Hi everyone,
I’m looking for some guidance on a borderline case regarding arranger / transcription credits in MusicBrainz, especially for classical instrumental adaptations.
Concrete example:
A classical concerto originally written for violin (e.g. Mendelssohn Op. 64 / Paganini concerto), recorded here in a flute transcription.
The physical CD explicitly credits:
“Flute transcription and cadenzas by János Bálint”.
So this is clearly more than a simple performance decision, but also not a recomposition of the original work.
My dilemma:
• Is it more appropriate to add an **arranger relationship at the work level**, even though the adaptation affects a specific instrumental version rather than the abstract composition as such?
• Or would it be better practice to credit the **arranger at the recording level**, treating the transcription as specific to this particular realization?
I understand that MusicBrainz does not model “derived versions” of works separately, so I’m interested in how others usually handle this kind of case in a consistent and community-accepted way.
I’m deliberately asking before making the edit, as I’d like to follow best practice and avoid misrepresenting either the original composer or the arranger.
Thanks in advance for any insight!
2 Likes
What a great question! In general, the world of music composition and performance has way more nuance than we could hope to model in this database, so we often have the need to record as much information as we can given the time and energy we have available at the moment.
Tell me more about the source for this understanding. The place I go for guidance on this is Style/Works, section Arrangement works:
For written (and published) arrangements of another work. Here “arranging” is defined as changing the harmonies in the music, and/or rewriting the work for a different type of ensemble, for example from piano and soloist to orchestra. Transposing is not arranging.
Do not create a new work for improvised arrangements, “head-arrangements”, private / unpublished arrangements or when the arranger is unknown. For an arrangement to be valid as a unique work in MusicBrainz, it must be possible for other performers to record new versions. There must be at least two different recordings available. The recordings must be of different performances by two different (groups of) performers. You must be able to source that the both performances use the exact same arrangement. If in doubt, do not create a new work.
For every other case, use the recording - artist arranger relationship.
It sounds like this is a pretty clear case of “rewriting the work for a different type of ensemble”, and so worthy of a new Work.
However, if that is too complex to accomplish within your time and energy limits today, it is better to credit arranger at the recording level than not to recording anything about Bálint’s contributions in the database.
I appreciate your diligence about getting the information right. That is what leads to the database getting better and better.
2 Likes
Thanks, Jim for your advice and clear explanation - it now seems very logical…
Temporarily I have credited Bálint János as an arranger at the recording level. I’ll continue to develop this album later and will create new works for the transcriptions! Best,
1 Like
@hildgyorgy , I’m glad I was able to be helpful!
Rereading the excerpt from Style/Works, above, I think my conclusion was incorrect. We don’t have evidence that it is “possible for other performers to record new versions” of the Bálint arrangement. We don’t have “two different recordings” by “different (groups of) performers”. So, “If in doubt, do not create a new work.”
The conclusion is that your credit of Bálint as arranger at the recording level is in fact exactly what Style/Works asks for.
Thank you for your contributions to the database! Keep them coming!
1 Like