[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:
> >  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.
>
>
> That would seem much more applicable to the Reich or Cage examples,
>  where there is meaning to those titles, and where there can be
>  consistency.  Regarding ConsistentData, I'm arguing here that for the
>  large mass of classical that we would use CSG, it's the composer work
>  lists - not ours, but the Kochels, the BWVs, the Hesses, etc - that
>  are that single point of consistency.  CSG, as I see it, is a
>  framework then for taking the info presented within that work's
>  identification within that listing, and putting it into a consistent
>  form.

but that totally isn't the same thing :) you're getting all that
information and putting all relevant stuff in the title. that's
another discussion entirely, IMO.

>  I have to think that using Kochel where possible, NMA where not, to
>  title WA Mozart, and doing it to identify the specific work, has a
>  much better logic to the title, rather than trying to examine what the
>  majority of liners from the past 120 years to find, on a work by work
>  basis, what they normally call it.  It's not doable, but even were it
>  to be, it's not meaningful.  First, you'd find that classical gets
>  everything from minimal to full identification.  But second, whereas
>  the track title on a Radiohead or Steve Reich liner has meaning, the
>  track title on a Bach or Mozart liner doesn't have that same meaning -
>  in the latter cases, the composer had nothing to do with what appears
>  on that liner.

Right, so there is no Consistant*Original*Data...so the guideline does
not apply. If you get rid of the 'original', then yes, you're going
through all those liners...unless you then redefine 'data' as you
appear to be doing (to respected catalogued lists), but i think that's
a totally different idea and i don't like overloading what should be a
simple guideline for unifying track listings.