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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/12/12, Andrew Conkling <andrew.conkling at gmail.com>:
> 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

I think Leiv's attitude is correct : It does not really matter. MB is
currently almost unable to find a movement across different releases.
I believe this will not be possible before NGS. When NGS is close, we
will maybe have to decide how these should be formulated (although not
necessarily, maybe MB will be able to let each user use whatever
formulation  / style she or he prefers). Until then, do we need to
standardize the movement name and tempo? I don't think so. As long as
the editor does enter something which is correct, I don't see any
problem.

The left part of the title (until the movement number) should be
enough to allow the transition to NGS, and even the right part should
be usable for checking (a script could for example remove punctuations
and check that what is left matches). The left part is important,
because it is what we use to identify the musical content. The right
part is IMO more for documentary reasons, actually the first movement
of a work is the first movement, no matter what name was (or not)
given, no matter how you write the tempos. In our example, the first
symphony has four movement and the fourth movement happens to have a
name (Finale) and was meant to be played allegro vivace by the
composer. Now if you remove the name and / or the tempo, it is still
the fourth movement (and it should still be played allegro vivace!).

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria