Discussion:
[mb-style] The CSGS whirlwind
(too old to reply)
Andrew Conkling
2008-02-21 09:35:07 UTC
Permalink
So I started poking around to see how all these CSGS edits would impact my
collection and found a lot that seem to be worse than they were before.

Some examples (limited to Mozart's ?uvre):
http://musicbrainz.org/album/e4bf2166-b9f2-48ce-8850-c574ca44aa00.html
Did track 4 just get forgotten?

http://musicbrainz.org/album/a3523d3e-b172-4164-8406-5dda5eea7a28.html(tracks
5-8)
Is this really a track-level detail? I know there are (more or less) two
camps on this, but even for those who want all details in track names...
really? (Also, how would you be able to tell? I wouldn't expect anyone to be
able to tell whether there are clarinets or not.)

http://musicbrainz.org/album/3883f2fd-44b1-4174-82a0-c1fb8dc1c8db.html(tracks
1-2)
Tracks 1 and 2 are performed "together", but the track list doesn't show
that. Does it turn out that they're from different works of Mozart's? How
are we supposed to know that? And why three different ways to list a horn
concerto?

I realize I'm kinda jumping into the middle of a whirlwind of discussion, so
please help guide me and don't let me rehash old discussions. ^_^

Cheers,
Andrew

PS: Everyone who can out seeing the eclipse tonight? Wahoo!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080220/d103af32/attachment.htm
Aaron Cooper
2008-02-21 11:04:51 UTC
Permalink
On 20-Feb-08, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:

> So I started poking around to see how all these CSGS edits would
> impact my collection and found a lot that seem to be worse than they
> were before.
>
> Some examples (limited to Mozart's ?uvre):
> http://musicbrainz.org/album/e4bf2166-b9f2-48ce-8850-c574ca44aa00.html
> Did track 4 just get forgotten?

Looks like it was forgotten. It should look like the rest.

> http://musicbrainz.org/album/a3523d3e-
> b172-4164-8406-5dda5eea7a28.html (tracks 5-8)
> Is this really a track-level detail? I know there are (more or less)
> two camps on this, but even for those who want all details in track
> names... really? (Also, how would you be able to tell? I wouldn't
> expect anyone to be able to tell whether there are clarinets or not.)

There was a *huge* discussion about this piece in particular. It is
considered by some to be integral "version info", if you will, because
there are two versions (with and without clarinets) that have the same
catalog number.

> http://musicbrainz.org/album/3883f2fd-44b1-4174-82a0-
> c1fb8dc1c8db.html (tracks 1-2)
> Tracks 1 and 2 are performed "together", but the track list doesn't
> show that. Does it turn out that they're from different works of
> Mozart's? How are we supposed to know that? And why three different
> ways to list a horn concerto?

This is probably a sign that the CSGStandard page needs some checks
for consistency.

> I realize I'm kinda jumping into the middle of a whirlwind of
> discussion, so please help guide me and don't let me rehash old
> discussions. ^_^
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew

-Aaron
symphonick
2008-02-21 19:23:46 UTC
Permalink
2008/2/21, Aaron Cooper <***@gmail.com>:
>
> On 20-Feb-08, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
>
> > Some examples (limited to Mozart's ?uvre):
> > http://musicbrainz.org/album/e4bf2166-b9f2-48ce-8850-c574ca44aa00.html
> > Did track 4 just get forgotten?
>
> Looks like it was forgotten. It should look like the rest.
>

Perhaps OT, but when looking at this, I realized that to me "Concerto
for piano" implies a concerto for piano solo. But I always interpret
"Piano Concerto" as a concerto for piano & orchestra. Maybe it's just
me?
I think I'd like to see the complete instrumentation ("Concerto for
piano and orchestra) if that (IMO) more formal expression is used.
--
/symphonick
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-21 19:41:49 UTC
Permalink
symphonick wrote:
> Perhaps OT, but when looking at this, I realized that to me "Concerto
> for piano" implies a concerto for piano solo. But I always interpret
> "Piano Concerto" as a concerto for piano & orchestra. Maybe it's just
> me?

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any concertos for
only-one-single-instrument-without-orchestral-accompaniment, so I don't
understand "Concerto for Piano" as you do. (Ignorance is bliss ;)

> I think I'd like to see the complete instrumentation ("Concerto for
> piano and orchestra) if that (IMO) more formal expression is used.

I prefer the more concise formulation. Many work titles, I believe, do
have "Concerto for X and Orchestra", but I prefer to avoid that for
track titles.

