Re this work - https://musicbrainz.org/work/601f215b-4d72-4abd-aaad-a68345d95cf7
The composer is shown as Casella, but parts 1 and 3 were composed by Ravel, not Casella. What is the best way of showing this?
What about showing Casella as publisher of op 17 bis, not composer, and as composer of parts 2 and 4, with the relationships being “part of collection”.
Or would it be better to call it a series rather than a collectron?
The specific bits have the right composer. I’d list either both or neither for the parent work.
OK. I’ll remove Casella as composer of the parent. But would it be better to leave him as “publisher”?
If he’s the publisher, definitely!
Sorry my question wasn’t well phrased: I’m not sure exactly how to use “publisher”. The actual publisher of the score was a French publishing house, but Casella “published” the works in the sense that he got them published and asked Ravel to contribute two pieces. You could say he was the “commissioner” - but that would surely just apply to Ravel’s works, not his own. So I guess what I meant to say was “is ‘publisher’ the right relationship for this and if not, does MusicBrainz have one that describes his role in relation to this work (i.e. the set)?”