[mb-style] [clean up CSG] Structural concept

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

On Feb 6, 2008 4:40 PM, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > > >Can you explain "oeuvre"?
> > >
> > > Sure - I used it there in the dictionary's "The sum of the lifework of
> > > an artist, writer, or composer." sense, essentially as one word to
> > > mean the same thing as we've intended by "master works list".
> >
> >
> > So composer-oeuvre is a 1:1 relation?
> >
> > If your diagram was a kind of map of a suggested database structure,
> what
> > would be the oeuvre columns.
>
> It's not quite 1:1, though offhand, I'm having trouble thinking how it
> might be defined, as it's not n:n either.  On the composer side, you
> might have the same work which is composer b several people (the &
> collabs), and on the works side, you might have works with multiple
> composers for different parts (see
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CSGStandard/Mozart/DerSteinderWeisen for
> example), variations by one composer on works by another, etc.
>
> But so long as we accept that a work might appear in multiple ouevres
> (as an ouevre is per-composer), and so long as we accept that works
> might "import" works from other ouevre lists, or that a work might
> only partially fall within a single composer's ouevre, then yes, it's
> a ~1:~1.
>
> > >Is the word "Movement" appropriate? Shouldn't we use a more generic
> word,
> > > >such as maybe "Part"?
> > >
> > > Well, if we're talking about the three (four) parts of a classical
> > > title, before any modifications are made to fit it to tracks, you have
> > > the opus / catalog identification, the work identification, the
> > > movement identification, and the identification of ornamentation used
> > > within the movement.
> > >
> > > We essentially mix the first two as the "left side of the colon".
> > > Then the "movement" is normally everything on the right, and
> > > ornamentation (like symphonic suggested) would become the third
> > > element, inserted as needed after the movement part of the track.  I
> > > think "part" might be too generic - movement's pretty clear even for a
> > > "single-movement" work, whereas "part" gets rather quickly confused
> > > when we could potentially be dealing with "part" in the
> > > non-identifying sense, as well as making confusion of which part is
> > > intended (movement, submovement, subsubmovement, form, subform, tempo,
> > > etc).  More simply, "part" could refer to almost any block in that
> > > tree, whereas "movement" implies, at least to me, a much more specific
> > > "set of blocks" within that tree.
> >
> >
> > Ok, my suggestion was not clear enough. What about operas, masses,
> > cantantas, ballets...? Would the word "Movement" be really appropriate?
>
> In masses and ballets, I'd think so - at least I've seen it used that
> way with regards to those.  I'm not sure what term would otherwise be
> used for opera and cantantas.  (While we're there anyhow, does anyone
> know if there's a term for the collective numbered songs within
> operas?)


Do you mean what we call in French "Acte"?

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080207/ff8bf1c0/attachment-0001.htm