(Here's an example where a label is using the short formulation for the
ReleaseTitle, and long titles elsewhere:
http://bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-CD-1574 )


leivhe
Aaron Cooper
2008-02-23 01:54:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:23 AM, symphonick <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/2/21, Aaron Cooper <***@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > On 20-Feb-08, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> >
>
> > > Some examples (limited to Mozart's ?uvre):
> > > http://musicbrainz.org/album/e4bf2166-b9f2-48ce-8850-c574ca44aa00.html
> > > Did track 4 just get forgotten?
> >
> > Looks like it was forgotten. It should look like the rest.
> >
>
> Perhaps OT, but when looking at this, I realized that to me "Concerto
> for piano" implies a concerto for piano solo. But I always interpret
> "Piano Concerto" as a concerto for piano & orchestra. Maybe it's just
> me?
> I think I'd like to see the complete instrumentation ("Concerto for
> piano and orchestra) if that (IMO) more formal expression is used.

Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
Piano and Orchestra".

-Aaron
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 02:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Aaron Cooper wrote:
> Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
> feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
> Piano and Orchestra".
>
http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html
Andrew Conkling
2008-02-23 02:43:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
> > feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
> > Piano and Orchestra".
> >
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html
>

Aaron's statement still seems fine. Maybe we could refine it a bit: "By *
implication*, concertos feature an orchestra, unless otherwise stated."

In other words, I don't think we need any kind of
ClassicalConcertoTitleTrackNamingConventionStyle here. ;) (OK, it's
definitely Friday. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080222/ac20e273/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 03:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Andrew Conkling wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
> > feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
> > Piano and Orchestra".
> >
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html
>
> Aaron's statement still seems fine. Maybe we could refine it a bit: "By
> /implication/, concertos feature an orchestra, unless otherwise stated."

We don't need an MB-glossary for classical music terms, I think. Let's
leave that to others. (For one, we're music enthusiasts, not musicologists.)

It should be of interest that neither Wikipedia [1], nor Grove [2],
_defines_ the word "concerto" (and who can?). In fact they carefully
avoid that.

In stead they note that it historically has been used for different
kinds of things. This way, they probably will have less problems in
tackling enfant terribles and iconoclasts who refuse to follow the
common norm. In other words: They're less likely to sweep the difficult
bits under a one-sentence-rug.

> In other words, I don't think we need any kind of
> ClassicalConcertoTitleTrackNamingConventionStyle here. ;) (OK, it's
> definitely Friday. :)

Not certain how that hangs together with your first sentence, but it
should be obvious from what I've said that I agree.

Have a good evening, I'm off :)


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto
[2] http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/g_concerto.html
Aaron Cooper
2008-02-23 03:59:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
> > feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
> > Piano and Orchestra".
> >
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html

Are you sure that example is actually *just* piano and no orchestra?
To me that title is ambiguous... could mean just piano or could mean
just piano as in not a double piano concerto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto says "The term Concerto (plural
concertos or concerti) usually refers to a musical work in which one
solo instrument is accompanied by an orchestra." Anyways, don't want
to argue about the definition of a concerto. :)

-Aaron
symphonick
2008-02-23 05:07:04 UTC
Permalink
2008/2/22, Aaron Cooper <***@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > > Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
> > > feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
> > > Piano and Orchestra".
> > >
> > http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html
>
> Are you sure that example is actually *just* piano and no orchestra?
> To me that title is ambiguous... could mean just piano or could mean
> just piano as in not a double piano concerto.
>
Yes, (I'm sure he's) pretty sure ;-) . I was going to mention Alkan's
stuff too (he wrote symphonie(s?) for solo piano also.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto says "The term Concerto (plural
> concertos or concerti) usually refers to a musical work in which one
> solo instrument is accompanied by an orchestra." Anyways, don't want
> to argue about the definition of a concerto. :)
>
I ran into a concerto for 4 guitars (no orchestra) by Telemann while
googling, and a more contemporary concerto for 3 trumpets & I guess
there's more. I don't want to argue about the defenition either (that
wp quote sounds good to me), but I like to see "Concerto for piano and
orchestra" if that formatting is being used.

