[mb-style] CSG compromise?

[Mike Morrison]

OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right? We'll
have work titles and track titles. The work title can be full CSG(S),
while the track title can be what's on the cover. So each track will have
these two titles associated with it.

For now, how about if we use the track title field for one of the two
titles, and annotations for the other? We need somewhere to store the
"other" title for now anyway, right? I don't care which title goes in
which spot. If the one I like better ends up in the annotations, I'll copy
and paste it into my local files if need be.

Then when NGS is implemented, we can migrate the information from the
annotations into the appropriate field.

Mike

[Aaron Cooper]

On 27-Feb-08, at 8:10 PM, Mike Morrison wrote:

>
> OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right?
> We'll have work titles and track titles. The work title can be full
> CSG(S), while the track title can be what's on the cover. So each
> track will have these two titles associated with it.
>
> For now, how about if we use the track title field for one of the
> two titles, and annotations for the other? We need somewhere to
> store the "other" title for now anyway, right? I don't care which
> title goes in which spot. If the one I like better ends up in the
> annotations, I'll copy and paste it into my local files if need be.
>
> Then when NGS is implemented, we can migrate the information from
> the annotations into the appropriate field.

I don't understand what we're discussing because classical works don't
have "tracks" or "track titles"?they have "work titles". A classical
recording has tracks, but what do you use as the track titles? As I
gather from your email (and those of some other similar-minded
editors) we want to put the "track title" in the "track title"
field... so we look to the track listing on the CD... and we find
"work titles" don't we? (serious question)

It's not like classical works have a work title (Symphony No. 5 in C
minor, Op. 125: I. Allegro con brio) and then also a track title
version. The way we refer to that piece is with the work title unless
we chop out the actual work name (Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 125)
and just write "I. Allegro con brio".

Are we debating whether we should copy from the CD "Symphony No. 5: I.
Allegro con brio" or whether to add missing information to write
"Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 125: I. Allegro con brio"?

-Aaron

[Mike Morrison]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Aaron Cooper wrote:

> On 27-Feb-08, at 8:10 PM, Mike Morrison wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right? We'll have
>> work titles and track titles. The work title can be full CSG(S), while the
>> track title can be what's on the cover. So each track will have these two
>> titles associated with it.
>>
>> For now, how about if we use the track title field for one of the two
>> titles, and annotations for the other? We need somewhere to store the
>> "other" title for now anyway, right? I don't care which title goes in which
>> spot. If the one I like better ends up in the annotations, I'll copy and
>> paste it into my local files if need be.
>>
>> Then when NGS is implemented, we can migrate the information from the
>> annotations into the appropriate field.
>
> I don't understand what we're discussing because classical works don't
> have "tracks" or "track titles"-they have "work titles.

I agree.

> A classical recording has tracks, but what do you use as the track
> titles?

Personally, I like to use full-length CSGS-style work titles on the
tracks. However, it appears that some editors want track titles which are
shorter, or which more closely match the physical release cover.

> As I gather from your email (and those of some other similar-minded
> editors) we want to put the "track title" in the "track title" field...
> so we look to the track listing on the CD... and we find "work titles"
> don't we? (serious question)

On most of the releases I own, yes. But maybe not on some releases with
less-complete cover information ("Mozart: Allegro")?

> It's not like classical works have a work title (Symphony No. 5 in C
> minor, Op. 125: I. Allegro con brio) and then also a track title
> version. The way we refer to that piece is with the work title unless
> we chop out the actual work name (Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 125)
> and just write "I. Allegro con brio".
>
> Are we debating whether we should copy from the CD "Symphony No. 5: I.
> Allegro con brio" or whether to add missing information to write
> "Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 125: I. Allegro con brio"?

Yes, I think that has been the thrust of the debate. I'd like to add the
additional information, but it appears that not everyone agrees. I don't
want to speak for those folks, but I think they do see the work title and
the track title as two different things.

