Re: [mb-users] arrangement recordings

2014-02-05 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]>:

> 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.
>

OK. Done

-- 
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