While we're on the subject, what do you prefer if the instrumentation
has been changed from the original? Say it's a recording of a recital
vl + pi & they're playing a mvt from a violin concerto (=vl +
orchestra):

1) "Violin Concerto in D major, Op. 61: I. Allegro ma non troppo" (+ piano AR)
2) "Concerto for violin & orchestra in D major, Op. 61: I. Allegro ma
non troppo" (+ piano AR)
3) "Concerto for violin & piano in D major, Op. 61: I. Allegro ma non troppo"
4) "Concerto for violin & piano (originally orchestra) in D major, Op.
61: I. Allegro ma non troppo"
5) "Concerto for violin in D major, Op. 61: I. Allegro ma non troppo"
(+ piano AR)
6) Something Else?

I personally like #1, feels more flexible. Comments?

I have the same question about keys, what to do if this is transposed
to Eb major and performed on the trombone? (& you can't answer "run
away" ;-)

--
/symphonick
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 14:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Aaron Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aaron Cooper wrote:
>> > Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
>> > feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
>> > Piano and Orchestra".
>> >
>> http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html
>
> Are you sure that example is actually *just* piano and no orchestra?

I added that release, DiscId and all, and I can assure you there are no
orchestras in there.

In an age without cars, lp-players and symphony orchestras in every
town, many got to hear symphonies and concertos in their orchestrations
for one (or more) pianos.

It's not that big a stretch to extend this to bypass the orchestra
altogether and write something concerto-like in structure for a single
instrument such as the piano. (But I'm out of my wits here as to why the
label "sonata" wasn't used in stead.)
Lauri Watts
2008-02-23 15:56:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not that big a stretch to extend this to bypass the orchestra
> altogether and write something concerto-like in structure for a single
> instrument such as the piano. (But I'm out of my wits here as to why the
> label "sonata" wasn't used in stead.)

Artist Intent maybe :)

--
Lauri Watts
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 17:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Lauri Watts wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not that big a stretch to extend this to bypass the orchestra
>> altogether and write something concerto-like in structure for a single
>> instrument such as the piano. (But I'm out of my wits here as to why the
>> label "sonata" wasn't used in stead.)
>
> Artist Intent maybe :)
>

Certainly that, yes :)

But I think someone who can explain concerto-structure versus
sonata-structure better than I can, could give good reasons for his
ArtistIntent :)
symphonick
2008-02-23 18:12:31 UTC
Permalink
2008/2/23, Lauri Watts <***@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It's not that big a stretch to extend this to bypass the orchestra
> > altogether and write something concerto-like in structure for a single
> > instrument such as the piano. (But I'm out of my wits here as to why the
> > label "sonata" wasn't used in stead.)
>
> Artist Intent maybe :)
>
Exaxtly. & Sonata != Concerto

I still think there's something missing in "Concerto for violin" if
we're describing a concerto for violin & orchestra. I do agree that
concertos most of the time are written for a solo instrument +
orchestra, it's more that this formal way of writing titles somehow
suggest exactness to me:
"Quartet for 2 violins, viola and cello"
"Sonata for piano"
"Concerto for violin in D major" <--this means "for violin & orchestra"?

As always, YMMV.

/symphonick
David K. Gasaway
2008-02-25 07:49:31 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Feb 2008 at 13:12, symphonick wrote:

> I still think there's something missing in "Concerto for violin" if
> we're describing a concerto for violin & orchestra. I do agree that
> concertos most of the time are written for a solo instrument +
> orchestra, it's more that this formal way of writing titles somehow
> suggest exactness to me: "Quartet for 2 violins, viola and cello"
> "Sonata for piano" "Concerto for violin in D major" <--this means "for
> violin & orchestra"?

I'm inclined to say, "Document the exceptions, rather than the rule."
That said, I don't have any particularly strong preference for "the
rule". I only recommend that the rule not be guided by the exceptions.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: ***@gasaway.org
-:-:- Web: dave.gasaway.org
-:-:- MusicBrainz: dkg
Aaron Cooper
2008-02-23 19:40:33 UTC
Permalink
On 23-Feb-08, at 3:50 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:

> Aaron Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Aaron Cooper wrote:
>>> > Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition
>>> concertos
>>> > feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing "Concerto for
>>> > Piano and Orchestra".
>>> >
>>> http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2975862-5d4c-4e81-ba0e-ecad588423b7.html
>> Are you sure that example is actually *just* piano and no orchestra?
>
> I added that release, DiscId and all, and I can assure you there are
> no orchestras in there.
>
> In an age without cars, lp-players and symphony orchestras in every
> town, many got to hear symphonies and concertos in their
> orchestrations for one (or more) pianos.
>
> It's not that big a stretch to extend this to bypass the orchestra
> altogether and write something concerto-like in structure for a
> single instrument such as the piano. (But I'm out of my wits here as
> to why the label "sonata" wasn't used in stead.)