Mike

[symphonick]

> >> OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right? We'll have
> >> work titles and track titles. The work title can be full CSG(S), while the
> >> track title can be what's on the cover. So each track will have these two
> >> titles associated with it.
[snip]
> > As I gather from your email (and those of some other similar-minded
> > editors) we want to put the "track title" in the "track title" field...
> > so we look to the track listing on the CD... and we find "work titles"
> > don't we? (serious question)

I have to check if I understand this NGS-stuff correctly:
Many (most) classical releases have "headings" in the tracklist, wich
gives the context for the following tracks. I randomly picked
http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-SACD-1618
I do agree that "I. Allegro" is a perfectly fine track name _in
context of the above heading_. Outside of that context, it's just any
first movement with the tempo marking "Allegro".

That tracklist would look like this with worktitles removed:
1. I. Allegro
2. II. Andante
3. III. Rondeau. Allegro
4. I. Allegro
5. II. Adagio
6. III. Rondeau. Tempo di Menuetto
7. I. Allegro
8. II. Andante
9. III. Rondeau. Allegro

& so would the webinterface & the directory on my media
player/computer. Now, am I correct in assuming that:
1) The webinterface will show the NGS-worktitle on every track - or
even better: once above a group of tracks with the same worktitle?
2) Picard will be able to attach the worktitle to title-tag & filename?

--
/symphonick

[Lukáš Lalinský]

On Pi, 2008-02-29 at 10:36 +0100, symphonick wrote:
> I have to check if I understand this NGS-stuff correctly:
> Many (most) classical releases have "headings" in the tracklist, wich
> gives the context for the following tracks. I randomly picked
> http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-SACD-1618
> I do agree that "I. Allegro" is a perfectly fine track name _in
> context of the above heading_. Outside of that context, it's just any
> first movement with the tempo marking "Allegro".
>
> That tracklist would look like this with worktitles removed:
> 1. I. Allegro
> 2. II. Andante
> 3. III. Rondeau. Allegro
> 4. I. Allegro
> 5. II. Adagio
> 6. III. Rondeau. Tempo di Menuetto
> 7. I. Allegro
> 8. II. Andante
> 9. III. Rondeau. Allegro
>
> & so would the webinterface & the directory on my media
> player/computer. Now, am I correct in assuming that:

> 1) The webinterface will show the NGS-worktitle on every track - or
> even better: once above a group of tracks with the same worktitle?

No. In the entire NGS thread by "work title" I meant full work title
including movement, etc. Something that represents a piece of music. On
the other hand when I say "track title" I mean title used for a specific
track on a specific release. This might map to one musical work,
multiple works or a just part of it. But there are no headings, no
groups, etc. All you have is a simple list of text fields. In this
specific example it would be:

1. Concerto in E-flat major for two pianos, KV365: I. Allegro
2. Concerto in E-flat major for two pianos, KV365: II. Andante
3. Concerto in E-flat major for two pianos, KV365: III. Rondeau. Allegro
...

This represents the actual recorded music, mastered and recorded on a CD
("what is says"). This probably won't change, because MB is and probably
will be used mainly as a database for tagging/CD lookups.

But then you have a database of musical works with structure like this:

* Concerto in E-flat major for two pianos (cat#: KV365, year: 1779)
* I. Allegro
* II. Andante
* III. Rondeau. Allegro

This represents music in abstract, but structured, way ("what it is").
You can add more levels to this structure if you want, so you can list
e.g. all concertos for piano by the composer. The point is that you can
link one track to one or more works. This way you can see all recorded
tracks of a particular musical work, and you can also see which works
are played on a particular track.

Somebody in this thread mentioned that classical music has no tracks,
which I guess is the main point of confusion here. Classical music
really has no tracks, but classical releases do have tracks and do have
track titles. But again, this is no different to non-classical music. It
has no tracks either, it has songs and releases of them again have
tracks and track titles.

> 2) Picard will be able to attach the worktitle to title-tag & filename?

Probably, maybe. :)

Lukas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?ISO-8859-1?Q?digit=E1lne?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podp=EDsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8Das=C5=A5?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_spr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080229/c713c76e/attachment.pgp

[Brian Schweitzer]

> Somebody in this thread mentioned that classical music has no tracks,
> which I guess is the main point of confusion here. Classical music
> really has no tracks, but classical releases do have tracks and do have

I was with you all the way up to here Luks. Classical release do
indeed have tracks. Classical releases, however, as Frederik, myself,
and Aaron have been pointing out, do not have track titles that are no
different from non-classical. This is why when the concept of "track
title" vs "work title" even comes up, I have to ask, what is this
official classical track title that we'd be preserving until and under
NGS?

