Re: [mb-users] arrangement recordings

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>wrote:

> 2014-02-05 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> 2014-02-05 Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> 2014-02-05 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once upon a time ( not so long ago
>>>>>> http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3588 ), we were
>>>>>> supposed to create arrangement works only if there was more than one
>>>>>> recording of this arrangement. I can't see how this is currently achieved
>>>>>> in the Recording - Work editor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Er. How _what_ is currently achieved? Creating a new work?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No :-) Saying that a recording is of an arrangement of a work. Example
>>>> : http://musicbrainz.org/recording/30b57a2a-49ae-4cb8-a603-8be7e5eaa312or
>>>> http://musicbrainz.org/recording/21c0af5c-9f19-49ae-bbbf-bf57db186853
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was expecting an "arrangement" attribute
>>>
>>
>> Oh. Yeah, unsure. I mean, I imagine it would make sense for us to create
>> a catch-all work for these cases? I don't really like the idea of an
>> arrangement attribute, but mostly because it feels like storing the info at
>> the wrong level. I'm not particularly in favour of the idea of needing more
>> than one recording to add a (published) arrangement anyway, but in any case
>> I feel this belongs at the work level. Of course, I fully admit to being
>> lazy and not always adding such catch-all works, especially for now since
>> we don't even have instrumentation on works...
>>
>
> I agree creating a work is the best way in terms of data structure. But
> IIRC this was decided to avoid creating works just for one arranged
> recording. IIRC, this was more to avoid cluttering the Works table than to
> make input easier. Anyhow, this is not really what I am asking. According
> to the forum link above, I thought this was implemented and I was just
> surprised at not finding it. But maybe the discussion was only about the
> documentation and maybe the arrangement attribute has never been
> implemented.
>

That forum post seems to be about where to put the arranger relationship
for the artist who arranged it (which can indeed go on the recording or the
work).


> So, I currently have found 3 (at least) orchestral performances of this
> piano work. My best idea would be to create a catchall arrangement for this
> waltz, with a mention (disambiguation comment?) stating that it is a
> catchall and that nobody should add an arranger AR to it (because these
> could be different arrangements). Do you agree?
>

That sounds reasonable.

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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