Re: [mb-users] Rare transcriptions

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mauer <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 10/02/2012 03:05 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > I am always annoyed by this kind of edit: this is not a recording of
> Clair
> > de lune but of a transcription of it. IMO this edit is currently valid,
> > because there is no other way to enter it. I know we decided we shouldn't
> > create a new work for each transcription, and I agree that in cases such
> as
> > this one it would be overkill and it would clutter the database with
> Works
> > with only one Recording. But wouldn't adding a "transcription" attribute
> to
> > the Recording-Work AR be a good idea?
>
> I would say they should be separate works, and we should improve our
> display of related works.
>
> I just ran into BWV 645 which is a transcription for organ of BWV 140 so
> obviously the traditional catalogs do this at least in some cases.
>
>
Personally, I'd agree with making all transcriptions separate works (and
making works include instrumentation info). Of course, that gets messy
sometimes when we don't know what a specific recording is, so we'd need
some kind of catch-all work for those... :/


> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users