-----
jesus2099 ? Ti = Tristan + patate12 ? saucisson7
mb?: http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts?: http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Arrange-on-works-tp3709045p3779148.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Philip Jägenstedt

2011-08-30 18:48:36 UTC

? ?1. It seems several people agree on dangers of putting arrange links on
works*.
? ?2. It seems some people would like something more complex than either
work or recording links.
? ?3. It seems a few remaining people agree on linking arrange to works.
What do you think of a RFC for 1. that could be quickly applied to prevent
any more damage then letting 2.?s people discuss of a better (?) or more
detailed (complex?) solution.
We could also make a RFC asking for orchestration on recordings, for the
same reasons.
* To sum up the ?dangers??: A referenced artist-recording arrange link will
always be correct while a, once referenced, artist-work arrange link will
become incorrect on later added recordings (other versions, covers, lives,
etc.).

I would support an RFC to remove the arrangement AR for works, as it
seems very prone to incorrect use.

--
Philip J?genstedt

Rupert Swarbrick

2011-08-30 20:45:37 UTC

Philip J?genstedt <philip at foolip.org>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 18:22, jesus2099

I would support an RFC to remove the arrangement AR for works, as it
seems very prone to incorrect use.

Ok, but do you have a candidate for how to express "This version of
Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition is the one arranged by Ravel"?
Surely this is the basic and simple case we still would like to be able
to express.

Otherwise we have the ugly situation where a "work" like Bach's Air from
his suite in G (IIRC) is performed by everyone from Barenboim to Procol
Harum...

Rupert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110830/7435dcea/attachment.pgp

SwissChris

2011-08-30 21:15:52 UTC

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Philip J?genstedt <philip at foolip.org>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 18:22, jesus2099

Post by jesus2099
1. It seems several people agree on dangers of putting arrange links

Post by jesus2099
works*.
2. It seems some people would like something more complex than either
work or recording links.
3. It seems a few remaining people agree on linking arrange to works.
What do you think of a RFC for 1. that could be quickly applied to

prevent

Post by jesus2099
any more damage then letting 2.?s people discuss of a better (?) or more
detailed (complex?) solution.
We could also make a RFC asking for orchestration on recordings, for the
same reasons.
* To sum up the ?dangers? : A referenced artist-recording arrange link

will

Post by jesus2099
always be correct while a, once referenced, artist-work arrange link

will

Post by jesus2099
become incorrect on later added recordings (other versions, covers,

lives,

Post by jesus2099
etc.).

I would support an RFC to remove the arrangement AR for works, as it
seems very prone to incorrect use.

As said before the easiest solution would be to keep the Arrange Relation on
works (it is really needed for some classical arrangements like the above ?
and maybe for a few in other genres), but to allow it only when you can
prove that the same specific arrangement is used by at least two different
recordings (by different performers). All other arrangements should be kept
at recoding level. And the orchestration links should probably be treated
the same way. This would at least prevent wrong work level relationships
until we eventually come up with a better solution.

Rupert
Chris/chabreyflint

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110830/c1e9aafe/attachment-0001.htm

Philip Jägenstedt

2011-08-30 21:48:47 UTC

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick at gmail.com>

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Philip J?genstedt <philip at foolip.org>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 18:22, jesus2099

I would support an RFC to remove the arrangement AR for works, as it
seems very prone to incorrect use.

As said before the easiest solution would be to keep the Arrange Relation on
works (it is really needed for some classical arrangements like the above ?
and maybe for a few in other genres), but to allow it only when you can
prove that?the same specific arrangement?is used by at least two different
recordings?(by different performers). All other arrangements should be kept
at recoding level. And the orchestration links should probably be treated
the same way. This would at least prevent wrong work level relationships
until we eventually come up with a better solution.

Would changing the voting requirement to be similar to changing the
quality level (failing by default) be an acceptable compromise?

--
Philip J?genstedt

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

2011-08-30 21:51:28 UTC

Post by Philip JÃ¤genstedt

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick at gmail.com>

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Philip J?genstedt <philip at foolip.org>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 18:22, jesus2099

I would support an RFC to remove the arrangement AR for works, as it
seems very prone to incorrect use.

As said before the easiest solution would be to keep the Arrange Relation on
works (it is really needed for some classical arrangements like the above ?
and maybe for a few in other genres), but to allow it only when you can
prove that?the same specific arrangement?is used by at least two different
recordings?(by different performers). All other arrangements should be kept
at recoding level. And the orchestration links should probably be treated
the same way. This would at least prevent wrong work level relationships
until we eventually come up with a better solution.

