[mb-style] RFC: Clarify CoverRelationshipType not for Classical, takes 1st release

[Chris B]

On 25/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>  >  >   3) we move to ConsistentOriginalData - and CSG's titling provides
>  >  > that structure.
>  >
>  >  Please, when referring to ConsistentOriginalData, qualify which of
>  >  the two definitions you mean.
>  >
>  >  Also, CSG is a seperate set of guidelines, not an application of
>  >  either definition of ConsistentOriginalData.
>
>
> I'm not sure just what two definitions you mean; the wiki only lists one:
>
>  "If no definite proof can be found for the correct
>  spelling/punctuation, the most common version of the track title is to
>  be used."
>
>  ----inserted comment on the above----
>  Follow up on the above, post our discussion in IRC:
>
>  I think the COD page describes what it's intended to.  It's badly
>  named though - I would suggest the principle is much better titled
>  "ConsistentData", not "ConsistentORIGINALData", for the principle it
>  describes.

that's because the principle it describes isn't really what the
principle is. i'm not sure who wrote that page originally, but we has
been using the argument of consistent original data long before the
page came up, and that summary there isn't what i understood by it in
our initial discussions (which is why it's still an open issue, i
guess).

i'm not sure why it even mentions typos - since when do we correct
typos? if it's on the sleeve it's on the sleeve unless the artist
corrects themselves further down the line.

what it should be, if i may be so bold (i added this to the wiki discussion):

"If a TrackTitle or ReleaseTitle varies across different Releases
(excluding additional contextually relevant information such as
ExtraTitleInformation), try to unify them to the most consistently
used one. Give more credence to the variants found on releases close
to the artist (eg, the first release of an official studio album),
over licensed reissues, or VA compilations.

As always, if a particular variant can be proven to have a strong
ArtistIntent behind it, use that.

(i'd probably elaborate on when to correct typos - eg, if an
artist-endorsed reissue has a typo corrected then use the corrected
version)"

i think this does affect classical music, but not in the way the
current CSG threads imply. i mean, the current idea seems to be 'we
have a standard, so we try to make all instances consistent with each
other' but that's not really the same thing.

i'd be happy to remove the 'Original' part of ConsistantOriginalData
because it's not strictly necessary, but i don't think it would 'help'
the CSG. all it would mean is we'd try to find out what the majority
of releases call a particular track/release, and then you'd use the
various TrackTitle and ReleaseTitle styles to organise the information
available from THAT (and only that) variant.

>  As for the part over on StylePrinciple, I think, based on our
>  discussion, that - in your reading of it - is a "LabelIntent" concept
>  we've mentioned but never even tried to even make a principle.
>
>  ----end inserted part---
>
>  As for that not applying to CSG, I would argue that it is the very
>  definition of CSG.  The classical works which CSG applies to are those
>  without a definitive name - hence it does apply to the Bachs, the
>  Mozarts, etc, but it doesn't apply to Steve Reich or John Cage.  The
>  works by the latter group have specific names already - we don't turn
>  "Music for 18 Musicians" into 'Piece for 18 Drums and 18 Vocalists in
>  D major, "Music for 18 Musicians": I. Section I' because it already
>  has a title which is consistent.
>
>  I would again refer to what I wrote on the CSG draft I put together:
>
>  'Given the breadth of composers and compositions contained within the
>  sphere of classical music, no one guideline can be said to apply
>  equally to all works. It is quite possible that CSG 'composer as
>  artist' style might apply, while CSG release titling or work titling
>  guidelines do not. This is most frequently true of modern /
>  experimental classical composers such as Steve Reich and John Cage,
>  soundtrack and score composers such as Michael Nyman, Ennio Morricone,
>  and John Williams, and composers of music for professional use such as
>  Jeffrey Fayman and Yoav Goren. However, just because all aspects of
>  CSG may not always apply to works for any given composer, there will
>  always be those exceptions where even works by these composers are
>  subject to all aspects of CSG.'
>
>  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox#whoisclassical
>
>  'If a work already has been given a specific title by the composer,
>  such as "Part 1: IBM 1401 Processing Unit", ArtistIntent is the
>  superior guideline, and thus, the track would not be retitled using
>  CSG. This applies even if the worktitle provided by the composer seems
>  generic, such as "Music for 18 Musicians: Section XI", so long as it
>  truly is an ArtistIntent worktitle, and not simply a description of
>  the type of work ("symphony") — see ArtistIntentVsFacts for more
>  discussion on this subject. CSG is intended to provide a framework for
>  titling classical works which lack clearly defined titles; it is not
>  intended to be used as a reason to retitle a work which already has a
>  functional title. Note that there are, of course, those few composers
>  who are considered so inherently "classical" (J.S. Bach, W.A. Mozart,
>  etc.) that even their few works with true "official titles" still are
>  handled under CSG. These tend to be those pre-twentieth century
>  composers who also have comprehensive works catalogs available for all
>  of their works.
>
>  CSG has been designed to try to provide a framework for just about any
>  possible classical work, assuming it falls within the guidelines
>  described above. However, there is a huge amount of music out there.
>  Should you find a work to which CSG would apply, but some aspect of
>  the work simply does not fit within CSG, do not ignore all rules.
>  Instead, it is suggested that you post a message on the
>  UsersMailingList with "CSG" contained within the subject, providing
>  details about the work as well as why you feel it does not fit within
>  the CSG framework. In this manner, the community of experienced
>  classical editors at MusicBrainz can help you to find a workable
>  solution.
>
>  In some rare cases, the nature of a release may present a case in
>  which CSG would normally apply, but using CSG would damage the overall
>  ArtistIntent behind the release. (Example) Please note that though
>  ArtistIntent is always the superior principle within the
>  MusicBrainzPhilosophy, it is not sufficient merely to claim
>  ArtistIntent as reason to disregard CSG. Any time that ArtistIntent is
>  claimed as reason why a particular release is exempt from CSG, please
>  present your reasons for claiming ArtistIntent in the edit notes.
>
>  Also note that CSG does override what is written on the liner. This is
>  not contrary to StylePrinciple, though it initially may seem that it
>  is, as the ConsistentOriginalData for a classical release would be the
>  original composition, not the individual release containing a later
>  recording of the work. As CSG only applies when the original
>  composition does not have a specific title provided by the composer,
>  Principle 4 of StylePrinciple is the applicable principle. CSG then
>  becomes the guideline indicated by Principle 4.'
>
>  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox#CSGnotapplicable
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>