[mb-style] CSG: Classical "superworks" and "performance of" links

Frederic Da Vitoria davitofrg at gmail.com
Mon Jul 18 13:02:02 UTC 2011

2011/7/18, symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:29:56 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2011/7/18, symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>:
>>>> Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
>>>> super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed
>> I agree we probably miss something here,
>> between the full, the unknown and the partial performances
> I don't know if we agree or disagree? Let me try again:
> 1. A performance AR between a recording & the appropriate movements is the
> most accurate we can do.
> Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: I.
> Molto Allegro (2. Fassung)
> Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: II.
> Andante (2. Fassung)
> 2. The accuracy of a performance AR between a recording & a super-work is
> depending on the parts linked to the super-work.
> Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550
> Which version? (Works structure isn't clearly defined yet, this super-work
> could contain 2 superworks or 8 movements. But the issue regarding
> accuracy remains.)

I believe you are thinking as if only an AR to a super-work could be
poorly defined. I believe that many ARs to movements are inaccurate.
You ask me which version of the version? I ask you which version of
the movements were really used in the currently existing movement ARs?
Are you really sure that for each AR to a movement the full movement
was really performed? Do you really think that the performer never
missed a repeat? And how are we going to link to the correct movement
versions all the recordings which already exist in MB? Our data is
already inaccurate, and although the Work system should help improve
things, the problem is never going to disappear completely. Links to
works are often going to be fuzzy, because available information is
fuzzy, and downloading music without booklets is not going to improve
the situation.

I believe the accuracy of the AR to movements is fallacious. I don't
really think a performance of a Work should be considered less
accurate than performances of each movements. If a performer performed
a whole work as a whole, my first idea is to link to that work as a
whole. But if you really think linking to each movement is an
improvement, then this "linking to a superwork means inaccurate"
should be stated very clearly, because I think other users will feel
like me. I'd even consider appending "use only if you can't find
better" or "use only if you're not sure" after each super-work title.

Frederic Da Vitoria

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list