> track titles. But again, this is no different to non-classical music. It
> has no tracks either, it has songs and releases of them again have
> tracks and track titles.

It's still not the same, even when you try to turn non-classical into
what we've been describing as true for classical. None of the same
qualifiers - non-translation as the norm, COD, artist-specified
titles, etc - holds true for the non-classical. The difference here
is, the "songs on tracks on releases" on a pop or jazz or rock CD each
have a *singular clear and official* title. The "classical works on
tracks on releases" do not have that type of title, it is most often a
title descriptive of the contents; where they do, we don't apply CSG -
hence Reich, Cage, etc are unaffected by CSG.

Brian

[Lukáš Lalinský]

On Pi, 2008-02-29 at 11:16 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > Somebody in this thread mentioned that classical music has no tracks,
> > which I guess is the main point of confusion here. Classical music
> > really has no tracks, but classical releases do have tracks and do have
>
> I was with you all the way up to here Luks. Classical release do
> indeed have tracks. Classical releases, however, as Frederik, myself,
> and Aaron have been pointing out, do not have track titles that are no
> different from non-classical.

What is "Concerto in E-flat major for two pianos, KV365: I. Allegro",
then, if not a track title? To me it looks like a title that represents
track #1 on release "Concertos for Two and Three
Pianos" (BIS-SACD-1618).

Lukas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?ISO-8859-1?Q?digit=E1lne?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podp=EDsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8Das=C5=A5?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_spr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080229/959d12bc/attachment.pgp

[Mike Morrison]

> I have to ask, what is this official classical track title that we'd be
> preserving until and under NGS?

One possible choice: Exactly what is printed on the cover; typos,
inconsistencies, incomplete information and all. We could do this for
non-classical music too if we want. Then those of us (including me) who
want consistent titles for different recordings of the same (classical or
non-classical) composition can tag our files from the work title. Those
who want discographic adherence to the exact text printed on the cover can
tag their files from the "track titles" (perhaps better called "track
cover text" since it is not necessarily a reflection of the official
"title" of the music, as you point out.)

Mike

[Leiv Hellebo]

Mike Morrison wrote:
>> I have to ask, what is this official classical track title that we'd be
>> preserving until and under NGS?
>
> One possible choice: Exactly what is printed on the cover; typos,
> inconsistencies, incomplete information and all.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for this position.

We could do this for
> non-classical music too if we want. Then those of us (including me) who
> want consistent titles for different recordings of the same (classical or
> non-classical) composition can tag our files from the work title.

If we go for as-close-to-ArtistIntent-as-possible - which spontaneously
sounds worth having - then I doubt people will want WorkNames in the
general case. 17. century English, German and French?

(A problem here turns up, as Mozart has more than one "Konzert in Es"
etc., so at least some cataloguing info is probably needed.)

As for consistency in titles: You cannot have it all over, because
1) different recordings split tracks differently
See first mvt. of Symphony No. 9 here:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/20b937ef-ea28-45c2-b9d1-754c2673c13f.html
http://musicbrainz.org/release/57318b49-090c-4c17-9144-6c5f384aa0ed.html

(And IMO you'd be almost nuts to want all that detail from the second
into the track title of the first, but again, YMMV.)

2) A rare case: Most recordings of Mahler's 6. symphony has
II. Scherzo, but most done the last years have the Andante as movement
number two.

We might standardise in other cases, but what is so important about
consistency that MB should impose this even where the recording industry
and concert halls - which have a lot more domain knowledge than we
collectively do - have not done it?

And why do you want to remove the optional stuff from the (unofficial)
OperaTrackStyle?



Leiv

[Leiv Hellebo]

Mike Morrison wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Aaron Cooper wrote:
>> On 27-Feb-08, at 8:10 PM, Mike Morrison wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right?
>>> We'll have work titles and track titles. The work title can be full
>>> CSG(S), while the track title can be what's on the cover. So each
>>> track will have these two titles associated with it.
>>>
>>> For now, how about if we use the track title field for one of the two
>>> titles, and annotations for the other? We need somewhere to store the
>>> "other" title for now anyway, right? I don't care which title goes in
>>> which spot. If the one I like better ends up in the annotations, I'll
>>> copy and paste it into my local files if need be.
>>>
>>> Then when NGS is implemented, we can migrate the information from the
>>> annotations into the appropriate field.
>>
>> I don't understand what we're discussing because classical works don't
>> have "tracks" or "track titles"-they have "work titles.
>
> I agree.
>
>> A classical recording has tracks, but what do you use as the track
>> titles?
>
> Personally, I like to use full-length CSGS-style work titles on the
> tracks. However, it appears that some editors want track titles which are
> shorter, or which more closely match the physical release cover.