Well that's why I was double checking... I couldn't figure out why the
composer wouldn't call it a Sonata! :)

-Aaron
Andrew Conkling
2008-02-23 00:05:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Aaron Cooper <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20-Feb-08, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> > http://musicbrainz.org/album/a3523d3e-
> > b172-4164-8406-5dda5eea7a28.html (tracks 5-8)
> > Is this really a track-level detail? I know there are (more or less)
> > two camps on this, but even for those who want all details in track
> > names... really? (Also, how would you be able to tell? I wouldn't
> > expect anyone to be able to tell whether there are clarinets or not.)
>
> There was a *huge* discussion about this piece in particular. It is
> considered by some to be integral "version info", if you will, because
> there are two versions (with and without clarinets) that have the same
> catalog number.


So I see:
http://www.nabble.com/-Clean-up-CSG--Capitalization-(and-placement)-of-types-and-tempos-td15083823s2885.html

Gosh, that seems waaay too under-discussed to start throwing it in edits,
IMO. But that's a topic for another time....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080222/07b98f42/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-21 13:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Andrew Conkling wrote:
> So I started poking around to see how all these CSGS edits would impact
> my collection and found a lot that seem to be worse than they were before.
>

Personally, I've done just a few changes, and so far only on "my stuff",
to return things back to how they were (or something in between). I will
do more as I come across them.

It's difficult, because ideally you should provide feedback for
CSGS/Mozart so that it can be improved. That makes it easy to end up
wanting to discuss formatting of horn concertos or the best way to
format concertos in general. So what you need is a strict
ClassicalTrackTitleStyle, but we haven't got one...

(For the "Work"-view of the CSGS pages, Lauri has a very good point in
that we should look to what the composer wanted himself. For KV 447, I
guess this is simply "Konzert in Es" . See
http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/scan.php?vsep=141&l=2&p1=29#29)


[snip]

> I realize I'm kinda jumping into the middle of a whirlwind of
> discussion, so please help guide me and don't let me rehash old
> discussions. ^_^
>

The changes in track titles you point out have not been discussed on
mb-users or here at mb-style. They were simply done, and with no
warnings up front.


leivhe
Andrew Conkling
2008-02-23 00:25:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/3883f2fd-44b1-4174-82a0-c1fb8dc1c8db.html(tracks
1-2)
Tracks 1 and 2 are performed "together", but the track list doesn't show
that. Does it turn out that they're from different works of Mozart's? How
are we supposed to know that? And why three different ways to list a horn
concerto?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Leiv Hellebo <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's difficult, because ideally you should provide feedback for
> CSGS/Mozart so that it can be improved. That makes it easy to end up
> wanting to discuss formatting of horn concertos or the best way to
> format concertos in general. So what you need is a strict
> ClassicalTrackTitleStyle, but we haven't got one...


At this point, I don't even care about any sort of CTTS; I'd really just
like to see some consistency (at least across a release!). I get that
copying track titles from CSGS would mean that the track titles may not be
consistent, but if that's the case, then I'd argue that CSGS isn't ready.

(For the "Work"-view of the CSGS pages, Lauri has a very good point in
> that we should look to what the composer wanted himself. For KV 447, I
> guess this is simply "Konzert in Es" . See
> http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/scan.php?vsep=141&l=2&p1=29#29)


Well, KV 447 is fine as-is IMO, I'm more curious (in this case) about KV
412.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080222/e4706fb4/attachment.htm
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 00:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Andrew Conkling wrote:
> At this point, I don't even care about any sort of CTTS; I'd really just
> like to see some consistency (at least across a release!).

I understand that, and I don't think it's too much to ask :)

But the EditNotes for these changes say they were done as batch edits,
so I have assumed they were scripted somehow, not done manually. That
would explain the Release-internal inconsistency you've pointed out.
(I've come across another as well, where it could seem like a track was
not recognised well enough to be mapped into what CSGS/M has)

(These are my speculations. brianfreud can tell us the whole story if he
wants. And it's worth noting that these batch edits were limited to
Mozart. He's also the one to ask about KV 412 (the first Horn Concerto)
as from all the stuff in CSGS/M about it, it seems quite complex.)

I get that
> copying track titles from CSGS would mean that the track titles may not
> be consistent, but if that's the case, then I'd argue that CSGS isn't ready.

