Re: [mb-users] Rare transcriptions

2012/10/5 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]>

>
>
> 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)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
2) & 4) s/b arrangements of 1)  BTW


> 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.
>
>

Aha, I didn't know that. But not in normal works search, right?


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  & 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?)
>>>>
>>>
Just read on wikipedia that Myra Hess's version isn't based directly on
Bach's: "the piano transcription by Dame Myra Hess of Hugh P. Allen's
choral version of Bach's arrangement"


>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
BTW how would arrangement ARs etc. work? I guess we must repeat all the
relevant ARs from the super-work on the specific works?

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