[mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Capitalization (and placement) of types and tempos

[David K. Gasaway]

On 6 Feb 2008 at 2:48, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> I think, perhaps, you have a misunderstanding of what catalogue
> numbers mean.  

I think I understand well enough.  For you, the term "work" has a very 
precise meaning that isn't necessarily universally shared.  Yes, there 
may be different works (using your definition) cataloged under a single 
Koechel number.  I know and accept this.  But I'm inclined to let 
authoritative scholars define what is or what is not considered an 
object fit to be labelled as a fully identifiable and distinct unit (by 
catalog number).  It's not the most precise system, but it draws a very 
clear and unambiguous line what to include in a track title.  
Otherwise, arguments such as this may continue ad infinitum.

> My point is that we quite ought to identify which of those things it
> actually is, if we're really concerned about identifying the work, and
> not just the general group the work belongs to.  As for me, I'd be quite
> interested to know which recordings are of the version without clarinets
> vs the version with the clarinets.

Have I mentioned that _I want to identify the work_?  Yes, I think I 
have.  You still seem to misunderstand what I mean by this.  For 
example, I am interested to know whether a specific performance of K. 
550 includes clarinets.  I would record this information in my 
FLAC/Vorbis tags.  I would like to record this information in 
MusicBrainz.  However, in my opinion, the track title is not the best 
place to do it.

As eager as I am to end this marathon debate, please permit me to take 
one final stab at it.  If we choose to record details such as "with 
clarinets" in the track title, these are the possible outcomes as I see 
it (assuming that the user has an intent to use the masterlists):

1) The editor knows exactly which version of the work was used for the 
performance, and selects the appropriate entry in the masterlist.
2) The editor does not know which version was used, abandons the 
masterlist, and builds the track title by hand.
3) The editor does not know which version was used, and randomly 
selects an entry in the masterlist.
4) The editor does not know which version was used, and abandons the 
edit altogether.

The negative outcomes trouble me.  In (2) through (4), we end up 
animosity both towards MB and towards the masterlists, which were 
conceived to ease frustration, not cause it.  Outcome (2) results in 
track titles that are not consistent with the masterlist.  Outcome (3) 
results in a factually incorrect entry and invalidates the whole point 
of adding this extra information to the title.  In fact, it is very 
difficult to differentiate this negative outcome (3) from the positive 
outcome (1).  The downsides to (4) are obvious.

Imagine instead a system where this information is excluded from the 
track title.  The masterlist page would include documentation on the 
different versions of the work and ask the user, if able, to identify 
the precise work in the release annotation.  It could even provide the 
exact text to copy-paste into the release annotation.  Here are the 
possible outcomes from this proposal:

1) The editor knows exactly which version of the work was used for the 
performance, selects the appropriate entry in the masterlist, and 
follows the annotation guidance.
2) The editor does not know which version was used, selects the 
appropriate entry in the masterlist, and ignores the annotation.

In this scenario, we can easily differentiate the negative outcomes; 
they are those releases that do not have a release annotation.  Still, 
we at least have a well-formed and factual (if imprecise) track title.  
If a knowledgable editor comes across this release in the future, then 
he/she will add the release annotation.  Everyone seems to be mostly 
satisfied (meaning, some people will be less than entirely satisfied 
;). 

I know that the release annotation is a bit awkward for this purpose, 
but it's about the only alternative I can offer at this time.  
Thankfully, if a better solution arrives in the future, it will be easy 
to search track titles for the catalog number and shuffle this 
information around en masse.

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave at gasaway.org
-:-:- Web: dave.gasaway.org
-:-:- MusicBrainz: dkg