Would changing the voting requirement to be similar to changing the
quality level (failing by default) be an acceptable compromise?

Only if there was a simple way of doing it (which might not be so
easy) and of searching for these specific edits (not possibly at the
moment, just for all "Add relationship").

Post by Philip JÃ¤genstedt
--
Philip J?genstedt
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--
Nicol?s Tamargo de Eguren

caller#6

2011-09-01 16:37:21 UTC

Post by SwissChris
As said before the easiest solution would be to keep the Arrange
Relation on works (it is really needed for some classical arrangements
like the above ? and maybe for a few in other genres), but to allow it
only when you can prove that the same specific arrangement is used by
at least two different recordings (by different performers). All other
arrangements should be kept at recoding level. And the orchestration
links should probably be treated the same way. This would at least
prevent wrong work level relationships until we eventually come up
with a better solution.
Chris/chabreyflint

Philip Jägenstedt

2011-08-30 21:33:11 UTC

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Philip J?genstedt <philip at foolip.org>

Post by Philip JÃ¤genstedt
I would support an RFC to remove the arrangement AR for works, as it
seems very prone to incorrect use.

I'd suggest handling it the same way as one would any pair of works
that have the same title, composer and lyricist but still are
distinctive enough to be separate works -- using disambiguation
comments and annotations.

--
Philip J?genstedt

Alex Mauer

2011-08-31 02:27:23 UTC

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Otherwise we have the ugly situation where a "work" like Bach's Air from
his suite in G (IIRC) is performed by everyone from Barenboim to Procol
Harum...

I don't really see that as an ugly situation, actually..

--Alex Mauer "hawke"

Rupert Swarbrick

2011-08-31 08:16:25 UTC

Post by Alex Mauer

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Otherwise we have the ugly situation where a "work" like Bach's Air from
his suite in G (IIRC) is performed by everyone from Barenboim to Procol
Harum...

I don't really see that as an ugly situation, actually..
--Alex Mauer "hawke"

Ok, well I guess we must disagree, but I balk at "A Whiter Shade of
Pale" being a sub-work of Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D
major. Eugh.

Rupert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110831/c9b89363/attachment.pgp

Alex Mauer

2011-08-31 14:38:08 UTC

Post by Rupert Swarbrick

Post by Alex Mauer

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Otherwise we have the ugly situation where a "work" like Bach's Air from
his suite in G (IIRC) is performed by everyone from Barenboim to Procol
Harum...

I don't really see that as an ugly situation, actually..
--Alex Mauer "hawke"

Ok, well I guess we must disagree, but I balk at "A Whiter Shade of
Pale" being a sub-work of Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D
major. Eugh.

Well, I'm not sure what exactly you meant by 'sub-work', but Wikipedia
has this to say on the topic:
'The Hammond organ line ... was inspired by Johann Sebastian Bach's
"Sleepers, Wake!" and "Air on the G String" but contrary to popular
belief, the song is not a direct copy or paraphrase of any music by
Bach, although it makes clear references to both pieces."

That's a different situation anyway though, because they wrote new
lyrics for it. So it *might* be a 'later version of' (if Wikipedia is
wrong there), but the recording wouldn't be a 'performance of'

--Alex Mauer "hawke"

caller#6

2011-08-31 15:14:12 UTC

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Ok, well I guess we must disagree, but I balk at "A Whiter Shade of
Pale" being a sub-work of Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D
major. Eugh.

I've been thinking about a new set of Relationships for work-work and
recording-work.

"A quotes B"
"A borrows [melody|lyrics] from B"

Would either of those make sense to you in this context?

Rupert Swarbrick

2011-08-31 18:52:21 UTC

caller#6
<meatbyproduct-musicbrainz at yahoo.com>

Post by caller#6

Post by Rupert Swarbrick
Ok, well I guess we must disagree, but I balk at "A Whiter Shade of
Pale" being a sub-work of Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D
major. Eugh.

I've been thinking about a new set of Relationships for work-work and
recording-work.
"A quotes B"
"A borrows [melody|lyrics] from B"
Would either of those make sense to you in this context?

I hadn't realised that the Procol Harum song wasn't a direct
rearrangement of Air on a G string, so my example wasn't great. Indeed,
it looks like this sort of relationship would be ideal!

Rupert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110831/bc3156c5/attachment.pgp

Ryan Torchia

2011-08-31 19:51:35 UTC