Re: [mb-users] Rare transcriptions

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:18 AM, symphonick <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>
>
>> 2012/10/4 symphonick <[email protected]>
>>
>>>
>>> 2012/10/4 Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>> 2012/10/3 symphonick <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>>  2012/10/3 Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/10/3 symphonick <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had planned to do CSG works structure as my next RFC anyway, so
>>>>>>> let's see if we can agree on something here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different versions of a work - when should a new work be created?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/10/2 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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... :/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wachet auf" is a good example. There's the original chorale by
>>>>>>> Nicolai (1599), two versions by JS Bach, and lots of
>>>>>>> transcriptions/arrangements that can be based on Bach's organ version or
>>>>>>> the orchestral version - probably impossible to tell in many cases. Also
>>>>>>> the same arrangement (say for violin & piano) can of course be performed on
>>>>>>> many different instruments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How should this fit together?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by Philipp Nicolai ("earliest
>>>>>>> version"?)
>>>>>>> 2) Zion hört die Wächter singen by JS Bach (Tenor Choral from BWV
>>>>>>> 140)
>>>>>>> 3) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 by JS Bach (organ
>>>>>>> transcription of 2)
>>>>>>> 4) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (Coro from BWV 140)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and 3 random arrangements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A1) Wachet auf by JS Bach (possibly based on 3)
>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Brass-More-Greatest-Hits/dp/B000003EO3
>>>>>>> A2) Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme by JS Bach (probably an
>>>>>>> orchestral transcription of 2)
>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sleepers-Awake-Cantata-No-140/dp/B001BEEC76
>>>>>>> A3) Piano arrangment by Wilhelm Kempff
>>>>>>> http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&COMP_ID=BACJS&PRODUCT_NR=4790314&ART_ID=KEMWI&flow_per_page=50&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&presentation=flow(DG website has a title based on BWV140, a cover scan of another release
>>>>>>> had "Organ prelude")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we could add
>>>>>> http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ba5543c9-30fb-4ed5-aa07-10161dc3e993, although it has one foot outside the scope of classical, we'll have to
>>>>>> decide how to handle this type of situation too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it makes sense to have a separate work for this. But I wonder
>>>>> what happens if more "jazz" versions exist of Wachet auf by other artists?
>>>>> Would "normal" MB want to have only one work, but CSG wants one for every
>>>>> arranger/artist?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My first thought is that the idea of creating a Work for each
>>>>>> transcription has the advantage of being simple. I like simplicity. It
>>>>>> would probably mean removing Transcriber AR at least from Classical music.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some users feared that it would trigger the creation of too many
>>>>>> Works which would be seldom used. Do we have a way to measure the current
>>>>>> situation? Counting the Arranger ARs to Recordings?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's likely. We will also need a way to show arranger in the search
>>>>> results, or else we must repeat the arranger in the disambiguation field.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this is worse than the current situation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "the current
>>> situation"?
>>>
>>
>> I only meant what we have now. Currently, how does arranger appear in
>> search results.?
>>
>
> Not at all.
>

IIRC it appears after composer but before performers in the inline search.


>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  & what should we do when we dont know what version is being used?
>>>>> example: Handel - Messiah in original version & Mozart's arrangement.
>>>>> Should there be a super-work?
>>>>>
>>>> Messiah (super-work)
>>>>> -Messiah (original)
>>>>> -Messiah (Mozart arr.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't creating super-works be better than current situation? Users
>>>> will be aware that there is a choice to be made only if the database offers
>>>> them a choice. If only Handel's Messiah was in the database, some users
>>>> would probably use it in place of the others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, there's always a risk of that works get misidentified. Perhaps
>>> it's better with a super-work that you're encouraged to use if unsure about
>>> with version you have.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> & what to do if I know a work is a transcription, but not who wrote it?
>>>>> Or when it could be a transcription, but it could also be the original
>>>>> score with different instruments?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there should often (always?) be a Work for unspecified
>>>> transcriptions, if there isn't we end up with the current situation with
>>>> Myra Hess' Bach transcriptions which are probably a mess: users with a
>>>> release with a piano transcription tend to use Hess' transcription because
>>>> it is the only transcription currently in MB. This is probably often the
>>>> correct choice, but still I'd prefer if we had a "unspecified transcriptor"
>>>> transcription of those works so that users would have a choice and
>>>> hopefully use "unspecified" transcription Work when they don't have any
>>>> indication.
>>>>
>>>> I thought I'd prefer to use the super-work w. transcription ARs for
>>> everything unspecified. But how would this work when there are subparts
>>> involved? If we have
>>>
>>> Super-work: Bach cantata 147
>>> *Work: Bach cantata 147
>>> **Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
>>> ***Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano transcription)
>>>
>>> An unknown piano transcription can't be connected to the cantata
>>> super-work. Maybe every work needs a super-work:
>>>
>>> Super-work: Bach cantata 147
>>> *Work: Bach cantata 147
>>> **Super-work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
>>> ***Work: Part of 147: Jesus bleibet meine Freude
>>> ***Work: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Myra Hess solo piano
>>> transcription, also connected to super-work?)
>>>
>>> Now a recording of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with an unknown
>>> arrangement links to the super-work with (recording) arranger [unknown]. Or
>>> we could have a work for all unknown arrangements. Would it be a work for
>>> every instrument? I suppose that could get messy, performers could be using
>>> the same arrangement for different instruments, but we would split it into
>>> several works based on a performance choice?
>>>
>>
>> Good question. Maybe we could set a limit around here, this is close to
>> what I believe is currently being used. But once again, how frequent are
>> these? Wouldn't we be introducing unnecessary complexity (in the sense that
>> the user would have to decide first if he needs to create a Work or not)
>> for a few edits? I really would like numbers. Given the current complexity
>> of creating a simple Work hierarchy into MB, would requiring a Work for
>> each transcription be such a big deal?
>>
>>
> I can't give you numbers, sorry. (Numbers on what?) If we introduce
> super-works, the basic structure will always be like this:
>
> Super-work
> *Work
> **Part foo super-work
> ***Part foo work
> **Part bar super-work
> ***Part bar work
>
> and so on.
>
> --
>> Frederic Da Vitoria
>> (davitof)
>>
>> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
>> http://www.april.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> /symphonick
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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