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

[Andrew Conkling]

On 12/12/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

*Not* simple to understand, thus the question. If we follow what is
printed, we'll likely get every format proposed in this thread and
possibly more. With both "Finale: Allegro" and "Finale (Allegro)" out
there--for the same work--it'd be very inconsistent.

As for the CSGD, in my mind, the idea here is to reach a consensus in
much the same way that commenting on the CSGD does, except that people
actually respond here. :) I've posted a few questions in the past
there with very few comments.

Cheers,
Andrew