Discussion:
[mb-style] The CSGS whirlwind
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