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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/12/12, MLL <webmll at laposte.net>:
>
>
> Frederic Da Vitoria a écrit :
> > 2006/12/12, Marco Sola <marcosola at oksatcom.it>:
> >> Il Monday, December 11, 2006 11:32 PM
> >> Andrew Conkling <andrew.conkling at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >>
> >> >> Ok. Square brackets, then? Symphony No. 1: IV. [Finale] Allegro
> >> >> vivace
> >> >
> >> > I thought that's what we used for posthumously assigned names? At
> >> > least, that's what I've always seen in print.
> >> >
> >> > But I think that the problem with parentheses and brackets is that
> >> > they relegate the Finale to some sort of lesser title, i.e. something
> >> > that doesn't normally belong with the rest of the title.
> >> >
> >> > By the way, I figured I'd check out an online score:
> >> >
> >> http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/aer3909/large/sco10119.html
> >> > First one that came to mind, but it uses a period. How 'bout that? :)
> >>
> >> Ok, IMHO we chatted enough: there's no real reason to substitute
> >> "Final:".
> >> Any our "pop" colleague could surely provide an example of a "Title
> >> Part1:
> >> TitleSubpart: Subsubpart" I mean, ":" is proper for indicate parts and I
> >> don't get what is so wrong.
> >>
> >> My two cents about MB "media": what could be done to avoid the fact that
> >> this discussion, whatever it reach consensus or not, could be not
> >> discarded
> >> and so reasked again before a year? I still think CSGD it's the best
> >> way to
> >> cooperate. It would be great if the proposers of a thread could put a
> >> couple
> >> of line there when done.
> >>
> >> CIao
> >>
> >> MArco (ClutchEr2)
> >
> > The best way to avoid discussions is to set a rule IMO. As long as
> > there is no clearly established rule, users will keep entering data as
> > they feel right (in this case often as they see printed on the sleeve)
> > and other users will wonder why it is not consistent and they will ask
> > here hoping to finally get a consensus. So writing the discussion in
> > CSGD is a good way to remember that the discussion already occurred,
> > but not of solving the problem. I understand that it can be annoying
> > for old timers to see the same discussion coming back again and again,
> > but then why not just sit back and wait to see if the newcomers manage
> > to accomplish something more conclusive than a discussion?
> >
>
> CSG and/or CSGD are indeed a good place to keep memories of these, but
> correct me if I'm wrong, the point of this thread is not if ":"
> deignates a subpart, because everyone agrees on this. It's rather how to
> avoid stuff like "Final: Allegro vivace" because "Allegro vivace" is
> *not* a subpart of "Finale".
>
> MLL

Two different syntax in the same title... Maybe we could just use the
following rule: everything following the movement number can just
follow what is printed. Thus we know that it does not follow the MB
syntax. Whatever is there (colons, dashes, dots) is just a copy of
what was printed. Simple to say, simple to understand.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria