[mb-style] The CSGS whirlwind

[Chris B]

On 23/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would suggest that the NMA (and other such resources) be taken as it
>  is, rather than what some might want it to be.  It is a urText, but
>  the titles are not.  The titles, if you actually look at pictures of
>  the original scores themselves, indicate that, when there even are
>  titles, the titles are "Konzert", "Symphonie", etc.  As I've suggested
>  elsewhere, these are quite obviously generic indications of work type,
>  not titles.  Might I remind that "Jupiter", "Paris", "Haffner", etc,
>  are also simply common nicknames, not official titles from the
>  composer?  At the time of the Bachs, Beethoven, Mozarts, etc, they
>  didn't tend to give works titles.  Let's not try to title 18th century
>  works based on 20th century titling practices, by making the
>  assumption that the composers always titled their works 200-300 years
>  ago.

now THIS is the exact situation ConsistantOriginalData covers :) if
something is presented in a certain way the vast majority of times it
is pressed, then that *usually* 'becomes' the title we should use.

i think the 'original' in ConsistantOriginalData is a bit of a red
herring in situations like this. most classical (our definition)
artists didn't write these titles in the knowledge that it would be
recorded and sold, so their titling of things, however consistent,
isn't always relevant.