I’m editing this release.
One of the works is a suite from “Coq d’or” (The Golden Cockerel), an opera by Rimsky-Korsakov. This suite was compiled by Alexander Glazunov and Maximilian Steinberg. The work in MB has Glazunov and Steinberg as “Additional Composer” relationships. This seemed odd to me, as they weren’t actually involved in composing the music.
The suite work is associated as “based on” the full opera, which is a separate work. That seems correct to me.
I found that there is a Relationship Type called “compiled/compiler,” but it is only available on recordings. It seems to me that this Relationship Type should be available for works as well. It would certainly be more accurate in this instance. Is there a reason that this isn’t the case?
Edit: Reading a little further in the Relationship Types, it looks like “compiled/compiler” is intended for those who select the tracks and sequence for compilation albums. I guess this might not be quite the same as how I’m trying to use it.
Maybe “orchestrator” is more suitable ? I’m lately diving more into classical works again so learning as I go…
Orchestration is a different function. Orchestrating is, very simply, choosing which instruments play which parts in a piece, or adapting a piece of music that was written for one medium to be played by another. For example, adapting a pop song to be played by an orchestra.
Compiling is, in the case I’m looking at, where Rimsky-Korsakov wrote an entire opera, and Glazunov and Steinberg chose a set of songs or movements from the opera to put together as a suite.
1 Like
"adapted’ seems reasonable.
1 Like
It seems that precedent - e.g. in “The Firebird” and its suites, or “Spartacus”
is to use the “based on” relationship. There is certainly some degree of rewriting in the case of the “Firebird” (by the original composer in that case), so a “compiled” or “extracts” relationship would be more specific. Would enough editors care sufficiently to get these relationships correct?
“arranger” seems to fit the bill for the author of derived work, whether the original composer or someone else.
“adapter”, which is relatively new, could potentially fit the bill, but I’m not sure (it’s generally meant for moving from one sort of art to another, but you could argue stage to concert counts). Suites do often involve some cuts and changes so “arrangement” also seems fine - “additional composer” might be too much if no new music was added.
1 Like
I’ve been struggling to find detailed discussions of the work, but I finally found a review on Musicweb International that has some relevant comments (the review is for a different recording, but it’s the historical comment on the work that matters):
The Suite retains the integrity of Rimsky-Korsakov’s original music, with Glazunov and Steinberg retaining the music and orchestration, only adapting the music to fit into the Suite without altering or adding anything.
The reviewer used the word “adapting,” but also “without altering or adding anything.” Hard to know what that means. I feel like I’m flipping a coin to choose between “adapter” and “arranger,” but I think I’m leaning toward “adapter,” based on @reosarevok’s comment. I’ll make the edit and see where the conversation goes.
Thanks for the input, everyone.
1 Like