[mb-style] CSG: Classical "superworks" and "performance of" links
Frederic Da Vitoria
davitofrg at gmail.com
Mon Jul 18 20:23:14 UTC 2011
2011/7/18 symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:02:02 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2011/7/18, symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com>:
> >> 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.
> No I don't, but the issue here was super-works. I've also been thinking
> about what to do with cases like "recording of unknown piano version of
> work x".
> Let's say we have 3 works in the db: original work x for guitar, work x
> (piano version by foo) & work x (piano version by bar). I suppose link to
> the original work is better than creating a new "fuzzy" piano version.
> > 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?
> I suppose that in this case we need to create 3 works for every movement
> (+ a corresponding super-work): version 1, version 2 & a "fuzzy" version.
> Or we define works as more of "the concept movement I" & say that all
> versions are the same work?
> > 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?
> I'd consider that a performance variation, still the same work.
> > Links to
> > works are often going to be fuzzy
> I agree. So what I'm trying to say is that it is - as always - preferable
> to be as specific as possible, if the data is available. & if we know
> exactly what 4 parts of a super-work is performed, IMO it's more accurate
> to link directly to those than to a super-work containing more than 4
> parts. If there's no different versions or added movements to consider
> (like in the OP), then I'd choose the most convenient option. No
> difference in accuracy what I can see.
And create 32 ARs for a global performance of the Goldberg Variations? It
seems a little overkill to me, but if you feel it is really important, I
won't fight it. It won't happen often. I still don't like saying that an AR
to a super-work means fuzzy, I'd rather have an explicit "fuzzy" attribute,
but if others agree your solution is better...
Frederic Da Vitoria
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MusicBrainz-style