Re: Classical Style Guide: Using Bach's work no. as prefix or suffix

2006/4/11, Nathan Noble <natenobility@...>:
> > no.. the point is to keep a recording separate from
> > work.
> >
> > a given track is a RECORDING of a MOVEMENT which is
> > PART of a SYMPHONY for
> > example.
> >
> > or, a single track might be a recoridng of the
> > entire symphony, etc.
> >
> > the idea is to have the movement/work structure in
> > one table/area of the db,
> > and have the tracks somewhere else, and then we'd
> > define 'is a recording of'
> > relationships
>
> When you enter a new album you will still enter a
> track name.  This name should come from a list and I
> should be able to easily look it up.  That is all that
> matters to me.

I agree. And if a track track is made of two unseparated movements,
you will have to add this two movement combination to the list of
works, and furthermore insert this addition in the correct place in
relation of the composer's work hierarchy. And if an editor suddenly
decides to split a movement, which was usually set as a single track,
in several tracks, you will have to add these "sub-tracks" to the list
of possible components of the work (actually it would be better to add
them as components of the movement).

> >   In my
> > > mind this reduces the usefulness of having works
> > > lists, though I think only for operas or
> > comparable
> > > works.
> > >
> > > > i suppose what this tells us is that a given
> > track
> > > > might have to map onto a
> > > > 'range' of parts of the work:
> > > > for isntance, if i had a cd of beethoven's 5th
> > where
> > > > they left the 3rd and
> > > > 4th movements as one track (they lead into one
> > > > another) we'd need to map
> > > > that SINGLE track onto TWO movements
> > >
> > > This is starting to get quite messy, even in the
> > > hypothetical phase...  It might be better to just
> > add
> > > a new track to Beethoven's list of tracks.  There
> > > could be four tracks called mvmts 1, 2, 3, and 4,
> > and
> > > a fifth called mvmts 3/4.  All of these should
> > point
> > > to the same parent work: Beethoven's 5th.
> >
> > augh.. no, THAT is wayy to messy.  it complicates
> > seeing how many movements
> > a piece has, and disallows possibilites that might
> > be important later...
>
> I think you're more worried about browsing.  So be it.
>  MB stores metadata poorly for classical imo.  I want
> to type less per disc and see more uniform classical
> titles, the sooner the better.  I think it can be done
> quickly using the same type of lookup mechanism we
> currently have for artists.  Browsing and complex
> relationships would be great, but shouldn't be a top
> priority right now.  That's it for me.

Plus if we keep classical input as it is now, we won't have much data
to browse 

--
Frederic Da Vitoria