Well, a couple of other side effects of CSGS has been brought to the
attention already: Inadvertent translating of Mozart track lists from
French to English (and leaving the RelLang attribute still at French),
and more than one editor has been picking up non-CSG stuff from CSGS/Bach...

Another Mozart AddRelease edit a week ago or so by a brand new editor
had the comment

"Track names from CSGStandards. Tracks length from IClassis. Doubts
about naming track 24"

Track 24 had:

Minuet for Keyboard in G major, K. 1e / 1 (Minuet) "Notenbuch f?r
Nannerl Mozart" No. 62: Minuet - Minuet for Keyboard in C major, K. 1f /
1 (Trio) "Notenbuch f?r Nannerl Mozart" No. 63: Minuet

(See http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8351638
please go over there to give the editor some more support)

So I agree with you: CSGS is *not* ready for prime-time. (I've argued
other places that it should be kept as a reference, not as mandatory stuff.)



leivhe
Brian Schweitzer
2008-02-23 11:55:37 UTC
Permalink
> > Perhaps OT, but when looking at this, I realized that to me "Concerto
> > for piano" implies a concerto for piano solo. But I always interpret
> > "Piano Concerto" as a concerto for piano & orchestra. Maybe it's just
> > me?
>
> Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any concertos for
> only-one-single-instrument-without-orchestral-accompaniment, so I don't
> understand "Concerto for Piano" as you do. (Ignorance is bliss ;)
>
> > I think I'd like to see the complete instrumentation ("Concerto for
> > piano and orchestra) if that (IMO) more formal expression is used.
>
> I prefer the more concise formulation. Many work titles, I believe, do
> have "Concerto for X and Orchestra", but I prefer to avoid that for
> track titles.
>
> (Here's an example where a label is using the short formulation for the
> ReleaseTitle, and long titles elsewhere:
> http://bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-CD-1574 )

I'll have to catch up on a few days of list discussions, but this one
caught my eye. I would say, in the case of at least concertos, the
"and orchestra" is by definition redundant - a concerto is, by
definition, a work for "solo instrument with orchestra accompaniment"
- thus "Concerto for piano" already means it without saying it.

Brian
symphonick
2008-02-24 19:58:50 UTC
Permalink
> > > I think I'd like to see the complete instrumentation ("Concerto for
> > > piano and orchestra) if that (IMO) more formal expression is used.
> >
> > I prefer the more concise formulation. Many work titles, I believe, do
> > have "Concerto for X and Orchestra", but I prefer to avoid that for
> > track titles.
> >
> > (Here's an example where a label is using the short formulation for the
> > ReleaseTitle, and long titles elsewhere:
> > http://bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-CD-1574 )
>
> I'll have to catch up on a few days of list discussions, but this one
> caught my eye. I would say, in the case of at least concertos, the
> "and orchestra" is by definition redundant - a concerto is, by
> definition, a work for "solo instrument with orchestra accompaniment"
> - thus "Concerto for piano" already means it without saying it.
>

I'll have one last try on this subject (but I won't promise anything ;-)
I did some vinyl housekeeping & checked what's actually used in
tracktitles (on the backside of the cover). I found 40 releases with
concerts for instrument & orchestra:
14 "X concerto"
21 "Concerto for X and orchestra"
3* "Concerto for X"
2 "Concerto"

* One release had 2 different formats: 1 "Vivaldi: Concerto fur 2
Violinen a-moll op. 3 Nr. 8 (PV 2)" & 3 concertos formatted "Bach:
Konzert fur 2 Violinen und Streichorchester d-moll BWV 1043"
So based only on my collection, I'd suggest sticking with the 2 most
common formats if we want to standardize titles: "Piano Concert" or
"Concert for piano and orchestra"

--
/symphonick
Aaron Cooper
2008-02-24 21:52:04 UTC
Permalink
On 24-Feb-08, at 8:58 AM, symphonick wrote:
> I'll have one last try on this subject (but I won't promise
> anything ;-)
> I did some vinyl housekeeping & checked what's actually used in
> tracktitles (on the backside of the cover). I found 40 releases with
> concerts for instrument & orchestra:
> 14 "X concerto"
> 21 "Concerto for X and orchestra"
> 3* "Concerto for X"
> 2 "Concerto"
>
> * One release had 2 different formats: 1 "Vivaldi: Concerto fur 2
> Violinen a-moll op. 3 Nr. 8 (PV 2)" & 3 concertos formatted "Bach:
> Konzert fur 2 Violinen und Streichorchester d-moll BWV 1043"
> So based only on my collection, I'd suggest sticking with the 2 most
> common formats if we want to standardize titles: "Piano Concert" or
> "Concert for piano and orchestra"

"Concerto for X and Orchestra" allows us to have consistent titles,
too. We won't have to flip the order of "instrument" and "concerto"
from the single instrument example "PIano Concerto" to the multiple
instrument example "Concerto for Violin, Piano, and Orchestra".

