#musicbrainz

I really really hate them.

because it gets very hard to pick out the relevant details

like that one I linked to above

(the 'capriccio in c' thing)

"Prelude for Piano in C major, K. 284a / deest + K. 300g / deest + 395: Allegretto - Capriccio - Andantino - Presto - Adagio - Andantino - Allegro - Cantabile - Capriccio allegro assai - Allegro - Presto" is a total unreadable mess

oh, yeah, for a track title that's crazy

even for a work title.

well, that particular one would be silly in any situation

how about: Song for Voice & Piano in E-flat major, K. 524 "An Chloë": "Wenn die Lieb' aus deinen blauen"

I get frustrated with csg stuff because I don't have a head full of edge cases, and it's all about the edge cases.

I don’t either; there’s a lot of searching involved. :-)

Anyway, '$TYPE for $INSTRUMENTATION in $KEY, $CATNO[] "$TITLE": $INCIPIT' — that goes way too far for me.

and that's before you hit the disambiguations. ;-)

To me it’s all about being able to find and identify the damn thing in the works list.

My ideal minimum is basically: $TYPE in $KEY (or $INSTRUMENTATION $TYPE in $KEY, if appropriate)

That’s almost always enough to identify it.

And it leaves enough space to reasonably add the movement name to the parts, and a disambiguation if necessary.

(For the latter example, my preference would be “An Chloë”, with K. 524 in the disambiguation for searchability.

Oh, another bit of stupidity: “Adagio for Piano in B minor, K. 540: Adagio”

Was it really necessary to put the tempo twice?

No. No it wasn’t.

I tend to approach it from the opposite angle…

oh, nice how-not-to example (adagio:adagio)

I find it more helpful to put as little information as necessary at first, and add detail where necessary.

CallerNo6: For example: “Minuet in F, K. 2” is a lot easier to read and understand than "Minuet for Keyboard in F major, K. 2, K⁶ 2 "Notenbuch für Nannerl Mozart" no. 58: Minuet"

All the more so if your release says "Minuet for Piano in F major" instead of "…for keyboard"

Now, if the "keyboard"/"piano"/"harpsichord" were actually different works then I'm 100% behind including that.

But just including it for the sake of … I dunno, completionism? That makes no sense to me.

It’s arguably *worse* than not including it, because it adds confusion, does not take it away.

(and then you get to the three catalog numbers which add more confusion

Like, you need to be aware of the several editions of the Kochel catalog, as well as the Notenbuch, in order to even interpret that title.

Without knowing that stuff, you're likely to think that it is 'K. 2 no. 58' or that 'K. 2' is the Notenbuch, or that there are several movements to whatever "Minuet for Keyboard in F major, K. 2, K⁶ 2 "Notenbuch für Nannerl Mozart" no. 58" is.

every time you guys talk about this stuff

I am so glad I don't edit this kind of music

hahaha

I’m glad I don’t deal with electronic music — all those remixes and stuff. :-)

and releases with [untitled] for all the track nams :/

yeah.

and I wouldn’t even begin to know how to deal with works in that area.

in what way?

Mostly in what constitutes a new work, and how to distinguish those [untitled] works.

derwin: also I find adding a million works that are only used once, to be fairly annoying, vs. adding works that will be used dozens or even hundreds of times.

hawke: very true, most works in electronic land appear on exactly one release.

and yeah, distinguishing those [untitled] works on vinyl

you have to make a decision as to track order

and that is.. non-obvious

nod

What do you do? call it "[untitled]" with a disambiguation "track 1 from XYZ"?

I usually don't have track durations

so what I do is create 3 identical tracks called [untitled] :/

Use the argument that deadlock is not really an option, because anything we come up with is better than having no guideline.

$FORM [#NUMBER] in $KEY [for $INSTRUMENTATION][, #NUMBER] or whatever