[mb-style] Bach passions and CSG

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>
> On 22/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > On 22/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > > On 21/03/2008, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  >  >  > > > If you generalized this procedure, how would you enter (in the current
>  >  >  >  >  > > > state of the MB database)
>  >  >  >  >  > > >
>  >  >  >  >  > http://musicbrainz.org/release/86a78b3d-08d6-4b42-990b-30463b66fc98.html
>  >  >  >  >  > ?
>  >  >  >  >  > >
>  >  >  >  >  > > My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the BWVs
>  >  >  >  >  > > for them (and I know I have Händel oratorios which do not mention the
>  >  >  >  >  > > HWVs - I recently checked some - yet this is *never* a problem).
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  > Well, you know that this is contrary to the CSG?
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  the un-agreed on CSG!
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively
>  >  >  >  outdated as that guideline is.
>  >  >
>  >  >  The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know.
>  >
>  >
>  > Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more
>  >  than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle...
>  >
>  >  http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide
>  >
>  >  "Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style Guide."
>  >
>  >  CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006.
>
>  well it's not been made official...properly. it never went through the
>  process (we've always had a process). anyone saying it's 'official'
>  back in december did it in good faith, i'm sure, but i don't recall it
>  ever going through the process.
>
>  i'm not saying it has no weight, as a lot of guidelines that are worth
>  following never made it through the process, but there you go. anyway,
>  does this really matter?

I'll not quibble much over "process" - you're using that as if it
means one single method, whereas we all know the means for anything to
become official has been continually changing...  (Actually, that's
just the reason for the confusion about SountrackStyle I referenced;
it was changed from official back to a proposal under a process so old
that noone now even has a copy of the original, official, guideline
(I've asked and searched for 6 months+ now - if anyone can disprove
this, please forward me a copy! :) ).

Not to be totally sidetracked, though, the point here you may think is
unimportant, but I would disagree.  If we go around saying that this
or that guideline is unofficial just because it never went through
this or that proposal process, we'll never get anything done.
Partially, esp with regards to CSG, the reason I reacted is because I
have myself run into situations where even autoeditors have made the
claim that "that guideline isn't technically official, so we're free
to disregard it".  Open that door for classical, and we'll have chaos,
where what I think we all would love is to find a way to make both
sets of classical guidelines, for tracks and works, happen.

So let's not nitpick on the degree of "officialness" in guidelines -
imho, it's either official, or it's not, whatever process was used to
get it there.  If it says in a doc that's now 16 months old "This is
official", then take that at its word, let's not go searching for
excuses why it's maybe only 93.746% official.  :P

Brian