My vote is for "Concerto for X and Orchestra".

-Aaron (cooperaa)
Brian Schweitzer
2008-02-23 12:17:09 UTC
Permalink
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> http://musicbrainz.org/album/3883f2fd-44b1-4174-82a0-c1fb8dc1c8db.html(tracks
> 1-2)
> Tracks 1 and 2 are performed "together", but the track list doesn't show
> that. Does it turn out that they're from different works of Mozart's? How
> are we supposed to know that? And why three different ways to list a horn
> concerto?

Track 2 is properly:

Concerto for Horn No. 1 in D major, K. 386b/412 ([some]
reconstruction): II. Rondo. Allegro

In K6 it is linked with the work ID'd in track 1. It's on my lengthy
list of releases to research to try and ID which reconstruction it
might be. However, until we have some new official CSG, I put that
entire effort on hold - there's simply far too much work to do it
*twice*.

> > It's difficult, because ideally you should provide feedback for
> > CSGS/Mozart so that it can be improved. That makes it easy to end up
> > wanting to discuss formatting of horn concertos or the best way to
> > format concertos in general. So what you need is a strict
> > ClassicalTrackTitleStyle, but we haven't got one...
>
>
> At this point, I don't even care about any sort of CTTS; I'd really just
> like to see some consistency (at least across a release!). I get that
> copying track titles from CSGS would mean that the track titles may not be
> consistent, but if that's the case, then I'd argue that CSGS isn't ready.
>
> (For the "Work"-view of the CSGS pages, Lauri has a very good point in
> > that we should look to what the composer wanted himself. For KV 447, I
> > guess this is simply "Konzert in Es" . See
> > http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/scan.php?vsep=141&l=2&p1=29#29)

I would suggest that the NMA (and other such resources) be taken as it
is, rather than what some might want it to be. It is a urText, but
the titles are not. The titles, if you actually look at pictures of
the original scores themselves, indicate that, when there even are
titles, the titles are "Konzert", "Symphonie", etc. As I've suggested
elsewhere, these are quite obviously generic indications of work type,
not titles. Might I remind that "Jupiter", "Paris", "Haffner", etc,
are also simply common nicknames, not official titles from the
composer? At the time of the Bachs, Beethoven, Mozarts, etc, they
didn't tend to give works titles. Let's not try to title 18th century
works based on 20th century titling practices, by making the
assumption that the composers always titled their works 200-300 years
ago.

> Well, KV 447 is fine as-is IMO, I'm more curious (in this case) about KV
> 412.

If you look at the work as K. 386b, rather than KV 412, it's a bit clearer. :)

Brian
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 17:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>> (For the "Work"-view of the CSGS pages, Lauri has a very good point in
>> > that we should look to what the composer wanted himself. For KV 447, I
>> > guess this is simply "Konzert in Es" . See
>> > http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/scan.php?vsep=141&l=2&p1=29#29)
>
> I would suggest that the NMA (and other such resources) be taken as it
> is, rather than what some might want it to be.

I used the words "I guess" in there, nowhere have I said the NMA
provides direct insight into Mozart's intentions wrt. names. IIRC noone
else has claimed to know all about this either. I suggest you drop these
loose accusations.

It is a urText, but
> the titles are not. The titles, if you actually look at pictures of
> the original scores themselves, indicate that, when there even are
> titles, the titles are "Konzert", "Symphonie", etc. As I've suggested
> elsewhere, these are quite obviously generic indications of work type,
> not titles.

That may be the case, more or less often. But: It is *highly
implausible* that Mozart went to the pub after a long day of work
without being able to refer to his new creations in some way or another.
His letters are published, and there are Mozart autographs around. Are
you saying that we learn nothing of the composer's intentions wrt.
labeling by looking at these?

For "Konzert in Es", my guess would be that that is a good title: By
leaving out the name of a solo instrument, he was not restricting it to
one in particular, but rather saying: It can be played by any instrument
that can do the Es-scale. (Or something like that, I know too little
about instruments and this work in particular to fully make the argument.)

Might I remind that "Jupiter", "Paris", "Haffner", etc,
> are also simply common nicknames, not official titles from the
> composer?

