[mb-users] Colon/period usage in track titles

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/12/11, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com>:
> On 12/11/06, MLL <webmll at laposte.net> wrote:
> > Aaron Cooper a écrit :
> > > On 12/11/06, Andrew Conkling <andrew.conkling at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 12/11/06, Paula Callesøe <spacefish at spacefish.net> wrote:
> > >> > Andrew Conkling wrote:
> > >> > > In this case, Finale is the "title" of the movement, and the
> > >> > > indication is "Allegro vivace".
> > >> > I'm not a classical buff, though I do listen occasionally. Has a comma
> > >> > been ruled out for any reason?
> > >> >
> > >> > "Symphony No. 1: IV. Finale, Allegro vivace"
> > >> >
> > >> > It certainly doesn't look bad but may have other implications I
> > >> wouldn't
> > >> > have thought of.
> > >>
> > >> That looks to me more like that an Allegro section follows a Finale
> > >> section, which isn't what we want to imply.
> > >>
> > >> Come to think of it, though, I wouldn't be upset if we decided to use
> > >> it before the Roman numeral, i.e. "Symphony No. 1, IV: Finale" ...Oh
> > >> wait, that still doesn't make the next character apparent. Sigh.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Symphony No. 41, Op. 12 "CommonName", IV. Finale: Allegro
> > >
> > > Doesn't look *too* bad.
> >
> >
> > Mmmmmh not for me. Not in the spirit of CSG, would need *huge* rehaul,
> > for the sake of what?
> >
> > Back to "Symphony No. 1: IV. Finale". In CSG the colon designates a
> > subpart, like "'IV. Finale' is a subpart of 'Symphony No. 1'".
> >
> > So (1) "Symphony No. 1: IV. Finale: Allegro vivace" would give another
> > meaning to the colon, because "Allegro vivace" is *not a subpart of "IV.
> > Finale". Choice (1) out.
> >
> > Both (2) "Symphony No. 1: IV. Finale. Allegro vivace" and (4) "Symphony
> > No. 1: IV. Finale, Allegro vivace" induce that part IV has 2 movements,
> > "Finale" then "Allegro vivace", which is obviously not true. Choices (2)
> > and (4) out.
> >
> > Now, (3) "Symphony No. 1: IV. Finale (Allegro vivace)". The least bad
> > choice IMHO, but I don't like it because this is confusing: we could
> > have tracks like "Symphony No. 1: II. Adagio" where the tempo _is_ the
> > name and thenis not between parenthesis.
> >
> > So maybe (5) simply "Symphony No. 1: IV. Finale Allegro vivace"?
> >
> > MLL
> >
> >
>
> Or, similarly to (3), "Symphony No. 1: IV. (Finale) Allegro vivace".
> This way tempos never have brackets (except, I think, for instances
> when the tempo was not indicated by the composer or was determined
> post-humously).
>
> I think "Allegro vivace (Finale)" would be show the relationship more
> (like how some non-classical tracks have "(intro)" appended), but I
> think generally we'd like to have Finale before to tempo (?).
>
> --
> -Aaron

Ah, now it's my turn to say no :-D

When brackets are used on the sleeves (and they are used often), the
parentheses are around the tempo, never around the name. So we are
going to have a hard time explaining why this should be the reverse
from what is usually printed. I agree with mll, though, the printed
usage is a bit silly since it uses brackets around the tempo (which is
almost always there) only if there is a name (which is sometimes
present).

May I suggest (again?) quotes around the name, as in
Symphony No. 1: IV. "Finale" Allegro vivace

Whose turn is it to say No?

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria