Re: [mb-users] Rare transcriptions

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"?


> & 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?

-- 
> Frederic Da Vitoria
> (davitof)
>
> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
> http://www.april.org
>
>
>
/symphonick

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