No, you don't have to.

At the time of the Bachs, Beethoven, Mozarts, etc, they
> didn't tend to give works titles. Let's not try to title 18th century
> works based on 20th century titling practices, by making the
> assumption that the composers always titled their works 200-300 years
> ago.
>

Noone did, AFAICS.
Chris B
2008-02-23 18:59:13 UTC
Permalink
On 23/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would suggest that the NMA (and other such resources) be taken as it
> is, rather than what some might want it to be. It is a urText, but
> the titles are not. The titles, if you actually look at pictures of
> the original scores themselves, indicate that, when there even are
> titles, the titles are "Konzert", "Symphonie", etc. As I've suggested
> elsewhere, these are quite obviously generic indications of work type,
> not titles. Might I remind that "Jupiter", "Paris", "Haffner", etc,
> are also simply common nicknames, not official titles from the
> composer? At the time of the Bachs, Beethoven, Mozarts, etc, they
> didn't tend to give works titles. Let's not try to title 18th century
> works based on 20th century titling practices, by making the
> assumption that the composers always titled their works 200-300 years
> ago.

now THIS is the exact situation ConsistantOriginalData covers :) if
something is presented in a certain way the vast majority of times it
is pressed, then that *usually* 'becomes' the title we should use.

i think the 'original' in ConsistantOriginalData is a bit of a red
herring in situations like this. most classical (our definition)
artists didn't write these titles in the knowledge that it would be
recorded and sold, so their titling of things, however consistent,
isn't always relevant.
Brian Schweitzer
2008-02-23 12:28:34 UTC
Permalink
> Andrew Conkling wrote:
> > At this point, I don't even care about any sort of CTTS; I'd really just
> > like to see some consistency (at least across a release!).
>
> I understand that, and I don't think it's too much to ask :)
>
> But the EditNotes for these changes say they were done as batch edits,
> so I have assumed they were scripted somehow, not done manually. That
> would explain the Release-internal inconsistency you've pointed out.
> (I've come across another as well, where it could seem like a track was
> not recognised well enough to be mapped into what CSGS/M has)
>
> (These are my speculations. brianfreud can tell us the whole story if he
> wants. And it's worth noting that these batch edits were limited to
> Mozart. He's also the one to ask about KV 412 (the first Horn Concerto)
> as from all the stuff in CSGS/M about it, it seems quite complex.)

Yes, I would agree internal consistency is a good thing. However, as
I've mentioned often, there were some tracks which didn't have
sufficient enough information extant for me to identify which they
actually were. I put these aside until I could have time to properly
identify which title was correct. (For the record, at the time, it
was 1,596 out of just under 20,000). I did them all by hand however,
not via bot - the "batch" indication in the notes was simply an
indication of the edit processing batch, using the tool I wrote a long
time back for batch edit submissions. The edits themselves, however,
were all manually identified.

> I get that
> > copying track titles from CSGS would mean that the track titles may not
> > be consistent, but if that's the case, then I'd argue that CSGS isn't ready.

How is a lack of internal consistency for a release an argument
against CSGS in general? Wouldn't it rather point to those tracks
which, from the start, were insufficiently identified?

> Well, a couple of other side effects of CSGS has been brought to the
> attention already: Inadvertent translating of Mozart track lists from
> French to English (and leaving the RelLang attribute still at French),
> and more than one editor has been picking up non-CSG stuff from CSGS/Bach...
>
> Another Mozart AddRelease edit a week ago or so by a brand new editor
> had the comment
>
> "Track names from CSGStandards. Tracks length from IClassis. Doubts
> about naming track 24"
>
> Track 24 had:
>
> Minuet for Keyboard in G major, K. 1e / 1 (Minuet) "Notenbuch f??r
> Nannerl Mozart" No. 62: Minuet - Minuet for Keyboard in C major, K. 1f /
> 1 (Trio) "Notenbuch f??r Nannerl Mozart" No. 63: Minuet
>
> (See http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8351638
> please go over there to give the editor some more support)

Actually owning the release that editor is adding, I would suggest he
properly identified the track. My concerns there were utterly
unrelated to CSG or CSGS, in that he used a hyphen, not the proper
slash, to separate 2 works, as well as titling the release with a
missing space and a misspelled "dis" for "disc". I would have to
wonder, were there not a CSGS list for him/her to have used, how much
worse might the release have possibly been titled, and how much
additional time might the classical editors have spent cleaning up the
release?

