Re: [mb-users] Rare transcriptions

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?



> & 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.


& 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.

-- 
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