[mb-style] CSG compromise?

[Leiv Hellebo]

Mike Morrison wrote:
>> I have to ask, what is this official classical track title that we'd be 
>> preserving until and under NGS?
> 
> One possible choice: Exactly what is printed on the cover; typos, 
> inconsistencies, incomplete information and all.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for this position.

  We could do this for
> non-classical music too if we want. Then those of us (including me) who 
> want consistent titles for different recordings of the same (classical or 
> non-classical) composition can tag our files from the work title.

If we go for as-close-to-ArtistIntent-as-possible - which spontaneously 
sounds worth having - then I doubt people will want WorkNames in the 
general case. 17. century English, German and French?

(A problem here turns up, as Mozart has more than one "Konzert in Es" 
etc., so at least some cataloguing info is probably needed.)

As for consistency in titles: You cannot have it all over, because
1) different recordings split tracks differently
See first mvt. of Symphony No. 9 here:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/20b937ef-ea28-45c2-b9d1-754c2673c13f.html
http://musicbrainz.org/release/57318b49-090c-4c17-9144-6c5f384aa0ed.html

(And IMO you'd be almost nuts to want all that detail from the second 
into the track title of the first, but again, YMMV.)

2) A rare case: Most recordings of Mahler's 6. symphony has
II. Scherzo, but most done the last years have the Andante as movement 
number two.

We might standardise in other cases, but what is so important about 
consistency that MB should impose this even where the recording industry 
and concert halls - which have a lot more domain knowledge than we 
collectively do - have not done it?

And why do you want to remove the optional stuff from the (unofficial) 
OperaTrackStyle?



Leiv