[mb-style] Granularity of works

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2010/12/8 Calvin Walton <calvin.walton at gmail.com>

> > 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?
>
> If a work is recorded, then split into tracks at some arbitrary point,
> it would make sense to link each recorded piece back to the same single
> work, I think. There’s no point adding a work for an arbitrary piece of
> a previous work where no creativity was involved in splitting it up.
>

It does not make sense from a pure (common sense) work point of view, but MB
Works will also be used as reference for Recordings. This means that at some
point each Recording should be linked to a Work, so that we will need MB
Works to be somewhat distorted from the general meaning of the word. These
"sub"-works should probably inherit most attributes from the "real" parent
Work.

Is
>      * a new arrangement of a song a new work? (Arranger is a
>        work-level AR)
>      * a cover of a song a new work? What if the cover band does a new
>        arrangement of the song?
>      * a remix of a song a new work?
>

It has been discussed but IIRC nothing was decided and it was felt that we
should wait until Works start being actually used to see where we should
draw the line.

My strictly personal opinion is that all the above should be distinct works,
with probably the exception of simple covers.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20101208/a66be1c7/attachment.htm