[mb-users] Re: MusicBrainz-users Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16

[Aaron Cooper]

On 17-Jan-08, at 12:28 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > I don't understand the difference between these two entries:
> >
> > 1) 6 Minuets for Orchestra No. 1 in D major, K. 130a/164
> > 2) 16 Minuets for Orchestra in C major, K. 176: I.
> >
> > Why use "No. 1" for the first but "I." for the second?
>
> Mainly just my having worked on it long enough to inadvertently use  
> one style the first time, and another the other.  :P  I'm going  
> through now to try and catch as many of such inconsistencies as I can.
>
> Seems to me that K 130a/164 should be 6 Minuets for Orchestra in D
> major, K 130a/164: I.
>
> -Aaron
>
> Actually, I would think the reverse, but it's differ, I think, based  
> on this work.  I could have, say,
> 8 Variations on Chr. E. Graaf: "Laat ons juichen, Batavieren!" for  
> Piano in G major, K. 24
> 2 German Church Songs for Voice & Piano No. 1 in F major, K. 336c/ 
> 343 "O Gottes Lamm"
> which also is "number work_type ..." but is one "work" in the  
> playing, if you get what I mean...  The label might split it to one  
> track per variation (though not on the single entry for this work we  
> currently have in the db), but it still was intended to be one work  
> with multiple movements.
>
> Then you have
> 6 Minuets for Orchestra No. 1 in D major, K. 130a/164
> 16 Minuets for Orchestra No. 1 in C major, K. 176       (corrected)
> 6 German Dances No. 1 for Orchestra in C major, K. 536
> then
> 6 Minuets for Orchestra No. 2 in D major, K. 130a/164
> 16 Minuets for Orchestra No. 2 in C major, K. 176       (corrected)
> 6 German Dances No. 2 for Orchestra in C major, K. 536
...
>
> My sense is that the Dances, Minuets, and Songs were intended in the  
> "Opus" manner, such that any one can be split off and performed  
> independently.  These I would suggest are cases where "No." ought to  
> be used.
> The Variations would be the opposing case, where the movements are  
> in an opus, but are intended to be performed as a set, not as a  
> single movement separated from the whole, and these I would suggest  
> should use the roman number movement indication...
> As for the fugues and canons, I'm not sure.
>
> Any thoughts?


If we have a set such as "6 Songs" it would only make sense to me if  
we used "No. 1" in the title if there are multiple sets of "6 Songs".   
ie, "6 Songs No. 1" and "6 Songs No. 2" much like "Quartet for Strings  
No. 1" and "Quartet for Strings No. 2".  If the work is just called "6  
Songs" then each individual song should use the appropriate "movement"  
number I., II., III., IV., etc.  I don't think we'd be able to show  
*both* the number of the set and the number of individual songs in the  
set without using "No. 1" for the set and "I. " for the individual  
song.  (I hope I'm making sense here)

-Aaron (cooperaa)