[mb-style] Granularity of works

[Paul C. Bryan]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet in other forums, but it
seemed appropriate to get this discussed in mb-style: what should the
granularity of works be in NGS?

Works will allow ARs to other works. As I understand this, the intent is
to allow multiple levels of granularity. Ultimately, the intent is to
have a recording be linked to one or more works. 

Let's start with the following straw man (which I expect will be picked
apart, lit ablaze, blown away, collected, compacted, fermented,
packaged, sold, and used to fertilize someone's lawn):

At the recording-AR-link level, a work should be:

      * in popular music: an individual song;
      * in jazz music: an individual jazz piece;
      * in classical music style: an individual movement of an opus;
      * in theatre style: a song, musical number;
      * in opera style: a song, recitative, or musical number.


At a higher level level, a work should be:

      * in popular and jazz music: an album; (what about compilations?)
      * in classical music: an opus;
      * in theatre style, the title of the musical;
      * in opera style, the title of the opera.


Some immediately obvious problems with what's been stated above:

1. What about spoken dialogue in theatre/opera?
Various recordings of the same opera will cut tracks at different points
in dialog, leading to differering track titles. If we're not careful, we
could wind-up with an arbitrary list of recording-AR works. Is this
outcome acceptable/desirable?

2. What about more than one classical opus on the same release?
Should a release of recordings with more than one opus be considered a
work? I'd say no, because collections of more than one classical work in
releases is common, somewhat arbitrary, and usually has absolutely
nothing to do with the composition of the work. Counterarguments anyone?

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20101208/10ca86ce/attachment.htm