Hi Mike, I think this might be a good place for me to explain my
position a little better:

The last month my focus has not been on fixing the CSG, but rather to
say that I do not want us to standardise on one way of formatting one
piece of classical (movement, lied etc.) in the CSGS pages and make this
mandatory for how we should deal with that piece.

I don't think anyone here actually disagree much on how this or that
symphony from the core classical period should be formatted. It is well
entrenched already, and it works fine:

Symphony No. 39 in E-flat major, KV 543: II. Andante con moto

(OK: Brian has standardised on "K.", where we used "KV" throughout
earlier at MB, and he also includes that it is a symphony for orchestra,
thereby getting "Symphony No. 39 for Orchestra in E-flat major, K. 543:
II. Andante con moto", but these are details so insignificant that it
feels almost pointless to discuss them.)

Further, the vaast majority of classical CDs I've encountered do include
all these details. So since I dislike the idea that we should keep our
own standards here at MB, I've been pushing the idea that the track
listing from the liners is a better common ground for solving edit wars
than the CSGS pages. (And it nicely fits in with MB practices from

(My reasons for not wanting the CSGS pages I first tried to lay out in
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Clean-up-CSG--Capitalization-%28and-placement%29-of-types-and-tempos-p15259763s2885.html

I am sorry for the length of it, it's a byproduct of how my brain works.
But there are points in there which still are unanswered: How do we
resolve disagreements on what to put in the CSGS pages? A
ClassicalTrackTitleStyle is not enough, because you probably will need
to answer "how different does works have to be in order to be regarded
as separate works?" (there might be small changes in the scoring), and
you will maybe need a notion on utterly boring questions such as "How
common does a common name have to be to be included", "when do we
translate them?")

>
>> As I gather from your email (and those of some other similar-minded
>> editors) we want to put the "track title" in the "track title" field...
>> so we look to the track listing on the CD... and we find "work titles"
>> don't we? (serious question)
>
> On most of the releases I own, yes. But maybe not on some releases with
> less-complete cover information ("Mozart: Allegro")?

There's been some claims that quite a few CDs are lacking details.
Further, some say labels produce "wacky" listings, others that
rereleases very often have differing track lists. None of these claims
have been substantiated AFAICS, nor has anyone tried to fill in the
details on the significance of these differences.

Now for all I know, you may on a "Classical Chillout" release find
"Bach: Sarabande", "Bach: Sarabande from Partita", "Bach: Sarabande from
Partita No. 1", "Bach: Sarabande from Partita, BWV 1002" or something else.

The three first does lack information necessary to determine which piece
of music is included. You and I might prefer to have this information
included, thereby finding the BWV 1002 quite important, but this does
not mean that the person buying this release finds it at all helpful.
MusicBrainz is not a pedagogical site, and the track listings are not
places where MB should educate the masses.

What should we standardise on then? "Partita for Solo Violin, BWV 1002:
Sarabande", perhaps.

No movement numbers? Bach didn't number them, and because different
recordings often include the "Double" following the "Sarabande", so you
also get

"...BWV 1002: Sarabande - Double"

Further, some of Bach's music seem nearly infinitely malleable, and has
been transcribed for many different instruments (the Goldberg variations
have been recorded for the accordion, and this was a good recording of
it AFAIK).

I best shut up before people stop reading, so let me sum up by saying:
If I buy "Classical Chillout", I don't want one track title to read

"Partita for Solo Violin in B minor, BWV 1002, Transposed to A minor for
Lute: Sarabande"

(But of course, YMMV, and that's why I think the liner notes should be
the ground for settling disputes on this.)

Regards,

Leiv

[Mike Morrison]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
> The last month my focus has not been on fixing the CSG, but rather to
> say that