> So I agree with you: CSGS is *not* ready for prime-time. (I've argued
> other places that it should be kept as a reference, not as mandatory stuff.)

I fail to agree. While CSGS does need an actual official CSG - which
is why I put my Mozart efforts on hold - I think, on the whole, it's
already presenting much better results than a "here's a 2-year-old
concept of CSG, it's not up to date, but try your best to reinvent the
track titles, and please don't get annoyed when the classical editors
pester you to fix various things that weren't even written in that
version of CSG...". At least on the Mozart front, I know of several
otherwise new editors who have been spending a decent amount of time
doing ARs, as they were able to add 10-40 CD box sets rather quickly,
spending their time then on the ARs, and not on re-creating all the
CSG-ized track titles.

Brian
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 14:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I did them all by hand however,
> not via bot - the "batch" indication in the notes was simply an
> indication of the edit processing batch, using the tool I wrote a long
> time back for batch edit submissions. The edits themselves, however,
> were all manually identified.

So you knowingly translated my French Mozart stuff to English!

"vandalism", is the proper word, I think.

>> Another Mozart AddRelease edit a week ago or so by a brand new editor
>> had the comment
>>
>> "Track names from CSGStandards. Tracks length from IClassis. Doubts
>> about naming track 24"
>>
>> Track 24 had:
>>
>> Minuet for Keyboard in G major, K. 1e / 1 (Minuet) "Notenbuch f??r
>> Nannerl Mozart" No. 62: Minuet - Minuet for Keyboard in C major, K. 1f /
>> 1 (Trio) "Notenbuch f??r Nannerl Mozart" No. 63: Minuet
>>
>> (See http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8351638
>> please go over there to give the editor some more support)
>
> Actually owning the release that editor is adding, I would suggest he
> properly identified the track. My concerns there were utterly
> unrelated to CSG or CSGS, in that he used a hyphen, not the proper
> slash, to separate 2 works, as well as titling the release with a
> missing space and a misspelled "dis" for "disc". I would have to
> wonder, were there not a CSGS list for him/her to have used, how much
> worse might the release have possibly been titled, and how much
> additional time might the classical editors have spent cleaning up the
> release?
>

Here's what IClassics had for this: "Minuet in G KV1/1e - Minuet in C
KV1f". This becomes tripled in length with all kinds of redundancies,
and you're quibbling about a delimiter!

(http://www.iclassics.com/productDetail?contentId=893
http://www.iclassics.com/workPage?entityId=668&contentId=5759)

If you don't see anything wrong with what you can end up with by
following CSGS/M, I am not sure I am interested in discussing this with
you anymore.


>> So I agree with you: CSGS is *not* ready for prime-time. (I've argued
>> other places that it should be kept as a reference, not as mandatory stuff.)
>
> I fail to agree.

Perhaps it is time some others had their say in this. You and me
continually saying "I disagree" on this subject is gonna be boring.
Brian Schweitzer
2008-02-23 12:32:58 UTC
Permalink
> > Aaron's statement still seems fine. Maybe we could refine it a bit: "By
> > /implication/, concertos feature an orchestra, unless otherwise stated."
>
> We don't need an MB-glossary for classical music terms, I think. Let's
> leave that to others. (For one, we're music enthusiasts, not musicologists.)
>
> It should be of interest that neither Wikipedia [1], nor Grove [2],
> _defines_ the word "concerto" (and who can?). In fact they carefully
> avoid that.

Wha?

"The term Concerto (plural concertos or concerti) usually refers to a
musical work in which one solo instrument is accompanied by an
orchestra." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto

I don't have a copy of the general Groves handy, but in the Groves
Mozart, they also define it as such.

Brian
Leiv Hellebo
2008-02-23 14:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>> > Aaron's statement still seems fine. Maybe we could refine it a bit: "By
>> > /implication/, concertos feature an orchestra, unless otherwise stated."
>>
>> We don't need an MB-glossary for classical music terms, I think. Let's
>> leave that to others. (For one, we're music enthusiasts, not musicologists.)
>>
>> It should be of interest that neither Wikipedia [1], nor Grove [2],
>> _defines_ the word "concerto" (and who can?). In fact they carefully
>> avoid that.
>
> Wha?
>
> "The term Concerto (plural concertos or concerti) usually refers to a
> musical work in which one solo instrument is accompanied by an
> orchestra." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto
>

It would have been better if I said: "They carefully avoid giving only
one definition of the word" or something.

What good does this pecking do?
Loading...