[mb-style] Bach passions and CSG

[Chris B]

On 23/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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  outdated as that guideline is.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...

i know it means various processes, but there always was one. i've been
here since it was the styledude, and then the council, and now the
current system.

>  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

well then it's *not* official! it's not any % official! as far as i
can tell, someone said it was official when a re-write was happening,
so we can highlight what the 'old' CSG was, but the old CSG was never
official to start with.

history fans: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2004-January/004406.html
- but i don't think tarragon was styledude at this point, it was still
neil. moreover, it never made it into the old guidelines until long
after, as far as i can tell. at that stage the wiki was 'unofficial'

like i said, it's not important. either way, the whole thing is being
re-written. if it stemmed from a consensus (which it did) then it
is/was worth following. but it never mentioned anything about HWVs or
whatever!